Esther 2:20

Est 2:20 Esther had not [yet] shewed her kindred nor her people; as Mordecai had charged her: for Esther did the commandment of Mordecai, like as when she was brought up with him.

Ver. 20. Esther had not yet shewed her kindred] Taciturnity is sometimes a virtue, and Tacitus the best historian. Queen Elizabeth’s motto was, Video, taceo, I see, and say nothing. Sophocles saith, nothing better becometh a woman than silence. Euripides also saith, that silence, and modesty, and keeping at home, are the greatest commendation to a woman that can be. Curtius telleth us, that the Persians never trust one whom they find to be talkative, Cui tacere grave sit (Curt. 1. 4). Why Esther concealed her kindred, see the note, {See Trapp on "Est 2:11"}, and know that this is no warrant for Popish equivocation; a device of the Jesuits, for the comfort of afflicted Catholics (as Blackwell and Garnet profess), and for the instruction of all the godly.

For Esther did the commandment of Mordecai] Her honours had not altered her manners. She was semper eadem, always the same, as obsequious and observant of Mordecai still as ever. So was Joseph, David, Solomon, Epaminondas, and others, of their old and poorer parents. Pope Benedict, a Lombard, A.D. 1303, a shepherd’s son, would not acknowledge his poor mother when she came to him lady like, but caused her to put on her shepherdess apparel, and then did her all the honour that might be. Sir Thomas Moore would in Westminster Hall beg his father’s blessing on his knees. Mordecai was Esther’s foster father, and had given her, though not her being, yet her well being; and hence she so respects him, and is so ruled by him. She had gotten from him that nurture and admonition in the Lord that was better to her than the crown of the kingdom; for what is unsanctified greatness but eminent dishonour? and what is dignitas in indigno but ornamentum in luto? (Salvian). If any parents find disobedient children, let them consider whether, Eli-like, they have not honoured (I mean cockered) their sons too much, 1Sa 2:29, which is the reason they honour them now so little. Will they keep meat well savoured, yet never salt it? will they have sprigs sprout right, yet never lop them? Our Henry II so cockered his eldest son, Henry, that he crowned him while himself was yet alive, which made his ambition quite turn off his obedience, to his father’s great heart break.

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.

Est_2:20

For Esther did the commandment of Mordecai, like as when she was brought up with him.

Repaying parental kindness

Then I would say that there is a lesson here for the young. How can they repay in any measure--for fully they can never repay--the tenderness of their godly parents to them in their youth, and the anxiety which has been felt on their account as they advanced toward maturity? In one way only--by endeavouring to pursue the path which leads to present respectability and usefulness, and which Christ in His Word has marked out as that which His disciples must tread. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Est 2:20. Esther did the commandment of Mordecai, &c. — A rare example of virtue, that she should be so observant of him when she was a queen: for most persons forget what they were when they are unexpectedly advanced to great honour, dignity, or riches.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:20 keep her family background and nationality a secret: That this is mentioned twice (see also 2:10) indicates how important it was for the rest of the story. • With humility, she was still following Mordecai’s directions. She did not become conceited and forget her people or the family that raised her.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(20) Esther had not yet . . .—Perhaps this verse is added to meet the supposition that the king wished to replace Esther through finding out her nation.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. Esther had not yet shewed etc.] In the East, when persons rise in rank, it is expected that their relatives will rise with them. But the connexion between Esther and Mordecai had not been disclosed, the queen having been faithful in carrying out the direction of her foster-father to that effect. There is no great improbability of a secret of this sort having been kept under the circumstances of the story.

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.

Esther had not showed her kindred nor her people, as Mordecai had charged her,.... As not before, so neither since she was made queen, see Est 2:10, though, according to the Targums, she was urged to it by the king himself:

for Esther did the commandment of Mordecai, like as when she was brought up with him: which showed great humility in her, notwithstanding her advancement, great respect to him, and a sense of gratitude for the kindness he had shown; and this charge to her was still continued by Mordecai, partly that she might not fall into contempt, and partly to prevent hatred and envy to the Jewish nation, through her promotion; but chiefly so it was ordered in Providence, the proper time being not yet come.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Commandment. No one interrogated her, as she had been educated as Susa, and was taken for a Persian lady, ver. 10. (Menochius)

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).

20. Esther had not… showed — This verse should be regarded as a parenthesis, and is designed, as a circumstantial clause, to show that Esther was obedient to Mordecai as much after she became queen as before. It also shows that this second collection of virgins sprang from no prejudice against Esther as a Jewess.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Esther had not yet showed, etc. This is inserted to account for the humble position still occupied by Mordecai. In the East a person"s relations usually rise with him; and the reader would naturally expect that when Esther was once queen, Mordecai would have become rich and great. Esther"s silence accounts for Mordecai"s low estate; Mordecai"s command (see ver. 10) accounts for Esther"s silence. For Esther did the commandment of Mordecai. The royal dignity did not change Esther"s heart. She was still the dutiful child she had been so many years. Mordecai had forbidden her to tell her kindred; he had not removed his prohibition, so she had kept silence.

Ver. 20.

Filial obedience.

Esther was an adopted child. Her debt to Mordecai was very great, for nurture, care, training, and affection. And she was not forgetful of her obligation; she gladly repaid the solicitude of her cousin by her gratitude, reverential regard, and filial obedience. The habit of obedience continued in after life. As far as was consistent with the higher relation of married life, she maintained her grateful and affectionate subjection to her kinsman. If this was right and just, how evidently is it a duty for children carefully to display and exercise the virtue of filial obedience.

I THE HABIT OF FILIAL OBEDIENCE SHOULD BE FORMED EARLY. It is of very little use for a parent to begin to exercise authority, to require obedience, in after life. If the child has not from its infancy been accustomed to obey, it is highly improbable that the habit will be formed in youth.

"Tis education forms the youthful mind; Just as the twig is bent, the tree"s inclined.

There is reason to fear that in our days more children are ruined by indulgence than by harshness; multitudes by the foolish alternation of the two opposite and equally pernicious modes of treatment. If early formed, the habit of obedience will "grow with the child"s growth, and strengthen with his strength.

II THE DEMANDS UPON FILIAL DUTY SHOULD BE REASONABLE. There was occasion for the admonition, "Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath." Capricious and arbitrary requirements are destructive of all respect, and will only secure compliance whilst there is no power to withhold it. Little children cannot always understand the reason for parental injunctions and prohibitions. But it is wise, as children grow up, to show them the justice and expediency of household regulations, etc. Tyranny on the part of the parent is likely to awaken resentment or to foster deceit on the part of the child.

III AFFECTION AND GRATITUDE WILL MAKE OBEDIENCE EASY AND DELIGHTFUL. There may be a stage in a child"s education when compulsion is necessary and proper; but, generally speaking, the appeal must be that of love to love. A parent"s will is a child"s law where the parent is wise and the child is grateful and affectionate.

IV THE REVERENCE AND OBEDIENCE OF CHILDREN SHOULD, WITHIN LIMITS, BE CONTINUED IN MATURER LIFE. A wife"s obligations are primarily towards her husband. Still there is force in the English proverb, "A daughter"s a daughter all her life." Still she will not forget her father"s house, her mother"s love. God"s blessing ever rests upon this beautiful virtue of filial love and obedience. This was expressed in the commandment with promise, "Honour thy father," etc.

HOMILIES BY D. ROWLANDS Ver. 20.

Worldly policy.

A superficial view might lead to an unqualified admiration of Esther and Mordecai, the principal characters in the scene before us. And not without reason, for they exemplify in their conduct some of the nobler qualities of human nature. With regard to Esther, note

1. That she remembered in her prosperity the associations of the past. This did credit both to her head and to her heart; it evinced her sound sense as well as her humble-mindedness. It is pitiable to witness sometimes the way in which those who have risen in the world forget their lowly origin; they look down with contempt upon those who are still in the position which they themselves once occupied; and nothing wounds their pride more keenly than the slightest allusion to the home of their childhood. But such a miserable display of weakness only degrades them in the estimation of all right-minded men. Esther was very different from this. Amidst the splendours of the royal palace she could not forget her former obscure lot. And this must have been an ennobling power in her soul, elevating her above the corrupt influences of a profligate court.

2. That she showed gratitude to the man who had befriended her in adversity. She had been left a helpless orphan; and must have been thrown upon the mercy of a heartless world, had it not been for the timely succour of her generous kinsman. But there are natures upon whom such services make no lasting impression. They are altogether absorbed in self. Affluence, luxury, ease, harden their hearts, and make them utterly insensible even to the claims of gratitude. But Mordecai"s kindness to Esther embraced her entire being; it pervaded all the motives which fashioned her life. Whenever She hesitated how to act, she would put to herself the question, "What would Mordecai advise?" and upon the answer would depend her course of conduct. And this is the highest style of affection, which issues in obedience, self-renunciation, submission to another"s will. With regard to Mordecai, note

3. That he had made the greatest sacrifice for the sake of another. He must have loved Esther deeply, tenderly, devotedly. And no wonder. Her beautiful form, and still more beautiful soul, could not have developed themselves beneath his eye without stealing away his heart. But when the grand prospect of her being raised to the throne presented itself, he hesitated not to give her up. So far we are constrained to admire. But deeper reflection makes us pause. In this most important juncture they seem to have been too completely actuated by mere POLICY. That success crowned their efforts is no excuse for their conduct. On the same ground you might justify some of the most hideous stratagems ever devised by depraved ingenuity. Never let the dazzling glare of the prosperity sometimes attendant upon false moves make us blind to the beauty of eternal principles. Nor can they be excused on the ground that they were carrying out the designs of Providence. For in the same manner you might justify the conduct of Joseph"s brethren in selling their brother, and even the conduct of the Jews in crucifying the Saviour. What is POLICY? It is the substitution of the expedient for the right. It is the spirit which constantly asks, What will best promote our own interests? instead of asking, What will best satisfy the immutable claims of justice, truth, and honour? Observe

I THAT POLICY HAS A WORLDLY AIM. What is worldliness? An inordinate love of the present, the sensual, the temporal, with corresponding" neglect of the future, the spiritual, the eternal. Any line of conduct that is prompted by this temper of the heart must be accounted worldly. Esther had set her mind upon the crown, and Mordecai supported her ambitious views. From a heathen standpoint it was a glorious prize, but to a Jew it was a forbidden acquisition. Probably they contrived to conceal from themselves their real aim by investing it with fictitious attributes.

1. Esther might have desired to elevate the religious tone of the court bygradually making known the God of Israel.

2. Mordecai might have hoped to serve his nation by placing at the seat ofpower one who would be willing to help them in time of need. But wrong can never be right. We may glorify it with fine names, forgetting that a change of name does not necessarily imply a change of nature. Let us consider how policy affects men"s conduct in politics, in religion, and in private life.

(1) In politics. Wars are sometimes undertaken, with the professed aim of extending to benighted races the blessings of civilisation and Christianity, whose real object may be to flatter national vanity, and satisfy the greed of rulers. Thus base acts acquire a dignity from the halo cast around them by high-sounding names.

(2) In religion. Men will contend for the success of a religious party, with whose prosperity their own honour is bound up, under the mistaken notion that they are fighting the battles of religion itself. Like the idol-makers who defended the faith of their ancestors by crying out, "Great is the Diana of the Ephesians," while they thought of nothing so much as the gains of their own craft.

(3) In private life. Think of illegitimate trades. They are engaged in simply because they happen to be lucrative. A man opens a gin palace, and finds that his coffers are rapidly filling with gold. To allay any qualms of conscience which may occasionally disturb his peace, tie pictures to himself the vast power for good which an accumulated fortune may place at his command; but in his heart of hearts he really worships wealth.

II POLICY STOOPS TO QUESTIONABLE MEANS. Granted that the crown which Esther sought to secure was a lawful object of an Israelite"s desire, how did she endeavour to accomplish her purpose?

1. By contracting an alliance with a heathen monarch, which the Jews, asGod"s chosen people, were expressly forbidden to do.

2. By becoming that monarch"s concubine before she became his wife. Theloose notions in reference to this amidst which she had been educated may explain her conduct, but cannot justify it. It may also be urged that she had no option in the matter, that the monarch"s will would brook no opposition, that disobedience might bring death. The only reply is that death is better than dishonour.

3. By having recourse to duplicity. She never made known her people, forfear it might interfere with her chance of promotion. In all this it is evident that Esther and Mordecai, her adviser, too had thought more of what was expedient than what was right. Note

(1) That the conduct of good people, even in the most important transactions, are not always to be imitated. Not only in small matters, but also in great matters, are they liable to err. Precedent is a poor standard to appeal to, for it may mislead us when the most momentous principles are at stake.

(2) That true heroism, consists in doing right, irrespective of the consequences. This heroism has its type in Daniel rather than in Esther; in Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego rather than in Mordecai. If you want to see the highest heroism, you need not gaze upon the battle-field, where men, through the maddening excitement of the conflict, defy death at the cannon"s mouth, for there it cannot be found. Rather let your wondering eyes be directed to the martyr dying at the stake, to the pioneer of truth braving the scorn of the world, to the patient worker for the common good who toils in obscurity, and seeks no higher reward than the approval of his own conscience. R.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Esther would not tell her lineage because Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate; he was encouraging her and hinting to her about it.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.