Today we will continue reading the Rev. Louis de Boer's commentary on the Book of Esther, Chapter 4, A Question of Ethics. One of the questions that will always haunt a reader of the Book of Esther is, why did Mordecai allow his adopted daughter to be recruited into the harem of Ahasuerus? There are several good and scriptural reasons why he should not have. The first one is that the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with the heathen. The intermarriage of believers with unbelievers has always been forbidden. In Genesis we read that before the flood that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6.2. It was this intermarriage between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain that produced the generation that God felt compelled to wipe off the face of the earth. The patriarchs had always gone to great lengths to find godly wives for their sons. Their ostracism by the Egyptians because of their occupation as shepherds and later because of their position as slaves made intermarriage in Egypt an unlikely problem. When they entered into the land of Canaan, they were strictly forbidden to intermarry with the people of the land. The temptation to intermarry, however, was greatly increased while in captivity. The northern kingdom, Israel, probably succumbed to it in the Assyrian captivity. and thus lost their identity and disappeared from the pages of history. But God's law had not changed even in captivity and these prohibitions were later enforced in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. In fact this prohibition extends to Christians today. The Apostle Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 6 verses 14 and 15 be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers? For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Bileal? For what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? Esther is forbidden by the law to marry a hashuiris. This prohibition stands whether she becomes his queen, just another legitimate wife or a concubine? Why then did she marry him? And why do the scriptures not record the least resistance or protest from either Esther or Mordecai in this matter? Secondly, this marriage was forbidden by the law because it was a polygamous marriage. Ahasuerus was already married many times over, therefore it was forbidden for Esther to marry him. polygamy was expressly forbidden to all Israelites. Leviticus 18.18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime. It was strictly forbidden to their kings in Deuteronomy 17.17 where Moses stated, Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away. It was practiced by some of the patriarchs unwillingly, at the suggestion of barren wives, and with unpleasant consequences, and its practice later by the kings of Israel and of Judah was a direct violation of the Sinaitic covenant. Again, we must ask, with the law of God twice barring her from a marriage relationship with a How did Esther become involved in this contest to become his queen? And if the above were not enough, there is a third reason for Esther to have abhorred and for Mordecai to have forbidden any such participation in this process. Esther's chances of becoming queen were statistically very slim. The fairest of the fair are being gathered from all over the empire. but only one will become queen. All the others have the sad prospect of a lonely existence as a neglected concubine in the vast harem of the king. Since this is the likely outcome for each candidate, one would think that Mordecai would do anything in his power to spare his precious adopted daughter from such a fate. Yet the writer says nothing of any such concerns, and records nothing about any opposition by Mordecai to his daughter's induction into this strangest of all beauty pageants. Now there is no doubt that they were faced with a royal decree. By law, Esther as a young virgin of rare beauty was required to submit herself as a candidate for Ahasuerus' harem. But could Mordecai not have done something to deliver Esther from this cruel requirement? With the seclusion of Oriana women, this does not seem such a hard thing to do. Even if it was known, and it may not have been, that he had a daughter, especially since he may have been a eunuch, and would not have been expected to have any children, how would it have been known that she was remarkably beautiful. With the custom of women being veiled in public, Esther's beauty would have been a private matter and not public knowledge. Logically speaking, one would almost assume that Mordecai would attempt to hide his daughter from those royal officials that were entrusted with the execution of this decree. Why there is no evidence that he sought to do so is one of the mysteries of the book of Esther. Why did Mordecai not appear to attempt to deliver Esther from the king's unscriptural and unlawful, by God's law, demands? He had no way of knowing how God would providentially use Esther for the deliverance of his people. and he had no right to presume that it might work out that way someday. To study the ethics of such a situation as this, one must differentiate between the perceptive will and the secret will of God. The perceptive will of God is his law, the precepts of which he commands us to live. His secret will is his providence whereby he brings to pass all his holy will. and directs history to that grand culmination of the kingdom of his son Jesus Christ. Moses refers to this distinction. He teaches in Deuteronomy 29.29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. What Moses is saying is that God's determinate counsel, his secret purposes, belong to God. They are his concern, but God's law, his perceptive will, belongs to us that we may keep it. A good illustration of this principle is the case of Judas the traitor. Judas, by his treason, fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies right down to the 30 pieces of silver. Judas fulfilled the secret purpose and eternal counsels of God in bringing to pass the death of his son Jesus Christ. But that does not in the least exonerate Judas. Judas' duty was to conform to the perceptive will of God. He was commanded to love the Lord his God with all his heart, not to betray him for the love of money. He was commanded to seek truth righteousness and justice, not to satiate his greed. As Christ Himself declared, Matthew chapter 26, 24, the Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him, but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had not been born. In His gracious providence, God works all things out for good. He works all things out for His own glory, and for the good of His elect. He overrules our sins to bring good out of them, and causes even the actions of the wicked to fulfill His holy purposes, so that the Bible says that even the wrath of man shall praise Him. But the secret counsels are His business alone, and He still holds men accountable according to His moral law. So regardless of the fact that Esther's elevation to Queen of Persia was used of God to deliver his people, there is absolutely no reason for Mordecai to allow Esther to enter a marriage that is doubly forbidden by God's perceptive will. Even had he known, and he did not, his actions would still have been forbidden. We have to do our duty and trust God to work things out for good. So why did Mordecai surrender his daughter to the king's decree? I can think of only four answers. The first we have already dealt with, that he thought it would be advantageous to his people to have a Jewish in such a high position of influence. If he did, he was wrong and his actions are condemned by the scriptures. Secondly, He may have surrendered Esther to the royal will because he believed that he was required to obey. This was a royal decree and he was a subject of the Hasheurus. Jeremiah had warned the Jews that they had to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. It was God's will for them. It was his judgment on them. Later Paul taught the Christians in Rome in Romans 13, 1 and 2, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. The Apostle Peter taught, in 1 Peter 2, 13-15, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God. that with well-being ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." Mordecai may have felt that it was his duty to obey the king's decree, and reluctantly surrendered his daughter. If he did so, I believe he was wrong. The passages quoted are both in the context of rulers who are a terror to the wicked and a support to the righteous. There is nothing in the scriptures that requires Mordecai to surrender his precious daughter to the king's inordinate lust, as there was nothing that required Nathan to surrender his inheritance to the covetousness of Ahab, his king. As the apostles told the Sanhedrin, when they too came under a command that conflicted with the will of God, we ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5 29. Thirdly, Mordecai may have wanted to resist the king's decree, but was reluctant to practice the necessary deception required to protect his daughter. He may have wanted to shelter Esther, but when faced with official inquiries about his daughter, he felt compelled to tell the truth, and thus effectively surrendered his daughter. If so, I again believe that he was wrong. And this raises the age-old debate about when Christians are justified in practicing deceit. Is it morally justified to lie to the Nazis? I have some personal experience in this matter. I was born in the Netherlands during the Second World War, and my family lived under the Nazi occupation. The headmaster of the local Christian school was arrested and executed by the Gestapo, SD. He had been in the underground and was helping young men to evade Hitler's draft. These young men needed hiding places, fake papers, and ration coupons. When he was arrested, our minister went to the SD headquarters in Leuwarden, and sought to intercede for him. We will never know what he said because they interrogated him and then took him out in the backyard of the building and shot him also. But you can be sure that he did not go there and say the man was guilty, that he was a member of the Underground, that he had been active in forging and distributing false ration coupons. But would they please let him go? In matters such as these, in addition to the more celebrated matter of hiding Dutch Jews from the machinery of the Holocaust, Dutch Christians practiced deceit during the occupation. Were they wrong? The Reformers practiced deceit to escape the Inquisition during the Reformation. Were they wrong? Only the Scriptures can settle that issue. After all, it is God's law that we are to obey. The Bible forbids men to lie. The Bible says that no liar has a place in the kingdom of God. But what this all boils down to is, what is the scriptural definition of a lie? The famed Princeton theologian Charles Hodge wrestled with this issue. He developed what he believed to be a scriptural definition of a lie. It had three components. The first was the obvious. A lie is a statement that is false. However, that alone does not constitute the statement a lie. Children make false statements routinely in their tests at school, unless they get a perfect grade. But if little Johnny says his 2 plus 2 equals 5, we don't call him a liar. That brings us to the second component of a lie, an intent to deceive. The false statement has to be made with the knowledge that it is false and with a deliberate intent to deceive. This is as far as most people's analysis goes. For them all intents to deceive are lies and are immoral and inadmissible for Christians. When the Nazis came to your door and asked if there are Jews in the attic, You are to draw yourself up in all your moral self-righteousness and say, I cannot lie. Yes, they are. And when the Inquisition comes to your door and asks where that unlawful preacher is hiding out, you have to reply with the truth. The only other alternative to these moralists would allow a Christian is to defiantly state that they know but refuse to tell. This is but another way of committing suicide and an invitation for them to extract the information by torture. Is this what God requires? Fortunately, the reformers did not think so, or we might still all be Romanists. Hodge added a third requirement. The person requiring the information has to have a moral right to the truth. This was not based on sophistry. but on clear and convincing scriptural evidence. The first case in point is that of the Hebrew midwives. They were faced with Pharaoh's decree to kill all the male infants of the children of Israel. They disobeyed and saved the children. When they were questioned by Pharaoh as to why they were not complying, they lied. they fabricated a story that the Hebrew women gave birth so fast that the babies were born before they could get there. They could have defiantly told Pharaoh that they refused to obey his command, but then they would simply have been killed and replaced with those who would, or Pharaoh would have devised another means of exterminating the Hebrews. Was God angry with them? No, the contrary, He was very pleased with them. Moses records it in Exodus chapter 1 verses 15 through 20. Moses records it. And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Huwa. And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools, if it be a son, then ye shall kill him, but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the kings of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women, for they are lively and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives and the people multiplied and waxed very mighty." A similar example is the case of Rahab. She hid the Hebrew spies and deceived the authorities of Jericho with respect to where they were. Was God angry with her? To the contrary, because of her actions She and her family were the sole inhabitants of Jericho who were spared when the city fell, and she had the distinction of being an ancestor of Jesus Christ. Paul includes her in the pantheon of the heroes of the faith, declaring, Hebrews 11 31, By faith the harlot Rahab perish not with them that believe not. when she had received the spies with peace. There are other examples, but that is not the purpose of this book. The point is that, in both cases, the one faced with the issue practiced deception in order to protect the people of God. In both cases, they are commended in Scripture. Rather than judge them as sinful liars, The scriptures tell us that the midwives acted out of fear of God and that Rahab acted by faith in God. All of them refused to give the wicked the information that they needed to destroy the people of God. In both cases the wicked, as Hodge put it, did not have a moral right to the truth. Now where does this lead Mordecai? Did he have an obligation to obey the king's decree? I think not. Did he have an obligation to be truthful in any inquiries by the officials with respect to this decree? I think not. Did Ahasuerus have a moral right to the truth when he will use that truth to kidnap a godly young maiden and force her into a polygamous and heathen marriage? I think not. Would he have been justified in using deception to protect his daughter? I believe so. Would you, if you have lived under Nazi occupation during the Second World War, have practiced deception to keep your daughter out of an SS military brothel? Those who would not must think that they are holier than God, that they have moral standards higher than his law. They are no better than Lot who offered up his daughters to satisfy the lust of wicked men, to appease a mob of rioting Sodomites. The final reason that may account for Esther's participation in the requirements of the king's decree is that neither she nor Mordecai had any choice. Was Esther taken against her and Mordecai's will? We do not know. All we know is that the text is silent with respect to any resistance by them, and neither does the text intimate that any force was used or required to take Esther into the royal harem. But one certainly wants to hope that this was the case, that Esther and Mordecai wanted to obey God's law and sought deliverance from this unjust decree. that Mordecai did his best to shelter Esther from this seemingly cruel fate, but that the king's officials discovered her despite his best efforts to the contrary. That God answered their prayers for deliverance in a marvelous way that they could never have foreseen would only add to the inspiring theme of this book. If this was the case, that leaves us with only one question How would the royal officials have known of her and especially of her beauty? Had Mordecai previously shown her off? Was he now paying the price of his indiscretion? Was he like Hezekiah, now suffering the consequences of his folly? Of Hezekiah, when he showed off his treasures, we are told in 2 Kings 20 verses 12 through 17. At that time Berodek Baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah. For he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick, and Hezekiah hearkened unto them and showed them all the house of his precious things, the silver and the gold and the spices and the precious ointment and all the house of his armor. and all that was found in his treasures. There was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not. Then came Isaiah the prophet unto King Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon. And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen. There is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them. And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord. Behold, the days come that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon. Nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. These are questions that we cannot answer. These are issues that we can only speculate about. Given the overall godly character of Mordecai that seems to be consistently presented throughout the book, it seems unlikely to me that he was vain and foolish enough to show off Esther's beauty. The chamber-laying search for beautiful young women would probably have required them to remove the veils of numerous young women, and Esther would have been no exception. Nonetheless, it remains one of the great mysteries of the Book of Esther, how she ever became a candidate for Vashti's queenly crown.