And so it ends. Kind of.

Two years ago, on February 28th, 2011, I began this blog with this post. Since then, we have grown from two lone Reformed Baptists contributors to four Reformed guys (one Presbyterian, three Reformed Baptists). This blog has over four hundred blog posts, and they will remain here. Many of them were received with open arms, others, naturally, were controversial in nature and received criticism. With that being said--we have decided to move over to reformedforhisglory.wordpress.com

Nonetheless, we still maintain the belief that the bible is the word of the living God, and that the Reformed faith is the most consistent and clearest expression of biblical theology. We invite you all to continue to follow us on WordPress.

In Christ, awretchsaved

Machen On Justification

It is an answer to the greatest personal question ever asked by a human soul—the question: “How shall I be right with God; how do I stand in God’s sight; with what favor does He look upon me?” There are those, it must be admitted, who never raise that question; there are those who are concerned with the question of their standing before men, but never with the question of their standing before God; there are those who are interested in what “people say,” but not in the question what God says. Such men, however, are not those who move the world; they are apt to go with the current; they are apt to do as others do; they are not the heroes who change the destinies of the race. The beginning of true nobility comes when a man ceases to be interested in the judgment of men, and becomes interested in the judgment of God.

 But if we can gain that much insight, if we have become interested in the judgment of God, how shall we stand in that judgment? How shall we become right with God? The most obvious answer is: “By obeying the law of God, by being what God wants us to be.” There is absolutely nothing wrong in theory about that answer; the only trouble is that for us it does not work. If we had obeyed the law of God, if we were what God wants us to be, all would no doubt be well; we could approach the judgment seat of God and rely simply upon His just recognition of the facts. But, alas, we have not obeyed God’s law, but have transgressed it in thought, word and deed; and far from being what God wants us to be, we are stained and soiled with sin. The stain is not merely on the surface; it is not a thing that can easily be wiped off; but it permeates the recesses of our souls. And the clearer be our understanding of God’s law, the deeper becomes our despair. Some men seek a refuge from condemnation in a low view of the law of God; they limit the law to external commands, and by obeying those commands they hope to buy God’s favor. But the moment a man gains a vision of the law as it is—especially as it is revealed in the words and example of Jesus—at that moment he knows that he is undone. If our being right with God depends upon anything that is in us, we are without hope.

Another way, however, has been opened into God’s presence; and the opening of that way is set forth in the gospel. We deserved eternal death; we deserved exclusion from the household of God; but the Lord Jesus took upon Himself all the guilt of our sins and died instead of us on the cross. Henceforth the law’s demands have been satisfied for us by Christ, its terror for us is gone, and clothed no longer in our righteousness but in the righteousness of Christ we stand without fear, as Christ would stand without fear, before the judgment seat of God. Men say that that is an intricate theory; but surely the adjective is misplaced. It is mysterious, but it is not intricate; it is wonderful, but it is so simple that a child can understand.*

*Machen, J. G. (1925). What Is Faith? (163–165). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Machen On "Dumbing Down" The Bible

There will perhaps, however, be an objection to the terminology that we are venturing to employ. “Justification,” it will be said, is a distressingly long word; and as for the word “doctrine,” that has a forbidding sound. Instead of such terminology surely we ought to find simpler words which will bring the matter home to modern men in language such as they are accustomed to use.

 This suggestion is typical of what is often being said at the present time. Many persons are horrified by the use of a theological term; they seem to have a notion that modern Christians must be addressed always in words of one syllable, and that in religion we must abandon the scientific precision of language which is found to be so useful in other spheres. In pursuance of this tendency we have had presented to us recently various translations of the Bible which reduce the Word of God more or less thoroughly to the language of the modern street, or which, as the matter was put recently in my hearing by an intelligent layman, “take all the religion out of the New Testament.” But the whole tendency, we for our part think, ought to be resisted. Back of it all seems to lie the strange assumption that modern men, particularly modern university men, can never by any chance learn anything; they do not understand the theological terminology which appears in such richness in the Bible, and that is regarded as the end of the matter; apparently it does not occur to anyone that possibly they might with profit acquire the knowledge of Biblical terminology which now they lack. But I for my part am by no means ready to acquiesce. I am perfectly ready, indeed, to agree that the Bible and the modern man ought to be brought together. But what is not always observed is that there are two ways of attaining that end. One way is to bring the Bible down to the level of the modern man; but the other way is to bring the modern man up to the level of the Bible. For my part, I am inclined to advocate the latter way. And I am by no means ready to relinquish the advantages of a precise terminology in summarizing Bible truth. In religion as well as in other spheres a precise terminology is mentally economical in the end; it repays amply the slight effort required for the mastery of it. Thus I am not at all ashamed to speak, even in this day and generation, of “the doctrine of justification by faith.”*

*Machen, J. G. (1925). What Is Faith? (161–163). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

My Thoughts On Better Than The Beginning By Dr. Richard Barcellos

Let me say upfront that this is not a technical review. Not only do I not know how to write them, I'm not always a fan of them. With that said I simply wish to offer my thoughts on this book.

I'll begin with my review at Amazon. Then I'll elaborate further with some quotes from the book itself.

I wrote (and mean every whit of it):

There are certain books that are theologically informative. Then there are certain books which are theologically informative while causing you to look and behold the beauty and majesty of the greatness of our triune God through the face of Christ Jesus. Dr. Richard Barcellos' book Better Than The Beginning does just that. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:16, "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh..." Why was God manifested in the flesh? Why such condescension? I once thought I had a great handle on that question until I read Better than the Beginning. I heartily recommend this work to pastors and their congregations. It will help you understand God's great work of creation and its consummation. While many books deal with creation, they can often get bogged down in scientific evidence and other technicalities and lose focus on Christ. While Dr. Barcellos deals with some of those other issues, he does so in a way where you will not leave from staring at the beauty of Christ. As he expounds in the book, the work of creation and consummation is truly "Son-tilted." The end is better than the beginning.

 While I am an avid book reader this is the first book I've reviewed on Amazon. It has impacted me that much. This book really helped me get a better grasp on creation, the incarnation of Christ, His resurrection, ascension and His return. Simply put, I love Christ all the more because of it.

I'm an avid theological book reader. I've read many great and good theological books. Yet there are times when the author can get a bit too technical and academic that my attention and focus can be taken from Christ to mere concepts and issues. In fact I've read many commentaries like that. While those are very helpful and good, I would much prefer those books where my attention is brought to the beauty and majesty of the greatness of our triune God through the face of Christ Jesus. The first thing I observed in reading this book (I've read it twice) is it does just that.

Make no mistake about it, Dr. Barcellos can write and speak in an academic and technical fashion. His two chapters in the Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors' Conference Papers (these two chapters are the foundational exegetical work for Better Than The Beginning, and a very good book in and of themselves) demonstrate this. He can and does break down prepositional phrases and such, but he does so in a way where the reader is left gazing and rejoicing in the glory of Christ.

I believe the reason for this is because Dr. Barcellos is not only an academic and theologian but also a pastor and therefore an expositor. This becomes evident in the book. Here's an example where he breaks down the prepositional phrase "to Him are all things" (Romans. 11:36), where he writes:

All things redound to His glory, they reverberate His value, His worth, His beauty, and His majesty. Everything that is, is for Him...How come no one knows the mind of the LORD? How come no one has been His counselor? How come no one has first given to Him that it might be repaid to him? Because God has made all things and sustains all things for His glory and does not need to consult us concerning how to bring glory to Himself in what He does. God’s supreme goal in all things, therefore, is His own glory, His own majesty on display, His own good, His own honor, His own value, His own praise, His own fame. God is in the business of fetching glory for Himself; He’s in the business of self-advertisement. He regards Himself supremely. God created all things so that He would have a stage on which to display Himself.*

The above quote is what I mean when I wrote "...there are certain books which are theologically informative while causing you to look and behold the beauty and majesty of the greatness of our triune God through the face of Christ Jesus. Dr. Richard Barcellos' book Better Than The Beginning does just that." That is not one little isolated quote. The book is full of precious quotable gems, causing you to behold the beauty of our triune God through the face of Christ the Lord.

In the book Dr. Barcellos uses a phrase about the work of creation being "Son-tilted." His theology in the book proves this to be true. He writes:

Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God become man, is God’s remedy for Adam’s failure. Jesus Christ takes His seed where Adam failed to take his. Salvation in Christ is better than creation in the image of God and citizenship in the garden of Eden. God does not place believers in Christ back at the starting line in the same position in which Adam was created. He grants irrevocable, eternal life based on the doing and dying of Jesus to all who believe the gospel. The end is the beginning glorified. It is better than the beginning. Christ takes all sinners who believe the gospel to His land, His eschatological temple, His paradise–the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwells only righteousness. Praise God–Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen!*

And:

The Father sent the Son to become one of us to save us and give us the Spirit. The Father prepared a body for the Son to assume that believers might possess the Holy Spirit. The Son, who created all things, became what He was not in order that we might become what we were not. The Son of God became man for us and for our salvation....Notice that Christ is both Creator of all things (Col. 1:16) and head of the church (Col. 1:18). Notice also that Christ reconciles all things (Col. 1:20). Sin brought a rupture to the cosmos. Sin brought distortion and curse. Mankind is fallen in sin and under a divine curse. Even some angels fell from their first abode (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). It all seemed to go so wrong. God gave His first earthly son, Adam (Luke 3:38), the earth to subdue (Gen. 1:28) for His glory (Rom. 11:36). But Adam failed miserably. The last Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:45), however, will not fail. He will bring many sons to a glorified state of sinless perfection (Heb. 2:10), wherein all the glory, all the lauding, and all the honoring goes to Him, and rightly so.*

I once thought I had a good grasp on understanding the work of creation being "Son-tilted" and the condescension of Christ until I read Better Than The Beginning. I was preaching through 1 Timothy, on the mystery of godliness and our great confession (1 Timothy 3:16). This book changed the direction of my sermon(s). I was dealing with the phrase "He was manifested in the flesh." Oftentimes preachers can get so caught up in the salvation of sinners that we forget the rest of creation. Sometimes this has led to undermining and failing to appreciate the whole work of Christ. The "new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells" speaks of the eschatological wonder of the end being better than the beginning (1 Peter 3:13); Not only is Christ the redeemer of sinners (which I believe is the heart of the Gospel) but also of the whole cosmos. The two cannot be separated. Sometimes preachers are guilty of forgetting to preach and teach this (I know I have I have been). Dr. James Renihan points out the implications of this in his endorsement of the book. He writes:

After reading this book, I wonder, ‘is it possible that we are functional deists?’ Have we been so profoundly influenced by the secular culture around us that we fail to see the centrality and foundational character of the doctrine of creation? Is it possible that even while giving lip-service to the doctrine we fail to live in the light of its implications? In this work, Dr. Barcellos shows us why this doctrine is so very important. Not only does he reflect upon the account of creation in Genesis, but he also demonstrates the implications of creation found throughout Scripture. In a day of increasing secularization, it is refreshing to think of the divine purpose in making and sustaining the world. Read this book, and you will deepen your understanding of the Lord’s purposes in bringing the world into existence.*

After reading this book I now have a more robust understanding of the work of Christ. I no longer wish to preach in such a way where I unintentionally lead people to only appreciate one aspect of the work of Christ.

It is very encouraging to see that the author follows in the footsteps of such great men as John Owen, Geerhardus Vos and G.K. Beale to name a few. He cites them and makes no apologies for standing upon their shoulders. In my opinion, and to his credit, Dr. Barcellos writes in like-mindedness with these men but in a much simpler fashion (this is not an insult, but a compliment). Anyone who reads these men should understand what I mean. It is no easy task to take such rich and deep truths and break them down in the manner that is done in this book. It takes much time, effort and thought.

One of the things I really appreciate about Better Than The Beginning is that the book deals with several issues in regards to creation. It deals with scientific evidence, the days of creation, the Sabbath, being created in the image of God, the new creation and other issues. It also deals with a very important issue sometimes neglected in other books on creation - evangelism. Here is an example:

God made all things for His own glory. Let that sink into your soul. He is sovereign in all things, including the withholding and dispensing of mercy. The reason why we all need mercy is because we are sinners. We have all broken God’s law. We are in a most pitiable state due to our sin. We are guilty and polluted, and we cannot change the state of our souls. We need God to look upon us with a pitiful eye, a merciful eye. He does just that through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He sent Him to be the channel through which mercy gets from heaven to sinful souls on the earth. If you do not know God’s mercy in Christ, if you know yourself as a guilty sinner, if you feel your need for a Savior, if you fear death (which I know you do because God tells me so in His Word) and judgment and hell, I’ve got wonderful news for you. The day of grace is today. Today is the day to receive the mercy of God. Heaven is still in the business of dispensing mercy upon the needy, upon the helpless, upon the guilty. And heaven’s mercy-dispenser is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ. His hands are full of pity joined with power to save. Turn from your sins to Christ. Turn to Him foul and filthy, come as you are. He is willing and able to save. If you do not know yourself to be a guilty sinner, if you do not feel your need for a Savior, if you do not think you fear death, and judgment, and hell, these things are sinful in themselves. Come to Christ with these sins as well, acknowledging them as such, and He will cleanse you.*

In dealing with the work of creation and re-creation Dr. Barcellos does not forget the Gospel. Rather he brings forth the riches of it!

In closing I would like to say that this should be a book for all to read. I agree with Dr. David Murray when he writes that the book is "God-glorifying, soul-edifying, life-transforming..." (My church will certainly be getting their hands on this one!) I'm thankful to Dr. Barcellos for taking the time to write it. I love Christ all the more because of it.

I'll end with a final quote and a link to where to purchase the book.

Preachers need to insure that they are proclaiming God’s Word in such a manner that hearers at least come away acknowledging that the preacher thinks God is due respect and awe from the souls of men. The same goes for the verbal witness of the everyday Christian.*

Reformed Baptist Academic Press will make the book available soon, but for now you can purchase it at Amazon (click on the link and it will take you there).

Soli Deo Gloria!

Fernando

*Richard Barcellos, Better Than The Beginning: Creation In Biblical Perspective (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2013), p. 19- 20

*Ibid., p. 131

* Ibid., found in the endorsement section

* Ibid., p.23-24

*Ibid., p. 38-39

*. Ibid., p. 60

Is Mordecai a Jewish Courtroom Hero?

 
By: Felipe Diez III

"After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and set his seat above all the officials who were with him. And all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance. Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you disobey the king’s command?” 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 avail; for he had told them that he was a Jew. When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance to him, Haman was infuriated. But he thought it beneath him to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So, having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus." (Esther 3:1-6)

           The pericope encompassing Esther 3:1-6 presents the reader with a dramatic course of events which results in the writing up of a legal edict to exterminate the exiled Jews. The actions of the protagonist Mordecai, to many, are those of a faithful Jew refusing to capitulate to the whims of a debauched pagan king and a corrupt government, yet this defiance is not without consequence, for the lives of Mordecai’s countrymen hang in the balance. In this section of the book of Esther, was Mordecai a positive stereotype of a righteous Jew who, like Daniel, refused to taint his “Jewish-ness” and stand firm on his convictions in the face of Yahweh? Or were there other factors and motives involved that served to diminish the heroic appeal of Mordecai’s actions? This essay will comprise a topical exegesis of the passages mentioned while exploring the issue of Jewish worldview as regards the defiance of gentiles. I will not take the decisive or comprehensive position that there is enough solid evidence to classify this pericope (or Esther, for that matter) as legitimate “court heroism.” I aim to show that character flaws and ulterior motives considered, Mordecai possibly fits the profile (although not firmly) of a righteous Jew who did what he could with the resources he had to benefit his people. The impact of Mordecai’s actions played a part in Haman’s decision in verse 6. The impulse to influence the creation of the edict was, in my view, more due to the author’s use of humor to paint Haman (descendant of Amalekites) as a prideful impulsive man than as a calculated enemy of Jews.

            The first verse gives us an important clue. The (Haman) appointed as the king’s main official, was an Agagite, a long-time enemy of the Jews. Like the enmity between Jerusalem and the Edomites, the Agagites proved to be stubborn foes, and the author of Esther seems to have deliberately given this information away as an important part of Haman that would influence his impulsive move to attempt to exterminate the Jews. At any rate, all the officials paid homage “obeisance” to Haman minus Mordecai. As a result, Haman’s rage at Mordecai’s “blasphemous” act causes him to retaliate in a grossly inflated manner. Before this, we note that Ahasuerus[1], much like Nebuchadnezzar[2], commanded this homage, and the officials who question Mordecai’s risky yet bold decision understandably ask him to reconsider and bow down as everyone else had done. This implicit insistence was to no avail, and Mordecai stood as alone Jew in a foreign gentile court. Surely Haman was no divine statue and Ahasuerus was not nearly as fearsome and calculated as Nebuchadnezzar, but the amount of pressure placed on Mordecai was still cumbersome. The book of Daniel records that the king gave an opportunity for the three Jews to repent and kneel, yet they stood. Although the officials’ questioning in Esther 3:3 is not nearly univocal to the occurrences in Daniel, there is a reaction of awe anyhow.  But in the next verse we see an extended questioning of Mordecai which revealed his hidden identity.[3] We may conclude that the reason for Haman’s eruption in verse 4 was due to pride, as was typical for any gentile king to possess greatly. The homage due to Haman was not full, and the normal course of action to take would have been to punish Mordecai and avenge the perceived wrongdoing. However, Haman decides to destroy all the Jews. Given the author of Esther’s desire to paint the gentile rulers as incoherent exaggerators in the most tragic yet comical sense, we may question whether Haman was simply an overly vindictive madman unlike Nebuchadnezzar, who only attempted to punish the Jewish offenders and not the whole ethnicity.

            Other than the Daniel narratives, there is another example to discuss, namely, that of Genesis 41:1-45 as it compares to Esther[4]. For one, it is Pharaoh who has sought out Joseph though in Esther we see an ambivalent king Ahasuerus who does not even know who Mordecai is nor seems to care. The final verses in the book of Esther do awkwardly record an amicable relationship between the vindicated Mordecai and Ahasuerus, yet this occurs hastily and is actually a very small segment tacked on to the end, almost to give the half-tragic comedy some gainful meaning. Pharaoh did prove to be an angry man to his servants, as Joseph observed (like Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus) but in a sense, there is a type of logic to his actions. He does not punish an imagined wrongdoing as in the case of Ahasuerus, who allows a lower official such as Haman to make decisions. There is an extended struggle toward Joseph’s vindication and relationship to Pharaoh, yet in Esther there is none of this. Mordecai, by either chance or providence, is made known to the ill-managed Persian imperial court. In such “wise courtier” conversations, Esther is usually either ignored or briefly mentioned, but in comparison to the archetypes discussed here, it seems to lack the classical epic flavor, according to many students of Esther. A. Arne and S. Thompson of the Finnish school of folklore scholarship have studied the “wise courtier” motif and have put together general criteria for these types of tales Concerning the Genesis 41 court narrative, Susan Niditch and Robert Doran write:

“Culturally nuanced motifs are once again found in the higher status role, played by the Egyptian Pharaoh, in the entourage of court advisors, who seem to be a constant in the near eastern view of what court is like, and in the nature of Joseph's reward…These specified motifs are at home in a near eastern audience.”[5]

Scholarly “Court Hero” Criteria

            Niditch and Doran have posited the following pattern to identify a wise courtier tale:

A person of lower status (a prisoner, foreigner, debtor, servant, youngest son are all possible nuances) (Mordecai and Esther as exiles) is called before a person of higher status (often a king or bishop or chief of some kind) (Ahasuerus and Haman) to answer difficult questions or to solve a problem requiring insight. (The problem may be posed on purpose to perplex or may be a genuine dilemma. (Haman is appointed). Often a threat of punishment exists for failure to answer. (Mordecai refuses to bow) (2) The person of high status poses the problem which no one seems capable of solving. (3) The person of lower status (who may in fact be a disguised substitute for the person expected by the questioner) does solve the problem (Mordecai supplies Esther). (4) The person of lower status is rewarded for answering (by being given half the kingdom, the daughter of the king, special clothing, a signet ring, or some other sign of a raise in status).(There is no reward for Mordecai until Chapters 9 and 10, but Esther becomes a leader and part of the salvation of her people.)[6]

In the aforementioned criteria, Daniel and Genesis are more apt to fit the mold. Unlike these, Esther seems to have been written for a different purpose and involves a great deal of comedy and intentional exaggeration. It remains to be seen whether or not, considering the variable of literary style, Mordecai’s courage is authentic.” Jon D. Levenson soberly states: 

            “Why Mordecai refuses to kneel before Haman is unknown…some have speculated that Haman claimed divine honors (as Nebuchadnezzar does in Judith 3:8), and thus Mordecai refused to bow out of the traditional Jewish resistance to idolatry. In support of this, one may cite the usage of the verb kara (“kneel”)…though the word need not imply homage, when it does the recipient is nearly always God…but if idolatry is the cause of Mordecai’s noncompliance, the text is strangely silent about this. In addition, it is difficult to see why the king commands that an underling be treated as a god when he himself is not…since verse 4 can be interpreted to mean that Mordecai’s Jewishness was the cause of his refusal to kneel and bow to Haman…some scholars have seen the issue as one of ethnicity”[7]

            Levenson supplies further clues as to this dilemma:

“The language with which the king’s courtiers are said to have inquired about Mordecai’s reason for not bowing to Haman is strikingly close to the language of only one other verse in the Hebrew Bible. This is the verse in which Potiphar’s wife is said to have persisted in her attempt to seduce Joseph…perhaps we should go further and infer that just as Joseph was motivated by a fear of betraying his master and sinning grievously against God (Gen. 39:8-9), so Mordecai is motivated by the desire to maintain his authenticity as a Jew – by refusing to accommodate an Amalekite, to engage in idolatry, or whatever.”[8]

Jewish Resistance to Idolatry or Ancient Feud?

            Bush agrees wholeheartedly with Levenson and states:

“The narrator gives no explicit motive for Mordecai refusing to do obeisance to Haman. The only reason we have is the fact that he is a Jew, which the narrator seems to take for granted [at first]…but, as many interpreters have noted, his refusal can hardly relate to his religious obligations, for Jews regularly did obeisance to kings (e.g.,1 Sam 24:8)…Paton attributes it simply to Mordecai’s arrogance. However, as Fox notes, this cannot have been the author’s attitude, for it is quite in opposition to his positive characterization of Mordecai throughout...that Haman claimed the status of divinity…is simply ad hoc speculation.”[9]

Two well-known scholars agree almost decisively that Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to Haman was not due to purely religious reasons but to an ancient feud. One wonders, however, based on OT prohibitions to unite with other cultures and the fact that Jews were the chosen people, if the religious dimension was not a token part of the ancient conflict. At any rate, if the conflict had religious undertones, this was most likely not the case in the Esther text given the evidence already provided. But is there any evidence to the contrary? John C. Whitcomb, in his commentary of Esther, provides a different account:  

“It was customary for Jews to bow before their kings (2 Samuel 4:14; 18:26; 1 Kgs 1:16). But when Persians bowed before their kings, they paid homage as to a divine being. The Spartans refused to bow before Xerxes for this reason (Herodotus, 7.136). Since his loyalty to Jehovah was the basis for his refusal to bow before Haman, he had to divulge his nationality at last. At the time, this must have seemed disastrous to Mordecai; but God ultimately brought greater blessing through it, for he delights not in silent witnesses (cf. 8:17)…Discovering that Mordecai’s refusal to  bow was based upon religious motives, Haman realized that nothing less than a nation-wide pogrom would finally solve the problem.”[10]

Whitcomb has brought extra-biblical data into his argument as well as content from other sectors. One of the weaknesses of his position is that Esther lacks any reference to Jehovah or the supernatural, so in order to adduce what he did, Whitcomb must presuppose that Esther his not only a purely historical account, but also that the writer believed in divine providence in all matters. These two issues must only receive passing mention, so this essay will rely on the chosen pericope for most of its conclusions. If we observe the text alone, Whitcomb’s analysis is seriously hindered, yet the evidence must still be taken into account. Barry G. Webb writes:

            “According to Herodotus, bowing to superiors was a normal part of Persian court etiquette rather than an act of worship (cf. Gen. 23:7; 1 Kings 1:16). Mordecai did not bow because “he was a Jew.” The text does not give any more reason for Mordecai’s refusal to bow, but given Haman’s ancestry and animosity to the Jews, Mordecai apparently felt he could not bow to him without compromising his identity as a Jew. It is also possible that Haman was claiming some kind of divine status and Mordecai refused to give him that kind of honor.”[11] 

In the above quote, Webb claims more epistemic humility and grants Haman’s “divine honor” theory as only a possibility not supported by any plain reading of the text, yet like Whitcomb he cites Herodotus. All four scholars in this essay so far have the strong inclination that the ancient feud played the key factor in Mordecai’s defiance. Walter Kaiser adds: “The Hebrew verbs in this passage usually describe the worship of God [v.4]. There were occasions when Hebrews bowed before kings of high officials without any violation of the prohibitions of false worship…as a Jew, Mordecai may not have been able to bring himself to show this sign of respect to one who was an ancestral enemy.”[12] Again, another scholar is not willing to give too much credit to the idolatry argument. One more scholar, Edwin Yamauchi, rejects this theory altogether and states: “Obedience to the second commandment (Ex.20:4-5) is not the issue in Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to Haman…only the long-standing enmity between Israel and Amalek accounts both for Mordecai’s refusal and for Haman’s intent to destroy all the Jews.”[13]

“Evidence” against Mordecai

            If Mordecai were to be indicted for not reaching the goal of a Jewish court hero, here is some evidence that would be provided against him. For one, he hid his ancestry and the author gives him a pagan name. In Aramaic, Marduku signifies “servant of Marduk.” At first glance, one may see this as a contradiction in terms, similar to Haman meaning something like “follower of Yahweh.” However, it was not uncommon for Jewish exiles to possess names in relation to the gods of the nations that captured or plundered them. It is understandable that for a Persian Jew, this acculturation would result in such a name. This need not mean that those who were named so were idolaters or less Jewish, although as in the case of Samaritans or Canaanites, Persian Jews (unless they were not of physically half-pagan blood) could be psychologically classified as possibly impure by a Jew living in Jerusalem. Esther does not tell us that Mordecai had pagan blood but only a pagan name. A reader of Esther who is trying to gain wisdom insight concerning courtroom practices may at first find it difficult to relate to “servant of Marduk” as a hero, but depending on the audience, Mordecai’s actions might erase any doubts in our minds. Why, then did he only give away his identity after some questioning by the officials? Was there something that he wished to hide? Perhaps he knew that the court might avenge itself by persecuting Jews? This is unlikely as the text does not specify anything of this sort, although Haman did retaliate and purposed to annihilate the Jews. Other than refusing to bow down, was there anything else that Mordecai did to merit inclusion into the “courtroom hero” criteria? He did, after all, supply Esther who saved her people, and was rewarded handsomely as Ahasuerus’s official in the last chapter. But Mordecai still pales in comparison to a Daniel and his compatriots, to a Ruth, to a Deborah, and to a Joseph. Readers may not find adequate inspiration in this pericope since no miracles or divine attributions are in view. Furthermore, Mordecai could even be charged with pure pride and even instigation and insubordination for having disrespected Haman and provoked him to anger. The Jews are now in grave danger.

Evaluation of Mordecai Based on Criteria

How does Mordecai fare in comparison to other characters? In the case of the three righteous Jews called to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol, there is a striking difference since although there was a history of exile to Babylon, there is little reason to believe that there was a selective personal animosity between the three Jews and the King of Babylon. Clearly, the three Jews were of solid character and the text evidence mentions the reason for their refusal to bow to the great idol. Moreover, they were miraculously saved from the flames. Nothing of this sort occurs in Esther. In the case of Joseph, there is also a miraculous occurrence in the form of dreams, and just like in Daniel, Joseph (in Genesis) has no personal animosity toward Pharaoh and displayed a righteous character, especially considering the suffering he experienced for having rejected Potiphar’s wife’s advances. Yahweh explicitly reserves Joseph to preserve a remnant for the Jews. However, there is no such set of achievements or luxuries for Mordecai or Esther and no mention of God to protect or reward them. At any rate, there is a like-ability to Mordecai’s character despite the hiddenness of his heritage. Whatever the reasons for this cloaking, they are revealed implicitly in the courtroom when the defiance happens and later on upheld during the questioning. Even if there is no hint of opposition to idolatry in Mordecai, we may still admire his risky resolve. After all, he was present at a foreign court with two officials who lacked wisdom in every area of their lives. Even though there might be “evidence” against Mordecai constituting a legitimate court hero, there are a few attributes that help his cause. He is a Jew of good reputation living in exile. Even if pride was a factor in his dismissal of the command to bow, Mordecai has honored the ancient “edict” to resist the Amalekites wherever they may be, and this defiance may serve as inspiration to Jews both ancient and contemporary. So there is a mold that Niditch and Doran have created and it seems as though Mordecai’s situation causes him to fit, although not as neatly, into its etchings. The non-prominent figure who faces a court situation and solves a problem, encountering resistance and then prevailing and securing a reward is a reality in the book of Esther, and the chosen pericope proves to contain a buildup to a climactic moment. Had Mordecai bowed down, as many Jews did for kings, even while avoiding the charge of idolatry, none of us would have faulted him – yet he acted as a zealot and as a result may be placed in courtroom hero history, though not at the apex.

Haman’s reaction is undoubtedly exaggerated, as is the custom for the author of Esther. But this strong reaction was necessary for the plot to have thickened unto the end result – victory for the Jewish people. Certain variables such as literary style, other portions of the book, extra-biblical accounts, and comedy would have made for a much longer treatment, so chapter 3:1-6 and some commentary and analysis sufficed. Levenson again offers some insight:

“No reason for Ahasuerus’s promotion of Haman in v.1 is given. Whatever it was, “[t]his verse sets up a sharp contrast between the unrewarded merit of Mordecai and Haman’s unmerited rewards. Mordecai saves the king’s life (2:21-23) but receives no recognition. Haman has, so far as we know, done nothing for the king, but receives the premiership nonetheless; along with the honor and recognition of everyone except Mordecai (v.2)…Haman’s rage at being slighted is something he shares with Ahasuerus (Esth. 3:5; 2:1). It is, as we have seen, typical of a biblical food and symptomatic of impending disaster.”[14]

Conclusion

            This essay attempted to show that even though there are some issues that might not convince many scholars and laypeople that Mordecai is an ideal candidate for the “court hero” as it relates to Jewish folkloric motif, that given scholarly criteria (Arne & Thompson), there is a likely case that Mordecai (and Esther, for that matter) could be placed in this “hall of fame.” The weight of evidence in scholarship demonstrated that Mordecai’s problem with Haman was a feudal and personal one, and the author of Esther aided in the heightened sense of drama in Mordecai’s heroic refusal to bow down to an unworthy Amalekite “thug” by painting the latter as an impulsive and barbaric buffoon. Even if all the odds were against Mordecai’s intentions, at least the reader can enjoy the fact that Mordecai stood up to an ancient and powerful enemy even if it was out of spite. But given the context, there was much more to the history than momentary spurious antagonism. It encompasses a centuries old feud that remained for a long time with major biblical repercussions. The final chapter of Esther, although somewhat awkward and triumphalistic, closes the lid on the thesis of this essay while Mordecai enjoys his reward of prosperity and righteous rule of his people.

Sources

Bush, Frederick W. Ruth, Esther. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 9. Word Books, Dallas, TX, 1996

Edwin Yamauchi. NIV Study Bible. Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 2008

Kaiser, Walter. NKJV Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 2001

Levenson, Jon D. Esther: The Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox press, 1997

Longman, Tremper. Old Testament Commentary Survey. Baker Academics, Ada, MI, 2007

Pfeiffer Charles F. and Harrison Everett. F. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1962

Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977)

Unger, Merrill. Unger’s Commentary of the Old Testament. AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN, 2003

Walton, John. Matthews, Victor. Chavalas, Mark: The IVP Bible Background Commentary. IVP Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000

Webb, Barry G. ESV Study Bible. Crossway Bibles, Wheaton, IL, 2008

Endnotes

---

[1] King Ahasuerus’s reckless behavior was a theme throughout Esther that has been explored by many scholars. This theme will not be treated in this essay due to space limitations. However, it is important to note that Ahasuerus’s choice of Haman (no doubt a derelict) may have been due to the king’s questionable decisions. The author of Esther’s intent was to portray the Persian law court as a total house of calamities.

[2] Daniel Ch.3 is a classic example of heroic Jewish resistance to commanded Gentile worship toward anything that is not Yahweh. In verse 13, “Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego,” the maddened king questions and summarily sentences the three faithful Jews.

[3] The point of this essay is not to compare and contrast every small detail of court heroism in Esther with that in Daniel, but a major difference between the “protagonists” is that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were open concerning their ethnicity while Mordecai (or shall we say “Bilshan”) masked his Hebrew name. To make things more difficult for the thesis of this essay, “Mordecai” resembles Marduk, the detestable pagan god.

[4] An important part of mentioning the differences between the Joseph and Pharaoh Narrative and the Esther tale has to do with my attempt at evaluating the possible arguments against Mordecai and Esther as being any kind of “wise courtiers.” Obviously in some aspects, Mordecai falls short of the ideal Jewish resister yet still fits the mold in my view and in the opinions of many scholars.

[5] Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): pp.186-187. The authors classify Esther as fitting their criterion.

[6] Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): p. 180. The pericope chosen for this paper is too narrow for a full-fledged analysis of Mordecai’s character. There are occurrences in the rest of Esther that would fit the criteria. These will receive only passing mention since they are beyond the scope of Esther 3:1-6. Parenthetical character insertions and their relationship to the criteria in bold and mine.

[7] Levenson, Jon D. Esther: The Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox press, 1997, p. 67. Resistance to idolatry is not here ruled out although an unlikely factor. A very important variable is the fact that Esther does not mention God or “gods,’ so this lack of reference may provide a clue as to why the text is silent concerning the reason for Mordecai’s defiance. Ethnicity might be the first cause as Haman was a descendant of Amalekites.

[8] Ibid. p.68

[9] Bush, Frederick W. Ruth, Esther. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 9. Word Books, Dallas, TX, 1996, p. 379.  The names that the author uses to identify both Mordecai and Haman may have a role to play. Bush continues: “…the patronymics of these two protagonists, then, subtly indicate that both men are heirs to a long-standing and bitter tradition of ethnic enmity and antagonism. Indeed the manner in which Haman is identified in the book signals him to be the pre-eminent enemy of the Jews.” (p.384).  

[10] Pfeiffer Charles F. and Harrison Everett. F. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1962, pp. 450 – 451 (Esther contributor John C. Whitcomb). This argument seems less textually-based.

[11] Webb, Barry G. ESV Study Bible. Crossway Bibles, Wheaton, IL, 2008, p.856

[12] Kaiser, Walter. NKJV Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 2001, p.761

[13] Edwin Yamauchi. NIV Study Bible. Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 2008, p. 720

[14] Levenson, Jon D. Esther: The Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox press, 1997, p. 67-69

Spurgeon Gives Us A Glimpse Into The Soul Of A Pastor

A minister fully equipped for his work will usually be a spirit by himself, above, beyond, and apart from others. The most loving of his people cannot enter into his peculiar thoughts, cares, and temptations. In the ranks, men walk shoulder to shoulder, with many comrades, but as the officer rises in rank, men of his standing are fewer in number. There are many soldiers, few captains, fewer colonels, but only one commander in chief. So in our churches, the man whom the Lord raises as a leader becomes, in the same degree in which he is a superior man, a solitary man. The mountaintops stand solemnly apart, and talk only with God as he visits their terrible solitudes. Men of God who rise above their fellows into nearer communion with heavenly things, in their weaker moments feel the lack of human sympathy. Like their Lord in Gethsemane, they look in vain for comfort to the disciples sleeping around them; they are shocked at the apathy of their little band of brethren, and return to their secret agony with all the heavier burden pressing upon them, because they have found their dearest companions slumbering. No one knows, but he who has endured it, the solitude of a soul which has outstripped its fellows in zeal for the Lord of hosts: it dares not reveal itself, lest men count it mad; it cannot conceal itself, for a fire burns within its bones: only before the Lord does it find rest. Our Lord’s sending out his disciples by two and two manifested that he knew what was in men; but for such a man as Paul, it seems to me that no helpmeet was found; Barnabas or Silas or Luke were hills too low to hold high converse with such a Himalayan summit as the apostle of the Gentiles. This loneliness, which if I mistake not is felt by many of my brethren, is a fertile source of depression; and our ministers’ fraternal meetings, and the cultivation of holy intercourse with kindred minds will, with God’s blessing, help us greatly to escape the snare.*

*Spurgeon, C. H. (1905-07-02). Lectures to My Students (pp. 162-163). Hendrickson Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Malcolm Watts On Worship

Worshiping with Reverence 

 When we have a right view of the divine sovereignty, we will approach God with appropriate reverence. Psalm 5:7 teaches the need for holy awe. David said, “But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.” Similarly, Psalm 89:7 tells us that “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.” So if a church believes in a sovereign God, its worship will be markedly different from the worship commonly found in contemporary Christian churches. There will be godly humility, mixed with an awe of the holy. People will rejoice with trembling. Moreover, a church with this faith will make sure that every element of its worship is prescribed in the Scriptures, for it will want God’s approval, not His disapproval. 

Submission to His Authority 

 The knowledge of a sovereign God will move us to submit to His authority and observe His commandments. It was said of Job first that he “feared God” and then that he “eschewed evil” (Job 1:1). Job’s profound sense of God’s sovereignty made him dread sin and choose the way of righteousness. David confessed, “I have set the LORD always before me” (Ps. 16:8). He constantly bore in mind that God observed him and witnessed his every action. This, more than anything else, influenced how he lived.

...“What is worship?” This is a question of great importance today, when so much confusion is evident among professing Christians. The Westminster Shorter Catechism declares in its first sentence that “man’s chief end is to glorify God,”[1] and God Himself says to us in the psalms, “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me” (Ps. 50:23). How vital it is, then, for us to grasp this issue of worship and rightly fulfil the purpose for which God made us, preserved us, and redeemed us. There is surely no greater work on earth or in heaven than this. 

 Worship is the reverence and homage that we render to the Supreme Being, through means such as praise, prayer, the reading of Scripture, and the preaching of the Word of God. “Reformed worship” is worship that is strictly according to God’s written Word, which is “the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” It includes everything authorized by Scripture, and it excludes everything not authorized by Scripture. Calvin stated the biblical and Reformed view of worship when he wrote this: “We are not to seek from men the doctrine of the true worship of God, for the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how he is to be worshiped.” 

The Object of Worship 

 God’s perfection entitles Him to the honor of our worship. In Isaiah 6:1–3, we read of Isaiah’s vision of the Lord enthroned on high in His temple. The seraphim were present with their faces covered, and they were admiring that glory which separates and distinguishes Him from all others. “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” Men and women entertain similar thoughts, for they too are aware that no one can be brought into comparison with Jehovah. “There is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations?” (Jer. 10:6–7). Such infinite glory deserves some external expression of our inward veneration. Soul and body must unite in this service, for if the soul is not involved, it is mental atheism, and if the body is not involved, it is practical atheism. The Lord Jesus declared, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). The apostle Paul delivered this exhortation to believers: “Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:20). 

In worship, our intention should be to give, not to get. The Psalms teach that to “give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name” is one and the same as to “worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness” (Ps. 29:2).

 ...The Way of Worship Reformed theology declares that only God has the right to determine the true and proper mode of worship. He has clearly prescribed this in His Word. The law of worship is that only what God has prescribed in Scripture may be introduced into His worship, or, to put it in another form, what Scripture does not prescribe, it forbids. Today there is a great deal of confused thinking about worship. Some people think that we can adopt any mode of worship, provided that God has not expressly forbidden it in His Word. In practice, this allows for many human corruptions and abuses. Where in Scripture are we forbidden to use particular vestments? To bow toward the east? To make the sign of the cross? To read from the Apocrypha? To kneel at the Lord’s Table? It is clear that this principle is entirely unsatisfactory. It allows for practically anything in divine worship. However, the scriptural law of worship is not that we can do whatever is not forbidden, but rather that we can do only what is clearly prescribed. When this regulative principle is faithfully applied both outwardly and inwardly, the result will be the recovery of pure and spiritual worship. The Word of God clearly teaches this Reformed view of worship.

Biblical Teaching on Worship: The Old Testament 

 The moral law of God, summarized in the Ten Commandments, authoritatively states the rule that should govern worship. In the first commandment, God declares Himself to be the only one who should be worshiped. In the second, He requires that believers observe only those institutions that He has divinely appointed: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” (Ex. 20:4). As sovereign Lord, it is God’s prerogative to order His own worship, and He makes it clear that there is no place for the inventions of men (“Thou shalt not make unto thee”). In the Hebrew, that word we read translated as make means “constitute” or “appoint.” So in the second commandment, God is prohibiting human beings from devising or observing anything in worship which He has not instituted. It is as if God is saying, “I am the Lord God, and I alone order My worship. People are not at liberty to introduce their devices into worship without My command.”*

*Watts, Malcolm (2011-12-27). What Is a Reformed Church? (Kindle Locations 696-708, 788-811, 825-844). Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.