CHAPTER  FOUR

A  QUESTION  OF  ETHICS  

One of the questions that will always haunt a reader of the Book of Esther is why did Mordecai allow his stepdaughter to be recruited into the harem of Ahasuerus?  There are several good and scriptural reasons why he should not have.  The first one is that Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with the heathen.  The intermarriage of believers with unbelievers has always been forbidden.  In Genesis we read that before the flood, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” (Genesis 6:2).  It was this intermarriage between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain that produced the generation that God felt compelled to wipe off the face of the earth.  The patriarchs had always gone at great length to find godly wives for their sons.  Their ostracism by the Egyptians because of their occupation as shepherds and later because of their position as slaves made intermarriage in Egypt an unlikely problem.  But when they entered into the land of Canaan they were strictly forbidden to intermarry with the people of the land.  The temptation to intermarry however was greatly increased while in captivity.  The Northern Kingdom, Israel, probably succumbed to it in the Assyrian captivity and thus lost their identity and disappeared from the pages of history.  But God’s law had not changed, even in captivity, and these prohibitions were later enforced in the days of  Ezra and Nehemiah.  In fact this prohibition extends to Christians today.  The Apostle Paul says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-15).  Esther is forbidden by the law to marry Ahasuerus.  This prohibition stands whether she becomes his queen, just another legitimate wife, or a concubine.  Why then did she marry him?  And why do the scriptures not record the least resistance or protest from either Esther or Mordecai in this matter?

Secondly, this marriage was forbidden by the law because it was a polygamous marriage.  Ahasuerus was already married many times over.  Therefore it was forbidden for Esther to marry him.  Polygamy is expressly forbidden to all Israelites in Leviticus 18:18 (“Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.”) and it is specifically forbidden to their kings in Deuteronomy 17:17, (“Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away”).  It was practiced by some of the patriarchs unwillingly, at the suggestion of barren wives, and with unpleasant consequences.  And its practice later by the Kings of Israel and of Judah was a direct violation of the Sinaitic Covenant.  Again we must ask, with the law of God twice barring her from a marriage relationship with Ahasuerus, how did Esther become involved in this “contest” to become his queen? 

And if the above were not enough, there is a third reason for Esther to have abhorred and for Mordecai to have forbidden any participation in this process.  Esther’s chances of becoming queen are statistically very slim.  The fairest of the fair are being gathered from all over the empire, but only one will become queen.  All the others have the sad prospect of a lonely existence as a neglected concubine in the vast harem of an Oriental potentate.  Since this is the likely outcome for each candidate, one would think that Mordecai would do anything in his power to spare his precious step-daughter from such a fate.  Yet the writer says nothing of any such concerns and records nothing about any opposition by Mordecai to his daughter’s induction into this strangest of all beauty pageants. 

Now there is no doubt that they were faced with a royal decree.  By law, Esther as a young virgin of rare beauty was required to submit herself as a candidate for Ahasuerus’ harem.  But could Mordecai not have done something to deliver Esther from this cruel requirement?  With the seclusion of Oriental women this does not seem such a hard thing to do.  Even if it was known, and it may not have been, that he had a daughter, how would it have been known that she was remarkably beautiful?  With the custom of women being veiled in public Esther’s beauty would have been a private matter and not public knowledge.  Logically speaking one would almost assume that Mordecai would attempt to hide his daughter from those royal officials that were entrusted with the execution of this decree.  Why there is no evidence that he sought to do so is one of the mysteries of the Book of Esther. 

Why did Mordecai not try deliver Esther from the King’s unscriptural and unlawful (by God’s law) demands?  He had no way of knowing how God would providentially use Esther for the deliverance of his people.  And he had no right to presume that it might work out that way some day.  To study the ethics of such a situation as this, one must differentiate between the preceptive will and the secret will of God.  The preceptive will of God is his law; the precepts by which he commands us to live.  His secret will is his providence whereby he brings to pass all his holy will and directs history to that grand culmination of the kingdom of his Son Jesus Christ.  Moses refers to this distinction.  He teaches, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).  What Moses is saying is that God’s determinate counsel, his secret purposes, belong to God.  They are His concern.  But God’s law, his preceptive will, belongs to us that we may keep it.  A good illustration of this principle is the case of Judas the traitor.  Judas by his treason fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies right down to the thirty pieces of silver.  Judas fulfilled the secret purpose and eternal counsels of God in bringing to pass the death of His Son Jesus Christ.  But that does not in the least exonerate Judas.  Judas’ duty was to conform to the preceptive will of God.  He was commanded to love the Lord his God with all his heart, not to betray him for the love of money.  He was commanded to seek truth, righteousness, and justice; not to corrupt these to satiate his greed.  As Christ himself declared, “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24).  In His gracious providence God works all things out for good.  He works all things out for his own glory and for the good of his elect.  He overrules our sins to bring good out of them and causes even the actions of the wicked to fulfill his holy purposes so that the Bible says that even “the wrath of man shall praise him”.  But his secret counsels are his business alone and He still holds men accountable according to his moral law.  So regardless of the fact that Esther’s elevation to Queen of Persia was used of God to deliver his people there is absolutely no reason for Mordecai to allow Esther to enter a marriage that is doubly prohibited by God’s preceptive will.  Even had he known, and he didn’t, his actions would still have been forbidden.  We have to do our duty and trust God to work things out for good.

So why did Mordecai surrender his daughter to the king’s decree?  I can think of only four answers.  The first we have already dealt with; that he thought it would be advantageous to his people to have a Jewess in such a high position of influence.  If he did he was wrong and his actions are condemned by the scriptures.  Secondly, he may have surrendered Esther to the royal will because he believed that he was required to obey.  This was a royal decree and he was a subject of Ahasuerus’.  Jeremiah had warned the Jews that they had to submit to Nebuchadnezzar; it was God’s will for them; it was his judgment on them.  Later Paul taught the Christians in Rome, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2).  The Apostle Peter taught, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;  Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.  For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:13-15).  Mordecai may have felt that it was his duty to obey the king’s decree and reluctantly surrendered his daughter.  If he did so I believe he was wrong.  The passages quoted are both in the context of rulers who are a terror to the wicked and a support to the righteous.  There is nothing in the scriptures that requires Mordecai to surrender his precious daughter to his king’s inordinate lust; as there was nothing that required Nathan  to surrender his inheritance to the covetousness of Ahab, his king.  As the Apostle’s told the Sanhedrin, when they too came under a command that conflicted with the will of God, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). 

Thirdly, Mordecai may have wanted to resist the king’s decree but was reluctant to practice the necessary deception required to protect his daughter.   He may have wanted to shelter Esther, but when faced with official inquiries about his daughter he felt compelled to tell the truth and thus effectively surrendered his daughter.  If so I again believe that he was wrong, and this raises the age old debate about when Christians are justified in practicing deceit.  Is it morally justified to “lie” to the Nazis?  I have some personal experience in this matter.  I was born in the Netherlands during the Second World War and my family lived under the Nazi occupation.  The Headmaster of the local Christian School was arrested and killed by the Gestapo.  He had been in the underground and was helping young men to evade Hitler’s draft.  These young men needed hiding places and fake papers and ration coupons.  When he was arrested our minister went to Gestapo (SD) headquarters in Leeuwaarden and sought to intercede for him.  We will never know what he said because they interrogated him and then took him out in the back yard of the building and shot him.  But you can be sure that he didn’t go there and say the man was guilty, that he was a member of the underground, that he had been active in forging and distributing false ration coupons, but would they please let him go!  Not just in the more celebrated matter of hiding Dutch Jews from the machinery of the holocaust, Dutch Christians practiced deceit during the occupation.  Were they wrong?  The Reformers practiced deceit to escape the Inquisition during the Reformation.  Were they wrong?  Only the scriptures can settle that issue; after all it is God’s law that we are to obey.  The Bible forbids men to lie.  The Bible says that no liar has a place in the kingdom of God.  But what this all boils down to is what is the scriptural definition of a lie?  The famed Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, wrestled with this issue.  He developed what he believed to be a scriptural definition of a lie.  It had three components.  The first was the obvious; a lie is a statement that is false.  However that alone does not constitute the statement a lie.  Children make false statements routinely in their tests at school, unless they get a perfect grade.  But if little Johnny says that two plus two equals five we don’t call him a liar.  That brings us to the second component of a lie, an intent to deceive.  The false statement has to be made with the knowledge that it is false and with a deliberate intent to deceive.  This is as far as most people’s analysis goes.  For them all intents to deceive are lies and are immoral and inadmissible for Christians.  When the Nazis come to your door and ask if there are Jews in the attic you are to draw yourself up in all your moral self righteousness and say I can not tell a lie, yes there are.  And when the inquisition comes to your door and asks where that unlawful preacher is hiding out, you have to reply with the truth.  The only other alternative that these moralists would allow a Christian is to defiantly state that they know, but refuse to tell.  This is but another way of committing suicide and an invitation for them to extract the information by torture.  Is this what God requires?  Fortunately the Reformers did not think so or we might still all be Romanists!  Hodge added a third requirement; the person requiring the information has to have a moral right to the truth.  This was not based on sophistry, but on clear and convincing scriptural evidence. 

The first case in point is that of the Hebrew midwives.  They were faced with Pharaoh’s decree to kill all the male infants of the children of Israel. They disobeyed and saved the children.  When they were questioned by Pharaoh as to why they were not complying they “lied”.  They fabricated a story that the Hebrew women gave birth so fast that the babies were born before they could get there.  They could have defiantly told Pharaoh that they refused to obey his command.  But then they would simply have been killed and replaced with those who would or Pharaoh would have devised another means of exterminating the Hebrews.  Was God angry with them?  No, to the contrary he was very pleased with them.  As Moses records it,

“And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:  And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.  But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.  And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?  And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.  Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty” (Exodus 1:15-20). 

A similar example is the case of Rahab.  She hid the Hebrew spies and deceived the authorities of Jericho with respect to where they were.  Was God angry with her.  To the contrary because of her actions she and her family were the sole inhabitants of Jericho who were spared when the city fell.  And she has the distinction of being an ancestor of Jesus Christ.  Paul includes her in the pantheon of the heroes of the faith, declaring, “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace” (Hebrews 11:31).  There are other examples, but that is not the purpose of this book.  The point is that in both these cases the Lord’s people practiced deception in order to protect the people of God.  In both cases they are commended in scripture.  Rather than judge them as sinful liars the scriptures tell us that the midwives acted out of fear of God and that Rahab acted by faith in God.  All of them refused to give the wicked the information that they needed to destroy the people of God.  In both cases the wicked, as Hodge put it, did not have a moral right to the truth. 

Now where does this leave Mordecai?  Did he have an obligation to obey the king’s decree?  I think not.  Did he have an obligation to be truthful in any inquiries by the officials with respect to this decree?  I think not.  Did Ahasuerus have a moral right to the truth when he will use that truth to kidnap a godly young maiden and force her into a polygamous and heathen marriage?  I think not.  Would he have been justified in using deception to protect his daughter?  I believe so.  Would you, if you had lived under Nazi occupation during the Second World War, have practiced deception to keep your daughter out of an S.S. military brothel?  Those who would not must think that they are holier than God, that they have moral standards higher than his law.  They are no better than Lot who offered up his daughters to satisfy the lust of wicked men, to appease a mob of rioting Sodomites. 

The final reason that may account for Esther’s participation in the requirements of the king’s decree is that neither her nor Mordecai had any choice.  Was Esther taken against her and Mordecai’s will?  We do not know.  All we know is that the text is silent with respect to any resistance by them.  And neither does the text intimate that any force was used or required to take Esther into the royal harem.  But one certainly wants to hope that this was the case, that Esther and Mordecai wanted to obey God’s law and sought deliverance from this unjust decree, that Mordecai did his best to shelter Esther from this seemingly cruel fate, but that the king’s officials discovered her despite his best efforts to the contrary.  That God answered their prayers for deliverance in a marvelous way that they could never have foreseen would only add to the inspiring theme of this book.  If this was the case that leaves us with only one question.  How would the royal officials have known of her and especially of her beauty?  Had Mordecai previously shown her off?  Was he now paying the price for his indiscretion.  Was he like Hezekiah now suffering the consequences of his folly?  Of Hezekiah, when he showed off his treasures, we are told,

“At that time Berodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah: for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.  And Hezekiah hearkened unto them, and showed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not.  Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon.  And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them.  And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD.  Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD”  (2 Kings 20:12-17). 

These are questions that we cannot answer.  These are issues that we can only speculate about.  But it remains one of the great mysteries of the Book of Esther how she ever became a candidate for Vashti’s queenly crown. 

CHAPTER  FIVE

GENEALOGICAL QUESTIONS

Esther 2:5

5 Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;

Who was Mordecai?  What can we learn from this genealogy of his?  One thing that we can learn is about the extent of God’s grace.  He are told that he was Benjamite, that he was from a tribe that had been slated for destruction.  He was from a tribe that was almost annihilated for their reprobate behavior and their refusal to repent. And except for unusual measures taken by the other tribes to secure wives for the remnant of Benjamin they would have gone extinct.  Yet, in spite of Benjamin’s iniquity, that nearly led to his extinction we see God bringing much good out Benjamin.  First of all, the tribe of Benjamin produced Saul, Israel’s first king.  Benjamin also produced the great Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus and a Benjamite, to whom we, as Gentile believers, are all indebted.  And here we learn that Benjamin produced Mordecai and Esther (his father’s brother’s daughter and therefore also of the tribe of Benjamin) through whom the nation of Judah, already dispersed among the Gentiles, was saved from extinction.  We see poetic irony here.  The other tribes by their compassion save Benjamin from extinction, and centuries later Benjamin saves them from extinction. 

What else can we learn from this genealogy of Mordecai’s?  Who were these ancestors of his that are listed here?  Were they simply the father, grandfather, and the great-grandfather of Mordecai?  Were they unknown personages of whom we know little or nothing else?  Were they simply unknown, nondescript people who went into captivity?  Were they unlike Daniel, a prince of the royal house of Judah, or unlike Ezekiel, a priest and a prophet?  Were they just people of no importance?  Were they simply people that would never have been recorded in the pages of sacred history except for their famous progeny, Mordecai and Esther?  This is certainly one possibility and if so we can see the marvelous ways of God.   He takes the humble from the dust and raises them up to sit with the princes of the land.  As he took David from the sheepfold and made him captain over the Lord’s heritage, so he takes these simple unknown people and makes them great in Israel.  He raises them up to great power and prestige in this life and sees that their names will never be forgotten as long as the righteous read the word of God.  In this we see the greatness and goodness of God.  As the psalmist says, “Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,  Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!  He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;  That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people” (Psalm 113:5-8). 

Of course there is one other possibility.  That is that these personages are actually well known.  After all why would the writer list totally unknown people as Mordecai’s ancestors?  To what purpose would he list people whose names would mean nothing, even to the readers of that day?  Could it be possible that these are actually not the direct forebearers of Mordecai?  Son does not necessarily mean the immediate son in the scriptures, but can mean grandson or great-grandson etc.  Could it be that these are actually just a few famous ancestors who the writer considered worthy of note?  Now it is true that the most direct and the most logical meaning of the text is that these were the immediate forebearers of Mordecai.  But there is a possibility that it is not so.  And because some commentators including Keil, the Jewish Targums, etc., take the position that these are well known ancestors of Mordecai I want to at least explore the ramifications of that interpretation should it be true. 

Who is Jair?  We really do not know.  Jair means he enlightens.  There are three Jairs recorded in the Old Testament scriptures. The first is Jair, the son of Segub, who played a prominent part in the conquest of the trans-Jordan in the days of Moses.  The second Jair is a Gileadite, who lived in the days of the judges, and judged Israel for twenty-two years.  He is the one with the thirty sons who all rode on donkeys.  The third Jair, the one we are interested in, is either the father or a more remote ancestor of Mordecai.  More than that we do not know.  Then who is Shimei?  If he is a better known, but more remote ancestor of Mordecai then the only plausible answer is that he is Shimei, the son of Gera.  He is the Benjamite who cursed David when he fled before Absalom.  So say the Jewish Targums although they are hardly a reliable source with their abundance of fanciful tales.  And finally who is Kish?  Is he the famous Benjamite who was the father of Israel’s first King?  Again this is the most plausible candidate as he is the only famous Benjamite of that name. 

If all these identifications are correct we see a parallel here with the genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1.  That genealogy generally lists only the male ancestors.  But three times it goes out of the way to list women in the genealogy.  And remarkably all three women noted are ones that the genealogist of a famous person would prefer to exclude.  First of all there is Rahab, the Canaanite, an innkeeper in a culture where that profession was equated with harlotry.  Then there is Ruth the Moabitess and foreigner also from a despised race, a race born of the incest of Lot with his daughters.  What a contrast with the race of Israel born of the supernatural conception of Isaac in Sarah’s womb in her extreme old age.  And finally there is Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, the adulteress who married her husband’s murderer.  Is the writer of the Book of Esther trying to make the same point?  Is he linking Mordecai with some of Israel’s more despised personages?  Is the writer stating that Mordecai descended from the reprobate Shimei who cursed the Lord’s anointed?  If so we have very interesting contrast.  Shimei curses David, the Lord’s anointed, and prays for his death when he is under threat of assassination by his son Absalom.  At the restoration Solomon places Shimei under house arrest and finally has him executed as an oath-breaker.  Mordecai faithfully serves the Lord’s anointed (“...the powers that be are ordained of God” Romans 13:1), Ahasuerus  and saves his life in the matter of the conspiracy of Bigthan and Teresh when he was threatened with assassination.  Mordecai ends his days in a position of great authority and respect and after death was highly beloved and remembered by his people.  Was the writer trying to bring out this contrast?  Was he saying that the stain that Shimei put on the tribe of Benjamin has been erased by a greater son of Benjamin, Mordecai? 

And what of Kish, the father of Saul?  What can his ancestry to Mordecai teach us?  A lot, for here we see an even greater contrast.  On the one hand we have Saul the disobedient King of Israel who intruded into the priesthood.  Saul the apostate King of Israel who consulted the witch at Endor and died by his own hand.  And Saul who spared Agag, the cursed King of the Amalekites.  Amalek had attacked Israel when they were coming out of Egypt.  This was the battle that hung in the balance and was decided in Israel’s favor by Moses’ prayer and intercession that long day when Aaron and Hur held up his arms unto the Almighty, the Lord of hosts.  God’s response to Amalek’s unbrotherly conduct was to declare that he would have war with Amalek forever.  And centuries later in fulfillment of that vow God gave Saul the commission to go and utterly destroy Amalek.  He was to leave nothing alive of man or beast.  But Saul failed to obey and spared not only the best of the flocks, but also Agag, their King.  Now many more centuries later comes Haman, the Agagite, of the royal house of Amalek, and in all likelihood a descendant of the Agag that Saul spared.  And this man seeks to do to Israel what Saul was commanded to do to Amalek, annihilate them completely.  But God raises up a greater son of Saul, Mordecai.  And Mordecai is used of God to foil the plot to destroy the Jews and Mordecai is instrumental in the death of Haman and his seed.  Mordecai accomplishes what Saul failed to do, the destruction of Amalek’s royal seed.  Was the writer aware of these interesting parallels?  It would certainly explain a lot.  It would explain why Mordecai’s less than illustrious ancestors are specifically identified.  This was done not to embarrass Mordecai, but to exalt him by comparison.  This is another reason to believe that Mordecai did not himself author this book.  We see how circumspectly the authors of the gospels keep a low profile and never exalt themselves.  John never refers to himself by name, but addresses himself as the Apostle that Jesus loved.  The inspired writer must have known Mordecai and received from him his family history.  But the Holy Spirit does not cause men to exalt themselves.  Paul, under the guidance of the Spirit, can only call himself the chief of sinners.