The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.

As a Christian, how should I understand the book of Esther? Meaning, what does it tell me, and what should I take from it to make me a better Christians, or even not to make me a better Christian what should I take from it? Does the book of Esther itself give any direction that would help Christians? Or maybe, as quoted from this answer? >Anyway, Esther is in the Christian Bible because it is in the Jewish Bible. Why would the Jews include it in their Bible? Chiefly because it tells the story for one of their feasts, that of Purim. Purim is a joyous festival in which they act out the story of Esther by reading through the book of Esther.

Do we know what was Esther's relationship to Mordecai, based on the Jewish and Christian tradition?

Here's the text in question: >[Esther 4:15–16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%204&version=ESV) (ESV)
15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, **though it is against the law**, and if I perish, I perish.” The commentators I have read on this passage are unanimous in praising Esther for being willing to sacrifice herself for the sake of her people. However, they do not attempt to reconcile this praise with their statements on obedience to earthly authority. For example, the *New Bible Commentary* (1970) says regarding Romans 13: >[E]very Christian has the duty [...] to obey lawful authority so far as such obedience does not conflict with God's law or Christ's authority. Classic examples of permissible disobedience include [Acts 5:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+5%3A29&version=ESV) and [Daniel 3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%203&version=ESV) , where followers of God are ordered to do something in direct opposition to God's law, so they disobey. That's not Esther's situation, apparently putting her action at odds with the common interpretation of Romans 13 and similar passages. I am looking for any Christian commentator (regardless of background) who, while affirming the infallibility of the Bible, directly addresses this apparent conflict *without* resorting to a "the ends justifies the means" argument. That is, I want a commentator who either - argues that Esther sinned on the basis of Romans 13, and should not have done what she did - argues that Esther did not sin, because the king and/or the law in question are not the sort of things referred to in Romans 13

As you may know, God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, either by name (Yahweh), title (Adonai), or being (El). Neither is prayer. Why not? I realize this is rather open ended, so I'll try to give some objective criteria: 1. If it never mentions God, why is it in the canon? 2. What is the theological application to be gained from Esther *given* the lack of any reference to God. 3. *[waves hands](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/handwave.html)* I have a few thoughts on this myself, but i'll try to hold them until I can get a good sampling of answers. (also, why hasn't this been asked yet? Have I missed an obvious duplicate? Or stumbled into the Area51 of ✝.SE?)