Alastair's Adversaria - Why Mordecai Did Not Bow

Episode Date: October 12, 2024

The following is a reading from this post: https://argosy.substack.com/p/breakfast-and-move-things. Follow my Substack, the Anchored Argosy, at argosy.substack.com/. See my latest podcasts at adversariapodcast.com/. If you have enjoyed my videos and podcasts, please tell your friends. If you are interested in supporting my videos and podcasts and my research more generally, please consider supporting my work on Patreon (www.patreon.com/zugzwanged), using my PayPal account (bit.ly/2RLaUcB), or by buying books for my research on Amazon (www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/3…3O?ref_=wl_share). You can also listen to the audio of these episodes on iTunes: itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/alast…d1416351035?mt=2.

The following is entitled why Mordecai did not bow, and is based on a reflection that I first published on the substack that I share with my wife, the anchored Argosy. The account of Mordecai the Jews' refusal to bow to Haman is found in Esther chapter 3, verses 1 to 6. After these things, King Ahazuerus promoted Haman the Eagagite, the son of Hamadatha, and advanced him and set his throne above all the officials who were with him. And all the king's servants who were at the king's gate bowed down and paid homage to Haman, for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down, or pay homage. Then the king's servants who were at the king's gate said to Mordecai, Why do you transgress the king's command?

And when they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai's words would stand, for he had told them that he was a Jew. And when Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow him, down or pay homage to him. Haman was filled with fury, but he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So as they had made known to him the people of Mordecai, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai throughout the whole kingdom of Ahazuarius. No clear explanation for Mordecai's refusal to bow to Haman is given within the text.

So readers and commentators have been left to speculate concerning his reasons, reading between various lines. The moral character of Mordecai's refusal to bow has also been much debated. Several commentators, including two of my greatest theological influences, James Jordan and Peter Lightheart, have argued that in his refusal to bow, Mordecai was being rebellious, sinning against God and the king. Differing explanations have been advanced for Mordecai's refusal to bow. In his series of Biblical Horizons newsletters on the book, Jordan presents Mordecai as willfully rebellious, suggesting that he exhibited the more general tendency of the Jews of his day to do their own thing and not respect the king's commands. That Haman was exalted immediately after Mordecai

foiled Bigthin and Teresh's plot, while Mordecai himself went unrewarded, is a detail that Jordan and Lightheart both note, suggesting that personal resentment might also have been a factor in Mordecai's attitude to Haman. Explanations for Mordecai's refusal to bow, frequently involves some grounding in Mordecai's Jewish identity, on account of the ending of verse 4 of the chapter. For Jordan, it is a more general insubordination on the part of Mordecai and the Jews of his day. Others note that Haman is introduced to us as an agagite, seemingly a descendant of the Amalekite king of 1st Samuel chapter 15. Does the ancestral and divinely appointed enmity between the Israelites and the Amalekites, mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 25 versus 17 to 19, justify Mordecai's refusal to accord Haman any honour.

One historic line of Jewish interpretation seized the rationale for Mordecai's refusal to bow in the Jewish opposition to idolatry. To drive this point home, the story was retold with Haman bearing an idolatrous image upon his breast. Perhaps my favourite commentator on the book of Esther is Rabbi David Foreman, the author of the Queen You Thought You Knew. Foreman has also produced several videos on the Book of Esther on his alifeta.org website. He makes the case that Mordecai was justified in his refusal to bow, recognizing Haman as an unfaithful servant to the king. As Mordecai honored King Ahazuerus, he could not bow to such a man. Foreman notes an allusion to Genesis chapter 39 verse 10 in Esther chapter 3 verse 4.

And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her to lie beside her or be with her, Genesis chapter 39, verse 10, and then Esther chapter 3, verse 4, and when they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them. This allusion suggests some analogy or connection between the situation in which Joseph and Mordecai found themselves. This, of course, is one of several such analogies between Mordecai and Joseph, analogies that are widely recognized by commentators, strengthening the claim that this is not accidental. Like Joseph, Mordecai is a man taken from his homeland and exiled in a foreign land, while there he rises to the highest status in the court. Further parallels with Joseph can be found in the story of Daniel. Foreman claims that,

as the rest of the story evidences, Haman was a man of excessive ambition, ambition that led him to desire to play the part of the king, rather than being a faithful servant under him. He suggests that we are justified in suspecting the king's supposed command that the people bowed to Haman was not what Haman wanted it to appear to be, but was likely misreported or twisted by Haman for his self-aggrandizement. While it is possible that the illusion to the story of Joseph might be inviting a contrast rather than a comparison between the two characters, one reflecting unfavourably upon Mordecai, this seems unlikely. Such a contrast would seem to be situated in a strange place. It would not be a contrast between one man who faithfully resisted persistent temptation

and one who did not, but the much less than the much less than. effective contrast between one man who faithfully resisted persistent temptation and one who was persistently resistant to a lawful authority. Foreman fleshes out the comparison between Joseph and Mordecai, suggested by the illusion. Like Joseph, Mordecai is under the rule of a foreign master to whom he is faithful, Potiphar in the former case, King Ahasueres in the latter. The second in command, however, Potipers' wife in the former case, Haman in the latter, is unfaithful, and so that he has been. seeks to make the faithful Hebrew servant complicit in their unfaithfulness. Potta's wife wants Joseph to lie with her, and Haman wants Mordecai to bow to him.

In both cases, a servant who is in fact faithful appears unfaithful when he is accused. While Haman's expectation that others bow to him is one expression of his overweening ambition, this should not be confused for the stronger claim that some have made that Mordecai refused to bow because any such bowing to a human is idolatrous. As we see in places like Genesis chapter 23 verse 7, there is nothing wrong with bowing to human beings in principle. Indeed, later in the book of Esther, Mordecai himself would receive high honours and expressions of homage. The end of Esther chapter 3 verse 4, for he had told them that he was a Jew, has been read by many as Mordecai's rationale for his refusal to bow.

Yet Foreman's readings suggests the possibility that the others of the king's servants were not in any doubt regarding Mordecai's reasons for not bowing to Haman. As Potiphar's wife with Joseph, they were seeking to break down Mordecai's resistance rather than to discover the reasons for it. Mordecai's telling them that he was a Jew was not Mordecai's reason for not bowing, but the king's servants reason for informing Haman concerning him. As Potipers' wife highlighted Joseph's outsider identity as a Hebrew, in Genesis chapter 39, verses 14 and 17,

to get the other servants who presumably knew of her unfaithfulness to Potipher on her side. So Mordecai's Jewish identity motivates the rivalrous king's servants to inform on him. Within the framework provided by such a reading, Foreman suggests that we can make sense of elements of the readings found in the Jewish tradition that speak abowing to Haman as idolatry, and which depict him as having an idol on his chest. Such a depiction need not be taken as a literal claim about the objective historical reality. but has a creative representation indicating a deeper reality in the story.

The point of the depiction is not that Haman actually had an idol on his body, but that Haman had assumed the character of an idol. Yoram Hizoni notes comparable claims concerning an idol, hanging over the bed of Potipa's wife on page 57 of his book, God and Politics and Esther. While it is legitimate to bow to other human beings under some circumstances, in Haman's case such bowing would have been idolatrous, or at least analogous to idolatry,

as a granting of honour to a lesser authority in a manner constituting rebellion against a hire, the idol lays claim to things that are God's sole prerogative. In God and politics in Esther, Eurom Hiz suggests that we read the figure of Haman more carefully against the backdrop of the preceding chapters. In chapter 1, King Ahazueris was surrounded by wise counsellors, in verses 14 to 15.

Yet after the rebellion of two of the chief servants of the king, Big Thin and Teresh, Ahazueres embarked upon a radical reordering of his court. Queen Vashti's removal from office after her rebellion occasioned the elevation of Esther, a woman who was not of one of the noble families of the kingdom, perhaps a reaction to the situation with Queen Vashti, designed to curb the power of such families. And Ahazueris' reordering of his court after the failed coup of Big Thin and Teresh was even more far-reaching. In place of his many advisors, Ahazueris'ioueris'iress,

appointed just one man over them all, Haman the Egergegeite. One could perhaps compare the situation to President Paul von Hindenburg, making Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Germany, and the subsequent passing of the Enabling Act, paving the way for the rise of a dictator, Hindenburg's reduction to something arguably nearer to a puppet and the radical transformation of the German polity into a totalitarian system under the cult-like dominance of Hitler and his party.

Within the new Persian regime, while Ahezueres remained the figurehead, actual power was increasingly wielded by an unrivaled and unchecked Haman, the Grima worm tongue to Ahazuerus's King Theoden. With the rise of Haman, Hazzoni argues, Persia was lurching in the direction of a form of totalitarianism. As many have recognized, in such situations of concentrated and monopolistic power, the state and its most powerful leader can quickly assume an idolatrous status. Continuing the analogy, one might compare Mordecai's refusal to vow to Haman to August Landmuss's alleged refusal to perform the Nazi salute at a rally,

Haman's attempt to enact state-sponsor genocide and his extrajudicial attempts to kill opponents might invite further comparisons. Within this reading, Mordecai appears as a brave, isolated figure of dissent in an illegitimate regime, resisting the immense wave of social pressure, supporting it and courageously putting his own life in jeopardy. Such a reading, it should be noted, is certainly reading, between several lines, especially in its more developed form, within which there is a lot of speculation. As the explicit details of the text leave many questions unanswered, such reading between the lines

is something which every proposed understanding of Mordecai's actions engages in. What matters is whether our readings arrived at through close inductive consideration of the text and our more elaborate speculations make good sense of the text. To make good sense of the text, they must give a strong account to both what the text says and what it does not say. Our reading of the text will have the character of a hypothesis and will be tested by how effectively it explains the text in front of us. Readings whose weight of meaning rests overmuch upon details that are absent from the text are poor, for instance. If we were to argue that Mordecai did not bow to Haman because Haman was literally wearing an idol on his chest,

the centre of gravity of such a reading would no longer be firmly situated above the actual text, the book of Esther itself makes no reference to such an idol, and it would be profoundly unstable for that reason. If we are trying to make sense of the text by positing an explanatory detail about which the text is entirely silent, and to which it makes no illusion, the text itself would seem to be lacking, while we should be wary of claiming that our particular reading of a text such as Esther, whose interpretation requires so much uncertain induction, hypothesizing, and speculation, is the one way that it must be read.

It is evident that some readings are better than others, and that different readings have both their points of strength and weakness. We need to be aware of those places where our readings become more speculative and also be alert to the elements of our readings that are load-bearing, and those elements that are speculations upon which little of weight rests, and which might readily be abandoned with little loss. Here are a few of the considerations that weigh upon my own reading of this text, inclining me towards a position closer to that of Rabbi David Foreman

and away from the claims of James Jordan concerning Mordecai's rebellion. I should note that, as one would expect, Jordan's commentary on the book is packed with inside, and that even though his reading of Mordecai and his actions has significant impact upon his broader interpretation, even those differing from him on this point will find much of great value in his treatment. Many of the considerations I will mention have to do with effective storytelling. The Book of Esther is not merely a bare and artless record of historical events. It is a story and it needs to work on that level.

As a story it has persons who are characterised in various ways and who play roles within the narrative, for instance hero or villain. It has a plot and it has a resolution. It employs literary devices. It sets up figures as foils for each other. It juxtaposes scenes. It alludes to other texts, etc. However we propose to read the book of Esther,

it needs to be effective and satisfying as a story. A story that requires extensive accompanying explanatory material to direct you away from misreadings to which the text itself is extremely vulnerable is probably not very effective as a story. First, Mordecai's prominence in the book and the analogies between him and other biblical heroes like Joseph, weigh against such a negative reading of his actions in such critical and precipitating

events in the narrative. As David Dorbe has observed, were one merely to read the contents of the book of Esther, one might plausibly think that Mordecai would be a more natural title than Esther. Esther chapter 2 verse 5 introduces Mordecai before Esther, and the book's final chapter focuses almost entirely upon Mordecai and his relationship with the king, saying nothing about Esther, while chapter divisions are not inspired, the structure of the book gives Mordecai great prominence. Mordecai's actions precipitate the central drama of the book, and as Foreman argues, it is Mordecai's wise plan that secures its ultimate resolution. Though essential, Esther's bravery was not sufficient to overturn Haman's edict. If Mordecai were indeed a rebellious, resentful, an insubordinate man,

as Jordan paints him, his broader place in the book might be difficult to account. for, a reading of Mordecai's actions as heroic, would move more naturally with the seeming grain of the text, within which he seems to play a narrative role of heroic protagonist. Second, where Mordecai's less disputed actions are seen, they would seem to characterize him as a hero. He is a committed guardian of Esther, whom he adopted as an orphan. It is Mordecai who exhorts Esther to her brave actions. Mordecai seems to be a faithful and courageous servant of the king when he exposes the treachery of Bigthen and Terrish. He is the shrewd counsellor and prudent Basir, who brilliantly frustrates Haman's plot with his counter-edict and wisely

manages the kingdom. Such details suggest that he is wise, righteous, courageous, principled, and loyal. While people can definitely act imprudently or do things that are out of character, where clear indications to the contrary are lacking, we will naturally presume that they are acting according to what we already know about their characters. Third, immediately before Mordecai's refusal to bow, he is presented as a more than faithful servant of King Ahazuerus. He reveals a plot to kill the king, presumably at some risk to himself. Revealing the treachery of high officials,

Big Than and Terrish might be among the officials mentioned in chapter 1, verse 10 and 13, perhaps Bigtha and Tarshish, was likely a dangerous venture, making him a potential target for some powerful people and requiring considerable courage on Mordecai's part. He's probably made some enemies. That someone prepared to engage in such brave action in service to Ahazuerus would be engaged in willful and reckless rebellion against the King's Commandment only a few verses later is strange indeed.

It certainly invites questions. Given the extreme stakes of the situation, Mordecai almost paid for his defiance with his life and his people were almost destroyed on account of it. We must suppose that he was exceedingly stupid, willfully reckless, or courageous and principled. Most commentators opt for the final option, although some consider Mordecai to have been motivated by misguided scruples.

There is nothing to suggest that Mordecai's refusal to bow was a more general posture of insubordination. He had just exposed the plot against the king, nor that it arose out of more general scruples about idolatry. Had it arisen from sincere yet misguided scruples, one imagines it would have been handled rather differently. If such scruples were at play, Mordecai might also have resisted the honours that he was granted in Chapter 6 and 8. For that matter, both Mordecai and Esther are named after pagan deities, Marduk and Ishtar. So if a distinction between an adulterous name and a faithful and righteous bearer, such as Mordecai or Esther, could be made in their case,

surely a distinction between an official to whom you grant honour and an idol to which you do not could be made in the case of Haman. Fourth, if we decide to regard Mordecai's refusal to bow to Haman as a reckless and willful act of rebellion that almost cost the lives of his entire people, this interpretive move will need to be followed through consistently. The Mordecai that we see later in the book in chapters 8 to 10 is a man of immense wisdom and prudence, entrusted with much of the management of an empire, hardly what we would expect of a resentful, insubordinate, and reckless man, a man of stupidity and hubris in Jordan's characterization.

In Jordan's reading, there is no clear repentance seen from Mordecai, while some have suggested that his fasting and mourning and his charge to Esther constitutes his repentance, Jordan claims that Mordecai's supposed reckless and willful insubordination to Haman continues beyond this point, as seen in his commentary on chapter 5 verse 9, even Mordecai's charge to Esther in chapter 4 is regarded as Mordecai thinking merely politically. By the logic of Jordan's reading, Mordecai would also seem to be utterly unfit

for the high office he later comes to enjoy. We might regard Mordecai as a recipient of mercy and grace on account of Esther's faithfulness and courage by which he has spared the natural consequences of his rebellion and granted a positive outcome. However, without her arrest, radical transformation of his allegedly stupid and hubristic character, he would be very unsuited for the government of the kingdom. We must also consider the way that he spurred Esther towards

her courageous actions. Fifth, the way that the character of Haman serves as a foil for the character of Mordecai presents serious problems for attempts to characterize Mordecai as a stupid and hubristic man. Haman is a comically evil man, elevated at the time where Mordecai should have been, who gets an extreme comeuppance being hung on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai in chapter 7 verse 10. Mordecai gets placed over Haman's house in chapter 8 verse 2. Mordecai is raised to the rank of vizier from which Haman was removed. In chapter 6 by the king's express command, Haman is made to honour Mordecai, who had refused to honour him,

according to the king's supposed command in chapter 3. Mordecai, on account of his refusal to bow, gains Haman as an opponent, and their respective fortunes are intertwined and contrasted throughout. There are several considerations of good storytelling here. Esther is manifestly a story of radically reversed fortunes, with Mordecai elevated at the end and Haman destroyed. This ending must serve as a fitting resolution of whatever the plot and themes of the book are. Yet if the drama is chiefly precipitated by Mordecai's wronging of Haman, as Jordan suggests,

such a resolution is far from satisfying. that Mordecai's sin and reckless folly would lead to such extreme blessings seems inappropriate. Haman has the worst of ends, and Mordecai the best. Not only does Mordecai not really receive a slap on the wrist as a character, he ends up receiving the status of the guy he supposedly wronged and rebelled against. This seems like dramatic vindication and reversal. If Mordecai had sinned, this would undermine the moral force of the text relative to it. If the story presented Mordecai's undergoing marked repentance, change of behavior and transformation of character,

such a narrative form might perhaps work. Yet for it to work as a story, such repentance and transformation would need to be explicit and elaborated. Further, as our hearing of a story and our understanding of events and characters within it will be shaped by our knowledge of how things turn out, Mordecai's refusal to grant honour to a man who ends up planning a genocide, and being removed from his office by the king, will seem justified in the hero's hindsight, irrespective of whether it was justified at the time.

Divergent outcomes are a typical way in which biblical narratives cast judgment upon events, that Mordecai's refusal to bow precipitates events that lead to Haman's downfall and Mordecai's elevation to high status in the kingdom, suggests that Mordecai's refusal, however we understand it, ought to be regarded in a positive light. Reading Mordecai as offender and Haman as victim in this episode

makes it difficult for Esther to work effectively as a story. When large plot twists enable protagonists to avoid the moral weight of their actions and choices, we can feel that a narrative is cheating us. For instance, when a married protagonist gradually develops romantic feelings for another character, the protagonist's wife can come to occupy the position of an obstacle, A narrative that avoided reckoning with the moral weight of such a protagonist's adulterous desires and actions, removing the obstacle of their wife through some plot contrivance, would grant the protagonist and the audience the fulfilment of their desire for an adulterous relationship,

while dulling their sense of the sinful character of that desire. If a sinful Mordecai refused to honour Haman and then went on to receive Haman's office, while Haman was removed and executed on account of his villainy, Haman's evil response to Mordecai's provocation would have granted Mordecai the full realization of his hubris and his insubordination to Haman without the moral weight of Mordecai's rebellion truly having been registered.

Such a story, at least without extensive attention to Mordecai's repentance, the renovation of his character, and the consequences of his persistent sin, was seemed to have at least an amoral character. Sixth, the narrative alludes to the story of Joseph in the house of Potiphar at a key point. Mordecai's refusal to bow to Haman is recounted in language clearly recalling Joseph's refusal to sleep with Potiphar's wife.

A satisfying reading of the narrative must account for such significant details, explaining how they serve and advance the story. A straightforward reading of such an illusion, especially when coupled with the broader analogies between them, would suggest that Mordecai's refusal to bow is somehow an act of courageous faithfulness like Joseph's. Joseph's situation in Genesis chapter 39 is somehow illuminating of Mordecai's situation in Esther chapter 3. Foreman's reading is at its strongest here, taking a widely neglected yet significant detail in the text

and working with its grain to develop an expansive account of the connection between the two narratives. Jordan notably does not, to my knowledge, provide any account of this. detail. Putting the pieces together, the following is a rough, speculative account of the story of Esther. While it ventures into more conjectural reading at several points, the chief claims are grounded in the details of the text and the form of the narrative. Mordecai the Jew is daily walking around the court, which enables him to communicate with Esther. He likely holds some sort of office, seemingly being counted among the king's servants. As he does so, he comes to see and overhear a lot of what is going on in the shadows of King Ahazu Eris's court, including the rebellion planned by Big Than

and Teresh. Ahasu Eris's court is a place of intrigue and suspicion. There are several traitors and unfaithful servants within it, along with a lot of rivalry and ambition. Being a brave and faithful man, Mordecai exposes the plot. However, Mordecai's revelation of the plot likely did not win him many friends. Some of the courtiers, with whom Mordecai brushed shoulders every day, were probably sympathetic to Big Than and Teresh. Others might have resented Mordecai, thinking that his actions would increase the king's suspicion of his other courtiers, hurting them, while potentially advancing Mordecai in the king's good graces.

One can imagine the courtiers being wary of Mordecai, worrying whom he might inform upon next. Following Vashti's refusal to come at the king's summons and the foiled coup of Big Than and Teresh, King Ahazueris grew increasingly paranoid. chosen you consort from outside of the noble families and appointed Haman as his new vizier. Haman was exalted far above the several princes, wise men, officials and counsellors mentioned in chapter 1. Haman was supposedly given command by the king that all the other officials

and servants of the king should bow down to him. It's not clear that the servants were directly told this by the king himself. Haman possibly just came out from the king's presence one day, telling them all that they all needed to bow down to him. As we know from chapter 3, Haman was quite willing to deceive and mislead the king to advance his private ends. Haman's exultation dramatically reordered the court. Where there had once been an assembly of princes, officials and councillors, power was now concentrated in the hands of Ahazuerus's prideful new prime minister, moving the nation in a more totalitarian direction and altering its former constitution.

All other officials were expected to pay homage to Haman. the king's servants all bowed down, but one person did not. Mordecai. Day after day the servants asked Mordecai why he would not bow. Their challenging of Mordecai was not designed to ascertain the reason for his refusal. They almost certainly already knew the reason, but to persuade Mordecai to go along with them. Mordecai's resistance likely angered them. It would have shown them up as unfaithful servants to King A. Hasueras and the kingdom.

Had Mordecai not been bowing because Haman was an Amalekite, or because bowing would be idolatry or something like that, he would naturally have communicated the reason to the other servants of the king. He did not listen to or speak to the other servants because they were not confused about his motives, and was simply trying to break down his resistance. Haman had not noticed that Mordecai was not bowing to him until the courtiers drew his attention to the fact.

They wanted to see what would happen to Mordecai's conscientious resistance if Haman knew. That Mordecai was a Jew was a Jew, was a key motivation for them. He was an ethnic outsider, an untrusted and disliked for this reason. Haman was furious once they brought this to his attention. However, he could not easily tell King Ahazuerus

that Mordecai was refusing to bow to him and seek to destroy Mordecai as a result. This might have exposed Haman and his own ambitions a little too much. Haman loved the trappings of royalty in high office. When he thought he had the opportunity in Chapter 6, he wanted to play dress-up as the king and receive the homage due to the king himself. On that occasion he could sufficiently veil his own ambitions by speaking about the one whom the king delighted to honour,

secretly presuming it to be himself. Here, though, admitting that he was daily getting the king's servants to render extreme homage to him and was seeking to execute someone for failing to do so might have been a bit compromising for Haman. While Ehasis was increasingly functioning as a puppet for Haman, it was important that Ahazuerus not be alerted to that fact. It would be much easier not to mention Haman at all, and to focus on the whole Jewish people instead.

This would give the satisfaction of ultimate vengeance against an opponent, while also protecting Haman from uncomfortable lines of questioning by the king. Mordecai's refusal to bow makes a bit more sense when we consider the possibility that being privy to the daily conversation of the courtiers, observing the radical change in the royal court and the rising cult of rules surrounding Haman, he rightly regarded Haman as illegitimate, as an unfaithful servant, and the homage he was demanding as verging on idolatry. He knew that Haman was quite untrustworthy and perhaps suspected that the supposed word he had received from the king, that all the king's servants must bow to him,

was not in fact accurate or was obtained under false pretences. In refusing to bow to Haman, Mordecai was actually being the one faithful servant of the king and the kingdom. The other courtiers knew Haman's character, however not bowing was very dangerous and would jeopardise their own safety and career prospects. Perhaps Mordecai's resistance made their consciences feel uneasy. Perhaps it raised the possibility of unsettling questions being raised about their own loyalties were the situation to become known to the king. Mordecai had already revealed one plot. What if he were one day to expose Haman? They needed his complete. Although they claimed that it was the king's command that was being disobeyed,

they knew better than to tell the king himself. Haman was known to play fast and loose with the king, not telling the king things that he needed to know, obtaining things under false pretences, using the authority of state for his own personal advancement, and likely misrepresenting the word of the king to others. Like Joseph in the house of Potiphar, Mordecai was faithful to his master by resisting an unfaithful second in command,

as Joseph's fellow servants sided with Potiphar's wife, likely out of fear, envy and resentment, so Mordecai's fellow servants informed Haman about his resistance. As I have already noted, several aspects of this hypothesis are quite speculative. For instance, while we know that Mordecai had first-hand awareness of rebellion in Aesueris's court, the text itself gives us no suggestion that Mordecai knew that Haman was secretly planning a coup. Nevertheless, when we considered the way that Haman's latehous, actions reveal his character, manner of rule and ambitions. I believe that we are quite justified in wondering whether Mordecai recognised these things in advance. If he had done so, his rebellion

might seem to have been justified. Besides Haman's own character, we should also consider whether his rapid elevation over all others represented a shift to a form of government in which a totalitarian concentration of power produced excessive demands for homage that were tantamount to idolatry. The book of Daniel, in the stories of the fiery furnace and of the lion's den, gives accounts of governments whose rulers demanded totalitarian subservience, an honour, which the faithful resisted. Notably, the story of the lion's den is also a story of something akin to an internal coup, where rivalrous and resentful officials sought to make the king a puppet in their scheme to remove Daniel. The true faithful servant is the one who won't grant the king or any of his

officials undue honour, while honouring them in all else. Perhaps the faithful servant is also a man who is prepared to resist the king's word when he knows that it has been unrighteously obtained with the intent of subverting the king's will. Thank you very much for listening. If you want to read this and other reflections, you can do so on the anchored argosy, the substack that I share with my wife, Susanna. If you would like to support this and other work that I do, please consider doing so using the patron or the PayPal links below. God bless and thank you for listening.