I just want to share a few
observations I’ve had while I was reading the Book of Esther.
It is rather ironic that
King Ahasuerus gets rid of Vashti for refusing to come to his banquet when he
commanded, and then he comes to two of Esther’s banquets when she asks him and allows her to come even when he hasn’t called her. It gives us the impression that with
God on her side, Esther is more powerful than even Vashti was. We see that God softened King
Ahasuerus’ heart when he could have been offended at Esther.
It strikes me that Mordecai,
by his omitting to bow to Haman, is the provoking factor for Haman’s attempt to
kill the Jews, and Mordecai’s niece Esther is providentially positioned to
clean up the mess that results from it.
I have to wonder, did Mordecai consider bowing an act of idolatrous
worship that he had to refrain from in order to keep the commandment to not
have any gods besides Jehovah, or did he know something of Haman’s background
that made him think Haman unworthy of a bow? Such a little thing that led to such danger!
Now here’s something I
noticed that I didn’t realize before.
For the longest time I’ve had the idea that Haman saw Mordecai not
bowing down and that made Haman angry and led to his vendetta against the
Jews. However, that is a
simplification. The real story comes before that.
1 After
these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the
Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were
with him.
2 And
all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate,
bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But
Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.
3 Then
the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate,
said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?
4 Now
it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto
them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand: for
he had told them that he was a Jew.
5 And
when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman
full of wrath. (Esther 3:1-5)
It seems Haman didn’t
even notice Mordecai at first, and Mordecai’s coworkers are the ones who make
Mordecai’s actions an issue. They
see him not bowing while everyone else is and they get after him about it. They won’t let it go; they are after
him every day about it. He told
them he was a Jew, and perhaps there was an explanation about the 10
commandments and not bowing down to anything but the true God, but they weren’t
willing to let him get out of it.
This is peer pressure on the job, folks. So, Mordecai’s coworkers are the ones who bring Mordecai’s
actions to Haman’s attention, and when Haman notices, he gets really mad.
I think the conflict between
Mordecai and Haman is very applicable for us because at bottom it is about how
covenant people and their values clash with worldly priorities, but that the
Lord prepares ways to protect His people when their zeal provokes opposition
from others or when others make an issue of the standards He asks them to live.
Another thing I notice is
that the king seem really comfortable with delegating his authority and
approving new decrees, even when the real effects and implications are not
known. All Haman does to get the
decree to kill the Jews passed is tell the king:
--There’s a people in your
kingdom who have different laws from everybody else and don’t follow your laws.
--They don’t help you any.
--I’ll pay for it if you
make a decree to destroy them.
The king doesn’t even know
who these people are. The
information he is given is incredibly vague, while a critical thinker would
start asking questions like, “Who are they? What are their laws?
What laws of the king do they break?” A critical thinker would also want to hear the accused
people make a defense of their laws and justify their existence. But then, I am judging by 21st
century standards. King Ahasuerus
no doubt made the assumption that since Haman was loyal to the king and a king favorite,
he would bring up these concerns only if it were already demonstrated that the
people in question were a problem.
The obstacles that Esther
faces in pleading for herself and her people are significant.
·
To go see the
king to make her petition she has to visit him without being called, which
could lead to her death if the king didn’t hold out his scepter to her and
pardon her life.
·
To reveal her
nationality when the Jews had already been sentenced to destruction meant she
could lose her life that way too, if her petition was unsuccessful.
·
She had to argue
that the king’s favorite (Haman) had been behind this. The king could easily take Haman’s side
over hers.
·
To point out the
king had been duped into making the law in the first place she would imply that
the king’s judgment was bad, which would be a bit of a blow to a royal male
ego.
·
She hadn’t been
asked for by the king in 30 days, so her social currency wasn’t at the
strongest right then. She had to
find a way to strengthen her ties to the king.
It must have made Esther
very nervous to make such a big request after not having seen the king for 30
days. I think she knew that one is
not likely to grant large request even to family members one has not associated
with for a while, but that one is more likely to do so after some quality
family time. Hence, requesting one
banquet with the king and then another banquet before she brought up the topic,
was an excellent tactic.
Dinner was important for families to bond even back in ancient times,
yes?
It is interesting that when
Esther comes into the king’s inner court, she just stands there waiting for him
to notice. She doesn’t go far in
blatantly; she waits just inside.
It must have been a very tense moment for her.
When the king lowers his
scepter to her, I just have to marvel at the two different views of the
situation—Esther’s and the king’s.
The king may have thought, “Well, duh,
I would definitely pardon my wife if she came to talk to me!” while Esther
waited on pins and needles, as for her it was a matter of life and death. It’s a pretty good lesson that we
may see events one way, but to other people those events may have deadly
significance and their whole lives hinge on the outcome. It also makes me think it can’t be very
healthy for a relationship if one partner has all the power like that. Esther had to live in that and
make it work.
She goes up and touches the
scepter. To me it is a playful
gesture, like an attempt to try to maintain her human dignity and diffuse the
tenseness in a situation where she had no control over the outcome. It’s as if she says, “Yes, I pardon you
too. We will pardon each other and
life will be beautiful. Isn’t it
rather silly that you have to pardon your own wife when she wants to talk to
you?”
It is interesting to me that
when Esther invites the king to come to her banquet she invites Haman too. I don’t know how she was able to stand
it. If I had been her, I would not
have wanted to invite an enemy to a dinner date with me and my husband. But perhaps Esther is demonstrating
greater forthrightness than Haman.
Haman accused the Jewish people without them there to defend themselves,
but Esther will accuse Haman to his face.
And it could also be that she wanted to be able to judge whether her
pull with the king could become greater than Haman’s. If she could get the king more attentive to her than to
Haman, she might feel more comfortable making her petition for herself and her
people. It may be that after
the first banquet she saw she didn’t yet have it so she asked for another
banquet so she could continue her bonding efforts.
I really love the Esther
asked people to pray and fast for her before she made the attempt to talk to
the king. And actually, it is
possible to see that the prayer and fasting had the effect of softening the
king’s heart so that he acted with more love and concern than he otherwise
would have. For instance, instead
of getting miffed at Esther’s visit to the inner court without being requested,
he pardoned her interruption. Also, his unusually sleepless night just afterward led to a
perusal of the records and chronicles, and he realized he had to reward Mordecai
for the loyalty shown in revealing the plot against the kings life, when previously
he seems to have taken Mordecai’s loyalty for granted.
When Ahasuerus asks Haman
what should be done for the man who the king wanted to honor, Haman’s answer
seems to be to be particularly lame.
Haman’s answer is:
--to wear the king’s old
clothes
--to wear the king’s crown
--to ride the king’s horse
through the streets
--to be led by a
high-ranking courtier who would proclaim, “This is what is done for the person
the king wants to honor.”
What seems lame about it is
that it is only temporary, and it is all a show to other people. And too, the reward is bestowed on
Mordecai and it isn’t of any real benefit; Mordecai goes back to being a
gatekeeper after his ride through the city. So why did Haman want this reward for himself? After all, he was already promoted
above everyone else in the court.
I think Haman was still
insecure and wanted to demonstrate his status to everyone in the city, just in
case it wasn’t known already. He
wanted to make himself the object of others’ complete envy. It was probably to salve an inner
nagging feeling that he didn’t have belonging or acceptance or status. Certain people can’t be happy with
being favored and fortunate; they have to make sure that everyone else knows it
too and envies them.
When it comes to the point
that Esther reveals Haman’s perfidious plot, it is interesting to notice the
factors that influence the king to take her part and turn against Haman.
--Esther reveals that the
queen herself is affected by Haman’s plot to kill the Jews. She spins it in such a way as to
portray it as a personal attack on her
(and her people too), rather than an unintended consequence of a blanket
threat.
--Haman throws himself at
Esther’s feet to beg for mercy and somehow it looks to the king as if Haman is
about to try to rape her.
--Harbonah, a chamberlain,
mentions that Haman had built a gallows for the purpose of hanging Mordecai,
whom the king had most recently determined to reward for loyalty.
This makes Haman’s personal animosity toward Mordecai appear in a much
more sinister light. (The king would
reason thus--If Haman is trying to destroy loyal friends of the king and
destroy the queen, Haman is clearly an enemy to the king.)
Thus, Haman is condemned by
his appearance of evil, even if he never meant to be disloyal. Before we start to pity him, it is
worth remembering that Haman had condemned the Jews for appearance of
disloyalty from just one of them (Mordecai). He was getting a dose of retribution equal to his own
prejudice. I have to wonder
if Haman’s rise to power with the king was built on a foundation of such
underhanded tactics as he tried to use against Mordecai.
The overall meaning I get
from this story comes from examining both roles of Mordecai and Esther. From Mordecai we learn that our zeal to
keep the commandments gets us into trouble when it conflicts with the laws, but
we are to stay true and trust God.
From Esther we learn that we have a responsibility to use our influence
to support and advocate for those whose zeal puts them under fire and trust God
to magnify our influence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment