Abusing the Bible to Defend Roy Moore Won’t Work
A response to Denise McAllister’s defense of voting for Roy Moore.
A lot of things come through my feed that I find worthy of eyerolls or downright mockery or even indignation. Not that many evoke true disappointment.
When I read Denise C. McAllister’s piece in The Federalist today, that’s what I felt. No, not an attempt to justify and even encourage Christians to vote for Roy Moore and people of similar character (such as Trump) — I accepted many, many months ago that we would come down firmly on opposite sides of this issue. I don’t resent people who would vote for either person because they truly want what is best for the country. I think such votes are extremely foolish, but my view differs from that of Erick Erickson in that I think Christians are not sinning by voting for someone like Trump or Moore, even as they both have claimed to be Christians. That’s a debate for another time, though.
What I am disappointed in is that someone who loves the Lord, someone whom I have known to be sincere and wise in many ways, would lower herself to a plain distortion of sacred Scripture in her quest to vindicate her and other Christians from support for Moore against those would condemn them.
Here’s what she writes:
“ The stories of Esther, Daniel, and Joseph are all full of God’s power being exercised through political leaders, revealing the difference between the secular and the sacred. Esther even allowed a man who was falsely accused of rape to meet his death because that was best for the Jewish people. The man had never touched her, but she allowed him to be falsely accused of sexual abuse because it was politically expedient — and it saved her people from death.”
The passage she’s referencing, which she does not provide a chapter and verse for in her piece, is Esther 7. Here is the passage in the English Standard Version:
So the king and Haman went in to feast with Queen Esther. 2 And on the second day, as they were drinking wine after the feast, the king again said to Esther, “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.” 3 Then Queen Esther answered, “If I have found favor in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be granted me for my wish, and my people for my request. 4 For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated. If we had been sold merely as slaves, men and women, I would have been silent, for our affliction is not to be compared with the loss to the king.” 5 Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther, “Who is he, and where is he, who has dared[a] to do this?” 6 And Esther said, “A foe and enemy! This wicked Haman!” Then Haman was terrified before the king and the queen.
Haman Is Hanged 7 And the king arose in his wrath from the wine-drinking and went into the palace garden, but Haman stayed to beg for his life from Queen Esther, for he saw that harm was determined against him by the king. 8 And the king returned from the palace garden to the place where they were drinking wine, as Haman was falling on the couch where Esther was. And the king said, “Will he even assault the queen in my presence, in my own house?” As the word left the mouth of the king, they covered Haman’s face. 9 Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “Moreover,” the gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.” And the king said, “Hang him on that.” So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the wrath of the king abated.
Erick Erickson offered his own smackdown of Denise’s framing of this incident here, which I encourage you to read. I will deal with this a little more in depth, since I believe it is a serious mishandling of the Scripture.
Now, the footnote in my ESV bible notes, “It is the custom to recline on couches at a feast in this era. Haman’s violations of etiquette seal his fate and provide Ahasuerus with a neat way out of the tricky situation he finds himself in.” The Hebrew word lich·bosh (לִכְבֹּ֧ושׁ), translated as “assault” in the ESV and “molest” in whatever version Erickson was using in his rebuttal to Denise’s piece means “to subdue, subjugate, bring into bondage.”
Now, it is very questionable that this word should be translated as “rape.” But Haman’s beggary before the queen, which the King either perceived as or made out to look like sexual assault, was merely the pretense for Haman to be executed. The real reason he was begging for his life before the queen was because “he saw that harm was determined against him by the king.” In other words, the king would have needed an affirmative word from Esther on Haman’s behalf to save him from death. This accusation from the King upon returning to the queen from the garden, whether a grave breach of etiquette or worse, would’ve been just a pretext for his hanging. In Esther 8:7 we read, “Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and they have hanged him on the gallows, because he intended to lay hands on the Jews.” This is why Haman was hanged. It is fitting in the book’s theme of poetic justice, though, that Haman “laying hands” on the Queen, a Jew, would have been the pretext or final straw for a very swift carriage of justice, as they hung Haman on the gallows he himself had prepared for Mordecai.
But to make this incident out to be Haman’s true demise, as if Esther in cold blood let an “innocent” man be hanged on a false rape accusation to save her people, as if their deliverance was dependent on Haman’s death and not the order of the King (we see in Chapter 8 this is clearly the case), is preposterous and a reckless and foolish handling of the Word of God, if not flatly disingenuous.
I have taken the time to rebut McAllister’s characterization of the situation firstly because misrepresentations of Scripture must be corrected. Bad theology and bad history (Esther is a historical account, and we have much to learn from historical accounts) lead us astray. Wisdom is built on truth, and Denise has not offered it in this case. Secondly, McAllister is hurting her own argument — that voting for Moore is not only justified, but it does not harm her Christian witness to do so — by distorting Scripture. It’s ironic: worse than impeding her argument, mishandling Scripture hurts her witness.
What do nonbelievers think, when they come to find out Christians have misled them as to what the Bible teaches? Does this lead them toward the truth of the gospel, or cause them to mistrust Christians? Can you hear the scoffers? “These Christians, they’ll say anything to justify their behavior — even distorting their own holy scriptures!”
I welcome well-reasoned arguments based on solid Biblical exegesis, logic, historical data, and even human nature and common sense. I have applauded Denise for bringing all of these to bear in numerous other articles she has written over the years. I have defended her from vicious attacks even as I vehemently disagree with her opinions, but it is hard to defend someone who has done such damage to her own reputation by employing falsehood, whether it be out of intellectual laziness or intentional dishonesty, such as this.
I have high expectations when I read anything from McAllister. She is a wonderful, passionate and brilliant writer. When I opened this piece, I expected fairness, consistency and intellectual rigor. And that is why I’m disappointed.
