A Theological Postscript:

The Doctrine of Divine Providence

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOT one tiny miracle found in the book of Esther, the cumulative result of a series of improbable events leads one to ponder the miraculous quality of the ordinary. As it has been said, “a coincidence is a miracle in which God prefers to remain anonymous.”1 If, as the book of Esther implies, God interacts with individuals in such a way as to move history to the goal ordained by his eternal purposes, surely even the ordinary takes on a miraculous luster. In some ineffable way, ordinary human decisions cooperate with the divine plan.

It seems stunning that God interacts with the physical universe at all, whether by occasional miracles or continuously through the laws of nature. When one tries to imagine by what mechanism that interaction could occur, any contact of God with the universe is in some sense miraculous.2 We most associate God’s presence and power with miracles that are by definition supernatural, such as the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But Scripture teaches the continuous power and presence of God in relation to his creation. Theologians refer to God’s continuous sovereign control over the universe, usually working through the ordinary laws of physical and human nature, as divine providence. Of course, God has also intervened miraculously at times, working in ways that defy the established natural order. Events such as the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ are by definition supernatural.

It is not always apparent, however, whether a biblical event was the supernatural suspension of the laws described by physics, chemistry, and biology, or natural events occurring with extraordinary timing. Some biblical miracles would have been clearly supernatural, such as the floating axhead (2 Kings 6) or the changing of water into wine (John 2). Other “miracles” may have been the result of ordinary events occurring with extraordinary timing or intensity, such as the parting of the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus, which may be understood as the result of a rare, but not unknown, meteorological event.

The book of Esther is perhaps the most striking biblical example of the doctrine of divine providence. It invites us to reflect on God’s continual superintendence of history and, therefore, his superintendence of human decisions and actions. Without any observable miracle or any detectable intervention by God, human decisions led to an outcome that God had promised many centuries before. This outcome was not only against all human expectation, but was the exact reversal of the expected outcome. This means that to whatever extent we wish to credit God for directing the events of the story, we must recognize that he was to that extent influencing the minds of those involved.

It seems easier and less problematic to conceive of God as directing the paths of the galaxies than the thoughts and decisions of the human mind. However, we cannot take seriously the New Testament teaching that all history is moving toward an appointed end unless we also take seriously God’s sovereignty over the decisions of billions of people, both those who know and honor him and those whose hearts and minds are far from him. To say that God controls history is to say that God ultimately controls the human beings who make it. This of course brings us immediately to that age-old question of the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human free will.

Most religions have a concept of how God interacts with the universe. Christian and Jewish theology have as their most fundamental principle that God is distinct and separate from the universe, which he created from nothing. The alternative is some form of pantheism, the belief that God and the universe are coextensive and coeternal. Pantheism conceives of God not as a personal Creator, but as the soul of the universe, who is one with it, just as the human body and soul form a complete being. Whatever laws govern the operation of the universe directly represent the action of the divine spirit. Christianity and Judaism reject this conception of God, yet believe that God is omnipresent within the universe, is omniscient of everything that happens in the universe, and is omnipotent over the universe and everything in it. The creator-creation distinction gives rise to the most profoundly interesting, and in some ways most disturbing, theological questions.

Using what the Bible teaches about God’s relationship to and interaction with the universe, Christian theologians identify the three elements of divine providence as (1) the preservation of the existence of the universe and all life within it, (2) divine concurrence in human action, and (3) divine concurrence that moves history toward a planned end.3 The story of Esther illustrates all three of these elements to some extent, but especially draws our attention to the latter two.

(1) The preservation of the existence of the universe and all life within it. The Bible teaches that not only did God initially speak the universe into existence, but that its continuing existence is also directly dependent on him. A deistic concept of a God, who creates a self-sustaining universe as a watchmaker would build a watch, does not square with biblical teaching but grows out of the scientific empiricism of the eighteenth century. The New Testament assigns the role of sustaining the universe to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who “is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3, emphasis added).

The continuing dependence on God for the existence of the universe is not a prima facie theme in the book of Esther. However, the preservation of a redeemed humanity necessitated the preservation of the Jewish people under the Persian regime. Indirectly, this reflects the concept that God sustains all things to their appointed end through ongoing involvement with his creation. This is more clearly discerned by remembering that the Jewish people of Persia were God’s covenant nation, though they are not identified as such in Esther. They are faced with two possible destinies: annihilation and destruction or preservation and continued existence in the flow of redemptive history. Because God’s covenant people embody God’s promise to redeem humanity to the final destiny of new creation, the survival and continued existence of God’s people implies his involvement in sustaining all things until the appointed consummation.

Moreover, the concept that God sustains all things “by his powerful word” is also reflected in the story of Esther. It is God’s ancient promise to Moses—that is, God’s word to Moses—that guarantees the survival and continued existence of his chosen people. This guarantee of survival is reflected in Esther in the written decree of Mordecai, which reexpresses the intent of God’s ancient promise in that particular historical moment. The words of the king of Persia are emphasized as irrevocably effective in Esther, but are shown to be ultimately ineffectual, in contrast to the truly irrevocable words of the King of the universe, which define reality.

The universe was created and structured by God’s spoken word. The expression “God said, ‘Let there be . . . and it was so’ ” is the repeated refrain in Genesis 1 that calls the universe into existence and orders its structure. After its creation the universe continues to be sustained by God’s irrevocable and efficacious word. The course of redemptive history is defined by God’s irrevocable and efficacious word as documented in the Bible. Therefore, reality described by Scripture and reality as experienced in creation are both rooted in the same authoritative speech of God.

(2) Divine concurrence in (every?) human action. The Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof defines concurrence as “the cooperation of the divine power with all subordinate powers, according to the preestablished laws of their operation, causing them to act precisely as they do.”4 The theme of divine concurrence in human action is necessarily implied by the Esther story if we understand the deliverance of the Jews to be the outworking of God’s covenant promise through the decisions of Xerxes, Haman, Esther, and Mordecai. Divine concurrence with human thought has been both an intriguing and morally troubling concept for theologians through all ages.

The Bible presents divine concurrence as operating in such a way as to leave human beings responsible for evil, yet to show God’s using the effect of their evil for his good purpose. For instance, Joseph, whose life was ruined when his brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, recognizes God’s concurrence in that heinous act and the greater good God accomplished by it: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done” (Gen. 50:20, emphasis added).

Does this imply that God is concurrently involved with every human decision, or does divine concurrence operate selectively in certain people or in only occasional instances? The book of Esther suggests that divine concurrence operates in every human decision and action to move history to its appointed end. The author of Esther begins his story with the worldly and unreligious events of Xerxes’ lavish war council and Vashti’s refusal to obey him. Neither of these people worshiped Yahweh, nor were they aware of his involvement, yet without Xerxes’ pride and Vashti’s defiance, Esther would not have come to a royal position “for such a time as this.” God was apparently orchestrating antecedent events, which involved him concurrently in the decisions of Xerxes and Vashti.

Does divine concurrence operate only in those human decisions that are in accordance with his revealed will? Consider that although Esther was born into Yahweh’s covenant nation, her marriage to a pagan king was not the conscious choice of a covenant man and woman seeking to establish a godly family, but the result of Esther’s winning what was basically a sex contest. It may be difficult or troubling to think of God’s concurrence in such questionable human conduct as occurs in the book of Esther, but it is impossible to separate events in Esther in which we can identify divine concurrence operating from those in which it did not. In the mix of good and evil within the human heart, God’s involvement is nevertheless concurrent.

The Bible does not wince at God’s involvement with human evil, though his involvement must be distinguished from his moral responsibility for it. Through the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:7) the Lord claims control over all things:

Note too the words written in the wake of Jerusalem’s destruction: “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” (Lam. 3:38, emphasis added).5 While admitting divine concurrence in every event, Christian theologians have been careful to also protect the biblical teaching that God does not violate his holiness by his concurrent involvement with evil human actions and that human beings remain morally responsible for themselves. The Westminster Confession 5.4 states this distinction:

Berkhof explains how some theologians conceptualize the relationship between divine concurrence and human free will.6 God arranges and groups events and objects around people in such a way as to place each person at every step in those circumstances that he knows will be a sufficient inducement for that person to do, by his or her own free will, the very thing called for in God’s plan. This explanation is an interesting way to think about the relationship of God’s action and human will, but it is not completely satisfying. To modern ears it may sound like what law enforcement would call entrapment.

Theologians have provided many intriguing discussions of this topic, but have offered no logically satisfying resolution of the tension between God’s sovereignty and human will and responsibility. As Christians we accept that tension and believe both that God is sovereign and that humans are responsible for themselves because the Bible teaches both.

The story of Esther provides a concrete example that affords rich reflection on the mysterious interplay between God’s sovereignty and human free will. If we interpret this story as unfolding according to God’s purposes, then Haman is surely an example of someone who falls by divine providence, yet falls by his own fault. Haman’s pride-driven evil at every step led him toward what turned out to be his own destruction in the reversal of destiny called for by God’s covenant promise. He had plotted for God’s people what God had intended for the Amalekites, and at every step Haman willfully and deliberately pressed toward what he wanted. Tragically, his pride blinded him to the truth, and he did not realize until it was too late that his willfulness had led him to death and destruction (see the Contemporary Significance section of 7:1–10).

The apostles of Jesus Christ were not troubled by the idea that God is concurrently involved in all human actions, including that greatest evil, the unjust execution of the morally perfect Jesus. The apostles and earliest Christians who witnessed the death of Jesus recognized that “Herod and Pontius Pilate . . . with the Gentiles and the people of Israel . . . did [to Jesus] what your [God’s] power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (Acts 4:27–28, emphasis added). This realization of God’s involvement in the death of Jesus did not cause them to doubt either God’s goodness or his omnipotence. To the contrary, the recognition of God’s concurrent involvement in all human action was of great comfort to them.

This realization also provided the courage they needed to pray further: “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness” (Acts 4:29). The apostles and earliest Christians were emboldened to face even the greatest threats because they understood divine concurrence, knowing that everything they would experience, including persecution, suffering, and even death, would work for God’s greatest good.

Here in Acts 4:23–31 we find the almost surprising association of fervent prayer in response to the recognition of divine providence. This association is surprising because the modern understanding of divine providence has often seemed to dull, if not eliminate, the motivation for prayer. Divine providence is often misunderstood today as an almost fatalistic determinism. If God has already determined what must happen, then of what good is it to pray?

Throughout the ages of the church various theologians and apologists have answered that question in different ways. C. S. Lewis understood prayer to be efficacious because the prayer of God’s people was itself an integral part of divine action:

Systematic theologian Donald Bloesch explains that while “God’s ultimate purposes are unchangeable . . . his immediate will is flexible and open to change through the prayers of his people.”8 Others have observed that not all prayers for God to overcome evil and suffering are answered as we would expect them to be, given God’s goodness and omnipotence; they have argued that God’s power in the world is mitigated by agents of evil, but his will will be ultimately accomplished.9 In other words, “God’s power is not irresistible in the short run, but it is inexhaustible in the long run.”10 Therefore, we should continue to pray in cooperation with the divine will, knowing that ultimately God will prevail. But surely the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:24–43 teaches that it is by no lack of God’s power that evil continues to exist but by his deliberate decision he allows it to exist for now. To destroy evil would mean nothing less than the end of history, since evil is so deeply rooted in human existence.

Still others, who reject the biblical teaching that prayer changes things but who value religion for its psychological benefit, recommend prayer as a means of changing our own attitude toward the circumstances that trouble us. We can find peace of mind through prayer when we are convinced that whatever happens is actually a part of God’s greater good. Scripture teaches that God will keep in perfect peace those whose minds are focused on him (e.g., Isa. 26:3; Phil. 4:8–9). That peace is found, however, in God’s power and presence, not in any self-deception as unbelieving pop psychologists imply by recommending prayer as mantra.

It is no doubt beyond human comprehension to understand logically the relationship between God’s divine action in the world and the prayers of his people, but passages such as Acts 4:23–31 teach that prayer is to be the Christian’s response to the recognition that God sovereignly directs all things. If there is divine concurrence in all human action, then prayer is no exception. As Charles Spurgeon put it, “Prayer prompted by the Holy Spirit is the footfall of the divine decree.”11

The earliest Christians who prayed the bold prayer of Acts 4:24–30 were unafraid to recognize that God’s power and will had decided beforehand that Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, would kill Jesus Christ (Acts 4:27). God’s involvement in this great evil did not cause them, as it apparently causes many today, to doubt God’s goodness in having his only begotten Son crucified. Instead, they saw Jesus’ crucifixion as greater than any evil that could befall themselves. Correlatively, they understood that the greatest good, salvation, had been worked through the greatest evil, Christ’s crucifixion, and that God’s greater good would result also from any suffering and evil that they might experience as they lived out this good news. Rather than dull their motivation for prayer, this recognition of God’s sovereignty over evil fueled their confidence that whatever might befall them was indeed a part of this greater plan; such knowledge drew them to worship God in fervent prayer. Were God not in control of bringing a greater good out of evil, redemption by any definition would be impossible.

(3) Divine concurrence that moves history toward a planned end. Throughout the Bible, God’s involvement in human action is always described as being purposeful. The treachery of Joseph’s brothers served a purpose far beyond their knowing. When they felt the guilt of their evil, Joseph comforted them with these words (Gen. 45:5–8):

Divine concurrence in human action is purposeful toward a divinely appointed end. Such concurrence in the decisions of Pilate, Herod, and all the others that led Jesus to the cross accomplished an ultimate good that no one involved could ever have imagined: “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation” (Col. 1:21–22). Furthermore, the New Testament teaches that all of history is still moving toward the final point of God’s plan, when Christ returns.

This necessarily implies that today, even as you read this page, God is working concurrently in human action. For where do private, insignificant, ordinary acts end and monumental, historic events begin? Do not great, history-making people emerge out of ordinary antecedent events, such as the first meeting of the couple who would eventually give them birth? For God to accomplish the great acts of redemption, such as the Exodus or the crucifixion of Jesus, the lives of many players had to be brought into confluence. What chain of ordinary events brought Herod and Pontius Pilate together to conspire in Jerusalem against the Son of God? How do we separate redemptive history from the web of events of all of history? The book of Esther suggests that God has dignified all of history, even its seemingly most insignificant events, with his power and presence working through providence to fulfill his covenant promises.

According to Scripture, God’s involvement with the universe is not capricious. Neither is God waiting to see what we all decide to do so he can then intervene if things are not going as planned. God governs the universe toward a goal, and that goal is inseparably bound to the people he has chosen to bring into covenant with himself in Jesus Christ.

The author of Esther skillfully highlights God’s kingship over the affairs of the world in comparison to the foibles and follies of the great and powerful King Xerxes. Despite Xerxes’ great power and wealth, the true King of the universe moved history onward right under Xerxes’ nose as the Persian king reveled in his illusion of being in control. And God wasn’t even “there”—a thought that should humble professing atheists, who see no evidence of God in the world! Perhaps the author of Esther shows Xerxes making not even one decision of his own in order to underscore the fact that even one of Persia’s greatest kings was not really in control of events despite the outward appearance of majesty and power. The book of Esther pokes fun at the earthly powers-that-be and the prince of darkness, who finagles them in the spiritual realm.

There is no way to understand the events told in the book of Esther as being of God without affirming the three elements of divine providence just outlined. If the book of Esther is understood as communicating truth about human nature and redemptive destiny in the form of story, surely the truth it communicates demands the claims of divine providence. How omnipotent is our God in all the earth!