Allusions to the Jacob-Esau Story in the Book of Esther

The situation in Judea during the early years of the second temple was difficult, both economically and politically.¹ These difficulties precipitated a theological crisis as well, as the previous destruction of God’s temple and the wholesale exile may have been viewed as evidence for God’s rejection of His people. This theological crisis was addressed by prophets both before and after the destruction, assuring the people that God will not, and had not, abandoned them. In this paper I will attempt to demonstrate that the Book of Esther² was written with a similar purpose in mind: by use of allusions to the well-known story of Jacob and Esau, the author of Esther attempted to persuade these Jews that they are still God’s chosen people.

Given the age-old rivalry between the people of Jacob and the people of Esau, post-exilic Jews may have assumed that God had chosen Edom in place of Israel. Elie Assis writes that:

“Judea contended with self-identity in the early Persian period. The question debated was whether Judea was God’s chosen people after the serious blows inflicted on them by God. Did the fact that God had exiled Israel from their land, had destroyed His Temple, had mortally stricken the religious and political institutions, mean that God had abandoned His people or not? One of strongest pieces of evidence for these fears was the Edomite colonization of Judea. Edom, Jacob’s twin brother, was considered an alternative to Israel.”³

Throughout the Bible, the Jewish nation is continually referred to as the descendants of Jacob,⁴ while the Edomites – who are often the generic enemy – are traced back to their forefather Esau. The twin brothers of the Genesis stories are perceived by scholars “not simply as individuals, but as prototypes of the nations: Edom and Israel.”⁵ The strained relationship between Jacob and Esau, which started even before their birth,⁶ continued as a strife-ridden legacy handed down to their descendants throughout biblical history – and beyond. While God explicitly favors the descendants of Jacob (“Israel is my son, my firstborn,” Exodus 4:22), the descendants of Esau were singled out by the prophets in their oracles of doom.⁷ Scholars have attended to the remarkable vilification of Esau (as Edom) in these sources, and traced the animosity to the Edomites’ alleged role during the destruction of the first temple.⁸ One reason for this animosity may have stemmed from the just assumption that “Edom was expected to behave like a ‘brother,’ and did not. That may have been the reason for taking Edom’s conduct in 587 so seriously.”⁹ Recognizing this assumption, Second Temple prophets attempted to alleviate the nation’s fear, reassuring them that God had not forsaken His covenant, and that the Jews were still the chosen people.¹⁰

Many prophecies of consolation allude to the age-old rivalry between Jacob and Esau as well. These prophecies refer to the Jacob-Esau stories, in which the question “Who is the chosen one?” hovers in the background, and emphatically declare, even centuries later, that it is Jacob, not Esau. In Genesis, the fates of these two brothers (and their subsequent descendants) were presented as a zero-sum game: the rise of the one will necessarily correlate with the demise of the other.¹¹ This premise, of the never-ending rivalry between Jacob and Esau, is echoed both by First Temple prophets¹² and by those writing in post-exilic times.¹³ Thus we see that one of the ways in which post-exilic prophets endeavored to console the nation, giving them hope that they are still the chosen people, was through the use of the Jacob-Esau narrative. They stress that Esau’s downfall necessarily implies Jacob’s ascent, and by extension, this serves as further proof that God is still with them.

Jacob and Esau are not mentioned explicitly in Esther. The book addresses many issues, such as the legal status of women and minorities, assimilation, life in the diaspora and others. It is peppered with many intertextual allusions, not least among them both linguistic and thematic connections to the stories of Joseph and Daniel.¹⁴ I would like to explore the possibility that Esther, by alluding to the Jacob-Esau stories, addresses the main theological concern of post-exilic Jews as well: namely, whether they are still God’s chosen nation. I will point out linguistic and thematic connections between Esther and the Jacob-Esau story, and then describe the way in which this story of Jews in the Persian diaspora was designed to help alleviate the distress experienced by contemporary Jews in Judaea.

What Is an Allusion?

An allusion is a reference to figures or events from the past, where there is an assumption that the reader will recognize the source.¹⁵ Usually allusions come to enrich or explain the text; however, sometimes an author can use allusions in order to give an ironic twist to a narrative by creating a gap between the later text and the earlier one to which it alludes.¹⁶ Sommer adds that the later text can make tendentious use of the earlier one by “changing” it according to the later author’s agenda. In this way the general theme of the earlier text is maintained in the later text, but some “improvements” are added.¹⁷

This notion, wherein one biblical text tendentiously alters a previous one, can be illustrated with the following two verses:¹⁸

As I live, says the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck you from there (Jer. 22:24).

In that day, says the Lord of hosts, will I take you, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, says the Lord, and will make you as a signet ring: for I have chosen you, says the Lord of hosts (Hag. 2:23).

Both of these oracles use similar language, invoking the metaphor of the signet ring, but the first oracle is a negative one whereas the second exudes optimism. While Jeremiah delivered his oracle to the Judean king, prophesying the upcoming exile, Haggai spoke to a post-exilic audience, reassuring them of the continued reign of the Davidic line.

Kugel and Greer identify a typological reading of history, in which earlier events are viewed as patterns which tend to recur over time. They further claim that authors tended to identify contemporary people or groups with earlier figures, while viewing the earlier stories as anticipating the later ones.¹⁹ Esther is an ideal conduit for this type of historical reconstruction, as the lively narrative is one which enables the reader to identify with the existential anxieties portrayed in the story, an identification which ultimately leads to an optimistic hope that they (the readers) will have a “happy ending” as well.²⁰ In the following section I will list the ways in which the author of Esther made use of the Jacob-Esau narrative.

Of course, methodologically, similarity of language is not sufficient proof that one given text alludes to another. In order to claim a connection between two texts, there need be strong thematic ties as well, and the context must support the claim for allusion or intertextuality. In the end, it is up to the reader to decide whether the evidence presented suffices to validate this claim.

Comparing the Jacob-Esau Story to the Book of Esther

The renowned fairy-tale scholar Vladimir Propp recommended analyzing fairy-tales according to two dimensions: the characters involved and the narrative sequence. The Esther story is not a fairy tale, and has none of the narrative elements that Propp identified as typical for that genre. Therefore, we cannot make use of the importance of narrated sequence: when elements in one story appear in a different sequence from those in the other, this may not indicate an intentional deviation. Perhaps the deviation is intended to alert us to the author’s implied message, and perhaps not. Nonetheless, these two categories, characters and narrative sequence, are useful when searching for common elements in two disparate narratives.²¹ I will first compare the literary function of the characters in the two narratives, and then compare some of the narrative sequences.

The Characters

In each of the two narratives there are four major figures: two rivals, and two other characters who are hierarchically superior. In the Genesis story the rivals are Jacob and Esau, and the authority figures are Isaac and Rebekah; in Esther the rivals are Mordecai and Haman, and the authority figures are Ahasuerus and Esther.²²

Jacob / Mordecai. Both Jacob and Mordecai fill the role of the “hero” in their respective stories. Jacob is described as a “yošev ohalim” (Gen. 25:27), while Mordecai is described as “yošev bša’ar hamelekh” (Est. 2:21). Both these heroes are favored by the female authority figure in their stories (Rebekah/Esther), and dutifully heed these women’s directives in times of crisis (Gen. 27:8-14; Est. 4:15-17). Similar to Jacob/Israel functioning both as an individual and as a progenitor and symbol of the Jewish nation, Mordecai is consistently identified throughout his narrative by his nationality, as Mordecai “haYehudi.”

Esau / Haman. These characters represent the “villain.” Esau is said to have been his father’s favorite (Gen. 25:28), and Haman was likewise initially chosen by the king (Est. 3:1). While the nation descended from Esau is known throughout the Bible as Edom, Haman is consistently dubbed throughout Esther as “haAgagi.”²³ In both stories, this “villain” becomes enraged at the “hero” (Gen. 27:41-44; Est. 3:5), with a fury that leads to planned murder. Here, however, we encounter a difference: Esau planned to kill Jacob, the forefather and progenitor of the Jewish nation (Gen. 27:41); Haman’s murderous intent encompassed all the Jews throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus – the people of Mordecai (Est. 3:6).

Isaac / Ahasuerus. In both stories, the male authority figure is authorized to appoint a “chosen” one, but in both narratives the reader is led to doubt this figure’s competence. In the Genesis story Isaac is said to love Esau because of the food he brought home (Gen. 25:28), not an attribute usually considered laudable in the Bible; he is later described as blind and easily fooled by a doubtful disguise (Genesis 27); in the Esther story Ahasuerus is depicted as a capricious and foolish king, repeatedly manipulated by his advisors.

Rebekah / Esther. In both stories a slave or slaves is sent far away to search for an appropriate wife for the male authority figure. This potential bride is then subjected to a test (for Rebekah, a test of character; for Esther, a beauty contest), and both are described as beautiful virgins (Gen. 24:16; Est. 2:7). The lineage of these two women is detailed, in a manner uncharacteristic of other biblical females (Gen. 24:15; Est. 2:15), as is their reaction to the proposed match (Gen. 24:58; Est. 2:8). These are the female authority figures, whose role in the narrative is to persuade the male authority figure to transfer his preference from the “villain” (his original choice) to the “hero” (her preference throughout).

God. God is notoriously absent from the Esther story; He is curiously missing from the Jacob/Esau narrative as well.²⁴

The Narrative Sequences

There are several thematic similarities between the Jacob-Esau narrative and that of Esther. In some cases the analogy is direct, and in others the Esther narrative subtly alters the earlier narrative. This allows the author of Esther both to create the allusion to the Genesis story, and to tendentiously amend some of the details in order to create the “happy ending” which the post-exilic readers so desperately needed to hear. I will list the main sequences in the Jacob-Esau narrative, and then compare them to the parallel sequences in the Book of Esther.

There is a zero-sum struggle for supremacy between the two protagonists. Both in the prenatal oracle (Gen. 25:23) and in the blessings conferred by Isaac upon his two sons (Gen. 27:29, 40) the subsequent relationship between the two men (and their descendants) is presented as decidedly antagonistic. Indeed, as discussed above, the rise of one is necessarily contingent upon the demise of the other. This depiction is mirrored in the book’s chiastic structure, where the fortunes of the one in the first half of the story are overturned in the second half, allowing contemporary readers to hope for a similar destiny.²⁵

Isaac blesses Jacob, believing him to be Esau; Esau enters and discovers the deception. This is the turning point of the story. Up until now, Esau was the intended recipient of Isaac’s blessing; now the tables are turned. The blessing Isaac confers upon Jacob includes supremacy over his brother as well as material wealth (Gen. 27:28-9). In Esther, the turning point occurs in chapter 6.²⁶ Upon discovering that Mordecai had saved his life, Ahasuerus decides to reward him. At exactly that moment, Haman enters, and upon hearing the king’s plan to reward a favorite subject, proposes a reward that would include both fame and prestige, assuming himself the intended recipient of this prize. Instead, shocked, he hears that it is to benefit his bitter enemy.

As a result, Esau plans to kill his brother, designating a date for the murder. In both stories, the “hero” gains no immediate advantage upon getting the father’s blessing or king’s reward. Quite the opposite; he becomes the target of the “villain’s” murderous intent. Both Esau²⁷ and Haman²⁸ set a date for their revenge. In Esau’s case, the date is set for after his father’s death, out of respect for his father. That is when the issue of inheritance becomes important: once Isaac is no longer alive, the rivalry between Jacob and Esau has tangible implications, and Esau needs to remove his competitor for the role of Isaac’s successor. In Haman’s case, he not only plans revenge against Mordecai, but against the entire Jewish people, wherever they may be.

However, the author of Esther subtly changed the order of events. In the Jacob story Esau decides to kill his brother after his blessing was stolen, compelling Jacob to run away until Esau’s wrath dissipates. In contrast, in Esther, Haman had decided to kill Mordecai and his people before the “stolen” reward. Indeed, after the horse incident, Haman is said to have returned home in mourning, only to be told by his loved ones that “If Mordecai be of the descendants of the Jews, before whom you have begun to fall, you shall not prevail against him, but shall surely fall before him.”²⁹

By altering both the order of events and the subsequent outcome, the author of Esther subverts the expected result. Where the audience might cringe at Haman’s downfall in chapter 6, expecting Haman’s murderous revenge, they are surprised by the diametrically opposite result: the Edomite admits defeat, while Jacob’s descendants prevail. Haman’s loved ones’ prediction comes true not long after, when King Ahasuerus removes the signet of favor from Haman’s hand, and transfers it – with all of the power and authority it entails – to Mordecai.³⁰

Rebekah’s role: from tricking Isaac to advising Jacob to flee. Rebekah fulfills an important role in the Genesis story. Having received the oracle which proclaimed Jacob’s superiority, she assists Jacob in procuring Isaac’s blessing by deceit. When Jacob expresses apprehension at being discovered, Rebekah addresses this problem by reassuring him that she will be responsible for any negative outcome (Gen. 27:13), and then gives him clothes (Gen. 27:15-16). When she hears (Gen. 27:42) of Esau’s intended revenge, she urges Jacob to flee – and only then, for the first time, does she turn to her husband with a request (Gen. 27:46).

Esther plays the role of Rebekah in the Book of Esther.³¹ When she hears (Est. 4:4) of Mordecai’s mourning (following Haman’s decree against the Jews), she similarly provides him with clothes (Est. 4:4)³² and takes upon herself any negative outcome of approaching the king (Est. 4:16). This story, too, emphasizes the lack of communication between the male authority figure and his wife;³³ when Esther finally does turn to her husband, similar to Rebekah, it is with a request (Est. 5:4).³⁴

When Rebekah hears of Esau’s intentions, and in an effort to save her beloved son, she urges him to flee. He complies, resulting in years of exile and humiliation. Jacob flees eastward, raises a family and rebuilds his life; but all the while his is a downtrodden and demeaning existence, and he pines for home. The Jews of the early second temple period are familiar with this existence. Like Jacob, they lived a life of exile in the east; however, as opposed to Jacob, they were free to return to their land.

Once again, the author of Esther gently subverts the plot. When Esther tells Mordecai that she cannot help, Mordecai refuses her plea for passivity: “For if you altogether hold your peace at this time, then shall relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place.”³⁵ The solution is not to run away, but to face the danger; not to passively await destruction, but to actively determine their own destiny.

While the reader may have expected Mordecai to flee, the book’s message is clear: stay and fight for your lives. The nation’s salvation is not dependent upon Esther, for if she will not come forth, then deliverance will arise “from another place.” This conveys the message that the nation of Israel can withstand the current crisis. However, it adds an additional element. Deliverance will come, but there is need for action on the Jews’ part as well. Mordecai instructs Esther to go and plead for her nation.³⁶ Several scholars claim that the Jews were expected to take an active role in their salvation as well.³⁷ The Jew reading this story now knows that not only does he not need to flee in fear; instead, he is expected to actively take responsibility for his own fate.

Isaac, despite his initial preference, bestows the blessing upon Jacob. Who is the chosen son? Isaac prefers Esau, but Rebekah loves Jacob (Gen. 25:28). Isaac intends to bless Esau, but Rebekah causes Jacob to be the recipient of the blessing. At the beginning of the Esther story, Ahasuerus promotes Haman (Est. 3:1), while Esther was under Mordecai’s care (Est. 2:7). Echoing the zero-sum relationship oracle given to Rebekah (Gen. 25:23), the fortunes of the two protagonists in the second half of the Esther story are presented as a deliberate reversal of their fate in the first half. In the Jacob-Esau story Esau is given the hope that “it shall come to pass when you shall have the dominion, that you shall break his yoke from off your neck,”³⁸ a prediction which came true upon Jacob’s return from Haran.³⁹ With a sly wink to his readers, the author of Esther recounts that regarding Haman, “Mordecai bowed not, nor paid him homage.”⁴⁰

There is an additional motif which connects these two stories, encouraging the reader of Esther to keep the Jacob-Esau narrative in mind while reading the Esther story. While extensive descriptions of food are foreign to biblical narrative, they figure prominently in both stories, and food plays a key function in these two narratives.⁴¹

Linguistic Connections

Allusions to the Jacob-Esau story in the Book of Esther are based primarily on the characters and the plot sequences, as shown above. In addition, two linguistic formulations connect these two narratives. First, the use of the verb form vayivez occurs exclusively in these two stories (Gen. 25:34, Est. 3:6). In both, this verb is ascribed to the “villain” in the story, whose downfall could eventually be traced back to this “disdain.” Second, the entire phrase vayiz’aq ż’aqa gedola umara (Gen. 27:34) is repeated almost verbatim in Esther 4:1.⁴²

Jacob and Esau in the Aramaic Translations of Esther

Medieval literature, too, viewed Esther as a revised version of the Jacob-Esau story. We have two early editions of Aramaic translations⁴³ of Esther which provide us with additional ways to connect the two narratives.

These translations view Mordecai as a direct descendant of Jacob, and Haman as a descendant of Esau. In the long genealogical lists given for these two characters, Jacob is identified as the “firstborn,”⁴⁴ whereas Haman’s genealogy goes back to “. . . the son of ’Amaleq, the son of the concubine Eliphaz, who is the firstborn of Esau.”⁴⁵ Besides the strong connection between Mordecai/Haman and Jacob/Esau, the difference between the two descriptions is striking: whereas the “firstborn” in Jacob’s line is Jacob, that role was given to Eliphaz in the Esau line.

Some of the additions found in the Aramaic translations echo the Jacob-Esau story as well. For example, there is a story in which Mordecai and Haman were given provisions before a journey. Haman ate his and quickly became hungry. He asked Mordecai for some food, who consented, on condition that Haman sell himself to Mordecai as a slave; and Haman agreed.⁴⁶ Similar to the Genesis story, these two characters started off equal, but Haman eventually became subordinate to Mordecai following the barter of food for his freedom.

Another addition relates Haman’s monologue following the aforementioned sale. Here, the sale is an outcome of Mordecai’s refusal to lend money to Haman with interest, because Esau and Jacob were brothers. Therefore, Haman had to sell himself to Mordecai, a fate which he swore to bear a grudge forever – just like Esau bore a grudge to Jacob, following the sale of the birthright.⁴⁷

A third connection mentions how Haman taunts Mordecai, who refused to bow down to him, by recounting how Jacob bowed down before Esau. Mordecai replied that at the time that Jacob had bowed, Benjamin (Mordecai’s direct ancestor) had not yet been born, and had never bowed to any person. That is why, continues Mordecai, God allowed His temple to be built on Benjamin’s portion of the land, a place where all the nations will one day bow in obeisance.⁴⁸ This too would have been relevant for the Jews in Judea, who were in the process of rebuilding the temple, while wondering whether they are still the chosen ones. The first translation of Esther also connects these two events. In a supplement to the translation of Est. 3:1, describing how Haman (having sabotaged plans to rebuild the temple) seems to have the upper hand, God declares that He will take revenge on Haman in the future for all of the troubles he and his forefathers have caused the Jewish people throughout the ages.

Conclusion

In this paper I claimed that the Book of Esther is part of the wider phenomenon of post-exilic prophecies aimed at reassuring the Jews that they are still God’s chosen people. Many of these prophecies specifically refer to the Jacob-Esau story, emphasizing that Jacob is (and will remain) the chosen one. I have shown how allusions to the Jacob-Esau narrative in Esther not only connect Israel’s present plight with that of their eponymous ancestor, but that several subtle alterations from the original story which appear in Esther suggest a better ending to the original story.

Some evidence from later translations of Esther was brought to support this claim. Throughout the ages, from the first temple period onward, Jews (who regarded themselves as descendants of Jacob) viewed the people of Edom as potential competition for the “birthright” and God’s favor. Jewish literature, from biblical times onward, responded to this fear by utilizing the Jacob-Esau story and its variants in their rhetoric.