The Extent of Mordecai’s Power.

v. 1. And the King Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, a special tax exacted from all parts of his great empire, and upon the isles of the sea, as far as his influence extended.

v. 2. And all the acts of his power and of his might and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai whereunto the king advanced him, for the power of Mordecai grew with that of his sovereign, whose grand vizier, or prime minister, he was, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia? Any one desiring further information could find it in the public records.

v. 3. For Mordecai, the Jew, was next unto King Ahasuerus, a power next to the king in the empire, and great among the Jews, influential also among his own countrymen, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, occupying a representative position among them, seeking the wealth of his people and speaking peace to all his seed; for he always took care to have his position in the empire redound to the benefit of his people. It is the duty of all believers to seek the peace of the city, but, above all, that of their people, of the Church of Christ, whose welfare they should endeavor to promote also by means of their secular calling.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

CONCLUSION.THE GREATNESS OF AHASUERUS, AND OF MORDECAI UNDER HIM (Est 10:1-3.). The Book of Esther might have been expected to terminate with the institution of the Purim feast. All that has gone before is subordinate to this, and the reader would be satisfied, and require no more, if the book stopped at the end of Est 9:1-32. But the writer, perhaps from personal attachment to Mordecai, perhaps from mere patriotic pride in him, cannot bring himself to lay down the pen until he has put on record the full greatness of his hero, and the strength and support that he was to the Jews of his day. He has already told us that “this man Mordecai waxed greater and greater” (Est 9:4). He now expands this statement. The essence of Mordecai’s greatness consisted in his being “next unto king Ahasuerus” (Est 9:3), his chief minister and alter ego. Thus the greatness of Ahasuerus is involved in his. So the chapter commences with a few words of Ahasuerus’ greatness. It has already been noticed more than once (Est 1:1; Est 8:9) that he “ruled from India to Ethiopia, over an hundred and twenty-seven provinces.” It is now added that he “laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea” (ver 1). This mention of “laying a tribute’ was the chief reason why in former days so many writers, including Hooker, identified the Ahasuerus of this book with Darius, the son of Hystaspes. But it is not necessary to suppose that the first laying of a tribute on the provinces of the Persian empire is here intended; and Xerxes, after the Grecian expedition, which seriously altered the bounds of his dominions, may well have made a new assessment, in which the islands of the AEgean, or some of them, and certain other maritime tracts, were included. For the rest of Ahasuerus’ “power and his might,” the writer is content to refer his readers to “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia” (Est 9:2), which contained also an account of “the greatness of Mordecai, whereto the king advanced him.” This greatness forms the sole subject of the concluding verse, which declares Mordecai’s position

(1) with respect to the Persians”next to the king ;” and,

(2) with respect to the Jews”great among them,” “accepted,” and their protector and benefactor, “seeking their wealth,” or welfare, and “speaking peace,” or insuring tranquillity, to all the whole race or people.

Est 10:1

King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land. Darius, the son of Hystaspes, was the first to do this (Herod; 3.89); but, as the tribute had to be rearranged from time to time (ibid; 6.42), any subsequent Persian monarch who made a fresh arrangement might be said to “lay a tribute on the land.” Xerxes is not unlikely to have done so after his return from Greece, as he had lost portions of his territories. And on the islands of the sea. The Hebrew expression translated by “islands of the sea” includes maritime tracts. Xerxes by the Greek expedition lost the islands of the AEgean, but still held certain tracts upon the coast of Europe, which were occupied for a considerable time by Persian garrisons. These would necessarily be included in any assessment that he may have made, and it is even not unlikely that Xerxes would lay his assessment on the AEgean islands, though he might not be able to collect it.

Est 10:2

All the acts of his power and of his might. These are unknown to us. After the failure of the Grecian expedition Xerxes attempted nothing further on that side of his empire, and the Greeks consequently record nothing more concerning him. He may have made expeditions in other directions. But the chief evidences that we have of his activity point to his having sought to gratify his ambition and give vent to his .grand ideas by erecting magnificent buildings. The book of the chronicles. See Est 2:23; Est 6:1; Est 9:32. The kings of Media and Persia. It is indicative of the intimate connection of the two Iranian empires that one “book” contained the records of both. The fact of the connection is fully established by profane history. Its exact nature is not perhaps even yet fully understood. “Media” seems to be placed before “Persia” in this place on chronological grounds, because the Median history preceded the Persian history, and was therefore recorded first in the “book.”

Est 10:3

Next unto king Ahasuerus. Compare Gen 41:40; Dan 5:7; Dan 6:3. Profane history neither confirms this nor contradicts it. We know almost nothing of Xerxes from profane sources after his return to Susa in B.C. 479. Accepted of. Or, “beloved by.” The wealth of his people. i.e. their welfare. Speaking peace to all his seed. It is generally allowed that by “his seed”, we must understand those of the same stock with himself”the seed of Israel.” “Speaking peace” to them seems to mean “promoting their peace and safety”insuring them, so long as he lived and ruled, a quiet and peaceful existence.

HOMILETICS

Est 10:1

A king’s tribute and power.

Ahasuerus is certainly not brought before us in this book as a model king. He was careless of the lives of his subjects, indifferent to justice, callous to suffering, capricious in his likings, and fond of his own pleasure and ease. If Xerxes be the Ahasuerus of this book, it would be hard to light in history upon a character less worthy of respect. Yet he was, if not a great king, king of a great empirean embodiment of the idea of sovereignty and monarchy.

I. Observe THE CHARACTER OF HIS DOMINION. He levied taxes upon the land and upon the isles of the sea. He exercised power and might over his subjects. He was responsible to no earthly authority.

II. Observe THE EXTENT OF HIS DOMINION. Not only in this verse, but throughout the book, the vastness of the Persian empire and the might of the Persian sceptre appear as a great fact in the world’s history.

III. Observe THE LIMITS OF HIS POWER. The Most High ruled, as he ever does rule, and turned the heart of the subject king as he would. We feel that the moving power in the great transaction was Divine. Man rules, but God overrules.

IV. THE POWER OF AHASUERUS SUGGESTS THE AUTHORITY AND EMPIRE OF GOD HIMSELF. Not only by similitude, but also by contrast. This earthly king was defeated by the Greeks, despised by his subjects, assassinated by his servants, and his kingdom passed away to be no more seen. But “the Lord reigneth.” “His dominion is an everlasting dominion.” “Of his glory there is no end.” He demands the submission of our will and the tribute of our praise.

Est 9:4; Est 10:2

The greatness of Mordecai.

Before taking leave of this interesting and typical character, it may be well to review the elements of the greatness which, in these two passages, is so glowingly ascribed to him. Mordecai’s greatness was

1. A contrast to his former humiliation at the door of the palace,

2. A contrast to the ignominious death for which at one time he seemed destined,

3. A state for which his past sufferings and patience had probably, in a measure, prepared him.

4. Directly occasioned by his act of loyalty and faithfulness,

5. Occasioned by the discovery of Haman his enemy’s malice,

6. Concerted with the royalty of his relative, Esther.

7. The direct bestowment of the king, Ahasuerus.

8. Manifest in the palace,

9. Extending to all the provinces of the vast empire, where his fame was known and his power was felt.

10. Progressive, for he became greater and greater,

11. Exercised for the public good; in this respect a signal contrast to him he replaced,

12. Recorded in the chronicles of the Persian kingdom for the information of future generations,

13. Recorded and sanctified in a book of canonical Scripture for the instruction and encouragement of fidelity and piety throughout all time.

14. Permanently commemorated in the interesting Jewish festival of Purim.

Est 10:3

The wealth and peace of a people the patriot’s aim.

It is a fine description of the aim of Mordecai’s public life with which this book closes. What more could be said of the patriotic statesman in any kingdom than this: that he was ever found “seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed”?

I. WEALTH. Under this we include not simply riches, but welfare in every sense: prosperity, security, progress, happinessall that can truly enrich and bless a nation. Patriotism, observe, has regard to the people. It is no special class or interest that the true patriot seeks to benefit, but all his countrymen. Now, whilst this virtue does not take so wide a range as philanthropy, it is, like philanthropy, opposed to self-seeking. It is an expansive, liberal, generous, and withal practical attitude of mind. And this end is sought by personal effort, by the exercise of wisdom in the choice of means, and by diligence in their use.

II. PEACE. Under this must be included peace of heart, such as arises from a sense of justice and security of government; social peace, such as prevails where neighbours dwell in amity; political peace, or freedom from civil broils and tumults; general peace, or concord between different races and nations; universal peace, such as is destined, according to prophetic declarations, to pervade the whole earth. All these will be dear to the patriot’s heart, and he will use every endeavour to bring about these high and noble ends. Causes of disaffection and disunion and discord he will seek to remove, and he will do all that lies within his power to bring on the reign of righteousness, of liberty, of happiness, of concord. And in his endeavours the Christian patriot will be animated by the love and grace of the Divine Son of man, whose mission it was to bring “peace and good-will to men.”

HOMILIES BY W. DINWIDDLE

Est 10:1-3

Wisdom at the helm.

These concluding verses give a brief and comprehensive view of the results of Mordecai’s advancement to power. The influence of the great Jew soon made itself felt to the utmost boundaries of the wide empire.

I. A UNIVERSAL TAXING. The laying of “a tribute on the land and the isles of the sea” may seem very arbitrary, but it was probably in the manner of a notable reform. It is to be attributed to Mordecai, and is given as a special instance of his wisdom and power. Despots have many ways of extracting money from those whom they govern, but the only proper way of supporting government is through just and systematic taxation. If the satraps or governors of provinces send in abundant supplies, shahs and sultans are content; they pay no heed to the manner in which the supplies have been secured. From this cause corruption and oppression still abound in the East. Mordecai adopted a system of direct taxation which embraced the whole empire, and for this he succeeded in getting the king’s sanction. Let us remark

1. That tribute is necessary. Government cannot be efficiently maintained without adequate support; it is worth paying for.

2. Tribute should only be raised for necessary purposes; not for selfish indulgences or vainglorious conquests, but for the legitimate needs of the state.

3. Tribute should be equitable in its incidence. It should be borne by all, but at the same time it should exhibit a just regard to the varying conditions and abilities of citizens.

4. Tribute should be levied openly, and only through legally-appointed channels. Otherwise injustice and corruption are encouraged.

5. Tribute is most satisfactory when estimated and determined by a people themselves through appointed representatives. Self-government and self-taxation are in all respects better than an irresponsible despotism.

6. Tribute when just or necessary should always be cheerfully given. We have a duty to our rulers. The protection, freedom, and peace secured to us by a good government are cheaply purchased by a taxation that is equally levied on all.

7. Tribute is due to the heavenly King as well as to earthly monarchs and states. Whilst rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s, we should be careful to render to God what is God’s (Mat 22:21).

II. OTHER ACTS OF WISDOM AND GREATNESS. These are only noted, not described They were many and illustrious. But though our narrative passes by these acts with a simple allusion to them, it refers us for detailed and complete information to a good authority”are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?” No doubt the writer thought that archives of the great empire would outlive his little story.. But where now are they? Where is the empire itself? Where are other empires, greater and more brilliant, that succeeded it as the dominant world-power? All vanished, and their records with them! The only chronicle preserved of Mordecai’s doings is that given in the Book of Esther, and its preservation is owing to its having been bound up with the word of God to men. Let us learn

1. The evanescent character of all worldly things.

2. The indestructibility of God’s truth and kingdom (Mat 5:18; 1Pe 1:24, 1Pe 1:25).

III. A PLEASANT RECOGNITION OF HONEST AND HONOURABLE GREATNESS. Mordecai was powerful not only with the king and his heathen subjects, but with “the multitude of his own brethren” throughout the empire. His power, however, was not forced, or grudgingly acknowledged. He was “great among the Jews” because he was “accepted of,” or acceptable to them. All power that relies on force and exacts an unwilling submission is bad and precarious; that power only is legitimate and secure which is based on the confidence and affection of a willing people. Mordecai’s acceptableness with his brethren of Israel sprang from two things:

1. He sought their wealth. In other words, he studied their prosperity. All the laws of the empire were so framed as to secure their freedom of industry and commercial intercourse.

2. He spoke peace to them. His acts had the effect of delivering them from the fear of their enemies. He held over them the shield of the king’s protection, and enabled them to live and work in quiet contentedness. We have here an emblematic picture of Christ’s kingdom. Prosperity and peace are the two great blessings promised to the people of Zion (Psa 122:6, Psa 122:7). “Quietness and assurance for ever” is “the effect of righteousness” (Isa 32:17, Isa 32:18). Christ is the “King of glory” and the “Prince of peace.” “The good Shepherd” watches, defends, guides, and feeds his sheep; he makes them “lie down in green pastures,” and leads them “beside the still waters” (Psa 23:2).D.

HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER

Est 10:3

The beneficent statesman.

It is reserved for the very last sentences of this book to give to one of the chiefest of its characters, perhaps the chiefest, the place and testimony he had well earned. For a time these seemed withheld, and both the name of Mordecai and himself also seemed kept somewhat unduly in the background. But when we come to the end, it looks rather as though all the book had been in deep reality about him, and as though all had hinged on him. We are left at the close of the book with our last impressions as of him, and he is placed before us under a very strong light. There is no doubt much of the patriot in the portrait we have of Mordecai. But the honourable summary of this verse reminds us that he had passed the mere politician and patriot. He has won for himself the name of the great and the good statesman. He is “next to Ahasuerus;” and what he did and what he was affected not the Jews only, but the whole empireall of the various and wide dominion of the king. He is stamped on the sacred page as the type of A BENEFICENT STATESMAN. There have been not a few who have extorted from their own day and generation the title of great statesmen, but the claim has not survived them long.. The number of the really beneficent statesmen is much smaller, but their renown is for ever. In the amazing wealth and variety of Scripture lesson for every need of human life, and of Scripture model for every office of authority and influence in human society, this of the honest and beneficent statesman is not overlooked. Neither must we overlook it, nor omit to notice, as afresh suggested by it, how intrinsic an argument is herein given us for the Divine inspiration of the Bible. Whence but from such an original could have come to us so many, so perfect models? It is doubly important that we should remark how ample a share of these the Book of Esther containsevidences of inspiration of the highest kind and value. The brief summary of this verse is the more impressive as coming at the very end of the book. But passing by all other suggestions, it speaks of a certain greatness, and a greatness evidently of very comprehensive character. It is the greatness of an emphatically good statesman. Let us take the opportunity suggested by a leading instance of considering

I. THE STATESMAN‘S OFFICE.

1. It is the expression of government. If man were only gregarious, he would need, and undoubtedly be subjected to. government. ALL living things are subject to government, need it, and are rapidly being brought under the rule of man, according to the charter originally given to man.

2. It is the expression of order. Man is emphatically not merely gregarious; he is social. The variety of his sympathies and antipathies is very large, and their range amazing. So much so, that the saying, “The chiefest study of mankind is man,” might, if reversed, express to perfection a great truth for some, and read, “The chiefest study of man is mankind.”

3. It is the expression of concentrated purpose, of intelligent, united advance. The highest and most beneficent results of SOCIETY would without it he unattainable by the human species. Development of society is always tending toward higher developments of government. And the beneficial reaction is sometimes abundantly evident. Again, the higher-developed form of government is always tending to render possible higher social results.

4. It is in some degree the expression of morality and religion. Where the religious sense is lowest, then it is lowest, and vice versa It has been well said that “the organisation of every human community indicates some sense of a Divine presence, some consciousness of a higher law, some pressure of a solemn necessity.” Government (and therefore the chief personage of government) is the outcome of the most elementary necessities of humanity in some of the very highest aspects of that same humanity. From the very first this was testified; and through exceedingly various forms, lower and higher in type, the principle has ever held its ground, and still excites attention and interest second to not one of the profoundest problems.

II. SOME OF THE GENERAL REQUISITES FOR IT.

1. A certain passion for humanity as considered in large masses.

2. A natural gift for discerning the genius of a people.

3. Natural qualifications for exercising rule.

(1) Sympathy strong.

(2) Justice clear and inviolable.

(3) Authority, often indefinable in its elements, but evidencing its own existence conclusively.

(4) Temper and moderation.

4. Carefully-trained ability to calculate the effects of certain legislative treatment on Whole communities of people, and on their mutual adjustments.

5. Favourableness of position, as marked out by Providence.

III. SOME OF THE MORE SPECIALLY MORAL AND BENEFICENT REQUISITES OF IT.

1. The “greatness” which it inevitably marks will he, as far as possible, free from the taint of personal ambition. Surely there was a minimum of this in Mordecai, as there was a loathsome maximum of it in Haman. The very way in which high position is attained will be a happy omen, or the reverse.

2. Its “greatness” will partake largely of the moral element.

(1) It will have ready for the hour of special need of it an inflexible moral courage. What an illustration of this Mordecai gave before he attained high office, and when he would not bow to wrong, and, when wrong became more wrong, still refused to “move,” though dread punishment overhung.

(2) The natural temper and gift of authority will more and more become transmuted into moral authority, and become superseded by moral influence. Express mention is made of this in the career of Mordecai. “The fear of him,” of the moral power that was behind him, spread over enemy and grew comfortingly in friend.

3. Its greatness will lay itself out in practical devotion to the interests of the crowded multitude. Mordecai “sought the wealth of his people,” and it made him “accepted of the multitude of his brethren.”

4. Its greatness will speak the things of peace. Special emphasis is laid on the fact that Mordecai “spoke peace to all his seed.” The statesman is not to seek to give the impression of caste. He is not to flourish upon war or strife. He is not to propagate the methods and the ideas of the high-handed, but all the contrary. Like the spiritual teacher, he also must not “cry, Peace, peace, when there is no peace;” but he is to make peace as far as may be possible by breathing peace upon all.

IV. SOME OF ITS REWARD. Beside all such as he will have in common with every obscurest fellow-man who is faithful, in the satisfaction of fulfilling duty, in peace of conscience, and in a persuasion of Divine approval, he may reckon upon

1. The joy of seeing a prospered community, due in some part to his work.

2. The gratitude of a discerning people growing round his accumulating years.

3. An honourable, enduring place on the best of the pages of history.B.

HOMILIES BY F. HASTINGS

Est 10:3

A life summed up.

“For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great.” Gather from Mordecai’s history something to stimulate our spirits in the baffle of life.

I. We might remark upon THE WAY IN WHICH HE EARNED HIS ELEVATION. Perhaps as a Jew, he was a little revengeful towards aliens; but he filled well a lowly position, and so was prepared better for a higher. Shall we desire rather to reap rewards than to sow the seed which will produce them?

II. Gather stimulus from THE WAY IN WHICH HE PERFORMED HIS DUTY AND KEPT HIS INTEGRITY. In this he felt that he was already rewarded. And shall we not learn to be patient? Our impatience is our great hindrance. We do not wait, trusting in God, as Mordecai. Yet “he knoweth the way that we take,” and in his own time will bring us forth when sufficiently tested.

III. Gather lessons from the fact that HIS PROSPERITY WAS MATERIALLY AIDED BY HIS FAITH AND PRAYER. By his words to Esther we are sure he looked to God for deliverance. When the deliverance came it involved his prosperity as well as that of his people, just as a stranded vessel, when again floating, carries forward not only the captain, but any passengers on board. Mordecai firmly believed that, even though Esther held her peace, “enlargement and deliverance would arise to the Jews from some other place.” We can pray to be made faithful, holy, earnest, and in due time the reward will come. It will then be in a sense the result of prayer.

IV. Gather encouragement in seeing HOW HIS ELEVATION CAME WHEN HIS HOPES WERE AT THE LOWEST EBB. See on what a trifle they turned. And thus it is constantly seen in life. Be prepared to seize the trifles, and remember that the darkest night oft ushers in the brightest morning.

V. Gather also instruction in seeing HOW HIS ELEVATION WAS APPROVED BY HIS FELLOW–MEN. We are told he was “accepted of the multitude of his brethren.” There was little envy at his rise, because there was much humility in the man. So there are men in whose prosperity we may delight, because, instead of being puffed up, or becoming purse-proud, they maintain their former humility, and practise greater liberality.

VI. Gather guidance from THE WAY IN WHICH MORDECAI USED HIS ELEVATION FOR THE BEST PURPOSES. He sought the welfare of his people, and spoke “peace to all his seed.” Not only so, but there is a tradition that many of the Persians, and even the king, believed in God through him. Let us then go through life seeking opportunities to do good, and using those we find. Let us make the motto of Cromwell ours, not only to strike while the iron is hot, “but to make it hot by striking.” As Christians, let us seek the welfare and eternal peace of others. We rust, we freeze when we live only for ourselves. We should be like the stream spoken of in a fable, “too active to freeze.” “The mill-stream went dashing along, so that the frost could not seize and bind it. The traveller over the Alps in winter was so earnest in striving to save his brother, overcome by cold, that he was himself kept alive by the attempt.” Remember that, after all, Mordecai’s elevation was but a type of the heavenly honour and glory which awaits all those faithful in spiritual things. The “declaration of his glory” was written side by side with that of the king. He died full of years and of honour. That God who had been his guide in life was his refuge in death. When ushered into heaven, he doubtless felt that he had been, at best, an unprofitable servant. Still, God gave him, doubtless, in that world a position far more elevated, far more lasting, far more satisfactory than that which he, the whilom neglected deliverer, occupied as the prime minister of the Persian king. H.

HOMILIES BY D. ROWLANDS

Est 10:3

Moral work.

Integrity must prosper sooner or later. Were it not so, we should lose faith in eternal righteousness. Appearances may be unfavourable for a time, wrong, sorrow, suffering may precede, but either here or hereafter a distinction will most assuredly be made between the true and the false. Joseph, though consigned to prison, was subsequently raised to power; Daniel, though cast into the lions’ den, eventually sat with princes; Mordecai, though threatened with death, finally became “next unto king Ahasuerns.” It is said that Mordecai was “great.” What does greatness consist in?

1. Physical endowments. Strength, skill, courage are among these. The athlete, the warrior, the hunter were heroes in ancient times. The deeds of Hercules, Samson, Goliath were celebrated in song.

2. Mental powers. Genius is everywhere admired. Its mighty works are the most precious inheritances of our race. In literature, in science, in art, in the numberless inventions of civilised life, it continues to bless the world.

3. Exalted position. This may be due to mere accident. Kings, princes, noblemen are as a rule born to their high rank. When such is the case they deserve no credit for it. High places are sometimes snatched by the unscrupulousby men who have no better recommendation than their audacity in the universal scramble for power which goes on round about us. There is no meanness that some will not stoop to, for the sake of the glittering honours of office, or even those petty distinctions which noble minds hold in utter contempt. But distinguished stations are also the rewards of physical endowments and mental powers honourably employed. Then are they to be coveted, to be held in high esteem. The case of Mordecai is a noted example. The text leads us to notice THE TESTS OF MORAL WORTH. Speaking generally, these are ‘numerous; but we shall confine ourselves to those suggested herepopularity, unselfishness, peaceableness. Whom shall we consider morally great?

I. THE MAN WHO STANDS WELL WITH THE BEST PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY. “And accepted of the multitude of his brethren.” Popularity as such has no intrinsic value, and to seek it for its own sake is degrading to the soul. Let any thoughtful man, while contemplating the quality of the exhibition that attracts the largest crowd, ask himself whether the admiration of such a crowd is really worth obtaining, and his inmost soul will answer, No. Crowds have been so often on the wrong side in great controversies that they have actually lost all claim to respect. They have generally applauded unjust wars; they have persecuted the pioneers of knowledge, both secular and religious; they acquiesced in the death of the Saviour. And yet, though the crowds of one age murder the prophets, the crowds of future ages will always build their sepulchres. History ever does justice to the memory of the martyr, and even he becomes popular when too late. But the Jews in captivity, the “brethren” of Mordecai, were a select community. They possessed a knowledge of things Divine which placed them on an incomparably higher level than the heathen among whom they lived. To be accepted of them, therefore, was a mark of worth. “The multitude of his brethren.” A man may be the favourite of a party simply for party considerations. But when the upright among all parties agree to honour him, it must be on account of sterling qualities.

II. THE MAN WHO DEVOTES HIMSELF TO PROMOTE THE GOOD OF OTHERS. “Seeking the wealth of his people.” Self-sacrifice was the Divinest quality in the Divinest Man. “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Into the kingdom which he came to establish no man can enter without denying himself, taking up his cross, and following him. Fallen man is essentially selfish. Look around you for a single moment, and the proofs of this will crowd upon your view. Most of the evils with which man afflicts his kind are traceable to this source. But look at the grand lives of historylives which light up the gloom of sin and woe in which the world is envelopedand what constitutes their glory? They are grand only in so far as they approach the sublime ideal which was fully realised only by One. Take the Apostle Paul. His memorable utterance to the Corinthians was the key-note of his entire life: “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.”

III. THE MAN WHO EXERTS HIS INFLUENCE IN THE INTEREST OF PEACE. “And speaking peace to all his seed.” The primary reference in these words is probably to the kindness of Mordecai’s disposition, but they are capable of a somewhat wider application, so as to include the desire of maintaining harmony, order, peace. It has been said of mankind, with too much reason, that their “state of nature is a state of war.” Sin divides men. In private life, in public affairs, in international relations, this is seen daily. Envy, rivalry, strife are found everywhere. Such is the state of things even in this enlightened age, that no nation feels itself safe except it be prepared for the most deadly struggle with its neighbour. The advocate of peace is consequently a benefactor of his kind. The kingdom of God is “peace.” The birth of its Founder was heralded by angels who sang of “peace on earth.” The most precious legacy which Christ left his people was his “peace.” And among the grand utterances of the grandest sermon is found this: “Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God.”R.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Est 10:1. Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, &c. 1:e. He laid a tax upon every part of his dominions, both on the continent and in the islands over which his power extended. By the isles here mentioned, are meant those in the AEgean sea conquered by Darius Hystaspes. See Usher’s Chron. and Calmet, who here goes on to comment on the remaining chapters of Esther, which may be found in the Apocrypha; but the Hebrew text concludes as in our Bibles. He observes, after Paul Lucas, that the tombs of Mordecai and Esther are still to be seen at Amadam, in the synagogue of the Jews, who are much more numerous in that place than in any other town in Persia.

REFLECTIONS.We are here informed,

1. That Ahasuerus laid a general tribute on all his dominions. Either the tribute he had remitted, chap. Est 2:18 or if, as is supposed, this was Xerxes, his expensive expeditions made it necessary to replenish his treasury. In arbitrary governments, the king’s will is law. Blessed be God for the secure enjoyment of liberty and property!

2. The greatness of this mighty monarch was at large recorded in the chronicles or records of his kingdom, where Mordecai’s name also bore a distinguished place, and reflected honour upon the master to whom he owed his advancement.
3. Mordecai, good as he was great, endeared himself by every act of kindness and favour to his countrymen. His honours had not changed his manners; he was courteous and kind to all his brethren, and his desire to serve them seemed but to increase with his ability. Universally respected and beloved, his greatness caused no envy; while the multitude of his brethren were deeply sensible that for all their happiness and prosperity they were indebted to his kindness and protection under God. Note; He is truly great, whose power and dignity are employed for the public good.

We have now finished our comment on the historical books of the Old Testament. Of the period of history from the return of the Jews out of Babylon to the birth of our Saviour, having no inspired writings, the reader must endeavour to gain a knowledge from such apocryphal and profane historians as are extant. See 2 Chronicles 36. In some measure however to supply the deficiency, we here subjoin, from Dr. Taylor’s Scripture Divinity, a brief account of the state of the Jews and of other nations from this period to the time when our Lord came into the world.

“After the Babylonish captivity,” says he, “the Jews no more lapsed into idolatry, but remained steady in the acknowledgment and worship of the one living and true God. Even then they fell into new ways of perverting religion, and the wise and holy intentions of the divine law. I. By laying all the stress on the external and less momentous parts of it, while they neglected the weighty and substantial, true holiness of heart and life. Mankind are too easily drawn into this error. While they retain a sense of religion, they are too apt to listen to any methods by which it may be reduced to a consistency with the gratification of their passions, pride, and avarice. Thus, by placing religion in mere profession, or in the zealous observance of rites and ceremonies, instead of real piety, truth, purity, and goodness, they learn to be religious without virtue. II. By speculating and commenting upon the divine commands and institutions, till their force is quite enervated, and they are refined into a sense that will commodiously allow a slight regard instead of sincere obedience. III. By confirming and establishing the two former methods of corrupting religion, by tradition and the authority of learned rabbis; pretending, that there was a system of religious rules delivered by word of mouth from Moses, explanatory of the written law, known only to those rabbis; to whose judgment, therefore, and decision, all the people were to submit.”

“This, in time, the space of 219 years, became the general state of religion among the Jews, after they had discarded idolatry. And this spirit prevailed among them for some ages, (290 years) before the coming of the Messiah. But, however, it did not interfere with the main system of Providence, or the introducing the knowledge of God among the nations, as they still continued steadfast in the worship of the true God, without danger of deviating from it. Besides, they were now, much more than formerly, exercised in reading, thinking, and reasoning, and were more capable, of themselves, of judging what was right, Luk 12:57. And several of them did so judge. Some of them were truly religious and virtuous; and all of them had strong expectation of the Messiah about the time of his appearance; and were sufficiently qualified to judge of religious matters, and of the evidences of his mission. Thus the Jews were prepared by the preceding dispensation for the reception of the Messiah, and the just notions of religion which he was sent to inculcate; insomuch that their guilt must be highly aggravated, if they rejected him and his instructions. It could not be for want of capacity, but of integrity, and must be assigned to wilful blindness and obduracy. Out of regard to temporal power, grandeur, and enjoyments, they loved darkness rather than light.”

“In the mean time, the pagan nations had made great openings in wisdom and virtue. Those arts that began in Greece, had travelled into other lands; learning had got footing among the illiterate; and humanity and social affections among the barbarous; and many good and useful books, useful even to this day among christians, were written in ethics for the right conduct of life. The light of nature was carried high; or rather, the darkness of it was much enlightened. Such was, at length, the state of the Gentiles, God having still been pleased, from time to time, to raise up among them persons uncommonly endowed, for their instruction, and to fit them for the day when he should more explicitly reveal himself and his sacred will to them.”

“For many ages the Jews had been well known in the eastern empires, among the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Medes, and Persians; but, till the time of Alexander the Great, they had no communication with the Grecians. About the year before Christ 332, Alexander built Alexandria in Egypt; and, to people his new city, removed thither many of the Jews, allowing them the use of their own laws and religion, and the same liberties with the Macedonians themselves. The Macedonians, who spake the Greek language, and other Greeks, were the principal inhabitants of Alexandria. From them the Jews learned to speak Greek, which was the common language of the city, and which soon became the native language of the Jews that lived there; who, on that account, were called Hellenists, or Greek-Jews, mentioned Act 6:1-9; Act 11:20. These Greek-Jews had synagogues in Alexandria; and for their benefit the five books of Moses, which alone, at first, were publicly read, were translated into Greek, (by whom is uncertain) and read in their synagogues every sabbath-day. And in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, about 168 years before Christ, when the prophets also began to be read in the synagogues of Judea, the prophets also were translated into Greek for the use of the Alexandrian Jews. This translation contributed much to the spreading of the knowledge of true religion among the nations in the western parts of the world.”

“For the Jews, their synagogues and worship were, after Alexander’s death, dispersed almost every where among the nations. Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s successors, having reduced Jerusalem and all Judea, about 320 years before Christ, carried 100,000 Jews into Egypt, and there raised considerable numbers of them to places of trust and power; and several of them he placed in Cyrene and Lybia. Seleucus, another of Alexander’s successors, about 300 years before Christ, built Antioch in Cilicia, and many other cities, in all thirty-five, and some of them capital cities in the greater and lesser Asia; in all which he planted the Jews, giving them equal privileges and immunities with the Greeks and Macedonians; especially at Antioch in Syria, where they settled in great numbers, and became almost as considerable a part of that city, as they were at Alexandria. See Dr. Prideaux’s Con. Anno 293. Ptotemy Soter 12. On that memorable day of Pentecost, Act 2:5; Act 2:9; Act 2:11-12 were assembled in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven; namely, Parthians, Medes, and Persians, of the province of Elymais, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Cyrene in Lybia, and Rome, Cretes, and Arabs, who were all either natural Jews, or devout men, 1:e. proselytes to the Jewish religion. And in every city of the Roman empire, where Paul preached, he found a body of his countrymen, the Jews; except in Athens, which was at that time, I suppose, a town of no considerable trade: which shews that the Jews and their synagogues, at the time of our Lord’s appearance, were providentially scattered over all the Roman empire; and had in every place introduced, more or less, among the nations, the knowledge and worship of God; and so had prepared great numbers for the reception of the gospel.”

“About the time that Alexander built Alexandria in Egypt, the use of the Papyrus, for writing, was first found out in that country. Dr. Prideaux’s Con. Anno 332. Darius, 4: p. 706 vol. 2: This invention was so favourable to literature, that Ptolemy Soter, one of Alexander’s successors, was thereby enabled to erect a museum, or library; which by his son and successor Philadelphus, who died 247 years before Christ, was augmented to 100,000 volumes; and by succeeding Ptolemies to 700,000. Part of this library, which was placed in a separate building from the other part, happened to be burnt when Julius Caesar laid siege to Alexandria; but after that loss, it was again much augmented, and soon grew up to be larger, and of more eminent note, than the former; and so it continued for many ages to be of great fame and use in those parts, till at length it was burnt and finally destroyed by the Saracens, in the year of our Lord 642. Dr. Prideaux’s Con. vol. 3: p. 21, &c. anno 284. This plainly proves how much the invention of turning the Papyrus into paper, contributed to the increase of books, and the advancement of learning, for some ages before the coming of our Lord. For doubtless, by this means, private hands would also more easily be supplied with books than before.”
“Add to all this, that the world, after many changes and revolutions, was, by God’s all-ruling wisdom, thrown into that form of civil affairs which best suited with the great intended alteration. The many petty states and tyrannies, whose passions and bigotry might have run counter to the schemes of Providence, were all swallowed up in one great power, the Romans; to which all appeals lay; the seat of which, Rome, lay at a great distance from Jerusalem, the spring from whence the gospel was to arise, and flow to all nations. And therefore, as no material obstruction to the gospel could arise, but from that one quarter, none could suddenly arise from thence, but only in process of time, when the gospel was sufficiently spread and established, as it did not in the least interfere with the Roman polity or government. The gospel was first published in a time of general peace and tranquility throughout the whole world, which gave the preachers of it an opportunity of passing freely from one country to another, and the minds of men the advantage of attending calmly to it. Many savage nations were civilized by the Romans, and acquainted with the arts and virtues of their conquerors.”

“Thus the darkest countries had their thoughts awakened, and were growing to a capacity of receiving, at the stated time, the knowledge of true religion. So that all things and circumstances conspired now with the views of heaven, and made this apparently the fulness of time, (Gal 4:4.) or the fittest juncture for God to reveal himself to the Gentiles, and to put an end to idolatry throughout the earth. Now the minds of men were generally ripe for a purer and brighter dispensation, and the circumstances of the world were such as favoured the success and progress of it.”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

B.THE JEWS DESTROY THEIR ENEMIES, AND AT MORDECAIS REQUEST ESTABLISH THE FESTIVAL OF PURIM

Est 9:1-32

I. The common defence of the Jews is very successful. Est 9:1-15

1Now [And] in the twelfth [twelve] month, that is the month Adar, on the thirteenth [thirteen] day of the same [in it], when [that] the kings commandment [word] and his decree [law] drew near to be put in the execution [done], in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over [on] them, (though it [and (i.e., then) that] it was turned to the contrary that the Jews [themselves] had rule [should have power] over [on] them that hated them [their haters]), 2the Jews gathered [congregated] themselves together in their cities, throughout [in] all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay [send forth] hand on such as sought their hurt [on the seekers of their evil] ; and no man could withstand [stood in the face 3of] them; for the fear of them fell upon all people [the peoples]. And all the, rulers [princes] of the provinces, and the lieutenants [satraps], and the deputies [pashas], and [the] officers of the king [doers of the work which was to the king], 4helped [were lifting] the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them. For Mordecai was great in the kings house, and his fame [hearing] went [was going] out throughout [in] all the provinces; for this [the] man Mordecai waxed greater 5and greater [was going and great]. Thus [And] the Jews smote [on] all their enemies with the stroke [smiting] of the sword, and slaughter and destruction, and did what they would [according to their pleasure] unto those that hated them [on their haters]. 6And in Shushan the palace [citadel] the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men. And 7Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha, and 8Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha, 9and Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vajezatha, 10the ten sons of Haman, the son of Hammedatha [the Medatha], the enemy of the Jews, slew they; but [and] on the spoil laid [sent forth] they not their hand. 11On that day the number of those that were slain [the slain ones] in Shushan the palace 12[citadel] was brought [came] before the king. And the king said unto Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the palace [citadel], and the ten sons of Haman; what have they done in the rest of the kings provinces? Now [And] what is thy petition? and it shall be granted [given to] 13thee; or [and] what is thy request further [again]? and it shall be done. Then [And] said Esther, If it please [be good upon] the king, let it be granted [given] to the Jews which [who] are in Shushan to do to-morrow also according unto this days [to-days] decree [law], and let Hamans ten sons be hanged [let them hang] upon the gallows [tree]. 14And the king commanded [said] it so to be done; and 15the decree [law] was given at Shushan; and they hanged Hamans ten sons. For [And] the Jews that were in Shushan gathered [congregated] themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and slew [smote] three hundred men [males] at Shushan; but [and] on the prey [booty] they laid not their hand.

II. At the desire of Mordecai the Jews resolve to celebrate the 14th and 15th of the month Adar as Purim. Est 9:16-28

16But [And] the other [remainder of the] Jews that were in the kings provinces gathered [congregated] themselves together, and stood [there was a standing] for [upon] their lives [soul], and had rest from their enemies, and slew [there was a smiting] of [in] their foes seventy and five thousand (but they laid not their hands 17[hand] on the prey [booty]). On the thirteenth day of the month Adar: and on the fourteenth day of the same [in it] rested they [there was a resting], and made 18[there was a making] it a day of feasting [banquet] and gladness. But [And] the Jews that were at Shushan assembled [congregated] together on the thirteenth day thereof [in it], and on the fourteenth thereof [in it]; and on the fifteenth day of the same [in it] they rested [there was a resting], and made [a making] it a day of feasting [banquet] and gladness. 19Therefore the Jews of the villages [country places], that dwelt in the unwalled towns [cities of the country places], made [were making] the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting [banquet], and a good day, and of sending portions one [a man] to another [his neighbor]. 20And Mordecai wrote these things [words], and sent letters [books] unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both [the] nigh and [the] far, 21to stablish this among [upon] them, that they should keep [to be making] the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same [in it] yearly, [in every year and (i.e., by) year], 22as the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy [gladness], and from mourning into a good day; that they should make [to make] them days of feasting [banquet] and joy [gladness], and of sending portions one [a man] to another [his neighbor], and gifts to the poor. 23And the Jews undertook [each received] to do as they had begun [what they had begun to do], and as [what] Mordecai 24had written unto them; because Haman the son of Hammedatha [the Medatha] the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had devised against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur (that is, the lot) to consume [discomfit] them, and 25to destroy them: but [and] when Esther [it] came before the king, he commanded [said] by [with the] letters [books], that his wicked [evil] device, which he devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head, and that he [him] 26and his sons should be hanged [they should hang] on the gallows [tree]. Wherefore [Therefore] they called these days Purim, after [upon] the name of [upon] Pur: therefore for [upon] all the words of this letter, and of that which [and what] they had seen concerning this matter [upon thus], and which [what] had come unto them. 27The Jews ordained [established], and took [each received] upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined [the ones joining] themselves unto [upon] them, so as [and] it should not fail [pass], that they would keep [to be making] these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time, [in] every year [and (i.e., by) year]; 28and that these days should be [these days were] remembered and kept [made] throughout [in] every generation [and (i.e., by) generation], every family [family and (i.e., by) family], every province [province and (i.e., by) province], and every city [city and (i.e., by) city]; and that these days of Purim should not fail [pass] from among [the midst of] the Jews, nor the memorial [remembrance] of them perish [cease] from their seed.

III. At the request of Esther the Jews also resolve to commemorate the feast of Purim with fasting and mourning. Est 9:29-32

29Then [And] Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority, to confirm [establish] this second letter of [the] Purim. 30And he sent the letters [books] unto all the Jews, to the hundred twenty and seven 31provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth, to confirm [establish] these days of [the] Purim in their times appointed, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined [established upon] them, and as they had decreed [established] for [upon] themselves [their soul], and for [upon] their seed, the matters [words] of the fastings and their cry. 32And the decree [saying] of Esther confirmed [established] these matters [words] of [the] Purim; and it was written in the book.

SUPPLEMENT
______________

DISTINCTION AND POWER OF MORDECAI IN THE MIGHTY PERSIAN EMPIRE

Est 10:1-3

1And the king Ahasuerus laid [put] a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of 2the sea. And all the acts [work] of his power [authority] and of his might, and the declaration [spreading] of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him [whom the king made great], are they not written in [upon] the book of the Chronicles [words of the days] of the kings of Media [Madai] and Persia [Paras]? 3For Mordecai the Jew was next [second] unto [the] king Ahasuerus, and great among [to] the Jews, and accepted of [to] the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of [good to] his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The author here gives us the last and most important part of the solution, the success which followed the measures of Mordecai for the deliverance of the Jews. Thus his history takes such a turn that the great Persian heathen empire, which at first rejoiced with feasting and hilarity, now suffers a great defeat. Moreover this occurs by the very Jewish nation which Haman and similar enemies hoped to destroy. The time of joyous feasting now came to the Jews and to those who had joined them. Mordecais measure for the removal of the danger was quite sufficient. This was true first (Est 9:1-5) in the Persian empire in general.

Est 9:1. Now in the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when may here be taken as the accus, of time, in which, or where, the kings commandment and his decree drew near to be put into execution,i.e., in which the kings word and law should be carried out, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them (though it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews had rule over them that hated them). The infin. absol. may be made to depend, as a continuation of the preceding perfect upon . Then will stand as a neuter for the thing which their enemies hoped to accomplish on the thirteenth. may also serve as a remark inserted as a casual intermediate expression, then will probably refer back to , comp. Est 9:22 : As the day was turned unto them (so) that, etc. As this remark does not anticipate, and in advance indicate the result afterward realized, but only speaks of change brought about by the issue of the second royal edict, stands the second time for the might or power which now awaited the Jews according to right and law, but had not yet been realized. added to the subject, serves to make a sharp contrast between the Jews and their enemies, so that it may be translated ipsi, (themselves) comp. Ewald, 314 a. In Est 9:2 follows the mention of a fixed time: The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities,i, e., those in which they were more numerous, but yet dwelt mixed up with the heathen inhabitants. They gathered themselves, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt,i.e., according to chap Est 8:11, such as attacked them to destroy them. And no man could withstand them,so (comp. Jos 10:8; Jos 21:42; Jos 23:9), because fear of them, or their fear had fallen upon all the people (comp. Est 8:17).1

Est 9:3. All the princes, the satraps, and governors, and also other persons of rank whom it is unnecessary here to name (comp. Est 3:9), assisted the Jews. , as in Eze 1:4.2

Est 9:4. These were especially influenced by the fear of Mordecai, who now became more and more powerful and authoritative, (comp. 1Ch 17:12, where we find instead of the intrans. partic. ).

Est 9:5. Thus the Jews inflicted a great defeat upon all their enemies with the sword, slaughter and destruction: they carried out the right of retaliation which had been accorded them in Est 8:11. with is to smite, to defeat some one (2Sa 23:10; 2Sa 24:17; Num 22:6). can only depend upon ; and both belong to (comp. Est 9:5, where corresponds to ).

Est 9:6-15. The defence of the Jews succeeded especially well in Shushan. Est 9:6. And in Shushan the palace the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men[3] The infin. abs. as a supplement to the foregoing perfect expresses: they slew and destroyed.

Est 9:7. The insertion of the names of the ten sons of Haman who were also destroyed, corresponds to the authors method of exactness, and his disposition to mention names, as is seen in Est 1:14. Jewish rabbis have found these names indicative of representative importance, and have taken the individual traits to mean something prophetic. This peculiar mode of writing, corresponding so well to the style of later mystical modes of interpretation of later Jewish theology, may have been inherent in its spirit, or it may have been because they find the minuscule letter in the first, in the seventh, and in the tenth name, and also the majuscule letter in the tenth name.[4] According to statements made by Buxtorf (Synag. Jud., p. 588) the mode of writing should be a sign that the ten sons were suspended in a perpendicular line, one over the other, or an omen that after their fall they should never more rise to glory. The Jews did not take the booty of their enemies as was permitted them to do in the edict of Est 8:11. This, however, was the order given to their enemies in the edict of Haman, Est 3:13, and the author here gives it prominent mention, in order to show that there was no intention on the part of the Jews, to gratify a low avaricious disposition, but only to defend themselves.

Est 9:11-15. After Ahasuerus had discovered the number of those who had perished in Shushan, he stated the same to Esther, adding: What have they done in the rest of the kings provinces? i.e., how many must they not have destroyed there; this he said in order to prove to her that he had granted a great favor to the Jews, and hence that he was well-disposed toward them (comp. Est 8:7-8). But to the same intent he also adds the promise following: Now what is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee.Perhaps he recognized the fact that, if the Jews had to do with so many opponents, they could hardly have mastered them, and even now great danger threatened them on the part of those remaining, if they could not hunt down such in their hiding places (and there must have been many in so large a city) and destroy them utterly, , masc. or rather neuter, with reference to , while in Est 7:2 we find the fem. in relation to . The necessity of extending the privilege granted the Jews to the following day, must be evident, since Esther (Est 8:11) on her part, without consulting Mordecai, still further requested it. And let Hamans ten sons be hanged upon the gallows,i.e., crucify the dead bodies in order to increase the disgrace of their execution, but more in order to augment the fear of the Jews. This was the Hebrew and Persian custom (see Ezr 6:11 [comp. Plutarch, Artax. 17]).

Est 9:14. The king acceded to Esthers request, and so another edict was issued. This contained principally or exclusively a renewed permission for the Jews. This must be publicly proclaimed. With respect to the sons of Haman a simple command was sufficient. The words, and they hanged Hamans ten sons, by no means indicates the substance or consequence of the law; opposed to this are the accents and the perfect . But since the publication of a law was the consequence of the kings acquiescence, so it was also with the hanging of Hamans sons.

Est 9:16-28. The establishment of Purim.In Est 9:16-19 we find the historical introduction to the new edict of Mordecai, in Est 9:20-23 an index of contents, and in Est 9:24-28, still further, a supplement, confirmatory of what preceded, and which seems to have been taken from some other writing.

The statement in Est 9:16 : But the other Jewsseparate from those in Shushan, etc. again connects with what preceded in Est 9:1-2, in order first, to add the number of those whom they had slain, and next to give due mention to the day of their conflict as well as to the fact that the 14th was for them already a day of rest.[5] The author adds after the phrase and stood for their lives (comp. Est 8:11): and had rest from their enemies. is instead of the more usual , Infin. Absol. as in Num 11:25. And though he is interested to publish the result for which the Jews stood, namely, that they slew 75,000 of their enemies, yet he is more busied with the main thought that, these outside Jews, in distinction from those in Shushan, had peace soon after their first defence. The perfect in Est 9:16-17, as also in Est 9:18, is continued by subordinated infinitives (comp. Ewald, 351 c). The statement that the outside Jews had rest already on the 14th of Adar, is here the main point. The other, in Est 9:18, that the Jews in Shushan first had peace and joy on the fifteenth, is subordinate. This relation is best expressed by the word while, by which Est 9:19, with its , may be joined to Est 9:16-17 : Therefore the Jews of the villages, that dwelt in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting,etc.It does not matter much about the first season of joy, as stated in Est 9:17, but it is important that this season had now become a custom of the people, and must have existed down to the time of our author. As evidence of this we have the partic. , and also the particles , which latter is generally employed in an explanation as to how a custom originated. It seems, therefore, that for a long time there existed a difference of time as respects the day of the feast of Purim. It appears that the Jews in the smaller villages had one day, and those residing in the larger cities, i.e., also in Jerusalem (according to some MSS. of the Septuagint version ) had another. The writing of Mordecai, mentioned in the following verses, which ordered a uniform celebration, viz., of two days (on the 14th and 15th of Adar) soon restored uniformity. But its acceptance had as a first consequence that, only those chief communities in the larger cities (Est 9:23; Est 9:27), obeyed the order, but the smaller bodies still retained the 14th Adar as the chief day of the feast. To assume a contradiction between Est 9:23; Est 9:27 (as does Bertheau) would be unwarranted even if the section beginning with Est 9:20 be not an addition by our author, but by some later person. At the time of Josephus it seems that the season of celebration was uniform (comp. Antiq. VI. 13). According to the Mishna (Megilla,) this difference only exists that the book of Esther should be read on the 14th in the smaller towns, but on the 15th in the ancient walled cities of Palestine , with the Kethib, is the plural of , countryman. The Keri is the same as Deu 3:5, and 1Sa 6:18. There could have been another form from such as , as in beside . is the accus., dependent on : And of sending portions one to another.According to Est 9:22 (comp. Neh 8:10) one made presents in these feasts, similar to the sacrificial feasts, to those less wealthy, but also to others to whom one desired to signify a joyous mind.

Est 9:20-23. The writing which Mordecai sent to all the Jews, doubtless contained the substance of our book of Esther, ; i.e., it recounted the danger which had threatened the Jews, and the way in which they were preserved from destruction; for this was needful to state here, in order to give cause and color to the feast ordered by Mordecai. But this did not, therefore, need to include the whole book of Esther.

Est 9:21. Mordecais purpose was: To stablish this among them, that they should keep the,etc. besides this place (Est 9:20-32) occurs only in Rth 4:7; 13:6; Psa 119:28; Psa 119:106; and used with it signifies to establish something as binding upon some one, so that it shall become a duty obligatory on him. with here seems to mean (comp. Est 9:27), to celebrate, a day. The phrase , following upon the long intervening sentences of Est 9:21, is again taken up in Est 9:22 by and still more enlarged. The result was (Est 9:23) that what the Jews had begun to do (Est 9:22) and what Mordecai wrote to them to do was by them established as a valid and permanent custom. , to accept (Est 9:4), here means, according to later linguistic usage, to recognize something as a valid tradition or law. The sing, form is explained by the fact that the verb precedes its subject, according to Gesen. 114. [Rather it denotes a distribution or individual sense.Tr.]

Est 9:24-28. Now in order both to give the name of the feast just mentioned as well as its duration through two days, our author again briefly repeats the substance of the historical basis in Est 9:24-25. He also makes brief mention of the facts decisive of the name, and then refers us in Est 9:26 to Mordecais letter and the experiences of the Jews as forming its basis. In Est 9:24 we find Hamans intention to destroy the Jews (comp. Est 3:1; Est 3:6 sqq.), and he then points to the feast of Pur or casting of lots (Est 3:7). , to destroy them, from an older word, , which generally describes confusion and anguish such as comes from God (Exo 14:24; Deu 2:15), but which here may have been selected as a play upon the name of Haman. As regards the edict so friendly to the Jews in Est 9:25, comp. chap, Est 8:8 sqq.But when (it) came before the king,etc. The suffix of the word can have no reference to Esther; she is not mentioned in this connection (so opposed to the Targum, Syriac and most interpreters), but can only be taken as a neuter (as for example in Eze 33:33), (so Bertheau and Keil); and this the more in keeping with the intention of Haman, which is placed in its proper light.He commanded by letters that,etc. for: to command by writing, occurs only in this place. It is also peculiar in this section that the command: that his wicked device, which he devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head, is given in direct speech, while usually in the rest of the book the infin. with is employed. Finally the author also mentions the execution of Haman and his sons, on which see Est 7:10; Est 9:6 sqq. In Est 9:26 follows the declaration of the name of the day of the celebration, to which the author here designed to give prominence; but this is followed by the statement, after , that this should last two days. What is simply indicated by the particles is further enlarged upon by Therefore for all the words of this letter (of Mordecai in accordance with Est 9:20), and (of all that) which they had seen concerning the matter (, concerning the so and thus), and which had come unto them; hence also because their own experience fully corroborated the substance of Mordecais letter. In Est 9:27 follows after the concluding sentence: The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them (i.e. all proselytes), so as it should not fail (but be unalterably established, , as in Est 1:19), that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year (year after year). following upon Est 9:21 is easily comprehensible. Their writing and determination of time can only have come to them from Mordecais. In Est 9:28 there follows the further injunction: And that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation,etc. The partic. , etc., depend upon in the preceding verse. == to have an end, to cease.

Est 9:29-32. In order more firmly to establish the new law, and the confirmation of a new custom, which thus far had only been observed by Mordecai and Esther, that is, to connect a day of fasting and mourning with the days of the feast of Purim, a second letter was published. This time it was Queen Esther who composed the letter, hence the femin. . Mordecai is also mentioned; but possibly he was only added to give the letter authority and legality, as being the highest functionary in the realm, and to add the writings mentioned in Est 9:30. It was especially Esthers concern that the fasts and wailings which had their origin with herself at the time of the decisive step should serve as a reminder of the great distress so happily overcome. According to Est 2:15 she was the daughter of Abihail, and on account of the solemnity of the occasion she is expressly designated as such. , with all strength (power), occurs only here, in Est 10:2 and Dan 11:17, and would signify the great emphasis that Esther laid on the season of fasting and mourning no less than on the celebration of the joyous feast. The object of , to make valid as a law, this second letter of Purim (the first was that of Mordecai in Est 9:20), is also the object of the preceding By the word this the author designates the second letter, since he has in mind not to give its substance, but simply to indicate its existence.

Est 9:30 explains somewhat why Mordecai is also mentioned in Est 9:29 along with Esther: And he sent the letters unto all the Jews. The subject can here only be Mordecai himself. The , however, which he sent were not copies of Esthers letter (Keil), but writings accompanying it. These may have had the object of further confirming and explaining the facts on account of which fasts and seasons of mourning should be instituted, and of giving a historic sketch of the fast and mourning of the Jews living in Shushan. The words: And he sent the letters unto all the Jews to the hundred twenty and seven provinces, are in apposition to the kingdom of Ahasuerus.The contents of the writing are briefly designated as words of peace, i.e. as words that meant well, which aimed at the welfare of Israel by thus recommending a good custom for general observance, and which were based on truth.

Est 9:31. The aim of both Esther and Mordecais letters was: to confirm these days of Purim in their times appointed.This does not mean that it had reference only to certain periods or divisions of the days of Purim in which fasts and mourning should take place, and for which arrangements should be made (Bertheau and also Keil); for that would have been expressed otherwise and more definitely; but it gives the proper validity to the selected days of the feast of Purim, the 14th and 15th Adar. The main thing, however, is contained in the following: According as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had decreed for themselves and for their seed, the matters of the fastings and their cry.Hence they would also establish the feast of Purim for themselves, so that they might join fasting and lamentation to the feast as Mordecai and Esther had previously done. The suffix of may also refer to the above-mentioned days of Purim (not as to their definite time, Bertheau and Keil; for this is only mentioned incidentally); but since with always means to make a thing obligatory, it is naturally referred to Esther and Mordecai. It is true there follows the phrase ; but we may understand this in the sense of when preceding . There cannot well be any other subject intended by than (against Keil) the above-mentioned Mordecai and Esther. is a zeugmatic mode of expression. It has practical reference to Mordecais posterity since Esther, as regards her descendants, could not well hope to see them perpetuate Jewish customs.

Est 9:32 strengthens the foregoing greatly. And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, those, namely, that had reference to the fasts and mourning.And it was written in the book, of course not in Esthers letter, nor in Mordecais writing accompanying the decree, which would be designated by the plural ; but it was written in the book indicated in Est 9:20, in which Mordecai wrote concerning these events, and which is not identical with our Esther-book, but may have served as one of its sources.6 The day of fasting and mourning is not definitely fixed nor stated here; but it was probably the 13th of Adar, which Haman had set apart for the destruction of the Jews, and which the Jews celebrate as , Esthers fast, although in the period of the Talmud there is mention made of a three days fast, which was observed after that of Purim.

Chap. 10. Our book aims not only to present the deliverance, but also the elevation of Judaism in the time and midst of the great and powerful heathenism of the period of Ahasuerus. It would represent the latter in the person of Haman, the enemy to Judaism, and the former in the person of Mordecai. Hence at its close it speaks once more of Mordecais greatness and honor.And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea.The Kethib is an orthographical mistake for ., a levy, tribute (a tribute-service), here means a tax levied, and this for the reason that tribute-service belonged to products or moneys which were rendered to the king.[7] It may be asked why this remark occurs in our book, which, according to all that has gone before, does not belong to the history of Ahasuerus, but has to do with quite another matter. Keil thinks the author wished briefly to indicate at the close whence Ahasuerus derived the means to support such magnificent state as was described at the beginning of our book. But this inference would be superfluous, and would come somewhat late here. The only safe answer is given us by the manner in which the author, in Est 9:2, connects the power of Ahasuerus with the greatness of Mordecai. The greater the power of Ahasuerus and his wealth, the more powerful the dignity of Ahasuerus. It is as if the author would tell us: Ahasuerus had power extending over the whole earth, and he caused its wealth to flow into his treasury, and hence made himself felt as the head and lord of the entire power of the earth. It is worth while in this connection to observe the comprehensive statement But this concentration of universal sway in himself did not avail for the suppression of an externally despicable Judaism; it rather served for the recognition and elevation of the latter, since, according to the Providence recognized in our book, Mordecai, the Jew, became the second ruler after Ahasuerus. Although it seemed as if the people of God had been stricken out of the list of people of the earth, still, in Mordecai, because of his relation to Ahasuerus, it became possessed of the wealth of the peoples of the earth.8

Est 10:2. The author does not designate either the wealth or the power of Ahasuerus or of Mordecai more minutely, but rather refers, for particulars on both to the archives of the empire of the Medes and Persians.9 It is enough for him to be able to refer to these, and it is especially honorable for Mordecais cause, that even the archives of heathen kings must remember him. For , clear statement, summary, comp. Est 9:7.

Est 10:3. Here the author must once more give prominence to the fact that Mordecai, the Jew, who for him stands as the representative of Judaism, stood next to king Ahasuerus, since therefrom it follows that the greatness of the one was also that of the other.

, the second, here means the first minister (comp. 2Ch 28:7), and hence indicates that Mordecai was great among the Jews, and favored among the multitude of his brethren; i.e., that he really occupied a representative position among them.10 On comp. Deu 33:24. The expression is not to be taken in a limited sense, as if he would say less than: all his brethren; but may be explained, as Bertheau justly remarks, from the poetic elevation to which his speech rises at its close. The additional sentence also: Seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed, is quite in place here, in so far as it indicates that what came to Mordecai also redounded to the good of his entire people. , in parallelism with , is the family to which he belongs, as in 2Ki 11:1; Isa 61:9, and not his posterity.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

On Est 9:1. The day in which the enemies of the Jews expected to see the realization of their hopes, became instead for the Jews a day of victory, and for their enemies a day of reverse and defeat. This, under existing circumstances, seemed to be a change which could only be brought about, as it were, by a miracle. It was indeed one of those Providences by means of which it has pleased God to reveal Himself from time to time in an especially remarkable manner. At all events, the prophets had foretold such occurrences as a matter surely to be expected. When the captivity of Israel shall have reached its culmination, when the people of God are on the point of expiring under the rod of their drivers, then, instead of really perishing, they should become captors for their captors and taskmasters for their drivers (Isa 14:2). What is here shown in a small prelude, according to such prophecy, should attain a much larger circumference and a much greater glory. Our book itself, according to its deeper significance, points in a manner typical or prophetical to this great and glorious final history. As a matter of fact, this change of affairs was itself deeply grounded in the nature and circumstances of things. So certain as the God of Israel was the only true God, whose kingdom shall not be destroyed, but through all apparent reverses shall continually rise to new and greater victories, so likewise to His peopleso long as it is the sole bearer of His sway, the grave, which threatens to swallow it up, shall ever be a place of revivification and resurrection. And to-day also His empire must continue; and that which thought to overcome its power must itself be overcome, and either be absorbed or consigned to destruction. All the days of persecution for Gods kingdom are days indeed in which its enemies hope to overcome it, but it always turns out that such enemies are themselves conquered at last.

Brenz: We have above such an example in Haman, who was himself hung on the cross which he had prepared for Mordecai. So the Egyptians were themselves overwhelmed in the sea to which they had driven the Israelites in order to overwhelm them. So also Saul, who had driven David over to the Philistines, that they might destroy him, was himself destroyed by the Philistines.

On Est 9:2-4. At the time of the deliverance from Egypt and the entrance into Canaan, the Lord showed abundantly that He was able to make His people a great nation despite the most powerful of their enemies. Now in its exile He again showed them that, as for Himself, He now no longer had need of them as a people, at least as a politically independent one. The great deeds that were then done were edifying and elevating in tendency; what He now did was momentous and instructive. It was plainly evident that He could accomplish His purpose aside from external means or political circumstances. It is still more manifest than it then was that it has pleased Him to be powerful in those who are weak, and great in those who have little influence. In those days he prepared as His instruments the chief persons and princes of His own people, who were in an especial manner filled with the Spirit. Now, however, he employs instead the satraps and governors of Persia, little as they were willing or fit for such work. Together with and among kings, such as Cyrus and Ahasuerus, they must also further Gods purposes. There was a time when the Lord had caused fear and terror to fall upon the peoples before Israel, especially those who stood opposed in war, so that they fled from before them (comp. Deu 2:25). Now, however, the princes and governors, who had great fear, were obliged to protect the rights of the subjects of the king, and thus they protected Israel. This corresponded entirely to His greatness. Therein is shown His claim as the God of all men. This is itself further evinced by the fact that, if His people will only become more spiritual, as is His wish, and partake of His nature, He will by no means leave them fatherless. But the more spiritual His kingdom, i.e., His people, will become, the more will He assist them to arrive at truth, justice, and security through the world while in it.

On Est 9:5-11. 1. We now know a different and better mode of conquering enemies than by the sword and through bloodshed. We know that love only will gain the victory over hate. The people of God is strongest where it is given over to sacrifice and suffering. But we know further that this spiritual mode of combat and victory has become possible only since the time when we received spiritual strength and weapons. In the Old Testament time one could only speak of an external victory over opponents, but not of an internal one. Hence we find it explicable why Israel was compelled to fight such sanguinary battles and merciless wars of destruction. What is most striking in our history is the fact that the Jews, although living in circumstances in which they did not need to wield the sword, nevertheless seized the sword. Though they were no more a people in a political sense, and hence could not procure help for themselves, still they acted as a separate political community. The cause that made them wield the sword of destruction with much the greater pleasure and satisfaction was the fact that Esther stood at their head, and instead of bespeaking a shortening of the work of blood, she promoted it. It is observable also that after the destruction of so many enemies, instead of expressing pain that it needed so severe a conflict, she manifested only joy over their success. But we may nevertheless ask whether condemnation of the then Jews, whom one judges so severely often, as well as criticism of the author, who must have thought and felt as they did, does not proceed from a too rigid doctrinal stand-point, which is inclined to measure every thing by an arbitrary standard, without sufficient regard for circumstances. We would doubtless excuse the then expressions of vindictiveness, were it not for the principle that seems to be involved. For in a real war, in which the patriotic feeling has supreme control, and the weakening of an enemy is a duty of self-preservation, we find such feelings as are exhibited in Judaism and Esther very natural, to say the least. We also perceive the same sentiments often displayed by Israel in its earlier conflicts, without taking so serious an account of them. But the main objection really fails. For the carnage was not of their free will, but a matter of stern necessity. It resulted from the peculiar situation of the case; in fact it was so ordered by the government that the Jews should seize the sword. They were not only entitled, but actually necessitated in this case to return to their political independence. Hence the older interpreters very properly lay great stress upon the fact that the Jews did not venture this of themselves, but at the instance of higher authority. Starke also says: It is one thing to take revenge of ones self, another to do so on the order of authority; not the latter, but the former, is forbidden. The simple command of a government will justify such an act only in so far as it is a guaranty against pure thirst for revenge. Every thing here depends upon the disposition of mind. But we would certainly misjudge the temper of the then Jews were we to assume that because the people were but a religious community, we are at liberty to apply a Christian standard to them. It would be unjust to deny them the privilege, which they as an independent people formerly enjoyed, of rejoicing in a victory over their enemies; and it would be little to the purpose, if instead of aiming at their conversion, we acquiesced in their destruction. Instead of justifying the complaint that, we do not pay sufficient regard to those Old Testament national conditions, we must also remember that Old Testament saints could not well avoid often taking a stand-point opposed to their enemies, just as we are still allowed to assume a position at variance with those in enmity against God. Besides, we are not to forget that, for those who will not join themselves to the kingdom or people of God, whatever its form or degree of development, this very hostility is a ground of condemnation. All things that cannot be employed for a good end will finally issue in destruction and extinction. This is still true, and will be true until the end of time. In the same manner even the angels in heaven could not have acted differently from Esther with regard to those enemies in the city of Shushan. We would be more just to Esther, to the Jews spoken of in our book, and to the book itself, if, in what was done in Shushan as well as in all Persia, we would see an anticipation of the judgments connected and parallel with the progress of the kingdom of God on earth, and especially of the final judgment. If the animus of the O. T. with respect to the destruction of enemies seems to us terribly vindictive, rather than mild, yet this may not only be excusable, but may even be a prophetic intimation The fact, so prominently and emphatically expressed, in the present instance, that the Jews did not stretch out their hands after the goods (spoil) of their enemies, proves to us that they meant to conduct this contest as a measure of self-protection, or better as a holy war, the sole purpose of which was the removal of their enemies.

Brenz: This example, however, is set before us not that we should take it upon ourselves to avenge injuries, according to our own judgment, but that we may recognize the severity of the divine wrath against the impious persecutor of the people of God, and that in persecution we might most confidently expect deliverance through faith, and be obedient to the calls of God.

2. That the sons of Haman should also suffer was agreeable to Persian law, according to which, in many cases, the whole circle of relationship of a criminal must suffer death with him (comp. Amm. Marcell. xxiii. 6). Nor was this mode of proceeding contrary to the Mosaic code. The law that the children should not die for their fathers (more correctly: at the same time), Deu 24:16, was only applicable to those cases in which the children had no part in the crime of their parents (comp. 2Ki 14:6; 2Ch 25:4). Doubtless the sons of Haman belonged to those who were inimical to the Jews and attacked them; indeed they may have been their bitterest enemies. It is fair to suppose them in the same state of mind with their father, so that Isa 14:21 came true in their case. Esther requested that, after they were executed, they should also be hung. That the Jews really executed this climax of punishment, may indicate the especially severe judgment that will overtake those who are the principal agents of Antichrist on earth; and this illustrates the truth that opposition against whatever is antagonistic to goodness and piety, must rise till it reaches its overwhelming acme. This is a principle valid even for Christians, that they must be in a hostile attitude to evil to the last degree.

Brenz: This is written in admonition of parents, in order that they may be incited to cultivate piety, lest along with themselves they may also drag their children down into destruction. Such severity of God is stated in the Decalogue: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me (comp. Joh 18:17 sq.).

On Est 9:11-32. 1. In the first pages of our book Ahasuerus, together with the representatives of his empire, indeed heathendom itself, celebrated a great feast. Here, at the end, however, it is for the Jewish people to celebrate a feast. The way of the world begins with pleasure and mirth, but does not end so. The way of Gods people leads through sorrow, but at its end is the great feast which is described by Zech. in chap. 14., as a feast of tabernacles; since it will be celebrated in the tabernacles of undisturbed peace. This, according to Isa 25:6 sqq., may also be the celebrating feast of salvation and consolation, in which God will wipe away all tears from all eyes. We here have to do with the celebration of a feast in time. This obviously differs greatly from the heathen festival. When in later centuries Purim was celebrated with heathenish abandon and luxury, when it seemed to the Jews that they regarded it as a duty to so intoxicate themselves so that they could not distinguish between the names of Mordecai and Haman, this became a striking proof to how low a level, even to heathenism, Judaism had sunk.

The festivals that the people of the Lord as such celebrate, have quite a different purpose from those of heathendom. Ahasuerus aimed to show the riches of his glorious kingdom. Gods people desire first of all to praise Gods grace. They would give thanks for the gifts bestowed upon them. They would secure and keep what they already have by rendering thanks and praise to God as its author. Theirs are feasts of gratitude. Hence these also have a different character from the others. The pious cannot manifest their spirit of gratitude to God for all His benefits without also proving this by benefaction to their brethren in the faith. The love of God has kindled love to their fellows in their hearts; this would prove itself in deeds of kindness and benevolence. They would confess their allegiance to God as to one mild and kindly; they would else deny Him were they not to give sway, on their part, to mildness and kindliness. Their festivals, therefore, are seasons of refreshing, but especially so to the poorer brethren among them (comp. Est 9:19; Est 9:22). At the same time there is joined to their spirit of rejoicing one of great seriousness. They cannot enjoy their deliverance without also looking back upon the sorrow that preceded it. They can only appreciate the former by taking a full view of the latter. They do not forget that though salvation is theirs, still there are even yet abundant causes for sorrow and grief. The chief cause of this is the remains of sin in them. As the Mazzoth (unleavened) days are followed by the serious Paschal sacrifice, and as the joy of the feast of tabernacles is preceded by the repentance of the fast of the day of atonement, so also here the joyous feast of Purim is connected with a preparation of fasting and mourning (comp. Est 9:31). In eternity also will this transition hold true.

Starke: It is the privilege of Gods children to rejoice in the Lord (Deu 12:15; Php 4:4). When God presents us with days of joy and blessing, we should also remember the poor, (Sir 14:4; Psa 22:27 sqq.).

2. In Deu 13:1, it is commanded neither to add to nor to take from the law. If then the Jewish people nevertheless added another feast to those already existing then, doubtless they took into account the principle that what one is encouraged to do in view of a certain law is not so much an addition as an outflow of the same. At any rate the Jewish church already began in this manner to assume a freer position with respect to the Law. And this, if the interior impulse be true, not so much to the letter as rather to the spirit, would be still loyal; nor could it very easily transform the writing, spoken of in Est 9:21; Est 9:27, into an objectionable system of statute law.

Starke: We can well receive or retain good church ceremonies, if only they are not opposed to the Word of God, in view of our Christian freedom. Even the holidays ordered by the authorities of ones country should be celebrated in a becoming manner (Zec 7:2-5).

On Esther 10. That next to the great power of Ahasuerus, having such extensive dominions, all subject to taxation, the greatness of the Jew Mordecai should have been handed down to the memory of all times in the books of record of remarkable events of the Medes and Persians, was a great honor to the Jews. To this day they rejoice over his elevation. But they may well look to it to see whether they may now claim him as their own. That which God especially honored and protected in Mordecai and the then Judaism, was their fidelity to Him and His law. And only where these are found will we find a church that may receive the book of Esther as a prophecy of its victory and continuance in spite of all oppressions on the part of the world.

Brenz: The Jews, because they rejected Christ, the true seed of Abraham, are now no longer the people of God, no more His Church, but belong to Ishmael and Esau, who always have persecuted the true seed of Abraham. And since they persecute the true Israel, i.e., Christians with the same enmity with which Haman once persecuted them, it is clear that they are themselves the kindred and allies of Haman the Amalekite.

Only where we suffer like Mordecai may one take comfort, as is so convincingly expressed in our book in the thought that the crown is at the end of the cross.

Feuardent: Mordecai, in order to vindicate the glory of God and his countrymen from the Hamanites, endured the hatred of many. He afflicted himself with fastings, prayers, sackcloth, cryings and lamentations; he constantly spurned that impious man; and was at last adjudged to suffer on the ignominious cross. Now, however, by the singular favor of God he is crowned beyond all men (Ahasuerus alone excepted) with glory and honor even in this world.

Footnotes:

[1][The Jews apparently did not remain wholly on the defensive. Their enemies were no doubt well known to them, and were prepared for the struggle which it was seen must come. Sometimes the one side, sometimes the other, would commence the attack. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[2][This is very important. It has been stated that according to the narrative of Esther the Jews were allowed to kill 75,000 Persians; and this (supposed) feature of the narrative has been pronounced incredible. The present verse shows that the real Persians, who formed the standing army which kept the empire in subjection, and were at the disposal of the various governors of the province, took the Jews side. Their enemies were almost entirely to be found among the idolatrous people of the subject nations, for whose lives neither the Persians generally, nor their monarchs, cared greatly. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[3][By Shushan the palace or the fort, we are probably to understand the whole of the upper town, which occupied an area of above a hundred acres, and contained, no doubt, many residences besides the actual palace. It is not likely that the Jews would have ventured to shed blood within the palace precincts. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[4][Excepting Adalia, all these names are readily traceable to Old Persian roots. Parshandatha is given to Persia, or to the Persians; Dalphon, which in Persian must have been Darphon or Darpon, is probably the Persian representative of the Sansc. darpin, arrogant; Aspatha is from aspa, horse, and would probably mean horseman; Poratha is apparently from paru, much, great, and ratha, a chariot, and would mean having many chariots; Aridatha is from the roots ari very, and da, to give, and would mean liberal (comp. Phradates). Parmashta is a little doubtful, but may be from fra, an intensive particle, and mathista, greatest (comp. Lat. prmagnus). Arisai has the intensive ari prefixed to a root saya, which is perhaps to conquer or to go; and Aridai has the same intensive prefixed to the root da, to give. Finally, Vajezatha comprises two elements, vaya, the wind. and zatha, (comp. Zend. zyat), powerful; and would mean strong as the wind (comp. Chitratachma, strong as the leopard; Tritantchmes, strong as Tritan, i.e., Feridem). Rawlinson.Tr.]

[5][Shushan here is probably the lower town, which lay east of the upper one and was of about the same size. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[6][As book elsewhere in Esther (, in the sing.) always means a particular bookthe book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia (Est 2:23; Est 6:1; q. 2), it seems best to give it the same sense here. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[7][Some fresh arrangement of the tribute is likely to have followed on the return of Xerxes from Greece. His exchequer would be exhausted, and steps would have to be taken to replenish it. The expression in the original does not necessarily imply the first imposition of a tribute. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[8][Upon the expression isles of the sea, in this connection, Rawlinson remarks: Cyprus, Aradus, the island of Tyre, Platea, etc., remained in the hands of the Persians after the victories of the Greeks, and may be the isles here intended. Or Xerxes may have ignored the loss of the gean Islands, and have laid his tribute upon them, though he might not be able to exact it.Tr.]

[9][In the latter years of Xerxes his power and might were chiefly shown in the erection of magnificent buildings, more especially at Persepolis. He abstained from military expeditions. Media takes precedence of Persia (contrary to Est 1:3; Est 1:14; Est 1:18. etc. because the kingdom of Media had preceded that of Persia, and in the Book of the Chronicles its history came first. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[10][It has been objected that Artabanus, the captain of the guard, and not Mordecai, was Xerxes chief favorite in his twelfth and thirteenth years. But this view rests upon the false chronology of Ctesias, who gives Xerxes 13 years only, instead of the 21 of Ptolemy, Manetho, and the generality of the Greek writers. Artabanus was favorite towards the close of Xerxes reign, i.e., in his 20th and 21st years. Rawlinson.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This very short chapter, being unconnected with the history of the church, seems to have been inserted here only to record the advancement of Mordecai, and the happy state of God’s people under his favor.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(1) And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea. (2) And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

The greatness and power of this Persian prince would not, I venture to believe, have been noticed in the scripture, had it not been from the situation of the church of God connected with it. The Bible is only careful to carry on the thread of history, respecting the several kingdoms of the world, as they succeeded each other, by way of showing how they ministered to the introduction of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Daniel was commissioned to tell the king of Babylon, that the God of heaven, in the days of these kings, would set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed. Therefore the Reader of the sacred scriptures is led by the hand to observe just so far, and no further, as might enable him to trace the divine footsteps marking the way through these temporary kingdoms, in which the Lord setteth down one, and putteth up another; all ministering, though they thought not so, neither did they intend it, to the bringing in that kingdom of our Lord Jesus, which shall stand forever. Hence, the Persian succeeded to the Babylonian; and the Roman (which about this time began to make a little appearance in the world) was to succeed the Persian; in the most peaceable and flourishing part of which, Christ was to Come. Dan 2:44 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Reprisals

Esther 7-10

WE have seen Esther in the attitude of lifting the index finger; we have now to consider the attitude of Haman whilst that finger was being pointed at him. The statement is marked by great simplicity, but also by solemn suggestiveness,

“Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen” ( Est 7:6 ).

Why was he afraid? Nothing had been stated but simple fact: is it possible that a man can be terrified by being reminded of simple reality? We may go farther in this case, and by going farther may increase our wonder. Could not Haman defend himself? Was it not open to him to say to king Ahasuerus, That is certainly true, but nothing has been done without the king’s consent, and no writing has been sent forth that was not sealed with the royal signet: what the queen has said is perfectly true, but I must hide myself behind the king’s authority? Not a word did he say: he simply burned with shame; his cheeks were red with fire. How is this? The answer is plain enough. We do many things with the king’s signet which we have no business to do. We may be very careful about our little cordon of facts, but all this amounts to nothing so long as the heart accuses itself. No matter what writings you have, it is of no consequence that you point to conversations, and recall incidents, and remind your interlocutor of certain occurrences, if the thing itself is wrong. There is something in human nature that gives way at the weakest point. There are defences that are in reality accusations. To excuse is in very deed to accuse under such circumstances. Men know this, and yet play the contrary part with great skill and persistence; they say they have documentary evidence, but they do not tell us how they procured it; they can produce letters sealed and signed by high authority, but they never tell the wicked process through which these letters came to be facts. Men, therefore, soon give way under the pressure of incomplete evidence; the unwritten law swallows up all the inky documents. Haman had indeed gone to the king, and told him about a certain people, diverse from the people of Media and Persia, and had in very truth received the king’s orders to write letters of destruction; but when all came to all it was the unwritten law that made a coward of Haman. The letters ought not to have been written; being written, they simply amounted to so much evidence against the man; the very motive of the letter burned the letter, and thus made it non-existent; and we are perfectly well aware that we are doing many things, in statesmanship, in ecclesiastical relations, in personal references, that bear very distinctly upon this method of procedure. There are laws, there are facts, there are letters; but all these ought not to have been; they are not in accord with the eternal unwritten law of righteousness, truth, charity, pureness, godliness, and therefore when that is pointed out all the documents fall into the fire, crinkle, blacken, catch the flame, and evaporate in smoke. Thus was Haman afraid before the king and the queen. Cowardice is traceable to consciousness of wrong-doing. Haman said to himself, I got the letters, but I ought not to have got them; I could take off this ring and show it to his majesty, but the ring would take fire and burn me if I held it up under such circumstances; no, I am a murderer, and I am discovered. What then took place?

“The king arising from the banquet of wine in his wrath went into the palace garden: and Haman stood up to make request for his life” ( Est 7:7 ).

That was all! Let me live! Strip me, cast me off, banish me, but let the poor dog live! All mock royalties come to that, all false ambitions, all ill-conceived plans, all selfishness, all murder. Do not hang me! I care for this poor old neck; I will never speak more, I will only ask for bread and water; only let the dog live! He was a great man just now;

Haman “sent and called for his friends, and Zeresh his wife. And Haman told them of the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and all the things wherein the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king” ( Est 5:10-11 ).

Now he says, Let the dog live! Let the bad man take care! Judas Iscariot, be on thy guard! Heaven is against thee, and thine own hell hates thee. “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” You are very clever, you only are asked to the king’s banquet, you are entrusted with the king’s seal, you are chancellor, premier, leader, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The success of bad men is their failure. There is no heaven in their gold; it is not gold, it is gilt. How rich the table is! but Haman cannot eat; the wine is old, but the palate is dead. Walk in the garden and view the lovely flowers: there is no loveliness to eyes of greed, to eyes of ambition, to eyes of selfishness, every Eden is lost by the disobedient man. Do not let me die even in Eden, give me a skin of beast to my back, and let me out of the golden gate Let the dog live! There are many valiant men whose valour will one day be turned into pale cowardice. Only they are valiant who are right; only they are heroic who love God and keep his commandments; to them death is abolished, the grave a hole filled up with flowers, blossoming at the top. Who would be wicked prosperously wicked, dining with the king, but wicked; drinking wine with the queen with a murderer’s lips? We may be murderers without shedding blood. Every man who has broken a heart is a murderer, it matters not whether he be the highest prelate or supremest minister.

Whatever Ahasuerus did he did quickly. No one ever complained that he was dilatory. Let justice be done to Xerxes. He was a man of action. It was pointed out to him that the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman had made for Mordecai, who had spoken good for the king, stood in the house of Haman. The moment Ahasuerus heard there was a gallows he said, Hang Haman. Circumstances happily coincide here is the victim, here is the gallows: a child may complete the syllogism. It is wonderful how men who have no knowledge of the true God have always discovered a point of almightiness somewhere. Men who had no God, as we understand that term, have always had a deific line in their policy, a black line which meant the end. The Oriental kings realised this ideal of almightiness. Their word was law. Hang him! and no man dare say, Spare him! How could Haman complain? The gallows was his own invention; it was made after his own imagination; it was the very height he liked best for a gallows not forty-nine cubits high, but the round fifty. How often he had hanged Mordecai on the preceding night! how he had seen the Jew dangle in the air, and almost seen birds of carrion come and alight on his shoulder to look him over with a view to banqueting! How could he complain? This is God’s law: “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” All this we ourselves must go through. Take care! How much deeper are you going to make that hole? Do you say you mean to make it about ten feet deeper? then be assured that you have ten feet farther to fall. Men dig holes for others, and fall into them themselves. Do not be grave-diggers. “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Our hands were never made for the forging and hurling of thunderbolts; they were made to clasp other human hands, to lead the blind, to help the helpless. Yet who does not rejoice in this law of retribution, worked out on a grand scale, without a sign or token of pettishness in all its evolution? The universe would not be secure without it. The wicked man must be stopped somewhere: and how can a man be more decorously hung than on his own gallows? Is there satire in heaven? Is there just a faint wreathing of sarcasm on the lips of Justice? Do the powers supreme wait until the plans of bad men are quite completed, and then make them cut down the harvest which they themselves sowed in such glee of heart? Bad man, thine end is the gallows-tree! thou shalt surely be hanged by the neck until thou be dead. We see thee at thy front door, well painted, well polished, opening upon museum and picture-gallery and treasure-house; we hear the horses pawing and snorting in their warm stables, and see the servants flitting about in panoramic activity and confusion; we speak to thee over thy bags of gold thou shalt be damned! Say ye to the wicked, It shall be ill with him: he shall vomit his own successes, and when he is most ashamed it will be when he most clearly sees his triumphs. Say ye to the righteous, It shall be well with thee: poor, desolate, and afflicted, carrying seven burdens when one is enough for thy poor strength; yet at the end, because thou hast loved thy Lord, it shall be well with thee. Do not attempt to explain God’s “well.” It is a better word than if it had been in the superlative degree. Grammatical increase would mean moral depletion. It is enough that God says, “Well done.” “Well” is better than “best” in such setting of words.

From what point did Haman proceed to the gallows? From a banquet of wine. Oh to think of it! from a banquet to the gallows! There is not such a distance between the two points as might at first appear. Nearly the worst things in all the world are banquets. How a man can live in a mansion-house and pray, is a problem which we can consider even if we cannot answer. It was the rich man in the parable who was called “fool.” We should have been sorry for him under that designation if we had not first heard his speech; but after hearing his speech we found that no other word precisely covered the occasion. The house of mourning is better than the house of feasting. There is a sadness which is to be preferred to laughter. There are funerals infinitely more desirable than weddings. But we are the victims of the senses; we like gold and silver, and satin and colour; we rub our skilled fingers over them and say, Behold the texture! see the lustre! admire the beauty! We are blind within. An awful irony, that a man should have eyes to see stones and trees, and no eyes wherewith to see spirits, angels, God! Men drink away their vision; men drown in their cups the divinity that stirs within them.

Is the matter then at an end here? No. Haman’s policy must be all reversed.

“On that day did the king Ahasuerus give the house of Haman the Jews’ enemy unto Esther the queen” ( Est 8:1 ).

Esther had another request to make “She fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears.” Then it was all over! What did she beseech the king to do?

“To put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews. Then the king held out the golden sceptre toward Esther. So Esther arose and stood before the king. And said, If it please the king, and if I have found favour in his sight, and the thing seem right before the king, and I be pleasing in his eyes [Oh this eloquent tongue! She knew it was all settled before it began], let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews which are in all the king’s provinces: for how can I endure to see the evil that shall come unto my people? or how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred?” ( Est 8:3-6 ).

Pathos will do more than logic. Would God all preachers knew that one simple, practical, eternal lesson! Tears conquer. It was all done. Ahasuerus made gracious reply; the king’s scribes were called at the time to write letters of reversal all over the empire

“To the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language “( Est 8:9 ).

It was the beginning of a gospel: Go ye into the provinces, and tell every Jew that he shall live. It was a great speech. There is a greater still made by the Jew whom we call the Son of. God, and worship as God the Son: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” the gospel of pardon, acceptance, adoption, restoration, assured and immortal sonship.

Now will the Jews be merciful? Will they remember that

“Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them” ( Est 9:5 ).

That is human, but not the less awful. Who can be so bad as man? What beast can be so cruel as an unnatural parent? We have no excuse to offer for these men. If we had been reading a story rather than a history we should have had a different conclusion; we should have made the Jews almost divine: but the Jews were human, and therefore resentful and unforgiving. There is but one Man who can forgive sins.

A wonderful book is this book of Esther! We are told that the name of God does not once occur in it. How fond people are of counting times in which names appear! Observe, it is the name of God that is not in it: God himself is in every line of it. This distinction should be carefully marked by all men who are verbal statisticians, who take note of how many times the name of Christ appears in a sermon. The name of Christ may never be mentioned, and yet Christ may be in the sermon from end to end, the inspiration of its power, the secret of its pathos, the charm of its earnestness. It is but frivolous work to be counting the number of times in which the name of God occurs in this book or that, or the name of Christ occurs in this sermon or in that: is the Spirit Divine there? Is the thought from eternity or from time? Is it a mighty rushing sound from heaven, or is it but a whirlwind carrying nothing with it but thick dust? Men can answer the question well. There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding If God be for us, who can be against us?

“Mordecai the Jew 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” ( Est 10:3 ).

What narrow escapes we have in life! How near being hanged was even Mordecai one night! Who can tell what will happen tomorrow? Blessed is that servant who when his Lord cometh shall be found waiting. The faithful servant shall be called up into friendship and honour and coronation. You are in great straits to-day to-morrow you may have great riches. “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.” There is a sentimental hope which is never to be trusted; there is a hope which is the blossom of righteousness or the music of reason. Every Christian has the spirit of hope given to him as part of his divine estate: quench not the Spirit. We are not delivered in order that we may crush our enemies; we are not Christians in order that we may slay the heathen; we have not been adopted into God’s family that we may go out with a naked sword to cut down every infidel, sceptic, atheist, and unbeliever: we are saved that we may save; we have this honour given to us that we may call others to the same great joy. Let us, if we are delivered men let us, if we are saved from peril, strait, and sore extremity let us show our gratitude by our benevolence.

So we part with the brilliant queen, in some respects the Lady Macbeth of her day. The oldest blood of history warmed her veins, and the light of generations of heroes shone in her glorious eyes. She was developed by circumstances. Now she is timid, calculating, half afraid, half ashamed: her courage comes and goes like the blood-tide on fair cheeks, and anon she is as an unquenchable fire. How carefully she laid her finger on the king’s pulse! How well she kept the neck of Haman within reach of her crushing heel! She saw wonders, too, in her dreams! Countless hosts of murdered Jews; women begging for pity, and so doubling the very agony they hoped to abate; children speared, and hurled into depths like refuse too vile to waste fire upon: then Mordecai, grey with grief, bowed down with sorrow’s invisible burden, and sad with woe never to be all known; his quivering old life now yielding to despair, and now rising to an impossible hope, herself, killed, and buried amid oaths and jeers and Haman, his breast a hell, rejoicing with infernal joy as the last Jew gasped and died. Then the dream changed: a king was approached, interested, mollified; a fair woman grasped a moral sceptre, addressed a heart-speech to a willing ear, transfixed with eloquent finger the prince of villains, and on a morning cool and bright the enemy who plotted the murder of others swung from a gallows fifty cubits high! Thus life hints itself in dreams. Thus in the night we see outlines invisible in the glare of day. Thus, and thus, and thus, the great Spirit comes to establish his infinite purpose. We do not strain the moral of the story by calling for an Esther to stand up in modest courage in the presence of devastating forces drunkenness, lust, selfishness, oppression, slavery, and all wrong. The Woman must deliver us. She knows the availing method: her tongue is the instrument of eloquence; her eyes see the path that lies through all the darkness; she can mark the time, estimate the forces that are foremost, and strike violently without violence, and mightily without exaggeration. We want no dramatic attitude, no public display, no vaunting ostentation or self-assertion; we want the might of light, the stratagem of love, the courage of faith, the word of deliverance. Are not women themselves beaten, starved, dishonoured? Are not children cast out, neglected, left to die? Are not lies triumphant, are not honour and truth thrown down in the streets? The true propriety is to be unselfishly sincere, high-minded, fearless, O that women would take up the sad world’s cause and live and die for Christ. When did Jesus discourage the ministry of women? When did he order them home with gruff disdain? Did he not need them all, and make them rich with his blessing?

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXV

THE STORY OF ESTHER

Esther

Our subject for this discussion is “The Story of Esther.” First, a few words by way of general introduction to the book. The book of Esther belongs to what is called The Haggiographa, that is, the writings. The books of the Old Testament are divided into three groups: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings. This book belongs to the third group. The time of this book is during the sixty years of silence between the dedication of the Temple and Ezra’s return. It should be located right between the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra) perhaps about thirty-eight or thirty-nine years after the dedication, or 478 B.C.

The author is unknown, but unquestionably he was a Jew, possibly Ezra or Mordecai, but probably neither of them. The style is against Ezra as author, while the high praise of Mordecai is against Mordecai as author and, besides there are no first personal pronouns in the book referring to the author. It was evidently written by a Jew contemporary with Mordecai. Some say Joakim, the high priest, wrote it, but this is hardly probable, since he does not seem to have had a knowledge of the Persian court sufficient for such a task. The date is about 450 B.C.

There is a great deal of difference in the way the book of Esther is regarded by scholars and others. Many Gentiles have but little use for it, because it is such a Jewish book. Ewald, a great German critic, says that it is like coming down from heaven to earth to read Esther. Luther said he wished the book had never been written it is so Judaizing. So you see this book is variously estimated. The Jews value it highly. They maintain that the book of Esther will last when the prophets have perished. They always read it with great joy and say its place in the canon of the Holy Scriptures is unquestioned. But in many editions of the Bible it was not included; it was not considered worthy of a place. But by a large majority of the scholars it is included in the canon, as rightfully belonging to the Holy Scriptures.

The book was undoubtedly written to give a historical basis or ground for the Feast of Purim. This feast was observed for centuries before Christ in the month of March. The book was written by a Jewish patriot to give the occasion of this feast. This book has some peculiarities. The name of God is not once mentioned. There is no mention of prayer in it. There is not even a reference to Jerusalem nor the Temple. But it must be remembered that it is a national book; written for national purposes and from a national motive. It is intensely Jewish, referring to a tragic incident in their history, recounting the marvelous way in which they escaped from a great crisis. There are two allusions in the book to facts in previous Jewish history, viz: Mordecai’s captivity (Est 2:6 ) and the dispersion of the Jews in all the provinces (Est 3:8 ).

The book is real history. The arguments against the historicity of book are as follows:

1. According to the history of Herodotus, and that is our chief authority for the history of this period, especially Persian history, the queen of Ahasuerus at this time was Amastris, whom he married many years before the events found in the book of Esther could have happened, and she never was put away, but maintained a great influence over him and largely shaped the course of his life. She was a Persian woman of very bad personal traits: unscrupulous and crafty, controlling the king in many matters. She was entirely different from what Esther is pictured as being. Our reply to that argument will come up in a later reply to it.

2. The law of the land compelled the Persian monarchy to marry in the families of his own relatives, or five of the noblest Persian favorites. Thus it would have been impossible for a Jewish woman to have been made the queen.

3. Esther is regarded as the queen in this book. But she could only have been the chief favorite in the royal harem. This is probably the only position in which we can place her and be in harmony with the facts.

4. It is argued that the book clearly indicates that Haman knew the race of Mordecai, but not that of Esther. How could he be ignorant of the race?

5. The appalling massacre of their enemies by the Jews, seventy-five thousand at one time, seems incredible. It looks like the fancy picture of a novelist. The reasonable thing is to deny that seventy-five thousand citizens of the Persian Empire could be killed or butchered in such a way.

6. It is highly improbable that the massacre should have been deferred for eleven months after it was decreed. Lots were cast, and according to the lot Haman fixed the date of the decree which he had secured from the king. It is neither improbable nor by any means impossible, but perfectly true.

7. The story is so well knit together as to resemble a fairy tale. But cannot God arrange his providences as well as a writer could arrange them? Is God’s mind inferior to a novelist’s?

8. The religious element is in the background, and scarcely referred to either directly or indirectly. It is true that God is not directly referred to, nor is prayer mentioned, but God is implied, and there may be a reason for the silence in the matter of religion. The writer may have found it better to conceal the element of the Jewish religion than to reveal the power behind the throne.

9. Its moral tone is unworthy of Scripture. The best characters in the book are represented as ruthlessly demanding this massacre and then demanding its repetition, not satisfied with the butchery of five hundred people in one city alone, only satisfied when three hundred more were put to death. Such is at variance with the Scripture, and seems to be unworthy of a place in the canon, they say.

Now the arguments in favor of the historicity of the book are as follows:

1. It is true to the Persian manners and customs, even down to the minutest details. It is true to the life, times, and customs of the Persian people. No man could have written this book unless he was familiar with the Persian life in all of its details. So at once it is evident that it cannot be fiction.

2. The character of Xerxes, or Ahasuerus, is correctly pictured. Point by point this king can be matched with the picture and record of Herodotus, the great historian. The man who wrote this book must have known this king, or he never could have written the book as we have it.

3. The existence of the Feast of Purim itself must have some historical occasion and is a mighty argument for the historicity of the book. Critics have tried to account for this feast which has existed now for twenty-three or twenty-four hundred years in other ways, but have utterly failed. The only way to account for the feast is to accept the feast as actual history.

4. The great council in the third year in the reign of Ahasuerus mentioned in the first of the book of Esther, that is, the feast actually occurred and was called together to plan an expedition against Greece. That expedition he carried out as secular history plainly records. Then were fought the battles of Thermopylae and Marathon on the land, and the sea contest at Salamis, when the hosts of Persia were scattered like chaff before the Greek patriots. It is a historic fact that this great assembly came together in the third year of the reign of Ahasuerus.

5. There is no historical discrepancy in the book. The most critical of the German critics has failed to point out a single incident which contradicts history.

6. It makes its appeals to the chronicles of the kings of Persia, as found in the last chapter. The writer would not have dared to do that writing as he did in the land of Persia, if his record had not been true and he had not authority for what he wrote.

7. It tacitly, though not openly, recognizes a providence in history, and was written to record the divine providence in relation to God’s chosen people. Much scripture is written for the very purpose of recording God’s dealings with his people in their preservation, and the incidents of their natural existence. Why should not one book then be written with this great event as its real background?

8. The ruthless demand of Mordecai and Esther for the massacre of their enemies must be studied in the light of their age and the circumstances that had been forced upon them.

9. God’s providences may produce as good and as well knit a story as the imagination of a novelist. To deny that is really to deny the workings of divine providence, or to deny that God is as great as man.

The classic name of Ahasuerus is Xerxes, the boundaries of whose empire were India and Ethiopia. The places of the scenes of the book are Shushan, the palace of the Persian king, and the provinces.

We may now pursue our study of the book itself by taking up the story chapter by chapter as follows:

Chapter 1 : In the palace of Artaxerxes there is a great feast, lasting 180 days; his magnificence is displayed. A second great feast is made for the people of Shushan. There are revelling and drinking till the men are all drunken. The king is intoxicated. He commands to bring his wife, Vashti, for his drunken lords to look at, that he might display her beauty. The refusal of the queen to come and be insulted, the anger of the king, the advice of one of his counsellors, the issuing of the decree that all women, throughout the Persian Empire should ever after obey their husbands about as foolish a decree as any man ever made.

Chapter 2 : A new queen is sought. A bevy of beautiful girls is brought one by one before the king. Among them is Esther, a Jewess, brought up by Mordecai. She succeeds in pleasing the king and becomes queen. A great feast is made in honor of her. About that time a plot is discovered by Mordecai in which two of the king’s chamberlains plan to assassinate the king. Mordecai reveals the plot.

Chapter 3 : The promotion of Haman, the Agagite, to be prime minister. Mordecai, the Jew, refuses to bow down to him. Haman is angered and mortified. He will not be content with putting to death one Jew, but asks the king on promise of payment of a large sum of money for permission to put to death the entire Jewish nation, on the condition that he replace his loss out of the money of those he killed. The decree is granted. The lot is cast to decide the day. The edict goes forth that on that day eleven months hence all the Jews are to be put to death.

Chapter 4 : The grief of the Jews. Mordecai commands Esther to intercede on their behalf before the king. She asks him to fast three days on her behalf. The answer to Mordecai, “Do not think that thou thyself shall escape their massacre?”

Chapter 5 : Esther appears before the king, taking her life in her own hands, for it might mean death to appear before the king unbidden. She is accepted. This incident is to Esther like the experience of Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of this same king. Everything seemed to depend upon the whim of this childish king. She invites him to a banquet. She knows how to get on the best side of him. She asks Haman to be with them also. Haman hears the news that he is to banquet with the king and his queen, and he is very much elated. He tells his wife about it, then complains about this man, Mordecai, who will not bow the knee to him. His wife says, “Get ready a gallows fifty cubits high and hang Mordecai on it.” He follows his wife’s advice and prepares the gallows.

Chapter 6 : Incidents leading up to the honoring of Mordecai. The state records are read. The story is told how the king’s life had been spared by a man named Mordecai. He asks the question, “Has this man been honored? He saved my life.” Answer, “No.” While he is thinking about this, Haman comes in. The king asks him, “What shall I do to the one I desire to highly honor?” Haman, thinking it is himself that the king desires to honor, gives this suggestion: “Put the king’s robe on him and a chain about his neck, and have the chief man in the kingdom lead his beast through the streets of the city.” He said that, thinking that he was to be thus honored himself. “All right,” said the king, “You go and do that to Mordecai,” and he had to do it. There was no escape from the king’s command. Then he went home like a sulky boy because he had been whipped. As soon as he reaches home, word comes that he is to go to the banquet.

Chapter 7 : The banquet passed off without incident. Persians were very fond of drinking and banquets. The king wanted to know what Esther demanded. She wanted time to get him in a good humor, so she asked that he come to another banquet. At this the king declared that he was ready to grant her request even to half of the kingdom. Now the time had come. She began to beg for her life and for the life of her people. We may imagine how the king felt when he learned that his favorite queen was to be killed. See how she works him up. Yes, she was to be killed, for the decree did not exclude even her. “Who is going to kill my very idol, my favorite queen?” “Why, this wicked Haman is going to do it.” This is another psychological moment. Haman begins to beg and to plead with Esther for his life; he even climbed up on the couch where she is reclining. The king thinks that he is even trying to add insult to injury, and so his rage knows no bounds. The servants say that he has made a gallows fifty cubits high on which to hang Mordecai. The king commands them to take the wretch and hang him on it.

Chapter 8 : Mordecai is promoted to Haman’s place and becomes chief minister. Esther begs that the decree against the Jews be revoked, but the law of the Medes and Persians changes not. The only thing that can be done is to issue another decree, so the king asks her what she will have. She and Mordecai have talked it over and she is ready for that request. She asks that the Jews have the privilege of slaying their enemies. There was no other way out of it. This shows Mordecai’s shrewdness and ability. There was great rejoicing among the Jews at this turn of affairs.

Chapter 9 : The day arrives. The Jews are prepared. The nobles help the Jews because a Jew is prime minister. The nobles knew on which side their bread was buttered. So they help the Jews and altogether, seventy-five thousand of the people are slain; five hundred in Shushan the palace alone. Esther and Mordecai make another request. Esther wants the massacre repeated. She wanted another day of butchery. I do not know why. The king grants it. There is great rejoicing among the Jews. This occurred on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar, or our month of March. Mordecai and Esther fix this day in which all the Jews shall celebrate this great event. She has the edict issued under the seal of Mordecai the prime minister, and so the feast is established. That is how this feast originated. Every year on the fifteenth of March, all the Jews celebrate it. They do not celebrate it in a very religious fashion now. Still they regard it as a great day.

Chapter 10 : This chapter speaks of the greatness of Mordecai, as the prime minister of the Persian king.

Now let us look at the chief characters of the book, as follows:

1. Ahasuerus : There is no question but that this Ahasuerus is the Xerxes of history, and is an exemplification of despotism. He was an absolute monarch, a despot. In him we see the outworkings of despotism. Caligula of the Roman Empire was a despot, and his despotism drove him mad. It is despotism that made this king, Xerxes, ridiculous in the eyes of the world. He was the slave of his ministers and servants. He knew nothing but what they told him. He was absolutely dependent upon them, for all of his information. He was like a child in his silly notions. His servants and nobles deceived and tricked him, and he was so suspicious of them that he was a very slave to his slaves. He was afraid of them, and they knew that if he suspicioned them, he would kill them, and so he was afraid of them, and they were afraid of him. He was the slave also of his passions. He spent his time drinking, eating, banqueting and satisfying his gluttony and lust. He was not much above the beast. Because the Hellespont wrecked his ships, he ordered it to be flogged. He was the slave of his whims and fancies, the slave of his temper and his feelings. He knew no control but his own will, the tool and the plaything of the favorite of his harem, willing to ruthlessly murder thousands of his own subject to satisfy his favorite queen. We must, however, say for him that he recognized the services of Mordecai in saving his life, and honored him. But he did this because it was called to his attention, and not because he sought it out or remembered it.

2. Vashti : She has been honored above many women in history. She is recognized as one who would forfeit her position and crown rather than to sacrifice her honor and her pride. She refused to obey the king at the risk of her own life. But she maintained her dignity and self-respect. She was valorous and womanly. She was having a feast with the women, and it is thought by some that she may have refused to do the king’s bidding because she had taken a little too much wine, hence was not much disposed to be ordered, but I rather think this is not true. She was a rare gem in the midst of that corrupt Persian Court.

3. Haman : This man’s name is a synonym for vanity and fulsome pride, ruthlessness and savagery, deceit, cruelty, and all that is ignoble. He is the incarnation of insane conceit. Honors made a fool of him. Now pride in itself is not such a bad thing. A man may have pride of the right sort and really be helped by it. But a man with this kind of pride wants everything in the universe to be his slave. Even preachers may have this disease. They sometimes think that everybody and everything ought to bow down to them. Because Mordecai would not bow his knee to Haman his vanity was hurt. When a man thus allows his vanity to rule him, he sees everything out of proportion. Haman could not be satisfied with the murder of Mordecai, but he must do the big thing and kill the nation. Vanity is insatiable, and often causes wars. It was this man’s vanity that led to his downfall.

4. Mordecai : He is one of the great characters of the book. He was a Jew and a poor one, but he was loyal to the king, under whose government he lived. The Jews have become citizens of nearly every nation in the world. Here we have a Jew the prime minister of the empire. One of the greatest prime ministers that Great Britain ever had was a Jew. Mordecai was faithful to his king. He was elevated to be prime minister, but it did not give him the “big head.” When he was led through the streets he did not feel puffed up. He had sense enough to know that that sort of thing would not last long. Here is a man who waited and worked. We do well to learn that lesson working and waiting and doing your best will bring its reward, in due time. God always has a place ready for the man who works and waits and does his best.

5. Esther : She was brought up in the family of Mordecai and trained by him. She was trained well beyond any doubt. She was beautiful but not spoiled by her beauty. She was able to use her beauty in the right way. Though she was the favorite of the king and was successful with him, it did not spoil her. She remained loyal to her uncle and did not forget him. Neither did she lose her religion when she became a queen in the most wicked court of her times. There is no mention that there was prayer connected with the three days fast, but doubtless there was. She takes her life in her own hands for her people. She knew how to manage the king. She outwitted the cunning Haman. She was severe. She was one of the greatest heroines of history, and she has been called by many the saviour of her people. She was beautiful, talented, brave, shrewd, and a womanly woman, yea, one of the greatest of women.

QUESTIONS

1. At what point in the history of Israel does the book of Esther come in?

2. Who wrote the book and when?

3. What of the canonicity of the book?

4. What was the purpose of the book?

5. What are the peculiarities of the book?

6. What two allusions in the book to facts in previous Jewish history?

7. Is the book real history and what arguments prove and confirm?

8. What was the classic name of the Persian king who married Esther and what were the boundaries of his empire.

9. What was the place of the scenes of the book?

10. Give the story of the book, chapter by chapter.

11. Give a character sketch of Ahasuerus, Vashti, Haman, Mordecai, and Esther, respectively.

12. What great lessons of the book and at what points in the story is God’s hand most plainly seen?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Est 10:1 And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and [upon] the isles of the sea.

Ver. 1. And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute, &c. ] An extraordinary tribute to maintain war against the Grecians, who, uniting together, were then grown potent and formidable. To enable himself, therefore, the better against them, he gathered money, the sinews of war, but lost the affections of his subjects, the joints of peace. He became hereby ill-beloved of all sorts, and far a less king, by striving to be more than he was. And hence haply one letter of his name is lost here, for the Masorites tell us that in the ancient copies he is written, not Ahasuerus, but Ahasres, without a Vau (Drus. in loc.). Hebrew Text Note

And upon the isles of the sea ] Judaea was an isle, Isa 20:6 (but not of the sea, for it was part of the continent), because media inseparabilis unda separated from other countries, and encircled with God’s powerful protection. It was, say some, by Mordecai’s means exempted from this great taxation. Herodotus saith that a country near unto Arabia was exempted (Herod. l. 3). He meaneth Judaea, saith Junius, though he name it not. It may be so. And it may be, saith an interpreter, that this is here inserted, as being intended only of the re-imposing of the tribute, whereof there was granted a release at Esther’s marriage, Est 2:18 , yet it may be also added, to show how God punished the nations for their late greedy gaping after the lives and estates of God’s people.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Esther Chapter 10

The book closes, in the next chapter (Est 10 ) with an account of the greatness of the realm of the king, and also of Mordecai his minister. “For Mordecai the Jew. 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.” Thus worthily closes this most remarkable book. The Jew, delivered from all his distresses, is brought into the nearest place to the great king, and instead of being himself the victim of the hatred of the Gentile he has authority over all to execute vengeance upon all that would slay the seed of Abraham.

May the Lord give us to delight in the ways of God! May we read His word and profit by His word in all wisdom and spiritual understanding! We shall not find the less profit from the book because we understand it. To apply it to ourselves is only to deceive ourselves. We see the place of the ancient people of God when the proud Gentile will be put down because of his disobedience, and when the Jew will be brought in all the loveliness that God can put upon him, into his own proper place before the earth. These are the prospects that this book gives us. Yet not this only, but the beautiful feature, I think, you will see completely preserved from first to last – that all this was given during the day of the cloud – of the darkness – of the dispersion – of the non-recognition of the Jew. The name of God is entirely absent from it. It is the secret power of God working through circumstances that might seem awkward. But what a comfort to us! We, too, have to do with the same providence of God – not indeed working to the same end; for God’s object is not to give us vengeance upon the foe, is not to exalt us into earthly greatness, but we have got to do with the same God; only – thank God! He does not disown us. He has brought us into a relationship which never can be lost, – a relationship which depends upon Christ and which is sealed by the Holy Ghost. Consequently, He never refuses that we should call upon Him, “Our God and Father”; nor does He ever refuse to own us as the children of His love.

Thus you see the book does not in the smallest degree apply to us in what is meant by Esther; but we are, surely, justified in taking all the comfort of God’s mighty hand. Where men see but circumstances passing around us, we know that “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to his purpose.” We may not see the way, but we know the God, we see the God, we can draw near to the God that controls all things in our favour. In short, therefore, the providence of God is a universal truth, till the day come when the dealings of God will be public and manifest, and His name will be named upon His people. Meanwhile we can count upon this for Israel. We know that now they are dispersed – that now they are in a wholly anomalous condition, but the day will come when God will set aside the Gentile, and bring in Israel once more, and our hearts can rejoice. It will be no loss to us even if that were the motive. But, in point of fact, it will be no loss to us. We shall be with the Lord Jesus on high, and it will be only after that that God will judge the Gentile and call back the Jew.

W.K.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Est 10:1-3

1Now King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land and on the coastlands of the sea. 2And all the accomplishments of his authority and strength, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia? 3For Mordecai the Jew was second only to King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews and in favor with his many kinsmen, one who sought the good of his people and one who spoke for the welfare of his whole nation.

Est 10:1 laid a tribute on the land and on the coastlands of the sea Xerxes I lost the Aegean islands in his Greek campaign, but apparently retained some islands off of the coast of Europe and some off of the coast of Egypt and Palestine. However, this verse is meant to show the greatness of Ahasuerus in his taxing program (only here, later meaning of tribute [BDB 586 I], which originally meant forced labor, e.g., Gen 49:15; Jos 16:10; Jos 17:13; 1Ki 4:6; 1Ki 5:13-14; 1Ki 12:18; 2Ch 10:18, cf. TEV, NET), which was desperately needed after the Persian wars. It is a closing comment on Mordecai as a good administrator (cf. Est 10:2). Mordecai helped his people, but also was a faithful servant of Xerxes (cf. Est 10:3) and helped the whole nation (like Daniel and his three friends).

In II Maccabees the feast of Purim is known as the feast of Mordecai (cf. 2Ma 15:36), which shows the historicity of the book of Esther and the greatness of Mordecai in Jewish tradition.

Mordecai was not second in command for an extended period of time (possibly only 8 years), if secular history is to be trusted.

Est 10:2 the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia This does not refer to the biblical books of I & 2 Chr., but could refer to

1. the official court documents which were kept and archived (Media and Persia gives credence to this view)

2. a personal diary of Xerxes (cf. Est 2:23; Est 6:1)

3. a Jewish account of Jewish life in Persia (easier access to a Jewish leader)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This is a study guide commentary which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought provoking, not definitive.

1. What is the purpose of the king’s signet ring?

2. Does Est 8:17 describe a large scale conversion to Judaism?

3. Why did the Jews not seize the plunder of those who hated them (cf. Est 9:10)?

4. How many people did the Jews kill? What was the Jewish loss?

5. What is the purpose of the Esther 9, 10?

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

isles = coasts.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 10

Now chapter 10 just deals with now the exalting of Mordecai. He was made, more or less, prime minister over the Persian Empire. He was given pretty much the office and the role that Haman had had. And it is, no doubt, because of Esther and Mordecai and their position, that when Esther’s husband Ahasuerus died, his son, also called Ahasuerus in the scriptures, became the next king, but Queen Esther, no doubt, had a great influence upon him, her stepson. And it was he who gave to Nehemiah the permission and all to go back and rebuild the city of Jerusalem, to restore the walls and all. The stepson of Esther is the one who gave that very important decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, the decree from which the beginning date of the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. Four hundred and eighty-three years after that date the Messiah will come. So that is, no doubt, because of the influence that Mordecai and Esther had.

Now, this brings us now to an end of a major section of the Old Testament. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Est 10:1-3

Est 10:1-3

A FINAL NOTE ON THE GREATNESS OF MORDECAI

“And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia? For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of the brethren, seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.”

The purpose of the author in this very short chapter is that of stressing the greatness of Mordecai, the key word being that, in all the world, no one was any greater than Mordecai except the king. “Mordecai was next unto king Ahasuerus”! This required a preliminary note on how great was Ahasuerus. He was the ruler of most of the world as it was known then, from India to Ethiopia, with one hundred twenty-seven provinces, and here is added a note that he laid tribute upon the land and the isles of the sea. After the Grecian campaign, in which Xerxes suffered defeat, his dominion over the isles of the sea was reduced, but still existed. “Cyprus and Aradus were among the isles he still ruled.”

Not only was Mordecai next to king Ahasuerus, but his mighty deeds were written in the book of the chronicles of the Medo-Persian empire, along with that of their mighty kings. Incidentally, we have here the most conspicuous evidence that the Medo-Persian Empire was never two empires, but only one; the record of all their kings was in the same book!

“The author of Esther here emphasized the great power and wealth of Xerxes in order to show the marvelous providence of God in elevating a despised Jew to a position of honor and trust in such an empire.”

Many things we would like to know. For example, how long did Esther remain on the throne as queen? How many years did Mordecai continue as Prime Minister? “But Esther was not written to record the lives of emperors, queens, or prime ministers, but to preserve the record of a great national deliverance of God’s people, a deliverance which would bring comfort and hope to millions of Jews through millenniums of time.”

“Seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed” (Est 10:3). “The meaning of these two phrases is that Mordecai procured both by word and deed the good and prosperity of his people. This is the way in which honor and fortune are attained, the way indicated in the 34th Psalm (Psa 34:13-15), when teaching the fear of the Lord.”

Joyce Baldwin pointed out that, “These three verses are couched in thoroughly Biblical terms. Zec 9:10 speaks of the Messiah that, `He shall speak peace to the nations (Zec 9:10)’; and no earthly ruler could have done more than to speak peace to his people.”

“Speaking peace to all his seed” (Est 10:3). In all probability Mordecai was a eunuch, and therefore we understand `his seed’ here to be a reference to God’s Israel.

E.M. Zerr:

Est 10:1. The land means the main body of the empire. The authority of Ahasuerus was so extensive that he put the islands under this tribute or tax also.

Est 10:2. For comments on chronicles see 1Ki 14:19. Such important transactions as those about the Jews would certainly be made a part of the royal records. The reason for making this statement by the inspired writer, is the fact that we are interested in the history of Mordecai and his connection with the people of Persia.

Est 10:3. Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus. The book of Esther furnishes us with at least two important facts and lessons. It shows the complete destruction of the descendants of the Amalekites (Est 3:1; Est 7:10; Est 9:12), which fulfilled the prediction made in Exo 17:14. It gives also a clear example of the truth spoken by Jesus, that, “whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Luk 14:11.)

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Here we have the last picture of this man Mordecai. It is a singularly fine one. Whatever may have been questionable in some of the methods he adopted with regard to Esther-and here we are not able to be dogmatic – it is evident that he was of fine character. Probably all the experiences of the goodness of God had brought him to finer life. Evidently he retained the favor of Ahasuerus, for his position was next to the king. This did not alienate him from his own people. He continued to seek their good, and to speak peace to them; and therefore was held in highest honor among them, as well as trusted where he exercised authority.

Perhaps there is: no severer test of greatness of soul than advancement in the favor of kings. Too often it has meant the undoing of men who, though poor or in disfavor in high places have remained true. The man who can pass to wealth and position among the great ones of the earth, and still maintain his integrity and his loyalty to his own kith and kin, is ever a great man, and the secrets of such greatness invariably are that the man’s roots are in God.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

the Feast of Purim

Est 9:20-32; Est 10:1-3

The Feast of Purim-so called from Est 3:7 -was held on the 14th and 15th of Adar, our February. The whole of this book was read on the previous evening in the synagogue. Whenever Hamans name was pronounced, the whole congregation made a terrible noise, and every voice shouted imprecations, Let his name rot! The reference to tribute in Est 10:1 shows that this book is a historical document, preserved in the state archives, and probably written by a Jewish chronicler, who may have owed his position to Mordecai himself. The providence of God is clearly discernible in all the incidents recorded here. Through all human governments and events a divine purpose runs; and as God exalted Mordecai to honor and glory, so will He work for those who love Him, and so ultimately will He put all enemies under His feet.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter 10

Speaking Peace

The story of Satans effort to destroy the nation of promise, together with the manner in which he was thwarted, having been so minutely told, there remains nothing more but to picture the changed conditions resultant upon the destruction of Haman and his house, and the advancement of Mordecai. The far-reaching rule of the Persian monarch is first shown in the statement that the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land and upon the isles of the sea (ver. 1). All nations had to know and own his power, as soon they shall own the sway of Gods chosen King. How blessed the day when

Jesus shall reign where eer the sun

Doth his successive journeys run:

His kingdom spread from shore to shore,

Till moons shall wax and wane no more.

The powers that be are ordained of God; but all are merely provisional during the present period of the true Kings rejection. Soon shall this groaning scene be changed to one of unmingled joy and gladness for the delivered nations when there shall be revealed from heaven a righteous ruler over men, a ruler in the fear of God! This, Ahasuerus was not. Consequently his world-wide domination soon passed to other hands; but when Gods Anointed reigns, His kingdom will never be superseded.

Let the reader not fall into a mistake very commonly made to-day. The Kingdom is not the Church. The latter is the body of Christ, composed of all who, in this dispensation, are called out from Jew and Gentile, and baptized in the power of the Holy Spirit. During the period in which God is doing this special work of His grace, the Kingdom, properly speaking, is in abeyance. It is true the principles of the Kingdom are spreading through the world, and all who are born again are, even now, in, and morally of it.

But for all that the reigning time has not yet come. It is still the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. When the Lord returns from heaven He will descend with a shout into the upper air, accompanied by the voice of the archangel and the trump of God. The Church will then be complete and her period of testimony and rejection on earth will be accomplished. Therefore the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we be forever with the Lord (1Th 4:16, 17; see also 1Co 15:51-56).

This will be the end of the Christian dispensation, but not the end of the world. There are other periods to follow. The first will be very brief, and is commonly referred to in Scripture as the great tribulation, the hour of trial, and the time of Jacobs trouble. In this season, (with which a great part of Scripture is occupied, notably Matt. xxiv. and the bulk of the Revelation-chaps. 4-19 inclusive) the Jewish nation will once more be taken up by God. A remnant of them in their unprecedented tribulation will turn to His Word and will there see that, on account of their rejection of Messiah, they had been given up to partial blindness until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. That time having been reached at the rapture of the Church, God will then open their eyes to their great sin. They will acknowledge the Crucified as the Anointed of Jehovah, and will separate themselves from the ungodly mass to wait for His appearing as their Deliverer. In the land of Palestine one will arise of whom Haman is a fit type-the personal Antichrist, referred to in Scripture under various titles, as the king of Dan 11:36, who shall do ac- cording to his own will; the idol shepherd of Zec 11:15-17; one who shall come in his own name in Joh 5:43; the man of sin, and the wicked or lawless one of 2 Thess. 2, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders; and the two-horned beast of Rev. 13, who has the appearance of a lamb, to simulate the Lamb of God, but is betrayed by his speech, which is that of a dragon. This fearful character will be the bitter persecutor of the faithful Jews for a short period, but as in the matter of Haman and Mordecai, when all seems darkest, the Lord shall appear for the destruction of the power of evil and the salvation of His people. Then follows the establishment of the kingdom which is never to be given to another, when for one thousand years the Lord Jesus shall reign over all the earth.

Whenever world-wide dominion has been entrusted to man, he has, as in all else, utterly failed. But when He shall come whose right it is, He will judge the nations in righteousness and manifest Jehovahs perfect rule on earth. This is the Kingdom which is the burden of the Old Testament prophecies and which is frequently referred to in the New Testament. One passage from this latter portion we shall here quote. Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together (or head up) in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in Him (Eph 1:10, 11). When that long-waited for dispensation arrives, the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. The heavenly saints will then be associated with their Lord in government, while saints on earth will, with rejoicing, own His beneficent sway.

Misrule and oppression will have ceased forever. Earths long wail will have changed to a song of unending praise to the Lamb once slain.14 We cannot forbear referring the reader to one beautiful passage, this time from the Psalms, ere leaving this intensely interesting subject. We refer to Psalm 72, where Messiahs kingdom is described most vividly. After telling how He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass, bringing refreshment and blessing to this poor parched world, we read that He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before Him; and His enemies shall lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him: all nations shall serve Him (vers. 8-11). No wonder that at the conclusion of the recital of His glories the inspired singer writes, The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended! All will be then as it should be; for the whole earth will be full of His glory.

The evanescent character of human greatness and the crumbling kingdoms of earth as contrasted with the stone kingdom yet to come are well brought out in the second verse of our chapter in Esther. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia? These books are probably lost beyond recall. God has, however, preserved His own record of the events of those days. Were it not for this, we should never have known from secular history of Mordecai and of Gods intervention for the preservation of His people in the land of their exile.

Ahasuerus power was of the fading glory of this world. He is gone, and his records have perished. Mordecai had the interests of Jehovah at heart, despite the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed. His faithfulness will be remembered forever. For Mordecai the Jew 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 (ver. 3). He appears as a thoroughly disinterested, unselfish person, who, though honored by the proud conqueror, never acts now as of old, when he counseled Esther against revealing her kindred; but is a guileless man, known to all as a Jew, and using his power for the blessing of the once jeopardized nation.

That from time to time, even where there is much that is contrary to the mind of God, He manifests His unbounded grace by giving to His people such deliverers is evident both in Scripture and in the dark and sorrowful annals of the Church on earth. Let no one conclude from this fact that it is a matter of small moment to Him if His saints go on with that which is contrary to His revealed Word. It is one thing to know a Fathers love and care, even though walking in self-chosen paths; it is another thing, like Enoch, to walk with God and have the testimony that one is pleasing Him.

As an evidence of how feebly man enters into Divine design in Scripture, I would draw attention, ere closing, to the well-known fact that in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and found in English in the Apocrypha, there are a number of additions to the book of Esther which are commonly supposed to be the work of pious Egyptian Jews who were troubled by the omission of all reference to God, and therefore supplemented the book with productions of their own, in which the glory would all be given to Him. These interpolations are rightly rejected in our version, as they never formed part of the Hebrew text, and were written after the voice of prophecy had ceased, in the days of Malachi. In one of these added portions, Haman is referred to as a Macedonian whose desire it was to turn the kingdom to his people. This would be quite in keeping with the times in which they were written. The Persian empire was overthrown, as we know, by Alexander the Great, whose Macedonian troops so readily routed the luxurious Iranian armies.

Man cannot tamper with Gods word save to his ruin, and to the marring of that which is absolutely perfect in itself. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally, God- breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2Ti 3:16, 17).

May writer and reader seek, ever more and more, to walk as men of God; thus finding in every portion of Holy Writ divine furnishing for our path through this scene.

14 The attentive reader who may desire further light on the Kingdom and connected themes will find great help in Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects, by W. Trotter. $1.25. At the same publishers.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

AHASUERUS AND MORDECAI: THE CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 10

The three verses with which this book closes tell us of the greatness of King Ahasuerus. Here also is the record of the increasing greatness of Mordecai. He was next unto King Ahasuerus, great among the Jews, accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people and speaking peace to all his seed. A blessed type of Him who is greater than Mordecai and who will some day bring peace to His earthly people and who will speak peace to the nations. The precious little book ends with peace.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

isles

i.e. coasts.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

laid a tribute: Est 1:1, Est 8:9, Luk 2:1

the isles: Gen 10:5, Psa 72:10, Isa 24:15, Dan 11:18

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Est 10:1. King Ahasuerus, laid a tribute upon the land That is, he laid a tax upon every part of his dominions, both on the continent, and on the islands over which his power extended. By the isles here mentioned are meant those in the egean sea, conquered by Darius Hystaspes.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Est 10:1. Laid a tribute upon the land. This was to prepare for his great expedition, as some suppose, against Europe. But the heathen historians, so materially contradicting one another, we cannot know whether Ahasurus was the Xerxes who made the tremendous but shameful descent on Greece.The isles of the sea. The isles of Chittim, now called the Greek Islands, of which Crete and Cyprus were the chief.See the remains of this history in the Apocryphal books.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Esther 10. Conclusion of the Book.The final chapter is a short panegyric on Mordecai: he is praised as wise and kind, a man of high importance in imperial affairs as well as beloved by all Jews. This is really praise of Judas Maccabus. But the scribes did not like the praise of that hero. He was the founder of the Hasmonean dynasty, which the Sadducees supported; but the Pharisees hated that dynasty, because it placed both princedom and high priesthood in one and the same persons hands (p. 608). The Pharisees were the masters of the scribal body and methods, hence the effort of these scribes to weaken the respect for Mordecai, Esther, Purim, and our tale; and hence, perhaps, the truncations in the Heb. version.

LXX has a paragraph following the praise of Mordecai, which sums up the tale as a record of Yahwehs love and care for His people, and as a token of His purpose to rule the world by the hand of the Jews. It is a genuine utterance of the apocalyptic doctrine and faith. Probably a summary of this sort was in the original. Finally, a note has been appended to the LXX, to tell how a certain Dositheus brought the story in some form to Jerusalem and interpreted it there, all in the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Among the royal pairs bearing these names, the most suitable reigned just at 100 B.C. And as the MS. was brought from Egypt, we are tempted to believe that the original was in Gr. Perhaps it was interpreted later on into Heb. by a scribe with a skilful Heb. style.

THE POETICAL AND WISDOM LITERATURE

BY THE EDITOR

THIS articles concerned simply with the general criticism of the poetical and wisdom literature. For Heb. poetry see pp. 2224, for Heb. wisdom pp. 24, 9395, 343345. Heb. metre is discussed in the Introduction to the Pss. (372f.), parallelism in the article on The Bible as Literature (p. 23). The commentaries on the individual books should also be consulted. Poetical passages are of course found outside the books dealt with in this section. Some of these are quite early, for example Judges 5, Genesis 49, the oracles of Balaam, to say nothing of briefer pieces in the Hexateuch, some of which may be earlier still; and several are to be found scattered through the later books, for example 1Sa 2:1-10, 2Sa 1:19-27, 2S. 4:33f., 1Sa 23:1-7, Isa 38:10-20, Jon 2:2-9, Habakkuk 3. For these reference must be made to the commentaries. Our section includes Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; the Book of Lamentations properly belongs to it also.

When Reuss in 1834 expressed the conviction that the true chronological order was Prophets, Law, Psalms, not, as was commonly believed, Law, Psalms, Prophets, he was giving utterance to an intuition which recent criticism has on the whole justified. Dt. has behind it the prophets of the eighth century. P rests mainly on Dt. and Ezek. The Psalter is in the main a creation of post-exilic Judaism, and has behind it both the Law and the Prophets. This applies also to Proverbs, which suggests, to borrow Cornills metaphor, that Prophecy and Law have been closed and minted into proverbial small coin. The existence at a very early date of poetry so great as the Song of Deborah shows that the period of the Judges was equal to the composition of the finest poetry, and Davids elegy on Saul and Jonathan is ample guarantee that he may have written religious poetry of high quality. The shrewd mother wit of Solomon and his practical sagacity may well have found expression in aphorism, in epigram, and in parable. Indeed the traditional connexion of the father with Psalmody, of the son with Hebrew Wisdom, must have a substantial foundation. But it would be a hasty verdict which argued that the Davidic authorship of many Pss., the Solomonic authorship of Pr., Ec., and Ca., were thus guaranteed. David probably wrote psalms, but how can we be sure that they are preserved in our Psalter, and if so, which, seeing that the first collection was formed after the return from captivity? And how can we feel confident that, even if authentic proverbs of Solomon are preserved in the Canon, we can detect which they are? Titles are notoriously untrustworthy (pp. 366f.), and other criteria must be applied. The linguistic test is not so helpful as we could wish. Its verdict is clearest in the case of Ec., pp. 35, 411, which on this ground, if for no other reason, cannot be the work of Solomon. It shows that some Pss. must be late, it does not prove that any must be early. It is the place which the literature fills in the development of thought and religion which is decisive. The literature as a whole belongs to the post-exilic period. The Psalter in the main is secondary and imitative. It does not strike out new lines in theology or ethics, as do the great prophets. Even in religious experience the writers are rarely pioneers. It is true that their religious experience was their own. They do not merely give literary expression to states of feeling of which they have learnt from others, but into which they have never entered. In that sense their experience is original and not second-hand. Yet we may say that they were not the first to realise them. The glory of discovery belongs to the great adventurous spirits who preceded them; as it has been said, Without Jeremiah we should have had no Psalter.

Yet we ought not to assume that no pre-exilic Pss. have come down to us. Some at least of the royal Pss. are best placed in the time of the monarchy, and not regarded as referring either to a foreign king or a Maccabean ruler. But even if this is admitted, since historical allusions are too vague for any definite results, we cannot do more than recognise the possibility that a few of our Pss. are earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem.

At present critics are rather preoccupied, not with the question whether we have any early Pss., but whether a large number should not be regarded as very late. The same tendency appears here as in recent criticism of the prophetic literature, only, of course, in a more extreme form. It has long been debated whether any Maccabean Pss. are preserved in the Psalter. Even conservative scholars were inclined to recognise that a few, especially in Books II and III, should be so regarded. Robertson Smith, while allowing their presence in the third collectioni.e. Books IV and Vargued strongly that the history of the compilation forbade us to recognise them in Books I to III. The tendency of recent criticism has been to adopt an extreme position. Duhm, whose treatment of the Psalter reflects his most unsympathetic mood, not only recognises a large number of Maccabean Pss., but dates not a few in the first century B.C., interpreting them as party lampoons written by Pharisees and Sadducees on their opponents. Dates so near the Christian era seem to the present writer antecedently most improbable, and while he believes that there are Maccabean Pss. in Books IV and V, and possibly in Books II and III, he regards it as unlikely that anything in the Psalter should be later than 130 B.C.

The books ascribed to Solomon are probably one and all post-exilic in their present form, and belong to the Greek rather than to the Persian period. The Praise of Wisdom (Proverbs 1-9) contains a description of the Divine Wisdom (Pro 8:22-32) so speculative, so unlike what we find elsewhere in the OT, that Greek influence may be plausibly suspected, but in any case it is unthinkable in Heb. literature of an early date. The two main collections, Pro 10:1 to Pro 22:16 and Proverbs 25-29, seem also to be post-exilic. The struggles of the monarchical period lie in the past. There is no attack upon idolatry, and many of the aphorisms suggest the standpoint of post-exilic Judaism. Nevertheless many in both collections bear the stamp of no particular time, so that they might quite well have originated in the pre-exilic period; and while many could not be attributed to Solomon, there is no decisive objection to the view that some proverbs from his lips may have been preserved, even though not one can be pointed out with any confidence. There is no solid reason for mistrusting the good faith of the title in Pro 25:1, but if a collection of proverbs alleged to be Solomons was made in Hezekiahs reign (Pro 25:1), it probably included a large number which had no title to be regarded as his, and the collection itself must have undergone considerable expansion at a later time. The minor collections, together with the three interesting sections at the closeProverbs 30, Pro 31:1-9, Pro 31:10-31are also late. The Song of Songs is also attributed by tradition to Solomon. Unhappily no unanimity has been attained either as to its character or to its date. Till recently modern scholars have regarded it as a drama, the most plausible form of this theory being that it celebrates the fidelity of a country maiden to her shepherd lover in spite of Solomons attempts to win her love for himself. More probably, however, it is a collection of disconnected wedding songs, such as are still sung in connexion with the Kings Weekthat is, the week of festivities at the celebration of a wedding. It is by some dated not so long after the time of Solomon; more probably, however, it belongs to the Greek period.

Ecclesiastes was probably written about the close of the third or beginning of the second century B.C. It may perhaps be earlier; it belongs either to the late Persian or late Greek period. Behind it there is a background of unstable, oppressive government and acute social misery. The writers attitude to life need not have been borrowed from Greek philosophy; his pessimism and scepticism had their root in his own experience and sympathetic observation of the hopeless misery of his fellows. The book has not come to us quite as he left it. The theory of Siegfried and P. Haupt that a whole series of writers have annotated, interpolated, and mutilated the original nucleus is improbable; Bickells ingenious suggestion that by an accident the sheets of the original manuscript were disarranged, and that an editor produced our present book by interpolating connecting links and polemical passages, is well-nigh incredible. But in its original form it was felt to be dangerous to piety. Its alleged Solomonic origin was held to guarantee its real orthodoxy; but inasmuch as its surface meaning was frequently heterodox, passages were added whose sound theology neutralised the authors dangerously ambiguous statements. That the book was not actually written by Solomon is proved by its linguistic phenomena, and its whole tenor is incompatible with its origin in so early a period.

About the year 400 we may perhaps date the Book of Job. Probably the prologue and epilogue belong to an earlier work, in which the friends adopted much the same attitude as Jobs wife, while Job maintained against them his attitude of resignation. If so, the poet has cancelled the dialogue which originally stood between the prologue and epilogue and substituted one of an entirely different character, in which the friends will accuse Job of anything rather than admit that God has dealt unjustly with him. A western reader is impressed with the curious inconsequence in the dialogue: the antagonists develop their case with very little reference to the position they are formally attacking. The book has received rather extensive additions; the most important is the speeches of Elihu, the author of which felt that the friends had not made the best of their case, and was especially shocked at the language put into Jobs mouth, and the impropriety of representing Yahweh as condescending to answer him, a task to which the bombastic and unduly inflated Elihu feels himself quite adequate. The poem on wisdom (Job 28) is also an insertion, and probably the same judgment should be passed on the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. On the other hand, it would sadly mutilate the poem to treat the speech of Yahweh as an addition. The prologue is indispensable, the epilogue hardly less so; neither is really incompatible with the authors view, though he might have expressed himself somewhat differently had he himself written them rather than taken them over from an earlier work. In the main, however, he endorses them. Unhappily there has been a serious dislocation, and probably some drastic excision, in the third cycle of the debate.

The Book of Lamentations is ascribed to Jeremiah by an early tradition, but for various reasons this view cannot be accepted. Nor indeed is it probable that any portion of it is Jeremiahs work. But the capture of Jerusalem, which forms the background of a large part of the book, is that by Nebuchadnezzar in 586. Lamentations 2, 4 were presumably written by one who had lived through the terrible experiences of the siege and capture. Lamentations 5 was apparently written some time later, but yet before the return under Cyrus, and Lamentations 1 also during that period. Lamentations 3, which is detached from the other poems in subject-matter, probably belongs to a later period still. Some scholars have suggested that the whole book might be post-exilic. But it is unnatural to place a long interval between Lamentations 2, 4 and the siege which they describe. The writer of the commentary in this volume brings the book into connexion with Pompeys capture of Jerusalem. A first-century date would be in line with Duhms criticism of the Psalter; but, although it is not open to quite the same objections, the present writer feels that so late a date would require strong positive evidence to remove the antecedent objections.

Literature.The literature mentioned in the commentaries on the different books contains much valuable matter. Of the older literature Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum; Herder, Vom Geist der ebrischen Poesie; and Ewald, Die Dichter des Alten Bundes may be mentioned. Among the later works, in addition to those given in the article on The Bible as Literature, the following: Gordon, The Poets of the OT; G. A. Smith, The Early Poetry of Israel; Knig, Die Poesie des Alten Testaments; N. Schmidt, The Messages of the Poets; W. T. Davison, The Praises of Israel and The Wisdom Literature of the OT; Cheyne, Job and Solomon; articles in HDB (Budde) and EBi (Duhm). On metrical and similar problems Cobb, A Criticism of Systems of Hebrew Metre; Gray, Forms of Hebrew Poetry.

HEBREW WISDOM

BY PRINCIPAL W. T. DAVISON

AMONGST the teachers of Israel for some time before the Exile there were three main classesthe priests, the prophets, and the wise men (Hakamim). The Law, it was said, shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet (Jer 18:18). The priest gave the people instruction based upon law and tradition; the prophet was bidden to carry to them a message with which he had been directly inspired by the Spirit of God; it was the duty of the wise to translate general principles into terms of everyday life and to give counsel for everyday conduct. Hear the word of the wise is the injunction of Pro 22:17; These also are sayings of the wise introduces a new section of the book in Pro 24:23. Their influence grew considerably during the period immediately after the Captivity; it was naturally strongest when the direct inspiration of prophecy was no longer felt, and when the reflective period in the religion of Israel was at its height. They have been described as the humanists of Israel; their teaching has also been compared with the philosophy of other nations, especially with the sophists of pre-Socratic times; they have been styled moral casuists. But none of these names fits the case, and the associations connected with them should not be allowed to prejudice a first-hand study of Hebrew Wisdom.

Five extant books represent the literature of Wisdom (Hokma). Three of these are canonioalJob, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes; two are outside the Canona work by the son of Sirach, known as Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of Solomon. The Song of Solomon should not be included in the list, but certain Pss. illustrate the work of the school, such as Psalms 1, 37, 49, 50, 73, 112. The Book of Baruch (3:927) contains a remarkable eulogy of Wisdom, while the succession of wise teachers lasted till the time of Philo of Alexandria, 4 Maccabees, and the treatise Pirk Aboth. The last-named sayings of the Fathers are purely Jewish, while the writings of Philo and the Book of Wisdom are attempts, only partially successful, to harmonise Hellenic philosophy with Jewish religion. Traces of the influence of Ecclesiasticus are tolerably obvious in the NTfor example, in the Epistle of Jamesand parallels are traceable between some passages of Wisdom and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as other parts of the NT. It is the object of this article not to discuss these books severally (see introductions to Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes), but briefly to characterise Wisdom Literature in general.

1. In discussing the meaning of Wisdom in the OT, the distinction between Divine and human must be kept in mind. The writers assume throughout that there is one God, Creator and Preserver of all, who alone is perfect in knowledge, as in power and holiness. But the Divine attribute of Wisdom is contemplated in and by itself, as is never the case with power or righteousness; it is the quality in virtue of which God knows and plans and purposes all things, possessing as He does perfect comprehension of all creatures and their capacities, and perfectly adopting the best means for the accomplishment of the highest and best possible ends. Wisdom on the part of man implies a capacity of entering to some extent into the meaning and scope of Divine wisdom, so far as that is possible to finite, ignorant, and sinful beings. Creationnature, as we call itis one field of knowledge. The proverbial wisdom of Solomon, extolled in 1Ki 4:29-34, included trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that springeth out of the wall, and a knowledge of beasts and fishes and birds. But nature, animate and inanimate, was not the chief theme of Wisdom. The Jewish sage was not concerned with physical science and natural law in the modern sense; it was human life in all its relations, and especially in its moral and religious aspects, with which he had to do. Wisdom for him meant the power to understand, discriminate, and form just estimates of value in this all-important region; the ability rightly to conceive the ends of life, the end of ends, and fully to master the best means for securing the highest good. All this, however, is conceived not in a philosophical but in a deeply religious spirit. Hence the subject of Providence, the moral government of the world, the distribution of rewards and punishments, and the relation between a mans character and his lot and condition in fife, occupied much of the attention of the students of Wisdom.

2. Close definition is difficult, if not impossible, since a measure of progress is discernible in the conception of Wisdom during the centuries covered by the literature. In the earliest stage it has been described as a kind of common-sense philosophy of life, with a strong religious tendency. But this will not cover the sublime conception embodied in Proverbs 8, nor the description of Job 28, nor the process of grappling with life-problems characteristic of Job and Ecclesiastes. Still less does it correspond to the subject of the high eulogies in Sir 4:11; Sir 4:24 and Sirach 24, or to the well-known description in Wis 7:22-30. She is a breath of the power of God and a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty. She is an unspotted mirror of the working of God and an image of His goodness. She, being one, hath power to do all things; and remaining herself, reneweth all things; and from generation to generation, passing into holy souls, she maketh men friends of God and prophets. It remains true, however, that among the Jews philosophy was practical and religious, in contrast with the speculative and dialectic tendencies of the Greeks. Man is represented as engaged in a search after wisdom rather than as having attained it, and advance is made in the search as time goes on.

3. But there are certain general characteristics which distinguish Hebrew Wisdom throughout, and these may be briefly summarised as follows:

(a) It is human rather than national. Every careful reader must have noticed that Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are less distinctively Jewish than the other canonical books. They appeal neither to law nor to prophets as final authorities. For better, for worse, they strike a cosmopolitan note. The absence of sacrificial and Messianic ideas has been made a ground of objection against these books, some portions of which, it is urged, might have been written by Pagans. But religion is never forgotten by the writers, and in the wider outlook and freedom from national prejudice compensation may be found for some alleged deficiencies. It may be remarked in passing that the Book of Wisdom, which is characteristically universalist in the earlier chapters, takes up a strongly national and particularist tone in its later portion, which presents a sort of philosophy of history from a Jewish standpoint.

(b) The details of daily social life in their moral aspects are prominent in the Wisdom Literature. The king and the day-labourer, the tradesman in his business and the guest in the home, women in the management of their houses and the due control of their tongues, the oppressor, the usurer, the cheat, the tale-bearerall receive sound and wholesome advice. The tone of the counsel is often secular, and the motives urged often run on a low and prudential rather than a lofty and ideal plane. But religious considerations are always in the background, and often come notably to the front. It would not be difficult to select from Proverbs a store of profound spiritual aphorisms, such as His secret is with the righteous, The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, Where no vision is, the people perish, and He that winneth souls is wise. Self-regarding virtues are not foremost in the estimation of writers who tell us many times that before honour is humility, who tenderly enjoin submission to the fatherly chastening of the Lord, and who remind the vindictive that to feed and help an enemy is the best revenge, one that will not pass unnoticed by the Lord of all.

(c) The ethical spirit of the wise is not opposed to the legalism of the priest or the fiery earnestness of the prophet; rather does it supplement and complete both. Religion has its ceremonial and mystical side, but there is always danger lest its close connexion with prosaic duties in everyday life should be forgotten. Priest, prophet, and sage, all have a place in the old covenant, and each has a truly religious message to deliver. The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, occurs in Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as many times in Proverbs. But the God whom these writers fear and trust is one who is Himself righteous and loves righteousness in man, across the counter as well as in the Temple. He abominates a false balance, lazy habits, a greedy appetite, and a smoothly flattering as well as a scolding and contentious tongue.

(d) These writers were orthodox in their religious beliefs, but they were not closely tied by dogmatic considerations, and they expressed themselves with freedom and force. The criticism which styles them sceptics makes very free with the text of Job and Ecclesiastes in order to establish the position. But it is perfectly true that in dealing with the facts and deep problems of life the writers of these two books do exhibit considerable freedom from traditional and conventional beliefs, while maintaining their faith in the God of Israel and of the whole world. It is largely to them that we owe the trains of thought which in Judaism prepared the way for the doctrine of immortality, as the saints of earlier days groped their way through the problems of pain and death, first to the hope, and afterwards to the assurance, of life beyond the grave.

4. Much may be learned concerning the current ideas of Wisdom on its human side by a study of the various synonyms used for it and the somewhat copious vocabulary which describes its opposite, Folly. In addition to the phrase wisdom and understanding as used in Deu 4:5 f. and Isa 11:2, in which stress is laid upon intelligent comprehension of the Divine law of righteousness, we may draw attention to a number of synonyms, without professing to enumerate them all. Binah may be rendered intelligent perception; taam is good taste or discernment applied to morals; tushiyah, often used for strength or help, in Proverbs indicates the solid, sound knowledge that may be relied on as a stay in time of need; ormah is on the border-line between prudence and unning, and stands for a subtlety of perception that will enable a wise man to steer his vessel craftily and well; while sekel indicates discretion, or good sense in active operation.

On the other hand, the foolish man is described sometimes as pethi, simple, ignorant, easily misled; or as kesil, heavy, stupid, obstinate; or as evil, rashly, wantonly foolish. He may be baar, coarse, brutish, or nabal, churlish and ignoble. The emptiness and unworthiness of folly are employed in one group of words, and its unsavoury and corrupt character, without wholesome salt of reason and understanding, in another (Pro 1:7*). The Bunyan-like picture of Madam Folly in Pro 9:13-18 stands out in bold contrast with the picture of Wisdom and her seven-pillared palace, at the opening of the same chapter.

The subject of the literary form of the Hokma books does not come within the scope of this chapter (p. 24). But it may be noted now skilfully the elementary form of the mashal, or proverb, consisting of a short, bare couplet, is expanded for the presentation of symbolic pictures and of ideas far beyond the scope of the original saw or maxim. The structure of Ecclesiasticus is like that of Proverbs, but Job, Koheleth, and Wisdom exhibit different attractive developments of what might have appeared an intractable form of verse.

5. One notable feature of this literature is a certain personification of Divine Wisdom, and there is some difficulty in interpreting its exact scope and meaning. Is the writer of Pro 8:22 f., for example, simply using in bold and vivid fashion a well-known grammatical figure, endowing Wisdom with personal qualities only for the purpose of literary and poetical effectiveness? Or is Wisdom here truly hypostatisedi.e. was it regarded by the writer as a personal being, distinct from God Himself? The answer would seem to be that in these passages the religious imagination is at work under special conditions, and forms of expression are used which, if literally pressed by Western readers, would imply distinct personal existence, but that this was never intended by the Oriental readers, who would probably have been shocked by such a turning of their literature into dogma. A somewhat similar development is discernible in the use of the phrases Spirit of God and Word of God, neither of which in the minds of OT writers implied personal distinctions either within or outside the personality of the one true God, who was the sole object of faith and worship.

None the less the language employed is very bold. Wisdom not only cries and puts forth her voice, as in Pro 8:1an obvious metaphor; of her it is also said, Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way. . . . I was brought forth or ever the earth was. . . . I was by him as a master-workman (or foster-child, sporting as children will do), . . . daily his delight, rejoicing in his habitable earth, etc. Wisdom, says Ben-Sira, came forth from the mouth of the Most High. . . . He created me from the beginning, and to the end I shall not fail (Sir 24:3; Sir 24:9). In the Wisdom of Solomon the prayer is offered Give me wisdom, that sitteth by thee on thy throne (Wis 9:4); Wisdom fills the world (Wis 1:7), was present at and was an instrument in the creation (Wis 9:2; Wis 9:9); Wisdom makes men prophets (Wis 9:27), gives knowledge of the Divine counsel, and confers glory and immortality (Wis 8:10; Wis 8:13). One of the most recent commentators on this book, Rev. J. A. F. Gregg, holds that in it Wisdom is not hypostatised . . . is personal but not a person . . . possesses the moral qualities of God without His self-determination. . . . The writer of Wisdom regards her as far more than a merely literary personification; he conceded to her a refined, supersensuous personality. We agree with this if the phraseology of literary personification is to be judged by modern and Western standards. But greater latitude of expression was permitted to the Jewish and Hellenistic writers of two thousand years ago, and it is necessary to remember that psychological analysis was then in its infancy. Mr. Gregg admits that no modern psychologist would allow personality to Wisdom on the data advanced in the book. The line of personality is now drawn at the possession of self-consciousness and self-determination, and none of these writers held that Wisdom apart from God was personal in this sense.

The standpoint of these passages is most nearly gained if we bear in mind that at the foundation of the writers theology lay the idea of a living God, whom they were attempting to realise not as transcendent only, but as immanent in the world. They desired to bring all the Divine attributesand Wisdom had almost come to include them allinto living relation with the world, and graphic personification was the best means at their disposal. If the one living and true God is to be brought into close relation and communion with His creatures, neither the abstractions of philosophy nor the language of mere transcendence will suffice. Hence we find, both within and outside the canonical Scriptures, a use of the terms Word of God, Spirit of God, or Wisdom of God as a supreme intermediary, preparing the way for the idea of Incarnation and the fuller revelation of the NT.

Another subject of great importance can barely be touched on here. All these writers, covering a period of more than five hundred years, believed in the moral government of God, His perfectly wise and gracious ordering of the affairs of the world and of man. How do they regard the standing problems of pain, sin, and death? Is there any progress in ability to grapple with these difficulties, and is any continuous development of thought with regard to them discernible? What may be called the orthodoxy of the period before the Exile is substantially expressed in the earliest Wisdom document (Proverbs 10-24). Obedience to God is rewarded by prosperity, disobedience will be punished by calamity and overthrow. The disciplinary character of suffering, it is true, is not ignored; chastening is necessary for Gods children; but this is quite compatible with the fatherly government which secures that justice shall be donein this life, for no other comes into the account. Justice is also mainly concerned with the nation and the family as units; individual character in relation to individual condition and destiny is not a main theme with the writers before the Captivity.

The Book of Joband, in a minor transitional fashion, some of the Pss.represents a revolt against this doctrine as not in accordance with the facts of life and as not adequately describing the righteous government of God. A different interpretation of life is set forth in this sublime poem. The writer of Job, impressed by the vastness and variety of the Divine wisdom, faces the difficulty of the sufferings of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked very muchif we may so express itin the spirit of the prologue to Tennysons In Memoriam. He desires that knowledge should grow from more to more, but that more of reverence should dwell in the sons of men, who ought to know themselves fools and slight in comparison with Divine Wisdom. The absence of definite dogma does not diminish, but rather increases, the profound religious impression made by a book which teaches men how to draw near to the very heart of God, even while bold enough to put searching questions concerning His mysterious ways.

The son of Sirach, one who gleaneth after the grape-gatherers, who is a sage but hardly a poet, inculcates a subdued resignation, a passive submission to the Divine will, which is devout in spirit and excellent in practice, though it does little or nothing to answer the passionate questionings of anxious souls. The writer of Ecclesiastes is not the cynic, or the pessimist, or the agnostic, that he is often represented to be. (We are discussing the books of Job and Ecclesiastes as they have come down to us, without entering here on the critical questions raised by their composite authorship as it is accepted by most modern scholars.) It is true that as the preacher contemplates the working of what we should call natural law, life seems to be little but emptiness and striving after wind. But if Koheleth sometimes seems little better than a Hebrew Stoic, he remains a Hebrew, not a Stoic. Apart from the teaching of the last verses concerning judgment, it would seem to be the aim of the writer to show how vain and empty is the life of the senses, viewed at its best, and the wisdom of steadfastly performing duty in reliance upon God, however He may hide Himself. He must be trusted and obeyed amidst much in life that is and will remain unintelligible.

The writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, while possessing much in common with his predecessors, is distinguished from them by his clear, explicit teaching concerning immortality. God made not death; He created man for incorruption. Love of Wisdom and obedience to her laws form the path to immortality. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and there shall no torment touch them. Towards this doctrine earlier saints and worthies were but dimly groping their way, and even the writer of this book discerns the truth darkly as in a mirror. The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, which he accepts in Hellenic fashion, does not abolish death and bring life and immortality to light, as does the Christian gospel. One of the chief features of interest in the study of the Wisdom Literature of the OT is to trace out the various ways in which its messengers, like heralds before the dawn, were preparing the way for the revelation of the manifold wisdom of God in the New.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE GREATNESS OF AHASUERUS AND MORDECAI

This remarkable book closes with the announcement of the greatness of the Persian Empire as ruled over by King Ahasuerus.As with every other kingdom of the nations however, this magnificence was only fleeting, for Alexander the Great, being very swiftly exalted to the place of head of the Grecian Empire, overcame and displaced the Persian Empire, as the Lord had prophesied through His servant Daniel (Dan 8:4-7; Dan 8:20-21).But for a brief time Ahasuerus accomplished great things, and specially because he had advanced Mordecai the Jew to a position of great prominence.Mordecai is typical of the Lord Jesus in His being given His place of great power in the millennium.It is always true that when this blessed Son of God is given His true place, whether in a nation or in the history of an individual, the result is great blessing.

King Ahasuerus in this case serves as a very faint type of God the Father, for whose glory

the Lord Jesus will eventually reign.But all types must pass away, that Christ may take His place as Lord of all.The believer longs for the accomplishment of this great end, not simply that this may mean great blessing for us, but rather that Christ will be supremely glorified, in perfect unity with the Father.

No mention is made of Mordecai’s death, since he is a type of Christ whose kingdom will have no end.Having once died as a sacrifice for sin, now in resurrection He “dieth no more.”Mordecai then continued being well received by the Jews, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his countrymen, a lovely picture of the peace of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus.

The post-captivity books, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, etc. maintain a continuity of the history of Israel that goes on into the New Testament; but the history in Esther is not part of that continuity, for the Jews in Esther were outside their land. The book then is significant in showing something of the Jews’ condition for the many centuries they have continued away from the land of promise, being called by God, “not my people,” yet still watched over for good, and eventually to be restored to the Lord Jesus, and blessed as never before. What a celebration then!

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

V. MORDECAI’S GREATNESS CH. 10

Perhaps the writer mentioned Ahasuerus’ tax (Est 10:1) because Mordecai had something to do with it, or perhaps this tax reflects God’s blessing on the king for preserving the Jews (Gen 12:3).

Appeal to the official chronicles (Est 10:2) claimed historicity for the events recorded in Esther (cf. 1Ki 14:19; et al.). These documents are not available to us today. They may have been Persian [Note: Moore, p. 99.] or Jewish [Note: Baldwin, p. 115.] archives.

Mordecai was one of several biblical characters whom God elevated to a position of high government rank (cf. Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah). Scholars have long compared the stories of Esther and Joseph because the settings of both are in countries other than Israel, as well as because of other similarities. [Note: See ibid., p. 25, n. 1, for a list of such studies.] He used his position of influence to benefit his people (Est 10:3). However, there is no evidence that either Mordecai or Esther had any desire to return to Jerusalem and become part of God’s theocratic program there. No one prevented them from doing so either, before Esther became queen (cf. Neh 2:5).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)