Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2020-08-03 Evidence for a Typology of Christ in the Book of Esther L. Clayton Fausett Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Fausett, L. Clayton, "Evidence for a Typology of Christ in the Book of Esther" (2020). Theses and Dissertations. 8654. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8654 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Evidence for a Typology of Christ in the Book of Esther L. Clayton Fausett A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Deryle W. Lonsdale, Chair Cynthia Leah Hallen Donald W. Parry Department of Linguistics Brigham Young University Copyright © 2020 L. Clayton Fausett All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Evidence for a Typology of Christ in the Book of Esther L. Clayton Fausett Department of Linguistics, BYU Master of Arts Initially the Esther text was disputed and discarded by the early Church fathers. More recently in the 20th and 21st centuries Christian scholarship has dramatized, distorted, culturalized, feminized, or even politicized it. Indeed, the book has scarcely been defined as divine or devotional. While it has received condemnation from scholars, theologians like Martin Luther concluded that it would be best eliminated from the canon altogether. This thesis seeks to bring the text of Esther back into consideration for valid christological interpretation by presenting evidence of a typology of Christ as exhibited in God’s plan of salvation. In making such an assessment, this thesis presents a lexically-based evaluation from the Hebrew content of various words and phrases from the text, as well as within the larger biblical text. Determining their meaning and usage will serve to elucidate whether the text strategically incorporates christological connections evidencing of this claim. I consider and apply a popular typologically related assessment of figurative language and symbolism, which also provides diagnostic criteria for typologies. This research thus entails a broad and varied examination of the figurative language and diverse use of symbolism including allusion, intertextual referencing, narrative sequencing, and rhetorical devices among others. Consequently, this broadly-based analysis provides a rich array of evidence that supports a valid typology for Christ in His various roles including His messianic kingship within God’s plan of salvation for mankind, as well as other key concepts within God’s plan, or associated roles, for example that of Satan. Keywords: Book of Esther, Christology, typology, symbolism, Biblical Hebrew ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is a culmination of a journey through many doors. Greatest thanks is due God—ever present at the door—who provides from time to time a glimpse of truth to inspire and set one’s feet on a path for greater understanding. I express heartfelt recognition to my committee members who played pivotal roles in optimizing this quest. Their own devotion to God and committed love of teaching sets them apart from beyond mere educators as true mentors in life. Their insights, support, and tutelage have been invaluable, but mostly I will cherish their examples and friendship. First, I am ever grateful to Dr. Donald Parry, whose love of God’s word and desire to share it with all who are willing initially opened the door to my study of biblical Hebrew—a long held desire of mine. It was his gracious offer and inspiring instruction which first set my feet on the journey through the book of Esther. Next my appreciation is extended to Dr. Cynthia Hallen who with earnest excitement willingly accepted to sojourn with me, even reopening her door from retirement to personally complete the journey with me. She did this with the same passionate enthusiasm she constantly exhibited throughout my endeavors, as she has with all her students. Lastly, I extend my sincere and deep gratitude to Dr. Deryle Lonsdale, who as my chair never had his door shut but rather held it wide open with great encouragement and effort, never allowing obstacles to impede the path I had begun. His selfless sacrifice of countless hours of advice, assistance and the value of his wisdom, direction and expertise made what often seemed impossible—possible. Lastly, thanks must foremost be accorded my family, first to my husband, Steven, whose fortifying influence and constant loving support continues to be what presses me forward on whatever life path I undertake. Next, to my daughter, Reagan who I am grateful still resides home, for her patient loving support along with that of my other children, Matthew, Spencer, Michaela, Morgan, and David. These are they who hold the key to the door of my heart’s focus, and have generously waited on the sideline for this journey to conclude. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Religious and Secular Attitudes ............................................................................ 3 2.2 Corrupting influences yielding a more secular text .............................................. 6 2.3 Focus on theistic evaluation of the text ................................................................. 9 2.4 Sample findings due to prior research ................................................................. 10 2.5 Typological analysis ............................................................................................ 15 3 APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Formatting conventions ....................................................................................... 23 3.2 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 26 4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 28 ESTHER 1 .................................................................................................................... 28 ESTHER 2 .................................................................................................................... 64 ESTHER 3 .................................................................................................................. 107 ESTHER 4 .................................................................................................................. 130 ESTHER 5 .................................................................................................................. 162 ESTHER 6 .................................................................................................................. 174 ESTHER 7 .................................................................................................................. 186 ESTHER 8 .................................................................................................................. 201 ESTHER 9 .................................................................................................................. 222 ESTHER 10 ................................................................................................................ 257 5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 267 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 273 v 1 INTRODUCTION The Book of Esther is often considered unacceptable or an “opus non gratum” (Bush, 1998, p. 1). For example, Esther is one of only two books in the Hebrew Bible that does not explicitly mention God or convey the common devotional Jewish practices. Relegated at times with disdain amidst the Christian canon, it has also evoked no cordiality from non-Christian critics. The theologian Martin Luther “criticized how it Judaized too greatly as well as leaned too heavily to pagan impropriety,” leading him to contemptuously conclude it would best be eliminated altogether from the canon (Filson, 1957, p. 10). Pfeiffer wrote, “such a secular book hardly deserves a place in the canon of the scriptures” (Pfeiffer, 1957, p. 743). My research provides evidence contrary to these opinions by validating how the book of Esther actually serves as a substantial typological witness for Christ in His pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal roles of salvation. This is exemplified primarily through the tandem roles of Esther and Mordecai. I conduct a lexical evaluation, often based on Hebrew content, of various words and phrases within the text to ascertain their meaning. Using this investigation of word usage in conjunction with an examination of symbolism, narrative