Skip to main content

Esther and the Beauty Apologetic - Joshua D. Jones


Recently, I released a book on the Mordecai and Esther epic entitled, The Girl and the Guardian. Though it’s genre is that of a gritty action/ adventure novel, as a Christian writer I wanted to make sure the theme was clear and theologically driven.

At first, this might seem difficult as Esther is the only book—in addition to the Song of Songs—that doesn’t mention God. He is never directly referred to or addressed. But this doesn’t mean that Esther is not fit for theological reflection. Though he is not directly referred to, God is everywhere involved.

One of the ways God is found is in the whole concept of beauty. The word “beauty” or “beautiful” is used several times in the first couple of chapters of Esther alone. Central to her exaltation to the court is Esther’s physical beauty. Yet she must wield her beauty humbly to rescue her people and avoid the fate Queen Vashti, her predecessor, received.

Beauty has not been a much-emphasised subject by Christian apologists in recent generations. We tend to focus much of our inquiry on the nature of Truth and of discovering what is True. Past Christian thinkers, however, gave more time to discuss the nature of Beauty and I think we should turn our attention here once again.

Why?

We live in an image-driven generation that recognises both the value of beauty as well as its challenges. The ancient Persians of Esther’s day were also image-driven. The male nobles would have a full-time makeup artist that would accompany them and to give them a suitable image for their various social engagements. Fake beards and moustaches were so highly valued the Persian government placed a special tax on them. Likewise, we live in a generation that spends time and effort filtering our selfies and other photos to present the best possible image to our social media world. We love a good image.

What can the church say about Beauty that the world needs to hear?

But our generation also realises the challenges of beauty. It seems to us a blessing and a curse. Beauty can be used to deceive, exploit, and manipulate. We often pay more money for products of equal or lesser quality simply because they have a better image on its packaging. Many people struggle with eating disorders to obtain a certain image. Internet pornography is driven, in large part, by an obsession with images. We have all heard the moralism ‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’, yet we seem to lack the power to live this out.

In short, society knows that it has image issues. What can the church say about Beauty that the world needs to hear?

Beauty Theology

Early Church Fathers took much of their understanding of the nature of Beauty from the Greek philosophers. Thomas Aquinas borrowed heavily from Aristotle in his discussions on form, balance, and proportions. Many of their insights were good. They believed that Beauty, Truth, and Goodness were the three ‘transcendentals’ that God put into Creation. Just like God is the ultimate Truth, he was acknowledged as the ultimate Beauty as well.

Luther never wrote a singular work on beauty, but many of his comments have shaped my own understanding in seeing how Beauty is not just theocentric but specifically Christocentric. Luther affirmed the insights of the church fathers into beauty but showed how and why the centre of all beauty for the Christian is the Cross.

Luther believed that the Cross was a wrecking ball to this world’s notion of beauty. He pointed out that the Cross was both beautiful and ugly. The beauty of the Cross is Christ’s and the ugliness is ours. The eternal Son of God had a beauty that outshone Esther’s like the sun outshines a candle. And what did he do with all that beauty? He gave it all away.

Why? So that you and I can have the only type of beauty that truly matters. It is on the Cross that Christ exchanges that beauty for our sinful ugliness. What’s more, in taking our ugliness upon himself, Christ becomes even more attractive to his people.

Commenting on Psalm 45, Luther wrote ‘There is the one and only beauty—to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ’. When we put our hope in the beauty that is given to us in Christ, we stop trying so hard to make ourselves more attractive to God and the world around us. In living out our faith, we become increasingly free from the dark and manipulative side of beauty that our sin nature creates. This is the good news our world needs to hear.

Like in Esther’s day, we have image issues. But a secular and materialist worldview does not give us satisfactory answers. A purely material worldview has no room for objective Beauty—just sights and sounds our DNA is predisposed to be attracted to. There is a wide-open space for Christians to speak into this void. Will we do so?

__________


Joshua D. Jones is author of the The Girl and the Guardian, a retelling of the Mordecai and Esther epic with theological reflections on beauty and human sexuality. He is originally American but has lived in Europe, where his wife is from, since 1999. He pastors north of London where he lives with his wife and four children. He sometimes blogs at Sanitys-Cove.com




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent

The Mormon God’s Dysfunctional Family

You know those moments when you look at something you’ve looked at a thousand times before and suddenly see something new? I was looking at a blog I found via the Google Blog Alerts service and it told the familiar story of the Mormon “ Plan of Salvation”; you can read it here. There really was nothing surprising until I started thinking about what people might think if a family they knew conducted themselves the way the Mormon “family of God” do in this story. People from abusive backgrounds have problems enough with the idea of God as a Father but this story would put anyone off the idea forever! As I recount this story think about what the typical dad would do as his kids are growing up and compare it with this “exalted man.” According to Mormonism “ God created our spirits” and we lived with him in a pre-mortal existence (Mormons say “pre-existence” but it is not possible to pre-exist, i.e. to exist before you exist. The noun “existence” has to be have the prefix “pre” othe