Blogs

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog Jan 25 2006]

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.