Reading Mordecai in the Shadow of Saul: Intertextuality and Shared Motifs Between the Books of Samuel and Esther

Scholars have recognized the fecundity of intertextual relationships between the books of Esther and Samuel. David Zucker, for instance, perceives that Esther’s character resonates with Abigail in Samuel and Esther.¹ Through her actions, Abigail successfully calms an angry David, just as Esther neutralizes the bent-on-revenge Haman. Meanwhile, David Firth notes that the expression merry with wine that is used by King Ahasuerus (Est. 1:10; 5:9) is also used to describe Nabal and Ammon signalling their downfall (I Sam. 25:36; II Sam. 13:28).² Yitzhak Berger draws attention to the similarities between Esther’s rise to power and the report of Saul’s rise to kingship.³ He also describes the connections between the stories of Saul, David, and Esther, particularly with the hanging of Haman’s ten sons and David’s killing of ten Saulides (II Sam. 21:8-9).⁴ Further, he shows the literary patterning between the stories of Saul, Nabal, and Esther.⁵

The relationship between Mordecai and Saul is principally contrastive. Scholars agree that the narrator of the Masoretic text of Esther is trying to establish Mordecai as an antithesis of King Saul.⁶ While Saul is depicted as a disobedient king who falls from grace, Mordecai is presented as a faithful leader who rises to power. In order to establish such a premise, scholars point out that Mordecai’s genealogy (2:5) is reminiscent of the introduction of Saul in I Samuel 9:1.⁷ Saul’s father and Mordecai’s great-grandfather are named Kish; both men are also from the tribe of Benjamin. Shimei is not only the name of Mordecai’s grandfather but also a member of Saul’s clan, an opponent of David (II Sam. 16:5-13; 19:16-23; I Kgs. 2:36-46).⁸ Moreover, the Masoretic text reinforces the parallelism between Mordecai and Saul by mentioning that Haman is identified as an Agagite (Est. 3:1).⁹ While Mordecai destroys Haman and his family, Saul spares Agag’s life in I Samuel 15.¹⁰

This article contends that the contrast between Saul and Mordecai is not confined to the above observations. Through an analysis of how the motifs of clothing and food are utilized within the two books, this study argues that Mordecai is a leader, unlike Saul. How are these two literary devices used to portray Mordecai vis-à-vis Saul? In order to answer this question, we will turn first to the use of the sartorial motif in the books of Samuel and Esther.

The Motif of Clothing in Samuel and Esther

Clothes have a symbolic function in the Hebrew Bible.¹¹ The gesture of spreading one’s garment over another person, as in Ruth 3:9 and Ezekiel 16:8, is often considered an extension of authority and personal responsibility over the other party.¹² Meanwhile, the removal of a shoe, as in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and Ruth 4:7-8, is perceived as a symbolic gesture representing a rejection or denial of responsibility.¹³ Similarly, clothing plays a vital role in the Saul narrative. First Samuel 15 is particularly significant because Saul is explicitly disqualified as the king of Israel. In his desperate attempt to grasp for the power, Saul reaches out to grab hold of the hem of the cloak of the prophet Samuel (I Sam. 15:27). Samuel’s cloak symbolizes his calling, power, and identity. It is mentioned at three critical junctures of the prophet’s career: Samuel’s mother, Hannah, gives it to him as he begins his calling in the Tabernacle (I Sam. 2:19). In I Samuel 28:14, Saul uses the cloak to recognize the prophet at Endor. Here in I Samuel 15:28, when Saul rips the hem of Samuel’s garment, Samuel proclaims, the Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou. For Samuel, the tearing of the cloak is symbolic, such that Saul’s grasp of power will be torn apart, and it will be given to a neighbor.

The sartorial reference also occupies a sublime place in the book of Esther. Twelve passages in the book mention cloth or clothing.¹⁴ The first mention of Mordecai’s clothing occurs in 4:1-4, following the edict that all of the Jews be destroyed. When Mordecai learns that the king wants to tear apart his people, he tears his clothes. Then, he puts on sackcloth (saq) and ashes (4:1), acts often associated with mourning and distress.¹⁵ The term saq is repeated four times in these four verses (4:1-4), signifying the depths of Mordecai’s despair over the direness of the situation. Unlike Saul, whose concern is his honor, Mordecai focuses on his people’s fate.

Another feature of the clothing motif in Samuel and Esther is the movement of clothing between characters. Throughout his career, Saul discards his clothing (I Sam. 17:38-39; 19:4; 24:4; 31:9). Meanwhile, David, in his rise to power, receives clothing (I Sam. 17:38-39; 18:4). In I Samuel 17, when David meets Saul for the first time, he offers to fight Goliath, Saul not only offers David his armor, but the king personally dresses David in it. Despite Saul’s efforts, David rejects the armor, emphasizing that the protective gear is too big and bulky. David’s rejection also emphasizes that David will defeat Goliath not through Saul’s assets but with God’s help.¹⁶ As David becomes entrenched in Saul’s family, he develops a close relationship with Jonathan. In I Samuel 18:4, Jonathan removes the cloak that he is wearing, his princely regalia, and gives it to David. The garment transfer can be understood as Jonathan giving his right as the crown prince to David, foreshadowing the anticipated power transfer from Saul’s family to David.

Unwilling to accept God’s decision that God has given the office of kingship to David, Saul tries to kill David. In order to enable David to escape, Saul engages in prophetic ecstasy. During this period, when the spirit falls on Saul, he strips off his clothing and lies naked all that day and all that night (I Sam. 19:24). Refusing to let David go, the chase continues, and in I Samuel 24, the two antagonists end up in a cave. While Saul goes into the cave to relieve himself, David cuts off a corner of the hem of Saul’s robe. Though David claims he has no designs to kill Saul, the symbolic meaning is unmistakable. David can take over Saul’s kingdom and life if he chooses.

On the final night of Saul’s life, he puts aside his royal regalia. He dons the clothes of a commoner in order to visit the witch at Endor incognito (I Sam. 28:8). Saul’s laying aside of his royal accoutrements is highly symbolic as he surrenders his kingship before walking into the night (v. 8). Two days later, as Saul lies dead on the battlefield, I Samuel 31:9 informs us that the Philistines come to strip Saul of his armor. Not only is the king’s clothing removed from him in death, but an Amalekite brings Saul’s symbols of power (his crown and armlet) to David (II Sam. 1:10). It is clear that throughout Samuel, clothing is used to symbolize the rise of David and the fall of Saul.¹⁷

The transfer of clothing is also present in Esther. When Esther’s attendants learn that her cousin Mordecai is dressed in sackcloth and ashes, she sent raiment to clothe Mordecai (Est. 4:4). Michael Fox believes that Esther does not want Mordecai to embarrass her with his outfit.¹⁸ David Clines and Frederic Bush believe that Esther is eager to learn the reason behind her cousin’s and people’s distress.¹⁹ Since sackcloth may not be appropriate attire to enter the palace, an alternative set of garments is delivered to Mordecai. Regardless of the reason, Mordecai rejects the offer, a decision that recalls how David refuses to be clothed by Saul. As Saul’s armory cannot help David win his battle against Goliath, the queen’s set of clothing will not be able to relieve Mordecai and the Jews from their mourning and angst.

More vestimentary exchanges occur when Haman advises the king on how the monarch can honor a man the king esteems. The verb dressed occurs three times in Esther 6:6-11; here, Haman hopes that the king would dress the candidate with a robe or robes (levush). What makes this dressing-up session unique is not so much the actual garments themselves, but that the honoree will be donned in royal apparel . . . which the king useth to wear (v. 7). Therefore, when Mordecai is the revealed laureate, he goes from one clothed in sackcloth to one being clothed and treated like the king.²⁰ Mordecai is depicted in stark contrast to Saul: while Saul loses more and more clothing as he pursues to secure his power, Mordecai is being robed with royal apparel. He even gets to ride on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaim before him: ‘Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honour.’ (Est. 6:9).

The final scene in which Mordecai’s clothing is mentioned is at 8:15: Haman has been hanged, and his estate has already been given to Esther. Mordecai is given the king’s signet; he also wrote the second edict on the king’s behalf. The narrator tells us that Mordecai is then dressed in royal robes of blue and white, with a great golden crown and a mantle of fine linen and purple, while the city of Susa shouted and rejoiced. Some words, such as blue, white, fine linen and purple, already appear in 1:6 to describe the décor of Ahasuerus’ palace.²¹ The phrase royal robes is already found 6:8. Two new terms, a great golden crown and a mantle, are introduced in 8:15. Moreover, Mordecai’s crown is also the same kind worn by David (II Sam. 12:30, I Chr. 20:2) and Solomon (Song of Songs 3:11).²² The point is clear: Mordecai’s clothing is over-the-top royal, symbolizing royal splendor, power, and authority.²³ The fact that Mordecai is paraded throughout the city in these prestigious clothes while the city rejoices further affirms that his status is widely celebrated and recognized. Mordecai’s fate is thus opposite to that of Saul’s. Not only does Saul die, but, in death, he is also stripped of his armor and his dignity. Now, let us look at how the literary device of food functions in the two books.

The Motif of Food in Samuel and Esther

Food plays a critical role in the Saul narratives. The first king of Israel is chosen through a feast, during which Saul is given a particular portion of the thigh of consecration (I Sam. 9:23-24; cf. Gen. 43:34).²³ This initial designation is followed by the gift of two loaves of bread (I Sam. 10:4). Shortly after, Saul is proclaimed as king; this is celebrated with a feast (11:15). As Saul secures the throne with food, he also loses his kingly grasp via food.

First Samuel 15 begins with God’s command to Saul to attack the Amalekites. The command of the Lord is clear: Saul is to keep Amalek “separate” by placing the Amalekites under the harem (“ban”) (v.3). The reasoning of this commandment goes back to Exodus 17:14 when the Amalekites attacked Israel; therefore, God’s command to wipe off the Amalekites and their properties is a form of punishment or revenge. The Hebrew text of verse one reads, Listen to the sound of the words of the Lord. The verb to listen (shema) appears eight times in the chapter (vv. 1, 4, 14, 19, 20, 22 [2x], and 24). In direct proportion to the verb to listen, the root “harem” (“ban”) is also repeated eight times (vv. 3, 8, 9 [2x], 15, 18, 20 and 21).²⁴ Despite the numerous explicit instructions to listen, Saul chooses not to obey. According to v. 9, Saul and the Israelites spare (yachmol) Agag when Saul is told in v. 3 not to spare (lo’ tachmol). Agag is not alone in being spared; Saul’s men are also not willing to destroy the best of the spoils. Instead of destroying the animals, Saul and his men are accused of pouncing on the plunder (15:19), an action that is also found in 14:32.²⁵ In 14:32, the people pounce on the plunder by butchering the sheep, cattle, and calves before feasting on them. Instead of fasting and offering all the animals to God, Saul and his cohorts feast on the food.

When Saul fails to keep the law of harem, Samuel compares the rebellion to the sin of divination (I Sam. 15:23). Saul actually commits the sin of divination in 1 Samuel 28. The theme of food returns in I Samuel 14 and 28, where a fast is observed in both accounts. In the former passage, Saul sets a taboo for his soldiers, such that anyone who eats food before evening comes is cursed (I Sam. 14:21). J. P. Fokkelman rightly questions Saul’s logic when he writes, “a general who withholds food from his army during the battle is not quite right in the head.”²⁶ Surprisingly, the fast is broken by none other than the king’s son, Jonathan, who blames his father for making trouble for the country (I Sam. 14:29). In Jonathan’s view, his father’s imposed fast only retarded the victory of the Israelites on the battlefield (v. 30).

Similarly, in I Samuel 28:20, we are told that Saul had eaten nothing all that day and all that night. In the face of the impending attack of the Philistine army, Saul is fasting because of his frustrated efforts to hear from God, who is not answering by dreams or Urim or prophets (v. 6).²⁷ In desperation, Saul and two of his men seek the help of a necromancer. As Jonathan breaks the fast in chapter 14, here the medium repeats the same action by trying to rejuvenate a famished Saul with the offer of food. Many scholars perceive this as a gesture of kindness; Susan Pigott suggests that “because she is introduced as a ‘witch,’ the reader expects to view her negatively. Ironically (and humorously), the narrator portrays her positively.”²⁸ Fokkelman concurs, describing the medium’s food offer as an act of a “woman’s motherly care.”²⁹

Despite the offer of food, the witch does not help Saul.³⁰ The king comes to the woman out of fear (I Sam. 28:5). By the end of the chapter, the problem of fear is not only not eradicated but has worsened as Saul falls prostrate on the ground, gripped by fear because of the words of Samuel. Though the food the witch offers is supposed to help Saul have strength so that he may goest on thy way (v. 22), there is no indication that Saul or his men are rejuvenated.³¹ Instead, the chapter closes with Saul and his comrades walking into the darkness to their graves.

The chapter closes with another feast: here, the necromancer killed (zabach) a fattened calf before making some bread for Saul and his associates to partake (v. 24). Jacob Milgrom believes that the word zabach needs to be translated as “slaughtered for sacrifice.”³² Of the 129 uses of the word zabach in the Hebrew Bible, 127 times it refers to “cultic ritual slaughter.”³³ This means that the meal the diviner offers Saul is not simply a motherly gesture of hospitability but a ritual meal. In the Hebrew Bible, a meal is often shared after an agreement, showing that it is now sealed.³⁴ In Genesis 31:51–54, when Laban and Jacob come to a truce, they solemnize their pact with the breaking of bread. Isaac offers a meal after a pact of non-aggression has been sealed with Avimelech (Gen. 26:26-33). Regarding the meal that follows Samuel’s denunciatory speech in I Samuel 28:16-19, in that God has removed the kingdom from Saul’s hand and that he and his sons will meet their demise, the meal validates Samuel’s words. Therefore, food, in terms of fasting and feasting, functions negatively to seal Saul and his fate in consigning them to their graves.

Food, especially fasting and feasting, also dominates Esther. As Jon Levenson avers, the Masoretic text of Esther is structured around the book’s ten banquets.³⁵ The Hebrew word mishteh, often translated as “feast” or “banquet,” occurs 20 times in Esther and only 24 times in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.³⁶ Meanwhile, the word tsom (“fasting”) appears four times in the scroll.³⁷ Recalling how God singles out the Amalekites with the command to annihilate them, Haman’s edict in Esther 3:13 is to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the Jews. When Mordecai is informed of the tragic news, he and the Jews begin to fast, lament, and mourn. Unlike Saul, who refuses to separate the Amalekites by sparing Agag and the best of their spoils, Mordecai’s fast distinguishes between the Jews and the Persians.

The construction of the Jews as a people who fast is further compounded in Esther 4:12-17.³⁸ Mordecai instructs Hathach to tell Esther about the edict and to take a copy to show her. Here Esther instructs Mordecai to gather all the Jews together, and she declares a fast for three nights and days (4:16). Esther and her maids also hold a fast while Esther seeks to petition the king (4:16).[^40] After having fasted, Esther risks her life to save her people. While the fast in I Samuel 14 impedes the success of the Israelites on the battleground and refraining from food in I Samuel 28 does not alleviate Saul’s fears, Esther and Mordecai’s fasts lead to Esther risking her own safety to save her people from destruction. While Saul spares Agag, leading to him being disqualified as king, Mordecai and Esther’s efforts not only destroyed Haman (the Agagite), but Mordecai is now treated like a king, dressed in the monarch’s regalia (8:19). While food functions in a negative way in the Saul narrative, here it plays a positive role in distinguishing the Jews from the Persians. Food, especially the notion of feasting and fasting, also plays a role in reversing the plot, propelling Esther to save her people. The book ends with the triumph of the Jews feasting together at Purim.

Conclusion

Over the years, many scholars have observed the intertextual relationships between the books of Esther and Samuel. This article further develops this connection by arguing that Mordecai is a true leader, unlike King Saul. While Saul is depicted as a disobedient king who falls from grace, Mordecai is presented as a faithful leader who rises to power. This thesis is developed by examining how the motifs of clothing and food are used in both books. In Samuel, Saul’s fall from grace is signalled by the loss of his clothing. In Esther, the book starts with sackcloth and ashes donned by Mordecai, ending with a triumphant “kingly” leader dressed in the king’s clothes.

Regarding the motif of food, Saul’s downfall commences with his mishandling of food. Instead of using food to single out the Amalekites for destruction, Saul spares Agag and the best of the spoils. Food, particularly fasting and feasting, affirms God’s rejection of him in Saul’s visit to the necromancer in I Samuel 28. In Esther, despite the Jews being singled out for destruction, food, particularly fasting, is used to distinguish the Jews from the Persians. While Saul’s fast and feasting only confirms God’s rejection of him as king, Mordecai and Esther’s fasts reverse the narrative’s plot, leading to the salvation of the Jews. Mordecai’s success is then celebrated when he is treated like royalty, dressed in the king’s clothing, and then the Jews feast together at Purim; thereby drawing the two literary devices together.

The author wishes to thank his parents, Robert and Siew Hiong Yap, and his brother, Terence Yap, for their prayers, and his friends, Paul Himes, Samuel Lin, Isaac Tjung and Joel Chong, for their encouragement.