In the book of Esther, there is no explicit reference to God (though it should be noted that God does appear in the longer recension of Esther that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept). Notwithstanding, a case can be made that God is an important player in the book due to “designed coincidences” in the book, showing that the author believed in a very high view of divine providence. As Barry Webb, head of Old Testament at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia, wrote:
The absence of any explicit reference to God
The absence is certainly one of the most striking features of the book. What clearly is present, however, is a whole series of remarkable coincidences which tip the balance of events in favour of the Jews at critical moments: the timely removal of Vashti, creating the opportunity for Esther to move into a position of power; Mordecai’s equally fortuitous overhearing of the conspiratorial conversation of the eunuchs (2:21-22); the king’s insomnia on the night before the proposed execution of Mordecai and his calling for the royal annals (6:1-2); the entry of Haman at the precise moment when the king is wondering how best to reward Mordecai (6:4); and the king’s re-entry when Haman is compromising himself for falling on Esther’s couch (7:8). All these incidents materially affect the outcome, but none if the result of any strategy on the part of the Jews. Either the Jews have extraordinarily good luck, or unseen powers are at work, giving events a particular shape and direction. The author never makes an explicit comment on this, one way or another. However, the way the characters in the story behave, and the speeches they make at crucial points, clearly indicate their belief that something more than chance or purely natural causation is at work.
The casting of the pûr (the lot) by Hama and his friends at court at the beginning of the main action (3:7) implies a belief on their part that times such as particular days and months are not neutral. They have a tendency or bias towards certain outcomes, and it is not wise to make plans without consulting whatever powers give the times this special character. The lot if apparently a device for doing this.
The three-day fast called by Mordecai at Esther’s request in 4:15-16 is best understood in terms of a related, but significantly different, belief on the part of the Jews. It is quite distinct in character from the ‘fasting, weeping and wailing’ which are mentioned at the beginning of the same chapter (4:1-3). That was a spontaneous response to bad news. This fast, in contrast, is ‘called’ by Esther and Mordecai, and therefore takes on the character of a ritual act. Furthermore, it is specifically ‘for’ Esther (4:15), who is about to take her lie in her hands by approaching the king unbidden; it has an intercessory aspect to it. The Jews apparently do not believe that particular events have a fixed character; but neither do they think the way they turn out it entirely due to natural causes. The fasting here implies belief in a higher power who may be induced to intervene in a favourable way. The fast in question appears to be a religious act which it is hoped will induce him to do so on this particular occasion. But the outcome is not guaranteed by the act. There is no mechanical connection between ritual and result. The power who is appealed to remains free and sovereign: ‘If I perish, I perish’ (4:16). Against this background the passive expression of 9:22 acquires a particular nuance: ‘sorry was turned for them (neḥpaḵ lāhem) into joy, and mourning into a day of celebration’ (my translation). In other words, their fasting met with a favourable response. (Barry G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther [New Studies in Biblical Theology 10; Nottingham: Apollos, 2000, 2013], 121-22)
