In preparing a sermon on Lord’s Day 12 for this Sunday (by way of Revelation 1 – which, by the way, focuses upon God’s people as servants in 1.1 and as a priesthood in 1.7), this got me reflecting on the question of how the high priest relates to this. If a priest is a palace servant, what is a “high” palace servant?

This in turn led me to think about the predominant Servant theme in Isaiah, a rabbit trail that turned out to be helpful, although I’m not entirely sure yet where to go with it.

In Isaiah 22.15ff, Shebna is the steward “over the household” of the king. He would therefore be the “high” palace servant, the equivalent of the high priest.

(The “steward” idea incidentally opens up all sorts of interesting tracks, such as Paul’s use of the stewardship theme and how that has possible priestly undertones.)

But what I’m more directly interested is how the high priest theme delineates the role of Christ. As Messiah, He is King, but the high priestly element of His anointing also makes Him the Chief Servant. Which is an apparent paradox that certainly bears reflection.

The whole Shebna – Eliakim relationship would also be interesting to examine.

In Is 22, Isaiah prophecies that the stewardship will be taken from Shebna and given to Eliakim; assuming chronological order (which I’m not entirely certain about) the encounter with the Rabshakeh occurs later (Is 37), at which time Eliakim is indeed “over the household” (2 Kg 18.18) – but Shebna is serving as scribe. It appears that although the prophecy is that Shebna will be hurled away violently (Is 22.17), in the meantime, he has become servant to his replacement.

Moreover, Eliakim is the son of the high priest, Hilkiah (2 Kg 22.4). Does this mean the heir apparent to the high priest in YHWH’s house also becomes the high priest in the king’s house? Apparently so, assuming Eliakim is Hilkiah’s eldest son.

As far as insight into how the office of royal steward helps us gain insight into the high priesthood, note that in 2 Kings, the steward/head of the royal household is delegated the task of conversing with the Rabshakeh – he serves as an emissary. Which I suppose brings us back to Isaiah again; the commission of the Servant frequently seems to carry “emissarial” responsibilities. Israel as Yahweh’s servant serves as “my witnesses” (Is 43.10). Yahweh in turn “confirms the word of His servant and fulfills the counsel of His messengers” (44.26).

Indeed, the role of high priest/palace servant/steward/emissary and the role of king seem to merge together into virtually indistinguishability in the case of the Servant. He is the One who “will bring forth justice to the nations” (Is 42.1). The Servant is the instrument of the regathering of Israel (49.5), but more, is “a light for the nations, that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49.6), and ultimately kings and princes themselves shall arise and prostrate themselves before this “servant of rulers” (49.7); Yahweh’s Servant “shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted” (52.13).

And of course, perhaps more familiar to us, the Servant will make many to be accounted righteous, and will bear their iniquities (53.11).

Additional notes:

Not specific to the “high” servant, but I think there is an implication of adoption for Yahweh’s servants in 65.15.

The steward, the scribe and the senior priests (37.2) are described as “the servants of King Hezekiah” in Isaiah 37.5. Not sure if that demonstrates equivalence, as it is frequent to describe a king’s subjects as his servants, but interesting.

Tonight I’m leading a Bible study on Peter Leithart’s excellent book, A House for My Name. We are dealing with two books which refer to the exilic time period: Daniel and Esther.

Although the general assumption is that Mordecai acts faithfully throughout the book, Leithart suggests otherwise. He believes that unlike Daniel and company, Mordecai has not submitted properly to the will of Yahweh in connection with “the times of the Gentiles.” Leithart adds that Mordecai’s mourning in sackcloth and ashes in 4.1-3 is an act of repentance.

Here is a summary of what Leithart considers to be evidence of Mordecai’s unfaithfulness:

1. Mordecai’s name, which means something like “worshipper of Marduk,” a god of Babylon

2. Mordecai’s instructions to Esther to keep her identity known; he should have encouraged confession of Yahweh and His people

3. Mordecai’s failure to bow before Haman is an act of disobedience to the authority God has established over Israel (note: it was not impermissible to bow before rulers, and faithful people throughout Scripture did so – e.g. both Bathsheba and Nathan the prophet bow before David in 1 Kg 1.16, 23).

4. Leithart also suggests that Mordecai wanted Esther to be queen so that he himself could have more power.

These are interesting observations, and I don’t claim I can explain every difficulty with regard to Mordecai’s actions. Nonetheless, at this point I do not find the above line of reasoning compelling. Taking up the above observations in order:

1. While Mordecai’s name is interesting, and could be telling where other evidence of unfaithfulness is strong, I’m not at all sure much weight can be given it. In fact, the parallel with Daniel suggests just the opposite. As we know from Daniel, numerous Jews had been renamed by the Babylonians, including all four of the principal players in the book: Daniel himself (who is called Belteshazzar), Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego – all names derived from Mesopotamian gods, replacing El and Yah based names. In fact, Belteshazzar is based upon Bel (“may Bel protect his life”) – another name for Marduk. Since Esther is set in the Persian period, the renaming has likely already taken place, and Mordecai’s name in no way demonstrates that either he or his family are devoted to Marduk rather than Yahweh. (Cf our own usage of days of the week with names rooted in pagan mythology.)

2. While Mordecai instructs Esther to maintain her identity as a secret, his own clearly is not, since Haman knows that the one who refuses to bow to him is a Jew, which is after all what provokes the decree for destruction. Hence, whatever Mordecai’s motive in calling for secrecy on Esther’s part, it doesn’t seem to be one of any general wish to fail to confess Israel and her God.

3. With regard to the authority issue, (1) is it settled that Mordecai ought to have done obeisance to an Amalekite? and (2) Mordecai’s foiling of the plot against Ahasuerus already in 2.19ff indicates that he was indeed seeking the well-being of the king God had placed in authority.

4. I don’t think it is at all clear that Mordecai is seeking personal power in desiring Esther’s queenship. Rather the opposite, it seems to me that the very fact that Mordecai instructs Esther not to make her people or family known (2.10) indicates that he really had no such concern.

As to 4.1-3, I don’t see any sign that the sackcloth and ashes are those of repentance for previous sin. The text seems completely consonant with acts of mourning elsewhere whenever disaster strikes, and there is no hint that Mordecai sees himself as having done wrong, as far as I can see. It is not his sin, but the fact that Mordecai has “learned all that happened” (i.e. the decree of destruction) that causes Mordecai to weep. And although disaster often occasions repentance in Scripture, that simply is left unmentioned here, which is odd if that is the real issue.

I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of readers, whether in support of Leithart’s thesis, or in corrective dialogue with it.