Esther as godless woman then Christ type: Mark Driscoll's interpretive mojo part 5

And now for the conclusion, which can be called: 

Esther Could Have Said No Cuz Driscolls Say So, and She's Also a Christ-Type

Number four: she could have said no. Now, some people want to say, “Well, she could have gotten punished.” Sometimes people in the Bible say no to rulers and they’re punished. Sometimes people in history say no to rulers and they’re punished. We call them bold. But the truth is, there’s no indication that she would have gotten punished.

This is the best one of the bunch, probably, and by “best” that means “most stupid”. Esther could have said “no” because there was no indication that Xerxes made any lethal gesture to punish Vashti for not doing what he commanded of her. This is where the more Driscoll tries to pump out how powerful and bad Xerxes was the more insipid Number four becomes.  What does Driscoll present as an actual argument that Esther could have said no?  Well, one is that Vashti was put away for the rest of her life rather than killed or sent away.  That’s not the most persuasive reason in itself but it has some modicum of plausibility if only for being derived from Xerxes actions and words observed within the book of Esther.

Now Driscoll can't have it both ways about Xerxes here.  A guy who castrates men and subjugates women should have been told "no", so Driscoll says, but in an exilic context in a setting where women were not exactly prized as having their own agency and autonomy claiming that Esther should have done something like saying "no" presupposes a great deal that has yet to be proven. Somehow being banished from the presence of the king for years is not considered punishment by Driscoll.  Did Driscoll forget those laws in the Torah related to selling daughters into slavery?  Did Driscoll forget the part where the prohibition against coveting lumps in wives with other property Israelites were not supposed to covet?  If even within a Jewish context women could be considered property and women captured in war could be taken as wives as long as there wasn't a command of total destruction then what does Driscoll think the options for Jewish girls in an exilic context actually were? 

Well, Driscoll also introduced this idea related to Number four, “She could have said no”.  This one you have to see or hear to believe. 

... I was talking to Ashley about this.  I was like, "Argh!" Because this freaks--as a dad, freaks me out. Some nasty pervert takes my daughter for a year at the spa to compete against four hundred women with one night in bed.  Okay. I asked Ashley, my sweet daughter.  I said, "What would you do?" She said, "I would say no. I would run away. I would move to another country. I would throw a fit. I would be so disobedient, basically, in the palace, they would send me home."  "Yes, okay. What do you think I would do?" "You would fight" "Yes I would" ...

So even though Driscoll has mentioned his degree in exegetical theology in press materials and has blogged mentioning a commentary on Esther he likes ... when it comes time to make a case for why Esther was not that godly in the beginning he comes up with "Esther should have said no".  His reasons for this view amount to 1) she might not have gotten punished and 2) his daughter Ashley said that, put in Esther’s position, she would say no.  If that’s the best Driscoll can do then he has no basis complaining about other pastors or scholars providing speculation about anything in any biblical text anywhere. 

Driscoll takes a step even further.  Having attempted to demolish the idea that Esther started out as a godly woman Driscoll nevertheless makes the following statement:

Well, ultimately, Esther is a type of Christ. She’s a portrait, a picture, a sign, a symbol pointing to Jesus Christ. The whole Bible is about Jesus. Now, it’s for us, but it’s about him. It’s not primarily about us, it’s primarily about him, and so at this point, they’re waiting for a greater King, and another kingdom, and a Savior, and a deliverer, and everybody and everything is yearning, and longing, and leaning toward the coming of Jesus. And so Esther is a type of Christ. She’s a little picture and a portrait.

Well, Mark Driscoll has said that Jack Bauer was a lot like Jesus. As typological comparisons go couldn't Esther, in a Jewish setting, seem more like a type of Moses who, though brought up in a pagan imperial setting, advocated on behalf of her people?  Or at a more mundane and plausible level in the order of books in the Tanakh Esther and Daniel could be described as Jews living in an exilic setting. It's not that Esther can't typologically be interpreted in some way, it's that Driscoll's Esther/Christ typology seems ad hoc. 

If Driscoll wants us to take Option #3 seriously how does Esther’s initial godlessness and nominal Jewishness fit into a Christ typology?  Considering all the labor Driscoll went through over ten years to make sure Jesus couldn't possibly be read into the Song of Songs by cracking gay panic jokes Jesus standing over him with a hard-on how, exactly, does Mark Driscoll rationalize making Esther a Christ-type? 

But if Driscoll were going to sustain a Christ typology for Esther why would his Option #3 make that work better than either Option #1, Option #2 or a combination of 1 and 2?  Who's to say that Options #1 and #2 don't overlap once we define them beyond straw man terms?  We're basically told that because Esther didn't say "no" and because the book of Esther doesn't tell us she was sexually assaulted she wasn't sexually assaulted. But then she somehow ends up ultimately being a Christ type in the same sermon where Driscoll says “She could have said no” because apparently it’s smarter to rely on the sentiments of a 15-year old girl in Seattle who is his daughter than to demonstrate that he actually earned a degree in exegetical theology.  Mark Driscoll seems to have made a point of including his children in public settings to address something considered controversial, in some settings, before, but he hasn't made things one of his children said quite so central to a sermon purporting to explain a biblical text and proposing that a biblical figure was of less than estimable character. 

So what good does it do for Driscoll to refer to Karen Jobes' commentary as the best one he'd read on the book of Esther if he's going to ignore what Jobes wrote and come up with his own take on things?  Since Rachel Held Evans already referred to Jobes' commentary and quoted from her work let's link to that.  Go see for yourself that what Evans quotes contradicts even the possibility of Driscoll’s “She could have said no” claim.  For Driscoll to tout Jobes' commentary and then say what he's said about Esther from the pulpit he has to practically pretend that Jobes didn't say anything about whether or not Hadassah had any say in the matter; he can then say the girl should have said "no" even though Jobes' commentary, as quoted by Rachel Held Evans, shows this was not a compelling interpretive option.  Driscoll's use of Jobes' commentary comes off as nothing more than using the halo effect of a specific biblical scholar, who happens to be a woman, as a way to set up Mark Driscoll saying just about anything he wishes to say. 

When Driscoll has the chance to make his big point about Esther's imperfect early character, and her “could have said no” option, who does he appeal to?  Himself and his daughter Ashley Driscoll, a fifteen year old girl who, as yet, has not completed a degree in exegetical theology.  Mark Driscoll made a case that a teenage girl should have said "no" to an internationally famous and powerful leader who was seeking his own glory and renown for his name and achievements, and who claimed divine authority and sanction for his decisions  ... by using his teenage daughter and his own personal story as the basis for saying Esther and Mordecai made bad decisions?  Driscoll has not only done this from his pulpit, it's been made available for the whole English-speaking world to listen to or download.  

The irony of all that seems too meta for mere words. 

Then after all that, after attempting to spell out why Esther was godless at the start of the book, Driscoll tells us she is ultimately a Christ-type.  

Esther as godless woman then Christ type: Mark Driscoll's interpretive mojo part 4

NUMBERS 2 & 3: Driscoll on God’s presence, sans a serious consideration of prophets and narrative literature

Believe it or not we’re not done discussing flaws in Driscoll’s defense of his Option #3.  His first reason was weak enough but Driscoll’s going to give us more reasons he thinks his version of Esther makes sense.

Number two: she’s living far away from God. The command was given, again through Isaiah: go to Jerusalem. That’s where the presence of God is. She’s not there. She’s living far away from the presence of God.

Number three: she’s disobeying the commands of God through Isaiah and she’s living in rebellion, just like we do.

Driscoll's got a problem with reasons 2 and 3 for why Esther didn't start off as a godly woman.  The problem with reason 2 is the point about being far away from God because she wasn't in Jerusalem.  That problem looks curiously like Ezekiel 1:

Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the River Chebar, that the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.   On the fifth day of the month, which was in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity,   the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the River Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was upon him there.

Ezekiel was a book written in an exilic context.  To propose that God was in one place and that you had to go there to be where God was becomes unsustainable post-Ezekiel.  Ezekiel's prophetic ministry brings the revolutionary idea along that even in exile Yahweh is still the God of Israel and that Yahweh is not a territorial god who is limited to speaking to His people within a Temple system. All the tools prescribed within the Torah for relating to or connecting to God in the temple system had been destroyed or carried off by and large, yet Ezekiel encountered God. Driscoll’s “Number two” is just a number two. 

The problem with “Number three”, saying Esther was disobeying God’s command through Isaiah is less obvious if you haven't made a point of reading Ezra/Nehemiah and it connects to Driscoll's insistence that we not read into a text a pious thing that isn't there.  Let’s grant, for just a moment, that Driscoll is right to say that where the Bible is not clear we should avoid making too bold a claim about something. 

Driscoll leans heavily on the idea that Isaiah predicted a return from exile and that Ezra and Nehemiah were the guys heading up the rebuilding of the Temple.  Driscoll, per Number Two, has insisted that Jerusalem is where God’s presence is.  But let’s consider temple dedication in 1 Kings 6-8 and 2 Chronicles 5-7.  A cloud filled the Temple and the glory of the Lord was present in the Temple with His people. Now go look at the temple dedication described in Ezra/Nehemiah.  There is no indication that God comes and makes His presence known in the Temple the way He did for the Temple of Solomon.  That's not the most mundane detail for considering post-exilic narrative literature, is it? 

See if Driscoll wants to insist on the point that we can't assume something is in a biblical text when the biblical text doesn't spell it out then “Number three” is an argument that's stillborn for anyone who takes his methodology seriously and has actually read Ezra/Nehemiah. Maybe Hadassah and Mordecai didn't return to Jerusalem because there was no report of the return of the presence of the Lord to the Temple.  After all, if the presence of God had actually descended on the Temple that Ezra and Nehemiah worked on you would think they’d have made a point of saying so! 

Suffice it to say, if Driscoll wants to say Mordecai and Esther should have been in Jerusalem because that's where God's people were supposed to be by referencing Isaiah he completely fails for two simple reasons:  1) God revealed he was God everyone to Ezekiel before the exile could be considered over and 2) Ezra/Nehemiah had not, in fact, indicated that God had come to dwell among Israel in the new temple they’d built in Jerusalem.  Driscoll scores a double fail with Number Three, unfortunately.

Esther as godless woman then Christ type: Mark Driscoll's interpretive mojo part 3

OPTION 3: Speculations and what-ifs are okay if Driscolls give them

Having looked a bit at how Driscoll deals with what he calls Options 1 and 2 we’re now finally ready to get to Option #3:

...  I believe she started out as not the most godly woman, but by the end, she’s among the most godly of women. And here are my reasons.

Number one: at this point in the story of Esther, no one’s walking with God. I’m not just picking on Esther. Some of you are like, “You’re picking on Esther.” I pick on Xerxes, I pick on Mordecai, I pick on me, I pick on you. Like, everybody gets a fair crack, right? And just because we’re examining one woman doesn’t mean we’re criticizing all women. In the same way, if we criticize Xerxes, it doesn’t mean we criticize all men, though we can, because all men are sinners and all women are sinners. And all of us, if they took the story of our life and told it in painstaking detail, we’d all be a little bummed, right?

Bummed enough to remove wood-chipper anecdotes from sermons, maybe? Ripping on everyone is not the same as demonstrating a plausible interpretation of Esther.  Now if Driscoll’s trying to say no one in Esther can be shown to be godly the burden of proof is on Driscoll.  If Driscoll is (less likely) saying there are no white hats but Jesus, as he has often said in the past, then this calls into question his interpretive approach to narrative literature in earlier sermons.  Back in 2007 Driscoll transformed the book of Nehemiah into an analogy about Mars Hill, implicitly presenting himself as Nehemiah. Nehemiah was obviously wearing a white hat in Driscoll's preaching on Nehemiah when he preached “Fathers and Fighting”, for instance. Earlier in 2007 Driscoll preached through Ruth and Boaz was presented as the great kinsman redeemer by Driscoll during his Ruth series without ever addressing how a Moabite was permitted to marry into Israel when, mere months later, Driscoll would preach "Fathers and Fighting" and also not address the Moabites as among the nations Israelites took wives from or whether there was a legal conundrum of why Boaz was permitted to marry a Moabite even though the Torah was clear Moabites were not to be added to the assembly, and that Ezra and Nehemiah were angry Israelites married Moabite women. 

He also has not yet laid out a significant textual case for why his Number One for Option #3 about Esther is the most sensible reading of the text. Here he’s going to try to come up with a reason.

No one in the story at this point is walking with God. No one. No one’s praying, no one mentions God, no one’s worshiping God, no one’s tithing to God, no one is going to Jerusalem, no one is celebrating the feasts and festivals, no one’s offering a sacrifice for their sin. There’s nothing. Nobody quotes a verse. Nothing. Nothing spiritual. And so it’s not just that Esther’s not godly, no one is.

"Nobody quotes a verse"?  Let's talk about that line of argument as it applies to books of the Bible Driscoll has preached from multiple times. 

For instance, Mark Driscoll preached repeatedly that Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon who, according to Driscoll, was working his way to repentance.  Here's the thing,  the book of Ecclesiastes not only does not quote scripture, even its allusions to scripture can be read as casting doubt on whether humanity bears the image of God.  Driscoll simply can't sustain his argument that nobody walks with God in Esther because nobody quotes Scripture because it's not like Qoholeth quoted the Bible in Ecclesiastes, not even when Qoholeth refers to God as a distant and disinterested party who dislikes people making vows they can't keep. 

Then there's Song of Songs ... which is not exactly exploding with references to Numbers of Deuteronomy.  Oh baby, did you remember to not boil that kid in its mother's milk?  Good, now let's meditate together on that passage where it explains that a wife should not grab the testicles of a man who is fighting with her husband. 

If the proof of following God is quoting Bible verses what scripture could Abraham quote? None of it was written yet.  The idea that Esther or Mordecai aren’t walking with God because the author of Esther doesn’t have them quoting Bible is nonsense.  This test was conspicuously absent from Driscoll's teaching on Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes.  Maybe the author of Esther didn't give us a great big litany of Bible verses quoted by Esther or Mordecai because that was not the point of the narrative?  Out of respect for the observation that Purim was never a festival commanded in the Torah authorial piety would have been demonstrated by removing any potential for mistakenly thinking the God of Israel had commanded observance of Purim in some direct way.  Part of how this could have been done would be to avoid mentioning that Esther or Mordecai made use of any texts considered authoritative or canonical.  Just throwing that idea out there for consideration.

Now let's see what else Driscoll says, among other things, in defense of his Option #3:

Do you know what? I find great encouragement and hope in the story of Esther, because you know what? I'm like Esther. I grew up in a marginal Catholic home. My mom did love Jesus.  I didn't worship God. I didn't read the Bible.  I didn't pray except for when I thought I was in real trouble and I'd sort of throw out a fire insurance policy to God.  "God get me out of this please! Thanks." Occasionally, I'd show up for a Christmas or Easter service at the church, bored to death because my mom wanted me to, and it was sort of tradition. ...

And I believe what happens to Esther is, in the story, God gets her heart and she has a conversion experience of sorts, and she starts to grow spiritually as a person. I experienced the same thing in my life at age nineteen. I don't want to condemn Esther. What I want to do is I want to invite everyone whose story is like Esther to meet Esther's God and to change like Esther did.

Driscoll finds great hope and encouragement in his version of Esther.  He says that if we hold that Esther was actually a godly woman then the book is worthless (even though it’s in the Bible).  If someone proposes that Esther persevered amidst a miserable exilic life that included sexual exploitation Driscoll says, “Well, see, the Bible doesn’t say she was raped so she wasn’t an innocent victim of sexual assault.”  But if someone says Esther was a nominal Jew who began to take her faith seriously Driscoll finds hope and encouragement in that because he was a nominal Catholic who eventually became an evangelical Protestant. 

For years Driscoll has said we need to not put ourselves above the Bible but to submit to the Bible.  Notice the rhetorical move Driscoll has made to reject what he calls Option #1.  If Esther was a godly woman and Mordecai was a godly man who held fast amidst persecution and plans of genocide then the book is “worthless”. Let the full significance of Driscoll being will to dismiss the legitimacy of an entire book of the Bible if it is predicated on a narrative and characterization he disputes.

Driscoll's likely to keep asserting his Option #3 to the point where people in Mars Hill are likely to agree that it's true by dint of hearing it preached month after month. After all he's been teaching the Bible for sixteen years.  At this point the longevity of the career may be more important to emphasize than the actual handling of the text.  Benny Hinn has been teaching nearly twice as long as Driscoll has by now and does this mean that makes Benny Hinn nearly twice as authoritative in expository preaching?  That nobody was walking with God at the start of the story needs a clearer case than Driscoll simply saying so.  That's what exegesis is for.  Now if Driscoll can make that case he should make it.  Saying "it's in the Hebrew" is just a punch line for Driscoll, can he tackle the Hebrew for real from the pulpit? 

Esther as godless woman then Christ type: Mark Driscoll's interpretive mojo part 2

OPTION 2: Esther and sexual assault, Driscoll conflates sexual assault with rape

Now for Option #2, that Esther was the innocent victim of sexual assault:

And that is possible, but I'm not certain that it is probable because it doesn't say that. It doesn't say what happened. All it says is she went in, she went out, he picked her. It doesn't say how she felt or whether she was forced. It doesn't say. And let me submit to you that when the Bible speaks, it speaks very plainly and very clearly, so when there are other occasions of sexual assault in Scripture, the Bible tells it.

This is another straw man.  There are plenty of people who consider Esther to have been subject to a sexually exploitive regime.  The only way Driscoll can dismiss the substance of his Option #2 is by defining sexual assault and exploitation into the very narrow category of rape. There are more ways that people can be sexually abused, harassed or exploited than rape. 

Driscoll seems to be rejecting his straw man Option #2 more for rhetorical flair than for doubting the repellent aspects of Xerxes' life and conduct. Despite everything Driscoll himself mentioned about Xerxes having men castrated and using women Driscoll refuses to concede even the possibility that Esther was sexually exploited, and by sexually exploited Driscoll really means only raped.  Driscoll says we are told Dinah was raped and that Tamar was raped and that sexual assault, when it happens, gets clearly mentioned in the Bible.  True, when women are raped in the Bible we’re told that, such as the story of the Levite’s concubine in Judges. 

But notice that in casting doubt on Option #2 that Driscoll hangs a lot on an argument from both restricted definition and also from silence.  The Bible doesn't spell out explicitly that Esther was sexually assaulted, so Driscoll says we can't affirm what the Bible doesn't make clear.  Well, what was going on when Absalom went into ten of David’s concubines to make himself odious to his father?  That wasn’t rape but it would sure seem to be sexually exploitive.  What about David’s actions toward Bathsheba and her husband Uriah the Hittite?  If Driscoll’s argument that where the Bible is silent we ought not presume sexual assault actually meant anything then we should suppose that Bathsheba was wrong to have not resisted the advances of David.  Yet Nathan’s rebuke is all about David’s sin and not Bathsheba. 

Yet for Driscoll’s ostensibly high-minded claim that we should not speculate too much that Esther was sexually assaulted, Driscoll has been perfectly happy to speculate that Solomon's first love was Abishag (as long he gets to bet your mortgage and not his).  1 Kings mentions Solomon's first wife being Egyptian but it would seem that what the Bible says is immaterial to Driscoll if he can spin a sweet high school sweetheart yarn with Abishag and Solomon sitting in a tree.  It would appear that Driscoll wants to have it both ways, to claim that options other than his are speculative while avoiding the possibility that his own view is just as speculative.  

It would be difficult to overstate, given how much Driscoll and Mars Hill insist they want to protect women and children from predators, how remarkably stupid and offensive the straw man in Driscoll's Option #2 is.  The problems are numerous.  For instance "innocent" combined with "sexual assault" wasn't intended to invite the reading that Driscoll thinks there are not-innocent victims of sexual assault, does it?  Wouldn't "innocent", within the terms of discussion of sexual assault seem redundant? 

By defining Option #2 very clearly only in terms of rape Driscoll has defined the criteria of victim-hood for Esther up to the most blunt and obvious form of predatory action on the part of Xerxes.  

Esther either has to have been raped or she wasn't a victim of and in a sexually exploitive culture or regime and this despite his lengthy preaching about how Xerxes used women and emasculated men.  Driscoll has managed to set up Option #1 and Option #2 purely in terms of straw man definitions and then employs an absurd argument against Option #1 and a pathetic argument from silence to dismiss straw man Option #2.  But Driscoll isn't even close to done.  There's still Option #3. 

Esther as godless woman then Christ type: Mark Driscoll's interpretive mojo part 1

http://marshill.com/media/esther/jesus-is-a-better-savior#transcript

About a month ago Driscoll preached "Jesus is a better savior" as part of his Esther series.  He reintroduced a few figures from the narrative and finally got to introducing Esther.  In doing so he simply expanded upon but recycled his earlier blog post in which he proposed that there were three options for views of Esther that he considered possible and just one that he considered probable.  The first was that Esther was a godly woman; the second was that she was an innocent victim of sexual assault; and the third that she was an initially not-very godly woman who became godly by the end of the narrative. 

As has been blogged earlier at Wenatchee The Hatchet the first and second views, as Driscoll presents them, are straw men. Driscoll's previous thanking of critics for bringing to light things for his consideration sure comes across as a publicity stunt.  After all, for all the gratitude Driscoll seemed to have toward critics he’s as fixated on his claim that Esther started off kind of godless and became godly later on.  What is worth noting, at some length, is that how Driscoll arrives at and justifies his conclusion is (still) not adequately explained from the biblical text. 

More startling than this failure on Driscoll’s part to provide a compelling defense of his view are the set of arguments he uses to dismiss the views that Esther was, in fact, a godly woman, and that she was probably in some way sexually exploited.  Each dismissal Driscoll brings to bear for Option 1 and Option 2 is founded upon a respective straw man and reduction ad absurdum while Driscoll’s own view is founded on what appears to be nothing more than an anecdotal fallacy.

Still more startling are the implications of Driscoll’s arguments regarding views of Esther in the context of Driscoll’s own public preaching over the last sixteen years. But in order to establish even the possibility of discussing that we must turn to the three Options.  Again, Option #1 is that Esther was a godly woman and Mordecai feared the Lord.  Option #2 is that Esther was the innocent victim of sexual assault and Option #3 is that Esther began rather godless but ended up godly. We’ll consider these options and how Driscoll presents them.

OPTION #1: Esther was a godly woman, but if she was the book is worthless?

Driscoll defines Option #1 as Mordecai was a good guy and Esther was a good girl and God favored them against the bad guys.  Driscoll declares that if this is what the book is about it is worthless.  Notice what Driscoll's attitude here is, that if a book of the Bible means something he doesn't think it should mean he considers it "worthless".  Now to be sure his Option #1 is a straw man from start to finish but would he say Esther, as a book, is "worthless" if Option #1 indicated that Mordecai and Esther, though imperfect, were nonetheless God-fearing and godly people?  If Old Testament scholars could establish a plausible basis for some form of Option #1 would Mark Driscoll still consider the book of Esther worthless?

Driscoll’s dismissal of what he calls Option #1 is a dismissal of a view that is already a straw man.  Driscoll has mentioned we should not read Esther from a "religious" perspective that proposes Mordecai and Esther were white hats set against the black hats of Haman or Xerxes.  Driscoll presents the following idea as a defense of what he calls the third perspective which sheds light on a possible argument against the idea that Esther was always godly in some sense in the narrative:

... It is my opinion that the third perspective is probable, and that is that Esther is not a static or flat character who’s consistent through the whole book. You’ll meet them. Haman is a consistent, flat character, because he never repents. He’s just evil. Xerxes is a flat, static character. He never changes because he never repents.

Many of us clearly read the same book of Esther and came to the conclusion that her character looks remarkably consistent from the start to finish of the book. Religiously motivated repentance is not the basis of a person being a consistent, flat character in a biblical text.  King Saul doesn't repent and he's one of the most dynamic characters in the books of Samuel. 

Driscoll seems to be incapable of grasping that a character in a narrative can be complex without being dynamic and that a two-dimensional character is still capable of being dynamic. It depends on what the narrative is doing.  Mr. Bingley, for instance, is essentially a flat character but he certainly changes in as much as he marries Jane.  Mr. Collins gets married, too, but he also remains a flat character.  Driscoll’s mere insistence withstanding, none of the characters in Esther are necessarily three-dimensional simply because they change nor dynamic.  In fact change itself is what makes Xerxes a two-dimensional character because he's so fickle and egotistical.  He’s a punch line in the narrative, an egotistical drunkard who is steadily issuing irreversible commands that he forgets he’s made and failing to remember to thank people who have saved his life.

To say Xerxes doesn't repent because he doesn't change would be framing the narrative in religious terms but Driscoll has said we should not read Esther in a "religious" way where Esther is concerned.  All this really means is that Driscoll wants our indulgence to speak of what he considers the moral failings of the protagonists while still insisting that we view the antagonists as bad.  

Driscoll continues:

Those who repent are no longer static, they’re dynamic. They don’t stay the same, they change. We call it progressive sanctification. It means that when you meet the God of the Bible, you change, and the longer you’re walking with him, the more you change. And she worships Jesus. Let’s just be clear on that. She’s waiting for the coming of a promised Savior. So are we. She got a little bored waiting for him. So do we.

Driscoll simply has to assert that Esther is waiting for Jesus.  It is Esther who ends up being the appointed savior in this story and Driscoll seems to realize this element of the narrative is too obvious to avoid for long.  Nevertheless, it's anachronistic to say Esther worships Jesus in a narrative in which we're being set up for why Jews observe Purim.  If Driscoll wants to argue that we shouldn't read Esther as a good girl vs. a bad guy narrative because that would make the book "worthless" then why would Driscoll read Jesus into Esther's motives? Isn't this is just another "religious" way of reading Esther and Driscoll said we shouldn't do that.  Driscoll simply asserts that Esther worships Jesus preaching from a book whose literary point is explaining the origin of the Jewish festival of Purim.  Driscoll just asserts this and, apparently, he gets to. 

The trouble with Driscoll’s statement that those who repent are no longer static is Xerxes.  In the narrative it is the fickle, feckless nature of Xerxes that remains steady.  He’s drinking much of the time, egotistically looking back on his own exploits and having minions humor him.  In contrast to the laws of Moses that were given without any reference to a king and were above the king, Xerxes represents the arbitrary and mercurial king as incomprehensible, autocratic fiat. As religious/political polemics go Xerxes may have been venerated as a god but he was a god who was constantly changing his mind and was swayed by minions.

Now, of course there’s still another problem with Driscoll’s claim that those who repent are not static but dynamic.  Jesus must be the most static and least dynamic character in the Gospels and in the Bible.  After all, Jesus has nothing to repent of.  If repenting of sin is what makes for a dynamic rather than static character then Jesus is the least dynamic person in the Bible. Driscoll seems neither to grasp basic elements of story-telling nor basic implications in the set of arguments he arranges for his unique views on Esther. If it’s all about Jesus then Mark Driscoll has trotted out arguments that make Jesus seem static and two-dimensional.

On the other hand, while Driscoll claims he doesn’t want to read too much into things he comes up with this about Hadassah having the name Esther.

So she had a dual identity, kind of in the world, kind of in God’s kingdom; kind of sinning, kind of obeying; kind of spiritual, kind of not spiritual. She’s conflicted. She’s got a dual identity. The Bible would say, in the New Testament, she’s worldly. ...  

She's conflicted?  About what?  Hadn't Driscoll said that initially Esther does whatever men in her life tell her to do?  Wasn't that earlier a basis from which Driscoll said Esther sinfully did whatever the men in her life told her to do? What has she ever displayed any conflict about in the first few chapters of Esther? 

Let’s remember Driscoll has said the authors of the New Testament don’t mention or quote from Esther.  This means that Driscoll cannot, in fact, say “The Bible would say, in the New Testament, she’s worldly.” That’s just Driscoll’s imagination.  If the best Driscoll can muster to say Esther had dual identities is to mention one person having multiple names what about the apostle Peter?  Did Peter have a triple identity because he was sometimes known as Simon, sometimes as Peter, and sometimes as Cephas? There's no indication that Daniel and his friends had dual identities because they had more than one name.  Pagans giving Jews non-Jewish names has happened for centuries.  Go look up the history of Franz Kafka’s family background.

As if that weren’t trouble enough with Driscoll’s dual-identity claim, consider the king of Persia in the book of Esther. Driscoll has mentioned the two names of the pagan king but has just said Xerxes is a static character.  There’s nothing split about Xerxes.  When Driscoll claims he doesn’t want to read too much into things it’s obviously far too late to take him seriously even on the terms of his own stated principles and claims.