Here's the text in question:
Esther 4:15–16 (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 and Daniel 3, 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