Introduction

Years ago, my friend Bill McRae and I attended a funeral in a church which no longer clearly proclaimed the gospel. As we walked to our car after the funeral, Bill commented, “It wasn’t what the preacher said that was the problem; it was what he didn’t say.” Often what is not said may be more important than what is said. Think, for instance, of the wife who yearns to hear her husband say, “I love you,” or the young woman who has dated a young man for a long time and has not yet heard the word “marriage” (or today’s word, “commitment”).

In the Book of Esther, what is not said is vitally important. Sadly, many who read and study Esther (including Bible scholars who write commentaries on the book) “fill in the blanks,” rather than leaving them blank and learning from the silence of the author. As we begin our study of chapter 4, I want to ask you to make a commitment: commit yourself to accept the text just as it is. When the author specifically mentions certain things, take note of them. And when the author omits certain crucial elements, do not think he really meant us to assume them; rather, the author expects us to note their absence. In so doing, you will read the text as it is and learn from what is not said as well as from what is.

Preceding Events

The author begins the book with a six-month long royal celebration which king Ahasuerus (Xerxes) holds for the nobility of his kingdom. At the end of this celebration, the king holds a week-long banquet for all of the inhabitants of Susa, the capital city, whether rich or poor. As a grand finale, the king summons Vashti, the queen, to appear in her regal attire to display her beauty and enhance the king’s glory.

For some unexplained reason, Vashti did the unthinkable—she refused to appear. The king was humiliated, for he had spent the last six months displaying the glory and sovereignty of his dominion. Now even his wife would not submit to his leadership. Although deeply angered by Vashti’s blatant disregard for his authority, the king sought counsel from the wisest of his princes. They agreed that Vashti had committed a most serious offense, and that news of her disregard for her husband’s authority would likely have an adverse effect on marriages throughout the kingdom. Consequently, they advised the king to remove Vashti as queen and select another better than Vashti; they also advised this should be made a matter of law sent to every province in the kingdom so all would learn that such actions would not be tolerated.

After some time, the king’s heart was once again inclined toward Vashti, but his valets encouraged him to get on with the process of selecting a new queen. For a man like Ahasuerus, this was a great pleasure and kept him from trying to reverse his previous decision. The process of selecting a queen resulted in the selection of Esther, a young Jewess who had been raised by her cousin and step-father, Mordecai. At his instruction, Esther kept her Jewish origins and her relationship to Mordecai a secret.

For whatever reason, there was a second gathering of young women whom the king was busily engaged in trying out (for queen?). Esther continued to keep her identity from the king. While sitting at the king’s gate, Mordecai became aware of a plot by Bigthana and Teresh to kill the king, which he made known to Esther, who in turn informed the king in Mordecai’s name. Further inquiry proved this report to be true, and these two traitors were hung. The king was usually careful to reward acts of loyalty, but for some reason Mordecai was not rewarded, and the matter was forgotten, although it was recorded in the chronicles of the king as he looked on.

Suddenly Haman, a new character, is introduced. Haman appears as a prince who stands head and shoulders above the rest of his peers, at least in the king’s mind. The king had elevated him above all the rest and clearly placed complete trust in him, a decision which proved to be foolish. Although the king commanded all of his citizens to show respect to Haman, Mordecai refused, which caused the king’s servants to rebuke him. When challenged, he excused his actions by simply saying he was a Jew. For him, that was all that was necessary. But for the king’s servants, this made no sense at all. And so they informed Haman to see if he would let Mordecai get away with his stubborn refusal to show respect to the king’s right hand man, in effect, the prime minister of Persia.

Although furious, Haman kept his anger concealed. He looked upon Mordecai as a typical Jew, and his purpose was not only to do away with Mordecai but to do away with every Jew in the kingdom. At the propitious moment, he approached the king with an indictment and a proposal. He informed the king that a certain race of people in the empire were rebels, who could not be kept in submission (not unlike Vashti) and that the king would do well to be rid of them. He offered a very large sum of money to Ahasuerus to proclaim a certain day as the time when anyone in the kingdom could kill every living Jew they encountered and then confiscate their property. It was a tempting way for people to get ahead, to be rid of their enemies, and to practice their racial bigotry.

The name of this race was not made known to the king, and neither did he inquire. Ahasuerus gave his signet ring to Haman, which gave him a blank check. He now had the authority to pass any law he chose—in the king’s name. From all we can tell, the king never read this law nor did he sign it. He left these matters to his most trusted official, Haman. While the king and Haman sat drinking their wine, the entire city of Susa was in confusion. Our text takes up the story at the confusion which came upon the citizens and the city of Susa.

Mordecai’s Mourning
(4:1-3)

1 When Mordecai learned all that had been done, he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city and wailed loudly and bitterly. 2 And he went as far as the king’s gate, for no one was to enter the king’s gate clothed in sackcloth. 3 And in each and every province where the command and decree of the king came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting, weeping, and wailing; and many lay on sackcloth and ashes.

Mordecai, we are told, learned all that had been done. This seems to suggest he was on the “inside track” or at least had access to inside information. We also know this was not Esther, for he is the one who tells her all that has taken place.

When Mordecai becomes aware of the law which has just been created and put into effect by Haman, he begins to mourn. He does not mourn in private, but in public; in fact, his mourning could not have been more public. Mordecai goes into the middle of the city to the “city square” and to the “king’s gate.” He does not enter the gate, for this is forbidden for a mourner. The king wanted to keep a distance between himself and sadness. It was not popular with kings to have sorrow expressed in their court (see Nehemiah 2:2). Kings in medieval times did not have “court mourners,” only court jesters.

It seems Mordecai’s mourning is not quite normal. I would have expected him to mourn privately rather than publicly. I wonder if Mordecai was not a leader among the Jewish people, and his public mourning was the cue for the rest of the Jews to join him in mourning. I also wonder if Mordecai did not station himself before the king’s gate in an effort to get the king’s attention as a kind of official protest.

What we are told is that Mordecai mourned, and so did the rest of the Jews, not only in the capital city of Susa but throughout the kingdom. What we are not told is that Mordecai or any of his fellow-Jews repented. We are not told that any prayed. The name of God is not mentioned here or elsewhere in the Book of Esther. There is no specific mention of prayer, no mention of the Jews speaking to God, nor any reference to God speaking to His people through His prophets. Based upon the instruction given to dispossessed Jews in 2 Chronicles 6:34-39, and the example of godly Jews in Ezra 9:5—10:1; Nehemiah 1:4-11; and Daniel 9:4-19, it seems almost necessary to conclude these Jews—including Esther and Mordecai—are not godly. This is further indicated by the words of the prophet Isaiah:

9 Be delayed and wait. Blind yourselves and be blind. They become drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with strong drink. 10 For the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep, He has shut your eyes, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, the seers (Isaiah 29:9-10).

Isaiah was a prophet whose task was not to call Israel to repentance or to turn the nation back to God. God’s people had rebelled too long; they had passed the point of no return. It was now time for judgment, and Isaiah’s task was to pronounce the doom of impending judgment in a way that would harden hearts rather than break them (see Isaiah 6:9-10). Later in chapter 29, God indicated the hour of Israel’s doom was near when He took away the prophets, once known as “seers.” In taking away the prophets, God took away the eyes of his people, leaving them in their state of spiritual blindness. Their doom was sealed. Their doom was sure. While we read of prophets in Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah, no prophets are mentioned in the Book of Esther. If men are not speaking to God (in prayer), neither is God speaking to the Jews (in Persia).

Esther’s First Contact With Mourning Mordecai
(4:4)

4 Then Esther’s maidens and her eunuchs came and told her, and the queen writhed in great anguish. And she sent garments to clothe Mordecai that he might remove his sackcloth from him, but he did not accept them (Esther 4:4).

Learning that Mordecai is in mourning greatly distresses Esther. Nevertheless, her first efforts are not to learn what has caused Mordecai to mourn but to persuade him to stop mourning. Could this be because it is distressing to others in the city and potentially dangerous (Mordecai comes as close to the royal palace as he can, but does not pass through the king’s gate)? Could it be Mordecai was an embarrassment to Esther so that she tried to quickly silence him? She sent clothing to her step-father, hoping to persuade him to put an end to his mourning. But Mordecai was not dissuaded.

Hathach is Sent To Mordecai
(4:5-8)

5 Then Esther summoned Hathach from the king’s eunuchs, whom the king had appointed to attend her, and ordered him to go to Mordecai to learn what this was and why it was. 6 So Hathach went out to Mordecai to the city square in front of the king’s gate. 7 And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him, and the exact amount of money that Haman had promised to pay to the king’s treasuries for the destruction of the Jews. 8 He also gave him a copy of the text of the edict which had been issued in Susa for their destruction, that he might show Esther and inform her, and to order her to go in to the king to implore his favor and to plead with him for her people.

Esther needed to find out what was going on, so she sent a trusted servant directly to Mordecai to inquire why he was mourning and would not cease. This communication between Mordecai and Esther (and eventually others, it seems—see the “they” of verse 12 and the “them” of verse 13) certainly seems to threaten Esther’s ability to keep her identity as a Jew and her relationship to Mordecai a secret. Hathach finds Mordecai in the city square at the king’s gate. It could hardly be a more public meeting, but it seems Mordecai wants his mourning to be public. Mordecai reports to Hathach all that had happened to him (verse 7).⁴³ He informs Hathach of the exact amount Haman has promised to contribute to the treasury and also sends with him a copy of the decree Haman has made an irreversible law. These things Hathach is instructed to convey to Esther, along with the command that she approach the king and intercede for the Jews.

Esther’s Reluctance to Obey
(4:9-12)

9 And Hathach came back and related Mordecai’s words to Esther. 10 Then Esther spoke to Hathach and ordered him to reply to Mordecai: 11 “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that for any man or woman who comes to the king to the inner court who is not summoned, he has but one law, that he be put to death, unless the king holds out to him the golden scepter so that he may live. And I have not been summoned to come to the king for these thirty days.” 12 And they related Esther’s words to Mordecai.

From all we have been told earlier, Esther was accustomed to following Mordecai’s instructions. We may safely assume Mordecai had also become accustomed to being obeyed, even when Esther was the queen (see 2:20). It must have come as quite a shock to receive Esther’s response, which could be summed up in one word: “No!” This time Esther balks. She first informs Mordecai by Hathach that it was against the law to go in to the king without being summoned by him. The penalty for doing so was death, with only a small chance that the king might show mercy by extending his golden scepter and granting that the intruder might live. Since she could not go to the king uninvited, her only hope was to be summoned by the king. Since she could not go to the king uninvited, her only hope was to be summoned by the king. That was a problem; it had been 30 days since Esther had last been with the king. What other answer than "No" could she give to Mordecai?

Those who hasten to see Esther as a hero should ponder verses 9-12, for she is certainly not quick to take up the cause of her people. The principle reason is her own safety. I do not see the same spirit in Esther evident in Daniel’s three friends:

16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. 17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).

Mordecai Turns Up the Heat
(4:13-14)

13 Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews. 14 For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?”

I do not know who became involved in the communication between Mordecai and Esther, but now it is indicated that others are involved (see verses 12 and 13). Mordecai finds it necessary to use considerable pressure to persuade Esther to intercede for the Jews with the king. His arguments indicate he is now playing hardball with his step-daughter. The arguments are as follows:

(1) Do not think that you will be safe as a Jew, even in the palace. Esther, Mordecai warns, is thinking wishfully. The decree Haman has made into law encompasses all Jews, no matter where they might be found in the kingdom. Esther seems to believe she is safe and that only others are in danger. She is unwilling to put herself in danger by going before the king unannounced to help her fellow-Jews, believing she is safe. Mordecai’s words are designed to convince her this is a myth. If she would not put herself at risk to save others, at least let her risk saving herself. Mordecai wants her to conclude that the most dangerous thing she can do is to do nothing and hope it will all go away.

(2) You are the only hope of deliverance. If Esther does not act on her behalf and on behalf of her fellow-Jews, there is no other hope. How could I possibly reach such a conclusion? Does the text not indicate just the opposite? Does Mordecai not indicate to Esther that if she does not act to save her people, God will bring about their deliverance in some other way? No. Let me explain how I reached this conclusion.

The text need not be translated as we find it in most versions. A Catholic scholar challenges us to translate and understand it in a very different way, a way he believes is as legitimate a translation which better fits the context. This Catholic scholar’s view is cited in a footnote in Mervin Breneman’s commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther:

“See J. Weibe “Esther 4:14: ‘Will Relief and Deliverance Arise for the Jews from Another Place?’“ CBQ 53 (1991): 409-15. Weibe argues that this phrase should be translated as a rhetorical question, suggesting that the implied answer is no; help would not arise from anywhere else. Thus Esther was the only hope for their deliverance. Weibe suggests that this translation fits the context of the Book of Esther much better than the traditional rendering. Such a reading would, however, limit the resources of God, who brought this about, and transplant the emphasis from God’s work to Esther’s work. God is capable of using anyone for his purposes. He was not limited to using just Esther, but she turned out to be the one because she answered the challenge.”⁴⁴

I believe Weibe is right. Mordecai could apply a great deal more pressure on Esther by convincing her that she is the only hope of the Jews than by assuring her that another means of deliverance will be provided. In addition, God is not mentioned in the text (let alone the entire book!). Mordecai is not a godly Jew, trusting in God to save his people. He is a disobedient, unbelieving Jew, who seems hardly to think of God. His panic is because he sees the deliverance of the Jews as the result of man’s initiative. If Mordecai does not mention God in our text, we dare not assume he is trusting in God. Esther is the ace up Mordecai’s sleeve, his last hope, Israel’s last chance for survival. If she fails, all is lost. And this explains why he threatens Esther that her family will be wiped out. If deliverance comes from elsewhere, then why would Esther die? As queen, Esther will most certainly not die first. Mordecai’s warning is that she will die in the end. If this is true, then all Jews will perish, and there will be no deliverance from elsewhere. Mordecai reasons that if Esther is the Jew’s last hope, her failure will result in her death and the death of the entire race. No wonder he is so forceful.

(3) The survival of your family name is in your hands. You will recall that Esther is an orphan. He parents are both dead. Mordecai has adopted her as his step-daughter. If Esther fails to act, and both she and Mordecai perish, then her family will be wiped out. And it will be all her fault, Mordecai warns. This is real pressure. The young Jewish girl has never known pressure like this.

Esther’s Consent and Command
(4:15-17)

15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.” 17 So Mordecai went away and did just as Esther had commanded him (Esther 4:5-17).

The pressure is too great. Esther gives in, sending word to Mordecai that she will intercede with the king for her people. Now that she has taken orders from Mordecai, she begins to give orders. She instructs him to assemble all the Jews who live in Susa and to have them fast for her. None of them is to eat or drink for three days, night or day. She and her maidens will do likewise, and then she will attempt to see the king. She will break the law of the land and take her life into her own hands. Her final words are most instructive:

“. . . and if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16b).

There are those who make a hero of Esther. One might be able to stretch the facts far enough to look upon her as a hero. Statements like these below are not the exception, but the rule:

“And if I perish, I perish.” Both Vashti and Mordecai displayed courage in life-threatening situations, and now so did Esther. Vashti showed courage in her refusal to humiliate herself for the whimsical desire of her husband, and Mordecai did so in refusing to bow down to Haman. Esther proved braver still. She had decided to break the law of her husband and risk her very life for her people (cf. John 15:13). God’s providential care had brought Esther to this point, but Esther accepted the challenge that might cost her her life.”⁴⁵

“Without explicitly spelling out in detail how he came to his convictions, Mordecai reveals that he believes in God, in God’s guidance of individual lives, and in God’s ordering of the world’s political events, irrespective of whether those who seem to have the power acknowledge him or not. This was, of course, constantly declared by the prophets of Israel (e.g. Is. 10:8ff.; 45:1; Je. 1:15;; Ezk. 7:24), and need not come as a surprise, especially in the light of the return from exile in 538 and subsequent occasions (Ezr. 1-2; 5-6). Every Jew had experienced in the history of his people the guiding and saving hand of God.”⁴⁶

“Esther’s reply is also a confession of faith, though it is not couched in overtly religious language. She implies that she accepts the suggestion of Mordecai as her duty, but that she is full of apprehension at the thought of fulfilling it. By asking that all the Jews in Susa join her in a fast Esther acknowledges that i. she needs the support and fellowship of others and ii. she depends on more than human courage. Though prayer is not mentioned, it was always the accompaniment of fasting in the Old Testament, and the whole point of fasting was to render the prayer experience more effective and prepare oneself for communion with God (Ex. 34:28; Dt. 9:9; Jdg. 20:26; Ezr. 8:21-23).”⁴⁷

I would not argue that Esther was regarded as a hero by the Jews and even by the author of this book. It is apparent she is still looked upon as such by most Christians today. And I am willing to grant that Esther and Mordecai are heroes, though I find the evidence far from compelling. But I am not willing to concede that Esther and Mordecai were godly. One can be a hero, a true patriot, without being godly. I think Esther and Mordecai were, at best, ungodly heroes. I conclude this for the following reasons:

(1) Esther is willing to risk her life only when pressured by Mordecai, and only after he informs her that her life is in danger also. In other words, Esther acts reluctantly, and in large measure, in self-interest.

(2) Esther’s words, “If I perish, I perish,” are far from an affirmation of faith; they are, instead, a declaration of fatalism. Many years before Esther’s time, Jacob was unwilling to let his son Benjamin go to Egypt with his brothers. He had good reason to fear for his safety. But when he is finally forced to let Benjamin go, he says, “And may God Almighty grant you compassion in the sight of the man, that he may release to you your other brother and Benjamin. And as for me, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved” (Genesis 43:14). At least Jacob refers to God, while neither Esther nor Mordecai do. But Jacob’s words fall far short of those of a man of faith.

Years ago a young boy whose father was a liberal minister was tragically killed. At his funeral service, they played a song which was said to be this young lad’s “affirmation of faith.” The song was “Zip-a-dee-do-da,” hardly an affirmation of faith. Neither are Jacob’s words in Genesis 43 nor Esther’s words in our text an affirmation of faith. One who would believe this might also be inclined to accept Dinah Shore as a theologian and her song, “Que Sera, Sera,” as a hymn of the faith fit to be placed alongside “How Great Thou Art” in our hymnals. All Esther is saying is: “What will be, will be.” Any unbeliever can say as much, and often does when faced with similar circumstances.⁴⁸

(3) One must note that the name of God, any affirmation of personal faith, or any clear reference to prayer or repentance is not even found on the lips of either Esther or Mordecai. To me, the silence on such matters is deafening.

(4) The Alexandrian Jews of the first century must have sensed these problems, and “doctored” the text with additions which made both Esther and Mordecai appear spiritual, while our author informs us they were not. Consider this added prayer of Esther not contained in the original Hebrew text, but added to later Greek manuscripts:

Queen Esther also took refuge with the Lord in the mortal peril which had overtaken her. She took off her sumptuous robes and put on sorrowful mourning. Instead of expensive perfumes she covered her head with ashes and dung. She humbled her body severely, and the former scenes of her happiness and elegance were now littered with tresses torn from her hair. She besought the Lord God of Israel in these words:

“‘My Lord, our King, the only one, come to my help, for I am alone and have no helper but you and am about to take my life in my hands. I have been taught from my earliest years, in the bosom of my family, that you, Lord, chose Israel out of all the nations and our ancestors out of all the people of old times to be your heritage for ever; and that you have treated them as you promised. But then we sinned against you, and you handed us over to our enemies for paying honour to their gods. Lord, you are just.

But even now they are not satisfied with the bitterness of our slavery: they have put their hands in the hands of their idols to abolish the decree that your own lips have uttered, to blot out your heritage, to stop the mouths of those who praise you, to quench your altar and the glory of your House, and instead to open the mouths of the heathen, to sing the praise of worthless idols and forever to idolise a king of flesh. Do not yield your sceptre, Lord, to non-existent beings. Never let men mock at our ruin. Turn their designs against themselves, and make an example of him who leads the attack on us. Remember, Lord; reveal yourself in the time of our distress.

As for me, give me courage, King of gods and master of all power. Put persuasive words into my mouth when I face the lion; change his feeling into hatred for our enemy, that the latter and all like him may be brought to their end.

As for ourselves, save us by your hand, and come to my help, for I am alone and have no one but you, Lord. You have knowledge of all things, and you know that I hate honours from the godless, that I loathe the bed of the uncircumcised, of any foreigner whatever. You know I am under constraint, that I loathe the symbol of my high position bound round my brow when I appear at court; I loathe it as if it were a filthy rag and do not wear it on my days of leisure.

Your handmaid has not eaten at Haman’s table, nor taken pleasure in the royal banquets, nor drunk the wine of libations. Nor has your handmaid found pleasure from the day of her promotion until now except in you, Lord, God of Abraham. O God, whose strength prevails over all, listen to the voice of the desperate, save us from the hand of the wicked, and free me from my fear.’“⁴⁹

A popular slogan goes like this: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The Alexandrian Jews of the first century B.C. believed Esther and Mordecai were “broke,” and they tried to fix them. Their brokenness is the point our author is trying to emphasize, and it is exactly what we should expect of Jews who chose to stay behind, enjoying the comforts of Persia rather than paying the price for returning to Jerusalem, the place of God’s presence. But this is where the godly Jew yearned to be (see Psalm 137).

Conclusion

If Esther and Mordecai are not examples of godliness and faith whom we are to imitate, what are we to learn from this book, particularly from our text? We are to learn a negative lesson. We are to be warned by what we read in our text.

Why are Christians so inclined to embrace Esther and Mordecai as model saints, examples of faith and godliness? First, because they err in assuming that people recorded in Scripture are all godly. And so wayward prophets like Jonah are “sanctified” by a misreading and mishandling of the text. Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi is embraced as a kind and loving woman rather than a grouchy and bitter old woman. Jacob is viewed as a pious man of faith rather than as a deceiving, self-seeking, con artist. And Esther and Mordecai are just one more example of reading the Bible through rose-colored glasses, seeing people in a way that makes us feel comfortable.

Second, we fail to study books like Esther and Jonah in light of the rest of the Old Testament, especially the Law, and contemporary writings. In the case of Esther, we can study this book and its events in light of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the prophecies of Jeremiah and Daniel. Third, we often “guild the lily” because we have been taught to understand the text a certain way, without questioning whether it is correct.

But as we conclude I wish to focus on yet another reason why we fail to understand this book and its message. That reason is simply our being taken in by the hypocrisy of Esther and Mordecai, because we assume that if the right forms are present, the right function is present as well.

We assume that there was repentance because the Jews mourned in Susa and all of the Persian empire. We also assume that because there was fasting, there must also have been prayer. Since Mordecai spoke of the possibility that Esther’s position as queen might prove to be the means of the Jew’s deliverance, we automatically assume Mordecai had faith in God and in His providential care of His people.

As I understand our text, I believe our author is teaching just the opposite. I believe he wants us to understand that we may go through the right motions and yet never really know God. The Old Testament prophets rebuked the Jews for precisely this. They fasted, but it was a mere ritual with no reality:

1 “Cry loudly, do not hold back; Raise your voice like a trumpet, And declare to My people their transgression, And to the house of Jacob their sins. 2 Yet they seek Me day by day, and delight to know My ways, As a nation that has done righteousness, And has not forsaken the ordinance of their God. They ask Me for just decisions, They delight in the nearness of God. 3 ‘Why have we fasted and Thou dost not see? Why have we humbled ourselves and Thou dost not notice?’

Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire, And drive hard all your workers. 4 Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist. You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high. 5 Is it a fast like this which I choose, a day for a man to humble himself? Is it for bowing one’s head like a reed, And for spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed? Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the Lord? 6 Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke?

7 Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? 8 Then your light will break out like the dawn, And your recovery will speedily spring forth; And your righteousness will go before you; The glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. 9 Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; You will cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you remove the yoke from your midst, The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, 10 And if you give yourself to the hungry, And satisfy the desire of the afflicted, Then your light will rise in darkness, And your gloom will become like midday. 11 And the Lord will continually guide you, And satisfy your desire in scorched places, And give strength to your bones; And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail. 12 And those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins; You will raise up the age-old foundations; And you will be called the repairer of the breach, The restorer of the streets in which to dwell” (Isaiah 58:1-12).

The same can be said for the sacrifices the Jews routinely offered:

21 “I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. 22 Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. 23 Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. 24 But let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:21-24).

6 With what shall I come to the Lord And bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, With yearling calves? 7 Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first-born for my rebellious acts, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:6-8).

Going through the right motions and yet never really knowing God was not just a problem of the Jews in Old Testament days. It was the problem of Judaism in the days of our Lord, and later in the early days of the New Testament church, as described in the Book of Acts and the Epistles. The scribes and Pharisees were all caught up in external things, things which could be seen, while God has always been concerned about the unseen (Luke 16:15). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus took mere outward compliance to the letter of the Law much further, boldly stating that one must have a righteousness greater than the scribes and Pharisees to get into heaven (see Matthew 5:20). The Jews thought the measure of a man was to be determined on the basis of his ancestors (see Matthew 3:9), or by whether or not a man was circumcised (see Acts 15:1). Some were sure that mighty works such as casting out demons, prophesying, and performing miracles were proof of one’s piety. Yet Jesus spoke of those who did such things as those who had never been known by God (Matthew 7:13-23).

In the New Testament church at Corinth, some were convinced those who spoke in tongues (the right form) were most certainly the most spiritual (function). And yet spirituality is not measured in terms of the gifts of the Spirit, but the fruit of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23). Paul warned that in the last days there would be those who would still have a “form of godliness” who do not have the power of true faith.

My focus is this: Faith must not be judged so much by form as by function. The Jews were faithful to retain and ritualistically carry out all the proper “forms” of their religion, but the essence of true faith and practice was not there. Without the right functions, the forms are worthless and dead. When accompanied by the right functions, the forms are beneficial. But when we assume that having the right forms assures us we also have the right function, we have gone too far; we have become just like the Persian Jews such as Esther and Mordecai.

This matter not only plagued the ancient Jews and the New Testament church, but we find the same problem very much present in contemporary Christianity. There are those who link spirituality with certain experiences. Some of these experiences appear to be biblical (like tongues), and others have no biblical precedent (such as being “slain in the Spirit”). I may have differences with other Christians about whether such experiences are valid today, but this is not my focus at the moment. When anyone says that having such experiences is what makes a person spiritual, I must strongly disagree. I must not only say this is false, but that it is a continuation of the very error which has plagued true religion through the ages. We must not equate certain forms with particular functions. We must not equate, for example, speaking in tongues with being spiritual, even with being “Spirit filled.”

This error is evident in the area of Christian worship. Some people worship by raising their hands (sometimes without really knowing why). I have no real objection to this. Others worship without raising their hands (perhaps for the same reasons others do—custom or culture). I have no problem with this. But if we dare to say there is no real worship without the raising of hands, or that we cannot truly worship with raised hands, we have equated form and function, and we are wrong—whether we raise our hands or keep them down.

Some people try to tell us our worship is not emotional enough. Perhaps we may be too intellectual, but much of the emotion in worship, or the lack of it, is more a matter of culture than biblical mandate and definition. We are to worship God “in Spirit and in truth” (John 4:23); that leaves a lot of room for variations, does it not? If we worship “in Spirit and in truth” with uplifted hands, fine, but let us not look down on those who worship “in Spirit and in truth” without raising their hands or even their voices. And let us not try to compel others to worship the way we do, as though our way is better.

Many point to David’s worship before the ark when he danced before the Lord. They seem to think this is a pattern we should follow. I think we can see it was not even normal for David, let alone other Israelites. The problem with Saul’s daughter Michal was not that she failed to worship as David did, but that she disdained David for the way he worshipped, and this out of pride. She was too proud to humble herself in worship, as David did (see 1 Chronicles 15:29).

But pointing to David, some think his actions justify a kind of total abandonment in worship. Worship, they think and say, is “letting yourself go.” No, it is not. Paul is very clear on this point in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians were “letting themselves go,” and they were rebuked for it. Just anything does not go in worship. Just because one feels like doing something does not mean he or she should. Only two or three are to prophesy or speak in tongues, and the tongues speakers were only to speak if they knew an interpreter was present. Paul taught that edification is the guiding principle in participation, not self-expression. Paul taught that everything should be done “decently, and in an orderly way” (1 Corinthians 14:40). If David’s example leaves some room for creativity and spontaneity, Paul’s teaching also requires discipline and order. Let us not rush to one extreme and abandon the other guiding principles for worship. And let me also say, somewhat parenthetically, that for every person who forsakes cold, sterile, emotionless worship for something more stirring and spontaneous, there is another who is tired of frantic, frenzied, undisciplined worship and leaves it for more serene, sober, and disciplined worship.

Our church has some very definite convictions about the way a church should be structured and about its worship and ministry. In other words, we have some strong convictions about “forms,” forms which we believe to be biblical. Having said this, I must also say it is possible for us to have just the right forms and lack the right function. The right forms do not insure spirituality, godliness, or worship. Likewise, there are churches who for one reason or another do not have the same forms we do, but who nevertheless manifest the vitality and function which is biblical and New Testament. Ideally, we should have biblical forms and biblical functions. Practically, it is difficult to have both. Most often, we can still retain the former without even knowing that we have lost the latter. Let us therefore take this text in Esther as a warning to us not to equate form and function, not to think that because we are going through the right motions we are living in fellowship with God.

It is indeed sad when Christians become obsessed with the forms and forget the functions. But it is even sadder when a person goes through life thinking he or she is a Christian because they have observed certain forms. Some may think that because they have walked an aisle, or raised their hand, or prayed a prayer after someone, or been baptized, or joined a church, or attended worship services, or put money in the offering plate, that they are saved. Being a Christian is not so much a matter of form as it is of function. A Christian is a person who has passed from darkness to light, from death to life, from being condemned by God to being justified by God. Being a Christian is not so much a matter of what we do as it is of trusting in what Christ has done. He died on the cross of Calvary for our sins. He suffered God’s punishment in our place. And He offers His righteousness to us, so that we may spend eternity in the presence of God. Do you have this life? Do not trust in forms. Trust in Christ. Rituals will never get you to heaven. Only Christ can do that. Trust in Christ alone today.

---

43 Does his speaking of recent events as “all that had happened to him” indicate it was because of his actions that these things happened, or does it suggest that Mordecai is thinking too much of himself and the danger he faces?

44 Mervin Breneman, “Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,” The New American Commentary (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), p. 336, fn. 4.

45 Mervin Breneman, “Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,” The New American Commentary (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), p. 338.

46 Joyce G. Baldwin, Esther: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), p. 80.

47 Baldwin, p. 80.

48 In contrast, see the faith of godly men in Daniel 3:16-18; Romans 9:1-3; Philippians 1:21.

49 Cited by Baldwin, pp. 122-123. In this appendix, Baldwin provides us with the entire text of additions to the Greek manuscripts of Esther.

Introduction

“All’s well that ends well,” the saying goes. If this is the case, the ending of the Book of Esther is crucial to our understanding of the book and its message. How does the Book of Esther end? Does it end well? In my opinion, it does not. Mordecai seems to be like Don Knotts, who plays the starring role in an old movie entitled, “The Love God.” We can easily conceive of Don Knotts as the publisher of a bird watcher’s magazine. That fits what we know of him. But when the owner of a sleazy publication loses its mailing permit, he cons Don Knotts into publishing a new magazine and makes him into a male sex symbol. Frankly folks, my perception of Don Knotts is far from that of a sex symbol. Yet throughout the movie, Don is surrounded by swooning women. The movie’s humor lies in the incongruity of the whole situation.

Mordecai is the “Don Knotts” of the Book of Esther. He is far from being a man of God and far from what the Bible speaks of as a great spiritual leader. Mordecia would not be in the running for a place in the hall of faith as recorded in Hebrews 11. And yet, this is the way he seems to be portrayed in the closing chapters of the Book of Esther. The Book of Esther has not so much as one mention of the name of God, yet it cannot speak often or highly enough of Mordecai. Most Christians accept this representation of Mordecai without a second thought. Although a number of “difficulties” must be explained or set aside to think so highly of Mordecai, few seem to have a problem in doing so.

The final three chapters of Esther carry three prominent themes.

(1) The Jews of the Persian empire and their great victory over their foes.

(2) The two stars of the Book of Esther, Esther and Mordecai.

(3) The origin of the Feast of Purim, which the Jews celebrate even to this day.

Each theme is dealt with in a way which appears to be positive. We are tempted to cheer for and with the Jews as they defeat and destroy their enemies. We want to look up to Esther and Mordecai as heroes and models for us to imitate. We are inclined to think of the Feast of Purim as just one more feast of the Jews like that of Passover or Pentecost. But something is wrong with the picture of each of these themes.

At first, I was inclined to think the author of the Book of Esther had a warped perspective of Esther, Mordecai, and the events surrounding the Jews who remained on in the Persian empire. This is still a possibility. But I am more inclined to believe the author of the Book of Esther did grasp the situation in Persia, and that his work accurately reflects the unbelief and disobedience of the Jews who remained there rather than return to Judea and Jerusalem with that small remnant of faithful Jews. The author deliberately avoids referring to Jerusalem, to the Law, to the teaching of the prophets, to prayer, or even to God Himself. I believe he does so to speak loudly by his silence. And when he speaks in apparently glowing terms of Esther and Mordecai, he does so with tongue in cheek. The author supplies us with more than enough information to conclude that the success and prominence of the “hero” and “heroine” of the book are not really heroes at all. As we study these concluding chapters, let us base our conclusions on what is said, taking it at face value rather than explaining it away. This book has much to say about the Jews of ancient times, of New Testament times, and of our own time. But it also has much to say about those who profess the name of Christ.

Mordecai Replaces Haman
(8:1-2)

1 On that day King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, the enemy of the Jews, to Queen Esther; and Mordecai came before the king, for Esther had disclosed what he was to her. 2 And the king took off his signet ring which he had taken away from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman.

We should not be surprised at the downfall of Haman. From what we read in the Book of Proverbs, we would expect him to suffer defeat:

22 His own iniquities will capture the wicked, And he will be held with the cords of his sin (Proverbs 5:22).

27 The fear of the Lord prolongs life, But the years of the wicked will be shortened (Proverbs 10:27).

5 The righteousness of the blameless will smooth his way, But the wicked will fall by his own wickedness (Proverbs 11:5).

22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, And the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous (Proverbs 13:22).

It is not even shocking to find king Ahasuerus giving all that belonged to Haman to Esther and to learn that Esther placed Mordecai over the house of Haman. There is a kind of poetic justice here, although I would not be too quick to think of Mordecai as the righteous man of Proverbs. I am surprised to find the king handing his signet ring to Mordecai on the very same day he removes it from Haman. One would think the king had learned his lesson and would give no man a blank check by bestowing that ring. One would at least expect the king to wait until he knew Mordecai better. But Ahasuerus seems to act hastily these days (unlike what we read of him in chapter 1).

Esther’s Second Appearance—Petition Granted
(8:3-8)

3 Then Esther spoke again to the king, fell at his feet, wept, and implored him to avert the evil scheme of Haman the Agagite and his plot which he had devised against the Jews. 4 And the king extended the golden scepter to Esther. So Esther arose and stood before the king. 5 Then she said, “If it pleases the king and if I have found favor before him and the matter seems proper to the king and I am pleasing in his sight, let it be written to revoke the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces. 6 For how can I endure to see the calamity which shall befall my people, and how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred?” 7 So King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew, “Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther, and him they have hanged on the gallows because he had stretched out his hands against the Jews. 8 Now you write to the Jews as you see fit, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s signet ring; for a decree which is written in the name of the king and sealed with the king’s signet ring may not be revoked.”

When Esther first risked her life by appearing uninvited before the king, she asks not only for her deliverance, but for the deliverance of her people, the Jews. Nevertheless, when the king acts, it is only in Esther’s behalf. This necessitates yet another life-threatening appearance before the king, at which time Esther appeals to him to reverse the decree of Haman by which all the Jews in Persia could have been exterminated.

It does not trouble me that Esther would appeal to the king for the deliverance of the Jews. In and of itself, this is a very noble act. What bothers me is the basis of this petition as recorded in verses 5 and 6. How should a godly Jew appeal to the king? I would expect a man like Daniel to plead with the king on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant as recorded in Genesis 12:

1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the land which I will show you; 2 And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; 3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3).

God promised to curse those who cursed Abram’s offspring and to bless those who blessed them. If the king were to allow the Jews to be exterminated, he would surely be cursing Abraham’s offspring and would bring him under divine condemnation. On the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant, Ahasuerus should not allow the Jews to be harmed but should seek to protect and bless them. This was to his benefit and the benefit of his empire.

Esther does not appeal to the Word of God. She does not even appeal to the king’s sense of what is right or wrong. She appeals to the king solely on the basis of his affection for her and on what the destruction of the Jews would do to her. She does not know how she can endure if her people are slaughtered. Haman’s plan will break her Jewish heart. If the king wishes to enjoy his relationship with Esther as he has before, he will not allow that which will personally devastate her. I would not dare call this “taking the high road,” morally speaking.

It worked, however. The king reminded Esther of his affection for her, as she could see by the fact that he had hanged Haman and given her his entire estate, and this because of his attempted malice toward the Jews (verse 7). And yet he would gladly go further than this by giving Esther and Mordecai⁵³ permission to draft a law which effectively reversed the law decreed by Haman in the king’s name. Mordecai is given permission to draft the law and then seal it with the king’s signet ring, making it official and irreversible. Once again, the king does not ask to review this law before it is enacted or implemented. This is certainly not the same man who formerly sought the counsel of his princes, taking into consideration the implications of a law which was irreversible (see chapter 1, verses 13-22).

The Decree of Esther and Mordecai
(8:9-14)

9 So the king’s scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors, and the princes of the provinces which extended from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language, as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language. 10 And he wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king’s signet ring, and sent letters by couriers on horses, riding on steeds sired by the royal stud. 11 In them the king granted the Jews who were in each and every city the right to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil, 12 on one day in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month (that is, the month Adar). 13 A copy of the edict to be issued as law in each and every province, was published to all the peoples, so that the Jews should be ready for this day to avenge themselves on their enemies. 14 The couriers, hastened and impelled by the king’s command, went out, riding on the royal steeds; and the decree was given out in Susa the capital.

The scribes are called in and Mordecai dictates the law which he wants them to translate as the law of the land. Like the law decreed by Haman, this law is written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s ring. Let us remind ourselves of the law which Haman decreed in the king’s name:

12 Then the king’s scribes were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month, and it was written just as Haman commanded to the king’s satraps, to the governors who were over each province, and to the princes of each people, each province according to its script, each people according to its language, being written in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king’s signet ring. 13 And letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to seize their possessions as plunder. 14 A copy of the edict to be issued as law in every province was published to all the peoples so that they should be ready for this day. 15 The couriers went out impelled by the king’s command while the decree was issued in Susa the capital; and while the king and Haman sat down to drink, the city of Susa was in confusion (Esther 3:12-15).

Like Haman, Mordecai summons the king’s scribes and directs them as to what they are to write. Like Haman’s decree, the law gives permission to “kill, and to annihilate . . . both young and old, women and children.” Likewise, both laws gave permission to keep the possessions of the defeated as spoils of war. But there is one difference in the way the decree is made public, and it is mentioned twice in the text of chapter 8—the couriers who were sent out by Mordecai rode on “the royal steeds” (8:14), the steeds “sired by the royal stud” (8:10). Why this additional detail? I think this is an added touch to make it abundantly clear that the king stands squarely behind this “new” law and in opposition to the old. The king might not be able to reverse a law of the Persians and Medes, but he can surely let it be known that he is in favor of the Jews. The fact that the messengers rode the royal steeds, the king’s own horses, made it evident where the king stood on this matter.

This new law is just what Esther pled for—a reversal of the decree made law by Haman. And that is precisely what bothers me. I believe the author intended for the wording of the new law of Mordecai to bother us. Revenge is getting even or getting back. The new law of Mordecai does not merely grant the Jews permission to defend themselves; it grants them permission to avenge themselves. Self defense would involve granting the Jews the right to assemble and to fight back if attacked. But the words of Mordecai’s law go much farther. They go every bit as far as Haman’s law, only in reverse. The Jews are given license to “kill, destroy, and to annihilate,” not just those who did attack them, but “the entire army of any people who might attack them.” And those whom they could kill included women and children. I may be reading between the lines, but it seems the Jews were granted to kill virtually anyone they perceived to be a threat—or even a potential threat.

What I am about to say is not popular, but I believe it should be said. The Jews, from the days of Esther to the present, celebrate Purim, and thus the defeat of the “enemies of the Jews.” I think the law which permitted the Jews to kill their Persian enemies was no less a permit to practice genocide than were the German laws or principles which permitted their attempt to annihilate the Jewish race. Genocide is genocide, regardless of whether it is practiced against Jews or by Jews. I find it strangely inconsistent for Jews to fiercely protest against the brutality of the Germans and yet to celebrate the slaughter of Persians. The magnitude of these two atrocities may have been different, but the essence seems similar. The law of Mordecai made it legal for the Jews to practice the same brutality against the Persians as Haman had made legal against Jews.

There is one matter which should be considered. The Jews are given the legal right to keep the plunder of their enemies as spoil (8:11). This is the reverse of Haman’s law (3:13), but it is consistent with the Law of Moses as it pertains to the more distant enemies of the Jews (Deuteronomy 20:14-15). In spite of the fact that keeping the spoil is legal, none of the Jews actually kept the possessions of their enemies (9:10,15-16). This was true for all but Esther, who did keep all that belonged to Haman (8:1). Doing so was not wrong, but it was inconsistent with the practice of all the other Jews in the Persian Empire.

The Jews’ Happiness and Mordecai’s Honor
(8:15-17)

15 Then Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal robes of blue and white, with a large crown of gold and a garment of fine linen and purple; and the city of Susa shouted and rejoiced. 16 For the Jews there was light and gladness and joy and honor. 17 And in each and every province, and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them.

Mordecai has his moment in the sun. He goes out from the king’s presence garbed much like a king, garbed much as he was when Haman led him about the streets of Susa proclaiming that the king had chosen to honor him. Only now Mordecai gets to keep his royal robes and his crown. What he was for a few hours, he now is in a more permanent way.⁵⁴ The city of Susa was troubled and in confusion when they heard of Haman’s law (see 3:15). Now, the city shouts for joy. Was it because Mordecai was such a fine man? He must have been considered a better man than Haman. It may be the people of Susa (a number of whom may also have been foreigners brought there after the defeat of their nation) were troubled by Haman’s law, because they saw that it put all minorities at risk, while Mordecai’s law gave at least one minority an advantage.

Some of the standing of Mordecai and the Jews was due to a more basic and understandable reason—they are scared stiff by the Jews in general and by Mordecai in particular. This we see in 8:17 and later on in 9:2-3. Esther and Mordecai have an inside track to King Ahasuerus, and Mordecai now occupies the place of power formerly held by Haman. Mordecai is a kind of godfather whom no one wishes to cross. It stands to reason that people would profess to be Jews and that people would speak well of Esther, Mordecai, and the Jewish people. But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that most of these new “Jews” really embraced the Jewish faith. Even the real Jews of Persia seem to have turned their backs on the faith of their fathers. This is why they have remained on in Persia. This is hardly an evangelistic triumph. It is simply a nation of people who are so afraid of the Jews that they try to blend in with them rather than appear to oppose them.

If this is a glorious moment for Mordecai, it is also a triumph for all the Jews in Persia. Everywhere in the kingdom the Jews rejoice with a holiday and feasting. For the Jews there was “light, gladness, honor, and joy” (see 8:16-17). But what does it mean to have light, gladness, honor, and joy? I think it means the Jews were, for the moment, held in high regard (honor) by their neighbors. Gladness and joy seems to describe the response of the Jews to their newly acquired status in the kingdom. There is a feeling of elation, of hope, of optimism, because now they are given the legal right to fight back when attacked by their foes.

I am not sure what is meant by the term “light” (8:16). The Jews were to be a light to the Gentiles, but what does it mean to have “light”? Taken all together, I do not find these terms in Deuteronomy 28-30, nor do they seem to be the words of promise and hope that came from the lips of Israel and Judah’s prophets. In other words, the popularity and happiness of the Jews do not appear to be the blessings which God promised His people for loving and serving Him. I am more inclined to view these terms as those which one would expect in the culture of Susa and even in the false religions of that empire. The beer commercial on television says it this way: “It doesn’t get any better than this.” I think this is the mood which the author is describing among the Jews of the Persian empire at that moment in history.

The Victory of the Jews Over Their Enemies
(9:1-10)

1 Now in the twelfth month (that is, the month Adar), on the thirteenth day when the king’s command and edict were about to be executed, on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews themselves gained the mastery over those who hated them. 2 The Jews assembled in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm; and no one could stand before them, for the dread of them had fallen on all the peoples. 3 Even all the princes of the provinces, the satraps, the governors, and those who were doing the king’s business assisted the Jews, because the dread of Mordecai had fallen on them. 4 Indeed, Mordecai was great in the king’s house, and his fame spread throughout all the provinces; for the man Mordecai became greater and greater. 5 Thus the Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying; and they did what they pleased to those who hated them. 6 And in Susa the capital the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men, 7 and Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, 8 Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, 9 Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vaizatha, 10 the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jews’ enemy; but they did not lay their hands on the plunder.

Nearly nine months pass between the end of chapter 8 and the beginning of chapter 9 (see 8:9 and 9:1). The Jews of the Persian empire are elated by the new law which Mordecai has enacted in the king’s name. It gives them the right to fight back when their enemies attack them on the 13th day of the 12th month. It gives them the right to counter-attack and to rid themselves of their enemies, including women and children. They can start over with a clean slate once their enemies are destroyed.

Verses 1-10 of chapter 9 describe the victory of the Jews over their foes on that fateful day of battle, the 13th day of the 12th month. On the day Haman intended to bring about the destruction of all the Jews in the empire, the Jews rout their enemies. The Jews assemble on that fateful day (could it have been a Friday?) and gain the upper hand over their enemies. No one can stand before them. All who try are defeated. The reasons for this are given to us by the author. First, the dread of the Jews has fallen on their enemies. The Jews now terrify their enemies. They appear to be undefeatable. Second, the people are terrified by Mordecai. Mordecai’s power, and perhaps the fierceness with which he “attacks” every task, is enough to demoralize any opponent. Mordecai is a powerful man in the king’s administration, and his power is growing. News of his greatness has quickly spread throughout the kingdom. He is a Goliath to his Persian foes, and news of his power takes the wind out of the sails of those who once boldly opposed him.

When the Jews assemble, they find they are able to do whatever they please to their foes. Not only are they able to do so, they do what they please to them (9:5). One must remember that the odds are not even. The odds are stacked in favor of the Jews. Not only are the Jews given permission to assemble and to fight back, they are clearly favored by those in positions of power. All those in power do what they can to assist the Jews. Anyone who opposes the Jews is fighting a losing battle; they are taking on the Persian government (9:3). On that one day, 500 of the Jews’ enemies are killed in Susa alone. Included among those are the 10 sons of Haman (9:6-9).

The Jews in Susa are Granted a One Day Extension
(9:11-15)

11 On that day the number of those who were killed in Susa the capital was reported to the king. 12 And the king said to Queen Esther, “The Jews have killed and destroyed five hundred men and the ten sons of Haman in Susa the capital. What then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces! Now what is your petition? It shall even be granted you. And what is your further request? It shall also be done.” 13 Then said Esther, “If it pleases the king, let tomorrow also be granted to the Jews who are in Susa to do according to the edict of today; and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows.” 14 So the king commanded that it should be done so; and an edict was issued in Susa, and Haman’s ten sons were hanged. 15 And the Jews who were in Susa assembled also on the fourteenth day of the month Adar and killed three hundred men in Susa, but they did not lay their hands on the plunder.

When the king learns that 500 Jew-haters have been killed in Susa, he proudly announces the news to Queen Esther. This must surely indicate that similar successes have been achieved throughout the rest of the empire. They are on a roll. All Esther has requested or suggested has prospered. The king is ready to grant any other request she might make, and so he asks her what else she desires. Esther does have a request. She wants the king to grant an extension to the Jews who live in Susa, granting them a second day to rid themselves of even more of their enemies. Further, she wants the bodies of Haman’s sons hung publicly on the gallows he has built and on which he was executed.

Her request is neither encouraging nor comforting. Why does she request a one-day extension only in Susa, the capital? Why not ask for an extension throughout the empire? Was it because this is where Mordecai’s enemies live? Does this grant Mordecai another day to seek revenge on his enemies? Perhaps even worse is the fact that the Jews of Susa will have a distinct advantage over their foes on this extended day. The enemies of the Jews are given but one day to destroy the Jews and confiscate their property, the 13th day of the 12th month. That day is over. Now it will be illegal for anyone to seek to attack or to kill a Jew, simply for being a Jew. But it will be legal for a Jew to seek and destroy anyone he perceives to be his enemy. This is hardly fair. It gives the Jews the right to kill anyone they suspect of being their enemy and to do it to one who cannot legally fight back. It exactly reverses Haman’s law, only now the Jew is favored and the rest are disadvantaged.

The king grants Esther’s request. The bodies of Haman’s ten sons are hung from the gallows he had constructed on which he intended to hang Mordecai. The Jews in Susa attack their enemies, and another 300 are killed on this second day of fighting. None of the spoils of war are kept.

Jewish Feasting and Celebration
(9:16-19)

16 Now the rest of the Jews who were in the king’s provinces assembled, to defend their lives and rid themselves of their enemies, and kill 75,000 of those who hated them; but they did not lay their hands on the plunder. 17 This was done on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, and on the fourteenth day they rested and made it a day of feasting and rejoicing. 18 But the Jews who were in Susa assembled on the thirteenth and the fourteenth of the same month, and they rested on the fifteenth day and made it a day of feasting and rejoicing. 19 Therefore the Jews of the rural areas, who live in the rural towns, make the fourteenth day of the month Adar a holiday for rejoicing and feasting and sending portions of food to one another.

The situation in the city of Susa is unique. Only there are the Jews granted an extra day to rid themselves of their enemies. Elsewhere, the fighting ends at the end of the 13th day of that 12th month. And so while the Jews of Susa are pursuing their enemies, the rest of the Jews in the Persian empire are celebrating their victory. They have killed 75,000 of their enemies. In contemporary terminology, it is “Miller Time,” a time for feasting and rejoicing—a holiday. The Jews in Susa will have to wait an additional day and have their celebration on the 15th day of the month. This is the author’s way of explaining why the Feast of Purim is observed on two different days.

Purim Declared to be a Jewish Holiday
(9:20-32)

20 Then Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, both near and far, 21 obliging them to celebrate the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same month, annually, 22 because on those days the Jews rid themselves of their enemies, and it was a month which was turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and rejoicing and sending portions of food to one another and gifts to the poor. 23 Thus the Jews undertook what they had started to do, and what Mordecai had written to them. 24 For Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the adversary of all the Jews, had schemed against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is the lot, to disturb them and destroy them. 25 But when it came to the king’s attention, he commanded by letter that his wicked scheme which he had devised against the Jews, should return on his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows. 26 Therefore they called these days Purim after the name of Pur. And because of the instructions in this letter, both what they had seen in this regard and what had happened to them, 27 the Jews established and made a custom for themselves, and for their descendants, and for all those who allied themselves with them, so that they should not fail to celebrate these two days according to their regulation, and according to their appointed time annually. 28 So these days were to be remembered and celebrated throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and these days of Purim were not to fail from among the Jews, or their memory fade from their descendants. 29 Then Queen Esther, daughter of Abihail, with Mordecai the Jew, wrote with full authority to confirm this second letter about Purim. 30 And he sent letters to all the Jews, to the 127 provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, namely, words of peace and truth, 31 to establish these days of Purim at their appointed times, just as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther had established for them, and just as they had established for themselves and for their descendants with instructions for their times of fasting and their lamentations. 32 And the command of Esther established these customs for Purim, and it was written in the book.

Whether celebrated on the 14th or the 15th, the celebration of the Jews is a great success—so much so that Mordecai declares these two days to be national holidays for the Jews. It is made a matter of law, as were the earlier decrees of Haman and of Mordecai.

Three things trouble me greatly about the Feast of Purim as described in these verses:

(1) The Feast of Purim was not established by God, but by men. The author tells us plainly that “the Jews established and made a custom for themselves” (9:27). Other feasts, like Passover and Pentecost, are biblical feasts, feasts which God established and which He instructed men to observe (see, for example, Exodus 12:1-20). The Feast of Purim is a purely Jewish invention, which Mordecai decrees the Jews are to observe. There is a vast difference between divinely initiated holidays and humanly devised holidays. Passover is the former; Purim is the latter.

(2) The Jews are celebrating their victory over their enemies. The author informs us that the Feast of Purim was celebrated on both the 14th and the 15th day of the same month “because on those days the Jews rid themselves of their enemies (9:22). The Jews celebrated their victory, not God’s victory. This celebration is more like the celebration of a football team which has just won the superbowl. There is no talk of God or of grace, but only such words and thoughts as, “We are the greatest.”

(3) The Feast of Purim is celebrated in a very different manner than the feasts which God has ordained. Exodus 15 or Judges 5 reveals the response of the Jews of an earlier time after God had granted them a great victory over their foes. But in each instance, the resulting “celebration” is not one of self-indulgence nor even of generosity and gift-giving. It is one of worship. God is worshipped and praised for the victory He has accomplished. In our text, Mordecai prescribes the way in which the Jews should celebrate the newly established Feast of Purim: “they should make them days of feasting and rejoicing and sending portions of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (9:22). No biblical Jewish holiday is celebrated in precisely this manner. There are no sacrifices, no references to God, to His deeds, to His character or His Word. There is no worship, only celebration. It is more like New Year’s Eve in New York City or the New Orleans’ Mardi Gras than the Passover or Pentecost in Jerusalem.

If it seems I am exaggerating, allow me to quote a contemporary Jewish Rabbi, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, who writes about the observance of the Feast of Purim by the Jews today. Is this anything like any biblical feast of which you are aware?

Perhaps the oddest commandment in Jewish law is the one associated with Purim in which Jews are instructed to get drunk until they can no longer differentiate between “Blessed is Mordechai,” and “Cursed is Haman.”

Although recovering alcoholics, people with health problems, and those planning to drive are freed from observing this commandment, a fair number of Jews do get drunk on Purim. After all, how often can one do something normally regarded as wrong, and be credited with fulfilling a commandment?

The obligation to drink stems largely from Purim’s being one of the happiest holidays in the Jewish calendar. Haman, an ancient Persian forerunner of Hitler, plotted to kill all the Jews. They foiled his plan, however, and then avenged themselves on this would-be mass murderer and his supporters (see Esther).

The rabbis were so enamored of Purim that they declared in a maxim, “From the beginning of Adar [the month in which Purim falls], we increase our happiness” Ta’anit 29a). In fact, they predicted that Purim would be observed even in the messianic days, when almost all other Jewish holidays would be abolished (Midrash Mishlei 9).

Purim is observed on the fourteenth of Adar, just a month and a day before Passover; in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Old City of Safed, the holiday is observed one day later. This odd scheduling is because a statement in the Book of Esther (9:18-19) ordains that Purim be observed one day later in walled cities (Jerusalem was still a walled city at the time Esther was written). Thus, in Israel anyone so inclined can observe Purim twice, on the fourteenth of Adar throughout most of the country, and on the fifteenth in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Old City of Safed.

Women as well as men are commanded to hear the public reading of the biblical scroll of Esther. The reading is conducted in the synagogue amid much revelry. Almost all children, and some adults, come to the service with groggers (noisemakers), which they sound whenever Haman’s name is read. Since Haman is mentioned more than fifty times in Esther, the reading is constantly interrupted by shouts, screams, boos, and the rattling of groggers. Because Jewish law requires people to hear every word of the scroll of Esther, the person chanting the book is forbidden to resume until the noise abates.

While Jews normally come to synagogue in suits and dresses, their attire on the playful holiday of Purim is more likely to be costumes and masks. Although many women model themselves on Queen Esther and many men on Mordechai, I have seen people come to services dressed as robots or as members of the Women’s Liberation Army of Shushan (the Persian city where the Purim story takes place).

The synagogue service is usually followed by a party where the command to get drunk is carried out. Very often, members of the congregation perform skits based on the Purim story (see Esther). At many yeshlvot, Purimshpiels are performed, and fun is poked—through plays and skits—at the school, its teachers and rabbis, as well as at traditional texts that are usually treated with reverence.

Another Purim commandment is to send mishloakh manor (gifts of food and drink) to other Jews. The minimum gift one must give is two portions of different foods; they must require no preparation but be ready to eat. In recent years, as the Jewish community has become more affluent, mishloakh manot have grown more elaborate, and many people send them to large numbers of friends.

On Purim one is commanded to be charitable to everyone, even to beggars whose requests for charity one has reason to believe are bogus. On this day of unbridled joy, no questions are to be asked. When I was a student at Yeshiva University, there were two women who used to accost students every morning and afternoon, asking for money. A rabbi I knew there—a generous man—never contributed to them; he told me he knew for a fact that they had independent and substantial means. Nonetheless, on Purim he made sure to give them a donation.

Throughout Jewish history, many communities and families established their own special Purim holidays to commemorate annually the anniversaries of events in which Jewish communities or individuals were saved from death at the hands of antisemites. In the 1970s, a prominent American rabbi was among those kidnapped and held hostage by Muslim terrorists at the B’nai B’rith headquarters in Washington, D.C. All the hostages survived, and ever since the rabbi conducts an annual special Purim celebration with his family on the Hebrew date on which he was released.

Another commandment associated with the holiday is to enjoy a large, festive repast known as the Purim se’udah (meal). The dessert normally served at this meal, and eaten throughout the whole holiday, is hamantashen, small cakes of baked dough filled with prunes, apricot, poppy seed, or other filling. During the Birkat ha-Mazon (Grace After Meals), a special prayer is recited, thanking God for the miracles that occurred during the days of Mordechai.

The observance of Purim was apparently well known to the Nazi leadership. Julius Streicher, perhaps the most vicious antisemite among the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials, shouted out as he was marched to the gallows, “Purimfest.”⁵⁵

Two Tributes: The Tribute of
Ahasuerus and the Tribute to Mordecai
(10:1-3)

1 Now King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land and on the coastlands of the sea. 2 And all the accomplishments of his authority and strength, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia? 3 For Mordecai the Jew was second only to King Ahasuerus and great among the Jews, and in favor with the multitude of his kinsmen, one who sought the good of his people and one who spoke for the welfare of his whole nation.

King Ahasuerus (also known in secular history as Xerxes) is the most powerful man on the face of the earth, king of one of the greatest empires of all time. And yet in these closing verses of the Book of Esther, all we are told of Ahasuerus is that he laid a tax on the kingdom. Political leaders are not praised for such things. Taxes are the basis for protest, not praise. But this is all our author says about the king in his final reference to his rule.

In contrast, Mordecai receives a great deal more attention. While our author barely gives the king one line of editorial exposure, he gives Mordecai nearly five. Instead of writing any tribute to the king, our author gives a great closing tribute to Mordecai. He speaks of his authority, his accomplishments, his strength, and his greatness. This sounds more like a spot commercial for a man running for political office.

Mordecai, we are told, was a great man. He was great because he was second only to the king himself in power. He was great because of his accomplishments, authority, strength, and greatness. He was great among the Jews because his fellow-Jews highly esteemed him. He had the favor of his people because he sought their good, and he spoke for the welfare of his whole nation.

This all sounds mighty good, does it not? I know how this will sound, but say it I must. Almost the same things could have been said of Jimmy Hoffa by those who were members of the Teamsters’ Union. Being great in the sight of men is not synonymous with being great in the eyes of God. Being great among men is not the same as being godly. Mordecai was great, but we have no reason at all to assume that he was godly. How could a godly man take credit for saving his people without even mentioning God?

Conclusion

Something is wrong with this picture. There has been a great deliverance, but that deliverance came about through the providence of God, not through the power of men. The Book of Esther should remind us of the greatness of God and warn us about being too impressed with the greatness of men. And lest we become too enamored with Mordecai as the deliverer of his people, we should be reminded that it was through his stubbornness and folly that the Jewish people were endangered in the first place.

We must interpret the Book of Esther in light of the entire Bible. And yet it is here that we come upon a very serious problem. Esther speaks of the deliverance of the Jews throughout the Persian Empire. It speaks of the greatness of Esther and Mordecai. It introduces us to a new Jewish feast, the Feast of Purim. If all these matters are of such great importance, why is there no reference to the Book of Esther or to any of the key persons or events of this book in any other book of the Bible? Why are the Book of Esther and its events ignored in the rest of the Bible? When we read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah—the books immediately preceding Esther which fall in the same general time frame—why is there virtually not even a hint of anything from the Book of Esther?⁵⁶ If it were not for the Book of Esther, we would know absolutely nothing of this period of time or of these people. Why?

I think for me the reason is finally beginning to sink in. Those things which the Jews thought to be important, those things which are predominant in the Book of Esther, are not the things of God, and they are not really of any eternal significance.⁵⁷ The Jews who remained on in Persia did not return to Judah and Jerusalem because they had too much invested in Persia. At this period of time, the scene in Susa (Esther 1:1-9) is far more glorious than the scene in Jerusalem, where a small group of Jews (50,000 or so) dwell in the ruins of a once great kingdom (see for example Ezra 3:10-13; Nehemiah 1:1-3).

In that day, there were two kingdoms. One was the great and glorious kingdom of Persia. The problem is that this kingdom was temporal, and even worse, it was a kingdom under the influence of Satan (see Daniel 10:20). The other “kingdom” was the earthly and eternal kingdom of God. It was in Jerusalem that God promised to dwell and to manifest His presence. It was to Jerusalem that people of all nations were to come to worship Him. While the earthly kingdom was far from impressive, it was the place of God’s presence and blessing. It is the kingdom which the Persian Jews rejected, choosing to remain in the prosperity and splendor of this pagan realm.

Everything we read about Esther and Mordecai and the Jews of the Persian empire inclines us to assume that these Jews had little regard for God’s kingdom and an excessive attraction to this temporal kingdom. The reason the rest of the Bible ignores the people and events of the Book of Esther is because the book is an account of Jews who are preoccupied with the wrong kingdom, a kingdom which is not eternal. Oh, the God of Israel is at work in the Book of Esther, but neither Mordecai, nor Esther, nor the Jews, nor the Persians recognize it. In contrast, we see the Pharaoh recognizing the hand of God upon Joseph and Nebuchadnezzar acknowledging and worshipping Daniel’s God. Not so in Persia!

As I reflect on the closing chapters of the Book of Esther, I am reminded of the temptation of our Lord:

8 Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; 9 and he said to Him, “All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only’ “ (Matthew 4:8-10).

Satan offered our Lord the earthly kingdoms, hoping that He would give up His commitment to the Father’s eternal kingdom. Satan was not successful in his temptation of our Lord. But it seems to me that Mordecai gave in to this very temptation. At the end of the Book of Esther, we read of Mordecai’s great power and glory, but it is in the wrong kingdom. We are told that the account of his greatness is to be found “in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia” (Esther 10:2). A number of Bible students point out the similarity of this statement to those found in biblical history. Allow me to point out one crucial difference. There is a world of difference between having one’s deeds recorded “in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia,” and having one’s deeds recorded in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Just so, there is a world of difference between having one’s name recorded in the Book of Life and having one’s name recorded is some other book, even a famous history book.

The Book of Esther is a picture—and not a very pretty one—of the Jew who is in unbelief and in disobedience. No wonder the Jews of the Persian empire are in peril. No wonder Mordecai and the Jews act little differently than do the pagans of Persia. No wonder that neither prayer, nor repentance, nor the Scriptures, nor faith, nor God are mentioned in this book. The book is a description of pagan Jews, Jews who have become attached to “Vanity Fair.”

How can we not think of the words of our Lord, when He says,

36 “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? (Mark 8:36).

The position, power, and prestige of Esther and Mordecai (not to mention the rest of the Jews who remained there) were of no eternal benefit. Consequently, in spite of the seemingly glorious account of Esther, these people and events are lost to the rest of Scripture. Significantly and sadly, we find neither Esther nor Mordecai listed in the “Hall of Faith” as described in Hebrews 11.

This error of the Persian Jews regarding the kingdom of God is seen in the Jews of Jesus’ day. They too were caught up with the secular kingdom of their day and with the power that came with it. They were afraid of the “kingdom” of which our Lord spoke. They feared they would lose their position and power in this world, and they had little concern about God’s kingdom in the next. They were not laying up treasure in heaven; they were laying up treasure on earth, even taking advantage of widows to do so (see Matthew 23:14). Not only did they refuse to enter into God’s kingdom, but they tried to keep others from entering as well (23:13). Not surprisingly, they too were into banquets (23:6).

Even the disciples of our Lord reflect the same secular thinking in regard to the kingdom of God. They were interested in the power and prestige of our Lord’s kingdom. They wanted to have a prominent role. They were eager to establish the kingdom and disinclined to wait (or suffer) for it. It took a long time for them to grasp and then to accept what our Lord had to say about the kingdom of God.

And we are no different. We are all too similar to Esther and Mordecai, to the Jews who opposed Jesus, and to the disciples. We find that this present temporal kingdom has a great attraction to us. It sometimes seems real, while the kingdom of our Lord seems distant and far-fetched. Are we critical of the way the Persian Jews added to the Word of God so that their worship became perverted, self-indulgent celebration? Do we think that only the Jews of ancient days failed to recognize the hand of God and took credit for what God has done? We do exactly the same thing today.

I am thinking of the Corinthian church as it is depicted in the New Testament. In the very first chapter of 1 Corinthians, we find the church has already become too man-centered. Christian and biblical morality has all too quickly and easily been set aside so that even the pagans are shocked by what these saints are doing (see 1 Corinthians 5:1-8). The sobering “celebration” of the Lord’s Supper had degenerated into a secular and drunken celebration which brought about sickness and death to some of the Corinthians (see 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Worship, which is characterized by sacrifice, all too easily becomes characterized by self-indulgence and sin (see Exodus 32; 1 Corinthians 11).

For the Old Testament saints of Esther’s day, worship and service were to be governed by the Law. God’s Law set the standard not only for the Jew’s conduct but also for his warfare and for his worship. The Law is not once mentioned in the Book of Esther. Our conduct, service, and worship is likewise to be governed by the Word of God. How quickly the heathen culture in which we live begins to encroach on our thinking and on our behavior, until we are worshipping in a way that is precisely opposite to that which God requires and enables. Would we scoff at those Jews who celebrate the Feast of Purim by enthusiastically doing those things which the Old Testament forbade? Let us take time to ponder our own practices. How much of what we do in serving God and worshipping Him is contrary to His Word?

Let us not leave the Book of Esther looking down our spiritual noses at Esther, Mordecai, and the Persian Jews. Let us leave the Book of Esther asking ourselves how we are like them and asking what we should do to be the people God has called us to be. Let us seek first the kingdom of God, and let all other things take a secondary place in our lives. Let us not exalt men and forget God. Let us recognize that the Book of Esther describes the dark side of Judaism in those days and that Ezra and Nehemiah set down for us examples which we should follow. Let us look for the hand of God, even in the events of a secular world and through heathen officials and politicians. To God be the glory, great things He has done. Great things He still does and is yet to do.

---

53 The reason I say that both Esther and Mordecai were given authority to draft this new law is because the “you” in verse 8 is plural, indicating that the king was speaking to both Esther and Mordecai.

54 All of which ended quickly, I suspect, when king Ahasuerus was assassinated in his 20th year.

55 Jewish Literacy, The Most Important Things to Know about the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.), 1991, pp. 578-580.

56 The only reference to anything in the Book of Esther is the mention of Ahasuerus one time in Ezra 4:6.

57 Aside, of course, from the eternal punishment that results from man’s sin.

Introduction

When I told a friend of mine that I was speaking on the subject of the depravity of man, he assured me that in addressing this topic I would have little difficulty in convincing my audience, especially if I “spoke from my heart.” One illustration from my past will prove the truth of my friend’s words.

I come from a family of school teachers and in fact, I have taught school for several years myself. It was with very little effort, therefore, that as a high school student I immediately recognized Miss Bellman as a novice. Now this innocent and naive young woman had been educated, I believe, in private, all-girl schools. I don’t know how anyone from such a sheltered past could have ended up facing a class with the likes of me in it. But there she was, on her maiden voyage, launching out into the uncharted waters of Irene S. Reed High School.

Years later, I had the opportunity of teaching for a summer in the state penitentiary near my home town. It was there that I taught side by side with some of my teachers from high school. Only then did I realize how I had devastated poor Miss Bellman. Every day these teachers had sought to build up her eroded self-confidence. And every day she had come to my class, like Daniel entering the lions’ den. One day her colleagues got to the heart of her problem—she simply had to get tough. And so that day she worked up all of the courage that remained and marched into the classroom. She gave a lecture that struck fear in the heart of everyone but me. I perceived that under her paper-thin veneer of courage was a heart of fear. When she finished her speech, and while everyone else was awestruck, I blurted out, “Thank you, Miss Bellman. Now get back to your cage and I’ll rattle your bars when I want you.” Needless to say, her heroic effort was shot down in flames.

It makes me sick to recall how cruel I was to that woman. The only justice in this is that I have had to face classes with students nearly as terrible as myself. If I could locate that woman (she left after that year), I would have to tell her how sorry I am for making her first year of teaching so miserable. But if my cruelty to Miss Bellman causes your stomach to tighten up, let me hasten to say that, whether by word or deed, many Christians treat God no better than I did Miss Bellman. We want God to stay up there in His heaven and leave us alone, unless, of course, we decide that we could use His help. Then, through prayer, we rattle the bars of heaven and expect God to come to us on the run.

One reason for our defective and diminished view of God is an overestimation of ourselves. Nothing is more humbling to man than to gain a fresh grasp of how we stand before a holy and omnipotent God. To a large extent the way we view humanity shapes our view of a wide variety of other matters. Because of this we must give careful attention to the subject of the helplessness of humanity.

The Issue Defined

The early church did not find it necessary to precisely define biblical doctrines until such time as doctrinal deviations arose. Doctrinal positions were thus more carefully defined as a refutation of specific and erroneous positions.¹ In general the early church held that all of humanity are sinners at birth. This state of sinfulness originated with the sin of Adam. Man, it was believed, could only be saved through Christ, assisted by the work of the Holy Spirit. Infants, too, were lost sinners who needed regeneration.²

Early in the fifth century, Pelagius, a Briton, began to depart from the view of the early church. Pelagius was neither an infidel nor an immoral man. He was, in fact, devout and troubled by the laxity of those who professed faith in Christ, but who used man’s inability as an excuse for indifference.³ The starting point for Pelagius was the assumption that man could not be held responsible for obedience unless he were capable of obedience. In his mind obligation implied ability. Thus, if God commanded men to do good or refrain from evil, man must have been given the innate ability to do so. Man therefore, has the freedom to decide for good or evil, to accomplish it or avoid it.

At best Adam’s sin in the garden had no adverse effect upon his progeny. At worst it only set a bad example for humanity. Society, evil as it is, provides an environment which is not conducive to doing righteousness; it is still possible, only more difficult. Those born into the world as the offspring of Adam enter into life in the same state of innocence which Adam did. Like Adam they are free to obey God or to disobey. Men are constituted sinners only by an intelligent, willful, act of rebellion against God. Men are saved by reforming themselves and doing what is right. Redemption, as the Bible describes it, is therefore unnecessary. With the light of the gospel, a sinless life is only made easier.⁴ For this Pelagius was condemned by the council at Carthage in A.D. 412, and again, in A.D. 418, this decision was confirmed. In A.D. 431 the Eastern Church joined in censuring the Pelagians in the General Synod at Ephesus.⁵

Augustine, who was a contemporary of Pelagius, along with others, recognized Pelagianism as heresy and as a contradiction to the teachings of the Word of God. He crystalized a doctrinal position strongly antithetical to Pelagianism, stressing the sinfulness of man, the sovereignty of God and the necessity of grace and redemption through the work of Christ. Some who rejected Pelagianism also found Augustine’s position too much to swallow. The result was a doctrinal system known as Semi-Pelagianism founded by John Cassian, whose cause was also taken up by the presbyter-monk Vincentius of Lerinum and Faustus bishop of Rhegium. They attempted to formulate a mediating position between that of Pelagius on the one hand and Augustine on the other.

Semi-Pelagians believe that Adam’s sin did have a universal effect on all men resulting in a weakened state, not one of total inability to do good. Man is, therefore, “sick” but not “dead” in his sins. He cannot heal himself, but he is able to “call the doctor,” so to speak, to obtain healing. Fallen man can either accept the doctor’s advice or reject it. Man is thus born with an inclination to sin, but not a compulsion to do so. Man cannot be saved apart from the grace of God, according to the Semi-Pelagian. God’s grace, mediated through the sacrificial death of Christ, is usually, though not necessarily always (e.g. the apostle Paul’s conversion), initiated by man first seeking God. To the Semi-Pelagian salvation is something like power steering. As we apply pressure to the steering wheel of religious effort, divine assistance is added to our efforts and the desired end is obtained, but always at our control. It is this system of thought which today seems to have swept evangelical Christianity off its feet.

One would have to say that these two systems of thought dominate theology today. Humanistic religion, which has long ago forsaken sin and the need for personal redemption, sees man as fully capable of saving himself and his society. God (if indeed there is a God) created man with an inherent ability to do good or to reject evil. Man simply needs to be educated as to what is right, and society needs to be improved to provide many with the right environment for doing it. On the other hand, there are man sincere and devout Christians who have come to faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. They recognize the sinfulness of man and his need for the redemption that only comes through the gospel. But they do not view God as fully in charge of His universe. They see Him as more remote and less intimately involved in the daily affairs of life. They see men as sinful, but not hopelessly so. Man simply needs to be convinced of his spiritual need and to call upon God for the help provided in the cross of Calvary. Man cannot be saved apart from God, but neither can God be expected to save apart from man’s initiation (most often, at least) and cooperation.

Sadly, it is a weak, almost anemic, Savior that is portrayed by such a gospel. We sing about it in songs which speak of the God of the universe standing expectantly, helplessly by with baited breath to see if anyone will accept His offer of eternal salvation. We proclaim His glorious gospel either pleadingly, pathetically, or apologetically, as though an honest presentation of man’s condition would offend the sinner and keep him from coming to the cross. “If you’ll take one step toward the Savior, my friend, you’ll find His arms open wide.” By this we inform men that it is he who takes the first step and God Who thereafter responds with great relief and joy. That portrays a Christ vastly different from the Savior of the scriptures. That gives fallen man an elevated status, which the scriptures do not know.

The Biblical Description of Man’s State

What, then, is man’s spiritual state? No one passage states man’s condition so precisely as Paul does in Romans chapter three. Here, he draws together a collection of Old Testament quotations which pictures man as a helpless, hopeless sinner, not sick, but dead in his sins, not in need of a doctor, but a mortician.

… as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving, The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Romans 3:10-18).

Romans is a systematic exposition of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it relates to both Jews and Gentiles. In the first three chapters of this epistle, Paul lays a foundation by establishing a universal need for salvation. His conclusion is found in the expression “all have sinned” (3:9, 23). The pagan is rightly under divine condemnation because God’s creation reveals His “eternal power and divine nature” (1:20), but man has willfully exchanged this truth for a lie and has chosen to worship the creature, rather than the Creator (1:23, 25). Man is further condemned because he fails to live according to the standard by which he condemns others (2:1-3).

The Jew is even more culpable, because he has received the written revelation of God contained in the Old Testament. Some not only hold God’s word to be authoritative, but are teachers of it, and yet fail to live by its commands (2:17ff.). All men, then, from the pagan who has never heard of Christ to the Jewish Rabbi who teaches from God’s word, are under divine sentence of death. And this must mean that those of us who now have the revelation of God contained in both the Old and New Testaments are even more responsible before God. Our difficulty is surely not the shortage of revelation, but our failure to live by it.

In verses 10-18 man’s desperate and damnable condition is depicted by the citation of a series of quotations from the Old Testament. Here, the extent of the depravity of man is underscored in such a way as to force us to conclude that man is not sick but dead. First, Paul proves that when viewed corporately man, without exception, is found to be unable to do that which God views as righteous. And second, we shall find that when man is viewed individually he is found to be rendered helpless by sin in every part of his nature: intellect, emotions, and will.

Man’s Collective Culpability

When it comes to the subject of sin, all of us would like to think of ourselves as the exception to the rule. If Paul had said that most men were sinners, we would likely place ourselves among the few who are not. Thus, Paul must show that all men, without exception, fall under the wrath of God and need the salvation provided only in Christ. Four times in these nine verses Paul uses the word “all” to describe man’s fallenness. To prevent any misunderstanding, twice he clarifies his point by affirming that “not even one” is righteous in God’s eyes. So far as God’s righteousness is concerned, “there is none righteous, not even one” (3:10).

Paul spoke as a historian in these verses, not limiting man’s sinfulness to one particular age or culture. Throughout the history of mankind the truth of these verses can be amply illustrated. By referring to the Psalms and Isaiah, this broad historical perspective is accented. When Paul reminds us that “destruction and misery are in their paths” (verse 16), we know that this is as true today as it was in Paul’s day or-the prophet’s. In a day when a president and a pope can be shot within weeks of one another, we need not be urged to accept the fact of the violence of man.

Man’s Individual Inability

Having established from the scriptures that man, without exception is a sinner, Paul also proves irrefutably that every dimension of a person’s nature is tainted by sin, incapacitating every person so far as righteousness is concerned.

In verses 13-18 Paul speaks from the perspective of a physician, showing that every organ in our body becomes the instrument of sin due to our depravity. Beginning at the head, Paul deals with the organs which generate speech. The throat is a grave, corrupted and defiling, and the tongue is deceitful (verse 13). The lips of man, much like the viper, conceal deadly poison; they are instruments of destruction. The mouth is full of curses and bitter words (verse 14). The feet hasten man to deeds of evil (verse 15). The sum and substance of this anatomical analysis of man is that from head to foot man is dominated by sin. His organs are instruments of sin (cf. 6:12, 13).

Morally, every man falls short of the standard of righteousness which God has set. In the words of scripture, “there is none righteous” (verse 10), “there is none who does good” (verse 12). By this we do not mean to say that man cannot do anything that his fellow man considers good. It is obvious that some who do not profess to know Christ personally at times live by a higher standard than some who do know the Savior. Unbelievers may be kind to their wives, give to the poor, and help the helpless … all commendable deeds. But the Bible teaches that no one will ever be justified that is, be declared righteous, by his works:

Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

The Law was not given to save men but to condemn them, to show them their sin and the need for a savior. Legal righteousness could only be earned by obedience to the whole Law, without any violation, ever:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them” (Galatians 3:10).

For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all (James 2:10).

And so, anyone under the Law is obliged to keep it completely, lest the Law condemn him. Further, the Law, while it provides the standard of righteousness, does not give the strength to do what is righteous:

Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (Galatians 3:5).

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a Law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law (Galatians 3:21).

For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bandage to sin (Romans 7:14).

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4).

Righteousness, then, cannot be earned by good works or the attempt to keep the Law of God, for fallen man is incapable of overcoming sin apart from divine enablement. Beyond this, those deeds which may appear to be righteous in the eyes of man may be evil because they are accomplished out of evil motives. Good deeds, if they are done to earn God’s approval and blessing (that is, righteousness), are based upon an evil motive. God has said that we cannot please Him by our works, for they are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Most often we do good deeds in order to obtain man’s approval and acclaim, which negates any possibility of divine approval:

“When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full” (Matthew 6:2).

Unsaved man may perform deeds of human kindness and charity. Man may do those things which win the approval of others. But men, apart from God, cannot please God. They cannot do anything which God calls righteous or has merit in His eyes.

The unsaved man’s will is always contrary to God’s. It can thus be said that no man seeks God (Romans 3:11). Frequently man willfully turns from God for Paul reminds us, “all have turned aside” (3:12) so as to become useless. Man is born in sin (Psalm 51:5), and is thus an enemy of God by nature:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Intellectually, man’s ability to comprehend spiritual matters is nullified by the effect of sin. As Paul would have us understand, “there is none who understands” (Romans 3:11). Man has made great strides in the fields of science and medicine, but even the most elemental spiritual truths are beyond the grasp of the most brilliant person, who is still in his sin:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (1 Corinthians 2:14).

This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart (Ephesians 4:17-18).

We are therefore driven to the conclusion that all men are sinners by nature and by practice. Man is not sick in sin, but dead. He does not need a doctor, but a mortician. He does not need God’s help; he needs life. In the words of Steele and Thomas:

The natural man is enslaved to sin; he is a child of Satan, rebellious toward God, blind to truth, corrupt, and unable to save himself or to prepare himself for salvation. In short, the unregenerate man is dead in sin, and his will is enslaved to his evil nature.⁶

The Westminster Confession of Faith states this same truth:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.⁷

Conclusion:
Implications of the Depravity of Man

A truth as crucial as that of man’s depravity has many implications for the Christian. Let me begin by suggesting what the doctrine of total depravity is not intended to mean.

(1) Total depravity does not mean that man is as bad as he could be. The adjective “total” in the term “total depravity” does not mean 100% so that every man is said to be completely corrupt, totally evil. In fact, some men are more wicked than others. It is this reality that necessitates degrees of eternal punishment (cf. Luke 12:47-48; Matthew 10:15; 11:21-24). It will not be until the time of the great tribulation that men will be given the liberty of pursuing their wicked desires without restraint (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10). Total depravity refers to the condition of man whereby every aspect of his nature—intellect, emotions, and will—have been tainted by sin. Total depravity does not mean that a glass of water is 100% poison but that only one drop of poison in a glass of water contaminates every drop of that water.

(2) Total depravity is never intended to reinforce sinful psychological self-abuse. Many Christians fail to appreciate who they are in Christ. They demean themselves as unlovable and unworthy. They morbidly delight in songs which refer to themselves as “worms” (… “for such a worm as I”). We are unworthy of God’s grace—that is what makes it grace. We are worthy of condemnation. But we are also divinely created and fashioned by God in the womb (Psalm 139:13ff.). God valued man enough to send His Son to die for us, while yet sinners (Romans 5: 6-8). If we are true believers, we are in Christ, and He is in us. Every Christian has a spiritual gift, which equips that saint for a function and calling within the body of Christ, the church (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1ff.). When the Christian is self-demeaning, he or she is depreciating the work of God, a serious sin in my estimation. If you will remember, it was the steward who thought he had the least to offer his master who was inclined to be slothful with what he was given (cf. Matthew 25:14-30).

(3) The doctrine of total depravity is never an excuse for sin in the life of any Christian. Too often, I have heard Christians excuse the sin in their life with a flippant, “But I’m totally depraved; what did you expect from me?” The answer to such a statement is, “No, if you are a Christian, you are not totally depraved.” No Christian is, for the Apostle Paul did not write to the Ephesians, “You are dead in your trespasses and sins,” but “You were dead in your trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). In the sixth chapter of Romans, Paul again addresses the subject of sin in the life of the Christian. The rhetorical question has been raised; “Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?” (Romans 6:1) Paul emphatically answers, “God forbid!” The reason that a Christian must not continue to live in sin is because he has died to sin:

Now if we have died with Christ we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:8-11).

From Romans 6 we learn the necessity of leaving the old life of sin behind and living a new lifestyle of righteousness. In Romans 7 we find that while we may have a strong desire to shun sin and practice righteousness, we cannot do so in the power of the flesh for sin’s influence is stronger. In Romans 8 we find that no Christian must live in sin because God, through His Son, has brought forgiveness, and through His Spirit, has brought power to live according to His righteous requirements.

Total depravity means that man will always choose to do evil, because that is his disposition. Since, in Christ, “old things passed away” and “new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17), we now are able to choose righteousness and flee evil because of God’s enablement. No Christian must sin in the sense that total depravity speaks of the condition of lost men and women.

We who were dead in sin are now alive in Christ, free from sin and forgiven of its penalties (Ephesians 2:1-10). We are presently being conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29). Our lives are being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). The Holy Spirit enables us to comprehend spiritual realities (1 Corinthians 2:6-13). The Spirit of God gives us power to live according to His demands (Romans 8:1-4).

(4) Total depravity does not mean that an unsaved person has no choice to make, but it does mean that fallen man will always choose to go his own way rather than submit to God. In the first three chapters of the book of Romans, Paul demonstrates that all men are worthy of God’s eternal wrath, not just because Adam sinned, but because all men are given some revelation about God, which they must accept or reject, and, given this choice, men always choose to reject God. The lost must be confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ, for apart from a hearing of the word, men cannot be saved:

… for “Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!” (Romans 10:13-15)

All men are faced with the choice of submitting to God or rejecting Him, but man’s nature determines man’s decision. Man, in his lost state, has the same free will to become a Christian that a lion has to become a vegetarian. This is why salvation is always initiated by God and not by man:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. … For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, … (Philippians 1:6, 29).

(5) Man’s total inability in spiritual things does not mean that it is futile to proclaim the gospel to the lost. Man will never respond positively to the gospel in his own strength, but the Bible makes it clear that those who are saved have been the recipients of divine enlightenment and enablement.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. … And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 13:48; 16:14).

Because it is God Who saves men, we may proclaim the gospel boldly knowing that those whom He has chosen will be saved. And when we pray, we need not pray that men will have the intellectual ability to believe, or that their wills may be open to divine instruction, but that God will give them life, effectually call them, and draw them to Himself. If it is ultimately God Who saves men, then we can plead with Him for the souls of men, knowing His desire to save (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4), knowing He delights to answer our prayers (1 John 5:14-15), and knowing He is able to save any whom He chooses (cf. Acts 9:1-22).

And even when men do not believe the message of the gospel, God is glorified by its proclamation:

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed” (Isaiah 6:8-10).

In evangelism, as in every area of Christian living, we are never commanded to be successful, but only to be submissive to His will and obedient to His word.

Having discussed a number of misconceptions of the doctrine of man’s total inability (or total depravity, if you prefer), let us now press on to some of the things this doctrine does imply.

(1) Because man is totally depraved, salvation is, of necessity, a supernatural phenomenon. Those who are “dead in their trespasses and sins” do not normally or naturally become alive in Christ. Many of us are not convinced of this. We suppose, for example, that if only the gospel were explained clearly enough (as some boldly say), then anyone would turn to Christ for salvation. How then, do we explain the “failure” of our Lord to convert all but a few of his hearers? Intellectually, man is so affected by sin that a totally convincing argument will fall on deaf ears. The gospel is not logical to the lost, but foolishness:

For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18, cf. vss. 19-31).

If there are some who suppose that we can reason the lost into heaven, there are others who believe that we can nag them into eternal life by breaking down their resistance to the point of surrender. That is why we play 29 stanzas of “Just As I Am” and plead with the lost. That is why some wives persist at trying to wear down their husbands with the message of salvation, over and over, sneaking in a tract here, setting up a meeting with the preacher there, and so on. Others will try to use the emotions to scare one into a decision for Christ by threatening them with the fires of hell.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean to say that the gospel can be sloppily and haphazardly explained. We should make the message of salvation as clear as possible. We should address the whole person—intellect, emotions, and will. But after we have done the best possible job of proclaiming the gospel, it is only God Who can bring a dead man to life. And because salvation is a supernatural experience, we must not rely upon our own strength or our own devices. If men are to be saved, it must be because God has used us and our words. We must continually be dependent upon Him for success in evangelism.

(2) Even children are totally depraved. I know that statistics reveal that most people are converted in their youth. I do not wish to refute these figures. But I must insist that if we are born in sin and in a state of rebellion against God, children are just as dead as adults. They are no more inclined to trust in Christ than anyone else. Granted, they have not become hardened in their sins (cf. 1 Timothy 4:2), but they are nonetheless dead. All that we have said above applies to children, as well as to adults.

Children, because of their lack of subtlety and their desire to please, will often go through the motions of conversion, but that does not save them. Children, like all others, must be convinced of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). They must be born again. Unclear statements of faith, such as “having Jesus in your heart” often lead to professions without any concept of what salvation means.

I have a friend who lived for a time in California. He happened to teach a Sunday School class in which the sons of a prominent Christian leader were enrolled. One Sunday one of the two boys proudly stated that he had asked Jesus into his heart. Pleased at this testimony and hoping to draw out a clearer statement, the teacher asked, “And how did Jesus get into your heart?” The boy thought about this question for some time and then with a sudden flash of inspiration, he exclaimed, “I guess it was through the hole in my sock!” Children must be supernaturally saved, just like anyone else. While children’s wills may be weaker than adults (sometimes I question this), none is ever saved by the adult imposing his will upon the child.

(3) Because salvation is a supernatural matter, no one is ever too lost to be saved. Some people are far more aggressively opposed to the gospel than others. Because of this, we conclude that an agnostic is more likely to be saved than an atheist. This is not necessarily true. Who could have been more opposed to the gospel than Paul, who referred to himself as “chief of sinners” (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15)? Salvation rests with the ability of God Whose power is infinite. No man is less dead than another. The most hardened and resistant sinner is no obstacle to the grace of God. No one is beyond God’s salvation.

(4) The bad news of total depravity is really the good news. The most difficult aspect of salvation is not getting man saved, but getting him lost. After all, who needs to be saved who is not hopelessly lost? Total depravity means that man cannot save himself and must look to another for salvation. Christ came to the world to save sinners. He did not come to heal those who are well, but those who are sick (cf. Mark 2:17). If you are lost in sin, there is hope, there is help, for Christ died to save sinners. When men come to the point of despair, realizing their own inability, it is also the point of hope, for now they must look to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and deliverance. To under emphasize man’s total inability, then, is not to hasten the process of salvation, but to hinder it.

(5) We must be careful not to cushion the consequences of sin so as to minimize the desperate condition of the sinner. The prodigal son, you will recall, came to himself in the pig pen, far from his father in a foreign land, eating the pods which were pig food. As much as that father loved his son, he realized that he would not be reconciled to him until he saw the folly of his ways. He had to be lost before he was found; he had to be dead before he could receive life (Luke 15:32). Many of us are tempted to build a pig pen in the back yard, trying to soften the blows of sin. While we must surely grieve at the sins of those we love, sometimes we must allow hard times to come upon them before the seriousness of sin is recognized.

(6) If man is totally unable to save himself or to contribute to it in any way, then all of the praise and glory for our conversion must go to God.

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:30-31).

Perhaps it is in our prayers that we are most likely to confess the fact that our salvation is solely from God. As B. B. Warfield has put it,

He who comes to God in prayer, comes not in a spirit of self-assertion, but in a spirit of trustful dependence. No one ever addressed God in prayer thus: “O God, thou knowest that I am the architect of my own fortunes and the determiner of my own destiny. Thou mayest indeed do something to help me in the securing of my purposes after I have determined upon them. But my heart is my own, and thou canst bend it. When I wish thy aid, I will call on thee for it. Meanwhile, thou must await my pleasure.” Men may reason somewhat like this; but that is not the way they pray.⁸

To God be the glory, great things He has done!

---

1 So far as the early Church is concerned, the doctrine respecting sin was stated only in general terms. In almost all cases the explicit and discriminating doctrinal affirmations received their form as counter statements to erroneous views. So long as the truth was not denied the Church was content to hold and state it in the simple form in which it is presented in the Bible. But when positions were assumed which were inconsistent with the revealed doctrine, or when one truth was so stated as to contradict some other truth, it became necessary to be more explicit, and to frame such an expression of the doctrine as should comprehend all that God had revealed on the subject. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, Reprint), II, p. 150.

2 Ibid.

3 “Pelagius, a monk from Britain, was a popular preacher in Rome A.D. 401-9. He sought to stir to earnest moral endeavor lax Christians who sheltered behind the frailty of the flesh and the apparent impossibility of fulfilling God’s commands, by telling them that God commanded nothing that is impossible and that everyone may live free from sin if he will.” David Broughton Knox, “Pelagianism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), pp. 399-400.

4 “Another consequence of his principles which Pelagius unavoidably drew was that men could be saved without the gospel. As free will in the sense of plenary ability, belongs essentially to man as much as reason, men whether Heathen, Jews, or Christians, may fully obey the Law of God and attain eternal Life. The only difference is that under the Light of the Gospel, this perfect obedience is rendered more easy.” Ibid, p. 154.

5 Ibid, p. 155.

6 David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1975), p. 25.

7 Chapter IX, Section 3, as quoted by Steele and Thomas, p. 25.

8 John E. Meeter, editor, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), I, p. 389.

Introduction

No one really wants to talk about hell. The person who finds some kind of satisfaction in exploring its horrors must have a problem. Many do not wish to believe that some will suffer eternal torment. One survey over ten years ago indicated that 58% Methodists, 60% Episcopalians, 54% Presbyterians, 35% American Baptists, 22% American Lutherans deny it is a specific place after death.⁹ It is not difficult to understand why some choose to believe there is no such thing as eternal torment. After all, such a fact would have dramatic implications!

The cults have generally tended to distort biblical teachings on eternal punishment: Christian Science believes there is no final judgment. The Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that lost men will have a second chance and that those who reject this offer of salvation will be annihilated. Mormonism maintains that all non-Mormons will be sentenced to eternal torment, along with those Mormons who are thus judged worthy of it. Unity refuses to believe in the finality of death, but believes that through mind action we resurrect ourselves from the dead. Modern theology insists that a loving God could never subject anyone to such punishment.¹⁰

The doctrine of eternal punishment is one that is essential to the Christian faith. Our Lord taught that the Holy Spirit would convince men of such judgment:

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment” (John 16:8).

The writer to the Hebrews stated that this doctrine was one of the foundation truths of the faith:

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment (Hebrews 6:1-2).

To a great extent, our view of eternal punishment reflects our attitude toward the wretchedness of sin. A diminished view of sin cannot fathom the severity of eternal judgment. A biblical view of sin necessitates a judgment beyond the grave. A grasp of the horrors of hell also affects our motivation in evangelism and our desire to live a pure and holy life.

Because there is so much confusion and misunderstanding of what we mean by “hell,” it is important that we study the doctrine of eternal punishment. In the Old Testament the term “hell” is used more broadly than it should be, at least in the King James Version. And in the New Testament, the term “hell” is not broad enough in the light of other biblical terms and imagery.

With these concerns, let us give our careful attention to the doctrine of eternal punishment.

Coming to Terms With Eternal Torment

Let us suppose that this week your doorbell rings and when you answer it, two very neatly dressed young men are there to share their religious views with you. If they just happen to be Jehovah’s Witnesses, one of the first subjects they will raise with you is the doctrine of hell. They will attempt to shake your faith in the Bible as it has been taught to you by showing you that there is no such thing as “hell” in the Bible. This statement, taken from one of their books, is reflective of their view of “hell”:

Many religious organizations teach that the wicked are tormented endlessly in a hellfire. But is this belief taught in God’s Word? You may know the meaning that your own particular church organization gives to “hell” … but have you ever investigated to see the meaning given it in the Scriptures? What is hell according to the Bible? …

Is hell a hot place? Do sheol and hades refer to some place where the wicked suffer after death? It is plain that they do not, for we have already seen that the dead are not conscious and therefore cannot suffer.¹¹

Because there is an element of truth in the midst of their great error (of which this is only one!), and because they use the Bible to prove their point, it is important that we look carefully at the Old Testament use of the word “hell” in the King James Version.

In the Old Testament, the principle word employed for the abode of the dead is Sheol. Unfortunately, of its 65 occurrences in the Old Testament, the King James Version translates Sheol “hell” 31 times, “grave” 31 times, and “pit” 3 times. The result is that Old Testament saints, who had a sure hope of life beyond the grave (cf. Hebrews 11), seemed to fear or experience hell:

The cords of Sheol surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me (2 Samuel 22:6).

If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there (Psalm 139:8).

… and he said, “I called out of my distress to the Lord, And He answered me. I called for help from the depth of Sheol. Thou didst hear my voice” (Jonah 2:2).

On the other hand, Sheol was also the place where the wicked would go:

The wicked will return to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God (Psalm 9:17).

Let death come deceitfully upon them; Let them go down alive to Sheol, For evil is in their dwelling, in their midst (Psalm 55:15).

The translation “hell” seems inaccurate and unfortunate in most, if not all, of the Old Testament passages where the word Sheol is encountered. Sheol seems to refer primarily to the abode of the dead, righteous or wicked, leaving the matter of their bliss or torment largely unspoken in most instances. Occasions of imminent danger are sometimes described as though death were certain, and thus they were facing Sheol (e.g. 2 Samuel 22:6).

This does not mean, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain, that the Old Testament did not speak of judgment after death. It simply was not described by the term Sheol.

Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits (Isaiah 26:19).

“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).

We must conclude, then, that in the Old Testament the term “hell” was a poor choice of words with which to render the Hebrew term Sheol. Sheol spoke of the abode of the dead with only a vague reference to the pain or pleasure experienced in this existence. There was a hope of life after death, but this was greatly clarified after the coming of our Lord.

The New Testament term most often used to render the Hebrew word Sheol was the Greek word, Hades. As is seen by its usage in the New Testament, Hades has the same general reference to the abode of the dead, whether righteous or wicked.

. . . he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay (Acts 2:31).

“And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom” (Luke 16:23).

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds (Revelation 20:13).

Generally, then, Hades, like Sheol, refers to the abode of the dead, whether righteous or wicked.¹²

No one spoke more clearly of heaven and hell, of eternal bliss and eternal torment, than our Lord. In Luke 16:19-31, He spoke of Hades, and thus of Sheol (its Hebrew synonym):

“Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, Father, that you send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers— that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead’” (Luke 16:19-31).

Prior to death, conditions were completely reversed from those after death. The rich man had all the pleasures his wealth could afford; Lazarus, in contrast, had a meager and miserable existence. It would appear that the rich man did little to ease the pain and misery of this beggar Lazarus.

We may be troubled by the contrast between the rich and the poor here. Why are we not told that Lazarus was a true believer in God, while the rich man was an infidel? The context of Luke 16 helps to answer our question. The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were scoffing at Jesus as He taught (16:14). In the context of this chapter, they were unbelievers. Their unbelief was demonstrated by their love of money but lack of concern for the poor (cf. Matthew 23:14, 16ff.). In telling this parable, Jesus clearly alluded to them, in contrast to those true believers in Jesus, whom the Pharisees disdained (cf. Luke 18:9).

At death, Lazarus was carried away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham, where he was in conscious bliss (16:22, 25). The rich man, however, was in constant agony and torment (vss. 24-25). Both were in a conscious state, and not a “soul sleep” or a state of annihilation or non-existence. Each seemed to be aware of the condition of the other. The rich man sought to ease his misery by petitioning for an act of mercy from Lazarus (verse 24).

Verse 25 explains one of the reasons why there must be some form of reward and punishment after death:

“But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.’”

Justice demanded that there be some form of reward and punishment after death, for the rich man had lived in ease and luxury, seemingly untouched by the misery of Lazarus. To everyone who looks about this world and is deeply distressed by the cruelty and injustice of men, the Bible teaches that surely there is a day of reckoning. There is coming a time when wrongs will be righted.

Such was the case with Lazarus and the rich man. Heaven and hell are the answer to the cries of men and women through the ages for justice.

We learn from this parable that the reward or punishment faced after death is determined by our decision before death. One’s choice cannot be reversed after death:

‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us’ (Luke 16:26).

There is no second chance given to those who have been sentenced to eternal torment. The decisions made in life find their eternal consequences fully carried out after death.

Perhaps the greatest agony experienced by one in eternal torment is the fear that those whom they love will follow them. I have heard people say, foolishly, that they will follow their loved ones to hell, if that is where they have gone. I have heard others glibly remark that they prefer hell because they will like the company better. With all the urgency I can communicate, let me warn you: no one who is in Hades wants the company of those still living, for they do not wish any to share their misery.

I try never to forget this text when I am preaching a funeral of an unbeliever. Whether the one who has died was saved or lost, I can say with complete sincerity that the message they would want me to preach is one of warning concerning the judgment which lies ahead. How it must grieve the lost who have died to know that a liberal preacher is speaking at their funeral service. Rather than urging men and women to repent and be saved, they lull them into a false security by making death appear to be less ugly and fearful than it is. Those who misuse the Bible read texts which speak of heaven as though it is the hope of all men, saved or lost. They speak of the love of God, but they avoid sin, righteousness, and judgment, the very truths which the Spirit of God uses to convince and convert the lost (John 16:8ff.).

Perhaps the most awe-inspiring thought of all is that the lost are not sentenced to eternal torment because of insufficient evidence, but due to willful unbelief.

But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead’ (Luke 16:31)

It is willful unbelief, not ignorance, which condemns men for eternity.

From this parable we learn that while Sheol or Hades is the abode of the dead, it can be either a place of blessing and peace (as with Lazarus) or a place of torment (as with the rich man). That is why the Old Testament could use the term generally, both for the righteous and the wicked. But there is a vastly different fate awaiting the two.¹³ How we live in this life and the choices we make now have eternal consequences.

Something very significant occurred in Sheol when our Lord was raised from the dead. As I understand it, when our Lord was raised from the grave (Sheol or Hades), He took all those Old Testament saints to be with Him in heaven. This note contained in the gospel of Matthew is one evidence of this “change of address” of the Old Testament saints:

And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many (Matthew 27:51-53).

I believe that these resurrected saints were the “first fruits” of the resurrection of our Lord, proof and assurance of our Lord’s resurrection and ours. They were, I believe, going about Jerusalem for those forty days until our Lord ascended into heaven, at which time they joined Him. We know from Paul’s writings that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8, cf. also Philippians 1:23). Those righteous who are raised before the millennium in Revelation 20 are the martyrs of the Great Tribulation (cf. Revelation 20:4). Those who are later raised at the end of the millennium are the wicked, who are cast into the lake of fire (cf. 20:5, 12-15).

Drawing these facts together, we learn that Sheol or Hades no longer contains the righteous dead, but only those who are sentenced to eternal judgment. The suffering of Sheol, while severe, is only temporary, until the wicked dead are resurrected to spend eternity apart from God (cf. Revelation 20:14).

Our Lord spoke of eternal judgment in many other ways. One of the most common terms He employed to speak of hell was the Jewish figure portrayed by the term Gehenna. This term is never found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures. In fact, it is only found twelve times in the New Testament, eleven of which are found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. The only other occurrence (James 3:6) does not come from the lips of our Lord, or emphasize the eternal damnation of the lost. Gehenna refers to the “valley of Hinnom,” which was located to the south of Jerusalem, the valley of the sons of Hinnom (cf. Joshua 15:8; Jeremiah 32:35). This was the place where Ahaz offered human sacrifices to Moloch (2 Chronicles 28:3). Jeremiah prophesied that it would be the place of God’s judgment (Jeremiah 7:32; 19:6ff.). Jewish apocalyptic writers during the intertestamental period began to speak of Gehenna as the place of the final judgment of God. When our Lord spoke to Jewish audiences, they readily understood that this term referred to the torment of the wicked.

As many have observed, Gehenna is not to be thought of in terms of a raging fire so much as a garbage dump, where all the refuse of the city was taken to be burned, including the bodies of criminals and derelicts. It is a place of waste and corruption. It is a great tragedy, which the lost must endure. There, forever, the lost will contemplate their rejection of God and their eternal destiny apart from God. Gehenna draws our attention not so much to the physical pains of the flames, but to the mental anguish of the waste involved when man rejects and resists God.¹⁴

Besides employing the terms Hades and Gehenna, our Lord spoke of eternal damnation by the use of various imagery. Let me briefly mention some of these. In Matthew, those religious persons who professed faith without possessing it were cast from the presence of our Lord (7:23). Apostates, in the next chapter of Matthew (8:12), were cast into “outer darkness,” where there would be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (cf. also 22:13, 25:30). In Matthew 10:28, God is said to be the One Who “is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” In chapter 13 of Matthew’s gospel, another reference to eternal punishment is found:

“So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:49-50).

In chapter 18 of Matthew, our Lord stated that the punishment of one who caused a “little one” to stumble would be worse than placing a millstone around his neck and drowning him (18:6). In Mark, “hell” is described as an “unquenchable fire “ (9:42,43).

Jesus was not the only one to speak of eternal punishment for the wicked. While they rarely employed the terms Hades or Gehenna, the writers of the New Testament spoke frequently on the subject of eternal judgment. Listed below are passages of which I am presently aware:¹⁵

Acts 2—Here, while not explicitly stated, the force of the phenomenon of Pentecost was shown by Peter to be a partial fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel in chapter 2. The “day of the Lord” was a day of judgment, but whoever called upon the name of the Lord would be saved (Joel 2:31-32). Peter’s audience understood that he was warning them of the wrath of God because they had put to death God’s Messiah. On them, God’s wrath would come. No wonder they cried out, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37; cf. also 24:15).

Romans 2:5-10—But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Romans 6:23—For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:10-11—For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.

I realize that the immediate context refers to the fact that all true believers will have to give account to God, but I also think that the “fear of the Lord” may include the realization that the unsaved must endure the wrath of God, a strong incentive to evangelism.

Galatians 6:7-8—Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life.

The principle underscored here is that judgment involves the reaping of what we have sown. Sin has consequences!

Philippians 1:28— … in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God.

Philippians 3:19-21— … whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

1 Thessalonians 5:3, 9—While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. … For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10—For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

Two significant points here are that sinners must suffer the consequences for the evil they have perpetrated upon the saints (verse 6), and that “hell” is separation from God, eternally (verse 9).

Hebrews 6:1-2—We have already quoted this verse earlier, evidencing the fact that eternal judgment is one of the “fundamentals of the faith.”

Hebrews 10:27, 29, 39— … but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. … How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? … But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

James 4:12—There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? God is both Lawgiver and Judge. He is the One Who has the power to justify or to condemn, to preserve or to destroy.

2 Peter 2:4-9, 12, 17—For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, … But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, … These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved.

Revelation 14:9-11—And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:12-15—And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8—“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Attempting to draw all of the biblical data together, we can say that one’s eternal torment is forever sealed at the time of death. Unbelievers immediately enter into the temporary torment of Sheol or Hades, from which they will eventually be cast into the lake of fire. They are in constant and conscious agony, which endures for eternity. They will have no second chance to change their status. There will probably be physical pain, but surely there will be the mental anguish of knowing they are forever separated from the living and loving God, Whom they have rejected.

Objections to the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment

Since hell is not a popular subject, we are not surprised to find men resisting it and questioning how it could possibly be so. It is therefore necessary to consider some of the major and most frequent objections to the doctrine of eternal damnation.

(1) Hell is unduely harsh. Many are horrified when, in the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites, who inhabited the land they were to possess (e.g. Deuteronomy 20:17-18). How could a good and loving God ever order such a slaughter? The same kind of reaction is experienced whenever Christians begin to speak of hell in biblical terms of eternal, irreversible torment. To use a well-known constitutional phrase, such a fate is “cruel and unusual.” But is it?

The first thing that must be pointed out is that such a reaction reflects in the critic a failure to see sin in its true light. When we say that the punishment does not fit the crime, and if we think the punishment is too harsh, we have revealed that we do not take the crime seriously enough. The Canaanites, for example, were so wicked and immoral that their sexual practices could not be described in this message without causing some to stumble (cf. Ephesians 5:12). It was therefore necessary to destroy every living creature, for even the beasts were a part of their immorality (cf. Leviticus 20, especially verses 15-16).

Stop and think about it for a moment. Suppose that the doctor found you had cancer in your foot and told you that in order to save your life, he would have to amputate. Now I know that a foot is a very wonderful thing, but do you think the doctors and the hospital are unduly harsh in insisting that it be cut off? Certainly not if it means that your life can be spared. The spiritual cancer of sin, prevalent in men, must be dealt with severely because it is deadly. We must learn to see sin as God views it, and then we will not think hell too cruel.

Secondly, we do not properly understand God if we perceive Him as George Burns, for example, in the movie, “Oh God.” God is not a “good old boy.” He is not some kind of heavenly softie, Who is so full of love that He cannot bring Himself to deal with men in judgment. He is love, but He is also a God of justice and wrath when confronted with sin.¹⁶ If your God does not hate sin and deal with it, your god is not the God of the Bible (cf. Nahum 1:2-8; Romans 1:18; 2:5; 5:9; 12:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:16; 5:9; Revelation 6:16ff.; 16:19, etc.).

I find it interesting to observe that the two major objections which men have to the existence of God answer each other. Their first objection is: How can there be a God when there is so much evil? The second is: How can there be a good God Who would condemn men and women to an eternal hell? In the very simplest of explanations, we must say that there is a good God Who has allowed evil and Who has chosen to deal with that evil by eternal damnation. How, may I ask, can God be good and not deal decisively and justly with evil?

Finally, may I remind you that the good news of the Gospel is that all of the torments of eternal suffering have been borne by the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. He bore all of the wrath of God so that we might not experience it:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. … As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:4-6, 11. Cf. also 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 1:22-25; Hebrews 9:27-28).

Do you really suppose that God would have poured out any greater wrath upon His Son than was absolutely necessary? Whatever men will experience in hell, Jesus Christ has already suffered on Calvary. This means that while hell is severe, it is no more severe than is required. And more than this, since Christ has already suffered eternal torment so that we need not bear the penalty of sin, hell is only required for those who refuse the salvation already achieved by Christ.

(2) Hell is unfair. Some of those who challenge the goodness of God because of a literal hell would be willing to admit that all men, to some degree, are sinners. But they would hasten to add that we are not all equally sinful. And that, I believe, is true. Hell, however, is not a state of misery in which all men suffer equally. If this were true, hell would certainly seem unfair. Should the heathen in Africa be judged with the same intensity, who have never heard the name of Christ or the message of the gospel? The Scriptures tell us this will not be:

“The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:41).

“And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more” (Luke 12:47-48).

Should a man like Adolph Hitler, who was responsible for the murder of millions of Jews, suffer the same torment as an unbelieving German, who sought to spare the Jews from persecution and death? The scripture tells us,

. . . who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation (Mark 12:40).

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds (Revelation 20:13; cf. also Romans 1-3; 2 Thessalonians 1:6; Revelation 16:5-6).

Hell is just condemnation because there are degrees of torment meted out in accordance with the revelation received and the actions of each individual. In one sense, we might liken hell to an amusement park. Everyone who enters must pay the price of admission. From that point on, the rides can be enjoyed to the extent that one is willing to pay for them. In hell, the “price of admission” is the rejection of Christ and remaining in our sins. The amount of torment suffered, however, is dependent upon the knowledge rejected and the sins which those individuals have committed.

Some would hasten to complain that hell isn’t fair because it cannot be avoided. If we believe that God is sovereign in the process of salvation, then God has chosen those who will be saved, and the rest, being totally depraved, will go to hell.

God is sovereign in the process of salvation. All whom He chooses will be saved, while those He rejects will be forever condemned:

The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil (Proverbs 16:4).

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. … What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory (Romans 9:18, 22-23).

We must not deny that God must first choose to save, and then by His sovereign process draw the lost to Himself. Apart from this, no one is saved. Yet we must hasten to say that this is not the entire story. Man is a sinner deserving of God’s wrath (Romans 3:10-18). Those who are condemned have received some revelation concerning God, which they have willfully rejected (cf. Romans 1-3). The Bible clearly teaches that man suffers God’s wrath because he deserves it:

And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, O Holy One, because Thou didst judge these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and Thou hast given them blood to drink. They deserve it” (Revelation 16:5-6).

Besides this, man goes to eternal torment because he has chosen to do so. Hell is not only God giving men what they deserve; He is giving them what they want:

But they are not arbitrary inflictions; they represent, rather, a conscious growing into the state in which one has chosen to be. The unbeliever has preferred to be by himself, without God, defying God, having God against him, and he shall have his preference. Nobody stands under the wrath of God save those who have chosen to do so.¹⁷

When we say that hell is unfair, we mean that it is unjust. In effect, we are saying that God is not just in sending anyone to hell. But let us remember that justice is the very reason all should be condemned forever, apart from God. Whenever we make a plea based upon justice, we must be aware that it is justice which condemns us. Only grace saves men. If it is God’s justice that explains the reason for a hell, it is God’s unsearchable grace that provides a heaven for sinners such as you and I.

Conclusion

We must conclude that the doctrine of eternal damnation is one that is widely taught in the Bible, not so much by the term Sheol as by many other terms and images. Jesus spoke of it more than any other. The apostles, too, warned men of its certainty. Anyone who believes the Bible to be a word from God must take the doctrine of eternal punishment seriously. Let me suggest several levels of application which this doctrine necessitates.

First, if you have never come to a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, the Bible urges you to do so without delay:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16-18).

And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

Eternal judgment, as we have said, is not necessary because Jesus Christ has already experienced the wrath of God on behalf of sinners. If you trust in Him as your substitute, Who bore your sins and Who offers you His righteousness, you will be saved from the wrath to come. But if you reject His work on your behalf, you will be condemned on the basis of your works (Revelation 20:13).

Christians should learn to think of hell in the broader terms of eternal judgment, especially in the light of the inaccurate use of “hell” in the Old Testament (that is, in the King James Version). Hell is not just the Sheol of the Old Testament, nor the Hades of the New, it is Gehenna, the lake of fire, and a great number of other images. Eternal torment was taught most clearly by our Lord Himself, Who endured the torment of eternal separation from God for us. Hell is described by a wide variety of highly figurative images, and while it is a very literal and painful state of existence, it should be expected to be an existence beyond our present ability to comprehend, just as heaven must be.¹⁸

For the Christian, the doctrine of eternal judgment should be an incentive for worship and praise. The greatness of our salvation is measured by the greatness of the judgment from which we have been delivered by our Lord. Whenever we contemplate that from which we were saved, it should inspire us to worship our Great Redeemer, Who bore the sorrows of hell for us that we might have life and hope in Him.

The doctrine of eternal damnation should cause those who are saved to take sin more seriously. Like unbelievers, Christians are inclined to minimize sin. Our Lord died for sin. Hell was intended for sin. Our Lord urged His disciples to take sin seriously:

“And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, (where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.) And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell, (where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.) And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:43-48).

Our Lord was instructing us that sin leads to judgment, and that whatever steps are necessary to avoid it should be taken, no matter how painful or sacrificial.

Sin in the believer’s life is no less offensive to God. In one sense, it is a greater offense, for the Christian has the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome it (Romans 8:1-4). If the Christian persists in sin, he reflects an attitude of flippancy toward sin, and worse than this, he lightly esteems the death of Christ for those sins. Christ’s work on the cross is not valued rightly when the Christian is not grieved by the sin in his life. While the sins of the Christian are forgiven, past, present, and future, God must still deal with His children in discipline for willful rebellion:

It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).

Future judgment is intended to be an incentive for purity in the lives of the saints:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! (2 Peter 3:10-12).

Finally, the doctrine of eternal judgment should motivate the Christian to take evangelism seriously. If men and women are going to spend eternity in torment, apart from the living God, it is imperative that we warn them of the danger they are in. As the apostle Paul put it, “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, …” (2 Corinthians 5:11).¹⁹ And when we share the good news of the gospel, let us not omit the fundamental fact of eternal judgment, for it is to this that the Spirit of God will bear witness, convincing the lost of the imminent danger of unbelief:

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (John 16:8-11).

---

9 “The Crisis of the Church,” Christianity Today, Harold Lindsell, September 11, 1970, p. 4ff.

10 Cf.: “The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error” (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), a pamphlet compiled by Keith L. Brooks.

11 The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1968), p. 41.

12 “If this interpretation of sheol is correct, its usage does not give us a picture of the state of the dead in gloom, darkness, chaos, or silence, unremembered; unable to praise God, knowing nothing. Such a view verges on unscriptural soul sleep. Rather, this view gives us a picture of a typical Palestinian tomb, dark, dusty, with mingled bones and where ‘this poor lisping stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.’ All the souls of men do not go to one place. But all people go to the grave.” R. Laird Harris, “Sheol,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), II p. 893.

13 The Jehovah’s Witnesses have an explanation for this parable, but a very poor one:

“In this illustration the rich man stood for the class of religious leaders who rejected and later killed Jesus. Lazarus pictured the common people who accepted God’s Son. The Bible shows that death can be used as a symbol, representing a great change in one’s life or course of action. (Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6.) A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually, and they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham, Jehovah God. At the same time, the false religious leaders ‘died’ with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works (Acts 7:51-57). So this illustration does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.” The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 43.

14 The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that gehenna stands for the everlasting destruction of annihilation:

“So when Jesus said that persons would be thrown into Gehenna for their bad deeds, what did he mean? Not that they would be tormented forever. Jesus used that valley (Gehenna) of fire and brimstone as a proper symbol of everlasting destruction. That is what his first-century listeners understood it to mean. The ‘lake of fire’ mentioned in Revelation has a similar meaning, not conscious torment, but ‘second death,’ everlasting death and destruction. It is evident that this ‘lake’ is a symbol, because death and hell (hades) are thrown into it. Such things cannot literally be burned, but they can be done away with, or destroyed.--Revelation 20:14; 21:8.” Ibid., p. 44.

15 Cf. H. Buis, “Hell,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), III, p. 116, and Edward Fudge, “Putting Hell In Its Place,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1976, pp. 16-17.

16 I would strongly recommend a careful reading of the chapter entitled “The Wrath of God” in J. I. Packer’s excellent book, Knowing God (Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), pp. 134ff.

17 Packer, Knowing God, p. 139.

18 “‘Hell’ is one New Testament picture portraying the fate of the unsaved. But, as we have seen, it is not the only one; it is not even the primary one. Nor is it the definitive one. God’s Word is rich in illustrations and terminology describing the divine punishment of the Age to Come. All serve a useful purpose. The very variety of expression adds to our limited conception. Let us be warned—and stop where God has stopped. To do otherwise, is, according to Revelation 22:18, to risk the very punishment we seek to understand.” Edward Fudge, “Putting Hell In Its Place,” p. 17.

This article by Fudge is excellent in drawing our attention to the fact that heaven and hell are a part of an age that is yet future, and as such, beyond our present ability to comprehend, except in part. I highly recommend this article to you.

Packer also comments, “We need, therefore, to remember that the key to interpreting the many biblical passages, often highly figurative, which picture the divine King and Judge as active against men in wrath and vengeance, is to realize that what God is hereby doing is no more than to ratify and confirm judgments which those whom He ‘visits’ have already passed on themselves by the course they have chosen to follow. This appears in the story of God’s first act of wrath towards man, in Genesis 3, where we learn that Adam had already chosen to hide from God, and keep clear of His presence, before ever God drove him from the garden; and the same principle applies throughout the Bible.” Packer, Knowing God, p. 139.

19 I realize that Paul may be talking about the fear which he has of standing before God at the Bema seat of Christ, giving account of his stewardship, but I think the element of eternal torment for the lost may also be involved.