Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Esther 2:5

[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;

5. There was a certain Jew ] The grammatical form in the original may be intended to emphasize the abruptness with which Mordecai is brought upon the scene. The influence which he, a Jew, is to have upon the history is thus placed in significant contrast with the brilliancy of the court of Susa.

Mordecai ] It may surprise us that a name which properly means a votary of the Babylonian god Marduk, another form of Merodach (Jupiter), should be borne by a Jew. [64] It has been suggested that it may have been given to the son in compliment to a Babylonian friend or master, and without any reference to its derivation, just as, in later days, the name Martin, e.g. St Martin of Tours, is completely devoid of associations with its etymological source, Mars. Mordecai, the cousin and adoptive father of Esther, is to be distinguished from the Mordecai who was a companion of Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7). He has, without justification, been identified with Matacas, described by Ctesias [65] as a powerful favourite of Xerxes.

[64] But see Sayce ( The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 470), who points out that “in the contract tablets which have been discovered under the soil of Babylonia we occasionally find the names of Jews, and in some instances these Jews are associated with persons evidently of the same nationality, but who have adopted, if not the beliefs, at all events the divine names of the Babylonian religion.” He adds instances.

[65] Persica, xxvii.

the son of Jair etc. ] These names may denote respectively Mordecai’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. It is better, however, to consider Shimei and Kish to be the well-known members of the tribe of Benjamin, the former appearing in the history of David (2Sa 16:5 ff.; 1Ki 2:8; 1Ki 2:36-46), and the latter as father of Saul (1Sa 9:1; 1Sa 14:51; 1Ch 8:33). Thus only these prominent links are mentioned in tracing the descent, it being a frequent practice among the Jews to omit less important members of a genealogy. Jewish tradition, accordingly, as expressed in the Targum on this passage, identifies Shimei with the enemy of David. Josephus takes the same view, as is shewn by his statement that Esther, Mordecai’s cousin, was of royal descent, thus referring to Kish in his relationship to Saul. See further in note on Est 3:1.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Mordecai, the eunuch Est 2:7, Est 2:11, has been conjectured to be the same as Matacas, who, according to Ctesias, was the most powerful of the eunuchs during the latter portion of the reign of Xerxes. Mordecais line of descent is traced from a certain Kish, carried off by Nebuchadnezzar in 598 B.C. – the year of Jeconiahs captivity – who was his great-grandfather. The four generations, Kish, Shimei, Jair, Mordecai, correspond to the known generations in other cases, for example:

High priests	kings of Persia	Royal stock of Judah
Seraiah	Cambyses	Jeconiah
Jozadak	Cyrus	Salathiel
Jeshua	Darius	Zerubbabel
Joiakim	Xerxes	Hananiah

The age of Mordecai at the accession of Xerxes may probably have been about 30 or 40; that of Esther, his first cousin, about 20.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Est 2:5-20

Whose name was Mordecai.

Mordecai

Providence opens avenues through which merit may attain elevation.

I. Mordecai was kind to his orphan cousin. He brought her up, adopting her as his own daughter. He was intensely solicitous for her welfare. He was her counsellor, guardian, friend. He seems to have possessed respect for womanhood–what Charles Lamb in one of his Essays of Ella designates, reverence for the sex. Are we not justified in affirming that this is indicative of nobility? Love of woman, as woman, produces beneficent results, which few can afford to dispense with. It aids in developing perfection of character.

II. He possessed good judgment. He advised Esther not to reveal her kindred. He did not enjoin her to deny her nationality, much less to become alienated from her suffering countrymen; but he exhorted her to maintain silence in reference to her descent. He will await deliverance from Israels God, carefully watching the indications of providence, and endeavouring, meanwhile, to induce Esther to strengthen her influence with the king. The prudent man looketh well to his going.

III. He was humble. He sat as porter at the royal gate of the palace and was contented.

IV. He was loyal to justice. When two of the chamberlains sought to lay hands on the king he disclosed the plot to the queen, who, by reporting it to the monarch, delivered the culprits over to the vengeance of law, and they were both hanged on a tree.

V. He was conscientious, and to a right-minded person the approval of conscience is the richest reward, one which depends upon himself and of which no other can rob him. Mordecai refused to bow before Haman. If the monkey reigns, dance before him, is a proverb which evidently had little force with Mordecai. If Haman does not deserve respect, he shall not receive reverence from him. Kind, prudent, humble, just and conscientious, need we marvel that Mordecai rose from lowly station to become chief minister of State? Though he has saved the life of the king, he is not promoted. He returns to his humble duties. By the simple fact that a record is made of the services of a porter, preparation is made for the stirring events of the future. (J. S. Van Dyke, D. D.)

Tried fidelity

Here we have the fact demonstrated in a striking illustration that no man can serve God for nought. He will never be a debtor to any of His creatures. The path of truth and goodness, of love to God and love to men, will always advance in light and purity to a perfect day. This is the illustration we have in the character and history of Mordecai. Ahasuerus, Esther, Haman, and Mordecai, in their relations make a perfect dramatic exhibition. Their paths cross each other, and their interests mingle. Their conditions and responsibilities are in constant close connection, and are continually intermingled. Each character is a separate living principle. And in each the operation and result of this peculiar principle is distinctly and very beautifully displayed.

1. In this fidelity in duty we first see this path of duty beginning in the very lowest circumstances of life. Enrich and exalt the indulgence of the world by every imagination of its wealth and pleasure, and yet He shows its end to be vanity and vexation of spirit. He will show the reward of fidelity in duty. He will display the history of its certain triumph, and perfect security and success. Begin as low as you will in human condition; make the sphere as limited as you can; multiply difficulties around its strait and narrow path as you choose, and He will show you how easily and how certainly He can exalt and honour it, and that by the very instruments which have been collected to oppose it. Thus Mordecai begins a poor captive Jew, perhaps a beggar, certainly a menial at the kings gate. Men often think it of little consequence what one does who is so concealed and so little known. But, ah, never forget that there is no such distinction before God between duties great and little, or sins venial or mortal. Whatever God requires or forbids is great. Every station which His providence has assigned and ordered is necessary and important. Virtue must always be tried by little things. The beginnings of all temptations are small, and the question of resistance or compliance with them is always settled in very narrow contingencies of trial. It is far easier to perform higher duties, and to resist greater temptations. The real trial of human principles is in unknown and secret dangers. When everybody is watching, it is easy to walk uprightly. The soldier on parade will be sure to keep time and step. But when our walk is unobserved, our conduct unnoticed, our position in life of no consequence in human sight, then are our difficulties and our temptations always the greater and the more dangerous. No one will know; no one sees; example is nothing; it is of no consequence what I do; it is impossible for me to do much good in any way. All, not thus did. Mordecai argue, though in these very circumstances of narrow influence Mordecai begins.

2. We see this poor and faithful man perfectly contented with his low estate. He is unmurmuring though poor. If you would have larger and higher responsibility, gain it and be prepared for it, by earnestly and contentedly fulfilling the obligations which are laid upon you now.

3. We see him affectionate and liberal in his social relations. Though poor, yet making others rich. Though poor himself, he cheerfully adopts his orphan cousin, and divides his comforts, whatever they might be, with her. He brought up Hadassah, his uncles daughter. The largest generosity is often among the most straitened in earthly condition. But it is an indispensable characteristic of true virtue. Obedience to God is imitation of God, who giveth liberally and upbraideth not. A covetous, harsh, narrow, selfish temper can never have tasted that God is gracious, or have known anything of the Saviours transforming love. He was delicate and refined in his liberality. There is much in the way in which kindness is bestowed to make it either acceptable or a burden. The little orphan Mordecai took and brought up for his own daughter. There is nothing in the religion of the New Testament to encourage bluntness, coarseness, or assumption of superiority. But Mordecais tenderness was watchful as well as delicate. To know how Esther did, and what should become of her, was the dearest interest he had on earth. And for this he walked every day before the court of the womens house.

4. We see him faithful in every claim as a subject. In his solitude he overheard the counsel of two conspirators against the life of the king. He sought the opportunity, therefore, to preserve the life of the king, and he succeeded. This also is an eminent example. The virtuous, religious man is always an orderly and peaceful man.

5. We see in Mordecai especial fidelity to God. (S. H. Tyng, D. D.)

For she had neither father nor mother.

Religion promotes benevolence

Now there are some remarks very obviously suggested by this part of the narrative. I should say that here we have a fine example of the practical power of true religion, in leading to a benevolent regard for the comfort and well-being of the unprotected. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)

Personal benevolence

It is an easy matter for the wealthy to be charitable when their gifts, administered by others, involve no sacrifice of time or labour, and no care and anxiety to them selves. But the noblest exercise of charity is exhibited when we take an interest personally in the well-being of the unprotected, and when they can look to us as their friends and counsellors, to whom they can have recourse in their sorrows and troubles and difficulties. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)

Mordecais tenderness in adopting Esther

We Christians have not always been ready to give the Jew credit for such tenderness, such ready pity, such gentle helpfulness. Let us ask ourselves if we are willing to come up to the standard of this Jew? What is the good of any religion unless it do make us pitiful, loving, eager to help the poor world about us? I heard a very beautiful story some time since. A friend was telling me that one Sunday he was preaching at some little country chapel, and went to dinner at the house of a labourer, where he found eight children. He was struck with the fact that they seemed to run in pairs, as if they were all twins. After dinner the good woman said, I saw you looking at the children, sir, as if you could not quite make them out. Well, yes, said he, I could not help wondering if they were all twins! The good wife laughed. No, said she, they are not twins. You see they are all ours, so to speak, and yet four of them are not. When we came into this house the man and woman who lived here before us had just died and left four little children just the age of our four. They had to go to the workhouse, and the van was at the door to take them just as we came in. Three of them were in the van; but the fourth little fellow would not go. He had got hold of the door, and was screaming with all his might. The man was trying not to hurt him, and yet of course he wanted to make him let go. I felt very, very sorry for them all, and said, You cant take him screaming like that. People will think that you are murdering him. Put the three back again and come again to-morrow. We will look after them for the night. The man was very glad to do it, so they all came in again. Well, then you see our children began to play with them, and we all sat down together at supper, and managed to get them off to bed. Well, that night I could not sleep for thinking about them. I could not get it out of my mind what I should like anybody to do for mine if they were left like that. As I lay tossing, John said to me, I cant help thinking about those children. Well, John, I said, what do you think about them. Well, Mary, do you think if we pinched a bit that we could manage to keep them? I am sure we could, I said, and then we went to sleep. The guardians gave us six shillings a week towards their keep, and it went on all right until John began to think that we ought to have a Sunday-school for the children about here. We have eight to start with, said John. So the school was started. But there was a gentleman that set himself against the school, and tried to put it down. However, John would not have that; so this gentleman went to the guardians and got them to stop the six shillings a week. We could not let the children go, for to us it was just as if they were our own. But it was hard work, for John fell ill and was in bed for six weeks. And when he got about again he had to try and find a new place, for his had been filled up. At last he got a job at hedging and ditching, and that meant a stout pair of boots and a pair of leggings and a bill-hook. I had saved a few shillings for the childrens shoes, but now I had to give all that to John, and away he went to buy what he wanted. But as soon as he came back I said, You must go again to get the childrens shoes, John, and I put two sovereigns in his hand. He looked at me wondering. I told him how that the gentlemans daughter had called to say how sorry she was for us, and she gave us this to keep the children. And since then we have managed to get on right well, sir. (Mark Guy Pearse.)

Worldly exaltation

Providence and grace have two separate dominions. The providence of God rules over outward things for the welfare of His children. The grace of God redeems, renews, governs and preserves their own inward heart and character. Both are the subjects of covenant and earnest promises to them. One part of this gracious work we have seen in Esthers ease. God protected and preserved the captive orphan by His own power. And all the elements of her own character are the evidences of the grace and power of her Lord. There is something extremely beautiful and even grand in this exhibition of youthful piety. Few will be carried through the extremes of Esthers trial. Now we are to look upon Esther, the queen of Persia, and see how God fulfils all His promises, and protects and maintains in usefulness and happiness the souls of His servants.

I. In this view we see true piety in worldly exaltation This exaltation has been brought about by a remarkable train of circumstances in the good providence of God. Every probability was against it, and nothing could be more unlikely than the result which was thus produced. The king loved Esther above all the women, etc. Remarkable as this result was in itself, the reason given for it is yet more worthy of our attention. She obtained grace and favour in his sight. Her exaltation is ascribed to a far higher power than any that outwardly appeared. God was ruling and ordering it in His own way, You may carry out this principle in all your expectations and plans of life. Your youthful hearts desire earthly success. God may surely give it to you. But He would have you realise that it is His gift. The wise and the only sure way to make the earth a blessing to you is to seek His favour with it. But it will also, which is far more, make the earthly substance which you do gain a real and permanent blessing to you. But surely there is a higher exultation than any which is wholly confined to earth. There is a throne above all earthly thrones for those who conquer in the Saviours host. This God reserveth for those who love Him. Seek this throne and kingdom, the kingdom of God and His righteousness. This is the more excellent way. Make your possession of it sure. The king of Persia made a royal feast at Esthers exultation. It was a feast of far different character from that which preceded the downfall of Vashti. The king made a great feast unto all his princes and his servants, even Esthers feast; and he made a release to the provinces, and gave gifts according to the state of the king. The former feast was distinguished by abounding selfish, sensual indulgence. This was marked by releases, gifts and acts of favour to the destitute and the suffering. The people of God are always made a blessing to men in the influence which they exercise, and in their final exaltation among men, when the kingdoms of the earth shall be given to the saints of the Most High, the most abounding gifts and mercies shall be showered upon the world around. If God shall give you the high places of the earth, so improve and employ your influence here that others may have reason to bless God in your behalf.

II. We see here the emptiness of earthly contrasts. No earthly contrast could be greater than between a poor Jewish captive orphan, amidst the oppressions of a heathen land, and the queen of all the provinces of the kingdom of Persia. Yet all this is nothing when viewed in relation to the power and greatness of God. Man looks upon the outward appearance. God looketh upon the heart. Let us seek to gain His mind, and learn to value others, and to think of ourselves according to the reality of character, and not according to the mere appendages and aspects of the outward condition. The vain mind of youth delights in worldly elevation and grandeur. But Esthers trials of character will be far greater in her new condition than in her former one. Few can bear great earthly prosperity with advantage. It is here that the principle of our text comes in, He preserveth the souls of His saints. He delivers them from the destructive influence which surrounds them. He carries them safely through the hour of trial. Prosperity brings in the claims of worldly fashion, the examples of the exalted wicked, the hostility of a world which at the same time tempts to transgression and scoffs at fidelity. It introduces a multitude of new thoughts and new relations which corrupt the character and entangle the soul. The life of piety declines. The spirit of prayer grows dull. The modesty of dress and personal appearance is laid aside. The purity of the outward walk is disregarded.

III. We see in Esthers case that under the Divine guidance and grace true piety may pass uninjured through every state. Esthers sudden exaltation had no effect on her fidelity to God, or on her attachment to His people. We see the same guarded self-respect, and the same love for Mordecai afterwards as before. The proportioned usefulness of individual piety in different stations in human life it would be very difficult to decide. God often selects the feeblest instruments as the most important agencies to promote His glory. We may, therefore, dismiss all anxiety about the influence of our appointed station. He will give the blessing according to His own will. But what can show more beautifully the reality of the work of God in the heart than the constant exercise and display of the same kindness, tenderness, and simplicity in a high estate as in a previous low condition? One of the most striking facts in Esthers character is this repeated assertion of her faithful remembrance of Mordecai and of her permanent regard to his instructions. Ah, what a blessing do we confer when we succeed, under the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit, in laying up in the youthful mind the principles of true religion and real love for God! This is something real; a gift that will abide.

IV. We see Esthers exaltation marked by sincere gratitude and affectionate care for the appointed instrument of it. A low and upstart mind hates to acknowledge obligations; nay, often feels a new hostility towards those from whom benefits have been received. But a truly great and exalted mind forgets no benefits that have been conferred, and esteems it a high privilege to be able to pay them directly back to the person who has bestowed them. Esther acknowledges her twofold obligation, while she gives the information which saves the life of the king, and gives it in the name of Mordecai, that it might in some way be the instrument of promoting his advantage, and of rescuing him from the poverty of his condition. This gratitude for kindness from our fellow-men is always characteristic of true piety. A religious heart is ashamed of no obligations. Shun that sinful pride which hates the feeling and the acknowledgment of dependence. A joyful and pleasant thing it is to be thankful. (S. H. Tyng, D. D.)

And Mordecai walked every day before the court of the womens house.–

Mordecais loving solicitude

The histories of Mordecai and Esther run side by side, like the two differently-coloured rivers–the Arve and the Rhone. But the course of the one is from time to time being crossed and coloured by the course of the other. Esther played a leading part in the deliverance of the Jewish nation, but she owed much to the teaching, influence, and directions of Mordecai. She was the seen and he the unseen worker. These latter often do the most important work.

I. Mordecais lovng solicitude.

II. This loving solicitude was of divine origin. God makes use of human passions for the promotion of His merciful purposes. Human reasons may be given to account for Mordecais love for Esther, but there were also Divine reasons.

III. This loving solicitude quickened mordecais discernment.

IV. This loving solicitude taught mordecai a true creed. Love is light. He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in a clear apprehension of Divine truth and of Divine methods. Although he trusted God with his niece, yet he knew that an honest care of her might well stand with faith in Gods providence. God must be trusted, but not tempted by the neglect of careful means (Trapp)

.

V. Mordecais love made him watchful.

VI. Mordecais love made him self-forgetful.

VII. Mordecais love concerned itself about esthers highest welfare. (W. Burrows, B. A.)

She required nothing.–

Simple attire

It seems to be implied in the text that while the other maidens endeavoured by dress and ornament to make an impression upon the heart of the king, Esther had recourse to no such artifice. If she was to gain the royal favour, which no doubt she desired to do, she trusted to her native graces and accomplishments as the means of obtaining it rather than to the splendour of her attire. And such will always be the procedure of true beauty and modesty. Excessive attention to the decoration of the person, and the lavish use of gaudy ornament, indicate the consciousness of some personal defect, and are inconsistent alike with good taste, with female delicacy, and with the law of Scripture. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)

Reality versus superficiality

She had grace in her heart, humility in her deportment, and the high attractions of gentleness, meekness, and pity. These would speak to the heart in look and gesture, and obtain favour for her in the sight of all them that looked upon her. There was realness in contrast with superficiality, true-heartedness in opposition to mere pretension, and the heroic love of the right and the noble over against all that is hollow, hypocritical, and base. Even in a heathen court spiritual excellences such as these, rarely to be found there, were sure to command respect and win the affections. (T. McEwan.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 5. Whose name was Mordecai] The Targum says, “He was the son of Jair, the son of Shimea, the son of Gera, the son of Kish.” And “this was the same Shimea that cursed David; and whom David forbade Joab to slay because he saw, in the spirit of prophecy, that he was to be the predecessor of Esther and Mordecai; but when he became old, and incapable of having children, David ordered Solomon to put him to death.”

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

5. Now in Shushan the palace therewas a certain JewMordecai held some office about the court.But his “sitting at the king’s gate” (Es2:21) does not necessarily imply that he was in the humblecondition of a porter; for, according to an institute of Cyrus, allstate officers were required to wait in the outer courts till theywere summoned into the presence chamber. He might, therefore, havebeen a person of some official dignity. This man had an orphancousin, born during the exile, under his care, who beingdistinguished by great personal beauty, was one of the young damselstaken into the royal harem on this occasion. She had the good fortuneat once to gain the good will of the chief eunuch [Es2:9]. Her sweet and amiable appearance made her a favorite withall who looked upon her (Es 2:15,last clause). Her Hebrew name (Es2:7) was Hadassah, that is, “myrtle,” which, on herintroduction into the royal harem, was changed to Esther, that is,the star Venus, indicating beauty and good fortune [GESENIUS].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Now in Shushan the palace was a certain Jew,…. Not one of the tribe of Judah, for he was afterwards called a Benjaminite; but was so called, because he was of the kingdom of Judah, which consisted of both tribes. Jarchi says, all that were carried captive with the kings of Judah were called Jews among the nations, though of another tribe:

whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite; who was among those that came with Zerubbabel from Babylon to Jerusalem, and returned to Persia again, Ezr 2:2, though some think this was another Mordecai; [See comments on Ezr 2:2], who descended not from Kish, the father of Saul, but a later and more obscure person.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Before relating how this matter was carried into execution, the historian introduces us to the two persons who play the chief parts in the following narrative. Est 2:5. There was (dwelt) in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the name of Mordochai ( , in more correct editions ), the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite ( like 1Sa 9:1). Jair, Shimei, and Kish can hardly mean the father, grandfather, and great-grandfather of Mordochai. On the contrary, if Jair were perhaps his father, Shimei and Kish may have been the names of renowned ancestors. Shimei was probably the son of Gera, well known to us from the history of David, 2Sa 16:5. and 1Ki 2:8, 1Ki 2:36., and Kish the father of Saul, 1Ch 8:33; 1Sa 9:1; for in genealogical series only a few noted names are generally given; comp., e.g., 1Ch 9:19; 1Ch 6:24. Upon the ground of this explanation, Josephus ( Ant. xi. 6) makes Esther of royal descent, viz., of the line of Saul, king of Israel; and the Targum regards Shimei as the Benjamite who cursed David. The name Mordochai occurs in Ezr 2:2 and Neh 7:7 as that of some other individual among those who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel, but can hardly be connected with the Persian mrdky, little man. Aben Ezra, Lightfoot, and others, indeed, are of opinion that the Mordochai of the present book really came up with Zerubbabel, but subsequently returned to Babylon. Identity of name is not, however, a sufficient proof of identity of person. The chronological statement, Est 2:6: who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been carried away with Jeconiah, king of Judah, etc., offers some difficulty. For from the captivity of Jeconiah in the year 599 to the beginning of the reign of Xerxes (in the year 486) is a period of 113 years; hence, if the is referred to Mordochai, he would, even if carried into captivity as a child by then, have reached the age of from 120 to 130 years, and as Esther was not made queen till the seventh year of Xerxes (Est 2:16), would have become prime minister of that monarch at about the age of 125. Rambach, indeed, does not find this age incredible, though we cannot regard it as probable that Mordochai should have become minister at so advanced an age.

(Note: Baumg. aptly remarks, l.c., p. 125: Etsi concedendum est, non esse contra naturam, si Mordechaeus ad illam aetatem pervenerit, et summa hac constitutus senectute gravissimis negotiis perficiendis par fuerit, tamen est hoc rarissimum et nisi accedit certum testimonium, difficile ad credendum .)

On this account Clericus, Baumgarten, and others refer the relative to the last name, Kish, and understand that he was carried away with Jeconiah, while his great-grandson Mordochai was born in captivity. In this case Kish and Shimei must be regarded as the great-grandfather and grandfather of Mordochai. We grant the possibility of this view; nevertheless it is more in accordance with the Hebrew narrative style to refer to the chief person of the sentence preceding it, viz., Mordochai, who also continues to be spoken of in Est 2:7. Hence we prefer this reference, without, however, attributing to Mordochai more than 120 years of age. For the relative clause: who had been carried away, need not be so strictly understood as to assert that Mordochai himself was carried away; but the object being to give merely his origin and lineage, and not his history, it involves only the notion that he belonged to those Jews who were carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar with Jeconiah, so that he, though born in captivity, was carried to Babylon in the persons of his forefathers. This view of the passage corresponds with that formerly presented by the list of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Jacob who went down with him to Egypt; see the explanation of the passage in question.

(Note: Baumgarten also considers this view admissible, rightly remarking, p. 127: Scriptoribus sacris admodum familiare est singulos homines non per se et sepositos spectare, sed familias et gentes ut corpora quasi individua complecti, ita ut posteri majorum personis quasi contenti et inclusi, majores vero in posteris ipsi subsistere et vivere existimentur. Ex hac ratione Mordechaeus captus esse dici potest, quamvis ipse satis diu post Jechoniae tempora ex iis, qui a Nebucadnezaro abducti sunt, natus fuerit .)

Est 2:7. Mordochai was , keeper, bringer up, i.e., foster-father, to Hadassh ( constructed as a participle with ). means a myrtle ( in the Shemitish), like the Greek name , . “That is Esther,” the queen known by the name of Esther. The name is the Old-Persian stara with prosthetic, and corresponds with the Greek , star, in modern Persian sitareh . She was , daughter of his father’s brother, and adopted by Mordochai after the death of her parents; we are told, moreover, that she had a fine figure and beautiful countenance. Her father, whose name, according to Est 2:15, was Abihail, was uncle to Mordochai, and hence Esther was his cousin.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Mordecai and Esther, Verses 5-11

Mordecai the Jew and Esther his ward are now introduced. The lineage of Mordecai show him to have descended from a man named Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin. The grammatical construction of the English King James Version makes it appear that it was Mordecai who was carried away in the captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. This is impossible, for the deportation of certain Jews with Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin, 2Ki 24:10-16) was about a hundred fifteen years before the time of Mordecai. Therefore the reference to the carrying away must be applied to Kish, the great grandfather of Mordecai.

The blood relationship of Esther to Mordecai was that of first cousin. Her father was the brother of Jair, the father of Mordecai. While a generation separated the man that girl in age it is not surprising, for such things occur even today. This girl’s parents died while she was still a child, and the adult Mordecai adopted her as his daughter. Esther respected Mordecai as she would have a father.

The Jewish name of Mordecai’s ward was Hadassah, which means a “myrtle.” The myrtle was a beautiful evergreen plant. The name, Esther, is probably the name given her by the Persians after she came into the court of Ahasuerus. It means ‘star” in English, and she was derived for Ishtar, the great goddess of Babylon. This is also the name given by ancient people to the planet Venus. Both these names imply the surpassing beauty of the young lady.

The Scriptures do not tell how Esther came to the attention of those searching for the most beautiful young virgins, but only that she was taken and put in the custody of Hegai (called Hege in verse 2), the eunuch who took care of the harem. Some writers have insisted that Mordecai put his ward up for the beauty contest, but others disagree. An argument could be made for either. Mordecai as an ambitious man, interested in acquiring a Jewish influence at court, would have promoted Esther for the place of queen. Some things in his conduct, such as his frequenting the area of the palace, readiness to assume great responsibility, influence with other Jews of Shushan, certainly may indicate such a plan.

On the other hand, surely, such a thing as Esther’s being put into the harem of a heathen king would be abhorrent to a pious Jew. How could such a one connive in such a lewd, ungodly contest as was proposed, which would involve his beautiful virgin daughter? As for Mordecai’s frequenting of the king’s palace, he is not said to have done so until after Esther was taken into the harem. The place he was found was walking to and fro before the residence of the harem, apparently anxious for the fate of his beloved daughter. These things seem to be a strong argument against the first opinion. Frankly, there is no way to ascertain the facts in the matter.

The Lord moved on behalf of Esther, and she found extreme favor with Hegai. He gave her everything to promote her to the favor of Ahasuerus, even a retinue of seven of the best slave girls to wait on her. The best quarters in the harem and the best food and cosmetics were reserved for Hegai’s favorite, Esther. It is apparent that God was working to bring about good out of a situation provoked by evil (cf. sale of Joseph by his brothers, Genesis – Chapters 37,39ff; Daniel and his friends, Daniel – Chapter 1; the little captive maid of Israel, 2 Kings -Chapter 5). Esther’s nationality was unknown to the Persians, for Mordecai had cautioned her against revealing it. Animosity against the Jews was a fact which they regarded with prudence.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES.]

Est. 2:5.] Jair, Shimei, and Kish can hardly mean the father, grandfather, and great-grandfather of Mordecai. On the contrary, if Jair were perhaps his father, Shimei and Kish may have been the names of renowned ancestors. Shimei was probably the son of Gera, and Kish the father of Saul; for in genealogical series only a few noted names are generally given. Upon the ground of this explanation, Josephus makes Esther of royal descent, viz., the line of Saul, king of Israel; and the Targum regards Shimei as the Benjamite who cursed David. It is more in accordance with the Hebrew narrative style to refer the relative to the chief person of the sentence preceding it, viz., Mordecai, who also continues to be spoken of in Est. 2:7. Hence we prefer this reference, without, however, attributing to Mordecai more than one hundred and twenty years of age. For the relative clause, who had been carried away, need not be so strictly understood as to assert that Mordecai himself was carried away; but the object being to give merely his origin and lineage, and not his history, it involves only the notion that he belonged to those Jews who were carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar with Jeconiah, so that he, though born in captivity, was carried to Babylon in the persons of his forefathers.Keil.

Est. 2:7. Hadassah, that is, Esther] Tyrwhitt regards Hadassah as the court name, by which she was known among the Persians, and Esther as her Jewish maiden name, by which she was known to her own people. But to this it may be fairly replied that she would be more likely to be known to her own people as well as to the Persians by her royal name; and most interpreters have naturally understood from the expression, he brought up Hadassah, which is Esther, that Hadassah was her early maiden name, and that she took the name of Esther when she became queen. Moreover, Hadassah is of Semitic origin, and signifies myrtle; while Esther is the Persian word for star. The fair and beautiful maiden was known as myrtle; the brilliant and fascinating queen was called star. The name Hadassah is, indeed, substantially identical with Atosse, mentioned by the Greek writers as the wife of Darius Hystaspes, and daughter of Cyrus, but the identity in name is insufficient to identify the Jewish virgin with one who is so clearly represented by Herodotus as both daughter of Cyrus and widow of Cambyses.Whedons Com. His uncles daughter] This uncles name was Abihail (Est. 2:15). Mordecai and Esther were cousins, but Mordecai must have been the elder.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 2:5-7

A TRULY ROYAL CHARACTER

The leading part of this history is prophetic. While it records the past it depicts the future. It shows how two of the Jewish nation rose, through the providence of God, to occupy the foremost positions in the Persian kingdom. Mordecai the Jew and Esther his foster-childtwo captivesbecame next in authority and in power to king Ahasuerus. They were great both among the Jews and among the Persians: for the one was queen, and the other was prime minister. The story of their humiliation and after-exaltation is only equalled by the charming narrative of Joseph. And both surpass in interest the inventions of skilful novelists. History and biography repeat themselves. The Hamans have persecuted and planned the destruction of the Mordecais; but the irrepressible genius of the Jewish nation has ever asserted its sovereignty. It is surprising how the Jew from time to time battles successfully against adversity, and makes it minister to prosperity. The Jews have accumulated wealth,though every barrier has been raised against their success,and their property has been again and again confiscated by greedy rulers. The Jews have risen to power in spite of restrictive enactments. Their influence is felt to-day to a large extent. The noblest part of our literature is based on Jewish records. They have given to the world its best system of morals. Surely this wondrous people have still a most important part to play in this worlds great transactions; and the study of the most obscure among this people cannot be devoid of interest to every intelligent being.

I. Mordecais royal ancestry. Great importance was attached to genealogical tables by ancient nations. They did not smile at the claims of long descent. Certainly intellectual and moral, as well as physical, qualities are capable of transmission. It is indeed true that some boast of their ancestry who have little else to boast. The Jews were especially particular in their records of genealogy for territorial, political, and religious reasons. Thus in the Targum of Esther we have Hamans pedigree traced through twenty-one generations to the impious Esau; and Mordecais through forty-two generations to Abraham. In this canonical account Mordecais pedigree is traced to the tribe of Benjamin. This was one of the smallest tribes, but three names make it prominent. From it sprang Saul, the first king of the Jewish nation; Mordecai, the noble deliverer of his people; and Paul, the great Apostle of the Gentiles. On the one hand Mordecai was connected with Saul, who was royal by virtue of his office; and on the other hand he was connected with Paul, who was royal by virtue of the nobility of his character. Mordecai himself was of royal ancestry, of royal character, exercising regal functions, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed. He was a man to do honour to any tribe. It is no wonder that he stands high in Rabbinical estimation, and that mythical stories gather around his person. He is spoken of as being acquainted with seventy languages, and as having lived four hundred years. He is invested with splendid robes, adorned with costly jewels, and placed on the pinnacle of earthly greatness. The courtly heralds with their trumpets proclaim his glory. He was nobler than all. There dwelt within him a patriotic spirit that made him sublime. There was in him a heroic assertion of manhood, which lifted him high above the common people. There was also a wonderful tenderness, which made him the adored of his own nation. He was one of those men that only appear at intervals, that dignify the race, and seem to make sacred the soil on which they tread.

II. Mordecais unattractive name. Proper names are words which serve for marks separating one individual from another. The name Mordecai brings before us the individual and separates him from the person named Haman. The name Mordecai, when viewed as to its meaning, does not raise in our mind the correct thought as to his character. We may consider Mordecai as a word of Chaldan or Persian origin, and as meaning the worshipper of Merodach, the war-god of Babylon. But he was no foolish idolater. If he had been there was no justification for his refusal to bow down before Haman. If he had been he would not have so resolutely adhered to the purpose of delivering the Jews, the worshippers of the true God. He was by moral lineage connected with Abraham, the father of the faithful, the friend of God. The name may be but the reputation, which may be true or false. Character is what the man is. To be noble is better than to be accounted noble. Let men rise superior to names. The word Mordecai has been made to mean the little man. He may have been little physically; and thus the two Benjamites stood in striking contrast. Saul was head and shoulders above his fellows; and Mordecai was perhaps below the average standard. Saul was, however, selfish and mean-spirited; while Mordecai was benevolent and noble-spirited. Saul was craven and cowed before a woman; but Mordecai was bold and daring before the great Haman. Saul abjectly prayed to be honoured before the elders of his people, and before Israel; but Mordecai cared not for his own honour so long as Israel was saved and glorified. If the man is not the mere flesh and bones that constitute the external framework, then Saul was the little man and Mordecai the great man. Manhood is not to be gauged by inches or by ounces; but by thoughts, feelings, and actions. Brutes may be measured and weighed by material appliances; but men should be measured and weighed by moral appliances. The balances of the infinite purities are the tests by which men should be tried. And then what a reversal of estimates. The little becomes great, and the so-called great dwindle down to their true proportions. The Sauls are rejected, as Saul was at last. The Mordecais are honoured, for the man Mordecai waxed greater and greater. In the Targum of Esther he is said to be called Mordecai, because he was like the pure myrrh. Its taste is bitter and acid, and its smell strong. The taste of this myrrh was bitter and acid to the enemies of God and of goodness; but its smell was sweet to the delivered Jews. As the myrrh is pressed to bring out its fragrance; so the essential sweetness of Mordecais character was brought out more fully by the afflictions to which he was subjected. He was crushed not to death, but into a more perfect life and a Diviner fragrance. He was one of those worlds great solitary heroes that conquered by his defeats. Ever thus is noble manhood developed. Rough is the school where genius is trained. Sharp is the stroke which touches the soul into Diviner aspects. Keen is the instrument which shapes the spirit into perfect forms of moral beauty. Rude and steep is the pathway along which the traveller struggles up to the heights where the celestial sunlight quivers, and where the soul finds a sphere adequate for its expansion.

III. Mordecais attractive deed. Mordecai is greatest when he saw his little cousin left a poor orphan, and took her to his house and to his heart, and became to her a second father, so gentle and loving that she no longer mourned the loss of her first father. She delighted to render to Mordecai the allegiance of a true loving daughter. We too often lose sight of the fact that lifes little things are really lifes great things. We begin with the little and go up to the great. But we do not measure correctly. Our terms are untrue. The great deed was when Mordecai took and brought up Hadassah. The little deed was when he reaped the results of his goodness. For sowing is greater than reaping; but the sowing is done in tears, and the harvest is gathered amid a flourish of trumpets. Men are greatest in their little things. The chariot of Ahasuerus was not checked in its course, the attendant courtiers never condescended to notice, when Mordecai guided to his home the orphaned girl. But he was sowing seed which produced strange and yet glorious fruit. The deed was most attractive. He was true to the claims of relationship and to the dictates of humanity. Without thought of reward, without a knowledge of her future glory, he adopted the child. The orphans tears touched his heart and evoked his sympathies. How sweetly pathetic the short account, Whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter. Christianity is better than Judaism. Let it be ever seen that the Christian religion makes its adherents human, tender, considerate. Let us not say, A father to the fatherless is God in his holy habitation, and leave the fatherless to starvation and beggary. Christianity has done much in this direction. Orphan homes are the trophies of the humanizing tendencies. But adoption of the orphan is better than crowding a lot of poor orphans together to be drilled and marched out like young soldiers. Esthers grow best when the Mordecais become their fathers. Christianity has still much work to do.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 2:5-7

It is singular that it should have ever been imagined, although it has been by some, that it was Mordecai who had been carried from Jerusalem to Babylon, at the time when Jeconiah, also called Jehoiachim, was dethroned, and led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. In that case, he must at this time have been considerably more than a hundred years old, which is altogether inconsistent with the part he is represented as performing in this book. It is evidently Kish, his great-grandfather, who lived in Jeconiahs time, and who was carried to Babylon, on which supposition Mordecai would be a man probably in the prime of life at the period referred to in the text. His cousin Esther, or Hadassah (which was her Jewish name), had been left an orphan. Whether Mordecai had any family of his own we are not informed; but, moved with compassion for her in her desolate and unprotected state, he took her to his house, and brought her up as his own daughter. The maiden was fair and beautiful, it is saidthe expressions mean that she was of graceful form and beautiful countenanceand from what is brought out in the history, the endowments of her mind were in harmony with the graces of her person. Sad, however, might the destiny of the lovely orphan have been, but for the kind and tender-hearted Mordecai. If she had been cast upon the world without friends and without a home, the very beauty and accomplishments with which she was so highly gifted might have rendered her only a prey to some of those designing and selfish wretches whose chief object it is to seduce and ruin those who are fair and beautiful as she was. But the eye of the Lord was upon the helpless maiden, to protect and guide her; and Mordecai had her brought to his house as her home. No doubt he felt that he was sufficiently rewarded for his benevolence, in watching over a creature so interesting as Esther must have beenin marking her progress, and receiving the tokens of her confidence and affection. But there were other rewards in store for him, which he dreamt not of, to recompense his work of faith and labour of love. In taking her into his house, and charging himself with the expense of her education and maintenance, he may have been regarded by some of his covetous neighbours, especially if he had a family of his own, as laying himself under a burden which a prudent man would have rather endeavoured to avoid. But he thought not of this. He acted according to the spirit of the Divine law, and the impulses of his own generous heart; and that from which selfishness would have turned away as a burden, he found eventually to be in every respect a precious treasure. A blessing followed him because he had pity upon the orphan.
Now, there are some remarks very obviously suggested by this part of the narrative. I should say that here we have a fine example of the practical power of true religion, in leading to a benevolent regard for the comfort and well-being of the unprotected. It cannot be denied indeed, that specimens of the same kind of benevolence are to be found among the heathen. The ties of kindred have been felt and acknowledged where the light of Divine truth was never enjoyed; and there are on record acts of generosity and self-denial performed by men ignorant of the Bible, which put to shame the selfishness of many who live under the teaching of the Word of God. But there is this difference; that Mordecai, in what he did for Esther, acted only in accordance with the maxims and spirit of the law which came from heavenonly did what the law positively enjoined, and what, as professing to be subject to it, it became him to do. One manifest purpose of the Mosaic dispensation was, while it separated the seed of Abraham from all other nations, to unite them closely among themselves as brethren. And this purpose it effected to a wonderful extent, notwithstanding the opposition which it had to encounter from the corrupt heart and grovelling propensities of the people among whom it was set up. It is peculiarly interesting to notice, that it was during the captivity, when the Jews were scattered hither and thither throughout the Persian dominions, and when every man might have been supposed to have enough to do in attending to his own interests, and providing for his own family, that Mordecai took charge of his uncles orphan daughter, and gave her a refuge in his own house. Whatever care and difficulty he had to undergo in supporting himself in the land of exile, he remembered the injunction of the law,Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child; if thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and the prophets commentary upon it,Is not this the fast that I have chosen, that thou deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
Now, while it is impossible for us to read what Mordecai did without feeling that his memory deserves to be had in respect, as a man who had imbibed the spirit of the law, and who, amid many temptations to set its injunctions aside, endeavoured to regulate his conduct by its requirements; while we see in him an exemplification of that principle of brotherly love, which the law so earnestly inculcates; let us not forget that the gospel of Christ is designed at once to deepen the feeling of brotherly affection, and to give it a far wider range of operation. If the poor exiled Jew had compassion on his orphan niece, and brought her up as his own daughter, how sacred should the claims of orphanage be in the view of those who profess to follow him who said, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; and, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another. A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love each other. The charities of the Jews were confined almost exclusively to those of their own nation. This was indeed a natural consequence of their being isolated from the rest of the world; a result of the particular light in which they were taught to regard the heathen, and in which the heathen in turn regarded them. But in Christ Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free; but all are one in him. Not that the ties of ordinary relationship are weakened by the gospel, and that we are to overlook the special claims of kindred in the enlarged field which it opens up for the exercise of our benevolent affections. By no means. But we are to act toward all men as if they were our neighbours, and toward all who are of the household of faith as brethren. This is the lesson which we learn from our Lords teaching, and more emphatically still from his example. And it must be confessed, to the honour of Christianity, that one circumstance which distinguishes the countries which have been even only in name brought under its influence, is the provision that has been made in various forms for the distresses of suffering humanity. The institutions for the relief of the diseased, of the destitute, of the fatherless and the orphan, and of the erring who would fain return into the paths of rectitude, are to be regarded as so many evidences of what the gospel has effected for the removal of the temporal evils under which society groans. Different opinions there may well be as to the wisdom of the rules by which some of these institutions are governed, and of the means by which they seek the attainment of their objects; but there can be no dispute as to their benevolent design, or as to the point, that their origin is to be traced up to the diffusion of the knowledge of the Word of God. At the same time, my friends, I cannot help remarking, that there is something in the conduct of Mordecai, as recorded in the text, and of those who, like him, exercise their benevolence personally in assisting and protecting the helpless, and endeavouring to ameliorate their conditionsomething that raises it far above that of the people who contribute, however largely and willingly, toward the support of public institutions for the relief of the distressed. It is an easy matter for the wealthy to be charitable, when their gifts, administered by others, involve no sacrifice of time or labour, and no care and anxiety to themselves. But the noblest exercise of charity is exhibited when we take an interest personally in the well-being of the unprotected, and when they can look to us as their friends and counsellors, to whom they can have recourse in their sorrows, and troubles, and difficulties. It may not be that we have opportunity to act literally as Mordecai did, and to give shelter to the orphan in our own homes; but we only act in the spirit of the gospel of Christ, when, according to our means, we make some of the helpless the objects of our special care, and regard them as a trust committed to us by our heavenly Father. The exercise of the kindly affections toward any such carries in it its own reward, and with these labours of love on the part of his people God is well pleased.Davidson.

Mordecai is a lowly descendant of a formerly distinguished, indeed royal, family. He belongs to the scattered foreigners fallen under contempt, who were carried away captives from Jerusalem. He is in a strange land. He has, it appears, neither father nor mother, neither wife nor child. Even his relatives, his uncle and his aunt, are dead. But the latter left an orphan; he is to her a father, she to him a daughter, indeed a precious treasure. Doubtless he is aware how great a trust was left to him in her and with her; how God is justly called the Father of orphans, and that He especially blesses those who pity and minister to them. He knows his duty toward her, and its fulfilment brings to him satisfaction, makes him happy. God has blessed her with beauty; but what is more, he has bestowed on her an obedient, humble, and unassuring spirit, as is afterwards fully shown by her conduct in the royal house of the women, and as had doubtless been often manifested before. She loves her people, and surely also its customs, laws, and religion. Thus she is to him indeed a Hadassah, a myrtle, in the true sense of the word, an unpromising and yet promising bud. Indeed, to him she was developed into a lovely flower of hope; and though it happen that she is taken into the royal house of the women, she will still be to him a lovely flower, whose presence he seeks, whose prosperity lies at his heart day by day, whose development will cause him to rejoice. Again, she will more and more become to him a brilliant star, an Esther, in whose light he views his own and his peoples future. In this manner his life is not poor, though he appear insignificant and obscure, though it be filled with painful reminiscences and great perplexities, which he must combat daily in his heathen surroundings. On the contrary, he is rich in light and hope; and even if he had realized the latter in a less degree than he eventually did, still his existence would not have been in vain.Lange.

Est. 2:5. Mordecai was one of those characters which clearly reveal the hand of Providence.

The light we have of his early life is little better than darkness. But when he appears at Shushan it becomes lustrous as the noontide sun.
He possessed the qualification which fitted him for swaying a sceptre.
Mordecais ancestors were dead and buried, but family greatness lived with him.
Some mens noble deeds and heroism exist only in name, are hung in picture-galleries, and recorded in the chronicles of their family.
A great name is often carried by a very little man. Greatness does not always pass on.

In the person of Richard Cromwell we have not an Oliver Cromwell.

Est. 2:6. Carried away. Every child of God is where God has placed him for some purpose. You have been wishing for another position where you could do something for Jesus: do not wish anything of the kind, but serve him where you are. If you are sitting at the kings gate there is something for you to do there, and if you were on the queens throne, there would be something for you to do there: do not ask either to be gatekeeper or queen, but whichever you are serve God therein. Mordecai did well because he acted as Mordecai should.C. H. Spurgeon.

The best may have their share in a common calamity; but God will not fail even then to set his eyes upon them for good. The husbandman cutteth his corn and weed together, but for different purpose. One and the same common calamity proveth, melteth, purifieth the good, damneth, wasteth, destroyeth the evil.Trapp.

It was a good thing for Esther when left an orphan, in a strange land, that Mordecai would become her foster-father.
It was a good thing for Mordecai that he took Esther home and brought her up.
Whilst giving he received. There is that scattereth and yet increaseth. This Mordecai experienced.

Be careful whom you turn from your door; an angel, in rags, may come there some day.
The adopted child, or even the captive slave, may be Gods ministering angel.
That passage, The Lord blessed the Egyptians house for Josephs sake, is very suggestive.

The little maid in Naamans house became an untold blessing to her master.
Mordecai took Esther, and was well rewarded.

1. By Esthers goodness when with him.
2. By her obedience to him after she had left him.

Mordecai brought up Hadassah, and Esther afterwards brought up Mordecai.

She was a poor orphan, but Christ left her not comfortless. He had provided and enabled Mordecai to feed her, to train her up in the fear of God, and to defend her chastity from the fear of lust; beside that, her head was by Him destined to a diadem. Esther the captive shall be Esther the queen; Esther the motherless and fatherless shall be a nursing mother to the Church, and, meanwhile, meet with a merciful guardian.Mordecai. Why, then, should not we trust God with ourselves and our children?Trapp.

Took for his own daughter. He hid not his eyes from his own flesh, as some unnatural ostrich or sea-monster; he made not, as many do, tuition a broker for private gain; he made not, instead of a daughter, a slave or sponge of his pupil; he devoured her not under pretence of devotion, but freely took her for his child, and bred her in the best manner.Trapp.

There is a resemblance between Esther and Moses.

1. The one was raised up to emancipate Israel from cruel bondage, the other to preserve them from a plot which had for its object their extermination.
2. Moses was taken out of the river, and adopted by Pharaohs daughter. Esther was raised to the bed of Ahasuerus and the crown royal.
3. After mentioning the barbarous edict for destroying all their children, Stephen says: In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fairfair to God, as it is in the original, according to the Hebrew idiom. It was the beauty of the babe, shining through its tears, that excited the compassion of the Egyptian princess; and it was Esthers beauty which first won the Persian monarch.
4. But the Apostle, referring to the faith of Moses, lets us further into the mystery of Providence: By faith Moses was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child. Mordecai was to Esther father and mother; and what hinders us to think that he participated in the feelings of the parents of Moses, and that when he first looked on the beauty of the infant orphan, faith combined with natural affection and benevolence in inducing him to take her for his own daughter.Dr. MCrie.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2

Discipline of the passions. The passions may be humoured until they become our master, as a horse may be pampered till he gets the better of his rider; but early discipline will prevent mutiny, and keep the helm in the hands of reason. Properly controlled, the passions may, like a horse with the bit in his mouth, or a ship with the helm in the hand of a skilful mariner, be managed and made useful.

A rich landlord once cruelly oppressed a poor widow. Her son, a little boy of eight years, saw it. He afterwards became a painter, and painted a life likeness of the dark scene. Years afterwards, he placed it where the man saw it. He turned pale, trembled in every joint, and offered any sum to purchase it, that he might put it out of sight. Thus there is an invisible painter drawing on the canvas of the soul a life likeness, reflecting correctly all the passions and actions of our spiritual history on earth. Now and again we should be compelled to look at them, and the folly of our acts will sting us, as it did the landlord, and also Ahasuerus.

Control of anger. Socrates, finding himself in emotion against a slave, said: I would beat you if I were not angry. Having received a box on the ears, he contented himself by only saying, with a smile, It is a pity we do not know when to put on the helmet. Socrates, meeting a gentleman of rank in the streets, saluted him; but the gentleman took no notice of it. His friends in company, observing what passed, told the philosopher That they were so exasperated at the mans incivility, that they had a good mind to resent it. He very calmly replied, If you met any person in the road in a worse habit of body than yourself, would you think you had reason to be enraged with him on that account? Pray, then, what greater reason can you have for being incensed at a man for a worse habit of mind than any of yourselves? That was a brave, strong man.

Impressions of sin. The great stone book of nature reveals many records of the past. In the red sandstone there are found, in some places, marks which are clearly the impression of showers of rain, and these are so perfect that it can even be detected in which direction the shower inclined, and from what quarter it proceededand this ages ago. Even so sin leaves its track behind it, and God keeps a faithful record of all our sins.Biblical Treasury.

If you cut a gash in a mans head, you may heal it; but you can never rub out, nor wash out, nor cut out the scar. It may be a witness against you in his corpse; still it may be covered by the coffin, or hidden in the grave; but then it is not till decomposition shall take place, that it shall entirely disappear. But, if you smite your soul by sin, you make a scar that will remain; no coffin or grave shall hide it; no fire, not even the eternal flames, shall burn out sins stains.

Counterfeit repentance. Beware that you make no mistake about the nature of true repentance. The devil knows too well the value of the precious grace not to dress up spurious imitations of it. Wherever there is good coin there will always be bad money.Ryle.

Repentance before pardon. The first physic to recover our souls is not cordials, but corrosives; not an immediate stepping into heaven by a present assurance, but mourning, and lamentations, and a little bewailing of our former transgressions. With Mary Magdalene we must wash Christs feet with our tears of sorrow, before we may anoint his head with the oil of gladness.Browning.

In all parts of the East, women are spoken of as being much inferior to men in wisdom; and nearly all their sages have proudly descanted on the ignorance of women. In the Hindoo book called the Kurral, it is declared, All women are ignorant. In other works similar remarks are found: Ignorance is a womans jewel. The feminine qualities are fourignorance, fear, shame, and impurity. To a woman disclose not a secret. Talk not to me in that way; it is all female wisdom.Roberts.

Degradation of woman. The farmers of the upper Alps, though by no means wealthy, live like lords in their houses, while the heaviest portion of agricultural labour devolves on the wife. It is no uncommon thing to see a woman yoked to the plough along with an ass, while the husband guides it. A farmer of the upper Alps accounts it an act of politeness to lend his wife to a neighbour who is too much oppressed with work; and the neighbour, in his turn, lends his wife for a few days work, whenever the favour is requested.Percy.

Radical reform. A small bite from a serpent will affect the whole body. There is no way to calm the sea but by excommunicating Jonah from the ship. If the root be killed, the branches will soon be withered. If the spring be diminished, there is no doubt that the streams will soon fail. When the fuel of corruption is removed, then the fire of affliction is extinguished.Secker.

Individual responsibility. Daniel Webster was once asked, What is the most important thought you ever entertained? He replied, after a moments reflection, the most important thought I ever had was my individual responsibility to God. There is no royal road, either to wealth or learning. Princes and kings, poor men, peasants, all alike must attend to the wants of their own bodies, and their own minds. No man can eat, drink, or sleep by proxy. No man can get the alphabet learned for him by another. All these are things which everybody must do for himself, or they will not be done at all. Just as it is with the mind and body, so it is with the soul. There are certain things absolutely needful to the souls health and well-being. Each must repent for himself. Each must apply to Christ for himself. And for himself each must speak to God and pray.Ryle.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

B. Solicitude of Mordecai

TEXT: Est. 2:5-11

5

There was a certain Jew in Shushan the palace, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite,

6

who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives that had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.

7

And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncles daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maiden was fair and beautiful; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter.

8

So it came to pass, when the kings commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together unto Shushan the palace to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was taken into the kings house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women.

9

And the maiden pleased him, and she obtained kindness of him; and he speedily gave her her things for purification, with her portions, and the seven maidens who were meet to be given her out of the kings house: and he removed her and her maidens to the best place of the house of the women.

10

Esther had not made known her people nor her kindred; for Mordecai had charged her that she should not make it known.

11

And Mordecai walked every day before the court of the womens house, to know how Esther did, and what would become of her.

Todays English Version, Est. 2:5-11

There in Susa lived a Jew named Mordecai son of Jair; he was from the tribe of Benjamin and was a descendant of Kish and Shimei. When King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon took King Jehoiachin of Judah into exile from Jerusalem, along with a group of captives, Mordecai was among them. He had a cousin, Esther, whose Hebrew name was Hadassah; she was a beautiful girl, and had a good figure. At the death of her parents, Mordecai had adopted her and brought her up as his own daughter.
When the king had issued his new proclamation and many girls were being brought to Susa, Esther was among them. She too was put in the royal palace in the care of Hegai, who had charge of the harem. Hegai liked Esther, and she won his favor. He lost no time in beginning her beauty treatment of massage and special diet. He gave her the best place in the harem and assigned seven girls specially chosen from the royal palace to serve her.
Now on the advice of Mordecai, Esther had kept it secret that she was Jewish. Every day Mordecai would walk back and forth in front of the courtyard of the harem, in order to find out how she was getting along and what was going to happen to her.

COMMENTS

Est. 2:5-7 Orphanhood: Enter Mordecai! This book might well have been called, The Book of Mordecai. All the way through the book Mordecai is as much a star as Esther and the book ends with an account of the fame and dignity of Mordecai. The Feast or Purim is called the day of Mordecai in 2Ma. 15:36. He is a favorite character in the Rabbinical literature. The name Mordecai is derived from Marduk, chief deity of Babylon and Persia. Marduk means be bold and audacious in acts of rebellion; run strenuously, attack. Some suggest that Nimrod is a Hebrew transmutation of Marduk which in turn has some relationship to the constellation Orion. He who was to the Babylonians a deified hero, was to the Hebrews a rebel Titan, bound in chains among the stars that all might behold his punishment. The fact that the name Mordecai is derived from Marduk substantiates assumption that this famous man was born in captivity. It would seem physically impossible for Mordecai to have been born before the captivity and still be a contemporary of Xerxes. If Mordecai had been carried into captivity (even as an infant) with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) in 596 B.C., he would be 122 years of age when he became prime minister in the 12th year of Xerxes reign (474 B.C.); and Mordecai was in office for a long time after 474 B. C. (cf. Est. 10:2 ff). In the long standing argument about the proper antecedent of the relative pronoun who (Est. 2:6) we have taken the position that it refers to Kishgreat grandfather of Mordecai. The time between the exile of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and the time of Mordecai is just the right amount of time for the three generations between Kish and Mordecai. We have already indicated that birah (palace) means more specifically, fortress (cf. Est. 1:1-2). Mordecai did not at this time live within the royal palace itself, but inside the walled fortress known as Susa.

Mordecai was an especially compassionate man toward his own kinsmen. When his uncle and aunt died, they left a beautiful young daughter completely orphaned. Mordecai was a man who went beyond the letter of the law (Exo. 22:22) which forbade exploitation of the widow and the fatherless; he kept the spirit of the law as proclaimed by the prophets (Isa. 1:17) and defended the fatherless. Mordecai had no way of knowing when he first took Esther into his home as his own daughter that someday his association with Esther would promote him to high office and fame. But Jehovah who rewards the righteous knew! Yes, even Mordecai had come to Persia for such a time as this!

The orphaned girl had been named Hadassah by her parents which means myrtle in Hebrew. The myrtle is a large evergreen shrub with fragrant flowers and spicy-sweet scented leaves. All parts of the plant are somewhat perfumed. The word hadassah in Hebrew came to mean sweetness. It has been used as a symbol of beauty and sweetness (Isa. 41:19; Isa. 55:13; Zec. 1:7-10). It was one of the trees used in the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15). In ancient times it was sacred to Astarte. The name Esther is probably derived from the Persian stara, i.e. star, or from the goddess Ishtar (also known as Ashtoreth and Astarte). Esther was well named! The Hebrew words yephathtoar vetovath mare eh describe Esthers unusual beauty. Yephath means beautiful; toar means the beauty of her form; vetovath means pleasant, desirable; and mareeh has as its root in Hebrew that from which we get the word vision, spectacle, appearance, form. Esther must have been strikingly beautiful. Her facial features, her feminine figure, and her personality all combined to make her as beautiful, comely, shapely and desirable as the beloved young bride in Song of Solomon (cf. S.S. Est. 1:8; Est. 1:15-17; Est. 2:14; Est. 4:1-8, etc.). Mordecai, her cousin, took her into his home and into his heart and she became his adopted daughter.

Est. 2:8-11 Opportunity: There must have been hundreds of young women gathered to the emperors palace. The word ravvoth means large number, great number, myriads. They were all given to the custody (Heb. into the hand of) Hegai, the emperors eunuch (cf. Est. 2:3) who was in charge of the emperors harem. It seems clear from these verses that this was no ordinary beauty contest. These contestants had not entered by their own choice. The fact that the many were gathered and Esther was taken indicates they were compelled to be made part of the emperors harem. In the Jewish Targums there is a story that Mordecai tried to hide Esther from the emperors servants when they came in search of beautiful maidens. Not only were these maidens forced to compete for the emperors favor, the losers were probably not allowed to return to their homes but retained in his harem. Polygamy can be traced back to the pre-Noachian times. Lamech is the first recorded polygamist (Gen. 4:19; Gen. 4:23). Some think polygamy was the outcome of tribal wars. When men had separated into clans and had taken up different places of abode, collisions soon occurred between them. In such wars the great majority of men would be massacred; the women and children, driven to the abode of the conquerors, there to become concubines and slaves. Of course the strongest man or the chief of the clan would assert his right to the choice of captives. Thus down through the centuries of time it became a status symbol. So we have even in Solomons temple a harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines. Emperors and kings, with all of a nations wealth at their command, could afford to support such harems. There were other facts involved in polygamy. First, there is the natural sex-drive in man, which, not under the control of the express will of God which commands one woman for one man, leads man to sexual promiscuity. The natural sex-drive under control is good, because it is created by God. Second, in an agricultural society which did not have the benefits of technological work-savers, a man would desire to produce as many offspring as possible to become a workforce and produce the highest standard of living possible. Women and children were usually considered property in such cultures. Of course, the principle a mans life does not consist of the things which he possesses was as true then as it is now. Polygamy and harems have always brought jealousy, intrigue, ruination, financial disaster, slavery and moral guilt. Solomons polygamy bankrupted Israel and brought about a divided kingdom saturated with idolatry. It is doubtful that Esther would have chosen to become a member of Xerxes harem. But she had no choice, except death to herself and probably to her family.

Esther pleased (tov) Hegai, supervisor of the emperors harem. Just how she pleased him we are not told; most probably by her sweetness of disposition and determination to make the most of an unwanted circumstance without complaining or rebelling she was shown kindness (chesed in Hebrew). No doubt, her radiant beauty also prompted him to put her in a position to catch the emperors eye sooner than the rest of the maidens. First, Hegai quickly gave Esther the ointments (tameruqeyha in Heb.) and cosmetics with which to adorn herself before being taken to the emperors presence. Second, he gave her the customary portions of food (manotheyha in Heb.; the word used of the special food in Dan. 1:5; see also Est. 9:19; Est. 9:22). Third, Esther was given seven women attendants, probably the loveliest and most efficient of all the servant girls, suitable to the exceptional charm of Esther herself. Fourth, Hegai removed (yeshanneha in Heb., meaning, altered, changed, transfered) Esther and her maidens to the best place of the harem. Apparently she had been given quarters in a less desirable part of the harem when she was first brought to the palace.

Esther had not revealed her ethnic background. We assume she looked enough like a Persian that her Jewishness was not discernible. Since both Persians and Jews were of Semitic origin their physical features were enough alike to present no problem for Esther. Why did Esther not reveal that she was a Jew? And why did Mordecai advise her that she should not do so? Many answers have been given. One says, Mordecai reasoned something like this: If Esther is chosen queen, it can only be because God desires to make her the instrument of His purpose. If she reveals that she is a Jewess, she will prejudice her choice . . . Another suggests that she did not reveal she was from royal origin (descended from Kish and thus King Saul) hoping the emperor might think she was of humble origin and send her away. There is no evidence Esther was of royal lineage. Ibn Ezra says, So that she might observe her religious obligations secretly. If she revealed her Jewish faith she would be forced to transgress (cf. Daniel 1, 6). Another Jewish tradition says Mordecais modesty dictated that Esthers racial ties not be known; he modestly wanted to forego the advancement and publicity which would come to him if his relationship to Esther (when she became queen) were known. We would question whether Mordecai could have been that accurate with his premonitions. Could he know with certainty that Esther would become queen? The most natural reason, it would seem, for Esther to conceal her racial roots was the anti-Jewish feeling there (cf. Est. 3:5-6; Est. 5:13; Est. 6:13; Est. 8:11). The Jews suffered this anti-Jewish prejudice in Egypt under the Pharaohs, by their pagan neighbors while they were in the Promised Land, when they were taken captive to Babylon and Persia, from the Samaritans after their return from captivity, from the Seleucids (Daniel 11), from the Romans, and from certain people of every nation with which they have been associated since. We think Mordecais purpose was to protect his beautiful cousin from any violence should her ancestry be made known immediately. That Mordecai was very much concerned for her safety and well-being is evidenced by the fact that every single day he went to the court of the harem to inquire about her present circumstances and what the future might hold for her. It is apparent that Mordecai has some official duty or standing within the palace itself that would allow him easy and continuous access to the harem courts. Perhaps he was one of the porters who watched the many gates of the palace or had the responsibility of storing supplies within the palace.

Some question the ethics of Mordecai and Esther in keeping her racial ties silent. It needs to be understood that it is not unethical to withhold information, the revealing of which would serve no good purpose. The fact that they did not reveal she was a Jewess certainly did not cause others any suffering or loss. When Rahab did not betray the Hebrew spies there was nothing unethical in her action, (Jos. 2:1 ff). Samuel withheld information from Saul at the direction of the Lord (1Sa. 16:1 ff). Elisha withheld information from enemies (2Ki. 6:19 ff). The Lord Himself was party to military deception in the assault against Ai by Joshua (Jos. 8:3-29, esp. Jos. 8:18). Jesus advised concealment of truth from those who have no claim upon it (Mat. 7:6); Jesus himself would not so much as speak to Herod when questioned. Mordecai knew that the truth about Esthers ethnic background would only bring suffering (perhaps even death) to her and the Jewish people if such information should be divulged at an inopportune time.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(5) Mordecai.Canon Rawlinson is disposed to identify Mordecai with Matacas, who was the most powerful of the eunuchs in the reign of Xerxes. It may be assumed that Mordecai was a eunuch, by the way in which he was allowed access to the royal harem (Est. 2:11; Est. 2:22). The name Mordecai occurs in Ezr. 2:2; Neh. 7:7, as one of those who returned to Juda with Zerubbabel.

The son of Jair.It is probable that the names here given are those of the actual father, grandfather, and great-grandfather of Mordecai; though some have thought that they are merely some of the more famous ancestors, Shimei being assumed to be the assailant of David, and Kish the father of Saul. The character of Mordecai strikes us at the outset as that of an ambitious, worldly man; who, though numbers of his tribe had returned to the land of their fathers, preferred to remain behind on the alien soil. The heroic lament of the exiles by Babels streams, who would not sing the Lords song in a strange land, who looked with horror at the thought that Jerusalem should be forgottensuch were not Mordecais thoughts, far from it: why endure hardships, when there is a chance of his adopted daughters beauty catching the eye of the sensual king, when through her he may vanquish his rival, and become that kings chief minister?

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

5. Mordecai Some scholars connect this name with Merodach, the Babylonian idol, (Jer 50:2,) but the etymology is uncertain. He may, perhaps, be identified with Natacas, or Matocas, whom Ctesias mentions as one of Xerxes’ most favourite and powerful eunuchs, and whom he sent after his return from Greece, to plunder and destroy a temple of Apollo. That Mordecai was a eunuch appears probable from the position he held in the Persian court, his access to the house of the women, and his adoption and care of the youthful Esther.

Jair Shimei Kish These are obviously the immediate ancestors of Mordecai, since, according to the next verse, the great-grandfather, Kish, had been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar. Hence there is no sufficient reason to identify this Shimei with the son of Gera, mentioned in 2Sa 16:5, or this Kish with the father of Saul. 1Sa 9:1. These four generations would naturally cover about the period of time that intervened between the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:8) and the middle of Xerxes’ reign.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Est 2:5. Whose name was Mordecai Mordecai, from his attendance at the king’s gate, Est 2:19 is thought to have been one of the porters at the royal palace; but, probably, he was an officer of higher rank; for it was an order instituted by Cyrus, as Xenophon informs us, Cyropaed. lib. 8: that all persons whatever, who had any employment at court, should attend at the palace-gate (where there was, doubtless, a proper waiting-place for their reception), that they might be in readiness whenever they were wanted or called for; and that this custom was afterwards continued, we may learn from Herodotus, lib. 3: cap. 120. See Le Clerc.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

(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; (6) Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.

Most likely the whole cause for which the history of this transaction in the Persian court is recorded in the scriptures of GOD, is only to introduce certain great events belonging to the church. So that in fact the principal part of the history begins at this place. The Reader, therefore, will not fail to keep this as the grand point in view through the whole. And let him further observe, by what slender means the LORD is pleased to carry on his great designs concerning his church and people. When JESUS, our adorable Redeemer, came upon earth, in what an humble way and manner was he introduced. Who should have thought such vast and glorious designs as redemption hath produced; should have opened with so low a beginning?

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Est 2:5 [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;

Ver. 5. Now in Shushan the palace ] Not in Babylon, as Josephus doteth.

There was a certain Jew ] That had not returned to Jerusalem, as he ought to have done; and as another of his name did, Ezr 2:2 .

Whose name was Mordecai ] That is, pure myrrh, say some; bitter contrition, say others; he is the son of contrition, that must be the son of consolation. This Mordecai was one of those few that both lived and died with glory; being not taxed for any gross sin.

The son of Jair ] Happy father in such a son; much more joy might he well be to his parents than Epaminondas was to his: and of him it might be sung,

T , (Homer).

The son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite ] He descended, then, either from some other son of Kish, the father of Saul, or else from Jonathan, Saul’s son; for he only, of all the sons of Saul, left issue behind him. But the Kish here mentioned, though of his line, lived many years after Saul’s father.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Est 2:5-7

5Now there was at the citadel in Susa a Jew whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, 6who had been taken into exile from Jerusalem with the captives who had been exiled with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had exiled. 7He was bringing up Hadassah, that is Esther, his uncle’s daughter, for she had no father or mother. Now the young lady was beautiful of form and face, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai took her as his own daughter.

Est 2:5 a Jew This term (BDB 397, KB 394) has several meanings.:

1. from the tribe of Judah, son of Jacob

2. from the land of Judah

a. tribal allotment in Joshua

b. southern tribes after 922 B.C. split

c. small area around Jerusalem in post-exilic period

3. someone who is Jewish, not necessarily of the tribe of Judah (e.g., Est 2:5; Est 3:4; Est 5:13; Est 6:10; Est 8:7; Est 9:29; Est 9:31; Est 10:3). This is the historical period when the term Jew takes on its modern usage.

Mordecai, the son of Jair The exact etymology of the word Mordecai is uncertain (BDB 598, KB 632, possibly it related to the Babylonian god, Marduk, cf. Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7). He was a Benjaminite. He was in some capacity connected with the gate of the palace (cf. Neh 10:6).

Est 2:6 who had been taken into exile from Jerusalem Many have assumed that if this refers to Mordecai he would have been over 100 years old since the exiles under Nebuchadnezzar occurred in either 605, 597, 586, or 582 B.C. However, who seems to relate to one of his ancestors and not to Mordecai himself (cf. NRSV, specifies the who as Kish).

The mentioning of Kish and Shimei means

1. he was of the royal line of Benjamin, a relative of King Saul

2. his immediate ancestor taken into captivity carried the famous family names

3. both Kish (cf. 1Sa 9:1-2; genealogy in 1Ch 8:33-40) and Shimei (cf. 2Sa 16:5) are ancient Benjamite family names (Josephus, the Targums).

As we have seen so often in comparing the lists of peoples in Ezra and Nehemiah, specific family names appear again and again and often son refers to distant relatives or famous descendants.

Jeconiah King of Judah See the account in 2 Kings 24; 2 Chronicles 36. He also is known by Coniah (cf. Jer 22:24; Jer 22:28) and Jehoiachin (cf. 2Ki 24:6; 2Ki 24:8; 2Ki 24:12).

Est 2:7 Hadassah. . .Esther This is a Hebrew name from the term myrtle (BDB 213, from the Targums, cf. Isa 41:19; Isa 55:13; Zec 1:8; Zec 1:10-11).

that is Esther This lady apparently had two names, one Hebrew and one Persian, which must have been common for Jews taken into exile. It is possible that Esther was Hadassah’s throne name, but this is unsubstantiated.

NASB, NKJV,

NJBhis uncle’s daughter

NRSV, TEVhis cousin

The Hebrew term (BDB 187, KB 215) can have several familial references. Josephus and Jewish tradition assert that Mordecai was her uncle; the Old Latin and Vulgate texts have niece (cf. F. B. Huey, Esther, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 806,807; NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 779, says it is cousin not niece, but p. 923 says it is a possibility). The word has a wide semantic range.

the young lady was beautiful of form and face The NKJV is more literal, lovely and beautiful. The author of Esther often combines words, phrases, and sentences that have similar meanings.

The first term (BDB 1061) means form and was used in the sense of gazed at (cf. Gen 29:17; Deu 21:11; 1Sa 25:3).

The second phrase (BDB 909 and 373 II) means good appearance. This was used to describe Vasti in Est 1:11. We would say Esther was stunning and stood out in a crowd, a real show-stopper, eye-catcher (aren’t metaphors wonderful!).

took her as his own daughter The NET Bible (p. 745) has he was acting as the guardian. To support this change they use the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon, p. 64, and compare the usage guardian with 2Ki 10:1-5.

There is little direct evidence of adoption in the OT, probably because there were so many ways culturally available to have children. See Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, pp. 14-15 or deVaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1, pp. 51-52.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

a certain Jew = a man (Hebrew. ‘ish. App-14.), a Jew. The contrast between Judah and Israel was lost in a strange land; and, as Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign was against Judah, so “Jew” became the name used by Gentiles.

Mordecai. Daniel and Ezekiel taken to Babylon (2Ki 24:14, 2Ki 24:15); Nehemiah and Mordecai to Shushan; and Mordecai dwelt in the royal palace, as did Daniel and others (Dan 1:4. 2Ki 20:16-18).

a Benjamite. Thus Mordecai, a Benjamite, ends Jehovah’s war against Amalek, Exo 17:16. Compare Est 3:1 with Est 7:10; Est 9:10. A work entrusted to Saul (a Benjarnite). 1Sa 15:2-33.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Est 2:5-7

Est 2:5-7

THE INTRODUCTION OF MORDECAI AND ESTHER

“There was a certain Jew in Shushan the palace whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives that had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. And he brought up Hadassah, that is Esther, his uncle’s daughter, for she had neither father nor mother, and the maiden was fair and beautiful; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter.”

“Mordecai” (Est 2:5). This name is said to be derived from the pagan god Marduk, meaning “dedicated to Mars.”

“Carried away from Jerusalem (by) Nebuchadnezzar” (Est 2:6). That deportation of Jews was more than a century prior to the events of this chapter; and the meaning appears to be that Mordecai’s parents or grandparents were the ones carried away. Mordecai’s name suggests that he was born in Babylon, although the Babylonians generally changed the names of people whom they employed, as in the case of Daniel and others.

These three verses serve the purpose of introducing the persons around whom the rest of the narrative is woven.

E.M. Zerr:

Est 2:5. Tribal relations were regarded very highly in ancient times, hence the pains taken in this and many other instances to trace them out.

Est 2:6. The reader has previously learned that the Babylonian captivity was accomplished in 3 divisions or sections. That was while studying 2 Kings 24, 25. The 2nd one was in the days of Jeconiah, otherwise spelled Jehoiachin. At that time Mordecai was taken to Babylon, together with “all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor” (2Ki 25:14). Ezekiel was another one of these mighty men.

Est 2:7. Brought up means he nourished or reared the girl who was his cousin, her parents having died when she was young. Of course she would be in the same situation with Mordecai as to the captivity, hence we find her in Persia with him. Fair and beautiful. The first is from two originals, the one meaning “beautiful” and the other meaning, “outline, i. e. figure or appearance.”–Strong. The last of the italicized words is practically the same in meaning as the first, and was used by the writer evidently for emphasis. The phrase means to describe a girl with a beautiful form, one to please the eye of a man like the king. We are not to suppose that Esther had no other qualities than those of her body. The story will show her to have been a modest, sweet, truthful, respectful girl, and genuinely unselfish. But those were not the traits that caused her to be chosen by the officer, for he did not know about them, neither did the king upon his first relations with her.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Shushan: Est 2:3, Est 1:2, Est 5:1

a certain Jew: Est 3:2-6, Est 10:3

the son of Shimei: 1Sa 9:1, 2Sa 16:5

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2. Esther’s selection 2:5-11

Apparently it was Kish, Mordecai’s great-grandfather, who went into captivity with Jehoiachin (Est 2:5-6). [Note: Wright, p. 38.] This means Mordecai and Esther were probably descendants of the leading citizens of Jerusalem who went into exile in 597 B.C., perhaps nobility (cf. 2Ki 24:12).

Mordecai’s name is Persian, as is Esther’s, and it has connections with the god Marduk. [Note: Horn, p. 16.] All the same, it was common for the Jews in captivity to receive and to use pagan names (cf. Dan 1:7; Ezr 1:8). This does not necessarily indicate that they were apostate Jews (cf. Dan 1:7). The Marduk tablet, an extra-biblical cuneiform document, may contain a reference to Mordecai. [Note: See Whitcomb, pp. 47-48; and Horn, pp. 20-22.] The writer mentioned Mordecai 58 times in this book, and seven times identified him as a Jew (Est 2:5; Est 5:13; Est 6:10; Est 8:7; Est 9:29; Est 9:31; Est 10:3). Obviously, this is a story in which ethnicity is important.

"Hadasseh" (Est 2:7) is a Jewish name that means myrtle, a beautiful fragrant tree. The Jews still sometimes carry myrtle branches, which signify peace and thanksgiving, in procession during the Feast of Tabernacles. [Note: Baldwin, p. 66.] The name "Esther" is Persian and means "star." It derives from the same root as "Ishtar," the Babylonian goddess of love. As will become clear, Esther cooperated in practices contrary to the Mosaic Law. These included having sex with a man not her husband (Exo 20:14), marrying a pagan (Deu 7:1-4), and eating unclean food (Lev 11:46-47). This sets Esther in contrast to Daniel, who purposed not to defile himself-even with unclean food (Dan 1:5; Dan 1:8). God used Esther as Israel’s deliverer, even though she disregarded His will, at least partially (cf. Samson). Mordecai encouraged her to cooperate with the king (Est 2:10-11). It is impossible to determine if Esther was forced to participate in the king’s "beauty contest," or if she did so willingly. In view of Ahasuerus’ great power, I tend to think that she had no choice.

"The Persian name would enable Esther to keep secret her foreign identity." [Note: Ibid., p. 21.]

". . . if Mordecai and Esther were passing themselves off as Persians, they certainly weren’t keeping a kosher home and obeying the laws of Moses. Had they been following even the dietary laws, let alone the rules for separation and worship, their true nationality would have quickly been discovered. Had Esther practiced her Jewish faith during her year of preparation (Est 2:12), or during the four years she had been queen (Est 2:16 with Est 3:7), the disguise would have come off." [Note: Wiersbe, p. 712.]

"When you consider the backslidden state of the Jewish nation at that time, the disobedience of the Jewish remnant in the Persian Empire, and the unspiritual lifestyle of Mordecai and Esther, is it any wonder that the name of God is absent from this book?" [Note: Ibid., p. 713.]

Esther charmed Hegai, who was in charge of the king’s women, and he proceeded to grant her favor (Est 2:9; cf. Dan 1:9). Her ability to keep information confidential and her submissiveness to Mordecai (Est 2:10) mark her as a wise woman (cf. Pro 13:1; Pro 13:3).

There are several parallels between the story of Esther and the story of the Exodus. These have led a few scholars to conclude that the writer patterned this story after the story of Moses and the Exodus. [Note: Gillis Gerleman, Esther, has been the main advocate of this view, and others have followed.] Similarities include the plot and central theme, the adopted child with the concealed identity, reluctance to appeal to the king at first, the execution of many enemies, the Amalekite foe, and others. [Note: Forrest S. Weiland, "Plot Structure in the Book of Esther," Bibliotheca Sacra 159:635 (July-September 2002):277-87.] Though some similarities do exist, most scholars have not agreed that the writer deliberately constructed the Book of Esther after Exodus 1-12. [Note: See Carey A. Moore, "Eight Questions Most Frequently Asked About the Book of Esther," Bible Review 3:1 (Spring 1987):30-31.]

Similarly, there are several parallels with the story of Joseph in Genesis. [Note: See S. B. Berg, "The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure," Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 44, pp. 123-42.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

MORDECAI

Est 2:5-6; Est 4:1; Est 6:10-11; Est 9:1-4

THE hectic enthusiast who inspires Daniel Deronda with his passionate ideas is evidently a reflection in modern literature of the Mordecai of Scripture. It must be admitted that the reflection approaches a caricature. The dreaminess and morbid excitability of George Eliots consumptive hero have no counterpart in the wise, strong Mentor of Queen Esther, and the English writers agnosticism has led her to exclude all the Divine elements of the Jewish faith, so that on her pages the sole object of Israelite devotion is the race of Israel. But the very extravagance of the portraiture keenly accentuates what is, after all, the most remarkable trait in the original Mordecai. We are not in a position to deny that this man had a living faith in the God of his fathers; we are simply ignorant as to what his attitude towards religion was, because the author of the Book of Esther draws a veil over the religious relations of all his characters. Still the one thing prominent and pronounced in Mordecai is patriotism, devotion to Israel, the expenditure of thought and effort on the protection of his threatened people.

The first mention of the name of Mordecai introduces a hint of his national connections. We read, “There was a certain Jew in Shushan the palace, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.” {Est 2:5-6} Curious freaks of exegesis have been displayed in dealing with this passage. It has been thought that the Kish mentioned in it is no other than the father of Saul, in which case the ages of the ancestors of Mordecai must rival those of the antediluvians, and it has been suggested that Mordecai is here represented as one of the original captives from Jerusalem in the reign of Jeconiah, so that at the time of Xerxes he must have been a marvellously old man, tottering on the brink of the grave. On these grounds the genealogical note has been treated as a fanatical fiction invented to magnify the importance of Mordecai. But there is no necessity to take up any such position. It would be strange to derive Mordecai from the far-off Benjamite farmer Kish, who shines only in the reflected glory of his son, whereas we have no mention of Saul himself. There is no reason to say that another Kish may not have been found among the captives. Then it is quite possible to dispose of the second difficulty by connecting the relative clause at the beginning of Est 5:6 -“who had been carried away”-with the nearest antecedent in the previous sentence-viz., “Kish the Benjamite.” If we remove the semicolon from the end of Est 5:5, the clauses will run on quite smoothly and there will be no reason to go back to the name of Mordecai for the antecedent of the relative; we can read the words thus-“Kish the Benjamite who had been carried away,” etc. In this way all difficulty vanishes. But the passage still retains a special significance. Mordecai was a true Jew, of the once royal tribe of Benjamin, a descendant of one of the captive contemporaries of Jeconiah, and therefore most likely a scion of a princely house. The preservation of his ancestral record gives us a hint of the sort of mental pabulum on which the man had been nurtured. Living in the palace, apparently as a porter, and possibly as a eunuch of the harem, Mordecai would have been tempted to forget his people. Nevertheless it is plain that he had cherished traditions of the sad past, and trained his soul to cling to the story of his fathers sufferings in spite of all the distractions of a Persian court life. Though in a humbler sphere, he thus resembled Artaxerxes cup-bearer, the great patriot Nehemiah.

The peculiarity of Mordecais part in the story is this, that he is the moving spirit of all that is done for the deliverance of Israel at a time of desperate peril without being at first a prominent character. Thus he first appears as the guardian of his young cousin, whom he has cherished and trained, and whom he now introduces to the royal harem where she will play her more conspicuous part. Throughout the whole course of events Mordecais voice is repeatedly heard, but usually as that of Esthers prompter. He haunts the precincts of the harem, if by chance he may catch a glimpse of his foster child. He is a lonely man now, for he has parted with the light of his home. He has done this voluntarily, unselfishly-first, to advance the lovely creature who has been committed to his charge, and secondly, as it turns out, for the saving of his people. Even now his chief thought is not for the cheering of his own solitude. His constant aim is to guide his young cousin in the difficult path of her new career. Subsequently he receives the highest honours the king can bestow, but he never seeks them, and he would be quite content to remain in the background to the end, if only his eager desire for the good of his people could be accomplished by the queen who has learnt to lean upon his counsel from her childhood. Such self-effacement is most rare and beautiful. A subtle temptation to self-regarding ambition besets the path of every man who attempts some great public work for the good of others in a way that necessarily brings him under observation. Even though he believes himself to be inspired by the purest patriotism, it is impossible for him not to perceive that he is exposing himself to admiration by the very disinterestedness of his conduct. The rare thing is to see the same earnestness on the part of a person in an obscure place, willing that the whole of his energy should be devoted to the training and guiding of another, who alone is to become the visible agent of some great work.

The one action in which Mordecai momentarily takes the first place throws light on another side of his character. There is a secondary plot in the story. Mordecai saves the kings life by discovering to him a conspiracy. The value of this service is strikingly illustrated by the historical fact that, at a later time, just another such conspiracy issued in the assassination of Xerxes. In the distractions of his foreign expeditions and his abandonment to self-indulgence at home, the king forgets the whole affair, and Mordecai goes on his quiet way as before, never dreaming of the honour with which it is to be rewarded. Now this incident seems to be introduced to show how the intricate wheels of Providence all work on for the ultimate deliverance of Israel. The accidental discovery of Mordecais unrequited service, when the king is beguiling the long hours of a sleepless night by listening to the chronicles of his reign, leads to the recognition of Mordecai and the first humiliation of Haman, and prepares the king for further measures. But the incident reflects a side light on Mordecai in another direction. The humble porter is loyal to the great despot. He is a passionately patriotic Jew, but his patriotism does not make a rebel of him, nor does it permit him to stand aside silently and see a villainous intrigue go on unmolested, even though it is aimed at the monarch who is holding his people in subjection. Mordecai is the humble friend of the great Persian king in the moment of danger. This is the more remarkable when we compare it with his ruthless thirst for vengeance against the known enemies of Israel. It shows that he does not treat Ahasuerus as an enemy of his people. No doubt the writer of this narrative wished it to be seen that the most patriotic Jew could be perfectly loyal to a foreign government. The shining examples of Joseph and Daniel have set the same idea before the world for the vindication of a grossly maligned people, who, like the Christians in the days of Tacitus, have been most unjustly hated as the enemies of the human race. The capacity to adapt itself loyally to the service of foreign governments, without abandoning one iota of its religion or its patriotism, is a unique trait in the genius of this wonderful race. The Zealot is not the typical Jew-patriot. He is a secretion of diseased and decayed patriotism, True patriotism is large enough and patient enough to recognise the duties that lie outside its immediate aims. Its fine perfection is attained when it can be flexible without becoming servile.

We see that in Mordecai the flexibility of Jewish patriotism was consistent with a proud scorn of the least approach to servility. He. would not kiss the dust at the approach of Haman, grand vizier though the man was. It may be that he regarded this act of homage as idolatrous-for it would seem that Persian monarchs were not unwilling to accept the adulation of Divine honours, and the vain minister was aping the airs of his royal master. But, perhaps, like those Greeks who would not humble their pride by prostrating themselves at the bidding of an Oriental barbarian, Mordecai held himself up from a sense of self-respect. In either case it must be evident that he showed a daringly independent spirit. He could not but know that such an affront as he ventured to offer to Haman would annoy the great man. But he had not calculated on the unfathomable depths of Hamans vanity. Nobody who credits his fellows with rational motives would dream that so simple an offence as this of Mordecais could provoke so vast an act of vengeance as the massacre of a nation. When he saw the outrageous consequences of his mild act of independence, Mordecai must have felt it doubly incumbent upon him to strain every nerve to save his people. Their danger was indirectly due to his conduct. Still he could never have foreseen such a result, and therefore he should not be held responsible for it. The tremendous disproportion between motive and action in the behaviour of Haman is like one of those fantastic freaks that abound in the impossible world of “The Arabian Nights,” but for the occurrence of which we make no provision in real life, simply because we do not act on the assumption that the universe is nothing better than a huge lunatic asylum.

The escape from this altogether unexpected danger is due to two courses of events. One of them-in accordance with the reserved style of the narrative-appears to be quite accidental. Mordecai got the reward he never sought in what seems to be the most casual way. He had no hand in obtaining for himself an honour which looks to us quaintly childish. For a few brief hours he was paraded through the streets of the royal city as the man whom the king delighted to honour, with no less a person than the grand vizier to serve as his groom. It was Hamans silly vanity that had invented this frivolous proceeding. We can hardly suppose that Mordecai cared much for it. After the procession had completed its round, in true Oriental fashion Mordecai put off his gorgeous robes, like a poor actor returning from the stage to his garret, and settled down to his lowly office exactly as if nothing had happened. This must seem to us a foolish business, unless we can look at it through the magnifying glass of an Oriental imagination, and even then there is nothing very fascinating in it. Still it had important consequences. For, in the first place, it prepared the way for a further recognition of Mordecai in the future. He was now a marked personage. Ahasuerus knew him, and was gratefully disposed towards him. The people understood that the king delighted to honour him. His couch would not be the softer nor his bread the sweeter, but all sorts of future possibilities lay open before him. To many men the possibilities of life are more precious than the actualities. We cannot say, however, that they meant much to Mordecai, for he was not ambitious, and he had no reason to think that the kings conscience was not perfectly satisfied with the cheap settlement of his debt of gratitude. Still the possibilities existed, and before the end of the tale they had blossomed out to very brilliant results.

But another consequence of the pageant was that the heart of Haman was turned to gall. We see him livid with jealousy, inconsolable until his wife-who evidently knows him well-proposes to satisfy his spite by another piece of fanciful extravagance. Mordecai shall be impaled on a mighty stake, so high that all the world shall see the ghastly spectacle. This may give some comfort to the wounded vanity of the grand vizier. But consolation to Haman will be death and torment to Mordecai.

Now we come to the second course of events that issued in the deliverance and triumph of Israel, and therewith in the escape and exaltation of Mordecai. Here the watchful porter is at the spring of all that happens. His fasting, and the earnest counsels he lays upon Esther, bear witness to the intensity of his nature. Again the characteristic reserve of the narrative obscures all religious considerations. But, as we have seen already, Mordecai is persuaded that deliverance will come to Israel from some quarter, and he suggests that Esther has been raised to her high position for the purpose of saving her people. We cannot but feel that these hints veil a very solid faith in the providence of God with regard to the Jews. On the surface of them they show faith in the destiny of Israel. Mordecai not only loves his nation, he believes in it. He is sure it has a future. It has survived the most awful disasters in the past. It seems to possess a charmed life. It must emerge safely from the present crisis. But Mordecai is not a fatalist whose creed paralyses his energies. He is most distressed and anxious at the prospect of the great danger that threatens his people. He is most persistent in pressing for the execution of measures of deliverance. Still in all this he is buoyed up by a strange faith in his nations destiny. This is the faith that the English novelist has transferred to her modern Mordecai. It cannot be gainsaid that there is much in the marvellous history of the unique people, whose vitality and energy, astonish us even to-day, to justify the sanguine expectation of prophetic souls that Israel has yet a great destiny to fulfil in future ages.

The ugly side of Jewish patriotism is also apparent in Mordecai, and it must not be ignored. The indiscriminate massacre of the “enemies” of the Jews is a savage act of retaliation that far exceeds the necessity of self-defence, and Mordecai must bear the chief blame of this crime. But then the considerations in extenuation of its guilt which have already come under our notice may be applied to him. The danger was supreme. The Jews were in a minority. The king was cruel, fickle, senseless. It was a desperate case. We cannot be surprised that the remedy was desperate also. There was no moderation on either side, but then “sweet reasonableness” is the last thing to be looked for in any of the characters of the Book of Esther. Here everything is extravagant. The course of events is too grotesque to be gravely weighed in the scales that are used in the judgment of average men under average circumstances.

The Book of Esther closes with an account of the establishment of the Feast of Purim and the exaltation of Mordecai to the vacant place of Haman. The Israelite porter becomes grand vizier of Persia! This is the crowning proof of the triumph of the Jews consequent on their deliverance. The whole process of events that issues so gloriously is commemorated in the annual Feast of Purim. It is true that doubts have been thrown on the historical connection between that festival and the story of Esther. It has been said that the word “Purim” may represent the portions assigned by lot, but not the lottery itself, that so trivial an accident as the method followed by Haman in selecting a day for his massacre of the Jews could not give its name to the celebration of their escape from the threatened danger, that the feast was probably more ancient, and was really the festival of the new moon for the month in which it occurs. With regard to all of these and any other objections, there is one remark that may be made here. They are solely of archaeological interest. The character and meaning of the feast as it is known to have been celebrated in historical times is not touched by them, because it is beyond doubt that throughout the ages Purim has been inspired with passionate and almost dramatic reminiscences of the story of Esther. Thus for all the celebrations of the feast that come within our ken this is its sole significance.

The worthiness of the festival will vary according to the ideas and feelings that are encouraged in connection with it. When it has been used as an opportunity for cultivating pride of race, hatred, contempt, and gleeful vengeance over humiliated foes, its effect must have been injurious and degrading. When, however, it has been celebrated in the midst of grievous oppressions, though it has embittered the spirit of animosity towards the oppressor-the Christian Haman in most cases-it has been of real service in cheering a cruelly afflicted people. Even when it has been carried through with no seriousness of intention, merely as a holiday-devoted to music and dancing and games and all sorts of merry-making, its social effect in bringing a gleam of light into lives that were as a rule dismally sordid may have been decidedly healthy.

But deeper thoughts must be stirred in devout hearts when brooding over the profound significance of the national festival. It celebrates a famous deliverance of the Jews from a fearful danger. Now deliverance is the keynote of Jewish history. This note was sounded as with a trumpet blast at the very birth of the nation, when, emerging from Egypt no better than a body of fugitive slaves, Israel was led through the Red Sea and Pharaohs hosts with their horses and chariots were overwhelmed in the flood. The echo of the triumphant burst of praise that swelled out from the exodus pealed down the ages in the noblest songs of Hebrew Psalmists. Successive deliverances added volume to this richest note of Jewish poetry. In all who looked up to God as the Redeemer of Israel the music was inspired by profound thankfulness, by true religions adoration. And yet Purim never became the Eucharist of Israel. It never approached the solemn grandeur of Passover, that prince of festivals, in which the great primitive deliverance of Israel was celebrated with all the pomp and awe of its Divine associations. It was always in the main a secular festival, relegated to the lower plane of social and domestic entertainments, like an English bank-holiday. Still even on its own lines it could serve a serious purpose. When Israel is practically idolised by Israelites, when the glory of the nation is accepted as the highest ideal to work up to, the true religion of Israel is missed, because that is nothing less than the worship of God as He is revealed in Hebrew history. Nevertheless, in their right place, the privileges of the nation and its destinies may be made the grounds of very exalted aspirations. The nation is larger than the individual, larger than the family. An enthusiastic national spirit must exert an expansive influence on the narrow, cramped lives of the men and women whom it delivers from selfish, domestic, and parochial limitations. It was a liberal education for Jews to be taught to love their race, its history and its future. If-as seems probable-our Lord honoured the Feast of Purim by taking part in it, Joh 5:1 He must have credited the national life of His people with a worthy mission. Himself the purest and best fruit of the stock of Israel, on the human side of His being, He realised in His own great mission of redemption the end for which God had repeatedly redeemed Israel. Thus He showed that God had saved His people, not simply for their own selfish satisfaction, but that through Christ they might carry salvation to the world.

Purged from its base associations of blood and cruelty, Purim may symbolise to us the triumph of the Church of Christ over her fiercest foes. The spirit of this triumph must be the very opposite of the spirit of wild vengeance exhibited by Mordecai and his people in their brief season of unwonted elation. The Israel of God can never conquer her enemies by force. The victory of the Church must be the victory of brotherly love, because brotherly love is the note of the true Church. But this victory Christ is winning throughout the ages, and the historical realisation of it is to us the Christian counterpart of the story of Esther.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary