ESTHER 7:4 -- A REASON OR AN EXCUSE?

In the midst of the several historical, ethical, and literary issues involved in the book of Esther, there is one verse that seems to get lost in the shuffle, and that is the last half of Esther 7:4. It contains the part of Esther's plea to the king in which she attempts to explain why she had not revealed her Jewish heritage to him until then. The first part of her explanation is fairly clear to translate such as “If we had merely been sold as slaves, I would have remained silent...”

Esther starts out with what appears to be just a hypothetical case, but there is another possibility expressed by E.A. Phillips: “Haman may have intentionally played on the similar sounds of 'bd (le abbedam, 'to annihilate them') and 'bd (la'abadim, 'for slaves'). If so, that would explain his appeal to the value of not allowing this unnamed people to 'rest.' It might also provide an interpretive framework for understanding Esther's reference when she revealed Haman's treachery at the second banquet to the effect that if they had only been sold into slavery, she would have kept silent (Esther 7:4). And finally, it might explain why the king seemed so entirely obtuse about the decree to which Esther referred. Perhaps he had been led to believe that Haman's intent was enslavement, when really it was wholesale murder.”

Of course, that explanation for Esther's comment presumes that somehow she was aware of the king's mistaken understanding of Haman's request and that the king had not bothered to read the substance of the subsequent decree written by Haman. The first presupposition seems unlikely in view of the fact that she had not been in the king's presence in the previous thirty days (see Esther 4:11).

But the real difficulties come in with the final clause of Esther 7:4. Moore explains: “Unfortunately, her rationale is far from clear, probably because of corruption in the MT [standard Hebrew text].” He calls the phrase in question “the most difficult clause to translate in all of Esther.” Bendor-Samuel agrees and elaborates on the reason by stating that it is “a very obscure clause in the Hebrew as there is doubt over three of the six words in the clause!” Similarly, Baldwin says that “the last clause is obscure. The word translated affliction elsewhere in the book always means 'enemy'...so far no satisfactory solution has been proposed.”

One of the disputed words is benezeq, appearing only here in the NT. Moore feels that the best explanation as to its meaning is that of Haupt who feels that neqez corresponds to the Aramaic naziqa, meaning “to be easily angered” and the noun nazaqa (“sudden anger, a fit of anger”).

Here is a selection of English translations representing the various ways this clause has been rendered along with some comments from scholars:

Septuagint: “for the slander is not worthy of the king's court.”

This translation is a good example of Baldwin's contention that this “is an ancient difficulty for the early versions [which] do not provide any help.” No modern translations agree with this particular reading.

King James Version: “although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage.”

Baldwin explains this cryptic wording to mean “although the enemy cannot compensate for all that the king will lose in tribute when they have been killed.” She says that at least this version is consistent in keeping the meaning of the word translated 'enemy'. However, “it is not satisfactory because it does not explain why Esther would have held her tongue, and this the context demands.”

Revised Version: “although the adversary [i.e. Haman] could not have compensated for the king's damage.”

Clines ranks this among the older versions which translate hassar as 'the enemy' rather than 'the distress,' meaning that “the damage the king would sustain if he were to lose income from the Jews' taxes.” But this same general translation is alternatively felt to refer to the shame the king would suffer if his queen were dishonored in the process. (Leith) Regarding this second understanding, it is hard to see how the king would have avoided this sort of shame even if she were only sold into slavery instead.

Other versions to stress the potential loss to the king as her reason for speaking out include The Jerusalem Bible, The Living Bible, and New Revised Standard Version.

Revised Standard Version: “for our affliction is not to be compared with the loss to the king.”

To this rendering, Baldwin replies, “The RSV is not satisfactory because it fails to keep the grammatical connection between the clauses, and does not make the sense any clearer.”

New English Bible: “then our plight would not be such as to injure the king's interest.”

But Clines says that “this does not adequately express the force of soweh, 'appropriate, fitting'.”

New International Version, etc: The safest way to translate the verse is just to say that Esther wouldn't have bothered the king with her own problems unless it were a literal matter of life and death. That is also the general tack taken by The Message, TEV, NIV, and AB as well as commentators such as Bendor-Samuel, Clines, and Jeffery, just to name a few.

As one last comment to make, you must forgive me for being a little dubious concerning Esther's stated reason for remaining silent earlier. However it is understood, she gives the impression that she was only speaking out now due to the loss the king, and perhaps her people also, would be suffering. But the fact is that she was fearful of approaching the king at all due to the risk to her own life (see Esther 4:9-11), and she only agreed to do so after Mordecai had first (1) warned her that the decree meant that she would die in any case (vv. 12-13), (2) shamed her into remembering the impending doom for all the other Jews if she did not act (v. 14a), and (3) flattered her with the idea that maybe God had singled her out for this important role (v. 14b).

And Mordecai himself does not emerge from this story entirely unscathed. Remember that it was he himself who told Esther not to reveal her Jewish identity to the king when they were first married. We are not told what his underlying motive for this advice was, but it is likely that Mordecai wished to make sure that he kept her as a valuable ally in the Persian court. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the king had known his wife was Jewish when Haman first approached him with the idea of exterminating the Jews (or alternatively, selling them into slavery if one accepts Phillips' explanation). There is a good chance that the potential crisis would not have even arisen in the first place. So in a way, Mordecai is likely a partially responsible party in the initial decree being approved by the king.