THE BOOK OF ESTHER AND THE CRUCIFIXION
by Jeremy Chance Springfield
3/2/2026
One of Hebrew Scripture’s most Messianic books has also historically been the recipient of considerable contention. The view of the book of Esther among the religious leaders of antiquity is one of tense disagreement oscillating between advocacy and condemnation. Perhaps more than any other Biblical text, the book of Esther has had to endure an uncommon strain imposed upon it by the most critiquing of minds.
An irony exists here, for the account recorded in its pages is equally polarized: those who wish to see the Jews of Persia annihilated from the land versus those who are desperately grasping for any hope of surviving the unfair eradication appointed by royal consent. The book of Esther is thus a microcosm of the historical division that has existed concerning its status among the rest of inspired Scripture.
Examples of its turbulent treatment are encountered in Jewish texts. The Talmud Bavli, in Megillah 7a, devotes significant attention to its disputed status.
The text goes on to reveal a significant concern among the sages immediately after its composition if they were to affirm the spiritual authority of the book of Esther in its observance of Purim:
The fear was of Jewish mistreatment by the Gentiles if the book and its pro-self-defense tone was officially lauded as inspired by the ruling sages. A further view was proposed concerning the status of the book of Esther that approached it with an effort to balance the conflicting sentiment surrounding it.
The asserted reconciliation is that the declaration of the unlikely preservation of the Jews of Persia is an inspired act, but the text itself is considered uninspired. This is claimed by referencing the idea that only scrolls of recognized inspired texts make the reader’s hands unclean [see: Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 14a, where the decree in brief was intended to make individuals to honor the sanctity of the Biblical scrolls by giving thought to where they should be stored and a person’s own ritual cleanliness status before touching them].
This opposing state admittedly presents an unnatural tension regarding how the entire matter is handled. Therefore, the passage continues to attempt to resolve the problem and ultimately leaves it with this claim:
This opposing state admittedly presents an unnatural tension regarding how the entire matter is handled. Therefore, the passage continues to attempt to resolve the problem and ultimately leaves it with this claim:
The Talmud’s closing comment on the matter is that the text of Esther does impart impurity if handled—that is, it should be esteemed as inspired Holy Writ.
As if to reinforce the embattled perspective it endured even in Judaism, a salient comment was made about it by a late professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. The scholar labeled Esther as an “opus non gratum”—an ‘unacceptable work’—when judged alongside the rest of traditionally accepted Scriptural texts [see: Bush, Frederic W. ‘The Book of Esther: "Opus non gratum" in the Christian Canon.’ Bulletin for Biblical Research, pg 39. 1998].
The traditional Christian view of the book is that it was included among the earliest recorded lists of Hebrew Scriptures. This was a view chronicled by the 2nd-century Christian bishop, Melito of Sardis, and preserved in the work Historia Ecclesiastica by the 4th-century author Eusebius.
The traditional Christian view of the book is that it was included among the earliest recorded lists of Hebrew Scriptures. This was a view chronicled by the 2nd-century Christian bishop, Melito of Sardis, and preserved in the work Historia Ecclesiastica by the 4th-century author Eusebius.
In scathing contrast to the acceptance from Christianity are the words of the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, whose loathsome sentiment towards Esther is recorded in Tischreden (“Table Talk”).
It should be clarified that this extreme view from Martin Luther is riddled with error, as no ban has existed in Judaism concerning reading the book of Esther before a certain age, nor is it esteemed beyond the rest of Scripture for some imagined mystical status. Even so, these wild sentiments emphasize Esther’s unique standing that has existed throughout the ages. It is a veritable stumbling-block of a Biblical text. The book has been a text both beloved and berated.
This is an unusual situation. Apocryphal outliers and a plethora of pseudepigrapha have historically lacked any substantial support to make them truly divisive. However, to have a text widely read and broadly esteemed that is simultaneously vilified and rejected is a special position worthy of attention.
An intrinsic foolishness abides in this bizarre tension underlying the book of Esther. What is the purpose in engaging with such material if its nature is one of such paradox? The truth of the matter is that a text deemed holy by a faith and deemed profane by those still within the boundaries of said faith should be a signal that there is something unique about it that deserves exploration rather than assuming one side or the other is correct.
This study, therefore, will approach this bizarre aspect of the book of Esther and attempt to provide a perspective that honors the tension existing in it by affirming a similar situation surrounding another spiritual matter of great consequence: the crucifixion of the Messiah as depicted in the New Testament.
An intrinsic foolishness abides in this bizarre tension underlying the book of Esther. What is the purpose in engaging with such material if its nature is one of such paradox? The truth of the matter is that a text deemed holy by a faith and deemed profane by those still within the boundaries of said faith should be a signal that there is something unique about it that deserves exploration rather than assuming one side or the other is correct.
This study, therefore, will approach this bizarre aspect of the book of Esther and attempt to provide a perspective that honors the tension existing in it by affirming a similar situation surrounding another spiritual matter of great consequence: the crucifixion of the Messiah as depicted in the New Testament.
How could the book of Esther possibly align with the crucifixion of Yeshua as a spiritual stumbling-block? The first sentence of this study made the assertion that the book is one of the most Messianic in all of Hebrew Scripture, and so to appreciate the inherent link, one must consider now how the crucifixion of the Messiah was assessed in antiquity beyond the boundaries of faith, as recorded in the Aramaic Peshitta’s text of 1st Corinthians 1:21-23.
|
21 For on account that in the wisdom of the Deity, the world—by wisdom—did not know the Deity, it has pleased the Deity that by the absurdity of preaching shall those believing be enlivened,
22 on account that the Yihudaye request signs, and the Armaye seek wisdom, 23 yet we are preaching the Messiah after crucifixion—a stumbling-block to the Yihudaye, and to the Armaye, absurdity. |
Paul’s claim is that the Creator’s wisdom decreed some truths will be concealed in an offensive and ridiculous manner to thwart the conceits of prideful men. He asserts this is the very situation occurring with the continued promotion of a Messiah after he was crucified. It is problematic to everyone whose hearts have not had that revelation made known to them.
For Jewish and Gentile people alike, who are relying on the logic of personal wisdom to make sense of things, advocating for a Messiah who was crucified is a preposterous idea. Follow a failed Messiah? Unthinkable, and yet, that is exactly the call being made.
Even so, Paul makes an important emphasis a couple verses later in 1st Corinthians 1:25.
|
[This is] on account that the absurdity of the Deity is wiser than the sons of man, and the weakness of the Deity is stronger than the sons of man. |
|
An incredible claim is presented in these words: the Creator is of such exalted nature that even a in the act of being foolish He is beyond the most erudite wisdom of man. The view towards the person of Yeshua being the Messiah after having suffered the shame and ridicule of crucifixion is not an easy one to reconcile with logic. It requires an individual to set aside what we think we know about how the Holy One operates in the realm of reality and instead be willing to learn the supernal wisdom that only comes from the seemingly absurd side of faith. Wrestling with such an idea is an act of foolishness that conceals a far greater wisdom.
This means being prepared to understand the text in ways that are unreasonable if from any other approach. If the reader is willing to look with untainted eyes, then the special situation surrounding the book of Esther will become obvious as a powerful link to the absurdity of the Messiah being crucified.
To begin, the book of Esther has its roots firmly in the Torah. The origin of the wicked Haman the Agagite is founded in Exodus 17 and the vicious attack of Amalek against Israel, but the book itself is prophetically planted in another part of the Torah: Deuteronomy 31:16-18 holds the key to beginning to understand.
This means being prepared to understand the text in ways that are unreasonable if from any other approach. If the reader is willing to look with untainted eyes, then the special situation surrounding the book of Esther will become obvious as a powerful link to the absurdity of the Messiah being crucified.
To begin, the book of Esther has its roots firmly in the Torah. The origin of the wicked Haman the Agagite is founded in Exodus 17 and the vicious attack of Amalek against Israel, but the book itself is prophetically planted in another part of the Torah: Deuteronomy 31:16-18 holds the key to beginning to understand.
|
16 And YHWH said to Mosheh, “See! You shall sleep with your fathers, and this people shall rise up, whore [after] other deities of [the] strangers of the land whereof you go in its midst, and shall abandon Me, and break My covenant which I cut [with] him.
|
17 And My anger shall be kindled against him in that day, and I shall abandon them, and I shall conceal My face from them, and they shall be consumed, and myriads of evils and troubles shall find them. And it shall be said in that day, ‘Are not these evils come upon us because our Deity is not in our midst?’
18 And I shall certainly conceal My face in that day concerning all the evil which was done—that they turned to other deities.”
18 And I shall certainly conceal My face in that day concerning all the evil which was done—that they turned to other deities.”
The English translation does not provide the reader with what is needed to perceive the deeper reality embedded here in the Torah. Rather, the Hebrew text holds the insights into the topic at hand. Consider a few of the terms found here in the Hebrew text.
These phrases of VEHISTARTI “and I shall conceal” and HASTEIR ASTIR “I shall certainly conceal” are both conjugations of the term SATHAR “conceal.”
The term makes an appearance again a few verses later in Deuteronomy 32:20.
|
I shall conceal My face from them. I shall see what their end shall be; for they are a generation perverse, and in them is no belief.
|
|
In this passage it is conjugated as ASTIRAH “I shall conceal.”
All of these are of note in that the context involves the people of Israel being exiled into another land and judged harshly for refusing to repent of blatant sins. This is essentially the exact situation the Jews of Persia are experiencing in the book of Esther. The passage from Deuteronomy is shown to be a prophecy fulfilled in the pages of Esther. In fact, the name Esther, if translated according to Hebrew, is pronounced as ESTEIR and literally is from the same root of SATHAR, and thus means “The Concealed One.”
The actual name of the book in its Hebrew rendering is also worth explaining, as it acts as a meaningful gate to the rest of this study. It is MEGILLAT ESTEIR “the scroll of Esther.”
While this would at first seem like a very straightforward presentation of the idea of a “book of Esther,” the truth is that something more is hinted at in this rendering of MEGILLAT ESTEIR. Whereas the name Esther / ESTEIR has the meaning of “The Concealed One,” the term MEGILLAT is a conjugation of the term GALAH, meaning “revelation.”
The idea of “revelation” behind MEGILLAT is that a scroll is unrolled to reveal its text. This means that a more literal meaning of MEGILLAT ESTEIR would be “The Revelation of the Concealed.” Therefore, in the words used to describe the book there are two contrasting thoughts: an obscuring and an exposing. This is basically indicative of the way the book has been treated in Judaism and Christianity by various positions that sought to either diminish it or to extol it.
What this indicates is that something deeper is occurring with the book than is perceptible from surface-level assessments of it. Its contested nature is suggestive of it containing a more arcane spiritual truth than might at first be assumed. To better appreciate what is happening, we must turn to another verse from the Torah that also holds two opposing concepts in a harmonious manner.
Deuteronomy 29:28 (29 in most English versions) has a fascinating reading and an even more intriguing feature in the Hebrew text.
|
The concealed [matters] are for YHWH our Deity, and the revealed [matters] are for us and for our sons until forever, to do all the words of this Torah.
|
This is a straightforward statement: what is concealed concerns the Creator and is beyond the limits of our understanding. What is revealed concerns His people so that we can be obedient to the Creator’s will. The Hebrew text breaks it down in this way.
The Torah’s text thus has both terms that are eventually used to refer to the scroll of Esther as MEGILLAT ESTEIR “the Revelation of the Concealed”—HANNISTAROT “the concealed [matters]” and HANNIGLOT “the revealed [matters].” This implies an implicit link to the book and the deeper purpose it holds as the spiritual source behind the division it has been met with over the millennia.
Beyond the textual reading linking it to the book of Esther, the Torah’s verse here also possesses a very unusual feature that also bears upon our topic: a series of “points” of ink are located above the phrase LANU ULVANEINU A—, which reads: “for us and for our sons un—.” They have been digitally highlighted for emphasis in the included photo from a Torah scroll.
Beyond the textual reading linking it to the book of Esther, the Torah’s verse here also possesses a very unusual feature that also bears upon our topic: a series of “points” of ink are located above the phrase LANU ULVANEINU A—, which reads: “for us and for our sons un—.” They have been digitally highlighted for emphasis in the included photo from a Torah scroll.
These “points” are not mistakes from the quill of the sofer (scribe). Accidents inevitably occur for every scribe, and those unintended errors must be removed from the scroll as soon as the sofer notices them. For example, this image from a Torah scroll shows an instance of an accidental ink-spot which I have digitally highlighted for emphasis. Such an occurrence must be removed for the scroll to be technically considered kosher, that is, able to be used.
The existence of “points” above the Hebrew phrase in Deuteronomy 29:28 is therefore an intriguing oddity. Not only are they not accidental ink splatter, but each sofer is expected to include those “points” above those specific letters—and none other—in that verse. In fact, these “points” are called in Hebrew NEKUDOT “points,” and are part of a series of thirty-two (32) NEKUDOT that are scattered throughout a scroll of Torah. For the interested reader, I have a study dedicated to every instance of such NEKUDOT in the Torah [see my study: CONNECTING THE DOTS].
Unlike the NEKUDOT that are included in many printed Hebrew Bibles that are directly interlinked with the words of the text and provide a guide for pronunciation of the words, the NEKUDOT that appear over some Hebrew letters in a Torah scroll are not pronounced, and nothing in the text provides an answer as to why they are even present. It may at first seem foolish to focus on irreducibly simple points of ink existing in the Biblical text, but upon further investigation they are shown to conceal a profound spiritual truth.
This is because they could be said to be part of the HANNISTAROT “the concealed [matters]” that belong to the Holy One—except for the fact that they are inarguably visually present, and as such, are technically HANNIGLOT “the revealed [matters]” with which we can legitimately seek to concern ourselves.
This is because they could be said to be part of the HANNISTAROT “the concealed [matters]” that belong to the Holy One—except for the fact that they are inarguably visually present, and as such, are technically HANNIGLOT “the revealed [matters]” with which we can legitimately seek to concern ourselves.
Consider, then, the Hebrew term NEKUDOT “points.”
The term NEKUDOT is the plural of NAKOD, which means to “mark by piercing.”
The presence of the NEKUDOT, therefore, are “piercings” over the phrase signifying “for us and for our sons un—.” How is this to be understood? This idea of “piercings” being connected to “for us and for our sons un—” must be paired with the number of NEKUDOT above the phrase for it to begin to make sense. Eleven (11) distinct NEKUDOT are traditionally written over that phrase in a Torah scroll.
This number is not insignificant.
With the translation of the Hebrew phrase, the “piercings” meaning of NEKUDOT, and the number of them that appear in that passage, we are now ready to return to the book of Esther and begin to reveal what was concealed—to expose and extol what has been prone to be diminished and obscured.
This is found in that the book of Esther 9:25 depicts the “piercing” of Haman and his ten sons [first mentioned in 9:10]!
|
And when she came before the king, he ordered with [the authority] of the scroll to return [Haman’s] wicked plot which he had plotted against the Yehudim upon his own head. And they should hang him and his [ten] sons upon the tree.
|
|
That creates a total of eleven people who were pierced in the book of Esther and even aligns with the phrase of “for us and for our sons un—.” Technically, however, the Hebrew phrase reads “for us”—implying someone else that is in addition to Haman and his ten sons. The answer is hinted at when the Hebrew phrase is returned to and examined closer.
The letter on the left digitally emphasized in a white square is Ayin.
This is the first letter of the word AD “until,” and whose second letter is not a recipient of the NEKUDOT that are hung above all the letters of the two preceding terms. That fact that there is one over this single letter deepens the intrigue of these NEKUDOT, further implying that there is indeed a profound meaning that is being hinted at in their presence.
This one letter hints to the “for us” aspect of Haman plus someone else and his ten sons. This is because the letter Ayin is the first letter of the name Amalek, the progenitor of Haman himself [see: Esther 3:1 and 1st Samuel 15:8-33].
This one letter hints to the “for us” aspect of Haman plus someone else and his ten sons. This is because the letter Ayin is the first letter of the name Amalek, the progenitor of Haman himself [see: Esther 3:1 and 1st Samuel 15:8-33].
The letter points to the fact that so long as Amalek’s seed exist in the earth, the Creator will wage a holy war against him, as He declared in Exodus 17:16.
|
War for YHWH with Amalek is to be from generation [to] generation.
|
As long as a seed existed in the earth with the blood of Amalek running in his veins, the state of spiritual war would continue. These NEKUDOT “piercings” are thus hints to the final defeat of Amalek as portrayed by the death of Haman and his ten sons.
As Esther 9:25 stated, Haman and his ten sons were hung upon HA’EITZ “the tree”—a final nail in the coffin of Amalek. However, this wasn’t just any tree. While some translations may render the term as “gallows,” that does not represent the clear term in the Hebrew that calls it HAEITZ “the tree.” Exactly what it was is revealed by the first-century historian Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews.
As Esther 9:25 stated, Haman and his ten sons were hung upon HA’EITZ “the tree”—a final nail in the coffin of Amalek. However, this wasn’t just any tree. While some translations may render the term as “gallows,” that does not represent the clear term in the Hebrew that calls it HAEITZ “the tree.” Exactly what it was is revealed by the first-century historian Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews.
This reveals that concealed behind the term EITZ “tree” is that a cross was erected and Haman and his ten sons were hung upon it! When the idea of crucifixion is considered, the Romans are the ones that are most associated with the act, but it was in use as far back as the time of the Assyrians, and so by the time of the Medes and Persians of Esther’s day, punishment by crucifixion on a cross would have been a recognized form of execution. In fact, the historian Herodotus, writing about the general timeframe of the book of Esther, chronicled someone who met their end in Persia by just such a means.
Therefore, as Haman and his ten sons were crucified upon the tree--a cross—so too do we see Yeshua as the crucified Messiah was hanged upon a tree, as declared in Acts 5:30.
|
The Deity of our fathers has raised up Yeshua, he whom you killed after you hanged him upon the tree. |
|
This assertion sheds light on why Paul was adamant in 1st Corinthians 1 that revealing to the world a Messiah after he was crucified presented a myriad of troubles for Jews and Gentiles alike—a contentious stumbling-block and absurdity that would not be easily resolved. Yet for those who had perceived the wisdom of the Creator in the foolishness it concealed, in it was the power to be restored to life everlasting.
Similarly, the book of Esther has been besieged by those who reject its divine significance without first examining it with spiritual eyes to see that it is meant to portray a similarly difficult prophetic truth. When such is done with the willingness to work with a text of troubled background, one can perceive it as a valuable work of the inspiration of the Spirit regardless of if it is of the same spiritual pedigree as its companions in the canon.
By recognizing and embracing its challenged status among the rest of Holy Writ, the believer can appreciate the spiritual merit to be found in accepting divine truth even when it does not fit neatly into the pre-existing ideas we might hold. If the curious details about crucifixion in the book of Esther are assessed in the same light of the absurd difficulty that a crucified Messiah presents to mankind, the believer can see divine wisdom at work even behind the most foolish content in the Word.
By recognizing and embracing its challenged status among the rest of Holy Writ, the believer can appreciate the spiritual merit to be found in accepting divine truth even when it does not fit neatly into the pre-existing ideas we might hold. If the curious details about crucifixion in the book of Esther are assessed in the same light of the absurd difficulty that a crucified Messiah presents to mankind, the believer can see divine wisdom at work even behind the most foolish content in the Word.
All study contents Copyright Jeremy Chance Springfield, except for graphics and images, which are Copyright their respective creators.