-
Mordecai Worships Only JehovahThe Watchtower—1950 | May 15
-
-
day he had the interview with Haman, that turned out so painful to the Agagite’s ego.
Through Esther’s intercession, as advised by Mordecai, Haman’s wickedness was exposed and he was hung on the gallows he had reared up for Mordecai, Mordecai was elevated to Haman’s former position, and arrangements were made for the Jews to defend themselves on the day that Haman’s wicked decree of destruction was to be executed. As a result the tables were turned and it was the Jews’ enemies that died instead of the Jews. To commemorate the victory Mordecai ordained the keeping of the feast of Purim, which command the Jews have since carried out. (Esther 8:11; 9:1-32) As for Mordecai himself, he “was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed”.—Esther 10:3.
The other dramatic happenings in the book of Esther we leave for succeeding articles on the characters Esther and Haman to develop. The remainder of this article we devote to discussing some interesting facts regarding the chronology of the times and the book of Esther, which was probably written by Mordecai, whose name means “like pure myrrh or bruised myrrh”. There is a difference of opinion as to the writer of the book. There are scholars who credit it to Ezra. Ezra probably brought the book with him when he came from Babylon to Jerusalem, in 467 B.C., and added it to the then still growing Hebrew canon. However, it is more probable that Mordecai wrote the record, because he was in position to have all the minute knowledge shown in the narrative of the private affairs of Mordecai and Esther, of Haman’s family, and particularly of the domestic details of the palace of Shushan. Also, at the time of his elevation in the king’s service he would have access to the official records which are mentioned in the account.
The canonicity or authenticity of the book is questioned by many. Their chief objection is based, not on historical grounds or well-founded critical analysis, but on an arbitrary, emotional reaction arising from the fact that the name of God does not appear once in the narrative. But the entire book breathes a spirit of faithfulness and integrity toward God and deep interest in the cause of God’s people. The fact that Mordecai steadfastly refused to honor and bow to God’s enemy, Haman the Amalekite, is proof that Jehovah and His law were recognized by Mordecai; Haman objected to this people whose laws were diverse from the nation’s. Moreover, divine maneuvering of events is implied at Esther 4:14, and prayer is doubtless referred to by the word “cry” at Es 9:31.
The canonicity of the book may be established on the following grounds: The Jews have always reckoned it in the canon; it was probably received into the canon by Ezra, who lived at the time its recorded events occurred and would be in position to pass on its authenticity. He would have excluded it if it had been a fable. Though written in Hebrew, it contains the Persianisms and Aramaisms with which the Hebrew tongue had by that time been contaminated; its wording in this respect matches that of the books Ezra, Nehemiah, and First and Second Chronicles. The record has the ring of genuineness by harmonizing completely with the times in which it is historically set. Another strong argument in behalf of its authenticity and historical basis is that to this day the Jews keep the feast of Purim ordained by Mordecai in remembrance of their deliverance at that time. The strongest argument, however, is that the prophetic pictures forecast by the events of the book of Esther are now, in these “last days”, undergoing fulfillment under Jehovah’s direction.
During what time did the events related occur? It was at a time when the Persian empire extended “from India even unto Ethiopia”. This would fix Darius II as the earliest possible ruler to so hold sway, and the language of the book and the events and customs disclosed and its inclusion into the canon by Ezra would not permit the events to be located beyond the reign of Artaxerxes III. In between these two Persian monarchs was Xerxes. The Ahasuerus of the Esther account must have been one of these three.
In the twelfth year of his reign this Ahasuerus did not seem too well acquainted with the Jews and their beliefs or disposed to favor them, because he permitted himself to be very readily influenced by Haman to decree their destruction. Darius II would hardly have fitted in this setup; he was well acquainted with the Jews and had favored them early in his reign, before the twelfth year thereof. Neither would Artaxerxes III, because he specially favored the Jews in his seventh year and again in his twentieth year. It must be that the Ahasuerus of the Esther account was Xerxes. To this most scholars agree, and the American Translation Bible and Moffatt’s translation even substitute Xerxes for Ahasuerus in the account.
When, then, did Xerxes reign? After the long reign of Darius II Xerxes began ruling, about 486 B.C. Historians generally say 485 B.C. As to the time of ending of his reign there is disagreement. Most encyclopedias say his reign extended to a twenty-first year, to 465 B.C., and that then Artaxerxes III ascended the throne. But the most accurate profane historian of those times, and who lived during the reign of Artaxerxes III, namely Thucydides, fixes, in the light of a chronology table by Diodorus, the end of Xerxes’ reign and the beginning of Artaxerxes’ rule at about the year 474 B.C. Actually, Xerxes reigned twelve full years and possibly started his thirteenth, from 486 to 474 B.C. The events of Esther extend from his third year through his twelfth, a period of about ten years.
-
-
LetterThe Watchtower—1950 | May 15
-
-
Letter
“ADDITIONAL ON BLOOD TRANSFUSION”
February 13, 1950
Dear Brother:
Answering your letter of January 24:
Of course, God’s prohibition against drinking the blood by Noah and his descendants applied only to the lower animals, because God authorized man to kill and eat the flesh of such animals. He did not authorize man to kill human creatures and to eat their flesh like cannibals, and therefore he did not have to state a law against drinking human blood or against having a blood transfusion from one human organism into another organism. (Genesis 9:1-6) If transfusion of human blood in the modern waya was not practiced back there in Noah’s day or in Moses’ day, there
-