Esther (3)

And the king loved Esther above all the women, and she obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti (Esth. 2:17).

Having responded to two specific objections in the last issue of the News, this time I conclude my treatment of Esther by replying to the reader’s remaining three points.

(3) "What principle kept Mordecai from reverencing Haman (Esth. 3:2)? "

I do not know why Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman. As a child listening to this story read from Scripture or told by my teacher or catechism instructor, I always thought to myself, "Mordecai was a proud Jew who would not bow before anyone." It may be, however, that his refusal to bow was rooted in some notion that a Jew should not bow before a heathen, although so far as I know there was no law in Israel that a Jew might not bow before someone as a gesture of respect or of submission to higher authority. Abraham bowed before the children of Heth (Gen. 23:7).

(4) "Mordecai used his advanced position of influence for the good of the Jews and their seed. In Esther 10:3, we read of his ‘seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.’"

It is entirely possible, and, I think, the case, that Mordecai’s motive through the whole affair was (1) a thirst for power and (2) a love for his countrymen. As far as the first is concerned, why did Mordecai almost force Esther into entering the beauty contest in the first place? He did not know that God intended it to be a means to save Israel. He knew the evil and promiscuity of the heathen court; he knew the laws of Israel; he knew the consequences of such conduct. It seems to me that he saw in all this an opportunity to advance himself in the court of the king. Even if Esther had not become queen, but had merely been added to Ahasuerus’ stable of concubines, he would have had some sort of inner access to power. That Esther would have become at least a concubine is almost certain.

As far as the second point is concerned, a man may have an entirely natural and patriotic love for his country that prompts him to do anything for his country’s welfare. I am three generations removed from the Netherlands, and the Netherlands has become morally bankrupt and apostate. Yet, even as a child, I hurt inside when the Nazis raped the Netherlands and held it in virtual slavery. They did the same to France, but that did not hurt me as much. I used an example of a soldier in the last issue of the News. There are many instances of soldiers willing to die for their country in the annals of British and American warfare.

(5) "Who wrote the book of Esther? We are not told, yet Esther 9:20 gives us a hint, and Mordecai himself would naturally seem to be the most probable author. If he was, would God use one not included in the covenant of grace?"

I do not know who wrote the book of Esther. I have read the suggestion that Daniel wrote it, for he may himself have been in the palace of Shushan (Dan. 6:1-3; 9:1-2; cf. 8:2). But whether he was still living at this time is doubtful. If Mordecai wrote the book, we might have an explanation why the book does not mention the name of God. In any case, we ought not build an argument for Mordecai’s salvation on the remote possibility that he was the man God used to write the book. We do not know the authors of many books in the Bible. We do not need to know (if we are not told). We do not need to know because God, through the Spirit of Christ, is the divine Author.

Anyone today who committed the sins of Esther and Mordecai would be excommunicated. In the Old Testament, the law required that they be stoned. God detests such sins. I find it difficult to imagine that God approved of these sins under these circumstances; or disapproving of them, nevertheless, left no hint in the book itself of His fury against such sins.

Finally, to take the position that both Mordecai and Esther were motivated by love for God not only creates the dilemma and Jesuistic casuistry that "the end justifies the means," but it also destroys the whole purpose of the book, namely, to show that God uses even wicked people to save His church.