All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage.
Parallel Translations
-
All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage.
-
And all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.
-
And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed down, and prostrated themselves before Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not down, nor prostrated himself before him.
Cross-references (12)
Passages linked to Esther 3:2 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Esther 2:21 In those days, while Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate, two of the king’s eunuchs, Bigthan and Teresh, who were doorkeepers, were angry, and sought to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus.
- Esther 3:5 When Haman saw that Mordecai didn’t bow down, nor pay him homage, Haman was full of wrath.
- Esther 5:9 Then Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart, but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he didn’t stand up nor move for him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai.
- Psalms 15:4 in whose eyes a vile man is despised, but who honors those who fear Yahweh; he who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and doesn’t change;
- Genesis 41:43 He made him ride in the second chariot which he had. They cried before him, “Bow the knee!” He set him over all the land of Egypt.
- Exodus 17:14 Yahweh said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky.”
- Exodus 17:16 He said, “Yah has sworn: ‘Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’ ”
- Deuteronomy 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies all around, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky. You shall not forget.
- Esther 2:19 When the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate.
- Esther 3:1 After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him.
- Philippians 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth,
- 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and don’t spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (16 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain The Persians’ manner was to kneel down and reverence…
The Persians’ manner was to kneel down and reverence their kings, and such as he appointed in chief authority, which Mordecai would not do to this ambitious and proud man.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Est 3:2 And all the king’s servants, that [were]…
Est 3:2 And all the king’s servants, that [were] in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did [him] reverence.
Ver. 2. And all the kiny’s servants] His courtiers and others; not his menial servants only.
Read full note →
That were in the king’s gate] Where the courtiers used to walk, that they might be on call; and where others attended that had business at the court.
Bowed, and reverenced Haman] Not with so much readiness and diligence as impudence and baseness; for should men bow to a molten calf, because made up of golden earrings? Many of these cringing courtiers could not but hate Haman in their hearts, and were as ready to wish him hanged, and to tell the king shortly after where he might have a fit gallows for him. So Sejanus’s greatest friends, who had deified him before, when once he fell out of the emperor’s favour, showed themselves most passionate against him, saying, that if Caesar had clemency, he ought to reserve it for men, not use it toward monsters.
For the king had so commanded concerning him] And if the king had commanded these servile souls to worship a dog or a cat, as the Egyptians did, a golden image, as Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects did, to turn the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man, of four-footed boasts or creeping things, as Rom 1:23, they would have done it. Most people are of King Henry’s religion, as the proverb is, resolving to do as the most do, though thereby they be undone for ever. This is to be worse than some heathens. {See Trapp on "Act 4:19"} But why should Ahasuerus be so hasty to heap such honours upon so worthless and wicked a person, but that he had a mind to proclaim his own folly to all his kingdom?
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence] He did not, he durst not, though pressed and urged to it with greatest importunity. And why? not because Haman wore a picture openly in his bosom, as the Chaldee paraphrast and Aben Ezra give the reason; not merely (if at all, which some doubt of) because he was a cursed Amalekite; but because the Persian kings required, that themselves and their chief favourites (such as proud Haman was) should be reverenced with a kind of divine honour, more than was due to any man. This the Jews were flatly forbidden by their law to do. The Lacedemonians also were resolute against it, as Herodotus in his seventh book relateth. Pelopidas the Theban would not be drawn to worship the Persian monarch in this sort. No more would Conon the Athenian general. And when Timagoras did, the Athenians condemned him to die for it. It was not therefore pride or self-willedness that made Mordecai so stiff in the legs that he would not bend to Haman, but fear of sin, and conscience of duty. He knew that he had better offend all the world than God and his own conscience: Nihil praeter peccatum timeo I fear nothing before sin. (Basil).
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain The reason of which obstinate refusal was, either,
The reason of which obstinate refusal was, either,
1. The quality of the person; that he was not only an infamously wicked man, and a heathen, but of that nation which God had obliged the Israelites to abhor and oppose from generation to generation; and therefore he durst not show outward respect to a man whom he did and ought inwardly to contemn. Or rather,
Read full note →
2. The nature of the thing; for the worship required was not only civil, but Divine; which as the kings of Persia did undoubtedly arrogate to themselves, and expect and receive from their subjects and others who came into their presence, as is affirmed by divers authors; so they did sometimes impart this honour to some of their chief favourites, that they should be adored in like manner. And that it was so here seems more than probable, because it was wholly superfluous, and almost ridiculous, to give an express and particular command to all the king’s servants that were in the king’ s gate, as here it was, to pay a civil respect to so great a prince, which of course they used and were ever obliged to do; and therefore a Divine honour must be here intended. And that a Jew should deny this honour, or the outward expressions of it, to such a person, is not strange, seeing the wise and sober Grecians did positively refuse to give this honour to the kings of Persia themselves, even when they were to make their addresses to them; and one Timocrates was put to death by the Athenians for worshipping Darius in that manner.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the king's servants that were in the king's…
And the king's servants that were in the king's gate,.... Or court, all his courtiers; for it cannot be thought they were all porters, or such only that
bowed and reverenced Haman; gave him divine honours, as to a deity; for such were given to the kings of Persia (k), and might be given to their favourites, and seems to be the case; for, though Haman might not erect a statue of himself, or have images painted on his clothes, as the Targum and Aben Ezra, for the Persians did not allow of statues and images (l); yet he might make himself a god, as Jarchi, and require divine worship, with leave of the king, which he had, yea, an order for it:
Read full note →
for the king had so commanded concerning him; which shows that it was not mere civil honour and respect, for that in course would have been given him as the king's favourite and prime minister by all his servants, without an express order for it; this, therefore, must be something uncommon and extraordinary:
but Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence; which is a further proof that it was not mere civil honour that was required and given; for that the Jews did not refuse to give, and that in the most humble and prostrate manner, and was admitted by them, Sa1 24:8 Kg1 1:16, nor can it be thought that Mordecai would refuse to give it from pride and sullenness, and thereby risk the king's displeasure, the loss of his office, and the ruin of his nation; but it was such kind of reverence to a man, and worship of him, which was contrary to his conscience, and the law of his God.
(k) Vid. Salden. Otia Theolog. l. 3. Exercitat. 1. sec. 4, 5. (l) Laert. Prooem. ad Vit. Philosoph. p. 5, 6.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain But, &c. - Probably the worship required was not…
But, &c. - Probably the worship required was not only civil, but Divine: which as the kings of Persia arrogated to themselves, so they did sometimes impart this honour to some of their chief favourites, that they should be adored in like manner. And that it was so here, seems more than probable, because it was superfluous, to give an express command to all the kings servants, to pay a civil respect to so great a prince, which of course they used, and therefore a Divine honour must be here intended. And that a Jew should deny this honour, is not strange, seeing the wise Grecians did positively refuse to give this honour to the kings of Persia themselves, even when they were to make their addresses to them: and one Timocrates was put to death by the Athenians for worshipping Darius in that manner.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 2. The king's servants, that were in the…
Verse 2. The king's servants, that were in the king's gate] By servants here, certainly a higher class of officers are intended than porters; and Mordecai was one of those officers, and came to the gate with the others who were usually there in attendance to receive the commands of the king.
Mordecai bowed not] לאיכרע lo yichra. "He did not bow down;" nor did him reverence, ולא ישתחוה velo yishtachaveh, "nor did he prostrate himself." I think it most evident, from these two words, that it was not civil reverence merely that Haman expected and Mordecai refused; this sort of respect is found in the word כרע cara, to bow. This sort of reverence Mordecai could not refuse without being guilty of the most inexcusable obstinacy, nor did any part of the Jewish law forbid it. But Haman expected, what the Persian kings frequently received, a species of Divine adoration; and this is implied in the word שחה shachah, which signifies that kind of prostration which implies the highest degree of reverence that can be paid to God or man, lying down flat on the earth, with the hands and feet extended, and the mouth in the dust.
Read full note →
The Targum, says that Haman set up a statue for himself, to which every one was obliged to bow, and to adore Haman himself. The Jews all think that Mordecai refused this prostration because it implied idolatrous adoration. Hence, in the Apocryphal additions to this book, Mordecai is represented praying thus: "Thou knowest that if I have not adored Haman, it was not through pride, nor contempt, nor secret desire of glory; for I felt disposed to kiss the footsteps of his feet (gladly) for the salvation of Israel: but I feared to give to a man that honour which I know belongs only to my God."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Est 3:2. For the king had so commanded concerning…
Est 3:2. For the king had so commanded concerning him — To bow the knee, and give reverence to all great persons, was a common respect due to them, and there needed not a particular command from the king requiring it to be shown by all his servants to Haman; since, no doubt, they paid it to all princes, and would much more pay it to him who took place of them all, and was his sovereign’s favourite. There was therefore, probably, more implied in the reverence commanded to be paid to him than what proceeded from a mere civil respect. The kings of Persia, we know, required a kind of divine adoration from all who approached them; and, as they arrogated this to themselves, so they sometimes imparted it to their chief friends and favourites, which seems to have been the case with regard to Haman at this time. And if so, we need not wonder that a righteous Jew should deny that honour, or the outward expressions of it, to any man; since the wise and sober Grecians positively refused to give it to their very kings themselves, the people of Athens once passing sentence of death on one Timocrates, a citizen of theirs, for prostrating himself before Darius, though he was then one of the greatest monarchs upon earth. The author of the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther seems to imply that this was the case of Mordecai, whom he introduces praying thus, chap. Est 13:12, &c. “Thou knowest, O Lord, that it is not in contempt, or pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman, for I would willingly kiss his feet for the salvation of Israel; but I did this, that I might not prefer the glory of man to the glory of God, nor adore any one but thee my Lord alone.” See Valer. Max., lib. 6, cap. 3. We may observe further here, that Mordecai should refuse to pay such obeisance, as all others paid to Haman at this time, will appear the less strange, if we consider that Haman being of that nation against which God pronounced a curse, (Exo 17:14,) Mordecai might think himself, on this account, not obliged to pay him the reverence which he expected; and if the rest of the Jews had the like notion of him, this might be a reason sufficient for his extending his resentment against the whole nation. See Dodd.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Mordecai probably refused the required prostration, usual though it…
Mordecai probably refused the required prostration, usual though it was, on religious grounds. Hence, his opposition led on to his confession that he was a Jew Est 3:4.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Worship him, with divine honours, as he required, in…
Worship him, with divine honours, as he required, in imitation of the kings, Judith iii. 13. On certain solemn occasions, the latter at least exacted this respect from their subjects. But the pious Jews avoided appearing at such times, or the kings dispensed with them. The mere bending the knee, out of civil respect, would not have been objected to; and Mardochai says, he would not have refused to kiss the footsteps of Aman, chap. xiii. 12. (Calmet) (St. Thomas Aquinas, [Summa Theologiae] 2. 2. q. 84.) (Tirinus) --- But he could not give such worship as was claimed by the minor gods. (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain all the king's servants, that were in the king's…
all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman--Large mansions in the East are entered by a spacious vestibule, or gateway, along the sides of which visitors sit, and are received by the master of the house; for none, except the nearest relatives or special friends, are admitted farther. There the officers of the ancient king of Persia waited till they were called, and did obeisance to the all-powerful minister of the day.
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence--The obsequious homage of prostration not entirely foreign to the manners of the East, had not been claimed by former viziers; but this minion required that all subordinate officers of the court should bow before him with their faces to the earth. But to Mordecai, it seemed that such an attitude of profound reverence was due only to God. Haman being an Amalekite, one of a doomed and accursed race, was, doubtless, another element in the refusal; and on learning that the recusant was a Jew, whose nonconformity was grounded on religious scruples, the magnitude of the affront appeared so much the greater, as the example of Mordecai would be imitated by all his compatriots. Had the homage been a simple token of civil respect, Mordecai would not have refused it; but the Persian kings demanded a sort of adoration, which, it is well known, even the Greeks reckoned it degradation to express. As Xerxes, in the height of his favoritism, had commanded the same honors to be given to the minister as to himself, this was the ground of Mordecai's refusal.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 2. The king’s servants… bowed — This was but…
2. The king’s servants… bowed — This was but a mark of respect to any officer of high rank, and is a common custom in all courts.
Reverenced Haman — The Hebrew involves the idea of prostrate reverence as to a superior being — bowing on the knees, and touching the forehead to the ground. משׁתחוים. Septuagint, προσεκυνουν, fell prostrate, worshipped. Vulgate, Flectebant genua et adorabant — bowed their knees and adored. The Chaldee paraphrase has it that they bowed down to a statue which had been set up in honour of Haman. This at once explains why Mordecai bowed not. Haman required worship like a god, and this would have been idolatry with a Jew. Mordecai is represented in the apocryphal Esther (xiii, 12) as praying: “Thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride that I did not bow down to Haman; for I would have been glad, for the salvation of Israel, to kiss the soles of his feet. But I did this that I might not glorify man more than God; neither would I worship any, O God, but thee.”
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 2. bowed down] The Heb. expresses a more profound…
2. bowed down] The Heb. expresses a more profound salutation, after the Oriental fashion, than the A.V. ‘bow.’
the king had so commanded] Bowing down before a superior was such an established custom that one would have thought the king’s command needless. It may have been that Haman’s elevation was so strongly contrasted with his origin that there was occasion for the order to be issued.
Read full note →
But Mordecai bowed not down] What was his reason? Although we have Greeks (Spartan ambassadors) refusing to bow down to the Persian monarch (Herod. vii. 136) on the ground that it was not their custom to worship men, yet the Jews had no objection to the act in itself (2Sa_14:4; 2Sa_18:28; 1Ki_1:16), and disobedience to the king’s direction in such a matter was fraught with danger.
Two possible answers suggest themselves. (1) He considered Haman as the king’s representative, and, as the Persian obeisance to the sovereign involved a belief that he was in some sort an incarnation of the Deity, Mordecai, as a Jew, refused to perform an act of idolatry. If so, however, we do not see how he could avoid bowing down, whenever he happened to be in the presence of the king himself, as in Est_8:1. (2) Mordecai, as a Jew, refused to bow down to the hereditary enemy of Israel. See last note and cp. Num_24:7. A characteristic piece of Targum says that the king’s servants pointed out to Mordecai that a conspicuous ancestor of his, Jacob, had bowed down before one of Haman’s forefathers, Esau (Gen_33:3). Mordecai, however, replied that he himself was not involved in this act, as being descended from Benjamin who at the time referred to was not yet born.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (2) Bowed not.—Perhaps, rather, did not prostrate himself, for…
(2) Bowed not.—Perhaps, rather, did not prostrate himself, for such was the ordinary Eastern practice (see Herod. iii. 86, vii. 7, 34, 136, viii. 118). The objection on Mordecai’s part was evidently mainly on religious grounds, as giving to a man Divine honours (Josephus l.c.), for it elicits from him the fact that he was a Jew (Est_3:4), to whom such an act of obeisance would be abhorrent. Whether Mordecai also rebelled against the ignominious character of the obeisance, we cannot say.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain All the king"s servants. Literally, "the king"s slaves the…
All the king"s servants. Literally, "the king"s slaves the lower officers of the court, porters and others, of about the same rank as Mordecai. Bowed and reverenced Haman. i.e. prostrated themselves before him in the usual Oriental fashion. For the king had so commanded. No reason is assigned for this order, which was certainly unusual, since the prostration of an inferior before a superior was a general rule (Herod., 1:134). Perhaps Haman had been elevated from a very low position, and the king therefore thought a special order requisite. Mordecai bowed not. Greeks occasionally refused to prostrate themselves before the Great King himself, saying that it was not their custom to worship men (Herod., 7:136; Plut., "Vit. Artax.," Arrian., "Exp. Alex.," 4:10-12, etc.). Mordecai seems to have had the same feeling. Prostration was, he thought, an act of worship, and it was not proper to worship any one excepting God. (see Rev_22:9)
Vers. 2-5.
Read full note →
Contrasts.
Haman was not allowed to enjoy his high and ill-gotten position without trouble. Almost at the outset it brought him an annoyance which led to tragical results. In connection with this check to the triumph of his course, notice
I THAT A REAL AND MARKED CONTRAST EXISTS BETWEEN THOSE WHO "FEAR GOD" AND THOSE WHO "LOVE THE PRAISE OF MEN." The servants who "sat in the king"s gate" readily obeyed the command that they should do homage to the favourite all except one. Mordecai stood erect) with no fear or reverence in his look or attitude, when Haman passed in and out of the palace. It was a sight worth seeing) that of this man, too noble to bend to the world"s idol, before which all others stooped in slavish adulation. Between Mordecai and his companions in office there was an evident gulf.
II THAT CONDUCT WHICH CONTRASTS WITH THEIR OWN OFTEN EXCITES AN INQUIRING CURIOSITY IN THE WORLDLY. His fellow-servants at once noticed Mordecai"s singularity. They daily questioned and expostulated with him, but "he hearkened not unto them." In silence he listened, and still disobeyed the king"s command. Sincere inquiry is to be encouraged, and kindly met; but a prying curiosity into the affairs of others is unmanly, and to be reprobated. "Busy-bodies" in the Church were duly noted by Sts. Paul and Peter (2Th_3:11; 1Pe_4:15)
III THAT CONTRASTS OF BEHAVIOUR WHICH SEEM TO REBUKE EASILY AROUSE THE SPIRIT OF MALEVOLENCE. Overcome by the importunity of his companions, or perceiving that his continued silence was regarded by them as an indication of his being afraid to speak out, Mordecai at length declared that he was a Jew, and gave that as a reason why he could not abase himself, as they did, before Haman. This announcement awakened in their minds a deeper and more evil curiosity. Their pride was wounded by the Jew"s implied claim of superiority. How would it go with him if Haman were told of his obstinacy and its reason? So they told Haman. It was mean and wicked; but they were hurt, and they no doubt expected that the all-powerful favourite would soon compel the Jew to a behaviour in harmony with their own. Small minds, that bend before every breeze of authority or fashion, readily become ungenerous, and conceive malice towards those who are stronger than themselves in principle or self-respect. (1Pe_2:1-3)
IV THAT IT TAKES LITTLE TO MAR THE ENJOYMENT OF A FALSE GREATNESS. The sight of Mordecai standing upright amongst the prostrate attendants of the palace filled Haman with a fierce and vindictive wrath. True greatness is magnanimous. It is above resenting little affronts, or jealously exacting the signs of outward respect. It does not rest on the humiliation of others. But Haman"s glory was tarnished, and his happiness soured, by the stubbornness of one man who occupied a lowly position compared with that of the favourite. Mordecai was the fly in the ointment of his pride.
V THAT A FALSE GREATNESS CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF THE CAUSES OF TROUBLE AND DANGER. It is necessarily suspicious and exacting. Doubt and fear are ever springing up in its path. It imagines affronts when none are intended, and magnifies small annoyances into hostile designs. It is thus often driven into passions and crimes which endanger its existence. All evil ambitions possess in the heart of them the seeds of their own punishment. God vindicates himself in the natural working of human vanities.
Lessons:
1. Hate every false way, however alluring. Beware of its deceitfulpromises.
2. Cultivate a generous spirit. Show respect to rights of others. Avoidhumiliating those who are dependent on you, or below you in social rank.
3. Make God your law-giver and guide, and Jesus your example and trust. D.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Ver. 2.
The perfection of steadfastness.
Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence." This book of Esther abounds in revelation of human nature. It has been much remarked upon as not containing the name of God. Furthermore, it has nothing of strict doctrine in its technical and theological sense. Neither does it lay itself out to exhibit the great spiritual facts which arrest the attention of the Bible reader in other portions of it. It does not refer with any explicitness to the unseen, to the great future, to the "that day" of the epistles. On the other hand, it is wonderful in the various exposition it offers of human nature. To history, indeed, its matter is confined. But that history seems to pursue its object with undeviating exactitude of aim. Through impartiality of selection and fidelity of description it advances, awarding its present verdicts to those on the left hand, or to those on the right. We have already considered the illustration it offers of a noble refusal on the part of a woman, on an occasion when to refuse was both undoubtedly right and undoubtedly the cause of much suffering and loss. We have here an illustration of the noble refusal of a man, right against the enormous force of the current of the whole world around him. Consistently with his race, his education, his religion, it is not merely, as in the case just alluded to, in the dictates of nature, but in the whispered monitions of religion as well, in the principle of "enduring as seeing the invisible," that the basis of the refusal in question is found and justified. Notice this refusal in some of the more prominent features it presents
I IT IS A REFUSAL WHICH COMES FROM THE DEEPER RECESSES OF OUR NATURE. It comes down from its higher haunts, from its more sacred retreats. To refuse at the price of suffering, loss, possibly death, because of the blush that would mantle in the cheek if you did not refuse, is to obey worthily God-given nature. All honour to Vashti that she did so! But to refuse at the imminent price of martyrdom for self, and for the all you hold dearest to the heart, and for your people scattered over a hundred lands, just because of a recovered snatch of Sinai"s second commandment, is the achievement of a much higher reach. Obedience to the dictate of what We generally call nature is not to be disparaged. It reflects the intention of the Creator, and "repeats his praise." But So far as we are concerned, it may be considered to have something more of instinct about it. Mere physical temperament will in part account for it. But when the obedience is attributable to the new-learnt lessons of the word of God, then, though it is not a nobler parentage that accounts for it, it owns to a directer descent from the one Parent of all good, and this sheds fresh lustre upon it. Innocent nature in Eden, the broken snatches of Divine communication to our first parents in Eden, the patriarchal gains in similar methods of Divine revelation, then the ten commandments, the prophets, the beatitudes, the new commandment, all in developing order, challenge our lower life to regulate and improve itself by higher principles. "Thou hast magnified thy word," said the Psalmist, "above all thy name". (Psa_138:2) The word of God unfolds duty, opportunity, responsibility in an ever-increasing ratio, and on an ever-ascending scale. And it ascertains the law which distinguishes the praise of the obedience, amid possibly great sacrifice, of nature, from the obedience paid, often amid the greatest possible sacrifice, to the inner, living Word. Mordecai was a worthy successor, by some fifty years, of Daniel and his three companions with their food; (Dan_1:8-17) of those same three companions in the matter of the golden image at Dura; (Dan_3:8-28) and again, in particular, of Daniel and his prayers. (Dan_6:4-24) "These all obtained their good report through faith the faith that saw, heard, obeyed, what was a blank to mere nature, inaudible and invisible to mere sense.
II IT WAS A REFUSAL INTENSIFIED IN EFFORT BY ANXIETY AS TO WHAT IT MIGHT ENTAIL UPON ESTHER. It risked the premature betrayal of the nationality of Esther as well as of Mordecai himself, and thereby the spoiling of what it is probable Mordecai already had in his mind, viz., that Esther might prove a great benefactor of her people generally.
III IT WAS A REFUSAL FAITHFULLY ADHERED TO WHEN DANGERS GREW THICKER. Mordecai did not yield and cringe to Haman when the original inner reason of his refusing to do so had now become immensely added to by Haman"s enormous revenge. Outer policy might have advocated yielding at that very moment. The dictate of that policy would have been felt a temptation, resisted by few indeed. Very painful thoughts might also have attacked the steadfastness of Mordecai, as to what the recriminations of his people might be that by his one display of feeling against Haman so many were involved in a common destruction. They might have said, "Why should he endanger the welfare of his people?" All the more would they have said this if at all envious because of the relation in which he stood to the new-made queen, Esther. But "none of these things moved him." He was inflexible at the right time.
IV IT WAS A REFUSAL WHICH OPENED A PERIOD OF DREADFUL SUSPENSE. There are many sacrifices, great in themselves, but easier to make because a moment will make the resolution, another moment will execute the resolution, and a third moment will be quite sufficient to acquaint one with the result of it. The discipline of suspense, however, with many natures is nothing less than torture. And now Mordecai"s refusal inaugurated the strain of days, weeks, and months of anguished conflict of feeling, of strenuous planning, and alternative purposings, the end of which he could not foresee, but the likeliest end for himself "hanging on a tree"; (Est_2:23) for his nation, destruction.
V IT WAS A REFUSAL WHICH THREW DOWN ITS ROOTS DEEP INTO THE SOIL OF TRUST AND FAITH. Mordecai descried one possible way out of his own and his people"s fearful peril. It was a narrow, uncertain, and dimly-lighted track. It was enough. He strove for it. He prayed for it. Faith and hope appropriated it. He will not relax an effort, nor will he permit Esther to be remiss. This was the best thing about Mordecai"s refusal, that it was willing to abide by the alternatives, the worst conceivable extremities, or God"s own deliverance. He had trust, and his trust was rewarded. The position then shows one man, deserted of earthly help, standing immovable in the same place, in the same posture, against a fierce current, midway in which he stood, for conscience" and honour"s sake. And the issue shown was this, that to himself and to thousands upon thousands with him were brought salvation and great honour. B.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain But Mordecai bowed not.
Est_3:2
But Mordecai bowed not.
Read full note →
Decision for God
But why did Mordecai not obey the commandment of the king? It may have been because he had a personal dislike to Haman, but that would not have justified him in contradicting the will of the sovereign. Or it may have been that, being a Jew, he regarded himself as exempted from doing honour to one of a race which God had cursed. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. But so long as Mordecai was a captive in Persia he could hardly be excused, on this account, from resisting the law of the land. The ground of this righteous Jews refusal must be sought for deeper than either of these things. There can be little doubt, we think, that the homage commanded to be paid to Haman amounted, in this Jews estimate, to that which should be rendered to God only. The stand which he took had its foundation in religion--a foundation which the men of the world have ever failed to comprehend. (T. McEwan.)
Mordecai refuses to bow down to Haman
But on what ground did Mordecai refuse to bow to Haman and do him reverence? The only answer which comes clearly out of the chapter to that question is, that the position which he took was one that was common to him with all his people, so that it was sufficiently accounted for to others when he said, I am a Jew. It was a matter of religion with him. But, that being admitted, the question still arises, What was there in such a command as this of Xerxes to offend the conscience of a pious Jew? Some have answered that, as the Persian monarch was regarded as an incarnation of Ahura-Mazda, and therefore entitled to Divine honours, the act of prostration before him was understood to imply worship; and so homage paid to Haman as the kings representative would be a virtual giving of Divine honour to a human creature. This is confirmed even by heathen writers--for Herodotus tells us that certain Greeks, on being pressed to prostrate themselves before the king, when they were introduced into his presence at Susa, declared that it was not their custom to worship a man, nor had they come for that purpose; and Curtius has said, The Persians, indeed, not only from motives of piety, but also from prudence, worship their kings among the gods. Now, if that explanation be adopted, the act of Mordecai takes its place beside the refusal of the early Christians to sacrifice to the Roman emperor, and puts him on the honour roll among those whose rule of life in all such cases was, We ought to obey God rather than men. But while it would fully justify Mordecai, this explanation is in itself not without difficulty. For did not Josephs brethren make similar obeisance to him? Would not Mordecai after his own elevation to Hamans place be required to bow before the king? and must we condemn Nehemiah for rendering to Artaxerxes the homage which Mordecai here refused to Haman, though Xerxes himself had commanded that it should be rendered? It is possible, of course, that Mordecai was right, and that all the rest were wrong; but it is not absolutely incontrovertible that the reverence here required was of the nature of religious worship. Others, therefore, have sought for the reason of Mordecais disobedience to the royal mandate in the nationality of Haman. Taking Agagite as equivalent to Amalekite, they remind us that the Amalekites were the first to attack the Israelites after their escape from Egypt, and that after his victory over them on that occasion Moses said, The Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. They recall to our remembrance, also, the fact that it was for sparing some of the Amalekites that Saul was first rejected by God from being king over Israel, and that the only time that Samuel wielded a sword was when he hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord. Now if Haman was indeed an Amalekite, it would be easy to find in that a reason for Mordecais conduct as well as for Hamans purpose of revenge; for these descending feuds between races in the East are both undying and enve nomed, especially when they are rooted in religious differences. But then we have no other case in Scripture where a royal title like Agag becomes a public patronymic, so as to be the name of a tribe; and it is hard to account for the appearance of one of the hated race of Amalek here, at this late date, in Susa. So there are difficulties connected with both solutions, and it is not easy to choose between them. Perhaps the first, all things considered, is the more satisfactory. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Strong conviction
The commandment of the king was very express, and Mordecai manifestly exposed himself to imminent danger by disregarding it. If, indeed, his objection to pay homage to Haman was founded upon a conviction that such homage amounted to something like idolatry, then we might regard his refusal as ranking him with the three illustrious youths who braved the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar rather than they would submit to worship the image which he had set up. But we can scarcely take this view of the matter, as it is not likely that Mordecai would have withheld from the king himself the outward reverence which the law and usage of the country required. But if it was because Haman was of the seed of Amalek, that the Jew would not bow to him nor do him reverence, then intense must have been the detestation of that race, when he would rather run the risk of incurring the displeasure of the king than pay respect to one of them who stood so high in the royal favour. Yet we conceive that he might feel himself fully vindicated in his own conscience for acting as he did. It was, after all, a high religious scruple by which he was influenced. By the law of Moses the Amalekites were condemned to perpetual infamy. No earthly rank or station could blot out or modify that sentence. In this view of the subject, Mordecai would have supposed himself an apostate from his religion had he done reverence to Haman, and therefore he refused to do it, whatever might be the consequence to himself. We cannot but respect such a feeling as this, generated as it was by regard for the Divine law. It could not be appreciated by the other servants of the king, who may have attributed Mordecais conduct to a sullen and haughty temper; but, although the matter in itself was apparently unimportant, it was an evidence of real heroism of character in this man to obey the dictate of conscience at the hazard of personal suffering. True religion does not interfere with the discharge of the ordinary courtesies of life, nor does it forbid our rendering that honour to rank and station which is their due. But when vice and real infamy are shrouded under high rank, the Christian must beware of acting so as to make it supposed that the rank forms an apology for the vice and infamy, or renders them less hateful than they really are. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)
A little matter
All was going well with this man. His rivals had been crushed, his seat had been set above the seats of all the noblemen at court, the king had made him his boon companion, and had issued orders that the palace servants should bow before him and do him reverence. He was as nearly happy as a man can be whose ruling passion is vanity; but such men hold their happiness by a very frail tenure. It does not look altogether well that Ahasuerus should have needed to give special orders about his servants bowing to Haman. Darius had not needed to do this in the case of Daniel. Had the favourite been respected and liked, men would have given him all seemly honour unbidden. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. It does seem a very small matter; but when such a man as Mordecai attached importance to it we must pause and consider whether the matter was really so small as it seemed. For it is an unsafe way of reasoning to say about anything, It is only one little act; why scruple over it? If it does no good it can do no harm; and so forth. By such reasoning habits of untruth and intemperance have many a time been formed, and what was perhaps little in itself, if it had been possible to separate it from all else, has been found to be anything but little in its results. The truth is, we cannot separate any single action from the rest of our lives; so that the importance of an action depends not on its greatness or its littleness, but on many other circumstances, such as how often we do it; the effect it has on others, particularly its influence on our own consciences. In this case it so happened that what Mordecai did--rather what he determined not to do--proved to be of very great importance to the whole Jewish people and the whole Persian empire; but he could not know that. What he did know was that, if he had once bowed to Haman, his conscience would have been defiled, as surely as Daniels would have been if he had eaten the kings meat; and polluted conscience is no trifle. A man has to carry it about with him all day, to go to sleep with it if he can, to encounter it again when he awakes, until God purges out the stain. But why should Mordecai have feared that, by bowing to Haman as the rest did, he would bring on himself this worst evil, a bad conscience? We do not need to suppose that the homage enjoined was idolatrous; it may have been nearly so; but Mordecai knew the character of the prime minister, and he knew the fifteenth Psalm: in his eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. In addition to the knowledge Mordecai could not but have of Hamans character, he knew him to be of the seed-royal of Amalek; and a man with the spirit of Moses and Samuel in him would not recognise the advancement of the Jews enemy. The point might be small in itself, but the principle involved in it was to Mordecai more important than life. The day was not far off when Ahasuerus and all Persia agreed with Mordecai in his estimate of Haman. But persons who act on high principle must be content to find that few on earth understand them at the time. Angels understand and smile on them, but the smiles of angels are not seen. Possibly some of Mordecais Jewish brethren might hint to him that his conduct was rather extreme (that terrible word!)--savouring more of bigotry than of pious charity. (A. M. Symington, B. A.)
The difference between right and wrong shown in little things
The difference between right and wrong may be shown in a little matter, but it is not therefore a little difference; and they who are determined to be thorough in their allegiance to God will make no distinction in their conduct between small things and great. Very noble, too, was Mordecais firmness in resisting the entreaties of his fellow-servants, for he shut up the whole controversy with the simple confession, I am a Jew. He will not needlessly publish his religion on the house-top, but neither will he be ashamed of it in the kings gate. It might cost him much to make the confession, but he knew that sin would be still more costly, and so he did not shrink from saying, I am a Jew. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Limits to the claims of official civility-
In Mordecais adherence to his religious principles we see that there are limits to the claims of social and official civility--bounds that duty does not allow us to pass in our respect for our superiors. The Word of God is the standard of respectability and manners as well as of faith, and it forbids all lying and deceit, all flattery and all mean compliances with the wishes of others, however exalted. It does not allow us to do anything that is contrary to good breeding and the chivalry of right. It does not allow us to neglect our duties, waste our time or injure our health, merely to please a friend or a potentate. Let it be remembered, to the honour of one of the Presidents of the United States, General Jackson, that he never allowed any visitors to keep him from the house of God on the Lords day. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Then the kings servants, which were in the kings gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the kings commandment?--
Mordecais companions
But yonder come his fellow-servants of the palace; what have they to say? Why they Jay to him, Why transgressest thou the kings commandment? And verily, aged man, why? Is it that all eyes may be turned upon you? It is true, indeed, that he is the observed of all observers who does not go with the multitude, even though they go to do evil. Any one that dares to think and speak for himself is sure to be condemned by the many that he differs from; for his position and principles are a running commentary of condemnation upon them. It has ever been so, and perhaps it will always continue to be so, for it is not for the man that lives in the cellar to say what he sees who dwells on the house-top. Some men are before their times, and some men never catch up with the age in which they live; and some men have not moral courage enough to hear themselves breathe honestly and freely. We see this daily as to the press and the pulpit. Is not the daily bread of the printer put in jeopardy if his journal does not meet the popular taste? And have we not seen large bodies of business men combine to starve newspapers to death by withholding their patronage unless the said papers would defend their conduct? And is it not true that if one pulpit has the courage to utter an honest opinion, that does not happen to coincide with the rest of the pulpits, that then all the pulpits and papers that have neither capacity to understand nor the moral honesty to comprehend the poor dissenter open their batteries upon him? (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Principle seems impolitic
And again his fellow-servants say, Friend Mordecai, consider well what you are going to do. Remember, it is not Haman merely, but his master also, that you offend. Is it wise, then, for you to peril the forfeiture of your place and your life upon a question of mere etiquette or courtesy? It is extremely impolitic and dangerous for you not to do homage to so great a prince. And besides, if you will not bow with us, then you will have to suffer alone. Yes, friends, says he, I have considered all this; and I am content to meet the consequences. It is not a mere question of courtesy. I am a Jew. My religion is with me a glorious reality. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Cowardice cannot understand courage
Mordecais fellow-servants were not capable of understanding his principles. Cowards never apprehend the true character of a brave man. Little minds cannot see up into the magnanimity of a great and noble soul. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
For he told them that he was a Jew.
Fidelity to principle
We have in the case of Mordecai an example of fidelity to principle which is worthy of all study and imitation. He felt that it was wrong to do homage to Haman. In resisting the entreaties of his fellow-servants, he shut up the whole controversy with the simple confession, I am a Jew. Herein he gave an example which Christians might follow with advantage. Have the courage, young men, when you are asked to do what you know to be wrong, to reply simply, I am a Christian. Add to your faith courage--the heroism not of the warrior but of the man who has learned to run the gauntlet of ridicule and scorn, and to follow the dictates of duty uncaring consequences. To quote the words of the greatest wit of his age,--Learn to inure your principles against ridicule. You can no more exercise your reason if you live in the constant dread of laughter than you can enjoy your life if you are in the constant terror of death. H you think it right to differ from the times, and to make a point of morals, do it, however rustic, however antiquated, however pedantic it may appear; do it as a man who wore a soul of his own and did not wait till it was breathed into him by the breath of fashion. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 3:2 It was a common custom to bow down…
3:2 It was a common custom to bow down before a superior (e.g., Gen 33:3). Since Mordecai served at the large gate to the palace and Haman entered the king’s court through that gate, there were many opportunities for Mordecai to break the king’s command and not bow before Haman.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.