Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Esther 1:1

Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this [is] Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, [over] a hundred and seven and twenty provinces: )

Chap. Est 1:1-9. The great feast given by Ahasuerus at Susa

1. Now it came to pass ] Heb. And it came to pass. ‘And’ is a strange word with which to begin a book. In the case of similar openings to other historical Books (Joshua, Judges, etc.) it implies the continuation of a former narrative. Here, on the other hand, as probably at the commencement of Ezekiel and Jonah, it only denotes a connexion in the writer’s own mind with preceding history in general or with the period of Ahasuerus in particular. It may even have become established as an opening formula, irrespective of its strict applicability.

Ahasuerus ] The Heb. Aashvrsh represents the Persian Khshayarsha ( mighty eye, or, mighty man), whence was derived the Greek Xerxes, who is no doubt the monarch intended. The Ahasuerus of this Book has indeed been identified with ( a) Cambyses (b.c. 529), father of Darius Hystaspes, on the strength of Dan 9:1, a passage, however, which in reality lends no aid to this hypothesis (see Driver in Camb. Bible, ad loc.), or ( b) Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes (b.c. 465 425), with whom the LXX., followed by Josephus, identifies him, or ( c) Cyaxares, a Median ruler, or ( d) ‘Darius the Mede’ of Dan 5:31 (where see note in Camb. Bible).

The last two identifications may be at once dismissed. Ahasuerus was evidently a king of Persia, as is shewn by the extent of his dominions as well as from other considerations, such as the whole atmosphere of the Book. Moreover ( b) is precluded by the Hebrew, which uses the form Artashashta for Artaxerxes (Ezr 4:7). Accordingly there can be little or no doubt that Xerxes (b.c. 485 465), conspicuous in history for the defeat of his gigantic armaments at Salamis (b.c. 480) and Plataea (479), is the king of whom we here read. Further, (i) the capricious and sensual character of Ahasuerus corresponds with the notices of Xerxes in Herodotus (ix. 108 ff.), (ii) the extent of his empire agrees with the account here, (iii) the gathering at Susa in the third year of his reign ( Est 1:3) harmonises with the statement of Herodotus (vii. 8) that after Xerxes’ subjugation of Egypt there was a great assembly of satraps at Susa to make arrangements for the attack on Greece about two years later, while the interval of four years between Vashti’s disgrace and Esther’s promotion (Est 2:16) leaves time for the king’s return from that ill-fated expedition to comfort himself for its ignominious ending with sensual gratifications.

from India even unto Ethiopia ] The word in the original for India ( Hddu) appears to represent the Persian Hidush. Both have lost the n which has been retained by the Greek (LXX. ), and so (through the Latin) by ourselves. The name was originally confined to the land watered by the seven streams of the Indus, and was later extended eastward and southward. Ethiopia, here and elsewhere, is the Heb. Cush.

an hundred and seven and twenty provinces ] The satrapies into which the Persian Empire was divided were, according to Herodotus (iii. 89), at first but twenty. The Heb. word here, however, ( md nh) denotes a subdivision of the satrapy, so that the large number given in the text may be quite accurate. The later Aramaic paraphrase ( Targum Shn, or second Targum; see Introd. p. xxxiii) fancifully connects the number of the provinces over which Ahasuerus was permitted by God to rule with the fact that he was destined to take for his queen a descendant of Sarah who lived a hundred and twenty-seven years (see Gen 23:1).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Ahasuerus – . Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis. His empire is rightly described as from India even unto Ethiopia. The satrapies of Darius Hystaspis reached 29 in number, and the nations under Xerxes were about 60. The 127 provinces include probably sub-satrapies and other smaller divisions of the great governments.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Est 1:1-4

Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia).

Artaxerxes

By almost universal acknowledgment now, the sovereign here referred to is Artaxerxes, surnamed Longimanus, or the long.handed; the term Ahasuerus being, like that of Pharaoh, expressive of the kingly dignity, and not the name of an individual. In his time the Persian empire was of vast extent, comprehending all the countries from the river Indus on the east to the Mediterranean on the west, and from the Black Sea and the Caspian in the north to the extreme south of Arabia, then called Ethiopia. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)

God liberal to sinners

What rich gifts hath God often bestowed on men who know Him not! Think not, however, that God is more liberal to His enemies than to His friends. Some of the vilest of men possessed all the great and large dominions of the Persian empire. But if God has bestowed on you the least measure of true faith, of unfeigned love, of unaffected humility, He hath bestowed on you treasures of inestimably greater value than all the possessions of Artaxerxes Longimanus or of Nero. (G. Lawson, D. D.)

Prosperity cursed

A curse is mingled with all the prosperity of sinners, because they know not how to use or to enjoy, but are disposed, by their corrupt tempers, to abuse everything which they possess. (G. Lawson, D. D.)

A great want in the soul of man

There is a want in the soul of man which all the wealth of one hundred and twenty-seven provinces cannot supply. There is a want which the best social arrangements cannot supply. There is a craving in the heart of man beyond all creature power to satisfy. Guilty man needs to be placed in a right relation toward God. Money cannot purchase for him peace and pardon. Artaxerxes was as poor as the humblest serf in his dominions in this respect, and far poorer than the poorest of the children of Judah, dispersed through his empire as exiles, but knowing Jehovah. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)

Character of Ahasuerus

First to come before us in the story is the king, Ahssuerus, more familiar to us as Xerxes. Cruel, passionate, capricious, his character as set forth in contemporary history is wholly in keeping with all that we see of him here. This is the man who was hospitably entertained by Pythias of Lydia when on his way to Greece, and helped by an enormous contribution; but when the old man, who had given all his other sons to the service of the king, pleaded that the eldest might stay with him, Herodotus tells us that Xerxes in a fury commanded that the son should be slain, and he made his whole army pass between the severed body. Of him it is told how that when a storm destroyed the bridge by which he would cross into Greece, he commanded the engineers to be slain, and then had the sea beaten with chains to subdue it into better manners. He comes near to us by his association with the famous Greek heroes. Marching in his pride with a host of five millions, with which he would subdue the world, he is stayed by three hundred Spartans, whilst his vast fleet is destroyed by the skill and courage of the Greeks at Salamis, a victory that secured the deliverance of Europe from Oriental despotism, and preserved for us the literature and art which have uplifted and beautified our civilisation. (Mark Guy Pearse.)

Which was in Shushan the palace.

The palace at Shushan

is presented before us. Shushan was the metropolis of Persia, a magnificent city of about fifteen miles circumference, and the residence of the kings. In winter the climate was very mild, but in summer the heat was so excessive that an old writer says the very lizards and serpents were consumed by it on the streets. It was probably on this account that the seat of government was at Ecbatana in summer, and only in winter at Shushan. (T. McEwan.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

THE BOOK OF ESTHER

Chronological Notes relative to this Book

-Year from the Creation, according to Archbishop Usher, 3540.

-Year before the birth of Christ, 460.

-Year before the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 464.

-Year of the Julian Period, 4250.

-Year since the flood of Noah, 1904.

-Year of the Cali Yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 2638.

-Year from the vocation of Abram, 1458.

-Year from the destruction of Troy, 721.

-Year from the foundation of Solomon’s temple. 547.

-Year since the division of Solomon’s monarchy into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, 511.

-Year of the era of Iphitus, 421.

-Year since Coroebus won the prize at the Olympic games, 313.

-First year of the seventy-ninth Olympiad.

-Year of the Varronian era of the building of Rome, 290.

-Year from the building of Rome, according to Cato and the Fasti Consulares, 289.

-Year from the building of Rome according to Polybius the historian, 288.

-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 284.

-Year of the era of Nabonassar, 284.

-Year since the commencement of the first Messenian war, 280.

-Year since the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, 258.

-Year since the commencement of the second Messenian war, 222.

-Year from the destruction of Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, 125.

-Year since the publication of the famous edict of Cyrus, king of Persia, empowering the Jews to rebuild their temple, 72.

-Year since the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, 62.

-Year since the abolition of the tyranny of the Pisistratidae at Athens, 43.

-Year since the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, which put an end to the regal government of the Romans, 44.

-Year since the famous battle of Marathon, 26.

-Year after the commencement of the third Messenian war, 2.

-Year before the commencement of the first sacred war concerning the temple at Delphi, 17.

-Year before the commencement of the celebrated Peloponnesian war, 34.

-Year before the celebrated retreat of the ten thousand Greeks, and the expulsion of the thirty tyrants from Athens by Thrasybulus, 65.

-Year before the commencement of the era of the Seleucidae, 152.

-Year before the formation of the famous Achaean league, 183.

-Year before the commencement of the first Punic war, 200.

-Year before the fall of the Macedonian empire, 296.

-Year before the destruction of Carthage by Scipio, and of Corinth by Mummius, 317.

-Year before the commencement of the Jugurthine war, which continued five years, 354.

-Year before the commencement of the Social war, which continued for five years, and was finished by Sylla, 374.

-Year before the commencement of the Mithridatic war, which continued for twenty-six years, 376.

-Year before the commencement of the Servile war, under Spartacus, 392.

-Year before the extinction of the reign of the Seleucidae in Syria, on the conquest of that country by Pompey, 399.

-Year before the era of the Roman emperors, 433.

-Year of Archidamus, king of Lacedaemon, and of the family of the Proclidae, or Eurypontidae, 6.

-Year of Plistoanax, king of Lacedaemon, and of the family of the Eurysthenidae, or Agidae, 3.

-Year of Alexander, the tenth king of Macedon, 34.

-Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, 1.

-Roman Consuls, Aulus Postumius, and Sp. Furius.

CHAPTER I

Ahasuerus makes royal feasts for his nobles and people, 1-9.

Vashti is sent for by the king, but refuses to come, 10-12.

Vashti is disgraced; and a law made for the subjection of

women, 13-22.

The whole history of this book in its connected order, with the occurrences in the Persian empire at that time, will be found in the introduction: to which the reader is referred.

Concerning the author of this book there are several opinions: some attribute the work to Ezra; some to one Joachim, a high priest; others, to the men of the Great Synagogue; and others to Mordecai. This latter is the most likely opinion: nor is that to be disregarded which gives to Mordecai for co-partner Ezra himself; though it is likely that the conclusion, from Es 9:23 to the end of the book, was inserted by another hand, and at a later time. Though some Christians have hesitated to receive the book of Esther into the sacred canon; yet it has always been received by the Jews, not only as perfectly authentic, but also as one of the most excellent of their sacred books. They call it megillah, THE VOLUME, by way of eminence; and hold it in the highest estimation. That it records the history of a real fact, the observation of the feast of Purim, to the present day, is a sufficient evidence. Indeed, this is one of the strongest evidences that any fact can have, viz., that, to commemorate it, a certain rite, procession, feast, or the like, should have been instituted at the time, which, without intermission, has been continued annually through every generation of that people, and in whatsoever place they or parties of them may have sojourned, to the present day. This is the fact concerning the feast of Purim here mentioned; which the Jews, in all places of their dispersion, have uninterruptedly celebrated, and do still continue to celebrate, from the time of their deliverance from the massacre intended by Haman to the present time. Copies of this book, widely differing from each other, exist in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek, and Latin. All these differ much from the Hebrew text, particularly the Greek and the Chaldee: the former has many additional paragraphs; and the latter, as it exists in the London Polyglot, contains five times more than the Hebrew text. To notice all the various readings, additions, and paraphrases, in the above copies, would require a volume of no inconsiderable magnitude. The reader who is curious may consult the above Polyglot. This book does not appear to be extant in Arabic, or in any other of the Oriental languages, besides the Hebrew and Syriac.

The question may naturally arise, What was the original of this book? or, In what language was it written? Though learned men in general decide in favour of a Hebrew original, yet there are many reasons which might be urged in favour of the Persian. Several of the proper names are evidently of a Persian origin; and no doubt all the others are so; but they are so transformed by passing through the Hebrew, that they are no longer discernible. The Hebrew has even retained some of the Persian words, having done little else than alter the character, e.g., Esther, Mehuman, Mishak, Melzar, Vashti, Shushan, Pur, Darius, Paradise, c., several of which will be noted in their proper places. The Targum in the London Polyglot is widely different from that in the Complutum, Antwerp, and Paris editions. The principal additions in the Greek are carefully marked in the London Polyglot, but are too long and too numerous to be inserted here. It is a singular circumstance that the name of God does not once occur in the whole of this book as it stands in Hebrew.

NOTES ON CHAP. I

Verse 1. Now it came to pass] The Ahasuerus of the Romans, the Artaxerxes of the Greeks and Ardsheer of the Persians, are the same. Some think that this Ahasuerus was Darius, the son of Hystaspes but Prideaux and others maintain that he was Artaxerxes Longimanus.

Reigned from India even unto Ethiopia] This is nearly the same account that is given by Xenophon. How great and glorious the kingdom of Cyrus was beyond all the kingdoms of Asia, was evident from this: . “It was bounded on the east by the Red Sea; on the north by the Euxine Sea; on the west by Cyprus and Egypt; and on the south by Ethiopia.” – CYROP. lib. viii., p. 241, edit. Steph. 1581.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Quest. Who was this king?

Answ. It is confessed and manifest that this was one of the kings of Persia; but which of them it was is not yet agreed, nor is it of any necessity for us now to know. But it is sufficiently evident that this was either,

1. Darius Hystaspes, as divers both Jewish and Christian writers affirm; for his kingdom was thus vast, and he subdued India, as Herodotus reports; and one of his wives was called Atossa, which differs little from Hadassah, which is Esther’s other name, Est 2:7. Or,

2. Xerxes, whose wife, as Herodotus notes, was called Amestris, which is not much differing from Esther; by whom all these things were transacted whilst he was potent and prosperous, before his unhappy expedition against the Grecians. Or,

3. Artaxerxes Longimanus, to whom the characters of Ahasuerus represented in this book do not disagree. And whereas it is objected, that by this account Mordecai must be a man of about a hundred and forty years, and consequently Esther, who is called his uncle’s daughter, Est 2:7, must be too old to make a wife for the king; as for Mordecai, it may be granted, there being divers instances of persons of greater age than that in sacred and profane historians; and for Esther, it may be said that she was his uncle’s granddaughter, nothing being more frequent than for the names of sons or daughters to be given to more remote posterity.

An hundred and seven and twenty provinces; so seven new provinces were added to those hundred and twenty mentioned Dan 6:1.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. AhasuerusIt is nowgenerally agreed among learned men that the Ahasuerus mentioned inthis episode is the Xerxes who figures in Grecian history.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus,…. Who he was is not easy to say; almost all the kings of Persia are so named by one or another writer. He cannot be the Ahasuerus in Da 9:1, he was Astyages, the father of Cyaxares or Darius the Mede; but this must be one who had his royal palace in Shushan, which was never the royal city of the Medes, but of the Persians only; nor does he seem to be the Ahasuerus in Ezr 4:6, who is thought to be Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus; since, according to the canon of Ptolemy, he reigned but eight years, whereas this Ahasuerus at least reigned twelve, Es 3:7, though indeed some account for it by his reigning in his father’s lifetime; besides, Cambyses was always an enemy to the Jews, as this was not; and yet this way go many of the Jewish writers n and so a very learned man, Nicolaus Abram o; according to Bishop Usher p, this was Darius Hystaspis, who certainly was a friend to the Jewish nation; but he is rather the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah; and so says the Midrash q. Dr. Prideaux r thinks Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes Longimanus, which is the sense of Josephus s, and who is thought by many to be the Artaxerxes in the foresaid books. Capellus t is of opinion, that Darius Ochus is meant, to which Bishop Patrick inclines; but I rather think, with Vitringa u and others w, that Xerxes is the Ahasuerus that was the husband of Esther here spoken of; so the Arabic writers x; and as he was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspis, if he is meant by Artaxerxes in the preceding books, the history of which is carried to the thirty second year of his reign, Ne 13:6 and who reigned but four years more; this book of Esther stands in right order of time to carry on the history of the Jewish affairs in the Persian monarchy; and Mr. Broughton y owns, that the name of Xerxes, in Greek, agrees with Achasuerus in Hebrew; and in Es 10:1 his name is Achashresh, which, with the Greeks, is Axeres or Xerxes z:

this is Ahasuerus, which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia; properly so called; the Ethiopians had been subdued by Cambyses the son and successor of Cyrus a, and the Indians by Darius Hystaspis the father of Xerxes b; and both, with other great nations, were retained in subjection to him c; and many of both, as well as of other nations, were with him in his expedition into Greece d:

over an hundred and twenty and seven provinces; there were now seven provinces more under his jurisdiction than were in the times of Darius the Mede, Da 6:1.

n Targum & Jarchi in loc. Seder Olam Rabba, c. 29. Zuta, p. 108. o Pharus Vet. Test. l. 11. c. 12. p. 305. p Annal. Vet. Test. p. 160. so Broughton, Works, p. 38, 259, 581. q Midrash Esther, fol. 86. 2. r Connection, &c. par. 1. B. 4. p. 252, &c. s Antiqu. l. 11. c. 6. sect. 1. and so Suidas in voce . t Chronolog. Sacr. p. 294. u Hypotypos. Hist. Sacr. p. 110. w Schichart. de Festo Purim. Rainold. Praelect. 144. p. 231. Alsted. Chronolog. p. 126, 181. x In Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. p. 87. y Ut supra. (Broughton, Works, p. 38, 259, 581.) z Vid. Hiller. Arcan. Keri & Ketib, p. 87. & Onomastic. Sacr. p. 639. a Herodot. Thalia, sive, l. 3. c. 97. b lb. Melpomene, sive, l. 4. c. 44. c lb. Polymnia, sive, l. 7. c. 9. d lb. c. 65, 69, 70.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The banquet. Est 1:1-3 mark a period. , which belongs to , does not follow till Est 1:3, and even then the statement concerning the feast is again interrupted by a long parenthesis, and not taken up again and completed till Est 1:5. On the use of in historical narratives at the beginning of relations having, as in the present instance and Rth 1:1, no reference to a preceding narrative, see the remark on Jos 1:1. Even when no express reference to any preceding occurrence takes place, the historian still puts what he has to relate in connection with other historical occurrences by an “and it came to pass.” Ahashverosh is, as has already been remarked on Ezra 4, Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis. Not only does the name point to the Old-Persian name Ks’ayars’a (with prosthetic), but the statements also concerning the extent of the kingdom (Est 1:1; Est 10:1), the manners and customs of the country and court, the capricious and tyrannical character of Ahashverosh, and the historical allusions are suitable only and completely to Xerxes, so that, after the discussions of Justi in Eichhorn’s Repert. xv. pp. 3-38, and Baumgarten, de fide, etc., pp. 122-151, no further doubt on the subject can exist. As an historical background to the occurrences to be delineated, the wide extent of the kingdom ruled by the monarch just named is next described: “He is that Ahashverosh who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces.” … is not an accusative dependent on , he ruled 127 provinces, for , to reign, is construed with or , but is annexed in the form of a free apposition to the statement: “from India to Cush;” as also in Est 8:9. is in the Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Hidhu; in Zend, Hendu; in Sanscrit, Sindhu, i.e., dwellers on the Indus, for Sindhu means in Sanscrit the river Indus; comp. Roediger in Gesenius, Thes. Append. p. 83, and Lassen, Indische Alterthumsk. i. p. 2. is Ethiopia. This was the extent of the Persian empire under Xerxes. Mardonius in Herod. 7:9 names not only the Sakers and Assyrians, but also the Indians and Ethiopians as nations subject to Xerxes. Comp. also Herod. 7:97, 98, and 8:65, 69, where the Ethiopians and Indians are reckoned among the races who paid tribute to the Persian king and fought in the army of Xerxes. The 127 , provinces, are governmental districts, presided over, according to Est 8:9, by satraps, pechahs, and rulers. This statement recalls that made in Dan 6:2, that Darius the Mede set over his kingdom 120 satraps. We have already shown in our remarks on Dan 6:2 that this form of administration is not in opposition to the statement of Herod. iii. 89f., that Darius Hystaspis divided the kingdom for the purpose of taxation into twenty which were called . The satrapies into which Darius divided the kingdom generally comprised several provinces. The first satrapy, e.g., included Mysia and Lydia, together with the southern part of Phrygia; the fourth, Syria and Phoenicia, with the island of Cyprus. The Jewish historians, on the other hand, designate a small portion of this fourth satrapy, viz., the region occupied by the Jewish community (Judah and Benjamin, with their chief city Jerusalem), as , Ezr 2:1; Neh 1:3; Neh 7:6; Neh 11:3. Consequently the satrapies of Darius mentioned in Herodotus differ from the medinoth of Dan 6:2, and Est 1:1; Est 8:9. The 127 medinoth are a division of the kingdom into geographical regions, according to the races inhabiting the different provinces; the list of satrapies in Herodotus, on the contrary, is a classification of the nations and provinces subject to the empire, determined by the tribute imposed on them.

Est 1:2

The words: in those days, take up the chronological statement of Est 1:1, and add thereto the new particular: when King Ahashverosh sat on the throne of his kingdom in the citadel of Susa. does not involve the notion of quiet and peaceable possession after the termination of wars (Clericus, Rambach), but that of being seated on the throne with royal authority. Thus the Persian kings are always represented upon a raised seat or throne, even on journeys and in battle. According to Herod. vii. 102, Xerxes watched the battle of Thermopylae sitting upon his throne. And Plutarch ( Themistocl. c. 13) says the same of the battle of Salamis. Further examples are given by Baumg. l.c. p. 85f. On the citadel of Susa, see Neh 1:1, and remarks on Dan 8:2.

Est 1:3

“In the third year of his reign he made a feast to all his princes and his servants, when the forces of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, were before him.” , to make, to prepare, i.e., to give, a feast; comp. Gen 21:8. The princes and the servants are, all who were assembled about him in Susa. These are specified in the words which follow as . We might supply before from the preceding words, (viz.) the forces, etc.; but this would not suit the at the end of the verse. For this word shows that an independent circumstantial clause begins with , which is added to call attention to the great number of princes and servants assembled at Susa (Bertheau): the forces of Persia … were before him: when they were before him. By , the host, the forces, Bertheau thinks the body-guard of the king, which, according to Herod. vii. 40, consisted of 2000 selected horsemen, 2000 lancers, and 10,000 infantry, is intended. There is, however, no adequate reason for limiting to the body-guard. It cannot, indeed, be supposed that the whole military power of Persia and Media was with the king at Susa; but without can only signify an lite of the army, perhaps the captains and leaders as representing it, just as “the people” is frequently used for “the representatives of the people.” The Persians and Medes are always named together as the two kindred races of the ruling nation. See Dan 6:9, who, however, as writing in the reign of Darius the Mede, places the Medes first and the Persians second, while the contrary order is observed here when the supremacy had been transferred to the Persians by Cyrus. On the form , see rem. on Ezr 1:1. After the mention of the forces, the Partemim, i.e., nobles, magnates (see on Dan 1:3), and the princes of the provinces are named as the chief personages of the civil government.

Est 1:4-6

“When he showed the glorious riches of his kingdom and the excellent honour of his greatness many days, one hundred and eighty days.” This verse has been understood by most expositors as stating that the king magnificently and splendidly entertained all the grandees mentioned in Est 1:3 for a full half-year, and gave them a banquet which lasted 180 days. Clericus supposes proceedings to have been so arranged, that the proceres omnium provinciarum were not entertained at one and the same time, but alii post alios , because all could not be absent together per sex menses a suis provinciis . Bertheau, however, thinks that the historian did not purpose to give an exact and graphic description of the proceeding, but only to excite astonishment, and that they who are astonished will not inquire as to the manner in which all took place. The text, however, does not say, that the feast lasted 180 days, and hence offers no occasion for such a view, which is founded on a mistaken comprehension of Est 1:4, which combines with of Est 1:3, while the whole of Est 1:4 is but a further amplification of the circumstantial clause: when the forces, etc., were before him; the description of the banquet not following till Est 1:5, where, however, it is joined to the concluding words of Est 1:4: “when these (180) days were full, the king made a feast to all the people that were found in the citadel of Susa, from great to small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s house.” This verse is thus explained by Bertheau: after the soldiers, nobles, and princes of the district had been entertained for six months, all the male inhabitants of Susa were also entertained in a precinct of the palace garden, the women being feasted by Vashti the queen in the palace (Est 1:9), It is, however, obvious, even from Est 1:11, which says that on the seventh day of this banquet the king commanded the queen to appear “to show the people and the princes her beauty,” that such a view of the occurrence is inadmissible. For this command presupposes, that the people and princes were assembled at the king’s banquet; while, according to the view of Bertheau and older expositors, who insist on two banquets, one lasting 180 days, the other seven, the latter was given to the male inhabitants of Susa only. The princes and people of the whole kingdom did not, however, dwell in Susa. These princes and people, to whom the queen was to show her beauty, are undoubtedly the princes and servants of the king, the forces of Persia and Media, and the nobles and princes of the provinces enumerated in Est 1:3. With this agrees also the description of the guests invited to the seven days feast. does not signify “all the inhabitants of Susa,” but all then present, i.e., then assembled in the citadel of Susa. used of persons means, those who for some purpose are found or present in any place, in distinction from its usual inhabitants; comp. 1Ch 29:17; 2Ch 34:32; Ezr 8:25; and does not here signify people in the sense of population, but people who are met in a certain place, and is used both here and Neh 12:38 of an assembly of nobles and princes. , moreover, does not mean old and young, but high and low, the greater and lesser servants ( ) of the king, and informs us that of those assembled at Susa, both princes and servants participated without exception in the banquet.

This view of Est 1:3-5 is confirmed by the consideration, that if the seven days banquet were a different one from that mentioned in Est 1:3, there could be no reason for naming the latter, which would then be not only entirely unconnected with the narrative, but for which no object at all would be stated; for cannot be translated, as in the Vulgate, by ut ostenderet , because, as Bertheau justly remarks, cannot indicate a purpose. From all these reasons it is obvious, that the feast of which further particulars are given in Est 1:5-8 is the same which the king, according to Est 1:3, gave to his and , and that the text, rightly understood, says nothing of two consecutive banquets. The sense of Est 1:3-5 is accordingly as follows: King Ahasuerus gave to his nobles and princes, when he had assembled them before him, and showed them the glorious riches of his kingdom and the magnificence of his greatness for 180 days, after these 180 days, to all assembled before him in the fortress of Susa, a banquet which lasted seven days. The connection of the more particular description of this banquet, by means of the words: when these (the previously named 180) days were over, following upon the accessory clause, Est 1:4, is anacoluthistic, and the anacoluthon has given rise to the misconception, by which Est 1:5 is understood to speak of a second banquet differing from the of Est 1:3. The purpose for which the king assembled the grandees of his kingdom around him in Susa fore a whole half-year is not stated, because this has no connection with the special design of the present book. If, however, we compare the statement of Herod. vii. 8, that Xerxes, after the re-subjection of Egypt, summoned the chief men of his kingdom to Susa to take counsel with them concerning the campaign against Greece, it is obvious, that the assembly for 180 days in Susa, of the princes and nobles mentioned in the book of Esther, took place for the purpose of such consultation. When, too, we compare the statement of Herod. vii. 20, that Xerxes was four years preparing for this war, we receive also a corroboration of the particular mentioned in Est 1:3, that he assembled his princes and nobles in the third year of his reign. In this view “the riches of his kingdom,” etc., mentioned in Est 1:4, must not be understood of the splendour and magnificence displayed in the entertainment of his guests, but referred to the greatness and resources of the realm, which Xerxes descanted on to his assembled magnates for the purpose of showing them the possibility of carrying into execution his contemplated campaign against Greece. The banquet given them after the 180 days of consultation, was held in the court of the garden of the royal palace. is a later form of , which occurs only here and Est 7:7-8. , court, is the space in the park of the royal castle which was prepared for the banquet. The fittings and furniture of this place are described in Est 1:6. “White stuff, variegated and purple hangings, fastened with cords of byssus and purple to silver rings and marble pillars; couches of gold and silver upon a pavement of malachite and marble, mother-of-pearl and tortoise-shell.” The description consists of mere allusions to, or exclamations at, the splendour of the preparations. In the first half of the verse the hangings of the room, in the second, the couches for the guests, are noticed. from means a white tissue of either linen or cotton. Bertheau supposes that the somewhat larger form of ch is intended to denote, even by the size of letter employed, the commencement of the description. , occurring in Sanscrit, Persian, Armenian, and Arabic, in Greek , means originally cotton, in Greek, according to later authorities, a kind of fine flax, here undoubtedly a cotton texture of various colours. , deep blue, purple. The hangings of the space set apart were of these materials. Blue and white were, according to Curtius Est 6:6, Est 6:4, the royal colours of the Persians; comp. M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums, ii. pp. 891 and 951 of the third edition, in which is described also the royal table, p. 952. The hangings were fastened ( ) with cords of white byssus and purple to rings and pillars of white marble. , couches (divans) of gold and silver, i.e., covered with cloth woven of gold and silver thread, were prepared for the guests at the feast. These couches were placed upon a tesselated, mosaic-like floor; the tesselation being composed of stones of various colours. , in Arabic a mock stone, in lxx , a spurious emerald, i.e., a green-coloured stone resembling the emerald, probably malachite or serpentine. is white marble; , Arabic darrun , darratun , pearl, lxx , a pearl-like stone, perhaps mother-of-pearl. , a kind of dark-coloured stone (from = , to be dark), black, black marble with shield-like spots (all three words occur only here).

Est 1:7-8

The entertainment: “And drinks poured into vessels of gold! and vessels differing from vessels, and royal wine in abundance, according to the hand of a king. (Est 1:8) And the drinking was according to law; nine did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house to do according to every one’s pleasure.” , inf. Hiph., to give to drink, to hand drinks, is used substantively. The golden drinking vessels were of various kinds, and each differing in form from another. Great variety in drinking vessels pertained to the luxury of Persians; comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 8, 18. is wine from the royal cellar, therefore costly wine. Many interpreters understand it of the Chalybonian wine, which the Persian kings used to drink. See rem. on Eze 27:18. , according to the hand of the king, i.e., according to royal bounty; comp. 1Ki 10:13. The words: “the drinking was according to law, none did compel,” are generally understood to say, that the king abolished for this banquet, the prevailing custom of pledging his guests. According to Grecian information (see Baumgarten, p. 12f.), an exceedingly large quantity of wine was drunk at Persian banquets. This sense of the words is not, however, quite certain. The argument of Baumgarten, Si hic mos vulgaris fuisset in epulis regiis, sine dubio haec omnia non commemorata essent , no more holds good than his further remark: formulam illam non puto adhibitam fuisse, nisi jam altera contraria solemnis esset facta . The historian can have noticed this only because it was different from the Jewish custom. Bertheau also justly remarks: “We are not told in the present passage, that the king, on this occasion, exceptionally permitted moderation, especially to such of his guests as were, according to their ancestral customs, addicted to moderation, and who would else have been compelled to drink immoderately. For the words with which this verse concludes, which they imply also a permission to each to drink as little as he chose, are specially intended to allow every one to take much. , to appoint concerning, i.e., to enjoin, comp. 1Ch 9:22. , those over the house, i.e., the court officials.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

The Feast of Ahasuerus.

B. C. 519.

      1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)   2 That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace,   3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him:   4 When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even a hundred and fourscore days.   5 And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace;   6 Where were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble.   7 And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king.   8 And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure.   9 Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.

      Which of the kings of Persia this Ahasuerus was the learned are not agreed. Mordecai is said to have been one of those that were carried captive from Jerusalem (Est 2:5; Est 2:6), whence it should seem that this Ahasuerus was one of the first kings of that empire. Dr. Lightfoot thinks that he was that Artaxerxes who hindered the building of the temple, who is called also Ahasuerus (Ezr 4:6; Ezr 4:7), after his great-grandfather of the Medes, Dan. ix. 1. We have here an account,

      I. Of the vast extent of his dominion. In the time of Darius and Cyrus there were but 120 princes ( Dan. vi. 1); now there were 127, from India to Ethiopia, v. 1. It had become an over-grown kingdom, which in time would sink with its own weight, and, as usual, would lose its provinces as fast as it got them. If such vast power be put into a bad hand, it is able to do so much the more mischief; but, if into a good hand, it is able to do so much the more good. Christ’s kingdom is, or shall be, far larger than this, when the kingdoms of the world shall all become his; and it shall be everlasting.

      II. Of the great pomp and magnificence of his court. When he found himself fixed in his throne, the pride of his heart rising with the grandeur of his kingdom, he made a most extravagant feast, wherein he put himself to vast expense and trouble only to show the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty, v. 4. This was vain glory, an affection of pomp to no purpose at all; for none questioned the riches of his kingdom, nor offered to vie with him for honour. If he had shown the riches of his kingdom and the honour of his majesty, as some of his successors did, in contributing largely towards the building of the temple and the maintaining of the temple service (Ezr 6:8; Ezr 7:22), it would have turned to a much better account. Two feasts Ahasuerus made:– 1. One for his nobles and princes, which lasted a hundred and eighty days,Est 1:3; Est 1:4. Not that he feasted the same persons every day for all that time, but perhaps the nobles and princes of one province one day, of another province another day, while thus he and his constant attendants fared sumptuously every day. The Chaldee paraphrast (who is very bold in his additions to the story of this book) says that there had been a rebellion among his subjects and that this feast was kept for joy of the quashing of it. 2. Another was made for all the people, both great and small, which lasted seven days, some one day and some another; and, because no house would hold them, they were entertained in the court of the garden, v. 5. The hangings with which the several apartments were divided or the tents which were there pitched for the company, were very fine and rich; so were the beds or benches on which they sat, and the pavement under their feet, v. 6. Better is a dinner of herbs with quietness, and the enjoyment of one’s self and a friend, than this banquet of wine with all the noise and tumult that must needs attend it.

      III. Of the good order which in some respects was kept there notwithstanding. We do not find this like Belshazzar’s feast, in which dunghill-gods were praised and the vessels of the sanctuary profaned, Dan 5:3; Dan 5:4. Yet the Chaldee paraphrase says that the vessels of the sanctuary were used in this feast, to the great grief of the pious Jews. It was not like Herod’s feast, which reserved a prophet’s head for the last dish. Two things which are laudable we may gather from the account here given of this feast:– 1. That there was no forcing of healths, nor urging of them: The drinking was according to the law, probably some law lately made; none did compel, no, not by continual proposing of it (as Josephus explains it); they did not send the glass about, but every man drank as he pleased (v. 8), so that if there were any that drank to excess it was their own fault, a fault which few would commit when the king’s order put an honour upon sobriety. This caution of a heathen prince, even when he would show his generosity, may shame many who are called Christians, who think they do not sufficiently show their good housekeeping, nor bid their friends welcome, unless they make them drunk, and, under pretence of sending the health round, send the sin round, and death with it. There is a woe to those that do so; let them read it and tremble, Hab 2:15; Hab 2:16. It is robbing men of their reason, their richest jewel, and making them fools, the greatest wrong that can be. 2. That there was no mixed dancing; for the gentlemen and ladies were entertained asunder, not as in the feast of Belshazzar, whose wives and concubines drank with him (Dan. v. 2), or that of Herod, whose daughter danced before him. Vashti feasted the women in her own apartment; not openly in the court of the garden, but in the royal house, v. 9. Thus, while the king showed the honour of his majesty, she and her ladies showed the honour of their modesty, which is truly the majesty of the fair sex.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Introduction to Esther

Esther is the last of those books of the Old Testament commonly referred to as the Historical Books. Its setting is in the the Persian court, about 485-465 B. C. The king is Ahasuerus, which is the Hebrew form of Xerxes, after its. Anglicization. Xerxes I was one of the most prominent of the Persian kings, the son of Darius the Great, who allowed the Jews to resume the building of the temple. In secular history he is the Persian king who made an all-out attempt to defeat the Greek city states and annex Greece to his kingdom. His father’s forces had been decidedly bested in his campaigns against them. The Book of Esther opens with the account of the great festival by which Xerxes sought to raise funds and support for his own campaign against Greece. Four years later he also returned from the Greek campaigns decisively beaten, and the course of history was changed.

Skeptics have denied the historicity of Esther because major characters, such as Vashti, Mordecai, and Esther are unmentioned in the secular account. They cite a person named Amestris as the only “queen” of Xerxes mentioned in secular history. Conservative scholars find no problem with this, however, it being noted that rich kings such as Xerxes had many wives, Solomon himself being a notable example. It would not be unlikely that a much admired wife, as Vashti, first, then Esther, should be honored by the king and exalted in the country, though another may have retained the actual position of the queen.

Several attempts have been made to explain the absence of the mention of God in the Book of Esther. The idea has been advanced that it was prohibited by the Persian law to acknowledge some other God in court circles than the Persian national gods. This does not seem to be a tenable position. It appears more likely that it is purposely left out to show how the Lord took care of His people, even when they were outside His will, by not having returned to Jerusalem

The author of. Esther is unknown. The internal evidence suggests that the author was a Jew familiar with Persian life and practices. For this reason many have suggested that Mordecai himself authored the book. Since the events fall in the time frame between Zerubbabel and Ezra it is also possible that the account may be the work of the scribe Ezra.

Esther – Chapter 1

A Royal Party, Verse 1-9

The Persian name of this king transliterates in English as Khshayarsha. The Greek Xerxes, also Anglicized, comes from the Persian form. The Hebrew in turn came out Ahasuerus in its present English form. Xerxes inherited at the death of his father, Darius Hystaspes, a mighty empire which reached from India in the east to Ethiopia in the far southwest, in Africa. This vast area had been orderly divided into a hundred twenty provinces, each with its overlord subject to the Persian monarch. Advance of the Persian kings across the peninsula of Asia Minor had brought them into conflict with the Greek city states, and Ahasuerus was at that time making plans to subjugate these troublesome people and add them to his empire.

Shushan the palace was in the ancient land of Elam, about a hundred fifty miles north of the Persian Gulf, on one of the chief tributaries of the Tigris River. The name means “lily” in Hebrew, and the place is said to have been so called because it lay in a plain where this flower grew profusely. The time was the third year of Ahasuerus, or about 483 B. C. According to the Greek historian, Herodotus, the king threw this great banquet for the purpose of planning his military campaign against the Greeks. Those attendant at the great conclave included all the king’s princes, attendants, military officers of Persia and Media, and the nobles and princes of the hundred twenty provinces. He would need their financial backing and military personnel in his venture. To impress them he made a display of all his riches and glory over the extensive period of a hundred eighty days.

At the end of this lengthy time of festival and planning Ahasuerus threw a wild party lasting for a week. To this were invited all those in Shushan, from the great to the least. It was staged in the royal garden of the palace, which was lavishly and royally decorated. Beautiful white and violet linen draperies hung from marble columns, where they were attached by cords of fine purple linen in rings of gold. The couches on which the guests reclined were of gold and silver and sat upon a pavement of mosaic colors. Later language scholars identify the words translated as colors to indicate stones of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl, and more precious stones. The wine was served in golden cups, each one decorated differently.

An interesting law of the Persians appears in connection with the wine drinking. No one was compelled to drink, for teetotalers were welcome at the party also. Each person was left to his own discretion in the matter.

As a kind of postscript it is noted that the women had their own private party inside the palace while the men reveled in their debauchery. They were hosted by Vashti the queen.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

PERSIAN SPLENDOUR

CRITICAL NOTES.]

Est. 1:1. Ahasuerus] Heb. Ahashverosh. Prince, chief. A name given in Scripture to Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, and to Astyages, king of the Medes (Ezr. 4:6; Dan. 9:1). India to Ethiopia] describes the kings dominion, but does not definitely fix the date of his reign. The hundred and twenty-seven provinces indicate the .

Est. 1:2. Shushan the palace] The kings favourite winter residence. Shushan the lily, the rose, the joy.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 1:1-2

TIMES DOINGS WITH HUMAN GREATNESS

Ahasuerus is gone, his royal city has perished, and even his stately palace has left behind only a few insignificant traces. But the simple story of Esther survives. Palaces of marble, as well as mansions made of the less enduring brick, strangely vanish. Strong fortifications disappear. Wonderful it is that material structures seem less enduring than insubstantial thought structures. Suggestive it is that the man Ahasuerus moves a formless shadow across the stage, while his doings and external greatness are vividly represented.

I. This monarchs unknown individuality. The proceedings of Ahasuerus are only such as might be expected from any Persian monarch of that period, possessing irresponsible power, invested with all the signs of extended dominion, surrounded by courtiers who rendered indiscriminate flattery, steeped in luxury and in frivolity, and like one of the governors in India, who told the native princes that they were but dust beneath his feet. The record of the doings of Ahasuerus, therefore, cannot give positive information as to his personality. His position in the Persian dynasty cannot be undoubtedly ascertained; but his place in the Divine economy is certain. The very weakness of his character was a buttress for the Jewish nation. His love of luxury turned out to the enlargement of the Jewish people. His immortality is that of those who are saved from oblivion by the greatness of others. Time sooner or later obscures the epitaph. The name written may be Ahasuerus, and future generations will fail to discover the person indicated. The advancing time will weave its mists about the name, and the individual will be lost in darkness. But a Divine book of remembrance is kept, and there the names of the righteous are written in characters of ever-enduring light. Their names shall shine in the all-revealing splendours. Let men strive to work in harmony with, and in furtherance of, all Divine purposes.

II. This monarchs individuality is only declared by the extent of his material kingdom. This is Ahasuerus which reigned, &c. His kingdom may be measured by the land surveyor and described by the historian. It extended from India to Ethiopia. He embraced in his rule the borders of India on the one side, and Egypt on the otheran extent of country about two thousand five hundred miles in length. He possessed some of earths loveliest lands. The fertilizing waters of the Nile left rich deposits on one portion of his territory, and another almost reached the sources of the sacred Ganges, while the Euphrates washed the walls of Babylon, and was fed by streams that flowed near the royal city of Susa. The Black Sea, famous in the history of modern conflicts, and the Caspian, were partly included in the territories over which he reigned. Lands and cities of historic fame were compelled to pay him tribute, and some of the noblest races on earth obeyed his commands. But the moral king is nobler, and has a more extensive and a more permanent kingdom. Even the material universe is the believers possession, intended for his spiritual development. Death strips the earthly king of his royal robes, and leaves him unthroned; but death lets the moral king into a larger sphere, and the results of his earthly conquests he will enjoy in heaven. The kingliest men have owned only a few feet of land, and sometimes not enough land for a tomb, according to short-sighted views of ownership.

III. This monarchs greatness consisted in external display. The throne on which the king sat was a chair made of gold, adorned with a costly carpet, upon which none might sit, on pain of death. There was also a footstool of gold. The king held a golden sceptre in his right hand. Close behind stood an eunuch bearing a fan, and with his mouth covered, for fear his breath should be offensive to the mighty monarch. Such are the pomp and circumstance with which Oriental monarchs endeavoured to separate themselves from, and raise themselves above, their fellow-creatures. This is greatness in the estimation of the children of this world. But true greatness is superior to mere gorgeous externals. The one disappears when the showy livery is removed, but the other abides through all changes. Lazarus was great in his rags; Dives was mean in his purple and fine linen. A great soul ennobles the meanest surroundings.

IV. This monarchs proud position is not to be envied. There are many who would regard Ahasuerus with envy, as, amid a group of attendants, he paced those terraced heights on which the palace of Shushan was erected, as he watched the gentle gliding of the sweet waters of the Eulus, as he listened to the music of pipers and harpists, as he pleased himself with the natural and artistic beauties of the scene, and as he gazed upon the flat and fertile plains that stretched at the base of the royal palace. The riches both of art and of nature seemed to combine in order to make existence pleasant. But no human lot is without its admixture of pain. From the high places of the earth we catch the echo of those wailing cries that mingle with the mocking sounds of revelry. Kings are but men, and their hearts too are touched by the painful hand of sorrow. The inscription over an imaginative palace is, Here is the abode of everlasting pleasures and content. But no such inscription can be truthfully placed over the gates of any earthly palace, and certainly it will not describe Shushan the palace. Happy he who wisely keeps the palace of his soul, and finds there the elements of true gladness.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 1:1-2

Est. 1:1. Ahasuerus. The difficulty of stating positively who was the Ahasuerus spoken of in this passage is almost insuperable. The nearest approach to a settlement of the question is the statement that Ahasuerus was one of the Persian monarchs who lived about the time of Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes, and must have been one of those monarchs; for only those three are described by Herodotus as possessing the extent of territory attributed to them in the Book of Esther. Most of our modern critics decide that Ahasuerus is Xerxes, and this conclusion is said to be fortified by a resemblance of character. As Xerxes scourged the sea, and put to death the engineers of his bridge because their work was injured by a storm, so Ahasuerus repudiated his queen Vashti because she would not violate the decorum of her sex, and ordered the massacre of the whole Jewish people to gratify the malice of Haman. Now Herodotus is evidently the father of fables as well as the father of history. In the book Polyhymnia, from which the above instance of foolish conduct is quoted, Herodotus tells us of some prodigies which fairly lead us to doubt his trustworthiness. And we may well agree with Mitford when he affirms that some of the anecdotes related by Herodotus are utterly inconsistent with the characters to whom they refer. Among the latter I should reckon the ridiculous punishment of the Hellespont by stripes and chains, together with executions equally impolitic as inhuman, and repugnant to what we learn on best authority of the manners of the Persians. The assembly spoken of by Herodotus as called by Xerxes in order to deliberate concerning the Grecian war does not resemble that great feast and assembly which was held by Ahasuerus in Shushan the palace, and which lasted an hundred and fourscore days. Those frightful dreams which Xerxes is said to have had at this period do not speak to us at least of the merriment of Ahasuerus in Shushan. This luxury and splendour only seem to point to the Persian greatness which culminated about this period. The two narrationsthe one given by Herodotus as to Xerxes, and the other in the Book of Esther as to Ahasuerusmay appear to agree in point of time, but do not necessarily as to the nature of the events recorded. There is surely an a priori argument in favour of those historians who lived near the time when the events took place which they record, and who had better means of knowing the characters and events whom and which they describe than later authors. It is a fact to be considered that throughout the Book of Esther in the LXX. Artaxerxes is written for Ahasuerus, and that the apocryphal additions of the Book of Esther give this name. Josephus, also, being such a painstaking historian, did not write Artaxerxes for Ahasuerus without good reason. The name Ahasuerus sets forth the dignity of the man rather than distinguishes him from others. It is a general title of the Persian kings, as Pharaoh, Ptolemy, and Csar were general names for rulers of other countries. Why should we institute a painful comparison between the believer who is said not to own a foot of land, and the licentious monarch who reigns over one hundred and seven and twenty provinces? For, it is truly observed, some of the vilest men possessed all the great and large dominions of the Persian empire. But if God has bestowed true faith, unfeigned love, and unaffected humility, he has bestowed treasures of inestimably greater value than-all the possessions of Xerxes or of Nero. A man may rule over an extensive kingdom, and yet be a slave; for lusts are tyrannical masters. A man may be a slave in outward condition, and yet be the noblest freeman, the grandest king of all. He is royal who is a member of that kingdom which is to extend from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth, which in fact is to include all nations. Other kingdoms shall fail, but Christs kingdom of love shall ever endure.

Monarchs will be still adding, and although a man were monarch of the whole world, yea, and had command of the moon and the stars, yet would he still be peeping beyond them for more, more.Trapp.

An overgrown kingdom which in time would sink with its own weight, and, as usual, would lose its provinces as fast as it gained them. If such a vast power be put into bad hands it is able to do so much the more mischief.M. Henry.

Est. 1:2. Sitting is a posture common to judges and kings, but more particularly characteristic of the kings of Persia. The Persian kings are always painted as sitting on a throne under a lofty canopy. This is true of them even in the time of war, and in their journeys. Xerxes, indeed, was present in the battles sitting; thus it was at Thermopyl, according to Herodotus, and at Salamis, according to Plutarch.Lange.

This monarchs palatial residence. Shushan is mentioned in three of the sacred booksNehemiah, Esther, and Danielas well as by profane writers. Originally it was the capital of the province called in Scripture Elam, and by the classical writers sometimes Cissian, and sometimes Susis, or Susiana; and was situated on the banks of the river Eulai, or Eulus. Daniel refers to it in the account of his vision as forming part of the Babylonish empire. Its foundations are said to have been laid even before the time of Chedorlaomer. The remains found on the supposed site point to a very remote past. It was comprehended in the Persian empire in the time of Cyrus or Darius, and to the latter is generally given the credit of being the founder or builder of the great palace described in the Book of Esther. It was chosen by the Persian monarch as the capital of his empire on account of its vicinity to Persia, its climatic advantages, and the great excellence of its water. The circumference of Shushan, exclusive of some outlying mounds, was about three miles; but little more than the name of the city remains. The bases of a few columns, having upon them inscriptions which are deciphered with difficulty, are all that is now left of this proud city. Shushan means the lily, the rose, the joya name given on account of the fertility of the country, and the abundance of lilies that flourished in the district. This lily no longer flourishes, this Narcissus no more emits its fragrance; the joy and pride of the nations has fallen from its eminence. Thus the flowers of earth perish, but the celestial flowers bloom for evermore. Our Beloved is as the lily of the valley and the rose of Sharon, and he shall evermore unfold his loveliness and emit his Divine fragrance.

The palace of Shushan was one of the architectural wonders of its day, and its size and its magnificence would have attracted considerable attention in modern times. In visiting the ruins of our ancient abbeys we are astonished at the evidences of minuteness and of massiveness which still survive in those gigantic and yet graceful structures. But more profound emotions of sublimity are produced by visiting the ruins of Persepolis, which corresponded to the palace of Shushan in great measure, and from which at least we must gather our conception of what the Shushan palace was like, for nearly all the ruins of the latter have disappeared. In speaking of Persepolis, Porter observes, Nothing can be more striking than the view of its ruins; so vast and so magnificent, so fallen, mutilated, and silent; the court of Cyrus, and the scene of his bounties; the pavilion of Alexanders triumph, and the awful memorial of the witness of his power. The first object which presented itself was a columned hall of the largest size, which has not been rivalled in space or in beauty by any building either ancient or modern, not even by Egyptian Carnac or Cologne Cathedral. On three sides of the hall were vast porches, supported by twelve columns, while the great central hall had thirty-six, which were a little over sixty feet high. These columns were all fluted, and surmounted by capitals formed into the shape of the heads of bulls, or horses, or wild asses. Heeren supposes these pillars to have supported a roof of cedar, but some authorities doubt whether this large hall could have had a roof. In the grounds we see on one side what is called the queens house, and on the other the kings house. In looking at the whole group we may see terrace rising above terrace, and building above building, to the height of two hundred feet above the level of the plain. Fabulous creatures in stone frowning like mighty sentinels; the terraces graced with trees, shrubs, and flowers of rich luxuriance, indicating the fertility of the country as well as the skill of the cultivators. Evidences there were on all sides that the wealth, genius, and productive power of that vast empire had been collected and concentrated to the erection and adornment of the stately pile of buildings.

Shushan the palace. The king had a royal establishment in several cities, but at the time here referred to it was in Shushan, which was a favourite spring residence.Lange.

In this city was the famous palace of Cyrus, which was adorned with marble walls, golden pillars, and great store of precious stones, shining as so many stars from the roof and sides of it, to the dazzling of the eyes of the beholders.Trapp.

Time sadly overcometh all things, and is now dominant, and sitteth upon a sphinx, and looketh unto Memphis and old Thebes; while his sister Oblivion reclineth semi-somnous on a pyramid, gloriously triumphing, making puzzles of Titanian inscriptions, and turning old glories into dreams. History sinketh beneath her cloud. The traveller, as he paceth amazedly through those deserts, asketh of her who builded them, and she mumbleth something, but what it is he heareth not.Anonymous.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE WHOLE CHAPTER

This book presents us with impressive views of man with and without grace; of the great instability of human affairs; of the sovereign power, justice, and faithfulness of the Supreme Being. We now call your attention to the first chapter.

I. The king of Persia at this time was Ahasuerus. Commentators differ about him. He was a heathena stranger to Godpossessing extensive dominions. His was the second of the four great empires. These empires have come to nought; but, brethren, there is a kingdom which passeth not away. Its King will remain in heaven for ever. Let us be numbered among its subjects.

II. This mighty potentate, Ahasuerus, wished to make a display of his greatness: made a feastthe power of Media and Persia presenthe exhibited his riches, and honour, and glory. Notice his pride. Beware of pride. Pray that you may habitually remember what you arepoor, fallen sinners.

III. At this feast, though a heathen one, moderation was observed. And the drinking was according to law: none did compel. Intemperance is an abomination and a degradation; hence we should flee from it.

IV. But though the feast of Ahasuerus was free from the disgrace of compelling the guests to proceed to drunkenness, yet did very evil consequences result from it. It is but seldom that such meetings are free from such consequences. We read of Belshazzars feast; we read of Herods feast. In such entertainments God is liable to be forgotten. Solomon, who with extraordinary diligence, and unparalleled success, had examined and tried the sources of all earthly gratification, tells us, in language which ought never to be out of remembrance, that it is better to go to the house of mourning than the house of feasting.

V. Let us consider the evil which was occasioned by the feast.The king ordered the queen to be brought. She refused to come. The wrath of the king was kindled. The result was a council, then the divorcement of the queen. Quarrels, animosities, and heart-burnings are so contrary to that religion of love which a received gospel generates, that we ought to strive to the utmost for the preservation of the opposite virtues. Christ is the Prince of Peace; let us not only trust in his death for salvation, but imitate his meekness and lowliness of heart.

Two short remarks shall close this discourse:

1. It behoveth us to lead excellent lives, and the higher we are placed in the community the more ought this to be the object of our ambition. Let our lives be continual sermons to those among whom we live.
2. It behoveth us to regard the duties which appertain to the relations of life in which we are placed. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God.Hughes.

I. The vast extent of the Persian empire. It comprehended all the countries from the river Indus on the east to the Mediterranean on the west; and from the Black Sea and Caspian in the north to the extreme south of Arabia, then called Ethiopia. This gigantic dominion was divided into 127 provinces or governments, each of which was placed under a satrap, or, in modern language, a pasha, who managed its affairs, and annually transmitted a certain sum as revenue to the king. The seat of government was variable, according to the season of the year, the summer months being spent by the court at Ecbatana, and the winter months at Susa, or, as it is called in this chapter, Shushan, the palace. The form of government in the East has from the earliest times been despotic, one man swaying the destinies of millions, and having under him a crowd of smaller despots, each in his more limited sphere oppressing the people subjected to his rule.

1. Despotism has its occasional fits of generosity and kindness. It is as kind-hearted that Ahasuerus is brought before you in the early part of this chapter. He was spending the winter months at Susa. The retinue of the monarch was vast, and the fountains and gardens were on a scale of grandeur which we cannot well conceive. There, then, the king, but little concerned about the welfare of his subjects, was spending his time, chiefly in selfish ease and unbounded revelry. To him it was of no moment how his people were oppressed by those whom he set over them; his sole concern was to enjoy his pleasures.
2. With all the luxury and temptation to self-indulgence, there was no compulsion employed to draw any one beyond the bounds of temperance. The law was good, but the king himself had too largely used the liberty, and hence his loss of self-control and all sense of propriety. When heated with wine he sent for Vashti, &c. Lessons suggested are
(1) Extravagancies and follies into which men are betrayed by intemperance.
(2) That which dethrones reason and destroys intellect should surely be avoided.
(3) All the consequences which affect the man individually, and others also, rest upon the head of the transgressor.
(4) Intemperance (a) blots out distinction between right and wrong; (b) foments all the evil passions of the natural heart; (c) destroys the proper exercise of the power of the will; (d) and often inflicts grievous wounds upon the innocent, as the case of Vashti here already demonstrates.

(5) The necessity of guarding against these evils.

II. The evils which arose from the peculiar family arrangements of those countries. We take occasion here to observe two great evils:

1. The condition of the female sex was that of degradation. The married woman was not really what the Divine institution intended her to be, the true companion and friend of her husband. She was kept in a state of seclusion, real freedom she knew not; she was, in truth, only a slave, having power to command some other slaves. She was without education, and generally unintelligent, frivolous, and heartless. She was guarded with zealous care, as if she had been very precious, but at the same time she was wholly dependent upon the caprices of her lord.
2. Yet, strangely enough, in the second place, it is to be noticed that, as if to afford evidence that the law of nature cannot be trampled upon with impunity, it very frequently happened that the female influence was felt by the despotic husband, so as to make him in reality the slave. Not conscious of it, but imagining that he held the place of absolute authority, he was himself governed; yet not through the power of real affection, but through the imbecile doting which constituted all that he knew of real affection. Common history abounds with illustrations of this fact, and in the sacred history we have examples of the same kind; David, Solomon, and Ahab are instances. There is never a violation of Gods righteous appointments, but it is followed by some penalty. From this Book of Esther, it appears very obviously that Ahasuerus, with all his caprices and his stern, imperious self-will, was at first completely under the influence of Vashti, as he afterwards came to be under that of Esther. The whole domestic system being unnaturally constructed, there was, of necessity, derangements in the conducting of it. The despot might be one day all tenderness and submission, and the next day he might, to gratify his humour, exact from his slaves what, a short time afterwards, he would have counted it absolutely wrong in himself to command, and punishable in them to do.

III. The degradation of Vashti. We have to look at the circumstances which are brought before us in the narrative. At a season when sound counsel could scarcely have been expected, and when he who sought it was not in a fit condition to profit by it, the serious question was proposed by the king, What shall be done to Vashti? &c. To defer the consideration of so grave a subject to a more fitting season would have been so clearly the path which a wise counsellor would have recommended, that we feel astonished that it was not at once suggested. But the wrath of the king was so strongly exhibited that his compliant advisers did not venture to contradict him. Memucan answered, &c. Now, with respect to this opinion of the chief counsellor, it may be observed that it was based upon a principle which in itself is unquestionably right, although there was a wrong application made of it. Rank and station, while they command a certain measure of respect, involve very deep responsibility. Fashions and maxims usually go downward from one class of society to another. Customs, adopted by the higher orders as their rule, gradually make their way until at length they pervade all ranks. Thus far Memucan spoke wisely, when he pointed to the example of the queen as that which would certainly have an influence, wherever it came to be known, throughout the empire. But the principle, in the present instance, was wrongly applied when it was made the ground of condemning the conduct of Vashti. The design was to make her appear guilty of an act of insubordination, which it was necessary for the king to punish, if he would promote the good of his subjects, whereas, in reality, she had upon her side all the authority of law and custom, and was to be made the victim both of the ungovernable wrath of the king, who was beside himself with wine, and also of flatterers who, to gratify him, would do wrong to the innocent. See here the danger of flattery.

Let us extract some practical lessons from our subject.

1. The inadequacy of all earthly good to make man truly happy. Surveying the whole scene portrayed in the early verses of this chapter, we might imagine that the sovereign who ruled over this empire, upon whose nod the interests of so many millions depended, and for whose pleasure the product of so many various climes could be gathered together, had surely all the elements of enjoyment at his command. And yet we must say that the mightiest sovereign of his time, with 127 provinces subject to him, with princes serving him, and slaves kissing the dust at his feet, was not half so happy as the humblest individual here, who knows what is meant by the comforts of home, where he is in the midst of those who love him.
2. A few remarks may be offered upon the domestic question here settled by the king and his counsellors, as to the supremacy of man in his own house. How could they pronounce a sound judgment upon a question which their customs prevented them from rightly knowing?
3. We have in the text a law spoken of which changeth not. And, my friends, there is such a law, but it is not the law of the Medes and Persians, it is the law of the Eternal. Jehovahs law changeth not. And what does it say? This do and live. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. That seals us all up under wrath. But we turn the page, and we read and see that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. And is not this our conclusion, thenI will flee from the curse of the immutable law, and shelter myself under the righteousness of Christ, which is also perfect and immutable, that through him and from him I may have mercy and eternal life?Dr. Davidson.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 1

Power. Pompey boasted, that, with one stamp of his foot, he could rouse all Italy to arms; with one scratch of his pen, Ahasuerus could call to his assistance the forces of 127 provinces; but God, by one word of his mouth, one movement of his will, can summon the inhabitants of heaven, earth, and the undiscovered worlds to his aid, or bring new creatures into being to do his will.

Dignity. A French doctor once taunted Flechier, Bishop of Nismes, who had been a tallow-chandler in his youth, with the meanness of his origin; to which he replied, If you had been born in the same condition that I was, you would still have been but a maker of candles.

Great men. Columbus was the son of a weaver, and a weaver himself. Cervantes was a common soldier. Homer was the son of a small farmer. Demosthenes was the son of a cutler. Terence was a slave. Oliver Cromwell was the son of a London brewer. Howard was an apprentice to a grocer. Franklin was a journeyman printer, and son of a tallow-chandler and soap-boiler. Dr. Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, was the son of a linen-draper. Daniel Defoe was a hostler, and son of a butcher. Whitfield was the son of an innkeeper at Gloucester. Virgil was the son of a porter. Horace was the son of a shopkeeper. Shakespeare was the son of a woolstapler. Milton was the son of a money scrivener. Robert Burns was a ploughman in Ayrshire. Yet all these rose to eminence.

How to make a feast. Lord Chief Justice Hall frequently invited his poor neighbours to dinner, and made them sit at table with himself. If any of them were sick, so that they could not come, he would send provisions to them warm from his table.

Favour of God. It was the saying of a wise Roman, I had rather have the esteem of the Emperor Augustus than his gifts; for he was an honourable, understanding prince, and his favour very honourable. When Cyrus gave one of his friends a kiss, and another a wedge of gold, he that had the gold envied him that had the kiss as a greater expression of his favour. So the true Christian prefers the privilege of acceptance with God to the possession of any earthly comfort, for in the light of his countenance is life, and his favour is as the cloud of the latter rain.Butler.

Pride of wealth. Alcibiades was one day boasting of his wealth and great estate, when Socrates placed a map before him, and asked him to find Attica. It was insignificant on the map; but he found it. Now, said the philosopher, point out your own estate. It is too small to be distinguished in so little a space, was the answer. See, then! said Socrates, how much you are affected about an imperceptible point of land.

Your bags of gold should be ballast in your vessel to keep her always steady, instead of being topsails to your masts to make your vessel giddy. Give me that distinguished person, who is rather pressed down under the weight of all his honours, than puffed up with the blast thereof. It has been observed by those who are experienced in the sport of angling, that the smallest fishes bite the fastest. Oh, how few great men do we find so much as nibbling at the gospel book.Seeker.

Abuse of wealth. I am no advocate for meanness of private habitation. I would fain introduce into it all magnificence, care, and beauty, when they are possible; but I would not have that useless expense in unnoticed fineries or formalitiescornicing of ceilings, and graining of doors, and fringing of curtains, and thousands of such thingswhich have become foolishly and apathetically habitual. I speak from experience: I know what it is to live in a cottage with a deal floor and roof, and a hearth of mica slate; I know it to be in many respects healthier and happier than living between a Turkey carpet and a gilded ceiling, beside a steel grate and polished fender. I do not say that such things have not their place and propriety; but I say this emphatically, that a tenth part of the expense which is sacrificed in domestic vanities, if not absolutely and meaninglessly lost in domestic comforts and encumbrances, would, if collectively afforded and wisely employed, build a marble church for every town in England.Ruskin.

Danger. A boy climbing among the Alps saw some flowers on the verge of a precipice, and sprang forward to get them. The guide shouted his warnings; but the heedless boy grasped the flowers, and fell a thousand feet upon the rocks below with them in his hand. It was a dear price for such frail things, but he is not the only victim of such folly.

Danger of prosperity. When Crates threw his gold into the sea, he cried out, Ego perdam te, ne tu perdas me, that is, I will destroy you, lest you should destroy me. Thus, if the world be not put to death here, it will put us to death hereafter. Then we shall say, as Cardinal Wolsey, when discarded by his prince and abandoned to the fury of his enemies: If I had served my God as faithfully as my king, he would not have thus forsaken me. Poor man! all the perfumes on earth are unable to prevail over the stench of hell.Secker.

In a long sunshine of outward prosperity, the dust of our inward corruptions is apt to fly about and lift itself up. Sanctified affliction, like seasonable rain, lays the dust, and softens the soul.Salter.

When fire is put to green wood there comes out abundance of watery stuff that before appeared not; when the pond is empty, the mud, the filth, and toads come to light. The snow covers many a dunghill, so doth prosperity many a rotten heart. It is easy to wade in a warm bath, and every bird can sing in a sunshiny day. Hard weather tries what health we have; afflictions try what sap we have, what grace we have. Withered leaves soon fall off in windy weather, rotten boughs quickly break with heavy weights, &c.Brooks.

Some of you glory in your shame, that you have drunk down your companions, and carried it awaythe honour of a sponge or a tub, which can drink up or hold liquor as well as you.Baxter.

We commend wine for the excellency of it; but if it could speak, as it can take away speech, it would complain that, by our abuse, both the excellencies are lost; for the excellent man doth so spoil the excellent wine, until the excellent wine hath spoiled the excellent man. Oh, that a man should take pleasure in that which makes him no man; that he should let a thief in at his mouth to steal away his wit; that for a little throat indulgence he should kill in himself both the first Adamhis reason, and even the second Adamhis regeneration, and so commit two murders at once.Adams.

An earnest young minister was in the house of a rich friend. He was pressed to take wine, but refused. It was again pressed upon him. At length he yielded to their importunities, and drank a little. Gradually he formed a liking for wine, and at length began taking far too much. By degrees, and almost before he was aware of it, he became a drunkard. He was degraded from his office of the ministry, and sank lower and lower. Years after he had been pressed to drink by his rich friend, he came again to his door; this time to beg for a little food, and was ordered away as a drunken vagabond.
Joseph Ralston, of Philipsburg, Penn., met with a horrible death by freezing. He had been drinking freely, and had, while drunk, to wade the Moshandoo Creek; but, ere he proceeded two-thirds of the way, his limbs refused to perform their office. He grasped a bough of an overhanging tree, unable to advance farther; and soon the fast-congealing water cemented close about hima tomb of ice which stretched from shore to shore. Two days after he was found there rigid as an icicle, his knees embedded in a sheet of the frozen element seven inches thick, his body inclined a little forwards, his hands clutching the boughs, eyes astare, and despair pictured on his features.Pittsburgh Despatch.

God trieth mens love to him by their keeping his commandments. It was the aggravation of the first sin that they would not deny so small a thing as the forbidden fruit, in obedience to God! And so it is of thine, that will not leave a forbidden cup for him. O miserable wretch! dost thou not know thou canst not be Christs disciple if thou forsake not all for him, and hate not even thy life in comparison of him, and wouldst die rather than forsake him? And thou like to lay down thy life for him, who wilt not leave a cup of drink for him? Canst thou burn at a stake for him, that canst not leave an alehouse, or vain company, or excess, for him? What a sentence of condemnation dost thou pass upon thyself!Baxter.

Not in the day of thy drunkenness only dost thou undergo the harm of drunkenness, but also after that day. And as when a fever is passed by, the mischievous consequences of the fever remain, so also when drunkenness is passed, the disturbance of intoxication is whirling round both body and soul. And while the wretched body lies paralyzed, like the hull of a vessel after a shipwreck, the soul, yet more miserable than it, even when this is ended, stirs up the storm and kindles desire; and when one seems to be sober, then most of all is he mad, imagining to himself wine and casks, cups and goblets.Chrysostom.

If you have glutted yourselves with worldly pleasures, it is no wonder that you should find an unsavoury taste in spiritual delights. Doves that are already filled find cherries bitter.J. Lyth, D.D.

Bountiful King. The Lord, like a most bountiful king, will be angry if any man will ask a small thing at his hands; because he had rather give things of great worth than of small value. His goodness is infinite.Powell.

Fulness of Christ. I have found it an interesting thing to stand at the edge of a noble rolling river, and to think, that although it has been flowing on for 6000 years, watering the fields, and slaking the thirst of a hundred generations, it shows no sign of waste or want. And when I have watched the rise of the sun as he shot above the crest of the mountain, or, in a sky draped with golden curtains, sprang up from his ocean bed, I have wondered to think that he has melted the snows of so many winters, and renewed the verdure of so many springs, and planted the flowers of so many summers, and ripened the golden harvest of so many autumns, and yet shines as brilliantly as ever; his eye not dim, nor his natural strength abated, nor his floods of lightness fail, for centuries of boundless profusion. Yet what are these but images of the fulness that is in Christ! Let that feed your hopes, and cheer your hearts, and brighten your faith, and send you away this day happy and rejoicing! For when judgment flames have licked up that flowing stream, and the light of that glorious sun shall be quenched in darkness, or veiled in the smoke of a burning world, the fulness of Christ shall flow on through eternity in the bliss of the redeemed. Blessed Saviour! Image of God! Divine Redeemer! In thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. What thou hast gone to heaven to prepare, may we be called up at death to enjoy!Dr. Guthrie.

Wife. And now let us see whether the word wife has not a lesson. It literally means a weaver. The wife is the person who weaves. Before our great cotton and cloth factories arose, one of the principal employments in every house was the fabrication of clothing: every family made its own. The wool was spun into threads by the girls, who were therefore called spinsters; the thread was woven into cloth by their mother, who, accordingly, was called the weaver, or the wife; and another remnant of this old truth we discover in the word heirloom, applied to any old piece of furniture which has come down to us from our ancestors, and which, though it may be a chair or bed, shows that a loom was an important article in every house. Thus the word wife means weaver; and, as Trench well remarks, in the word itself is wrapped up a hint of earnest, indoor, stay-at-home occupation, as being fitted for her who bears the name.

Pleasures. The pleasures of the world surfeit with satisfying, while heavenly pleasures satisfy without surfeiting. The surfeited nature of the sensualist requires a constantly increasing stimulus to rouse his used-up powers, but with each advance in Christian enjoyment there is an increased power to appreciate heavenly joys. The pleasures of the world are like the kiss of Judas, given but to betray; the pleasures of heaven make the soul bright and beautiful, as when the face of Moses was transformed by the vision of God.J. G. Pilkington.

Pleasures. Pleasures, like the rose, are sweet, but prickly; the honey doth not countervail the sting; all the worlds delights are vanity, and end in vexation; like Judas, while they kiss, they betray. I would neither be a stone nor an epicure; allow of no pleasure, nor give way to all; they are good sauce, but naught to make a meal of. I may use them sometimes for digestion, never for food.Henshaw.

Price of pleasure. Goethe, in his Faust, introduces for his hero a student longing for the pleasures of knowledge. The devil appears, to seduce him from his pursuit; Faust is to have all possible sensual enjoyment in life, but is to pay for it by yielding his soul to the devil at last. At the end, Mephistopheles, jealous of his claim, appears and carries off his victim, the students lost soul.

Anger. I am naturally as irritable as any; but when I find anger, or passion, or any other evil temper, arise in my mind, immediately I go to my Redeemer, and, confessing my sins, I give myself up to be managed by him.Clarke.

Anger subdued. Two good men on some occasion had a warm dispute; and remembering the exhortation of the Apostle, Let not the sun go down upon your wrath, just before sunset one of them went to the other, and knocking at the door, his offended friend came and opened it, and seeing who it was, started back in astonishment and surprise; the other, at the same time, cried out, The sun is almost down. This unexpected salutation softened the heart of his friend into affection, and he returned for answer, Come in, brother, come in. What a happy method of conciliating matters, of redressing grievances, and of reconciling brethren!Arvine.

Hypocrisy. A very capital painter in London exhibited a piece representing a friar habited in his canonicals. View the painting at a distance, and you would think the friar to be in a praying attitude: his hands are clasped together and held horizontally to his breast, his eyes meekly demissed like those of the publican in the gospel: and the good man appears to be quite absorbed in humble adoration and devout recollection. But take a nearer survey, and the deception vanishes; the book which seemed to be before him is discovered to be a punch-bowl, into which the wretch is all the while in reality only squeezing a lemon. How lively a representation of a hypocrite!Salter.

Idols. A mans idol is not necessarily an image of gold; it may be a child of clay, the fruit of his own loins, or the wife of his bosom; it may be wealth, fame, position, success, or businessanything which absorbs unduly the affections and attention. Against all such the Almighty pronounces the decree: Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and hurls his resistless missiles of destruction. Either ourselves or our idols must be destroyed.

Idolatry! You cannot find any more gross, any more cruel, on the broad earth, than within the area of a mile around this pulpit. Dark minds, from which God is obscured; deluded souls, whose fetish is the dice-box or the bottle; apathetic spirits, steeped in sensual abomination, unmoved by a moral ripple, soaking in the swamp of animal vitality; false gods, more hideous, more awful than Moloch or Baal, worshipped with shrieks, worshipped with curses, with the hearthstone for the bloody altar, and the drunken husband for the immolating priest, and women and children for the victims.Dr. Chapin.

Loss of time. We are doomed to suffer a bitter pang as often as the irrevocable flight of our time is brought home with keenness to our hearts. The spectacle of the lady floating over the sea in a boat, and waking suddenly from sleep to find her magnificent ropes of pearl necklace by some accident detached from its fastening at one end, the loose string hanging down into the water, and pearl after pearl slipping off for ever into the abyss, brings before us the sadness of the case. That particular pearl which at the very moment is rolling off into the unsearchable deep, carries its own separate reproach to the ladys heart, but is more deeply reproachful as the representative of so many other uncounted pearls that have already been swallowed up irrecoverably while yet she was sleeping, of many, besides, that must follow before any remedy can be applied to what we may call this jewelly hemorrhage.

The intrepid judge. One of the favourites of Henry V., when Prince of Wales, having been indicted for some misdemeanour, was condemned, notwithstanding all the interest he could make in his favour, and the prince was so incensed at the issue of the trial that he struck the judge on the bench. The magistrate, whose name was Sir William Gascoigne, acted with a spirit becoming his character. He instantly ordered the prince to be committed to prison, and young Henry, sensible by this time of the insult he had offered to the laws of his country, suffered himself to be quietly conducted to jail by the officers of justice. The king, Henry IV., who was an excellent judge of mankind, was no sooner informed of this transaction, than he cried out in a transport of joy, Happy is the king who has a magistrate possessed of courage to execute the laws, and still more happy in having a son who will submit to such chastisement.Arvine.

Flattery. The coin most current among mankind is flattery: the only benefit of which is, that, by hearing what we are not, we may learn what we ought to be.

Whitfield, when flattered, said, Take care of fire: I carry powder about me.
A flattering priest told Constantine the Great that his virtues deserved the empire of the world here, and to reign with the Son of God hereafter. The emperor cried, Fie, fie, for shame; let me hear no more such unseemly speeches; but, rather, suppliantly pray to my Almighty Maker, that, in this life and the life to come, I may be reckoned worthy to be his servant.

Excuses. He that does amiss never lacks excuse. Any excuse will serve when one has not a mind to do a thing. The archer that shoots ill has a lie ready. He that excuses himself accuses himself. A bad workman always complains of his tools.

Wicked counsel. A young man devoted himself to a religious life. His ungodly parents sent him many letters to dissuade him. Being fully decided to go on in his chosen course, when any letters came addressed to him he threw them into the fire at once, without opening them. When friends and kindred stand between us and Christ, they must be disregarded.

Sin. Sin is like the little serpent aspis, which stings men, whereby they fall into a pleasant sleep, and in that sleep die.Swinnock.

Envy. We shall find it in Cain, the proto-murderer, who slew his brother at the instigation of envy. We shall find in the dark, and gloomy, and revengeful spirit of Saul, who, under the influence of envy, plotted for years the slaughter of David. We shall find it in the king of Israel, when he pined for the vineyard of Naboth, and shed his blood to gain it. Yes; it was envy that perpetrated that most atrocious crime ever planned in hell or executed on earth, on which the sun refused to look, and at which nature gave signs of abhorrence by the rending of the rocksI mean the crucifixion of Christ, for the evangelist tells us that for envy the Jews delivered our Lord.J. A. James.

The poets imagined that envy dwelt in a dark cave; being pale and lean-looking as guilt, abounding with gall, her teeth black, never rejoicing but in the misfortunes of others; ever unquiet and careful, and continually tormenting herself.Wit.

Friendship. True friendship can only be made between true men. Hearts are the soul of honour. There can be no lasting friendship between bad men. Bad men may pretend to love each other; but their friendship is a rope of sand, which shall be broken at any convenient season. But if a man have a sincere heart within him, and be true and noble, then we may confide in him.Spurgeon.

Ingratitude. A petted soldier of the Macedonian army was shipwrecked, and east upon the shore apparently lifeless. A hospitable Macedonian discovered him, revived him, took him to his home, and treated him in a princely manner, and, when he departed, gave him money for his journey. The rescued soldier expressed warm thanks, and promised royal bounty to his benefactor. Instead, when he came before Philip, he related his own misfortunes, and asked to be rewarded by the lands and house of his rescuer. His request was granted, and he returned, and drove out his former host. The latter hastened to lay the true state before the king; when he restored the land, and caused the soldier to be branded in the forehead, The Ungrateful Guest, as the reward of his baseness.

Conscience wakeful. Though in many men conscience sleeps in regard to motion, yet it never sleeps in regard to observation and notice. It may be hard and seared, it can never be blind. Like letters written with the juice of lemon, that which is written upon it, though seemingly invisible and illegible, when brought before the fire of Gods judgment, shall come forth clear and expressive.MCosh.

Guilty conscience. It gives a terrible form and a horrible voice to everything beautiful and musical without. Let Byron describe its anguish, for who felt it more than he?

The mind that broods oer guilty woes
Is like the scorpion girt by fire;
In circle narrowing as it glows,
The flames around their captive close,
Till inly searched by thousand throes,
And maddening in her ire,
One sad and sole relief she knows
The sting she nourished for her foes;
Whose venom never yet was vain,
Gives but one pang, and cures all pain,
And darts into her desperate brain;
So do the dark in soul expire,
Or live like scorpion girt with fire.
So writhes the mind remorse has riven,
Unfit for earth, undoomed for heaven,
Darkness above, despair beneath,
Around it flame, within it death.

Forgiveness. As the prince or ruler only has power to forgive treason in his subjects, so God only has power to forgive sin. As no man can forgive a debt only the creditor to whom the debt is due, so God only can forgive us our debts, whose debtors we are to an incalculable amount. But we know that he is always ready to forgive. He keeps mercy for thousands, and pardons iniquity, transgression, and sin.

Forgiveness. In a school in Ireland, one boy struck another, and when he was about to be punished, the injured boy begged for his pardon. The master asked. Why do you wish to keep him from being flogged? The boy replied, I have read in the New Testament that our Lord Jesus Christ said that we should forgive our enemies; and, therefore, I forgive him, and beg he may not be punished for my sake.

At the present day the green turben which marks descent from Mahomet is often worn in the East by the very poor, and even by beggars. In our own history the glory of the once illustrious Plantagenets so completely waned, that the direct representative of Margaret Plantagenet, daughter and heiress of George, Duke of Clarence, followed the trade of a cobbler in Newport, Shropshire, in 1637. Among the lineal descendants of Edmund of Woodstock, sixth son of Edward I., and entitled to quarter the royal arms, were a village butcher and a keeper of a turnpike gate; and among the descendants of Thomas Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester, fifth son of Edward III., was included the late sexton of a London church.Geikie.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

I. Pageant of Xerxes, Est. 1:1-22

A. Display

TEXT: Est. 1:1-8

1

Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces,)

2

that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace,

3

in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him;

4

when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his excellent majesty many days, even a hundred and fourscore days.

5

And when these days were fulfilled, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the kings palace.

6

There were hangings of white cloth, of green, and of blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the couches were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and white, and yellow, and black marble.

7

And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another), and royal wine in abundance, according to the bounty of the king.

8

And the drinking was according to the law; none could compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every mans pleasure.

Todays English Version, Est. 1:1-8

From his royal throne in Persias capital city of Susa, King Xerxes ruled 127 provinces, all the way from India to Sudan.
In the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his officials and administrators. The armies of Persia and Media were present, as well as the governors and noblemen of the provinces. For six whole months he made a show of the riches of the imperial court with all its splendor and majesty.
After that, the king gave a banquet for all the men in the capital city of Susa, rich and poor alike. It lasted a whole week and was held in the gardens of the royal palace. The courtyard there was decorated with blue and white cotton curtains, tied by cords of fine purple linen to silver rings on marble columns. Couches made of gold and silver had been placed in the courtyard, which was paved with white marble, red feldspar, shining mother-of-pearl, and blue turquoise. Drinks were served in gold cups, no two of them alike, and the king was generous with the royal wine. There were no limits on the drinks; the king had given orders to the palace servants that everyone could have as much as he wanted.

COMMENTS

Est. 1:1-2 Potentate: Achashewerosh is the Hebrew equivalent of the Persian Khshayarsha (which is Xerxes in Greek). Ahasuerus is generally recognized by historians as Xerxes I (486465). It is not the same Ahasuerus as named in Ezra 4 and Daniel 9 (who was probably Cambyses, the immediate successor of Cyrus the Great). The author of Esther distinguishes this Ahasuerus by describing his reign from India to Ethiopa. The Hebrew word for India is hoddu an old Persian word meaning Hindu or Sanskrit meaning, great river; hence, Indus River. The empire of Xerxes extended from the Indus River on the east to Ethiopia (Cush, in Hebrew) in the south, and to Lydia (Asia Minor) on the east (see map on page 271). At one time, the Persian empire even extended east into the Greek mainland. Some have been skeptical about the statement that Xerxes ruled over 127 provinces, because Herodotus wrote that the empire was divided into 20 satrapies. The Hebrew word translated provinces is medinah and it is not certain at all that medinah represents the same as the word satrapy. Medinah may very well represent a subdivision of the Persian satrapy. According to Herodotus there were about 60 nations under the Persian rule so it is altogether possible that the 20 satrapies or 60 nations were subdivided into smaller provinces (127 of them). Xerxes assumed the throne in 486 B.C. Shushan (Susa) was the city from which he was ruling in the third year of his reign. The Hebrew word birah is translated palace but is, more accurately, fortress. This was the whole palatial section of the city of Susa which was much more strongly fortified than the city surrounding it. The birah included the courts, gardens, out-buildings and the royal palace itself. Furthermore, the same word birah is used in Est. 2:5 to indicate that Mordecai lived within the fortress and in Est. 9:12 showing that as many as 500 other common citizens lived within the fortress of Susa. The main city had a circumference of six to seven miles, and the birah (fortress) was enclosed with a massive wall about two and one half miles square. As late as 11001200 A.D. there were 7000 Jews living in Susa. By 1500 A.D. the city became uninhabited and fell into ruins.

Est. 1:3-5 People: In the third year of his reign (483 B.C.), Xerxes was making plans, according to Herodotus, to invade the Greek mainland. He planned to attack within two years. This feast was, in Hebrew, a mishetteh. Mishetteh is from a root word meaning, to drink wine; hence it is a banquet whose main feature is a drinking bout (cf. Est. 1:7-8). The Hebrew word sarav would be better translated officials or rulers than princes. It is from the root sar meaning to rule, while the word nagid (used of the Messiah in Dan. 9:24-27) has more the connotation of royalty. The word paretemim is translated nobles and is probably derived from a Babylonian word meaning first or chief. The word chel is translated in the ASV, power; it means literally, army (cf. Isa. 36:2; 2Ki. 18:17). We are not told exactly how many guests there were. But the number would certainly run into the hundreds. And it is probable that the guest list changed regularly because he would not want to invite the whole army and all its chiefs at once and leave the empire defenseless. Besides, the feast lasted six months so the guests could come in relays.

Est. 1:4 specifically states the purpose of this feast was that Xerxes might show the riches of his kingdom and his own majesty for half a year. If Xerxes lived today, psychiatrists would say he had an identity problem. The emperors main reason for this great feast seems to have been to create an image for himself. He wished to impress his government officials with his greatness. According to Herodotus it was at this feast Xerxes announced: As Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius, have enlarged the empire, I wish to do the same. I propose to bridge the Hellespont, march through Europe, and fire Athens for burning Sardis and opposing Datis and Artaphernes. By reducing Attica and Greece, the sky will be the only boundary of Persia. The emperors image building had also the pragmatic motive of psyching his fighting force up for the coming invasion of Greece. Not only were the government officials and the army and its chiefs feasted, the emperor made a week-long feast for all the other citizens then residing in the fortress of Susa, both rich and poor, great and small. These drinking bouts seem to have been for men only. The women apparently had a feast of their own (Est. 1:9).

Est. 1:6 Palace: The description of the palace is in no way an exaggeration. Tapestries and awnings of expensive, imported linens in pure white, deep green and royal blue were fastened with soft white linen cords to solid silver rings and tall pillars of marble. Some of these columns of marble were 67 feet high. In 188486 a Frenchman named Dieulafoy excavated the ruins of this great palace. One writer has said, There is no event described in the Old Testament whose structural surroundings can be so vividly and accurately restored from actual excavations as Shushan the palace, Couches (used to recline upon when eating, probably much like the later Roman triclinium) were either overlaid heavily with gold and silver or made of pure gold and silver. The floors of the palace were made of beautifully patterned and variable-colored marbles red, white, mother-of-pearl yellow, and black.

Est. 1:7-8 Party: The feasting passion of the Persians was insatiable. Some of these feasts had as many as 15,000 guests at one time, and cost nearly $100,000 for each banquet session. As noted before (Est. 1:3) mishetteh means a drinking bout. Wine flowed freely, according to the bounty of the king. The Hebrew word translated bounty is yod and is literally, hand. In other words, the good, choice wine of the imperial wine-cellars was distributed according to the kings boundless means. Ordinarily, everyone present drank only upon command or invitation according to the law of ritual and the whim of the emperor or toastmaster. At these feasts, however, that law had been suspended and everyone was allowed to drink as they pleased. The Persians were noted for their drinking. Xenophon (434355 B.C.), Greek historian and soldier, knew this and wrote, They drink so much that they cannot stand upright on their feet, and must be carried out. This was the setting and these were the circumstances surrounding critical decisions made by the emperor Xerxes. The results or consequences of his decisions were used by the Lord God Jehovah to save the Jews of the dispersion from extinction and thus provide a witness to the revealed Word of God through the centuries awaiting the Messiahs coming. No matter how depraved or stupid the behavior of man, all will ultimately redound to the goal and glory of God.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) Ahasuerus.Three persons are called by this name in the Old Testament(1) the Ahasuerus of Dan. 9:1, the father of Darius the Mede; if, as is probable, this latter is the same with Astyages, Ahasuerus must be identified with Cyaxares: (2) the Ahasuerus of Ezr. 4:6, who is doubtless the same with Cambyses, the son of Cyrus; and (3) the one now before us, whom we have shown in the Introduction to be almost certainly Xerxes. For the history and character of this sovereign reference must be especially made to the contemporaneous writers, Herodotus (vii., viii. 1-90), and schylus in his play of The Persians. The spirited lines of Juvenal should also be read (Sat. x. 173-187). We find that Xerxes succeeded his father, Darius Hystaspes, in the year 485 B.C. , five years after the momentous battle of Marathon. Undeterred by his fathers failure, he resolves upon a fresh attack on Greece, and sets out in 481 B.C. from Susa for the West. He winters at Sardis, leaving it in the spring of the following year. The summer sees the fight of the pass of Thermopyl, which has covered the name of Leonidas and his three hundred, though vanquished and slain, with undying glory; in the autumn Themistocles, by his victory over the Persians at Salamis, changes the history of the world, and the beginning thus made is carried on by the victories at Plata and Mycale in 479 B.C. From the rout at Salamis, Xerxes had fled to Sardis, which he did not leave till the spring of 478 B.C. All that we know of the further course of the reign of Xerxes is but one unbroken tale of debauchery and bloodshed, which came to an end in 464 B.C, when he was murdered by two of his officers, Mithridates and Artabanus, and Artaxerxes Longimanus, his son (see Ezra 7; Nehemiah 2), reigned in his stead.

This is Ahasuerus.This is added to make clear which particular sovereign we are here dealing with. We have seen that three of the name are mentioned in the Old Testament.

Ethiopia.Herodotus tells us that Ethiopia paid tribute to Xerxes (iii. 97).

An hundred and seven and twenty.In Dan. 6:1. we find that Darius the Mede appointed a hundred and twenty satraps, but probably the similarity in numbers is quite accidental. There seem to have been a gradually increasing number of satrapies in the kingdom of Darius20, 21, 23, 29 (Herod, iii. 89-94), and the nations in the empire of Xerxes are said to be sixty (ib. vii. 61-95). Thus the provinces here mentioned must include subdivisions of these.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE ROYAL FEAST AT SHUSHAN, Est 1:1-9.

1. This is Ahasuerus Our author is careful to distinguish this Ahasuerus from other monarchs of the same name who are mentioned in the Hebrew books. We read of a Median Ahasuerus in Dan 9:1, and in Ezr 4:6 Cambyses, son of Cyrus, bears the same name. Neither of these, however, reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, that is, from the Indus to the Upper Nile. But as three different Persian kings reigned over this extent of country, we conclude that the name Ahasuerus was not, as some have imagined, a title common to all the kings of Persia. Only one of these three wide-ruling sovereigns was known as Ahasuerus, and him we identify with Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius Hystaspis. For the argument by which this opinion is supported, see Introduction. The word India ( , Hoddu) occurs in the Bible only here and in Est 8:9, and designates the country bordering on the river Indus, but not including, as now, the whole peninsula of Hindostan.

Ethiopia Hebrew, Gush; the name of an indefinite extent of country bordering on the south of Egypt, and watered by the branches of the Upper Nile. Herodotus mentions (vii, 9) both Indians and Ethiopians as subjects of Xerxes.

A hundred and seven and twenty provinces These provinces were subdivisions of the Persian empire, according to races or tribes inhabiting different localities. They are not to be confounded with satrapies, for one satrapy might include many provinces. Darius Hystaspis divided the empire into twenty satrapies, ( Herod., 3:89,) each of which comprised a number of nations or tribes. The Jewish community at Jerusalem formed a province, (Ezr 2:1; Neh 1:3,) but it was under a governor of the region west of the Euphrates. See note on Ezr 5:3. Darius the Mede set over his Babylonian kingdom one hundred and twenty “princes,” (Dan 6:2,) but these were not the same as the Persian satraps, who resembled rather the “three presidents of whom Daniel was first,” while the “princes” were probably more like the rulers of provinces in the later Persian empire.

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

Est 1:1-22 The Rejection of Queen Vashti Est 1:1-22 records the story of King Ahasuerus rejecting Queen Vashti, setting the stage for Esther to become queen in her place.

The Need for Love and Respect in the Institution of Marriage – A man’s desire for respect from his wife is clearly illustrated in the story of King Ahasuerus’ rejection of Queen Vashti (Est 1:1-22). The opening story of the book of Esther is about a man’s desire for respect from his wife. During a royal banquet, the king asked the queen to present herself before his peers in order to boast of her beauty. Because she refused, perhaps to avoid feeling humiliated before a group of vulgar, drunken, lustful men, the king rejected her as his queen. There is no love or romance involved in this decision. The king’s decision was driven strictly by his desire for respect from a wife. Had the king loved the queen, he would have considered her feelings and emotions behind her decision. In contrast, God commands the husband to love his wife, a practice that encourages the wife to respect her husband (Eph 5:33). She had great honor and respect in hosting the wives of the nation’s leaders. Now, she was compelled to be displayed before a group of vulgar men who would look at her with envy and lust. Instead of obeying the king, the queen disrespected her husband because he disrespected her.

Eph 5:33, “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Est 1:1  Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

Est 1:1 “Now it came to pass” Comments – A number of books in the Old Testament begins with the common Hebrew idiom “and it came to pass” ( ), made from the conjunction ( ) “and” and the imperfect verb ( ) “to be.” Douglas Stuart identifies the books that commence with this Hebrew construction as Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Lamentations (LXX). [7] This phrase is used at least three hundred eighty eight (388) times in the Old Testament to begin narrative stories, and to move the plot from one scene to another within the narrative material. Although some of the books listed above are a part of a collection of narratives that follow a chronological order, Stuart believes this opening phrase is intended to begin a new book.

[7] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 31, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Introduction: Form/Structure/Setting.”

Est 1:1 “in the days of Ahasuerus” Comments – Scholars take two different approaches as to the meaning of the name Ahasuerus ( ) (H325). It may be used as a Persian title or as a proper name.

1. The Name was used as a Title Some scholars tell us that the word “Ahasuerus” was a title used for the kings of Persia. This view is supported by the fact that we find this same name used in Dan 9:1 and in Ezr 4:6 and they probably refer to different kings that the one mentioned in the book of Esther. It is also supported by the fact that the Hebrew words ( ) (H323) used four times in the book of Esther for “lieutenants” and ( ) (H324) used nine times in the book of Daniel for “princes” are similar in their primitive roots to the Hebrew word “Ahasuerus.” Thus, the primitive root for these three Hebrew words suggests it serves as a title of leadership.

King Ahasuerus in Esther probably refers to a king named Xerxes according to the testimony of ancient historical documents regarding the Persian kingdom. The name probably refers to the Persian king Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.) ( HALOT).

2. The Name was a Hebrew corruption of a Persian Name – Some scholars suggest that the Persian name Xerxes is formed from the Hebrew name Ahasuerus and that the word Xerxes is simply a Greek corruption of the Persian word “Khshayarsha.” Thus, the Hebrew name Ahasuerus may simply be a variant of the name Persian/Greek name Xerxes.

Scholars now generally agree that the name refers to Xerxes I , who ruled Persia from 485 to 465 B.C. He would have been the grandson of Cyrus the great (550-530 B.C.) and son of Darius I (520 to 486 B.C.). King Ahasuerus would have been the fourth king of the Persian Empire, but the first to bear the name Xerxes. [8]

[8] Frederic Bush says, “the author meant the first Persian king to bear that name, the fourth king of the Persian empire, Xerxes I, who ruled from 485 to 465 b.c.” See Frederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 9, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Esther 1:1.

Est 1:1 “from India even unto Ethiopia” Comments – BDB tells us the Hebrew word “India” “Hoduw” ( ) (H1912) refers to “the country surrounding the Indus, mentioned as the eastern border of the empire of Ahasuerus.” The Enhanced Strong says that it is used twice in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “India 2.” This Hebrew word is only found in the book of Esther (Est 1:1; Est 8:9).

Est 1:3  In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him:

Est 1:3 “In the third year of his reign” – Comments – Historians say that King Ahasuerus is identified as Xerxes I, who reigned 485 to 464 B.C. His third year would be 482 B.C. [9]

[9] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Ahasuerus.”

Est 1:3 “the power of Persia and Media” – Comments – The ancient empire of Persia flourished from 539 to 331 B.C. At this time, Media was the most important province of Persia. [10]

[10] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Persia,” and “Media.”

Est 1:1-3 Comments The Times of the Gentiles – The times of the Gentiles (Luk 21:24) was ushered into world history through the prophecies of Daniel, where Israel’s dominance subsided and the Gentile nations of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek, and Roman empires would rise. This time began with the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Dan 1:1 is the last biblical event in redemption history that is dated by the calendars of the kings of the nation of Israel. At this point forward, all redemptive events recorded in the Holy Scriptures will be dated around Gentile rules (Dan 2:1; Dan 7:1; Dan 8:1; Dan 9:1; Dan 10:1; Dan 11:1, Ezr 1:1; Ezr 6:3; Ezr 7:1, Neh 2:1, Est 1:1-3, Luk 2:1-2; Luk 3:1-2). Even the book of Ezekiel seems to blend the Jewish calendar with the fall of Israel by the Babylonians in his collection of prophecies.

Luk 21:24, “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

Est 1:7  And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king.

Est 1:7 “according to the state of the king” – Comments – Or, “according to the generosity of the king” ( NKJV).

BBE, “And they gave them drink in gold vessels, every vessel being different, and wine of the kingdom, freely given by the king .”

Est 1:7 Comments – Figuratively speaking regarding Est 1:7, our God has always been generous in pouring out His wine of the Holy Spirit in these last days.

Est 1:10-13 The Queen’s Refusal to Obey the King The plot of the book of Esther begins with the queen’s refusal to come before the king. This event serves to foreshadow the climax of this story when Queen Esther will come before the king without being called.

Est 1:10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king,

Est 1:10 “On the seventh day” Comments – That is, on the seventh and last day of the king’s seven-day feast (see Est 1:5).

Est 1:10 Word Study on “chamberlains” Strong says the Hebrew word “chamberlains” ( ) (H5631) means, “a minister of state: chamberlain, eunuch, officer.” The Enhanced Strong says it is used 42 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “eunuch 17, chamberlain 13, officer 12.” Strong tells us that it comes from an unused Hebrew primitive root meaning, “to castrate,” so that it would literally mean, “the castrated ones.”

However, my observation is that this Hebrew word is similar to the Hebrew ( ) or ( ) (H8269) used in Est 1:14 for the word “princes” and very possibly coming from the same primitive root.

Est 1:14  And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face, and which sat the first in the kingdom;)

Est 1:14 Word Study on “princes” Strong says the Hebrew word “princes” ( ) (H8269) This word means, “a head person (of any rank or class).” The Enhanced Strong says it is used 421 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV, “prince 208, captain 130, chief 33, ruler 33, governor 6, keeper 3, principal 2, general 1, lords 1, misc 4.” Strong says this Hebrew title comes from the primitive root ( ) (H8323), which means, “to have dominion.”

Est 1:13-14 Comments – Seven Rulers King Ahasuerus appointed seven leaders under him. This would be the equivalent to a presidential cabinet today. These leaders served also as his counsellors. Seven is a number of divine fulfilment, which symbolized this king’s efforts to have perfect judgment and counsel in all matters. Est 1:14 says these seven people were allowed to see the king’s face. If this setting is a figurative of a type of setting by God in heaven, then these seven might represent the seven angels, which stood before God (Rev 8:2).

Est 1:14, “And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face , and which sat the first in the kingdom;)”

Rev 8:2, “And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.”

Est 1:15-21 The Advice Given to the King In Est 1:15-21 the king asks for advice, and one of seven gives him advice. Such advice is heeded by King Ahab in 2Ch 18:19-21, which tells us that a spirit stands before the Lord in heaven and offers advice.

2Ch 18:19-21, “And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.”

Est 1:19  If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.

Est 1:19 Comments – The first six times the name “Vashti” is used in the book of Esther, it is accompanied with the title of Queen. The last four uses of her name stand alone without a title because she has been stripped of being the queen.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The King’s Banquet

v. 1. Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, the great Persian king known in secular history as Xerxes, ( this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a large part of Asia and the northeastern part of Africa, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces, the larger divisions of the empire, known as satrapics, being, in turn, divided into smaller sections,)

v. 2. that in those days, when the King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, the Persian monarchs always being pictured as sitting on a throne under a lofty canopy, which was in Shushan, the palace, his favorite winter and spring residence, in the eastern part of the Assyrian Plain,

v. 3. in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants, a banquet on a magnificent scale and extending over a number of days, the power of Persia and Media, his most important military officers, especially those of his body-guard, the nobles and princes of the provinces, at least those of the twenty satrapies, and probably those of all the provinces included in his domain, being before him;

v. 4. when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom, displayed all the resources of his might, and the honor of his excellent majesty, the extent of his influence and power, many days, even an hundred and fourscore days. During this time of prolonged entertainment the king took the opportunity to bind his subordinates to him in closer allegiance and to consult with them concerning measures he hoped to carry into effect.

v. 5. And when these days were expired, all the princes and rulers having been gained for his plans, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan, the palace, the inhabitants in general, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace, in the great park surrounding the royal palace, the remains of which have been excavated;

v. 6. where were white, green, and blue hangings, exquisite and costly tapestries of the finest linen and glistening, hyacinth-colored fabric, white and blue being the royal Persian colors, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble, these curtains thus admitting both light and warmth and being altogether in keeping with the climate of Shushan; the beds, that is, the sofas on which the guests reclined, were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble, altogether a magnificent setting.

v. 7. And they gave them drink in vessels of gold (the vessels being diverse one from another, a fact which increased their costliness) and royal wine in abundance, gotten from the royal vineyards and vaults, according to the state of the king, the great quantity dispensed doing honor to the wealth and bounty of the king.

v. 8. And the drinking was according to the law, as the etiquette of the Persian court demanded; none did compel, there was no need of urging, all being ready to show their appreciation of the king’s bounty; for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house that they should do according to every man’s pleasure, all the guests being put at their ease and enjoying the hospitality of the king. The contrast between all this pomp and glory and the present desolation of that country shows the vanity of all earthly riches and power.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

THE GREAT FEAST OF KING AHASUERUS AT SUSA, AND THE DISGRACE OF VASHTI

EXPOSITION

THE GREAT FEAST (Est 1:1-9). King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in the third year of his reign, which was b.c. 484-483, entertained at a great feast in the royal palace of Susa all his princes and his servants, “the power of Persia and Media,” together with all the nobles and princes of the provinces (Est 1:2, Est 1:3). The hospitality was extended over a space of 180 days (Est 1:4). At the end of this time there was a further entertainment for seven days, on even a more profuse scale, all the male inhabitants of Susa being feasted in the palace gardens (Est 1:5-8), while the queen received the women and made them a feast in her own private apartments. The special occasion of the entertainment seems to have been the summons to Susa of all the chief men of the kingdom, and particularly of the satraps, or “princes of provinces,” to advise upon the projected expedition against Greece, which Herodotus mentions in his seventh book (Est 8:1-17.). Banquets on an enormous scale were not uncommon in Persia; and the profuseness and vainglory of Xerxes would naturally lead him to go to an extreme in this, as in other matters.

Est 1:1

In the days of Ahasuerus. Ahasuerus, in the original Akhashverosh, corresponds to Khshayarsha (the Persian name from which the Greeks formed their Xerxes) almost as closely as possible. The prosthelic a was a necessity of Hebrew articulation. The only unnecessary change was the substitution of v for y (vau for yod) in the penultimate syllable. But this interchange is very common in Hebrew. This is Ahasuerus which reigned, etc. The writer is evidently acquainted with more than a single Ahasuerus. Ezra had mentioned one (Ezr 4:6), and Daniel another (Dan 9:1). If he knew their works, he would necessarily know of these two. Or he may have known of them independently. The Ahasuerus of his narrative being different from either, he proceeds to distinguish him

(1) from the Ahasuerus of Daniel, as a “king,” and

(2) from the Ahasuerus of Ezra by the extent of his dominion.

Cambyses (see comment on Ezr 4:6) had not ruled over India. India is expressed by Hoddu, which seems formed from the Persian Hidush (‘Nakhsh-i-Rus-tam Inser.,’ par. 3, 1. 25), by the omission of the nominatival ending, and a slight modification of the vocalisation. The Sanscrit and the Zend, like the Greek, retained the n, which is really an essential part of the native word. Ethiopia is expressed, as usual, by Cush. The two countries are well chosen as the extreme terminal of the Persian empire. An hundred and twenty-seven provinces. The Hebrew medinah, “province,” does not correspond to the Persian satrapy, but is applied to every tract which had its own governor. There were originally no more than twenty satrapies (Herod; 3:89-94), but there was certainly a very much larger number of governments. Judaea was a medinah (Ezr 2:1; Neh 11:3), though only a small part of the satrapy of Syria.

Est 1:2

The throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan. Though the Persian court resided a part of the year at Ecbatana, and occasionally visited Persepolis and Babylon (Xen; ‘Cyrop.,’ 8.6, 2; ‘Anab.,’ 3.5, 15), yet Susa was decidedly the ordinary seat of government, and ranked as the capital of the empire. “Shushan the palace” is distinguished from Shushan the city (Est 9:12-15), the one occupying a lofty but artificial eminence towards the west, while the other lay at the base of this mound, stretching out a considerable distance towards the east.

Est 1:3

In the third year of his reign. In b.c. 483, probably in the early spring, when the court, having spent the winter at Babylon (Xenophon), returned to Susa to enjoy the most charming season of the year. He made a feast unto all his princes and his servants. Persian kings, according to Ctesias and Duris, ordinarily entertained at their table 15,000 persons! This is of course an exaggeration; but there can be no doubt that their hospitality was on a scale unexampled in modern times. The vast pillared halls of the Persepelitan and Susan palaces could accommodate many hundreds, if not thousands. The power of Persia and Media. The empire of the Achaemenian kings was Perso-Medic rather than simply Persian. The Medes were not only the most favoured of the conquered nations, but were really placed nearly on a par with their conquerors. Many of the highest offices were conferred on them, and they formed no doubt a considerable section of the courtiers. The nobles. Literally, “the first men,” ha-partemim. The word used is a Persian term Hebraised. It occurs only in this place. And princes of the provinces. i.e. satraps. The presence of such persons at the great gathering at Susa preparatory to the Grecian war is witnessed to by Herodotus (7:19).

Est 1:4

When he showed the riches. Ostentation was a main feature in the character of Xerxes. The huge army with which he invaded Greece was more for display than for service. Vain parade is apparent at every step of his expedition (Herod; 7.31, 40, 41, 44, 59, etc.). He now exhibits “the riches of his kingdom” to his nobles and chief officers, showing them doubtless all the splendours of the palace, the walls draped with gold (AEschyl; ‘Pers.,’ 50.161), the marble pillars and rich hangings, the golden plane tree and the golden vine (Herod; 7.27), and perhaps the ingots of gold wherewith Darius had filled the treasury (ibid. 3.96). An hundred and fourscore days. We need not suppose that the same persons were enter. tained during the whole of this period. All the provincial governors could not quit their provinces at the same time, nor could any of them remain away very long. There was no doubt a succession of guests during the six months that the entertainment lasted.

Est 1:5

A feast unto all the people that were found in Susa. The males only are intended, as appears from verse 9. So Cyrus on one occasion feasted “the entire Persian army,” slaughtering for them all his father’s flocks, sheep, goats, and oxen (Herod; 1.126). In the court of the garden. The “court of the garden” is probably the entire space surrounding the central hall of thirty-six pillars at Susa, including the three detached porticoes of twelve pillars each, described by Mr. Loftus in his ‘Chaldaea and Susiana’. This is a space nearly 350 feet long by 250 wide, with a square of 145 feet taken out of it for the central building. The area exceeds 60,000 square feet.

Est 1:6

Where were white, green, and blue hangings. There is nothing in the original corresponding to “green.” The “hangings,” or rather awning, was of white cotton (karphas) and violet. Mr. Loftus supposes that it was carried across from the central pillared hall to the detached porticoes, thus shading the guests from the intense heat of the sun. Fastened with cords of fine linen and purple. Very strong cords would be needed to support the awning if it was carried across as above suggested, over a space of nearly sixty feet. To rings of silver. The exact use of the rings is doubtful. Perhaps they were inserted into the stone work in order that the cords might be made fast to them. Pillars of marble. The pillars at Susa are not of marble, but of a dark-blue limestone. Perhaps the Hebrew shesh designated this stone rather than marble. The beds were of gold and silver. The couches on which the guests reclined are intended (comp. Est 7:8). These were either covered with gold and silver cloth, or had their actual framework of the precious metals, like those which Xerxes took with him into Greece (see Herod; 9.82). Upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble. The four words which follow “pavement” are not adjectives denoting colours, but the names of four different materials. One is shesh, the material of the pillars, which accords with the fact that such pavement slabs as have been found at Susa are, like the columns, of a blue limestone. The other materials are unknown to us, and we cannot say what the exact colours were; but no doubt the general result was a mosaic pavement of four different hues.

Est 1:7

They gave them drink in vessels of gold. Drinking-vessels of gold were found in considerable numbers in the Persian camp near Plataea (Herod; 9.80) when the Greeks took it. They had been the property of Persian nobles. The king would naturally possess in great abundance whatever luxury was affected by the upper class of his subjects. The vessels being diverse one from another. This is a minute point, which must have come from an eye-witness, or from one who had received the account of the banquet from an eye-witness. It was perhaps unusual. At least, in the grand banquet represented by Sargon on the walls of his palace at Khorsabad, it is observable that all the guests hold in their hands goblets which are exactly alike. Royal wine. Literally, “wine of the kingdom”wine, i.e; from the royal cellar, and therefore good wine, but not necessarily the “wine of Helbon, which was the only wine that the king himself drank.

Est 1:8

The drinking was according to the law. Rather, “according to edict“the edict being the express order given by the king to all the officers of his household. It is implied that the usual custom was differentthat the foolish practice prevailed of compelling men to drink. That the Persians were hard drinkers, and frequently drank to excess, is stated by Herodotus (1.133) and Xenophon (‘Cyrop.,’ 8.8, 11).

Est 1:9

Vashti, the queen. The only wife of Xerxes known to the Greeks was Amestris, the daughter of Otanes, one of the seven conspirators (Herod; 7.61). Xerxes probably took her to wife as soon as he was of marriageable age, and before he ascended the throne had a son by her, who in his seventh year was grown up (ibid. 9.108). It would seem to be certain that if Ahasuerus is Xerxes, Vashti must be Amestris. The names themselves are not very remote, since will readily interchange with v; but Vashti might possibly represent not the real name of the queen, but a favourite epithet, such as vahista, “sweetest.“ Made a feast for the women. Men and women did not take their meals together in Persia unless in the privacy of domestic life. If the women, therefore, were to partake in a festivity, it was necessary that they should be entertained separately. In the royal house. In the gynaeceum or harem, which was probably on the southern side of the great pillared hall at Susa (Fergusson).

HOMILETICS

Est 1:1-22

The Book of Esther.

There is a striking contrast between the Books of RUTH and ESTHER. The earlier book is an idyll; the later a chronicle. The earlier relates to lowly persons and to rural life; the later to kings and queens, and to a great Oriental metropolis. The earlier is the story of a family, and its interest is domestic; the later is a chapter from the history of a people, and deals with the intrigues of a court and the policy of a state. The religious character and aim of this book may be presented in four observations.

I. GOD‘S NAME IS ABSENT FROM THE WHOLE BOOK, BUT GOD HIMSELF IS IN EVERY CHAPTER. There is no other book except Canticles in the sacred volume in which the Divine Being is neither mentioned nor obviously referred to. Yet no disbeliever in God could have written it; and no believer in God can read it without finding his faith strengthened thereby. Refer especially to Est 4:14.

II. A NATIONAL FESTIVAL IS HISTORICALLY ACCOUNTED FOR. The feast of Purim was held in high honour, and observed with great regularity and solemnity and rejoicing, among the Jews. “The temple may fail, but the Purim never,” was one of their proverbs. This Book of Esther was written to explain the origin of this national festival.

III. A VALUABLE MORAL LESSON PERVADES THE WHOLE NARRATIVE. Not only is the great general truth, that earthly greatness and prosperity are mutable and transitory, brought effectively before us, but we learn that God humbles the proud, and exalts the lowly who trust in him (vide 1Sa 2:1-10).

II. THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD IS STRIKINGLY AND MEMORABLY DISPLAYED. We are brought into contact with the righteousness and the rule of the Most High. A great deliverance is wrought; and whilst the means are human, the deliverance itself is Divine. God appears as “mighty to save.” The book is, accordingly, one peculiarly suitable to those in distress, perplexity, and trouble.

Est 1:1, Est 1:2

The responsibility of rule.

The Ahasuerus of this book was probably the Xerxes so well known to students of ancient history. The name, the period, the extent of dominion, the character, all correspond with this hypothesis. Observe

I. THE EXTENT OF THE KING‘S SWAY. The Persian was one of the great empires of the world. The monarch ruled from India to Ethiopia. The provinces of his dominion were in number 127. Two or three centuries ago, commentators compared this Persian empire with the dominion of “the Great Turk.” It may now be best compared with the imperial dominion of the Queen of Great Britain. It is a vast responsibility to reign over such an empire.

II. THE ABSOLUTE, DESPOTIC NATURE OF THE KING‘S POWER. The narrative exhibits an Oriental despot exercising unlimited, unchecked authority. “Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive.” Individuals, cities, peoples lay at the mercy of his caprice. His power for good or for evil was immense. Happily there is no parallel to this absolute sway amongst ourselves, although there are even now potentates whose empire is described as “absolute monarchy limited by fear of assassination.” History proves that human nature is such that it is unwise and unsafe to intrust it with absolute power.

III. THE KING‘S UNREASONABLE, CAPRICIOUS, AND CRUEL CHARACTER. What we read in this book concerning Ahasuerus agrees with what we know of Xerxes. The man who led two millions of soldiers against the Greeks, who scourged the seas and put to death the engineers of his bridge because their work was injured by a storm, was the same man who insulted his queen for her modesty, and who was ready to massacre a people in order to gratify a favourite.

IV. EVEN SUCH POWER WAS CONTROLLED AND OVERRULED BY THE WISE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. The Lord reigneth, and the hearts of kings are in his hand. The Persian monarch was not altogether the tool of the wicked, for God turned the counsels of his enemies to nought.

V. ALL POWER IS DERIVED FROM GOD, AND ALL WHO ARE INTRUSTED WITH IT ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD. Civil authority has its origin in Divine appointment: “the powers that be are ordained of God.” Nevertheless, power is not given to be used as it was used by Ahasuerus, for the gratification of sinful passions. It is given to be employed for the public good. It is well that even rulers should be accountable to their fellow-men; it cannot be otherwise than that they should be accountable to God. “Be wise, therefore, ye kings! Be instructed, ye rulers of the earth!”

Est 1:3-7

A royal banquet.

In this description of a sumptuous Oriental feast, notice

1. The guests. These were, in the first instance, the nobles and princes of the provinces, who were assembled for purposes of state policy; and afterwards the people of the metropolis, who were lavishly regaled from the royal table.

2. The splendour and costliness of the entertainment. The great lords were shown by Ahasuerus the riches of his kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty. The multitude were entertained in the palace garden, where gorgeous awnings were slung from marble pillars. The guests reclined on couches of gold and silver, placed on marble pavements. They were served with delicious viands and costly wines from the cellar of the king.

3. The protraction of the feast. The people were feasted for a week. The princes were detained for six months upon business of state. Probably preparations were then made for the expedition into Greece, which is so famous in history, and which came to so ignominious a close. Consider two great moral lessons underlying this picture of magnificence.

I. LAVISH FESTIVITIES MAY GILD THE CHAINS OF ARBITRARY POWER. The multitude often appear to care more for display than for justice on the part of their rulers. If the Roman populace under the empire were supplied with food and shows, they were content. In our own times we have seen the people of a great city kept quiet by lavish expenditure oh the part of a despot.

II. REGAL HOSPITALITY MAY MASK THE DESIGNS OF WICKED AMBITION. Xerxes had a purpose in bringing his lords and satraps to Susa; he was contemplating a military expedition, in which myriads should be slain, and the complete success of which could only issue in his own aggrandisement and glory. Let the people beware of the selfish and sanguinary schemes of the great of this world. Justice and peace are preferable to despotism and bloodshed.

III. GREAT ENTERTAINMENTS MAY BE AN OCCASION FOR FORGETTING, RATHER THAN FOR REMEMBERING, GOD, THE GIVER OF ALL. When we sit at Heaven’s table we should gave Heaven thanks. Some of the great banquets mentioned in the Scriptures were occasions for ostentation and for carousing, and this seems to be no exception. The bounties of Divine Providence should be partaken with gratitude and devout acknowledgments. “Whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, let us do all to the glory of God.”

Est 1:8

Temperance.

At the feast of Ahasuerus the provision of luxuries was profuse. The wine was choice, costly, and rare; and was served in cups of gold of various form and pattern and ornament. But it was the king’s command that no guest should be compelled to drink more than he needed or wished. A wise ordinance; and one which shames many of the customs and requirements of hospitality, both ancient and modern. Observe

I. THE TEMPTATIONS TO INTEMPERANCE. These were manifold, and all of them may not concur in ordinary experience. For example, there was

1. Appetite. If there were no natural instincts of hunger and thirst there would be no gluttony and no drunkenness. It does not follow that natural appetite is bad. The evil lies in over-indulgence, in permitting bodily desire to overmaster the reasonable nature.

2. Opportunity. Some persons are sober simply because and when they have no means of procuring drink. There is little virtue in such sobriety, which only awaits the opportunity of abjuring itself. The Persians in the palace at Susa had wine in abundance set before them. As a nation they were proverbially luxurious (Persicos odi, puer, apparatus!). Those of the guests who were temperate were not so because they had no option.

3. Example. It could scarcely happen that in so vast an assemblage there were none intemperate. Whilst the society of the abstemious is a check and preservative, that of the self-indulgent is an incentive to sin. “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” The Persians, who in the early period of their history had been a sober people, had, with the advance of luxury, lost their reputation for temperance. It is said that the king had, once a year, an obligation to be drunk, on the occasion of the annual sacrifice to the sun. We read that the heart of Ahasuerus was merry with wine; and with such an example before them, it would have been strange if the subjects universally maintained sobriety.

II. THE ABSENCE OF ONE GREAT TEMPTATIONSocial pressure and compulsion.

1. Remark the wisdom of the royal ordinance. The king, in the exercise, in this case, of an enlightened discretion, forbade the too frequent practice of urging the guests on to intoxication. Even if his example told against the regulation, the regulation in itself was good.

2. Remark the consequent action of the officers in charge of the banquet. The Greeks at their feasts had a symposiarch; the Latins an arbiter bibendi; the Jews a master of the feast. Much rested with these officials with regard to the proceedings on such occasions. On this occasion they exercised their functions in accordance with directions received from the throne.

3. Remark the consequent liberty of the guests. These were to act every man according to his pleasure. None did compel. Those who were disposed to sobriety were not urged to depart from their usual practices, to violate their convictions of what was right. The custom of constraining men to drink more than is good for them is filthy and disgraceful. Banished from decent society, it still lingers among some dissolute associations of handicraftsmen. It should be discountenanced and resisted; and, in the present state of public opinion, in a free country, it will not endure the light of day. Let it be remembered, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”

HOMILIES BY D. ROWLANDS

Est 1:4

Ambition.

The context displays the miserable weakness of a mighty king. Placed in a position of immense responsibility, he might well have been overwhelmed with anxiety lest his conduct should prove detrimental to the millions under his rule. But no considerations of this nature seem to have exercised his mind; on the contrary, he was animated only with the vainglorious wish of exhibiting to the world “the riches of his glorious kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty.” And he could think of no better way of gratifying this wish than by making an extravagant feast. Doubtless there was poverty, and wretchedness, and suffering enough in his vast dominions, and to have used his abundant resources to alleviate these evils would have reflected immortal glory upon his name; but he preferred to squander his substance in riotous revelry, a proceeding which must soon have necessitated the levying of fresh imposts, in order to replenish his impoverished exchequer. A right feeling may have a wrong development. The desire of excelling is truly laudable; but when it is alloyed with unworthy motives it becomes most despicable. Let us notice, in the first place, wrong ambition, of which we have an instance in the text; and, in the second place, right ambition, of which the former is but a perversion.

I. WRONG AMBITION. The most common forms of this are

1. An immoderate love of fame. We have instances of this in every walk of life; some of the most brilliant characters in history have been victims of it. There have been authors who prostrated their divine gifts to gain the admiration of the world. There have been orators whose chief aim was to secure the applause of the multitude. And there are men now who will face danger, endure hardship, sacrifice property, for the sake of world-wide renownor even a paltry distinction in the narrow sphere in which they move.

2. An immoderate love of power. Men hasten to be rich not because of the inherent value of riches themselves, but because rather of the power which riches enable them to command; for at the word of the rich luxury, gratification, service spring up as if at the touch of a magic wand. The thirst for power is insatiable. The amount enjoyed, however great, only begets a craving for more. It has led to the most sanguinary wars that have defiled the earth in ancient and modern times. Alexander, Caesar, Buonaparte, whom Christian enlightenment has taught us to regard with horror, are but types of all conquerors, however exalted their professed aims.

3. An immoderate love of display. This is the most contemptible form of all, and to this King Ahasuerus became a willing victim. Think of the sumptuousness of this feast, the number of the guests, the magnificence of the palace, the costliness of the furniture, the gorgeousness of the drapery, by which he sought to impress the world with the “honour of his excellent majesty” on this occasion. The morbid desire among the well-to-do classes of outshining each other in the grandeur of their mansions, and the splendour of their entertainments, is a standing reproach upon modem civilisation. In spite of the gigantic frauds and disastrous bankruptciesthe natural results of this spiritwhich occasionally startle society, the evil seems as flagrant as ever.

II. RIGHT AMBITION. It does not follow that a feeling is essentially wrong because it is sometimes allowed to flow in wrong directions. Thus ambition, however uncomely in certain connections, may be in itself healthy, and conducive to our highest welfare. Ambition, then, is commendable when it is

1. A desire to cultivate the powers with which we are endowed. These powers are various: physical, mental, spiritual. A man cannot lay claim to the highest virtue simply because he strives to have strong nerves and well-developed muscles; still perfect manhood is not independent of these things. The struggle for intellectual distinction is certainly more dignified, and has a more ennobling influence upon those who are engaged in it. The chief glory of man, however, is his spiritual nature, his ability to hold communion with the unseen; hence spiritual pursuits are the most exalted. However strong man may be physically, or great intellectually, if his spiritual powers be dwarfed, he comes miserably short of the true ideal.

2. A desire to make the most of our outward circumstances. No man’s circumstances have been so adverse as to make all excellence unattainable to him. The most barren and desolate life has some spots which, by cultivation, may yield glorious results. In the majority of cases unfruitfulness is due to culpable negligence rather than external difficulties. Just think of the numerous instances in which formidable disadvantages have been conquered. Poor boys have worked their way up into the presence of kings, blind men have mastered the intricacies of optics, the children of profane parents have been renowned for their saintliness. All honour to those who have wrestled with fortune and defied her opposition! The circumstances of most men, however, are more or less favourable to their advancement, and to make the most of them is not only allowable, but a positive duty.

3. A desire to benefit the world. The best ambition is that which is furthest removed from self. The men who will be held in everlasting remembrance are those who have contributed their quota to the progress of their kind. When the names of the most potent warriors shall have perished, the names of philosophers like Newton, inventors like Stephenson, and reformers like Luther, shall live in the affections of a grateful world. But usefulness does not depend upon eminence; every man in his own sphere may do something for the common good.R.

HOMILIES BY W. DINWIDDLE

Est 1:1-4

A great feast.

One peculiarity of this Book of Esther is that the name of God nowhere occurs in it; yet the reader discerns the finger of God throughout. Its story is an illustration of the Divine providence. A complicated chain of events and actions is so governed as to work out the deliverance of the exiled Jews from a plot which aimed at their destruction; and this without any miracle or mention of Divine interposition.

1. A fact disclosed. That the Jews while in exile, under judgment, and without vision, were remembered and cared for by God. Outcast, they were not cast off, they were still the children of promise; God was still faithful to them.

2. From this fact an inference may be drawn. There is a Divine providence in the world; no supernatural exercises of power are needed to enable God to effect his will; all laws and things are his creatures, and therefore under his control; human dramas and tragedies take place every day in which acutest plans are foiled, and, by seemingly natural processes, truth and right vindicated. Our introduction to this king is in connection with a great FEAST. Its barbaric magnificenceprodigality and waste. All the princes and governors were invitednot together, but in companies, so that the revelry continued for the long period of six months (a hundred and fourscore days). What its motive? If we take the king to have been Xerxes, it may have preceded his expedition into Greece, as a boastful anticipation of triumph, or as a means of uniting in the monarch’s resolve all the governing forces of the empire. But our story says nothing of any special purpose; that was beside the object for which it was written. The feast itself was described only because, in connection with it, a thing occurred which had a direct influence on the subsequent rescue of the Jews from a conspiracy against their life. The lines are in God’s hands. He sees the end from the beginning. Every point in the narrative is necessary to the great issue, and to the general and abiding lesson. Yet enough is said to indicate that, so far as the king was concerned, the chief motive was vanitya childish love of display, a vainglorious desire to witness the effect of the splendours of his person and palace on the magnates of his empire. During all the days of the feast “he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty.” His mind was puffed up by the conceit of his high-mightiness; he thirsted for the admiring homage of the worldnot an homage attracted by mental greatness or moral worth, by elevation of character or heroism of conduct, but that low and degrading homage which fawns and flatters in presence of the vulgar ostentations of material pomp and power. This king of Persia was no Solomon, who could draw to his capital princes from all quarters by a wisdom and worth which were not overshadowed even by an unrivalled material splendour. Let us learn

I. THAT PERSONAL VANITY IS NOT ONLY FOOLISH AND CONTEMPTIBLE IN ITSELF, BUT AN INLET ALSO OF MUCH HUMILIATION AND SIN (see Pro 29:23; Mat 23:12; Jas 4:6).

II. THAT HOMAGE TO RICHES AND THE LUXURIES THEY PURCHASE IS UNWORTHY OF A HUMAN SOUL. Not confined to any condition, place, or age. As readily exacted and given now as at any time. Wealth too often goes before worth. The material receives more respect than the moral or spiritual. The unspoken language is common-better be rich than good; better be surrounded with the showy emblems of worldly prosperity than have our character and homes adorned with the Christian virtues of truth, uprightness, and charity. The power to form right estimates as between the seen and the unseen, the material and the spiritual, much needed. How acquire such a power? Only by looking and listening to Jesus Christ, by having conscience, mind, and heart enlightened at the feet of him who said, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.” Best gifts and possessions, and truest springs of honour and happiness, in Jesus. Study his truth, his spirit, his life, and our idolatries of earthly good will shame us, and make us wonder how men with a Christ before them can sacrifice the benefits of a higher and nobler life for the material and perishing things of the present world. Our Lord himself presents the true test in Mat 16:26.

III. THAT MEN ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USE THEY MAKE OF THEIR WEALTH. Hospitality is a Christian virtue; but it is often sadly abuseda feeder of vanity and an incentive to sin. While showing a liberal and kindly spirit, it should avoid all extravagance. How much of the money that is spent on rich, showy, and self-glorifying banquets might be put to better use! A deep spirit underlies the words of our Lord in Luk 14:12-14.

IV. THAT MUCH POWER IN ONE HAND IS A DANGEROUS THING. Nothing tries a man more than a flood of prosperity. Ahasuerus was to be pitied, and the empire which he governed still more. Few heads or hearts can stand strong and erect under the burden of anything approaching an absolute authority. How terribly is this taught by history! It is well for the happiness of nations that improved ideas of government are now the rule. But the individual man, whatever be his rank, is to be put on his guard against the intoxications of what may seem to him good fortune, and against the temptation to abuse whatever power he possesses. Many who have acted worthily in adversity have been carried off their feet by a tide of prosperity.

V. THAT GOVERNMENTS OR EMPIRES ARE STABLE OR THE REVERSE ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES AND LAWS THAT GOVERN THEM. It is hardly credible that the miserable nation whose Shah we have seen could ever have occupied a position like that described in our narrative. How great the contrast between then and now! Not alone, however; other and greater empires have gone the same way. In all edifices the foundation is the main thing. No empire, however strong, can last unless founded on Divine truth and righteousness. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” As with nations, so with men. A living trust in God, a true fellowship with God’s Son, is the only safeguard that will give victory to a human life over all the evils that assail it, and enable it to enter at last into full possession of the life everlasting.D.

HOMILIES BY F. HASTINGS

Est 1:4

The sated sovereign.

It is believed that the festivities mentioned in this chapter were held prior to the invasion of Greece by Ahasuerus; that it was a time of consultation before that disastrous event.

I. SELF–COMPLACENCY AND SINFUL INDULGENCE. It is not always the difficulties we encounter which are severest tests of character; smooth prosperity is at times a fiercer crucible. Ahasuerus may hold his own against his enemies; will he be able to gain victories over himself? From all we can learn of him, from the sacred book, and from contemporary history, he appears to have manifested much pride, vainglory, self-indulgence, and extravagance. “He showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and honour of his excellent majesty many days, even an hundred and fourscore days” (Est 1:4). For the space of six months he spread before the numerous guests every delicacy his kingdom could produce. It would have seemed probable that at the end of that time the king would have been wearied both with the excesses in which he must have indulged, and the adulation he must have received. If he became weary, he evidently resolved to overcome the fatigue, and to bear with the festivities other seven days, during which not only all officials, but all the people of the capital were to be invited. Oriental ideas of festivity and of pomp are to this day very extravagant. Illustrations of this might have been seen at the Durbar held on the occasion of the proclamation of our Queen as Empress of India, or at the opening of the Suez Canal. The writer, having been present at the latter event, was staggered at the lavish expenditure in festivities, and at the number of guests, from all countries, who, like himself, were feasted at the Khedive’s cost, not one day only, but as long as they cared to remain. The feast of the Persian king was most luxurious. The palace was not large enough to contain the guests. They overflowed to the court-yard, which had been fitted up for their reception. The walls had been hung with rich stuffs, and with a canopy, of white, green, and blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to “silver rings and pillars of marble.” The couches on which they reclined were covered with cloth of gold, interwoven with “gold and silver.” Crowds trod the tesselated pavement, or lounged on silken divans, quaffing wines and sherbet from the silver cups of diverse pattern and rich chasing, or inhaling the scent of the roses, so dear to the heart of a Persian. Endless was the service of viands, fruits, and wines. None, however, “did compel” in drinking. The arbiter bibendi, chosen by lot to preside, usually compelled the guests to drink as much as he drank; but this custom was by command of the king set aside. He provided that by temperance the feast should be prolonged, and that by refraining from taking too great a quantity at one time they might be able to continue the longer at their cups.

II. INDIFFERENCE TO THE WASTE OF WEALTH. Some defend luxury and waste on the ground that it is good for a country and for commerce. They say that it is the duty of the rich to be extravagant for the sake of the poor. The notion is widely spread, and there are numbers who “better the instruction.” It is quite right that wealth should in some way be distributed, and that possessors of wealth should surround themselves with those things which cultivate their better natures, and lead to a higher appreciation of the beautiful; but it is not right to squander wealth in that which merely ministers to pomp and pride. For each one living in luxury and pride, many have to toil the harder. For all the extravagance practised greater exactions have by the poor to be endured. Think of how hard must have been the lot of the poor labourers on the plains of Persia, from whom was wrung the money which paid for those splendid festivities of the king. Possibly also the money was extorted in harsh ways, practised usually by the farmers of taxes. Think of the bitterness of the many, as contrasted with the brightness of the few. What were the mass the better, that a few tickled their palates, lolled in luxury, or flaunted in pride? The object of the whole waste was to flatter the vanity of the king. He ought to have been more thoughtful for the interests of his subjects than to permit or foster such waste. By moderating pomp, and lessening the expenses of government, he might have lessened the burdens on his poor subjects and slaves; but security of position only leads to an indifference to the waste of wealth.

III. AN ABUSE OF ABSOLUTE POWER. We see this in the ready consent given to the slaughter of thousands of defenceless, captive, and inoffensive people. He gave this consent simply to please an inhuman courtier. This is perhaps only one among many harsh decrees of which we are ignorant, but it is sufficient to indicate the abuse of absolute power. It is easy to condemn this act of Ahasuerus, but it is possible that many of us are guilty of something akin to it in spirit. There is power which comes to a man by custom, or acquisition, or accumulation, or marriage, or by law. A man may withhold wages on slight excuse, extract excessive work; if married, may make his wife miserable by his tyranny, or his children fearful by outbursts of passion or cruelty. In many a home there is more absolutism and imperiousness than was ever manifested by a modern Czar of Russia or ancient king of Persia. Few are unselfish enough to wield absolute power; and many, like Ahasuerus, forget that there is an equality of obligations on the part of the ruler and the ruled, superiors and inferiors. The life of Ahasuerus teaches us that neither possessions nor position, pomp nor power, pride nor pelf, can satisfy a human sou]. God has not intended they should. He has reserved to himself the power to make us really happy. Ahasuerus, with all his magnificence, was doubtless a dissatisfied man. The determination to prolong the feast is rather an indication of satiety than of satisfaction. The past had not fully answered his expectations. He knew not him whose service is perfect freedom, and the knowledge of whose love once possessed becomes the most cherished possession. He knew not clearly of that loftiness of character which is a crown that never fades, and of that hope in the future where treasure never corrupts. He could not say, in prospect of meeting his God, “I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness.”H.

HOMILIES BY W. DINWIDDLE

Est 1:5-7

Vanity.

A special banquet wound up the protracted festivities. Of this banquet note

1. It was given to the inhabitants of Shushan, both great and small, and it lasted seven days. The close of the six months’ feasting with the nobles and governors, at which imperial affairs were probably discussed, was to be celebrated by a great flourish of kingly magnificence. The banquet to the capital was evidently the climax and crown of the rejoicings.

2. Special arrangements had to be made for the accommodation of so vast a crowd. These arrangements were on a most extravagant scale. We are dazzled by columns of marble, variously-coloured hanging’s, couches and vessels of gold, and wine usually reserved for the king’s use. Everything was done “according to the state of the king.” From these things we may learn

I. THAT VANITY WHEN INDULGED GROWS QUICKLY. Nothing will satisfy it. It ever cries for more. The sight of the king’s “excellent majesty” by the governors of 127 provinces was something to remember, but it was not enough; a whole city must be gathered to view and to be impressed by the royal grandeurs.

II. THAT VANITY, AS IT GROWS, GETS WONDERFULLY BLIND. It loses all perception of its own folly, and it commits its follies as if others also were equally blind. It thus virtually loses the end on which its greed fastens. There are always eyes about it keen enough to penetrate its illusions, and hearts that form, if they do not express, a true judgment.

III. THAT VANITY IS COSTLY. No expenditure was too great for the king to lavish in indulging and feeding his weakness. No thought of the sin of such waste entered his mind. No fear of possible straits in the future stayed his hand. It is likely that he possessed far more than sufficient treasure to meet the demands of the festival. But suppose it were so, that would not diminish the sin of perverting to vain uses a wealth which, if wisely applied, might have been helpful to beneficent ends. Money is a great power in the world either for good or for evil, and men are responsible to God for the use they make of it. Think of the good that may be done by it:

1. In assisting the poor.

2. In encouraging sound institutions of an educational and benevolent character.

3. In supporting Christian Churches with their attendant machineries.

4. In contributing to gospel missions among the heathen.

IV. THAT VANITY IS BURDENSOME. The physical and mental toil of the king must have been very trying during the long feast and its closing banquet. Yet what will not vanity endure to attain its object? In this it is like every other ungoverned lustgreed of gain, fleshly appetite, worldly ambition. If not under the grace of God, men will submit to greater hardships and burdens in pursuit of things that are sinful and disappointing than in the pursuit of what is necessary to true honour and happiness.

1. If the main burden of this great festival did not fall on the king, then it would fall on the king’s servants. These would have a hard time of it. They would be held responsible for every failing or mishap. Despotic lords have little consideration for their servants, and despotic mistresses too. Vanity is another name for self-love, which always makes those who are in bondage to it indifferent to the claims of inferiors.

2. Apart from the king and his servants, a heavy burden would fall on the empire. Not immediately, perhaps, but soon. The attack of Greece involved the loss of myriads of lives and untold treasure. Families everywhere were plunged into mourning and desolation. The provinces were impoverished; and as the king’s exchequer had to be supplied, the people were ground down by heavy imposts. Vanity, when inordinately indulged, and especially by persons in power, becomes burdensome in numerous ways to many.

V. THAT VANITY, apart from its consequences, IS A SIN AGAINST CONSCIENCE AND AGAINST GOD; or, in other words, a violation of natural and revealed law.

1. Against conscience, or the law of nature. The moral sentiment of all ages, and the common verdict of living men, condemn a vain-glorying or self-conceited spirit as opposed to a just estimate of self. Even the vain are quick to discover and condemn vanity in others. Humility is taught by the law of the natural conscience to be the proper habit of man in all circumstances.

2. Against God, or the law of God’s word. The upliftings of the heart under vanity are at variance with that Divine revelation of righteousness and love by which all men are condemned as sinners, and made dependent on the mercy that is offered in Christ. All self-glorying manifests ignorance or forgetfulness of the true relation which the gospel reveals as subsisting between man, the transgressor, and God, the Redeemer. The faith which submits all to God in Christ is an emptying of self, and a putting on of the “Holy and Just One,” who was “meek and lowly in heart.” God is therefore dishonoured, his truth resisted, and his mercy despised, when men who confess his name become “high-minded” or “puffed up” in self-conceit. “God forbid that I should glory,” said Paul, “save in the cross of Jesus Christ.“ Humility before God and men is Christlike, and the rightful clothing of the followers of the Lamb.D.

Est 1:8

The law of temperance.

The entertainment of such large and promiscuous companies as those which were gathered for seven days in the court of the palace garden at Shushan was not an easy matter. To secure order, and propriety of conduct, and the general comfort, required much forethought and care. As an example of the measures adopted, a certain law of the feast is mentioned as having been laid down by the king for the occasion.

I. THE LAW. It was laid on the officers not to compel or urge any of the guests to take wine. All were to be left free to drink or not drink as they pleased.

II. THE AUTHORITY. It was at the express command of the king that the law was put in force on this occasion. We learn from this

(1) that the royal command was needed, and

(2) that the king, thoughtless as he was in many things, exerted a direct influence on the orderly arrangement and conduct of the banquet. The great lose no dignity by attending personally to little duties. What seems little may contain the seeds of, or have a close connection with, great issues.

III. THE MOTIVES. These are not stated. But the fact that the king issued a special command to enforce a law that was contrary to the usual practice may be taken as proof that he had special reasons for making known his will. The following are suggested:

1. Self-dignity. Any excess on the part of the citizens would have been unbecoming in his presence, and might have led to the serious humiliation of his imperial majesty.

2. Policy. It would have been an awkward thing if the close of the prolonged and so far triumphant festival had been signalised by a popular riot, whether good-humoured or the reverse. The noise of it would have spread throughout the empire, and its real character might have been lost in the misrepresentations of rumour and report. And such a result was not improbable, supposing that the servants and the mixed multitude had been left guideless as to their obligations in presence of the king and his boundless hospitality.

3. Sympathy. There would be many in such assemblies as now filled the king’s tables who were unaccustomed to the use of wine, and more perhaps whose “small” condition would only enable them to use it sparingly.Young men also would be present to whom the indulgences of the older society about them would be yet strange. It would have been, therefore, a hardship and a wrong, as well as a danger, if the city guests had been allowed to act on the natural belief that at the king’s table they were expected to take wine whenever it was presented. Whatever the motive or motives of the king, it goes to his credit that when the young and old, the small and great, were his guests, he enforced a law that favoured temperance. Temperance is not always studied, either on great festive occasions, or in social gatherings of a more private kind. Thus this old Persian law becomes our teacher

1. As to the relative duties of host and guest. In countries where social life is highly developed, and where the men and women of different families mix much in free and lively intercourse, these duties are of great importance.

(1) The host.

(a) He should be kindly considerate of all whom he invites to share the hospitalities of his houseavoiding all tyrannical rules that make no allowance for differences of age, habit, and taste.

(b) He should invite none whose manners are offensive to the temperate, or whose example and influence would place an undue constraint on the consciences of others.

(c) He should be careful to put no temptations to excess before the weak, and to give no countenance to what may favour intemperate habits.

(2) The guest. While showing a full appreciation of the good intent of his host, and a suitable amiability to his fellow-guests, he should claim and exercise the right to guide himself in the matters of eating and drinking by the dictates of the Christian conscience. Whether he abstain from wine or not, a regard for himself, for his host, and for his companions should bind him to be temperate in all things.

2. As to the duty of all men to the law of moderation. Not long ago, to abstain or even to be temperate at social meetings was considered the mark of a sour and ungenerous nature. But since then a great improvement in manners has taken place. Little courage is now required to abstain altogether from wine. It is said that Queen Victoria sets a good example in this respect. To the expressed desire of a sovereign the authority of a command is attached, and to refuse wine when presented at a sovereign’s table is regarded as an act of disobedience. But our queen has abolished this law at her own table, and substituted the law of Ahasuerus at his great banquetthat all guests shall be free to take or refuse winethat none shall compel. The change for the better in social customs is a matter for thankfulness, but there is still much room for amendment. Let us remember that to indulge in excess is

(1) A sin against society.

(2) A sin against one’s self.

(a) It injures the body

(b) It weakens the mind.

(c) It enervates the will.

(d) It deadens the conscience.

(e) It impoverishes and embitters the life.

(f) It destroys the soul.

(3) A sin against God.

(a) It is a transgression of his law.

(b) It is a despising of his love.

(c) It is opposed to the spirit and example of his Son.

(d) It is a braving of his judgment.

Christian men and women should live under the power of the Christian law, and strive in all things to be “living epistles” of the Master whom they serve. All such will give earnest heed to the injunction of Paul, “Let your moderation be known among all men; the Lord is at hand.”D.

Est 1:9

The position of women.

A noticeable feature of the king’s banquet was that even the women were not excluded from participation in the festivities. In the court of the garden the king entertained only men. But inside the palace Queen Vashti made a feast for the women.

I. A PICTURE OF QUEENLY DUTY. As queen, Vashti entered into the king’s mind, and gave his projects such support as she could in her own circle of duty and influence.

II. A PICTURE OF WIFELY DUTY. AS wife, Vashti was mistress of the female portion of the king’s household. She took charge of the women, and ruled them to the advantage and comfort of her husband.

III. A PICTURE OF ORIENTAL CUSTOM WITH RESPECT TO WOMEN. The two sexes are rigidly separated in public and social life. Women rarely travel beyond the narrow limits of the house or the apartments assigned to them. They live together in mysterious seclusion, and are carefully guarded against intercourse with the outside world.

IV. THE INFLUENCE OF WOMAN.

1. On the field of governmental policies and national events. It has often been dominant, even though unseen, both in civilised and in uncivilised countries. A beautiful and clever woman may easily make a weak prince her slave, and through him affect the current of history either for good or evil. There are not a few instances of the exercise of the feminine power in the region of politics both in sacred and secular history, both in ancient and modern times.

2. On the field of domestic, social, and religious life.

(1) Mothers. To a large extent mothers give the mould of thought and character to each generation. The early years, the formative periods, of men and women alike, are in their hands. The early home, whatever its character, is never forgotten.

(2) Wives. The power of a trusted and loved wife over her husband cannot be estimated. It will, as a rule, work its way gradually and surely, either to his well-being or to his detriment. The effect of so close, and tender, and constant a companionship will inevitably show itself, somehow, in his character, his happiness, and his work. The spirit that rules his wife will come in some real measure to rule him; it will strengthen or weaken his character, brighten or darken his home, benefit or blast his life. Is there anything more beautiful, and strong, and good in human society than the influence of the modest, loving, virtuous, and Christian wife?

(3) Women generally. In societies which allow free intercourse in the family and world between men and women of all ages, feminine influence touches human life at every point. When it is pure it is always purifying. When it is impure it has a terrible power to corrupt. Intercourse with a high-minded and good-hearted Christian woman is a lift heavenward. Willing intercourse with an unprincipled or unsexed woman is a plunge hellward. In all circles, and in all directions, the influence of women powerfully tells. It is at once the best and the worst element in all grades of society.

V. THE IMPORTANCE OF A FULL RECOGNITION OF THE JUST CLAIMS OF WOMEN. The effect of secluding women, and treating them as the chattels and toys of men, has been to degrade them, and to deprive society of their proper influence. It is undoubtedly true that the position assigned to women in Eastern nations has been one of the chief causes of their decay, and is now one of the chief obstacles to all civilising or Christianising movements.

VI. THE BENIGN POWER ()F CHRISTIANITY IN RELATION TO WOMEN. Wherever the gospel of Jesus is allowed to govern families or communities, the gentler sex is raised by it into its true relative position. We think of the holy women to whom Jesus gave such a mingled respect and affection, and of those who were associated with the apostles in their work, and of whom such honourable mention is made. The Christian religion ever brings with it the emancipation of women from the thraldom of man’s tyrannical lust, and secures to them their rightful share of work and influence. It makes them mistress in their own sphere. It clothes them with a new responsibility and power, and, by surrounding them with high duties and ministries, draws into beneficent activity the best qualities of their nature. Nations that degrade their women are doomed; nations that cherish a Christian respect for them have a spring of life that will make them strong and enduring. The greatest trial of gospel missionaries arises from the utter ignorance of heathen women and the difficulty of reaching them with the Divine truth they teach.D.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Est 1:1-9

The royal feast.

We have in the opening chapter of this Book of Esther the description of a royal feast; it may remind us of two other feasts to which we of this land and age, and they of every clime and century, are invited guests.

I. THE FEAST OF THE KING OF PERSIA. “It came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus” (verse 1), “in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants” (verse 3). A “great monarch” was this king, ruling “from India to Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces” (verse 1). His palace at Susa (Shushan, verse 2), surrounded with beautiful gardens, was a place where labour and art had furnished everything that could minister to bodily gratification. Here he entertained “the power of Persia and Media (verse 3) for 180 days (verse 4), the guests probably coming and going, for all the satraps could hardly have been absent from their provinces at the same time. Then, after these days were expired (verse 5), the king gave a banquet of a more indiscriminate kind”a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small” (verse 5). Every possible preparation was made for the guests, a beautiful “awning of fine white cotton and violet” (verse 6; ‘Speaker’s Com.’) being spread, the couches being of gold and silver, and placed on pavement of variously-coloured stones (verse 6); wine from the king’s own cellar being served in golden goblets, with liberty for the guests to drink as they pleased (verses 7, 8). It was a feast

1. In which regal bounty was lavishly poured forth; no pains or expenses were spared, as these particulars show, to make the guests joyous.

2. In which there was more of selfish ostentation than genuine kindness. The spirit of it is seen in the fact that by so doing “he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty” (verse 4).

3. In which there was more of short-lived gratification than lasting joy. There was, no doubt, much exhilaration expressing itself in revelry; and revelry soon ended, as it always must, in satiety and suffering. We are reminded, partly by contrast, of

II. THE FEAST OF THE LORD OF NATURE. God, our King, who is in deed and truth the “King of kings,” and not in name only, like these Persian monarchs, spreads a regal feast for his subjects. It is one that

(1) lasts all the year through: not for even “a hundred and eighty days,” but “daily he loadeth us with benefits” (Psa 68:19);

(2) extends to all his creatures: there is “food for man and beast.” In this Divine provision is

(3) every needful thing for the senses: “food for all flesh” (Psa 136:25), beauty for the eye, odours for the smell, delicacies for the palate, melodies for the ear;

(4) truth and fact for the mind: “Wisdom hath builded her house,” etc. (Pro 9:1-18.);

(5) love for the heart of man: the love of kindred and of friends, the feast of pure affection. Of this feast of the Lord of nature we may say that, like that in the text, it is one of regal bounty; it is the constant and lavish kindness of a King; that, unlike that in the text, there is more of kindness than ostentation in ita “hiding of power” (Hab 3:4) rather than a display; and that it is one in which those who wisely accept the King’s invitation may find a continual and life-long enjoyment. They who eat and drink at his table, as he invites them to do, go not through an exciting intoxication followed by a remorseful misery and ennui? but find in the gifts of his hand a perennial spring of pure and lasting pleasure.

III. THE FEAST OF THE PRINCE OF PEACE. Jesus Christ, the” King’s Son,” has made for us a spiritual feast (Mat 22:1-14): “royal wine in abundance” (verse 7); “bread enough and to spare” at his princely table for all thirsting and hungering souls (Isa 55:1; Joh 6:35). In this gospel feast there is

(1) no ostentation, but marvellous love; the marked absence of all stately pomp and material splendour (Isa 53:1-12.), but the presence of all generosity and self-sacrificing goodness.

(2) Provision, without distinction of rank (contrast verses 3, 4, 5) or sex (contrast verse 9), for all subjects, in whatever part of his kingdom they dwell (contrast verse 5); and

(3) provision which lasts not for a number of days (contrast verses 4, 5), but so long as the heart hungers for the bread of life, as the soul thirsts for the waters of salvation.C.

HOMILIES BY D. ROWLANDS

Est 1:3, Est 1:4

The hospitality of vainglory.

The reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, had now reached its third year. His sway was very wide, and other history lends valuable confirmation of the contents of the former of these verses. Herodotus, far enough removed in his general tone from a Scripture historian, fixes this year as the year in which Xerxes summoned the rulers of his provinces to Susa, or Shushan, preparatory to his expedition against Greece. Although no mention is made here of this circumstance as the occasion of the feast, or as connected with it, yet the two intimations are not inconsistent with one another, and in fact are well fitted to one another. Each historian keeps the object of his own work in view. The thing which had no significance with Herodotus would be the consideration of primary significance in our present history; and we get as the result a consent of two widely differing authorities to testify to the fact of special doings in Shushan this year. The passage offers us a typical instance of a feast such as to answer correctly to the motto, “Self first, hospitality second.” This is evidently the character of it. Yet let us take into account what may be said for it.

1. It was confessedly an Eastern feast, and as such it would have been considered essentially wanting if it had been wanting in the matter of display.

2. It was not a feast given by one of those people who had “received the oracles;” who had been long time under a course of higher instruction; who had heard, ]earned, pondered “the Proverbs of Solomon,” or “the words of the Preacher, son of David, king of Jerusalem.” Much less was it possible in the nature of things to have been the feast of one, who had had the opportunity of knowing the doctrine of Christ in such a matter.

3. Yet nevertheless it answered in one respect to one of the prescriptions of Jesus Christ himself; for it was a feast which could not be returned to its givernot in kind, at all events. The feast of a great king, who drew on enormous wealth,”made to” a whole multitude of princes, subordinate to him, and prolonged over months,this could not be returned to him.

4. It was a feast of unstinted plentythe thought of a nature that had some sort of largeness about it, and the distributing of a hand that dropt more than the uncared-for crumbs of its own table. On the other hand

I. IT IS INCONTESTABLE THAT THIS FEAST VISITS UPON ITS GIVER THE CONDEMNATION OF VAINGLORIOUS DISPLAY AS REGARDS HIS “KINGDOM,” AND SELF–SEEKING DISPLAY AS REGARDS HIS OWN “EXCELLENT MAJESTY.” The greater the scale on which it was made, the more profuse its abundance, the longer its continuance, so much the more impressive and convincing evidence does it furnish of vanity insatiable, of selfishness deep-seated, of the presence of the hand of one who not only sought the praise of men rather than that of God, but who sought to influence even those men by the lower kinds of appealthose of sense and the eye, rather than by any of a higher kind.

II. THERE WAS BEYOND DOUBT A DISTINCTLY AND DECIDEDLY UTILITARIAN DESIGN ABOUT THE FEAST. Though it could not be returned in kind, it could be recompensed. At recompense it aimed, and without the prospect of such recompense it would never have been “made.” It was pre-eminently a banquet of policy, unwarmed by one simple genuine feeling of the heart, unhonoured by any noble object for its motive, fragrant with no philanthropic beneficence. It was simply a device of an inferior type, first, for flashing to all the extremities of the kingdom the envious tidings of the central wealth, luxury, splendour, and power, and thereby riveting the tyrannous hold and the ghastly fascination of an Eastern arbitrary despot; and, secondly, for ingratiating that central authority with the numerous helpless, subordinate powers who were to send contingents and contributions to a disastrous expedition into Greece. It was very different from an English banquet in celebration of some accomplished fact, or in honour of some worthy hero or distinguished benefactor of the people, though oftentimes it is not very much that can be justly said in commendation of even these.

III. THE GIVING ITSELFWHAT WAS IT? It happens to be well termed “making” a feast, in the undesigned idiom of the language. Did it cost much to make? It cost lavish silver and gold very likely; but whence were these drawn? Were they not already drawn from those for whom the feast was “made”? and probably absolutely wrung by these again from the oppressed subjects of their grinding rule. Did it cost Ahasuerus himself much? Did it cost him anything at all? Was it drawn from the honourably-earned and diligently-acquired results of his own past labour? No; it speaks plenty without bounty, liberality without generosity, profuse bestow-ment the fruit of no kindliness of soul, a lavish hand moving to the dictate of a selfish heart.

Conclusion.

1. These are just some of the hard facts of human nature, tried in such a position as that of this king.

2. There is a great deal to explain and account for such exhibitions of human nature in Ahasuerus, to be found in his time of day, in his antecedents, etc; but these things do not justify them. They do impressively help illustrate to what human nature’s time of day and antecedents bring us.

3. We could plead no extenuations whatever if our own conduct or our own principles were detected sinking to the level of those before us, and all the less for the beacon of this very history.B.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Est 1:1. In the days of Ahasuerus Archbishop Usher is of opinion, that Darius Hystaspes was the king Ahasuerus who married Esther, that Atossa was the Vashti, and Artystona the Esther, of the Holy Scriptures; but Herodotus positively tells us, that Artystona was the daughter of Cyrus, and therefore could not be Esther; and that Atossa had four sons by Darius, besides daughters, all born to him after he was king; and therefore she could not be that queen Vashti who was divorced from the king her husband in the third year of his reign, (Est 1:3.) nor he the Ahasuerus who divorced her. Joseph Scaliger is of opinion, that Xerxes is the Ahasuerus, and Hamestris, his queen, the Esther of the Holy Scriptures; but, whatever seeming similitude there may be in the names, (and this is the whole foundation of his conjecture,) it is plain, from Herodotus, that Xerxes had a son by Hamestris, who was marriageable in the seventh year of his reign; and therefore it is impossible that he should have been Esther’s son, because Esther was not married to Ahasuerus till the seventh year of his reign, chap. Est 2:16. And, considering that the choice of virgins was made for him in the fourth of his reign, and a whole year employed in their purifications, the soonest that she could have a son by him must be in the sixth; and therefore we may conclude with Josephus, the Septuagint, and the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther, that the Ahasuerus of Scripture was Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Esther a Hebrew virgin, as she is all along represented. See Prideaux and Calmet.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

PART FIRST
ORIGIN AND INCREASE OF DANGER TO THE JEWS

Esther 1-5

INTRODUCTION

The Occasion of the History. The Feast of Ahasuerus and Vashtis Rejection

Est 1:1-22

I. Ahasuerus assembles the princes of his empire around him, and prepares a great feast, in which he endeavours to show his power and glory. Est 1:1-8

1Now [And] it came to pass [was] in the days of Ahasuerus [Achashverosh], (this is Ahasuerus which reigned [the one being king] from India [Hodu] even unto [and till] Ethiopia [Cush], over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces,) 2That in those days when [as] the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace,1 3In the third year of his reign, he made a feast2 unto all his princes and his servants; the power3 of Persia [Paras] and Media [Madai], the 4nobles4 and [the] princes of the provinces, being before him. When he showed the riches of his glorious [the glory of his] kingdom, and the honour of his excellent [the excellence of his] majesty, many days, even a hundred and fourscore days. 5And when these days were [had] expired, the king made a feast2 unto all the people that were present [found] in Shushan the palace,1 both unto great and [to great and 6even to] small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the kings palace; Where were white [linen], green [cotton], and blue [violet] hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to [on] silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of [there were beds of] gold and silver, upon a pavement of red [white] and blue [marble], and white [pearl], and black marble [colored stone]. 7And they gave them [there was a giving of] drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being [and the vessels were] diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state [hand] of the king. 8And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed [ordained] to [upon] all the officers [every great one] of his house, that they should do [to do] according to every mans pleasure.

II. Queen Vashti refuses to appear before the king, and he is very much incensed thereat. Verses 912

9Also Vashti the queen made a feast2 for [of] the women in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus. 10On the seventh day, when [as] the heart of the king was merry [good] with [the] wine, he commanded [said to] Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains [eunuchs] that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, 11To bring Vashti the queen before the king, with the crown royal [of royalty], to show the people [peoples] and 12the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on [good of appearance]. But [And] the queen Vashti refused to come at the kings commandment [word] [which was] by [the hand of] his [the] chamberlains [eunuchs] : therefore [and] was the king very wroth, and his anger burned [heat devoured] in him.

III. In accordance with the counsel of his wise men the queen is rejected by a public decree of the king. Verses 1322

13Then [And] the king said to the wise men, which knew [knowers of ] the times, (for so was the kings manner [word] toward [before] all that knew [knowers of] law and judgment: 14And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia [Paras] and Media [Madai], which saw [seers of] the kings face, and which sat [the sitters] the first in the kingdom); 15What shall we do [is there to do] unto [in the case of] the queen Vashti according to law, because [upon the fact that] she hath not performed [done] the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by [the hand of] the chamberlains [eunuchs]? 16And Memucan answered [said] before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to [upon] the king only, but [for] also to [upon] all the princes, and to [upon] all the people [peoples] that are in all the 17provinces of the king Ahasuerus. For this deed [word] of the queen shall come abroad [go forth] unto [upon] all [the] women, so that they shall [to cause them to] despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported [in their saying], The king Ahasuerus commanded [said] Vashti the queen to be brought [to bring] in 18before him, but [and] she came not. Likewise shall the ladies [princesses] of Persia [Paras] and Media [Madai] say this day unto all the kings princes, which [who] have heard5 of the deed [word] of the queen. Thus [And] shall there arise 19too much [according to plenty] contempt and wrath. If it please [be good upon] the king, let there go [forth] a royal commandment [word] from [before] him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians [Paras] and the Medes [Madai], that [and let] it be not altered [not pass], That Vashti come no more [not] before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate [royalty] unto another [her neighbor] that is better than she. 20And when the kings decree which he shall make shall be published [heard] throughout [in] all his empire [kingdom], (for it is great.) [and] all the wives [women] shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. 21And the saying [word] pleased [was good in the eyes of] the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan : 22For [And] he sent letters into [unto] all the kings provinces, into [unto] every province according to the writing6 thereof, and to [unto] every people after their language, that every man should bear rule [for every man to be prince] in his own house, and that it should be published [spoken] according to the language of every [his] people.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

1 [Est 1:2. , whence , denotes properly a fortress, hence the capital.Tr.]

2 [Est 1:3. , a drinking, i.e., a banquet, in which the wine was the principal feature, as represented freely on the Assyrian monuments.Tr.]

3 [Est 1:3. , military force.Tr.]

4 [Est 1:3. , a Persian word Hebraized. As it is here in the absolute form, it does not qualify provinces following, but stands as an official designation, probably of civil rank at court.Tr.]

5 [Est 1:18. The English Version has unwarrantably transposed this clause (which have heard, etc.), which belongs to ladies, etc., above.Tr.]

6 [Est 1:22. here evidently signifies the style of writing peculiar to each province. Thus the cuneiform differs according to the several districts of the Persian empire.Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Est 1:1-8. The Kings Banquet.The point of departure in this history is formed by a feast at which Ahasuerus was unexpectedly humbled and provoked to wrath, while purposing to show his great majesty.

Est 1:1. Now it came to pass,etc. The sentence begun here, in its chief fact really follows Est 1:3. There it is stated that Ahasuerus made a feast in the third year of his reign. The at the beginning has not the conjunctive sense that it has in Ezr 1:1, but stands more indefinite. A Hebrew would understand this as a matter of which much had already been related, and of which the following is only a continuation. Thus he would proceed often with a without attaching any definite meaning to it. has come to be a conventional formula for a beginning, comp. Jon 1:4; Eze 1:1; Isa 53:2, et al.Ahasuerus (Achashverosh) written in cuneiform letters (comp. Lassen, Zeitschr. zur Kunde des M. L. VI., p. 123 sqq.; Benfey, Die pers. Keilin-schrift, p. 63 sqq) Khsy–arsha, whence Cyax-ares (comp. Dan 9:1), or Khsay–arsha, whence Xerxes (comp. Ezr 4:6), early interpreted by Herodotus (6:98, etc), as meaning according to Spiegel (Eranische Altherthumskunde, II. p. 377), a mighty man, here does not mean, as in Dan 9:1, Cyaxares I, the father of Astyages, as Ferrand holds (Rflexions sur la religion Chrtienne, I., p. 159), and Des Vignoles (Chronol. II., p. 274), and Nickes (De Esther libro, I., p. 4369) would have it, since they especially insist that, according to Est 2:5 sq., Mordecai belonged to the first period of the exile, and that our book nowhere indicates that a new people had again arisen in Jerusalem. Nor is the monarch referred to the same as Astyages, as is asserted in the works referred to in 5; and still less Artaxerxes, as Josephus assumes out of regard to the Septuagint version; but he is certainly Xerxes, as has been well proved by Scaliger (De emend, temp., ed Genev., p. 591 sqq.); also by Justi (in Eichhorns Repert. XV., p. 338), and still more emphatically by Baumgarten (De fide I. Esth., pp. 122151, and in his treatises respecting Cyrus the Great, in the Stud. u. Krit., 1853, p. 624 sqq.). On the different views in reference to Ahasuerus, see especially Feuardent on our book, and Pfeiffer, Dubia vex, p. 481 sqq. Against the identification with either Cyaxares or Astyages, are the following facts: (1) Shushan was already the capital of the empire, which it became through Cyrus (comp. Strabo, XV.); (2) the Persians are now the chief people (comp. the frequent collection of e. g., in Est 1:3); (3) the number seven indicates that of princes at the court of the king (comp. Est 1:14); (4) many other specifically Persian peculiarities. Further, the empire at the time in question extended from India to hiopia, and stretched also to the coasts and isles of the Mediterranean sea (comp. Est 1:1; Est 10:1), as was the case since the time of Darius Hystaspis. The Jews, moreover, are here represented as scattered over all parts of the empire (comp. Est 3:7-8) and particularly numerous in the city of Shushan (comp. Est 9:12, etc.). On the contrary Artaxerxes is called in the Bible (in Ezra and Neh.) Artachsharshta or Artachshasta. For Xerxes, on the other hand, we may claim the identity of names (comp. Ezr 9:6). In his favor is also the whimsical and tyrannical character manifested by the Ahasuerus of Esther (chap. 1 and elsewhere). Besides, there is the remarkable circumstance that Vashti was rejected in the third year of Ahasuerus, although Esther was not made queen till the seventh year of his reign, which in the case of Xerxes may be explained on the basis that between his third and seventh year he made war on Greece.7 The clause beginning with (comp. Gen 2:11) and referring us backthis is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia,etc.is no doubt intended to designate Ahasuerus more distinctly,8 but at the same time to make known his greatness of dominion and power. Thus the danger that threatened the Jews, as well as the elevation of Esther and Mordecai, and of the Jews through these, is more powerfully brought out. stands for the original , as Hidku in the cuneiform inscriptions of the Persians stands for Hindhu (in Zend and Syrian Hendu), and is therefore India, in the Sanscrit Sindhu which is really the river Indus, then the inhabitants along the Indus, and at last the land of the Indus (comp. Lassen, Judische Altherthumskunde, I., p, 2); so also in the Vedas Sapta Sindhavas, or the seven streams, really stand for India (comp. Rdiger in Gesen. Thesaurus, Append. p. 83). The o sound in , and the tone falling on the first syllable are quite remarkable, but perhaps only a provincialism. Herodotus testifies to the great extension of the Persian empire under Xerxes, and in 12:9 he rays that Mardonius reported to Xerxes that the Sacc and Assyrians, as well as the Indians and thiopians, had been conquered. See also 7:97, 98, and 8:65, 69, where the thiopians and Indians are enumerated as being under tribute. According to Arrian, Cyrus extended his conquests up to India, and the people of the Avaka were by him made to pay tribute. Darius added still greater parts of northwestern India to the Persian empire (comp. Duncker, Gesch. d. Altherthums, 3d ed., II., page 468). The auxiliary sentence: A hundred and seven and twenty provinces, is merely to be regarded as an additional sentence in loose apposition, to indicate what provinces were included in the region just mentioned. If this sentence depended upon , it should have [or ] before it. According to Herod. III. 89 sqq., Darius Hyst. on account of the raising of taxes divided the empire into twenty which were termed . A further division into lesser portions was not thereby excluded; with so many petty tribes and peoples this came as a matter of course. So there were contained in the fifth satrapy (comp. Herod. III. 91) a small Jewish people, a separate which really means a judicial or official circuit (comp. Ezr 2:1). Our 127 provinces remind us of the 120 Satraps whom Darius the Mede placed over his empire (Dan 6:2).

Est 1:2. In those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat,etc.Sitting is a posture common to judges and kings, but more particularly characteristic of the kings of Persia. The Persian kings are always painted as sitting on a throne under a lofty canopy. This is true of them even in the time of war, and in their journeys. Xerxes, indeed, was present in the battles sitting; thus it was at Thermopyl according to Herodotus (VII. 102), and at Salamis according to Plutarch (Themistocl. 13). See also Baumgarten, l. c., p. 85 sqq. Which was in Shushan the palace.He had a royal establishment in several cities; but at the time here referred to it was in Shushan, which was his favorite winter and spring residence (comp. Neh 1:1). schylus calls it the palace ornate with gold of the Cissians, and Strabo asserts that every Persian king built his own palace there. was in use in later language, and in earlier times.

Est 1:3. In the third year of his reign he made a feast,etc.All his princes and servants, for whom this feast was made, are specified as follows : The power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces (being) before him.These words form an explanatory sentence, and assert distinctly that all the princes and servants were really gathered around Xerxes. We are to understand by the power, the representatives of the same, who probably consisted of the body-guard of the king, which formed the flower of the entire army-power. According to Herod. VII. 40 sqq., this was in itself sufficiently large, and consisted of two thousand picked horsemen, two thousand lancers, and ten thousand common foot-soldiers. The who are mentioned also in chap.Est 6:9, and Dan 1:3, were the principes, chief men (in Sanscrit we find it parthama = first; in the Behistun Inscription fratama, in Pehlevi pardom), i.e., the magnates. [It is a superlative from a root fra, equivalent to the Greek , before.Rawlinson]. The princes of the provinces are the Pashas or governors of those one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. That is more correct than has been mentioned in the note on Ezr 1:1.

Est 1:4. When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdom,etc.Keil connects these words with the inserted explanatory sentence, the powerbefore him, and thus he gets the sense, not that the feast itself, at which Xerxes showed his riches, lasted one hundred and eighty days, but that he prepared a feast for the army lasting seven days, after they had viewed his riches for one hundred and eighty days (Est 1:5). But the connection of our verse with the main assertion in Est 1:3 : He made a feast is much closer; as may be seen in the fact that nearly all exegetes have declared themselves for this rendering. Something again different seems to be meant in the seven days feast of Est 1:5, which Xerxes had caused to be made, not for the army, but for all the people in Shushan the palace. The feast during a hundred and eighty days may have been only for the purpose of consultation, and the real feast may have followed in the seven days succeeding. Keils objection, that then the mention of the preceding feast of a hundred and eighty days was purposeless, does not hold, since the fact that Xerxes could entertain his princes and servants so long, is a proof also to the reader of his great riches. That such magnificent, long and great feasts were very popular at the Persian court, is elsewhere stated (comp. Duncker, as above, p. 609 sqq.). Herod. vii. 8 informs us that after the re-subjection of Egypt, Xerxes called the magnates of his empire to Shushan, in order to consult with them in reference to the campaign against Greece; and in Est 7:2, he further states that the preparations for this undertaking lasted four years. Hence the assumption is not unfounded that in these long assemblages it was specially designed in the third year to counsel together regarding the war with Greece. This is the more evident since in the inserted clause of Est 1:3 the power of the Medes and Persians is prominently stated. If Xerxes ascended the throne in the year B. C. 486 then there were still three or four years until this happened. There were three years until the battle of Salamis (480) beginning with his first year of empire. Clericus asserts that these princes of the provinces could not possibly have remained away so long a time as a hundred and eighty days from their provinces and governmental activity. Hence he would have them entertained one after the other; a view which is without foundation. They doubtless had subordinate officers, who ranked high enough to take their places for one half year.9

Est 1:5. And when these days were expired, the king made a feast to all the people.This does not, as Keil would have it, take up the third verse again, but forms the transition from the counseling to the purely festive entertainment to which the king invited (in addition to those already assembled to the army and great rulers, comp. Est 1:11) all the people at Shushan the palace. is not an abstract form with an infinitive signification, which would properly have to be punctuated thus , as are , (comp. Ewald, 239 a), but the stands in the wrong place in the originally defectively written (comp. Lev 12:6), in order that it might be known as having been added later (comp. Joh 20:22).To all these people who were invited, belonged also the lower classes of servants, and probably the common inhabitants likewise, as is evinced by the phrase both unto great and smallfrom the highest to the lowest. But these were only the male population, as is shown in Est 1:9. In reference to comp. the note on Ezr 8:25. , with , as in 2Ch 15:13; without it 1Sa 30:19.In the court of the garden of the kings palace. for occurs often in our book, but is found connected with as also in Est 7:7. The kingly palace or series of houses was situated, in Oriental manner, as is customary also to-day, in a large park (Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 3, 12, 14).

Est 1:6. The language describing the court of the garden where this entertainment took place, i.e., the tent-like, enclosed, and covered space of the park, specially prepared for this festive occasion, and likewise the entertainment itself in Est 1:7-8, must be understood as explained by the exclamations of wonder, white, green, and blue (hangings),etc., these latter being employed as coverings. designates the white cloths as to color, not as to a certain quality of cloth; from , to be white., occurring in the Sanscrit, Pers., Armen., and Arab., corresponds to the Greek ; designating cotton cloth; and, because of the two preceding and corresponding words, a splendid parti-colored fabric. is the glistening blue-black hyacinth color, and here means any kind of cloth which had this particular hue. White and blue were, according to Curtius VI. 6, 4, the regal colors of Persia (comp. also Duncker, as above, pp. 891 and 951). These cloths were held fast () with cords to rings, and by these to the pillars.10 The last words: The beds (divans) were of gold and silver (lying) upon a pavement of red and blue, and white and black marble,etc., describe the seats for the guests. Gold and silver here mean the cloths, which were woven with gold and silver threads. Hence they were brocades with which these divans were covered. But they lay upon , Sept. , a tessellated (mosaic) flooring, which was formed of various kinds of stones. , in Arab., a false stone, accords to the Sept., , a stone of a green color, similar to the emerald (smaragth), is perhaps malachite or serpentine. is white marble; , in Arab. darun and darratun, pearl, is, according to the Sept., , a stone similar to pearl, perhaps mother of pearl. (from =, dark), is very likely black marble, with scutiform pots.11

Est 1:7. And they gave (them) drink in vessels of gold.This actually occurred, or was seen transpiring. , Infin. Hiph., is a substantive here. The vessels being diverse one from another, i.e., very different drinking-vessels were in service. According to Xenoph. Cyrop. VIII. 8, 18, these constituted an essential part of Persian luxury. And royal wine, i.e., such as was drunk from the royal vaults, as especially costly, perhaps coming from Chalybon, which it was usual for Persian kings to drink (comp. Eze 27:18). In abundance, according to the state of the king., according to the hand=power of the king, means that the great quantity did honor to the power of the king, or that it corresponded to the ability and riches of the king (comp. Est 2:18; 1Ki 10:13; also Neh 2:8).

Est 1:8. And the drinking wasi.e., went onaccording to the law (custom); none did compel, etc. hardly means a law enacted for this special occasion; for this purpose the expression would be too general;but as custom, especially Persian royal etiquette required. This means, not moderately (as Clericus,moralizing was not here intended), but on the contrary that the guests in a courageous and vigorous carousing should show their appreciation of the liberal hospitality of the king, and at the same time evince their ability to do something in their drinking worthy of the royal table. The Greeks knew how to do justice to hospitality (see Baumgarten, p. 12 sq.). While was held to be a special law made for this occasion, it was thought that its substance was contained in , being taken in the sense of urging. The meaning is that the drinking was not to occur, as was usually the case, in compliance with the wishes or encouragements of the court officers. In contrast with the customary excessive drinking, because of too frequent urging, this should remain free to all to remain sober. While the Septuagint, in a free rendering, has joined with ( ), the Vulgate has it thus: Nec erat, qui nolentes cogere ad bibendum. But the true interpretation of the phrase evidently is as already indicated; every one having entire liberty to drink of the wine, without urging. The whole tone of the passage expresses abundance and luxuriance: yet we need not make urging out of , but rather creating a real necessity, preparing difficulty, standing in the way in a preventive manner. In Dan 4:6, at least, it has this signification. It may possibly be an additional form for (Hitzig on Eze 24:17). At any rate it frequently stands in the Targums for the Heb. ,, and . That no one should hinder another in drinking must have been self-evident and understood at a decently-conducted feast. But here it is stated : For so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house; here not our own, but Persian customs, give the key. Besides there is a negative hindrance in drinking, which obtains even among us, and which would seem to have been necessary in a company where high and low mingled together, namely that of not so frequently filling the cups. means, as it does in 1Ch 9:22, arranging (ordering). With it is, first of all, giving orders in reference to or for some one. = the chief of the house, i.e., court-officer.

Est 1:9-12. The Queens Banquet, and her Refusal to appear in the Royal Presence.The festival of the king went hand in hand with that of the queen, which doubtless was intended to bring into view at the same time the royal majesty and magnificence. Usually the queen ate with her husband (see Herod. IX. 110), and even in greater feasts she was not under all circumstances excluded, as is proved by the reference to Lucian by Brissonius, De regio Pers. princ. I., c. 103. At this time she was compelled to remain away, since she also gave entertainment to the ladies. To permit the participation of women in all the feasts of the men would certainly not have been very desirable, since it was a mixed company.

Est 1:9. The name Vashti, , has probably a connection with the Old-Persian vahista (the best), or with the related behisht (paradisiacus); comp. Pott, Ueber alt-pers. Eigennamen, in the Zeitschrift, d. D. M. G., 1859, p. 388. In modern Persian Vashti signifies a beautiful woman. Vashti gave the feast to the ladies in the kings palace, i.e., either in her own apartments, which also were in the royal residence, or in some other dwellings there which were placed at her disposal for this festive occasion.12

Est 1:10. On the seventh day, as the last of the feast, in which perhaps there was the greatest joviality. When the heart of the king was merry with wine,i.e., well disposed, happy (, as in 2Sa 13:18; Jdg 16:25; is the infin. constr. Kal, with an intransitive signification), would grant a still greater favor to his guests, and one too which he would not have been willing to grant in a more sober mood. He turned to the seven eunuchs that served before him, , together with , as in 1Sa 2:18. Their names signify nothing for the present purpose; and there are no certain data for their interpretation.13 But our author names them because they were transmitted to him, and in order that the historical character of his narrative may be strengthened thereby. Certain it is, they were the medium between the king and the ladies. They were to transmit the commands of the former to the latter. Their number, seven, has close connection with that of the Amshaspands. This number was peculiarly sacred to the Persians, see Est 1:14.

Est 1:11. They were to bring the queen in the regal crown, , or , i.e., in a high, pointed turban, and consequently bring her in her entire royal apparel, in order to show her beauty to the prince, as well as to the entire people, of whom at least there were representatives present. Xerxes was desirous of glory, not only because of his riches, but also because of his beautiful wife.14

Est 1:12. But the queen Vashti refused to come. here has reference to the word of the king, as in Est 3:15; Est 8:14; 1Ki 13:1; 1Ki 13:8. By (his) chamberlains,i.e., which was brought to her in a formal manner, and which therefore ought to have been obeyed all the more (comp. Est 1:15). Persian etiquette gave to ladies, and especially to the queen, a certain reserve, and this under all circumstances. It was regarded as something unheard of if the queen appeared in public unveiled. But here, where there was no doubt of the fact that she should become the gazing-stock of a drunken company, that, so to speak, she should make a show of herself to the lascivious eyes of so manyaccording to the extremely literal view of the Targums, she was to appear nakedshe had a right, indeed she was compelled to guard and keep in mind her dignity. There is no doubt that as the queen she was safe from such shameless proceedings as Herodotus (Est 1:18) relates of Persian foreign ministers. But instead of being rejoiced at the modesty of his queen the king felt deeply humbled in the eyes of those to whom he would have shown himself in his highest glory. It is possible, and even probable, that a well-known self-assertion of Vashti had something to do in the matter. But this we need not necessarily assume in connection with his peculiar character in order to explain his wrath. Pride and self-exaltation perhaps so blinded him that he did not dream of such a rebuff. Perhaps, too, she might have found some way, had she been wise, in which without compromising herself she might have rendered obedience. But however bad the fact, the unfavorable light does not fall on her, but upon the king. He appears so thoughtless that one is quite prepared to expect still other rash and inconsiderate acts from him.

Est 1:13-15. The Kings Inquiry.When the king said to the wise men, which knew the times.To know the times means to judge the times as did the astrologers and magicians, according to the heavenly phenomena, and to give counsel corresponding thereto, (comp. Dan 2:27; Dan 5:15; Isa 44:25; Isa 47:13; Jer 50:35). But it also means in a general sense to be learned; for according to the expressions following, these wise men were likewise those skilled in the law. For so, adds the author, (was) the kings manner toward all that knew law and judgment. does not here mean the word of the king, for then we might expect, instead of , a preposition expressive of direction; but it is a matter of the king, i.e., all that relates to the king, or what he undertakes.

Est 1:14. And the next to him or standing nearest to him,thus the explanation becomes clear, were Carshena, Shethar,etc.There is no doubt that all seven should be named as standing before the king, and not the first only.15 The sing. has application to the second and third no less than to the first, and is, therefore, equal to a neuter plural. The sense, however, is clear. By these words, the wise were meant, the chief persons, who during and after consultation were to have a word before the king in this matter. The clause which saw the kings face, expresses their intimate relation to the king, and their great and high preference in an especially significant manner, since the approach to the king was very difficult. The seven princes that had conspired against the Pseudo-Smerdis had a perfect understanding that it should be permitted them to enter at any time into the presence of the king, who had been elected from their midst, and that, too, without previous announcement (see Herod, iii. 84). But that these princes themselves formed the court either before or after the event spoken of here, although mentioned as the seven princes of the Medes and Persians, is not to be assumed. Those seven before mentioned did not, as did these, belong to the learned class, to the selected counsellors of the king, although they had intercourse with the king. These were the seven supreme counsellors (comp. Ezr 7:14), who formed a complement to the seven Amshaspands.16 The number seven, which is retained by the Persians in Est 1:5, and again in Est 2:9, was originally instituted because of the seven planets, or the weekly cycle, or finally with regard to the seven Amshaspands. Perhaps its being composed of the numbers three and four gave it significance. , first =presiding, is, first of all, to preside, constituting the highest authority. The feminine is a substitute for the adverb (comp. Gen 33:2; Num 2:9).

Est 1:15. First, here, the discourse of the king follows. They are asked: What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law? is expressly prefixed here, and that without the article; hence, legally.Because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus.Thus the king expresses himself, instead of simply saying: my word; since this was just the matter that came into consideration, that it was the kings word. For the rest comp. Est 1:12 and notes.

Est 1:16-20. The Courtiers Reply.Memucan, although last mentioned among the seven, is spokesman, doubtless after the wise men had had a consultation. For is here the same as in Est 1:14, as is shown by the Keri. The assumption is natural that the Scriptio defectiva was really employed, and that the was added later by the Masoretes. This is evident, further, in Est 1:5, where the full form is distinguished as having been added by them at the wrong place. Feuardent thinks that, according to a more general custom, the last of the seven responded first lest he might seem to say aught in view of the favor and protection of the chiefs and elders, but on the contrary out of mere liberty, and the full determination of his own will and judgment. But Memucan seems to have spoken first not only here, but also above; hence he seems to have been chairman (spokesman). He judges the offense of the queen very strictly in order to justify a severe verdict. But he also correctly premises that the offenses of persons high in office, on account of the influence which their examples will have, are punishable in a very high degree. Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only,etc. with occurs only here.17

Est 1:17. For (this) deed of the queen shall come abroad to all women. with ,usually with . They shall despise, properly, make them to despise, their husbands in their eyes.Those that despise are of course the wives, as is clear from the connection with . The masc. form of the suffix is substituted for the fem. form.

Est 1:18. (Likewise) shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the kings princes. is used in its direct meaning. What the speaker means to say is, as regards the rest of the lower women, who were referred to in Est 1:17. It may take a long time before the new law of the court shall have come to the knowledge of all, because some will hear of it later. But the princesses who live at the court and who have immediate news of Vashtis conduct, will relate what has been indicated in Est 1:17. After the same sentence is to be understood as follows: in Est 1:17; for the last words of the verse : Thus (shall there arise) too much contempt and wrath, cannot be construed into the definition of an object in view, as Bertheau would have it, as if the Heb. stood before only as an attachment to the long phrase, but these form a separate sentence. The predicate; thus there shall arise, must be supplied. , really for a sufficiency, is by litotes, e.g., more than enough.

Est 1:19. This contains the verdict.If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him. occurs often in our book as also in Neh 2:5. , a word of the kingdom or a kings word (comp. Est 1:8), hence first of all a royal order.And let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered,i.e., let it have express legal authority, so that it must remain unaltered (comp. Dan 6:9).18That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. = (comp. Est 1:2), royal state, royal government, here means royal highness, dignity, = her female companions., as to its connections, is especially referable to obedience. It may be that Vashti was hated as being a proud, assuming person. But the severity of the sentence against her is explainable also in this, that there remained no alternative to the judges either to declare her innocent, which, as respects Ahasuerus, they could not do, or to make her for ever harmless. Even if she had again obtained an influence with the king, they would have had to expect her wrath.

Est 1:20. We here notice the consequence of the decree of the king.And when the kings decree, which he shall make, shall be published all the wives shall give to their husbands honour,etc. The predicate is chosen, since it makes a presupposition for the which is expressed. It is first of all neuter: when it shall be published (heard). , as in Ezr 4:17. may mean: which he shall execute, inasmuch as this decree would be sanctioned by the example of the king himself; otherwise: which he shall decree. Memucan reminds him of the greatness of the empire, since the success of the punishment and its importance is connected with it. , as in Est 1:5.

Est 1:21-22. The Decree Issued. The king accepts the proffered counsel and rejects Vashti; indeed he does even more. In order that her punishment may become as well-known as her offense, he sends letters into all the provinces;19 and in order that these may be intelligible, he writes according to the language of every province, and to every people in their own language.20That every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people. does not really indicate the substance of what was written this consists of the rejection of Vashti and the reasons therefor but only its aim. Yet this object, strange as it may have sounded, has nevertheless received sufficient prominence. Feuardent thinks that the edict may be explained on the ground that there was too much petticoat government in Persia. But there exists no proof of such an assertion. It is true, in Est 5:10, that Haman drew his wife into the council of consultation, but his friends first. It may be asked, what is the sense and connection of the phrase, and (it) should be published according to the language of every people. Older commentators and also Keil find therein only a command, that a man in his own house should speak his own native language. Hence if he was possessed of one or more foreign wives, who spoke a different language, they should be compelled to learn his language and speak only in it. Thereby the man was to show his authority as master of his own house.21 But if we apprehend this decree in such a general manner, it would not only have been a very peculiar, but also a separate edict, and it would apply in fact to the rejection of queen Vashti, neither in its object, nor yet in its communication. It might much better have read thus, that the wives speak the language of their husbands people. Hence Bertheau, according to Hitzigs advice, changed to : (and every one) shall speak what to him is appropriate; but this would introduce a thought foreign to the subject, and besides according to Est 3:8, should have before it. Perhaps the meaning is this: that he speak, etc., in short, that he have the right to use his peoples language in his own house, even though he have a foreign wife; moreover that it is obligatory upon his wife to so far learn the language of her husband that she may understand the orders he may give in it. This phrase receives further light from the consequence which would follow upon the usurpation of the wife, since she would then compel her husband to learn her own language.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

On Est 1:1-12. 1. Ever and anon the question arises, whether there is not upon earth somewhere, a condition of true satisfaction and unclouded happiness. One very much desires such a state of things, and one is tempted to believe it, especially when regard is had to the most beautiful dreams of the past, which had the appearance of bright promises. But this is not all. In spite of all assurances and experiences to the contrary, one is ever inclined to think that the world, and especially its lords, could give an affirmative answer to our question.

At the very beginning of our book there is unfolded to our eyes a picture full of riches and affluence, full of splendor and glory. Whatever is beautiful to look upon, whatever is enjoyable to the taste, whatever could rejoice the heart and elevate the soul, is here combined. A ruler, whose height of power leaves hardly anything to be desired, who has united under his sceptre the most powerful, the richest, and most celebrated nations, from India to thiopia, has called together the chief men of the various countries, and they are gathered around him in the beautifully situated and magnificently built city of the lilies, the most beautiful of all Persian residences (comp. Neh 1:1), there to revel in luxury and enjoyment. He, it seems, is happy to be their ruler, and they are happy as his subjects. At the same time the women are also called to this festive enjoyment. The higher in station mingle on equal terms with those lower, and all celebrate and enjoy the occasion together. It seems as if every one must feel happy in his place. Yet the old adage asserts itself that the world, the rich, the high, the proud world possesses least of that which we here seek. It may be said, indeed, of this world alone, that it passes away with all its pleasures, and that its apparent wealth at last becomes sheer poverty. Ahasuerus, who is admired because of his greatness and lauded as happy by so many, is deeply humiliated; a woman dares to defy his command, and his joy is changed to anger and chagrin. Again, all the efforts that he makes to remove the object of his disappointment serve but to complete his misfortune. However widely and effectually his power may be felt, he is still only a man, and as such he has human needs. The empire cannot displace his house. All the wealth of earth cannot give him the joy that one person does, who submits herself entirely to him. Her he cannot gain by his measures, but rather she becomes for ever lost to him by those very measures. Vashti, however, this second person at the highest point of worldly glory, now sees the crown of her exalted station and her happiness torn to pieces. For her the day of highest joy becomes the day of her misfortune. The subjects; who had to bear the cost of these feastings, must have groaned and sighed the most in advance, instead of rejoicing. Feuardent: David once called water blood, because it had been drawn at the manifest risk of life on the part of his chieftains, and he therefore held it wrong to drink of it. But. from anothers hide, as the proverb goes, since shoe-strings are cut by chiefs.

1. There is but One, whoHimself ever blessedcan make all kings and nations truly happy with the great wealth of His treasury. He also will bring to pass that if those whose beauty ought to be His honor and joymankind, whose love would have given Him more pleasure than a man would find in the love of his wife if these will not come to Him, will not honor nor rejoice Him, indeed if all but one family desire each to go their own way; yet has this its ground in His highest, in His most liberal greatness, by which He has found means from the very beginning to unfold more and more the wealth of His glorious kingdom, in contrast with such stubbornness, and especially to reveal to us the riches of His grace.
2. Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, who had received this great and powerful kingdom from Darius his father, and who now governed it in its fullest extent, possessed the greatest glory among the people of his own time and those succeeding, as being the greatest and most powerful king. And in the feast, which in our chapter he instituted, he made it his special business to maintain this distinction to its fullest extent. But it is this very feast that while it reveals his greatness, also reminds us of his weakness. Perhaps even then many of his friends felt that he did not quite de-serve all the distinction that he claimed for himself. By reason of his thoughtlessness and folly and this may not have been the first time when these were manifested, though he now revealed them in a more public manner before the eyes of his princeshe demanded of the queen what was against all custom and good breeding. This lapse in moral strength of which he was guiltyin that he lived more for sensual gratification than for the duties of his governmentespecially reveals the fact that, though never so mighty a king and ruler, yet in fact in himself he was nothing more than a poor slave.
3. While Ahasuerus was intent to show how far the limits of his empire extended, by calling to his court the governors of the most distant provinces, he found in close proximity, yea, in his very house, insubordination to his will. Though he knew how to punish it, yet he could not conquer it, nor turn it into obedience to his wishes.
There is, therefore, a power higher than that of man, were he even the mightiest ruler of earth. Though the latter may prescribe laws and issue commands, the former has long ago set in order His ordinances, indeed stamped them on the very face of nature so deeply, so ineffaceably and unchangeably, that in contrast with human commands, they appear holy and irrefragable, and in case of a conflict bear away the palm of victory. To obey human laws may be a sacred duty; but to follow dutifully the eternally divine ordinances, is a holy and most glorious privilege, which no one must permit to be abrogated. To disobey human commands may be dangerous, may bring temporal disadvantage, but to despise Gods laws is degrading, and will bring eternal ruin. If an earthly ruler with his laws come into conflict with divine ordinances, he will begin a war in which he will finally be destroyed. Feuardent: Not even the heathens were unaware, under the instruction of Plutarch, that a man ought to govern his wife as the soul does the body, not as a master does a beast.

Starke: Great pleasure is often followed by equally great displeasure. Occasions of joyous feasting commonly end in sorrow (1Ma 9:41). Wine disperses sorrow and rejoices the heart of man (Sir. 31:32 sq.). In a drinking-company all kinds of useless counsels are generally brought forth (Wis 2:10). Men with men, women with women, thus it was among the heathen, and so should it also be among us Christians. How much that is unchaste would thereby be avoided, which is usually found in such gatherings (Sir 19:2). Although beauty is a gift of God, still one should not make a boast of it nor yet be proud (Pro 31:30). Pride occasions much sorrow, and often plunges others into destruction (Sir 3:30; Pro 29:23; 1Pe 5:5).

On Est 1:13-22. 1. The wise men, on whom Ahasuerus depends to give a decision as to how Vashti should be treated, are both judges and masters of ceremonies. They are to execute law and justice, but they are also to see to it that court-etiquette be maintained. Instead of at once following out the suggestions of his wrath, and doing what he thinks best to be done, Ahasuerus subjects himself to an objective willpower, namely that of law and custom. This in itself is great and beautiful. This is the victory of culture over crudeness and passion. But in the manner in which this is done here, it amounts to nothing after all. We seem to feel in advance that nothing good will come of it. It sounds to us as if the advice of Memucan came from a court of judgment: where what was held to be light is changed into darkness, and what was deemed to be sweet is changed into bitterness. The queens act, which was at the most but a trivial mistake, is now stamped as a dark crime, and this sentence is supported by them with learned reasons and wise references. There is guardianship of justice and of morals which is nothing more than hypocrisy, by means of which injustice and violence are made a cloak for the performance of abominable deeds. Hence we must seek to know, not what pleases man, but what pleases God. What is good and beautiful in itself is to be sought after. Feuardent: All might have been explained in a milder sense, and a reasonable excuse might have been offered. She was forbidden to enter that promiscuous assembly by the very modesty which is a womans chief ornament.

2. However wisely the counsellors of Ahasuerus counsel together, yet all their wisdom in truth is nothing but folly; to such a degree as to cause us to smile, but yet pity. They would forestall the assumptions of the women, and would protect the respect due to men. They suppose that they firmly ground the honor of man, if they suppress the rights of woman. They do not perceive that if they compel woman to be subject to them, even to the sacrifice of her modesty, they will divest her of all humanity, and thereby make her truly and offensively bold and arrogant. Ahasuerus appears equally foolish. By not rendering a decision himself, but deferring to his court for judgment, he would protect himself from the reproach of cruelty and blind passion. But the real responsibility nevertheless falls upon him. Nor does he by any means guard himself against the great loss of a wife, of whom he has been so proud, and whose merits he will so soon be compelled to recognise. Now the question remains, Were other heathen princes or judges really any wiser? We know that it has ever pleased God to bring to shame the wisdom of the world; and we would not hazard much, were we to say that the folly of Ahasuerus and his counsellors would be found repeated more or less in all human measures and arrangements which have not proceeded from a fear of God, but have reference solely to human desire, inclination, and advantage. The divine law only is truly wise, and those who are led thereby are surely protected from loss. Though that law pronounces sentence of banishment against those who are rebellious, still it is just; and even those so banished, if they but come to themselves and look within, must recognise its justice. It only rejects these, to make room for all those who do turn within and strive to give place to grace.

Starke: Est 1:13-15. For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God (Jam 1:20). Est 1:16-18. Thus it is ever in the world: as long as one is able to stand, others run to aid, knowing that their help is not needed. When, however, signs of falling are seen, all help to push him down. Est 1:19. True counsellors must set aside all respect for private interests, they must keep their eyes fixed upon public dangers. They must exert themselves to avert general misfortune, though thereby they even endanger their own welfare. Oh that all great lords would have respect to the laws of the great God, as they desire to have their laws respected! Gods law is truly of such a nature and obligatory character upon us that it neither can nor should be changed. Est 1:20-21. This is the manner of all great lords; when their honor is insulted, they are very severe, and promptly bring their laws into execution. But when Gods honor is insulted, then they are easily quieted, and can readily and quickly change their purposes.

Footnotes:

[1][Est 1:2. , whence , denotes properly a fortress, hence the capital.Tr.]

[2][Est 1:3. , a drinking, i.e., a banquet, in which the wine was the principal feature, as represented freely on the Assyrian monuments.Tr.]

[3][Est 1:3. , military force.Tr.]

[4][Est 1:3. , a Persian word Hebraized. As it is here in the absolute form, it does not qualify provinces following, but stands as an official designation, probably of civil rank at court.Tr.]

[5][Est 1:18. The English Version has unwarrantably transposed this clause (which have heard, etc.), which belongs to ladies, etc., above.Tr.]

[6][Est 1:22. here evidently signifies the style of writing peculiar to each province. Thus the cuneiform differs according to the several districts of the Persian empire.Tr.]

[7][We condense the following summary of the argument on the identity of the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther, from McClintock & Strongs Cyclop. s. v. Ahasuerus. From the extent assigned to the Persian empire (Est 1:1), from India even unto Ethiopia, it is proved that Darius Hystaspis is the earliest possible king to whom this history can apply, and it is hardly worth while to consider the claims of any after Artaxerxes Longimanus. But Ahasuerus cannot be identical with Darius, whose wives were the daughters of Cyrus and Otanes, and who in name and character equally differs from that foolish tyrant. Josephus (Ant. XI. 6,1)makes him to be Artaxerxes Longimanus; but as his twelfth year (Est 3:7) would fall in B. C. 454, or 144 years after the deportation by Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 598 (Jer 52:28), Mordecai, who was among those captives (Est 2:6), could not possibly have survived to this time. Besides, in Ezr 7:1-7; Ezr 7:11-26, Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, issues a decree very favorable to the Jews, and it is unlikely, therefore, that in the twelfth (Est 3:7) Haman could speak to him of them as if he knew nothing about them, and persuade him to sentence them to an indiscriminate massacre. Nor is the disposition of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as given by Plutarch and Diodorus (XI. 71), at all like that of this weak Ahasuerus. It therefore seems necessary to identify him with Xerxes, whose regal state and affairs tally with all that is here said of Ahasuerus (the names being, as we have seen, identical); and this conclusion is fortified by the resemblance of character, and by certain chronological indications (see Rawlinsons Hist. Evidences, p. 150 sq.). As Xerxes scourged the sea, and put to death the engineers of his bridge because their work was injured by a storm, so Ahasuerus repudiated his queen, Vashti, because she would not violate the decorum of her sex, and ordered the massacre of the whole Jewish people to gratify the malice of Haman. In the third year of the reign of Xerxes was held an assembly to arrange the Grecian war (Herod. VII. 7 sq.); in the third year of Ahasuerus was held a great feast and assembly in Shushan the palace (Est 1:3). In the seventh year of his reign Xerxes returned defeated from Greece, and consoled himself by the pleasures of the harem (Herod. IX. 108); in the seventh year of his reign fair young virgins were sought for Ahasuerus, and he replaced Vashti by marrying Esther. The tribute he laid upon the land and upon the isles of the sea (Est 10:1) may well have been the result of the expenditure and ruin of the Grecian expedition.Tr.]

[8][The principal purpose of this clause is to distinguish the Achashverosh in question from all other Persian monarchs bearing that general or regal title, by adding the extent of his dominion. It thus becomes, as was evidently intended, an important chronological datum.Tr.]

[9][We are not obliged to suppose that all or any of the governors were present during the whole period of festivity. Rather we may conclude that the time was extended in order to allow of the different persons making their appearance at the court successively. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[10][Nothing could be more appropriate than this method at Susa and Persepolis, the spring residences of the Persian monarchs. A massive roof, covering the whole expanse of columns, would be too cold and dismal; whereas curtains around the central group would serve to admit both light and warmth. Loftus. TR]

[11][Herodotus mentions (IX. 8082) the immense quantities of gold and silver vessels of various kindswhich we know from the monuments were of the most elegant style and costly ornamentationtogether with couches and tables of the precious metals, besides various colored awnings (), which Xerxes carried with him on his expedition to Greece.Tr.]

[12][If the Ahasuerus of Esther is rightly identified with Xerxes, Vashti should be Amestris, whom the Greeks regard as the only legitimate wife of that monarch, and who was certainly married to him before he ascended the throne. In that case the name may be explained either by corruption of Amestris, or as a title; and it may be supposed that the disgrace recorded was only temporary; Amestris in the latter part of Xerxes reign recovering her former dignity. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[13][ These names, being those of eunuchs, are not unlikely to be of foreign origin. They have generally but little resemblance to known Persian names. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[14]It has been said that this is invariable, and indicates an ignorance of Persian customs on the part of the author. But even De Wette allows that such an act is not out of harmony with the character of Xerxes (Einleitung, 198, a, note 6); and it is evidently related as something strange and unusual. Otherwise the queen would not have refused to come. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[15][These names have a general Persian cast, though they are difficult of identification. They have probably suffered to some extent for corruption (i.e., transcription into Hebrew); and perhaps they were not even at first very close to the Persian originals. In Marsena we may perhaps recognize the famous Mardonius, and in Admatha Xerxes uncle, Artabanus. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[16][According to Herodotus (. 84), there were seven families of the first rank in Persia, from which alone the king would take his wives. Their chiefs were entitled to have free access to the kings person. The Be-histun Inscription, which gives Darius six coadjutors in his conspiracy, confirms the Greek writer. Rawlinson Tr.]

[17][It is not surprising that the judgment delivered by Memucan was one of condemnation, for it was rarely indeed that any Persian subject ventured to offer opposition to the mildest caprice or to the most extravagant whim of the monarch. (See Herodotus . 31, 35). Rawlinson.Tr.]

[18][The theoretical inviolability of the laws of the Persians is often touched on by the Greek writers. Practically the monarch, if he chose, could always dispense with the law. It was therefore quite within his power to restore Vashti to her queenly dignity, notwithstanding the present decree, if he so pleased. RawlinsonTr.]

[19][The Persian system of posts is described with some minuteness both by Herodot. (VIII. 98) and Xenophon (Cyrop. VIII. 6). The incidental notices in this Book (see chaps. Est 3:12-15; Est 8:9-14) are in entire harmony with the accounts of the classical writers. Herodotus describes the system as in full operation under Xerxes. Rawlinson.Tr.]

[20][The practice of the Persians, to address proclamations to the subject-nations in their own speech, and not merely in the language of the conqueror, is illustrated by the bilingual and trilingual inscriptions of the Achmonian monarchs, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes Ochus, each inscription being of the nature of a proclamation. RawlinsonTr.]

[21][This decree has been called absurd and quite unnecessary in Persia (Davidson). If the criticism were allowed, it would be sufficient to observe that many absurd things were done by Xerxes (see Herod. VII. 35; IX. 108111). But it may be questioned whether the decree was unnecessary. The undue influence of women in domestic, and even in public affairs, is a feature of the ancient Persian monarchy. Herodotus tells us that Alesia completely ruled Darius (VII., 3). Xerxes himself was. in his later years, shamefully subject to Amestris (ib. IX., 111). The example of the court would naturally infect the people. The decree, therefore, would seem to have been not so much an idle and superfluous act as an ineffectual protest against a real and growing evil. Rawlinson.Tr.]

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

CONTENTS

This book opens with the history of a great feast made by the king of Persia to his high lords and captains. The queen being sent for to the banquet, refuseth to come.

Est 1:1

(1) Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

It is not very material to enquire, and especially as the HOLY GHOST hath not shown, who this Ahasuerus was. It is more than probable it is the same with Artaxerxes, Ezr 4:6-7 .-But in respect to the extent of his empire, I think it more important to remark that it must have been a most extensive one. It was much larger than the one Daniel speaks of, Dan 6:1 . But Reader! think what a dominion is that of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, which is from sea to sea, and from the river even unto the ends of the earth. Think also, amidst all the greatness of Ahasuerus, how short and transient his reign was. Whereas JESUS reigneth forever, and of his duration and kingdom there shall be no end. Hail, thou glorious, thou almighty, thou universal and eternal monarch! Psa 72:17-19Psa 72:17-19 .

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

Empire Day

Est 1:6

Our text is from the first chapter of Esther, part of the sixth verse, ‘Red, and blue, and white,’ or, in more familiar order, red, white, and blue, those three great colours on the flag which has floated both in England and foreign parts over the whole of the British Empire.

What a strange power colours have in the nation’s history! We are familiar with the college colours, the dark blue of Oxford and the light blue of Cambridge; with school colours, the light blue of Eton and the dark blue of Harrow. We are familiar with the thought of the great power that the colours of uniforms have in the nation. We think of the red coats, the colour that Cromwell gave to the British Army, when he first of all clothed it in a special dress. We think of the blue jackets, the colour that you may see in Nelson’s coat in the Royal Institute in Whitehall, the first colour that a British sailor ever wore as an official uniform.

Let us take these colours separately.

I. Red. Red is the Bible colour for war. Red tells of battle; and we never can repeat too often the root-idea which is wrapped up in the present-day attitude of Christianity towards that red war. It is the attitude of a society which preaches that war is always a crime, is always wrong, but that there come days in the history of a nation when we have to choose between a greater crime and a lesser crime. We have to choose between that great crime, war and those of us who have seen anything of it know what it means but we know that great as that crime is, there is a greater crime, and that is, by a life of lazy indulgence to let our country be invaded and exposed to the horrors of a second siege of Jerusalem. It would be a greater crime to let the nation be exposed to the starvation, terribly increasing, that we are seeing about us today than to go to war and commit the lesser crime, crime though it be, of fighting. Let us look at the symbolical teaching of Trafalgar Square in London, an almost sacred spot for us English people. Go to that square. There, facing, fronting London, as it were, is the naval column of Nelson. What is behind? There is the representation first of the British Army; there are the monuments of Gordon, and Havelock, and Napier. Nelson stands in front of them. He keeps the British Navy that must defend the British Army. I look a little further behind and see the National Gallery that tells of Art and peace. What is it that makes the peaceful arts, the business life of the nation, possible? And I answer, If I see the symbolical teaching of Trafalgar Square, I see Nelson in front of all; I see the country in such a state of security as the British Navy alone makes it possible to be in.

II. White. There is another colour. It is white; and I learn that if the red, war, is indeed to float over England victoriously and successfully, then England’s cause must be a white cause. We must fight, not for greed, not for aggrandisement, not merely to increase our foreign possessions, but for a cause that has a clean slate behind it, for a cause that we can write down as the colour of the second colour in the great Union Jack a white cause.

III. Blue. Then there is that great colour, blue, our own naval colour. There is an expression which we English people are familiar with in connexion with the colour blue. It is this, ‘Be true blue’. Be true blue to your king. There have been times, there have been kings, when, and under whom, it has been difficult for the nation to stand loyally by, to be true blue to; but this is not the case now. On our great throne we have a King whose whole object is to keep the country at the high level at which his ancestors handed it down to him. Be true blue to your country. Be patriots.

IV. There is a Deeper Sense in which red, white, and blue will, I think, teach us all today.

( a ) The red, does it not tell of that great rebellion that is so visibly stalking our streets everywhere in the form of sin? What is sin but rebellion; and what have we to do but to enlist under the red banner of Him who was the soldiers’ God, and fight sin in whatever form it touches us, either personally or in our country?

( b ) Lead, the white life.

( c ) Be true to your Christ King. There is an old toast of the English nation, ‘Church and King’. First Church, and all the Church stands for, and then King. First another King, one Jesus. Be loyal to the Christ; fight for Him. Fight the good fight with all thy might, as He fought for you. ‘Fight for the right, by day and by night; fight for the red, white, and blue.’

Spiritual Diversity

Est 1:7

The text is, ‘The vessels being diverse one from another’. There is a principle in this statement; let us find that principle, and fear not to apply it. No two men are alike. Yet we speak of men as if they were one. They are one, but not in likeness. The root lies deeper than the appearance; the root is unity, the evolution is variety; but the variety does not destroy the unity. The great thing to be done is to realize unity in diversity, and diversity in unity.

I. There are no two sins alike. No two men sin in just the same way. Wherein is the satisfaction or the subtle delight? It is in this, that I can thank God that I do not sin as my neighbour sins. There is some originality about my iniquity, there is no originality about the other man’s iniquity. He who is strong at one point seeks to magnify his strength by comparing it with the weaknesses of other men. We want the inner criticism. No two sins are just alike; they are various in measure if not always various in quality, and are to be judged by the temperament of the men. When all is known much may be forgiven.

II. Men believe in different ways. We are not all equally gifted in faith. ‘Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.’ You have been made strong that you may help the weakness of other men. Do not boast of your greatness and your orthodoxy, your Pharisaic pride and pomp; but wherein the Spirit of Christ has laid hold on you and made you very strong in faith and mighty in prayer, remember that you are trustees of these abilities and privileges, that you may use them for the sake of the poor, the outcast, and the weak.

III. It is easy to add, but most necessary, that men work in different ways. The vessels of gold are diverse one from the other even in this matter of work. But if you do not work in my way what becomes of you? When will people let other people alone? when will they recognize individuality of conscience? when will they give men credit for doing the very best according to their ability. When will we remember that the vessels of God are diverse the one from the other, that each man must be himself and work in his own way according to his own ability; remembering all the time not to make himself offensive to people who work along other lines and policies?

What a brotherhood there would be amongst us if we all recognized this principle! No two experiences are alike. We are at liberty to talk one to another, but we are not at liberty to judge one another in this matter of spiritual experience.

Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. III. p. 223.

References. I. 7. A. P. Stanley, Sermons on Special Occasions, p. 98. I. 13-22. A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 29. II. 1-4. Ibid. p. 49. II. 1-20. A. Raleigh, The Book of Esther, p. 48. II. 5-20. A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 67. II. 21-23; III. 1-5. Ibid. p. 89. III. 6-11. Ibid. p. 108.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Est 1

1. Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia [Ethiopia paid tribute to Xerxes, or Ahasuerus], over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

2. That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan [the general abode of the Persian kings] the palace,

3. In the third year of his reign [483 b.c.], he made a feast [a successful campaign had just been finished in Egypt] unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles [the first like protos in Greek, and primus in Latin] and princes of the provinces being before him:

4. When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even an hundred and fourscore days [half a year].

5. And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace:

6. Where were white, green, and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine [white] linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds [couches] were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue [not names of colours, but of actual stones], and white, and black marble.

7. And they gave them drink in vessels of gold (the vessels being diverse one from another), and royal wine [wine of Helbon, Eze 27:18 ] in abundance, according to the state [hand] of the king.

8. And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure.

9. Also Vashti [beautiful] the queen made a feast for the [omit “the”] women in the royal house which belonged to the king Ahasuerus.

10. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains [eunuchs] that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king,

11. To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal [a tall cap decked with gems, and with a linen fillet of blue and white, called the diadem ], to show the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on.

12. But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.

13. Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times [the precedents], (for so was the king’s manner toward all that knew law and judgment:

14. And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes [the seven counsellors of Ezr 7:14 ] of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face, and which sat the first in the kingdom:)

15. What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?

16. And Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong [dealt unfairly] to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus.

17. For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not.

18. Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king’s princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath.

19. If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered [that it pass not away], That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.

20. And when the king’s decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire (for it is great), all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.

21. And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan:

22. For he sent letters [the Persian empire was the first to possess a postal system] into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people [ lit. be ruling in his own house, and speaking according to the language of his own people].

The Opening

IT is important to remember that there are three men mentioned in the old Testament under the name of Ahasuerus. If we forget this fact we shall now and then be in confusion as to certain ancient policies. The Ahasuerus mentioned in this chapter is supposed to be Xerxes, a man who ascended the throne 485 b.c. Twenty years afterwards he was murdered by two of his own officers. He had everything that heart could wish his eyes stood out with fatness yet his life was marked by dissipation and debauchery of an extreme degree He shows us just what man would be if he had everything he could desire, and if he were unrestrained by moral considerations This Xerxes had been flushed with his success in Egypt, his cheeks were red with glory, his eyes were ablaze with self-complacency. He was just meditating an invasion of Greece, and therefore he would have a feast worthy of the greatest of kings. He did not hesitate indeed to call himself king of kings. So here we have a feast extending over a hundred and eighty days, and more half a year’s eating and drinking, night and day. Let us see what happened under such circumstances. What could be better, what could be more conducive to real joy, to boisterous gladness, than a hundred and eighty days at the banqueting-table?

But first let us look at the external pomp of the occasion, and mark its vanity: he showed the nobles and princes of the provinces “the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty,” and the whole display took place in the grandest of palaces, “Where were white, green, and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble. And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another [no two vessels alike, so that sometimes the drinkers did not know which to praise the more, the drink or the goblet]) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state [that is, the estate, royalty, and splendour] of the king.” Sometimes we say, looking upon the abodes of poverty, What can we expect here of decency, moral education, and progress? See how the poor are huddled and crowded together, what can be looked for here but a hotbed bringing forth a most evil harvest? All that is right. Not a word in the speech would we change. But if there is any argument in it at all it is an argument that covers a large space. Here is a man who has room enough, he has everything at his command; if he wants gold or silver or precious stones, he can have them by a nod of his head: what can we expect here but piety, thankfulness, contentment, moral progress? Family life under such a canopy must be a daily doxology, a sweet hallowed thing more of heaven than of earth. This would be a fair application of the first argument, if there is anything in that first argument at all.

Observe the vanity of the royal external condition. There was nothing else to live for. Here is a man who lived for time and sense: a new goblet was a delight, another horse was another kingdom; he had no vision beyond for which he cared; what heaven he had was in theory; we read nothing of his morals, his conduct, his spiritual inspiration; he is wrapped round and round with an infinite bandage of inventory. If it had not been so history would have been lacking in one important lesson. We should have said, Give a man enough of this world, and you will find him almost a god. There have been men here and there who have had the world thrust upon them, and the only element that was wanting under all the burden of their riches was the element of godliness. It is difficult to carry heaven in one hand and the earth in the other: “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Yet men do not believe these stories of Ahasuerus and of Solomon. If they did, their whole course of life would be altered; their domestic expenses would be reduced to a minimum. But the whole struggle of modern life is exactly after the first chapter of the Book of Esther and the first chapter of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Every Ahasuerus thinks he could do better than his namesake, and every new Solomon says that he would never play the fool as the old one did. What little toy-houses are ours as compared with this palace; and yet we will persist Why do we not believe history? Why do we not accept the verdict that it is not in time or sense, in gold or precious stones, to make a man great or happy, to make him wise or bless him with the infinite fortune of contentment? When we have built up our little toy places, Ahasuerus looks down upon them, and smiles at the little honeycombs. His “beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble.” All these names are not colours; they are substances, they are jewels, they are precious works; there was not a single inch upon which a finger-tip could be laid that was not made the most of by artistic skill. Yet it was an elaborate tomb, a magnificent sarcophagus! Still, how we spin and spin, and toil and imagine, and dream, and get things together, and when it is all done our little snowball of success is looked down upon by the Jungfraus and Mont Blancs with unutterable disdain. When will men come to learn that a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth; that he is most jewelled who has no jewellery; that he only is great who is great in soul? Never will the world learn that lesson, would be the verdict if the judges limited their inferences to immediate fact and experience. The purpose of the cross of Christ was to destroy all these little jewel-caskets, and all these toy inventions, and to bring men to feel that the body itself is a burden, and is only to be tolerated as necessary to the cultivation and development of the soul.

See what even kings are when morally uneducated and unrestrained! A man who sleeps on a bed of gold must wake up to do good. So one would think. The reasoning seems to be solid and transparent. He who spends a night under a canopy of silver, and opens his eyes upon all things lovely, must hasten away to make all men as wise and happy as himself. It is not in the world to make heavenly minds. This is the necessity of the case. There is nothing in bread, or gold, or fine raiment, or pomp, or vanity, that can touch the soul. But this lesson the poor moralist may urge for ever, and he will only be plying the drowsy attention of reluctant ears. We still think that the philosopher’s stone will be found tomorrow. That streak of superstition runs through the devoutest minds. We go down to the marketplace to bring back what the marketplace never sold; we say to one another, Good-bye, until eventide, and from marketplace, exchange, emporium, I will bring back a divine benediction; and when we bring back the reticule that was to have contained the prize, behold it is an empty basket. Yet man grows no wiser! The moment Sunday passes away like a ghost, a wraith of time on which man would never willingly gaze, he seizes Monday as it were by the throat and says, Give me peace, contentment, rest; and the poor day says, It is not in my keeping not in time, but in eternity must immortal men find safe footing and perfect calm.

We must beware of the sophism in both sides of a very popular argument, namely, that if men had enough they would be good, and because men have not enough what can they be but bad. Character is not in circumstances. The poorest people have, in no solitary instances easily numbered, most vividly illustrated the purest and noblest character. There are kings who are paupers; there are paupers who are kings. How long should the moralist preach this truth? He will preach it many a year in the wilderness, and his best hearers will go immediately after his voice has ceased and buy another rim of gold. We owe everything to moral education we owe nothing to kingly splendour. If any king has ever done anything for the world, he did it because he was a good man, not merely because he was a titular king. Every known moral gift is consecrated to the lower faculties; how to make the body stronger, fairer, is the great question of the sensualist. Paint it; take grey-haired nature and steep her in the dye-tub, and make her young with colour! Is this the speech of immortal man, divinest creature of God? Yes, it comes to that, if we have nothing but gold, and marble, and paint, and palace, and crown. How can we expect a road to end in two opposite directions? This is precisely what men are doing who imagine that by travelling the road of great state and splendour they will come into heaven. The road does not lie in that direction. Suppose you seek a city in the south, and I direct you upon a northern road, by what terms would you describe my direction and my spirit? Suppose I saw you walking south in order to get north, and never said a word about it, would you account me neighbourly, civil, friendly, just when by one word I could have put you on the right course? When I see a man mounting a horse with a view of riding to heaven, I feel bound to tell him that he is a fool, and will never get there. There is no bridle-path to heaven; it is a way of the cross, and self-immolation, and agonising prayer. No horse ever took a rider to heaven. Would you be great? Be great in soul.

Here is an opportunity for every man to be great great in patience, in self-control, in charity, in magnanimity. A man is great because he takes great views of others, conceives liberal things for God and carries them out with both hands. So the poorest may be rich; the giver of mites may throw the giver of gold into contempt. What say we of working the miracles of goodness, of speaking to those who have no friends, of visiting the uttermost abodes of poverty and the lowest tenements of distress? All the miracles of goodness are yet to be done. Miracles of power have dazzled the vision of history, now we may not show the glory, but we may disclose the goodness of God. Surely a palace will be a sanctuary. The palace of this man was worse than a stable. Surely in the presence of beauty men must grow beautiful? This man looked on beauty but did not see it, and perpetrated the irony of living amongst beautiful things until he became himself ghastly and hideous. How sad a thing when the house is greater than the tenant! How distressing a contradiction when the furniture is of greater value than the man who owns it! This was the case with the great Xerxes. No man had so many drinking-cups, no two guests had a cup of the same pattern; and as for the drinking of the royal wine, it was in abundance, the more it was drunk the more there seemed to be left to drink. Never did Pleasure hold such carnival; never were such Saturnalia known in all the earth. Yet the men did not retire from it heroes and chiefs of virtue and beneficence; they staggered away from it half beast, half devil.

Now we shall see some revelations of character. Notably we see how selfishness never considers the feelings of others. It occurred to the drunken king, when his heart “was merry with wine,” to consult the seven chamberlains that waited always upon Persian monarchs. The seven chamberlains were the seven heads of seven houses; they constituted a kind of domestic cabinet always consulted by the king on critical, delicate, or difficult occasions. The king commanded the chamberlains “to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the people and the princes her beauty” ( Est 1:11 ). Did he send a message to Vashti to ask if she would be willing? When was woman ever honoured out of Christ, who redeemed her from her social estrangement and solitude, and set her forth invested with the queenliness of a God-given beauty and modesty? Hear the king Fetch Vashti now, and make a show of her beauty, for she is fair to look upon. All this is in natural order. Selfishness never considers the feeling of others. Selfishness will be gratified at all costs and hazards. When a man’s heart is merry with wine, all that is most sacred in humanity goes out of him. Still the king is in search of jewels, he will now have a living diamond; he dashed his goblet to the earth and said, That is a dead thing fetch the living goblet, and let us drink blood, and feast our eyes upon throbbing beauty! Who can withhold anything from a ravenous beast? Who should stay his power, and say, Be quiet, be self-controlled, be contented? None. This is human nature when it is left to itself. Because we cannot do these things we must not reason that therefore they cannot be done. History is useful in so far as it sets before us what has actually been done by man. The king said, My wife is as my horse, my slave, my dog; if I order wife, or dog, or slave, or horse to stand before me, who should say me nay? Yet who can control the working of the Spirit of God? It may be that Vashti for the first time in her life will resist. We do not always know why we resist, why we commence new courses and policies of life; we are oftentimes a surprise to ourselves; we never could have believed that we could have been found in such and such relations, or uttering such and such words and vows. The heart of man is in the hand of the Lord. We can explain next to nothing.

We read in the twelfth verse that Vashti turned the whole occasion to new meanings.

“But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by his chamberlains” ( Est 1:12 ).

She too had a feast “for the women in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.” Was there any wine there? Not that we read of. Was the Persian law at all like the Roman law? for the Roman senate decreed that no woman should drink wine. Was this feast of Vashti’s a sober feast a feast fit for women? If so, her reason may have grown in strength and clearness, and her will in genuine moral dignity. Who knows what was said at the feast? An infamous old rabbin, whose bones ought to be exhumed and burned by the common hangman, said that speech descended in ten measures, and that woman ran away with nine of them. He was a rabbin! We cannot tell what is being plotted in other houses. When we feast ourselves we do not take in the whole situation: there is life below stairs, life on the other side of the street, life that makes no noise but that schemes well, and that has patience to complete the powder circuit before applying the fusee. Vashti said, No, I will not come, I will not be made a show of. “Therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him” literally, he frothed at the mouth, and became as a wild boar. The strength of manhood is in self-control. The Oriental king very soon became intolerably hot. He had a trick of anger. He could not brook that his will should be resisted. It is the very highest attainment of Christian education that a man shall accept the resistance of his will as an element in his culture: no man will seek to force his will; he will reason about it, he will be mighty in argument, tender and gentle in persuasion, and if he cannot win the first day or the second day he may be successful on the third day. But mere force never won a true victory. There may have been almost annihilation on the opposite side, but where there is one little spark left, that little spark hopes that it will become one day an avenging conflagration. Conquer by love, and you will reign by consent. Let men feel that your wisdom is greater than theirs, and they will say, God save the king! The time will come when every man will have to prove his kingliness, not because of the insignia that he keeps in the tower, but because of a wise head, a noble heart, and a hand that never refused its offices to an honest cause.

The chamberlains were as much overturned in their calculations as was the king. The question was

“What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasucrus by the chamberlains?” ( Est 1:15 ).

What shall be done with the opposing party? What shall be done with the impracticable element? What shall be done with novelty of conduct? And the seven chamberlains began to reason, saying,

“For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not. Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king’s princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath” ( Est 1:17-18 ).

It is an instructive sight to see statesmen and others puzzled over these social problems. What shall be done with the enemy? Lock him up! What shall be done with Vashti? Cut off her head! But will that end the matter? No, it will only begin it. Beheading is an excellent way of propagating truth. The martyrs have made Christian assembly in public and in daylight possible and agreeable. But said the advisers

“If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she” ( Est 1:19 ).

Well, said Ahasuerus, perhaps that is the best that can be done: let us have Home Rule: send the letters out at once, “to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house.” “Every man” what a perversion of language! “Bear rule,” what is “rule?” audacity, effrontery, tyranny? “In his own house” who has a house of his own? Let us hope that no man is “in his own house:” the house is a prison until somebody else divides it, shares it. Husband, the house is not your own except upon rent-day; then you can have it all. Wife, the house is not your own but the most of it is; it would be a poor, poor house if you were to turn your back upon it The house belongs to all the people that are in it part to the husband, part to the wife, part to the children, part to the servants, right through all the household line. Develop the notion of partnery, co-responsibility: let every one feel a living interest in the place: then the house shall be built of living stones, pillared with righteousness, roofed with love. It is here that Christianity shines out with unique lustre. Obedience is right for all parties, but the obedience is to be in the Lord, it is to be the obedience of righteousness, a concession to wisdom, a toll paid to honour, which is to be returned in love and gratitude. Christianity has made our houses homes. We owe everything that is socially beneficent to Christianity. O Jesus, Man of Bethlehem, who didst make every house radiant with morning light, dwell in our little house, break our bread, inspire our domestic economy; we want to be thy guests: let the house be ours only because it is thine!

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 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this [is] Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, [over] an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

Ver. 1. Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus ] This book is in the Hebrew called Esther, because she is a chief party therein mentioned and memorized. The Rabbis call it Megillath Esther, that is, the volume of Esther; and further tell us that there be five such volumes of Scripture books; viz. Solomon’s Song, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and this of Esther: which they use to read all over in their synagogues, five times a year. 1. Solomon’s Song at the Passover; in remembrance of their one time deliverance out of Egypt, and their future salvation by the Messiah. 2. Ruth at Pentecost; because therein is set down the genealogy of David their first king. 3. The Lamentations of Jeremiah on the ninth day of the fifth month (that is, of August); in regard to the Babylonian captivity, and ruin of the Temple. 4. Ecclesiastes, at the feast of Tabernacles; in a thankful remembrance of the Divine providence asserted in that book; and exercised over them in a special manner, when they wandered in the wilderness. 5. Lastly, this of Esther, on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar, or February; and as often as they hear mention of Haman, they do, even to this day, with their fists and hammers beat upon the benches and boards, as if they did beat upon Haman’s head (R. Abraham, Hispanus cognom, ). They tell us that this book was written by Mordecai himself, an eyewitness and a main party, according to Est 9:20 , and have ever reckoned it among the Chetubin or Hagiographa, that is, the books of Holy Scripture. Indeed, because they find not the name of God or Lord in this whole book, they have a custom to cast it to the ground before they read it. But they need not; for as the ancient heathens used to write upon their books, Y, Y , God, God, so might the Jews upon this; there being nowhere in Scripture found more remarkable passages and acts of God’s immediate providence for his calamitous people than in this. Surely (saith a great divine) like as a man by a chain made up of several links, some of gold, others of silver, some of brass, iron, or tin, may be drawn out of a pit; so (it may here be seen that) the Lord, by the concurrence of several subordinate things which have no manner of dependence or natural coincidence among themselves, hath wonderfully wrought the deliverance of his Church; that it might appear to be the work of his own hand.

In the days of Ahasuerus ] That is, of Xerxes, the terror of Greece, called Ahasuerosh, that is, a hereditary, begotten by king Darius, and born of a king’s daughter, viz. Atossa, daughter to Cyrus, and heir of the kingdom by lineal descent. Such a hereditary prince was our Henry VIII. Greek authors also call Xerxes, Oxyastris, and his wife Amestris, which seemeth to be the same as Esther, who is called Amestris by a like composition, saith an interpreter, as Haman’s father was called Ham-Adata, an honourable addition to a name among the Persians.

This is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia ] viz. Inclusive, ut loquuntur. This must needs be Xerxes; for he subdued Ethiopia, and thereupon made this great feast. He was lord, we see, of a very great part of the habitable world; as is now the Great Turk, not inferior in greatness and strength, to the mightiest monarchs that ever yet were upon the face of the earth. No part of the world is left untouched by him but America only; not more fortunate, saith one, with her rich mines, than in that she is so far from so great and dangerous an enemy. Nevertheless of all this greatness (belluine rather than genuine), what saith Luther? Turcicum imperium quantum quantum est, &c. The Turkish empire in its utmost extent is but a crust cast to his dogs, by the great housekeeper of the world. The inheritance he reserves for his children; who though held here to strait allowance, yet are far dearer to him than the world’s greatest darlings; as the poor captive Jews were, than this great emperor. Those that seek a mystery in this history tell us, that Ahasuerus typically representeth God the Father ruling over all kingdoms and creatures on earth; choosing some to be heirs of heaven, and purifying them for that purpose. Mordecai (signifying bitter and contrite) setteth forth Christ, say they, broken for our sins, and suffering the bitter wrath of God. Esther (being the same with Alma, Isa 7:14 , a pure virgin, secreted and secured from defilement) is a lively image of the Church, unspotted by the world, and provided for by her Mordecai. The disdainful Vashti (taking her name from Shatha, to drink) is a fit effigy of the world, proud and luxurious, and therefore excluded heaven. Haman (signifying a tumultuous and obstreperous person) represents the devil, restless and rageful, but to his own utter ruin, &c. These are pretty things, but not so proper. The Popish commentators are full of them.

Over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces ] Seven more than were in Darius the Mede’s time, Dan 6:1 . Monarchs will be still adding; and although a man were monarch of the whole world, yea, had the command of moon and stars, yet would he still be peeping beyond them for more, more. Herodotus reckons up sundry satrapies under the king of Persia, out of which he received, yearly, fourteen thousand five hundred and threescore Euboian talents: so that this monarchy is fitly compared (in Daniel) to the silver breast and arms in Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

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

Esther Chapter 1

Est 1 . We at once plunge into a remarkable feast made by the king Ahasuerus, who, I presume, is the one who is known in profane history as Xerxes. That is a matter of no great consequence – whether it was Xerxes or Artaxerxes, or even another who has been put forward as the true answer to it. We must remember that the title of Ahasuerus was a general one, just as Pharaoh was the general one in Egypt, and Abimelech among the Philistines; that is, there were many Pharaohs and many Abimelechs. So also among the Persians there were several that bore the name of Ahasuerus. Which Ahasuerus is meant is a question, but it is a matter of no importance; if it were, God would have told us. I presume, however, that it was really Xerxes, partly because of the character of the man – a man of prodigious resources, unbounded wealth, immense luxury and vanity – a man, too, of the most arbitrary and capricious character. We shall see this in his conduct towards his wife; we shall see it, too, in his conduct towards the Jew. We shall see, accordingly, the history of a remarkable part of this capricious monarch’s reign; for if there was a single Persian king with whom it might have been supposed to go hard with the Jew it was this one. Darius was a great admirer of Cyrus, and, consequently, a great friend of the Jews. Xerxes was a friend of nobody but himself. He was just simply a man who lived to please himself – to gratify his tastes and passions according to the ample means which the providence of God had placed in his hands, but which he wasted on his own luxury, as, alas I most men do.

Well, he is here shown to us in that epoch of the Persian empire when it consisted, not of 120 provinces only, which was the case when Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, reigned. We find in the Book of Daniel that there were seven provinces added afterwards through conquest. Xerxes reigned at a time, therefore, when the Persian empire was in the height of its glory and its resources, and he has all the pomp and circumstance of the empire around him – all the grandees and satraps of his vast empire. Under these circumstances it is that he calls for Vashti, who refuses to come. This provoked the capricious and arbitrary monarch. Vashti disobeyed the king. She refused according to the peculiar love of retirement which characterised Persian women. She refused to meet his wishes. He would display her beauty to all the world, and she declined. The consequence was that the king seeks counsel with his nobles, and one of them ventures upon very bold advice, namely the dismissal of Vashti. This, accordingly, is the first great step in the providence of God brought before us in the book, and all the remarkable issues follow.

Now, this of itself even, is of the greatest interest; but then there is more than this. The book not only is a book of providence – God’s secret providence – when He could not name His name in behalf of His people – in behalf of the Jews in their poor and dispersed condition among the Gentiles; but, further, it is typical of the great dealings of God that are yet to be, because what, mainly, does the book open with ? This – the great Gentile wife of the great king is discarded, and the singular fact comes that a Jewess takes her place. I cannot doubt, myself, that it is what will follow when the Gentile has proved himself disobedient, and has failed in displaying the beauty that should be in the testimony of God before the world. In short, it is what is going on now; that is, at this present time, the Gentile is the one that holds a certain position before God in the earth. The Jew, as you are aware, is not the present witness of God, but the Gentile. The Gentile has utterly failed. According to the language of the 11th of Romans, the branches of the wild olive – the Gentile – will be broken off, and the Jew will be grafted in again. Well, Vashti is the Gentile wife that is discarded for her disobedience and failure in displaying her beauty before the world. That is what Christendom ought to do. The Gentile, I say, will be broken off and dismissed, and the Jew will be brought in. This is what is represented by the call of Esther. She becomes the object of the great king’s affections, and displaces Vashti, who is never restored. But I merely give this remark by the way to show the typical connection of the book with the great course of God’s counsels in scripture.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Est 1:1-4

1Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, 2in those days as King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne which was at the citadel in Susa, 3in the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his princes and attendants, the army officers of Persia and Media, the nobles and the princes of his provinces being in his presence. 4And he displayed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor of his great majesty for many days, 180 days.

Est 1:1 Now it took place in the days of The Handbook on the Book of Esther mentions that this was a common opening term (BDB 224, KB 243 Qal IMPERFECT), used to link the current events (or story) with previous events (p. 13). The same term introduces the biblical books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & 2 Samuel, Nehemiah, Ezekiel, and Jonah. Esther also concludes with a standardized ending used in 1 Kings (cf. 1Ki 14:19; 1Ki 14:29; 1Ki 15:23). The author obviously expects it to be understood as history.

Ahasuerus This is the Hebrew spelling of the name (cf. Ezr 4:6, BDB 31, KB 37). He is known in history by his Greek name, Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.). The Persian name is Khshayarsha. He is the son of Darius I Hystapes (522-486 B.C.) and grandson of Cyrus (550-530 B.C.). Both the Septuagint and Josephus identify him as Xerxes’ successor, Artaxerxes I. Most historians and Bible commentators agree that Esther relates to the reign of Xerxes I.

India This would refer to the land of the Indus River, which for us would be in the area of modern Pakistan. It was conquered by Darius I (Herodotus 3.94-106).

Ethiopia This would refer to the large territory south of the First Cataract of the Nile, including southern Egypt, Sudan, and parts of Ethiopia (BDB 468 I), which was conquered by Cambyses (530-522 B.C.).

over 127 provinces The Persian Empire covered most of the ancient Near East. It included many ethnic groups and nationalities (cf. Est 9:30). The Persians allowed these groups much local autonomy. Over several provinces there was a regional administrator called a satrap and many lesser officials. Xerxes I’s father, Darius, had 20 satraps (cf. Herodotus 3.89).

Est 1:2 Susa Susa (called Sushan in Hebrew) was originally the capital of Elam, located on the Kerkha River. It is an ancient city, even mentioned in early Sumerian documents (3000 B.C.). It became the eastern regional capital of the Persian Empire. The city was expanded and beautified under Darius I. Its climate was so hot that the Persian kings used it primarily in winter.

NASBthe capital

NKJV, NRSV,

NJBthe citadel

TEVcapital city

This Hebrew term (BDB 108, KB 123, from an Assyrian loan word) could refer to a city fortress (cf. Ezr 6:2; Neh 2:8; Dan 8:2), a palace, or even a fortified temple (cf. Neh 7:2; 1Ch 29:1; 1Ch 29:19). Here it refers to the inner fortress in a large, walled city. This city is also the location of chapter 1 of Nehemiah.

Est 1:3 in the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all We know from history that Xerxes I gave a great feast to plan his military campaign against Greece (cf. Herodotus 7.19). This occurred after his conquest of Egypt. The third year of Xerxes I would be 483 B.C.

Persia and Media Cyrus is the first king of the combined Media-Persian Empire. The term Media comes first in Daniel because Cyrus was king of Media before he became king of Babylon and Persia. Persia was the more powerful of the two nations and by Esther’s time the order of the names had switched (cf. Est 1:3; Est 1:14; Est 1:18-19), however, in Est 10:2 they are reversed.

Est 1:4 180 days Some see here two different feasts, one lasting 180 days (Est 1:4) and one lasting 7 days (Est 1:5). A better understanding of the Hebrew text is that these Persian leaders were given 180 days to assemble on a certain day for a seven day feast in Susa, the capital.

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

Now it came to pass in the days of. See important note of Rabbinical commentators on Gen 14:1.

Ahasuerus = the venerable king. An appellative, like Pharaoh, Czar, Shah, &c. See notes on p. 618 and App-57 and App-68.

this. Implying that others were so called, from whom lie is to be distinguished. This Ahasuerus was Astyages (Greek), Arsames (Persian). See App-67 and App-58. “This Ahasuerus” emphasizes the one who was specially renowned. Figure of speech Parenthesis.

from India even unto Ethiopia: i.e. the two extreme boundaries of the known world.

an hundred and seven and twenty provinces. Dan 6:1 says 120 princes. The number continually altered to suit the requirements of government. Only in Dan 6:1 do we find 120. Plato says that “when Darius (i.e. ‘the Maintainer’ = Astyages) came to the throne, being one of the seven, he divided the country into seven portions” (De Legibus iii). These are the seven named in verses: Est 1:13-14. When Babylon afterward fell into his hands, he divided his newly acquired kingdom into 120 part3 (Dan 9:1. Compare Est 6:1). Why should he not have added these to the seven he already possessed, and thus have made the 127 of Est 1:1; Est 9:30? In the later days of Darius (Hystaspis) these had reduced to twenty-three, as stated and named on the Behistun inscription.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Let us turn to the book of Esther for our study.

The book of Esther is not in a chronological order in these books of history. If the book of Esther were placed in a chronological order, it would have to actually come before the book of Nehemiah.

Ezra records the first return from the captivity. Some forty years later Esther came on the scene, and some forty years after that Nehemiah came on the scene. So the book of Esther fits about halfway between the rebuilding of the temple (the decree given by Cyrus) and the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem (the decree given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah). About halfway between fits in the story of the book of Esther.

In the story of the book of Esther, though it doesn’t mention the word God, yet God’s overruling providence is seen throughout the entire book. The Jews hold this as one of the most important books in the Bible, and it is a very beautiful story of God’s preservation of His people.

So, the book of Esther begins with an introduction to her husband who was the ruler of the Persian Empire, ruling over 127 nations of the ancient world. He is the Xerxes of secular history, called Artaxerxes, or called Ahasuerus, or Artaxerxes. But he is the Xerxes of secular history.

And he was having a great feast for the lords, the princes and all, that lasted for almost half of a year, about 180 days of feasting. And so you can imagine in that length of time you get pretty well glutted, to where, you know, what’s new after that length of time. So, he decided that he would call his wife Vashti into the feasting area. Now in that culture, of course, the women and the men were kept publicly pretty well separated, and the king had his harem and he also had his wife the queen, but along with her was quite a harem. And he decided that he would send for

Vashti that she might come in [and probably without a veil], so that the men could behold her beauty: because she was a very beautiful woman ( Est 1:11 ).

And so, just sort of seeking, it would seem, to show off her beauty to these other men, he called for her to come on in to the feast.

But Vashti refused to come ( Est 1:12 )

Which in that culture was just something unheard of. Women were actually considered just one step above a slave. They had very little rights, and when Vashti refused the king’s commandment to come in, all of the rest of the fellows said, “Hey king, you’re going to have to do something about this, because when we get home and our wives hear that your wife refused to come in at your command, we’re not going to be able to handle the women. And so you’ve got to move dramatically and drastically in this case.”

One of the astrologers suggested to him that as a punishment for her disobedience she be deposed from her position as queen, that she be placed out of that royal position and no longer be the queen. And this punishment was decided upon Vashti so that she was deposed from being the queen.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Est 1:1-8

Est 1:1-8

A HALF-DRUNKEN XERXES DEPOSES HIS QUEEN VASHTI (AMESTRIS);

XERXES MAKES PREPARATIONS TO INVADE GREECE

“Now it came to pass in the days of Ahashuerus (this is Ahashuerus who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and twenty and seven provinces), that in those days when the king Ahashuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and of Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him; when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his excellant majesty many days, even a hundred and fourscore days. And when these days were fulfilled, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace. There were hangings of white cloth, of green, and of blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble; the couches were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and white, and yellow, and black marble. And they gave them drink in vessels of gold (the vessels being diverse one from another), and royal wine in abundance, according to the bounty of the king. And the drinking was according to the law; none could compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure.”

Although not apparent in our text, the very first words in the the Hebrew text of the O.T. (the Hebrew) are “and it came to pass,” which is made the occasion by Duff to declare that, “The book of Esther is a truncated narrative,” but Keil pointed out that no such conclusion is justified. Many of the Biblical books begin with the word and, indicating their connection with the rest of the canonical books of the Bible. “Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First Samuel, Second Samuel, Ezekiel, and Jonah all begin with the word `and’.”

What is revealed here is a six-months interval of intense preparations by Xerxes for the invasion of Greece. It was terminated by a big banquet that lasted a week. During this period all of the mighty princes of his extensive dominion were summoned to appear, probably in successive assignments, to be entertained and to see the king’s exhibition of his power and riches, and also, most likely, to receive his assignment to them regarding the troops each would supply for that immense army which he gathered together for the invasion. Our text does not elaborate this; but we learn much about it from Herodotus

“This is Ahashuerus that reigned, …” (Est 1:1). In the time of these events, there were no less than three great men called Ahashuerus; the prophet Daniel mentioned one of them, but he was not a king; and there was another Ahashuerus (also a king, Xerxes II) mentioned by Ezra (Ezr 4:6). “Here the author of Esther, who probably knew of the others, distinguished this Ahashuerus from the one named in Daniel as `the Ahashuerus who reigns,’ and from the king mentioned in Ezra by the enormous size of his dominion.”

“Who reigned from India … to Ethiopia” (Est 1:1). “A foundation tablet has been recovered from Xerxes’ palace at Persepolis which lists both India and Ethiopia as provinces of Xerxes’ realm. Also Herodotus mentioned that both the Ethiopians and the Indians paid tribute to Xerxes.”

“One hundred twenty and seven provinces” (Est 1:1). We learned from Ezra and Nehemiah that there were 27 satrapies in the Perisan empire; but these divisions were different. “The satrapies were taxation districts; but these provinces were racial or national units in the vast empire.”

“In those days when Ahashuerus sat on his throne” (Est 1:2). It is strange that Persian kings almost constantly sat on their throne. “Herodotus wrote that Xerxes watched the battle of Thermopylae (480 B.C.) seated on a throne! And Plutarch wrote the same thing regarding the battle of Salamis, which came that same year.”

“Upon his throne which was in Shushan the palace” (Est 1:2). There were four capitals of Persia; and the king, at times, reigned in each of them. These were, “Shushan, Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis.”

“In the third year of his reign” (Est 1:3). As Xerxes came to his throne in the year 486 B.C., this would have been 483, B.C.

The magnificent decorations, the luxurious surroundings and all the glory of the Persian palace are beautifully described in these verses. It is particularly interesting that drinking vessels of gold, each one of a different design, were features of that concluding banquet.

“And the drinking was according to the law” (Est 1:8). It is amusing to us that some of the scholars declare that there was not any such law regarding drinking; but the text flatly says there was, and furthermore, it relates what the law was, “They should do according to every man’s desire” (Est 1:8). This was the law, tailor-made for that occasion by the king himself! We appreciate Keil’s comment that, “While this law granted permission for any one to drink as little as he desired, it also allowed every one to drink as much as he desired! Drunkenness was almost a universal sin among the Gentiles. And rulers, especially, indulged in it. Even Alexander the Great drank himself to death. This great banquet given by Xerxes was by no means a beautiful party. It was an unqualified disaster.

E.M. Zerr:

General remarks: The reader is requested to make the following notation in the sixth column of the chart: “Josephus places the history of Esther in this reign.” It is true that most secular authors place the story in the preceding reign. I have accepted the word of Josephus in preference to the others because of the fact that he was an educated Jew, and certainly had better opportunity for understanding such a subject than the others. And especially is that consideration worth much in view of the fact that he lived many centuries ago, when the materials for historic writing were more plentiful than at a later date. This book, like that of Ruth, contains a very interesting story of love and intrigue, that outshines any mere human composition. However, that was not the main purpose in giving us the book. Like the other book mentioned, it was composed to show .the fulfillment of a very important prophecy, all of which will be revealed in course of the story. We should bear in mind that it is an inset historically into the main history of the Persian Empire. But the motive in giving it to us is to show the fulfillment of a prediction that God made many centuries before. The circumstances of the times brought about the opportunity for that noted completion of God’s decree.

Est 1:1. We have already seen in many instances that more than one man in olden times had the same name. This Ahasuerus is not the one in Ezr 4:6, but one who lived many years afterward. As shown in the chart, he was the man who was called Artaxerxes (Longimanus) in secular history. He was the one on the Persian throne at the time that Ezra and Nehemiah performed their wonderful works. This verse shows him to have been a powerful monarch, and held sway over a large territory.

Est 1:2. Shushan is sometimes spelled Susa. It was the capital of the Persian Empire at the time covered by this book.

Est 1:3. Power is from a word that means strength and influence. The Phrase means that the princes and his servants represented the most powerful men in his kingdom, Persia and Media. The government that was in world power at the time of our story is known in history as the Medo-Persian Empire. A quotation from Smith’s Bible Dictionary will explain how the empire with its hyphened title originated: “Of all the ancient Oriental monarchies the Median was the shortest in duration. It was overthrown by the Persians under Cyrus, B. C. 558, who captured its king, Astyages. The treatment of the Medea by the victorious Persians was not that of an ordinary conquered nation. Medea were appointed to stations of high honor under Cyrus and his successors. The two nations seem blended into one, and we often find reference to this kingdom as that of the ‘Medea and Persians.’ Dan 5:28; Dan 6:8; Dan 6:12; Dan 6:15.” From this account we will understand why the two parts are in the name of the empire. The supremacy of the Persians over the Medea also can be understood, and will account for the fact that the monarchy is generally referred to simply as the Persian Empire. When the two names are used together, it is because that in point of date, the Medea were first, and hence the order in which the two parts are used. But the superiority as to power and extent was ascribed to the Persians. Not long after this powerful king came to the throne he made the banquet reported.

Est 1:4. The festivities continued 180 days, during which the proud king exhibited his riches and other marks of glory. It was a season of pride and vanity, for the Persians generally were puffed up over the dignity of their authority.

Est 1:5. The long feast recorded in the preceding verse was for the large gathering of notables out of the vast provinces of the king’s domain. Afterward he made another feast for the members of his immediate household, or close attendants of the palace. In this feast no distinction was made between the classes of attaches of the court. The feast was held in the garden (fenced court) of the palace and lasted 7 days.

Est 1:6. The whole scene was one of splendor, and the appointments suggested a week of the most abandoned dissipation. The king had pillars of marble erected, on which were suspended luxurious drapes of brilliant hues. These hangings were tied with linen cords that were passed through rings of silver. As this banquet was to last a week, provision was made for sleeping by furnishing beds made of gold and silver. These beds rested on a pavement of black marble, inlaid with materials of red, blue and white, forming a beautiful mosaic surface.

Est 1:7. For many years it was thought proper style to have the pieces in sets for the table in similar patterns. Later people thought it was an advancement to have a variety, but the Persians thought of that long before us. The wine was served to the guests at the banquet in vessels, no two of which were alike. Royal wine in abundance means there was no shortage of the servings because they were taken from the king’s own supply. His state of fortune was so great that the wine was unlimited.

Est 1:8. None did compel. The law of the king was that each guest should be permitted to “take it or leave it” when the wine was offered. In that respect that heathen king manifested more decency than modern society leaders. At the present time it is regarded highly improper and offensive when a guest objects to drinking. It will be insisted that the guest “have a drink with me.”

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The events recorded in the Book of Esther occurred between the completion of the Temple and the mission of Ezra (between Ezr 6:1-22; Ezr 7:1-28). In all likelihood the narrative, as we have it, was taken directly from the Persian records. It is a fragment of secular history taken for sacred purposes. The story reveals the same principle of the overruling of God on behalf of His people which marks all their history.

The first scene is a great feast in the palace of the king. It was characterized by all the gorgeousness peculiar to the East, and resolved itself into drunken revelry. In the midst of this, the king commanded Queen Vashti to appear before him and the assembled nobles. The one redeeming feature in the revelation of conditions at the court of Ahasuerus was Vashti’s refusal to obey the king. She paid the price of her loyalty to her womanhood in being deposed. Incidentally, the story reveals the place which woman occupied outside the Covenant of the chosen people. She was at once the plaything and the slave of man.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Vashtis Noble Refusal

Est 1:1-22

The book opens with a royal festival, which lasted for six months, Est 1:1-9. Perhaps the princes came up from their governments to partake of it in rotation. It finished with a banquet, open to all the people who dwelt in Shushan, great and small. Whenever men are overcome with wine, there is grave peril for women. Coarseness, indelicacy, and impurity troop in at the door, which has been unlocked by the excess of wine. Who can tell the anguish which has been caused to women, children, and the dumb creation through the intemperance of man! Here is given a glimpse of a noble woman, who respected herself too highly to yield to a demand, wholly foreign to the customs of the time, which forbade women to appear in public. Of course the king was incensed, all the more so because he knew that he was in the wrong. He had command over 127 provinces, but he could not rule his own spirit, and the sense of moral weakness is always irritating. He consulted his counselors, who were only too glad to fall in with and humor the royal whims; they counseled that the divorce of Vashti was a public duty, for the repression of wife-insubordination throughout the empire. Men are not always to be trusted when they legislate about women, or in respect to their own dignity. When wine is in them they may be expected to say and do very stupid things. It has been truly said that every Ahasuerus had his Memucan, a man who was sycophant and parasite, who held his influence by humoring caprice and lust.

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

Esther: Chapters 1-5

Chapter 1

The Royal Feast, And Divorce Of Yashti

In the opening verses we note the wide extent of the Persian dominion. Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred, seven and twenty provinces,) that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shusan the palace, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces being before him: when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his excellent majesty many days, even a hundred and fourscore days.

These verses bring before us something of the earthly grandeur and glory of the silver kingdom, which had succeeded the head of gold, depicted in Nebuchadnezzars dream, as recorded in the second chapter of Daniel. Worldwide dominion would be exercised by but four powers till He should come whose right it is to reign, and should set up a kingdom that shall break in pieces all the others, and shall never be destroyed.

The sphere of lordship is larger in the case of each succeeding empire, and yet the metal ever deteriorates, from gold to iron mixed with miry clay, or, according to Tregelles, brittle pottery; the reason doubtless consisting in this, that Babylon presents to us an absolutely unlimited monarchy, while in Persia, Greece and Rome the powers of the chief become more or less circumscribed, first, by assistant counselors, and at last by a sort of union of royalty and democracy, which will eventually result in the election of the final Roman emperor yet to come, in the days of the ten toes, which will be the last form assumed by the beast (Rev. 13:l-9) after the Church has been raptured away to heaven.

It is certainly a splendid scene to which our chapter introduces us, and in a certain sense, no doubt, a typical one. But it is clear that all is but the glory of this world, though not in the utter independence of God that we find in Dan. 5. There is no mention of impiety connected with the feast described in the following verses: And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the kings palace; where were white, green and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds (or couches) were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marbleAnd the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every mans pleasure (vers. 5, 6, 8).

If in Israels subjection to Babylon we get a picture of the days of darkness and bondage through which the Church passed during the ascendency of the papacy, it would seem that in the liberal slavery during the Medo-Persian supremacy, we have foreshadowed the present anomalous and outwardly prosperous condition of Protestantism. In other words, Babylon might be said to find its counterpart in Thyatira, when Satan sought to force the children of God to bow the knee to idolatry-to commit spiritual adultery. Sardis answers more to the conditions of Esthers day-great outward prosperity, with a faithful few who have not defiled their garments, but nevertheless, on the part of the vast majority, a complete union between the world and the professing body. Philadelphia corresponds well with the returned remnant, while Laodicea is suggested by the Pharisaic outgrowth of self-righteousness and formal- ity that followed. At least, it is plain that there are many striking similarities, which would seem to be more than mere coincidences.

Looking at it from this standpoint, while in Ezra and Nehemiah we have a people separated to the name of the Lord, gathered around Gods centre, and, in measure at least, subject to His Word; in Esther we have a people equally the Lords, quite content to go on with the worlds patronage; and though here and there some are characterized by great devotion, there is in no sense the same liberty, blessing and understanding of the word of God as might have been theirs had they sought His glory more, rather than their own convenience.

This feast, then, is but the general rejoicing in the light and liberty afforded by the spread of knowledge and civilization-something far different from the feasts kept at Jerusalem, where all points to the Lord Jesus-His sufferings and His glories.

It is true the various colors of the hangings and furniture of the banquet hall may all have some typical meaning, but at present scholars are far from agreement as to the meaning of the words employed; so we do not attempt to enter into it. It is noticeable that the drinking was according to the law: none did compel. What has been called the right of private judgment was fully recognized. The harlot of Rev. 17 had in her hand a golden cup (for of divine things she professed to speak) full of abomination and filthiness. The language used in verse 2 seems to imply that she practically forced to the lips of the earth-dwellers the wine of her fornication. She would brook no objection. All must drink what she provided. This is ever the rule of papacy. It is otherwise in Protestantism: you may drink or not, as you please. None did compel; and if you like not the design of the cup you have, there are plenty of others to choose from, all of gold, all alike professedly of God, and yet diverse one from the other.

Well it is for those who refuse every cup of mans design, and in lowliness and self-judgment are found poring over the word of God in the place where He has caused His name to dwell (Neh 8:3; 9:3).

The wine is royal wine it is true, and it will exhilarate and excite and fill one with goodly thoughts of flesh and of the glory of earth; but it is not the wine that speaks of a Saviours precious blood shed for guilty sinners, who in His very death upon the tree was telling out the judgment of this world. That is seen as you stand by the altar in the ruined city of God, and behold the drink-offering poured out upon the holocaust, ascending as a sweet savor to God (Ezr 3:3).

The next few verses give us a picture which we find difficult to apply. After counseling with his wise men the king puts Yashti away. They all agree that she has proved untrue to her place as the leading woman of the empire, and that it must be given to another. One might suggest this as an illustration of Rom. 11-the disobedience of the Gentiles giving occasion for the restoration of the Jews to the place of favor. But, shrinking from any interpretation which might not commend itself to the spiritual mind, we introduce our readers at once to the subject of the next chapter.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Est 1:1-3; Est 8:4-6

I. Let us observe the outward stage of these events. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Persian court forms, as it were, the background of all the transactions of the history. Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, figure as the deliverers and protectors of the returning Israelites. The scene of the book of Esther is laid in Shushan, or Susa, the capital of Persia. There we see Ahasuerus, “the great king,” as he was called by the Greeks, the same, it is believed, as Xerxes. These Gentile monarchs, this Asiatic kingdom, are made to occupy this prominent place in the Bible in order to remind us that beyond the limits of the chosen people, beyond the limits of Jewry or of Christendom, there are kingdoms and races of men who claim, as well as we, a share in the compassion and justice of the all-merciful, all-holy God.

II. That which gives to the book of Esther an enduring spiritual value is the noble, patriotic spirit of the Jewish race in the presence of the Gentiles amongst whom they sojourned, that passionate love of country and home, that generous pride in the independence of their race and creed, which kindled the song of Deborah, which continued to burn in the hearts of her countrymen and country women after the lapse of a thousand years, and broke forth in the pathetic wail, in the courageous defiance, of the Jewish maiden, who, unseduced by the splendours, undaunted by the terror, of the Persian court, exclaimed, with the heroic determination, if need be, to sacrifice her life for her country, “If I perish, I perish! How can I endure to see the evil that shall come unto my people?”

A. P. Stanley, Catholic Sermons, vol. i., p. 75.

Est 1:1-9

(with Php 4:5)

I. The book of Esther is to be held in everlasting remembrance, if only as showing to all ages and to all peoples how much the heavenly love and care concern themselves with those who themselves have no care to keep God’s commandments, and no thought of the care and love that are concerned about them. The shepherd watches and seeks the sheep, and throws around them, unseen, protections all through the wilderness where they wander.

II. The feast of Ahasuerus was a wonderful scene. There is nothing morally great about it. There never can be about mere feasting, and splendour, and eating and drinking, and outward show. Neither, so far as we can see, is there anything morally wrong in this, at least when kept in due moderation. It was kept in moderation in this instance. There is the most prodigal abundance, and yet there is a royal wisdom in the dispensation of it. For we read that “the drinking was according to the law,” and that law means “no compulsion.” If we embody, the principle of moderation in our life, and walk by faith, and not by sight, then, and only then, we surmount the poor pageant in which outwardly we are moving figures; then, and only then, we cast anchor within the veil, and lay up treasure where it can never be lost.

A. Raleigh, Penny Pulpit, No. 614.

References: Est 1:1-10.-A. Raleigh, Book of Esther, p. 1. Est 1:1-12.-A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 9. Est 1:10.-A. Raleigh, Book of Esther, p. 24. Est 1:13-22.-A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 29. Est 2:1-4.-Ibid., p. 49. Est 2:1-20.-A. Raleigh, Book of Esther, p. 48. Est 2:5-20.-A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 67. Est 2:21-23 -iii. 1-5.-Ibid., p. 89. Est 3:6-11.-Ibid., p. 108. Est 3:12-15 -iv. 1-9.-Ibid., p. 128. 3-A. Raleigh, Book of Esther, p. 69. Est 4:10-17.-A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 149. Est 4:13-14-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx, No. 1777. Est 4:14.-Bishop Woodford, Occasional Sermons, vol. ii., p. 55; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 285; E. Monro, Practical Sermons, vol. iii., p. 245. 4-A. Raleigh, Book of Esther, p. 88. Est 5:1-8.-A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 171. Est 5:6.-J. Jackson Wray, Light from the Old Lamp, p. 160. Est 5:9-14.-A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 192. Est 5:13.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 369; M. Nicholson, Communion with Heaven, p. 242. 5-A. Raleigh, Booh of Esther, p. 106.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

Analysis and Annotations

THE BANQUETS AND QUEEN VASHTI DISOWNED

CHAPTER 1

1. The first feast of the king (Est 1:1-4)

2. The kings feast unto all the people (Est 1:5-8)

3. The queens feast for the women (Est 1:9)

4. The queens refusal to appear at the kings feast (Est 1:10-12)

5. The queen put away (Est 1:13-22)

Est 1:1-4. King Ahasuerus, one of the leading characters of this book, is known in history as Xerxes I. The name Ahasuerus is an appellative, which means the chief king, or the king of all kings. Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspes, bore this title, king of kings. This title is also given to him in the cuneiform inscriptions. One of these reads as follows: I, the mighty king, king of kings, king of populous countries, king of this great and mighty earth, far and near. His dominion extended from East to West, even from India unto Ethiopia. He had a universal kingdom. The capital of his empire was Shushan, which had a beautiful situation surrounded by high mountains, traversed by streams and abounding in a luxurious vegetation. Since the time of King Darius it became the residence of the Persian kings. The word palace is better translated by fortress or castle. And in the third year of his reign he made the great feast unto all his princes, and his servants, and all the nobles of Persia and Media were before him. He then showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and entertained the nobles and princes for six months.

Est 1:5-8. This sumptuous feast was followed by a second banquet to which all the inhabitants of the capital were invited. It was held in the garden of the palace and lasted for seven days. The decorations were in white, green, blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to rings of silver and pillars of marble. Upon a pavement of red, white, blue, and black marble (a mosaic floor) stood the couches of gold and silver. The royal wine was served out of vessels of gold not two of which were alike. The king displayed his enormous wealth and his abundant possessions. And the wine of the kingdom was in abundance, according to the bounty of the king. And there was perfect freedom; each could drink to his hearts content. The king had instructed the officers that they should do according to every mans pleasure.

Est 1:9. Queen Vashti (Vashti means beautiful woman) is now introduced. She made a separate feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to her husband, the king. Such feasts were frequently given by royal women of the East. Nothing is said how long her feast lasted.

Est 1:10-12. The kings heart being merry with wine, he commanded his seven chamberlains to bring Vashti in her royal apparel to the feast, so that the peoples and the princes could admire her great beauty. The seven chamberlains were eunuchs who held important offices. Mehuman was the chief officer; Biztha, according to the meaning of his name, the treasurer; Harbona, the chief of the bodyguard; Bigath, who had charge over the female apartments; Abagtha, the chief baker; Zethar, the chief butler, and Carcas, the chief commander of the castle. These dignitaries were sent to accompany the queen to the feast of Ahasuerus. She refused to obey the kings command. Her refusal has been differently interpreted. According to Persian custom the Persian king held all for slaves except the legitimate wife. Was it in defiance of the kings order or out of self respect? She may have refused to show that she could not be dictated to by a drunken husband and that she was unwilling to show herself in the midst of revelry. Perhaps she did not care to come because she had a feast of her own. Then the king became extremely angry.

Est 1:13-22. At once the wise men were called, the astrologers, the magi and sorcerers (Dan 2:2). His privy council consisted of seven princes, the princes of Persia and Media, who were next to the king, sat with him and the wise men to take up this serious matter. The question is, What shall we do unto the Queen Vashti according to law, because she had not done the bidding of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains? The case is thus turned over by the king into the hands of the wise men and the seven princes. These decide that Vashti has wronged the king and furthermore by her refusal had set a dangerous example to all the subjects of the king. Much contempt and wrath would follow throughout the empire. They advise that Vashti is to lose her royal estate, that she be put away. The king sanctions it and issued at the same time a decree to be published throughout his great kingdom that all wives should honor their husbands. The Persian kings were great autocrats and ruled with an iron hand. Their laws were irrevocable. It is certainly no fable which is told of Xerxes, viz., that when the inundation of the Hellespont had destroyed all bridges, he gave order that it should be beaten with rods for disobedience (Herodotus 7:35). But it was more easy for him to beat the sea than to obtain that which his edict demanded.

The letters were dispatched by the excellent postal service, which according to the historian Herodotus, Persia possessed. Memucan had brought about the downfall of the queen; she disappears completely. Jewish tradition gives several reasons why Memucan was so hostile to Vashti. One is that his own wife had not been invited to Vashtis feast and another, because he wanted his own daughter promoted and become the queen.

Typical Application

The Persian king claimed the title King of Kings, which belongs only to the Lord Himself. The great feast which he made reminds us of another feast which the Lord has spread. Ahasuerus feast was on the third year of his reign and appointed to show the riches of his kingdom and the honor of his excellent majesty. The gospel feast to which God invites, is prepared in His Son, who died and was raised on the third day, and this feast shows forth exceeding riches of His grace in kindness towards us. And those who accept become partakers of the heavenly calling, nobles and princes, who shall reign with Him in His coming kingdom. The invitation is, Come for all things are now ready. There is enough for all; enough to fill to overflowing. The wine is the symbol of joy; it cheereth God and man (Jdg 9:13). As the king had his joy with his subjects in this earthly feast, so God rejoices in those who come to the table of His love, and those who accept His invitation rejoice in Him. The couches of gold and silver at the Kings feast were for rest. Gold and silver are symbolical of righteousness and redemption, and these are the couches, the resting places for the believer. And as Ahasuerus invited all to come to his feast, with no other conditions, but to come, so God wants all men to be saved and offers the riches of His grace without money and without price. While the Persian king displayed the glories of his great kingdom, God displays the glory of His grace.

In Vashti we see a type of the refusal of the invitation. She had been invited to come and grace the feast with her presence; she would not come. It reminds us of the parable of our Lord, in which He speaks of the great supper, a symbol of the gospel, and the bidden guests who made excuses for not coming. She had her own feast, which she probably would not leave. How many there are who refuse the gospel invitation because they love their own things best. And Vashti is banished. She is put away. And this is the sinners fate who refuses to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Vashti too may be taken as a type of professing Christendom, those who have the form of godliness and deny the power thereof, whose god is their belly and who are the enemies of the cross, disobedient to God. Some day Christendom will be disowned by the Lord; He will spew Laodicea out of His mouth. Then the King of Kings will call another to take the place of apostate Christendom.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Ahasuerus: Prideaux has shewn satisfactorily that Ahasuerus was the Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks, agreeably to the Septuagint and Josephus. See note on Ezr 6:14. Ezr 4:6, Dan 9:1

from India: Est 8:9, Isa 18:1, Isa 37:9

an hundred: Dan 6:1

Reciprocal: Ezr 2:1 – the children Ezr 5:8 – the province Neh 1:3 – the province Est 2:3 – in all the provinces Est 4:3 – in every province Est 9:20 – in all the provinces Est 9:30 – the hundred Est 10:1 – laid a tribute Dan 3:1 – in the province Act 23:34 – he asked

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE BOOK OF ESTHER

Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus that in those days Esther arose, and stood before the king, and said, 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 1:1-3; Est 8:4-6

I. Let us observe the outward stage of these events.In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Persian court forms, as it were, the background of all the transactions of the history. Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, figure as the deliverers and protectors of the returning Israelites. The scene of the book of Esther is laid in Shushan, or Susa, the capital of Persia. There we see Ahasuerus, the great king, as he was called by the Greeks, the same, it is believed, as Xerxes. These Gentile monarchs, this Asiatic kingdom, are made to occupy this prominent place in the Bible in order to remind us that beyond the limits of the chosen people, beyond the limits of Jewry or of Christendom, there are kingdoms and races of men who claim, as well as we, a share in the compassion and justice of the all-merciful, all-holy God.

II. That which gives to the book of Esther an enduring spiritual value is the noble, patriotic spirit of the Jewish race in the presence of the Gentiles amongst whom they sojourned, that passionate love of country and home, that generous pride in the independence of their race and creed, which kindled the song of Deborah, which continued to burn in the hearts of her countrymen and countrywomen after the lapse of a thousand years, and broke forth in the pathetic wail, in the courageous defiance, of the Jewish maiden, who, unseduced by the splendours, undaunted by the terrors, of the Persian court, exclaimed, with the heroic determination, if need be, to sacrifice her life for her country, If I perish, I perish! How can I endure to see the evil that shall come unto my people?

Dean Stanley.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

THE JEWS IMPERILLED

The events of this book belong chronologically after Zerubbabels company have gone to Jerusalem, and before the commissions of Ezra and Nehemiah. The scene is laid in Persia. Cyrus and Darius 1 have passed away, and Ahasuerus, son of the last named, and identified by some with Xerxes, and by others with Darius Hystaspes, is on the throne. He is a sensual, fickle, cruel despot. It was his great fleet that was defeated by the much smaller one of Greece at Salamis, about 480 B.c. He is mentioned in Ezr 4:6. He was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes, who figures in the later chapters of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The story of the book is well known, and may be divided as follows: Queen Vashtis Fall (Est 1:1-22) Esthers Exaltation (Est 2:1-23) Hamans Conspiracy (Est 3:1-15) Esthers Intervention (Est 4:1 to Est 7:10) Hamans Judgment (Est 8:1 to Est 9:19) The Commemorative Feast (Est 9:20-32) The Epilog (Est 10:1-3)

QUEEN VASHTIS FALL (Est 1:1-22)

Some think this feast (Est 1:3) was the occasion when the great campaign against Greece was determined upon. If a half-year seems long (Est 1:4), perhaps the time was extended to allow the different nobles and princes to make their appearance at the court successively. The climax was the garden party of a week (Est 1:5-7), although it should be understood that only men were present (Est 1:9). Verse eight seems to mean that in contrast with the customary excessive drinking, any were free to remain sober if they would. Knew the times (Est 1:13) is equivalent to skilled in the law.

ESTHER EXALTED (Est 2:1-23)

When sober, the king rued his action (Est 2:1), but had he changed his mind and restored Vashti, the consequences would have been serious to his advisers, hence their present counsel (Est 2:2-4). Things for purification (Est 2:3) mean the oils for cleansing and anointing (Est 2:12). She required nothing, etc. (Est 2:15), points to a desire of the virgins on similar occasions to bedeck themselves with ornaments, but Esther acted differently on the chamberlains advice, and with good results (Est 2:17). Note the expiration of four years between Est 1:3 and Est 2:7, which some think was occupied by the expedition against Greece, and for which secular history gives some justification. The incident of Est 2:21-23, is recorded here to explain that which follows later.

HAMANS CONSPIRACY (Est 3:1-15)

The casting of the lot (Hebrew, put, Est 3:7), was for selecting the most propitious day for the murderous undertaking Haman had in mind. While in western nations such an idea as in verses six and nine would never occur to a revengeful man, it was different in the East. Massacres of a race, or a class, have at all times been among the incidents of history there. A great massacre of the Magi occurred only about fifty years before this, and a massacre of the Scythians fifty years before that again. The ten thousand talents (Est 3:9), or as some calculate it $12,500,000 of our money, was to be obtained by the confiscation of the Jews property.

ESTHERS INTERVENTION (Est 4:1 to Est 7:10)

It would appear by a comparison of Est 3:12-13 of the preceding chapter, that the Jews were for a whole year harassed because of their impending fate. This explains the opening verses of the present chapter (Est 4:1-3). Observe Mordecais reliance on the promises of God concerning Israel (Est 4:14). They cannot all be destroyed. God would not permit it, for it would defeat His purpose concerning the Messiah, the Redeemer of the world, and all else that was included in that purpose. Esthers request to fast is a call to repentance and a request for prayer (compare 1Ki 21:27-29; Joe 1:14; and Jon 3:5). Her boldness is seen in the following: She proposed to go to the king without being called; to make request for the change of a law which, according to Persian custom, could not be done; to reveal herself as a Jew; and to place herself in opposition to the all-powerful favorite, Haman.

The usual situation of the throne in the throne-room of an oriental palace is one from which the monarch can see into the court through the doorway opposite to him (Est 5:1). Esthers tactful delay in making known her request (Est 5:7-8), was doubtless to further impress the king, or possibly to evolve her plan, which may not yet have been clear in her own mind.

Gods hand is seen clearly in Est 6:1 (compare with Est 2:23). The dramatic incidents of the chapter tell their own story as they swiftly pass before us. In Est 7:3, Esthers words are to be understood as offering her own life in the place of the people. The loss of the people would be a great damage to the king (Est 6:4). In the East at banquets they recline on couches (Est 6:8).

QUESTIONS

1. What chronological place is occupied by this book?

2. Give some historical data of the king.

3. What great historical event may have intervened between the fall of the one queen and the exaltation of the other?

4. What does pur mean?

5. Name some great massacres of this general period.

6. What shows Mordecais faith?

7. What shows Esthers courage?

8. Give an illustration of the special providence of God in this lesson.

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Est 1:1. In the days of Ahasuerus Many suppose this king to have been Darius Hystaspes, for his kingdom was thus vast, and he subdued India, as Herodotus reports: and one of his wives was called Atossa, differing little from Hadassah, which is Esthers other name, Est 2:7. But the most likely opinion, and that which is approved by Josephus, the Septuagint, and the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther, is, that this Ahasuerus of the Scripture was Artaxerxes Longimanus, as he is called by the heathen writers. One thing is certain, that he was one of the Persian kings, and a successor of Cyrus the Great, for there was no such large empire in those parts, under one king, before Cyruss time.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Est 1:1. From India even to Ethiopia. Darius the Mede appointed one hundred and twenty governors. Hence it appears that this Ahasurus, the Xerxes Longimanus of Herodotus, had enlarged his conquests, and made the Ganges and the Nile his boundaries.

Est 1:2. Sat on the throne. He seems to have been employed till now in some conquest, which made him the terror both of the Grecian and the eastern world. Consequently this was a grand coronation, or a military fte, which continued six months. Here he displayed all his wealth and spoil, which surpassed conception for abundance.

Est 1:9. Vashti. Perhaps a surname given her for her beauty, which was inferior to her virtue. The ladies about her were high in rank, but alas, in a moment their queen was thrown from her throne, without either help or hope.

Est 1:10. The seven chamberlains. The Chaldaic reads satraps. The Vulgate reads, eunuchs. They are all Persic names, though perhaps changed a little in the Hebrew.

Est 1:12. Vashti refused to come. She relied on the law of custom to hide herself from the eyes of men; so far she was virtuous. Yet the pleasure of the monarch was the greatest of all the Persian laws.

Est 1:22. That every man should bear rule in his own house. Very just; but he must not expose his wife, almost naked, to an intoxicated court. He becomes a tyrant who rules above the laws.

REFLECTIONS.

We now leave the land of Israel to tread on Persian ground, and to trace the hand of God among the heathen. The first object which presents itself is the king, seated on a high throne, with all his spoils and wealth displayed throughout his gardens, his temples, and treasuries. We next see all the princes and nobles of the east fall prostrate at his feet, and little less than worship him as a god: and it is probable that men of various rank and nations succeeded one another during the whole of that time. What a wearisome task! We see also that all excess of passion is attended with mortification and misery. This king, burthened, not blessed, by the homage of nations, sought at the end of one week relief in wine; and exhausted with boasting of his regal glory, he proceeded to boast of the incomparable beauty of his queen, and was resolved to expose her to the admiration of his princes. To this Vashti would not submit, nor did she stoop to put her refusal in the form of a request. So while the world bowed, a woman rebelled. The king was confounded before his nobles; his happiness vanished in a moment, and every indignant passion agitated his breast. How happy is the poor cottager, whose eyes, by the sight of a palace, were never tempted to think meanly of his family hut.

From Memucans advice we learn, that men in the most critical cases will advocate the cause of justice, when it associates with their interest. Vashti had indeed committed a fault, for the pleasure of her lord was to her a greater law than custom; but this counseller, seeking the ruin of an unsuspecting woman, never once tried the efforts of repentance and reconciliation; on the contrary, he recommended the severest justice, because it was consonant to the royal passion, and popular in the ears of the princes, who loved a domestic sovereignty. Had the king, after the storm of passion, become reconciled to the queen, Memucan, by his counsel, would have placed himself in a critical situation. But after the king had sent letters to the provinces, his sense of honour was stronger than his love for Vashti.How short and transient are the joys of the wicked: how many the calamities which find their way to palaces and courts! Let the christian wait in hope, and Christ will display a glory far superior to that of kings, and to any thing we can now conceive. He will call his servants to feast them at his court, and no unholy passions, no vain affections shall disturb their joy. The homage shall be divine, the peace permanent, and the glory everlasting. Wait awhile, oh my soul, and thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty, and thy heart shall love him for ever.

After all, there was one custom in Persian courts which should not pass without applause, being intimately connected with the morals of the christian world. The drinking was according to law, no one compelled another. If a christian dine with his friends, this law he has a full right to plead. It is in fact the law of nature and of conscience, and he cannot break it without honouring men more than God, and sinning against his own soul.

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

Esther 1. The Royal Feast. Vashtis Disobedience and Degradation.The opening words in MT (and it came to pass) are in good Heb style, which shows that an able scribe wrote here. But they prove that something once stood before them. Even Paton translates, And afterward! After what? He says strangely, This expression is used in continuation of a historical narrative, and adds, lamely and incorrectly, It is an imitation of the beginnings of the older histories. The tale has clearly been truncated here, doubtless because the original spoke of Yahweh. A version of the original still exists in LXX: it is a sort of preface, saying that a Jew lived in Shushan (Dan 8:2*), who had a Perso-Babylonian name Mordecai, i.e. related to Marduk, Lord of Fatewhich the scribes would dislikeand he was descended from the house of king Saul, also disliked by scribes. He was a court servant of king Artaxerxes, and he was a saint, one who waited for the Consolation of Israel. He had a vision like Isaiahs, amid an earthquake, where a Voice predicted cruelties from the Gentiles to Yahwehs people. But a little fountain arose and soon grew into a stream, and quenched the evil fires of cruelty so that the lowly were exalted. This LXX picture is full of Gods name, and love, and saints. Pondering on the vision, Mordecai hears whisperings: two miscreants are plotting regicide. He reports this, and the fellows are executed; but another officer, Haman, is jealous of Mordecai, of his discovery, and his possible rewards.

Now begins the MT with a shortened story, telling first of the drinkings arranged by the king, who is called Ahasuerus by the Heb. writer. This is a name slightly altered, no doubt, from the Persian Kshyarsha, i.e. the Xerxes of 486465. The character of that prince is fairly well reproduced in the features attributed to the prince in our tale. He rules like Alexander from India (Hoddu) to Africa. The LXX calls the drinking a wedding feast, and thinks perhaps of the royal nuptials with Queen Vashti, who becomes notable very soon in the story. By the way, the term drinking-feast used in Heb. is found in Est. as many times as in all the rest of the OT taken together, and the writer probably meant to suggest that drinking was a Gentile vice, as in Alexanders case. Wine flowed lavishly at the tables in our scenes, and there was no check laid on any mans appetite. This sumptuous affair with all its splendours was for princes only, and it lasted for six months. A second followed, a week long, for Shushans citizens. At this the king grew merry, bethought him of his queen, and sent her his commands to appear and show his guests her charms. So far as we can tell, this proposal was not at all improper for those times, but Queen Vashti refused to obey. Possibly Ahasuerus was vinous and excited: but Vashti herself had held a drinking, and may have forgotten herself. All the kings councillors supported his Majesty, declaring that Vashtis example would ruin the peace of all husbands and all homes. She is dethroned.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE FIRST FEAST OF THE KING

(vv. 1-4)

Ahasuerus was a name given to the chief king of Persia.The Ahasuerus of verse 1 is recorded in history as Xerxes 1. His empire extended over a very large area, including 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia.The capital of his empire was Shushan, a beautiful city surrounded by mountains and rich in vegetation.It is here called a citadel, for it was a fortress, a castle built not only for residence, but for military defense (v. 2).

It was in the third year of his reign that he entertained all of his officials and servants including representatives of the many provinces, with a great feast that lasted for 180 days! (v. 4). What was his object? He wanted to impress them with the splendor of his own glory! The wealth expended on this celebration must have been enormous.No doubt he had many things to show to these visitors make them marvel that he was so greatly increased in riches.

THE FEAST FOR ALL THE PEOPLE

(vv. 5-8)

Possibly not all were able to be present for the full time, but the king desired a grand conclusion to this event by inviting all the people to a feast lasting seven days, provided in the court of the garden of the king’s palace (v. 5). The description of the luxurious circumstances of this is given in verses 6-7, which shows how the religious world likes to adopt for itself principles they recognize to be beautiful, but become only a show without reality. For in reality white and blue linen speak of the purity (white) and heavenly character (blue) of God’s testimony among His people. Purple speaks of royal character and the silver rods speak of redemption; all of these being of vital value to those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ. When in the hands of merely religious formalists, however, it is really only imitation, adopted because attractive.

Marble pillars are imposing, and speak of God’s sustaining power, while couches of gold and silver speak of resting places where God’s glory (gold) is present and redemption (silver) is known. But formal religion, though it often speaks of giving glory to God, does not even know whereof it speaks: it indulges merely in lip service. Redemption (silver) is unknown to the Persians, though they may imitate it because it seems so nice.

Drinks were served in golden vessels, all being different from the others. All of this lavish provision was “according to the generosity of the king” (v. 7). If a Persian king was able to make such a feast as this for all his subjects, how much more able is our great God to provide in glory a feast of unending wonder for those who know Him as revealed in His beloved Son, the Lord Jesus!

Because Ahasuerus had wealth for it, he could show a most magnanimous spirit in this great provision and at the same time fully indulge the people’s desire as to whether or not they wanted to drink. This is a striking imitation of the grace of God, who provides every necessity with no legal bondage, encouraging each believer to act on his own faith. But even in Christendom, ungodly men turn the grace of God into lewdness (Jud 1:4), just as the king was thinking merely of his own gratification.

THE QUEEN’S FEAST AND HER DEFIANCE

(vv. 9-12)

A feast also was made at the same time for the women, by Queen Vashti.Thus the celebration of the splendor of the kingdom was complete.

On the last day of the feast, Ahasuerus had no doubt consumed too much wine, and commanded seven eunuchs to go and bring Vashti back with them with the object of displaying her beauty before all the people (vv. 10-11). Why did he need to do this? Simply because it was to his credit that he had such a beautiful wife, just as all the glory of the kingdom was to his credit. Such is the pride of the natural man.

However, one jarring note marred this celebration.Vashti refused to come (v.12). What reason she had we are not told.The king had not expected any such refusal, and he became furious.His authority had been challenged by one from whom he would expect fullest cooperation.

VASHTI DEPOSED

(vv. 13-22)

The king then consulted with seven prominent princes of Persia as to what action should be taken in regard to Vashti’s defiance of his order (vv. 13-15). The Medes and Persians prided themselves on having just laws which could not be changed (Dan 6:12), and the king’s question therefore was, what should be done according to law. Nebuchadnezzar would not have required such consultation: he was an absolute dictator: “whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished he kept alive; whomever he wished he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down” (Dan 5:19).

One of the princes, Memucan, took the lead in suggesting what should be done. He said that Vashti had not only wronged the king, but also all the princes and all the people who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus (v. 16). No doubt it was true that Vashti’s behavior would become well known to all women, so that they would feel free to despise the authority of their husbands unless drastic action was promptly taken (vv. 17-18). Memucan therefore made the suggestion that if the king agreed, a royal decree would be proclaimed and recorded in the laws of the Persians and Medes, therefore unchangeable, that Vashti be banished and her royal position given to another woman better than she (v. 19).

The Annotated Bible by A.C. Gabelein records that “Jewish tradition gives several reasons why Memucan was so hostile to Vashti. One is that his own wife had not been invited to Vashti’s feast, and another, because he wanted his own daughter promoted and become the Queen” (“The Book of Esther, page 86).

Memucan then appealed, not only to the matter of the king’s authority in his own house, but his authority also over the kingdom, for prompt action in this case would have the beneficial effect of moving wives to honor their husbands (v. 20).Those who advocate “Women’s Lib” today would not be agreeable, but the king and the princes considered such action was necessary to preserve the kingdom from internal corruption and disintegration. Of course the Christian viewpoint differs from this and from the “Women’s Lib” viewpoint, but a heathen nation does not act on Christian principles, and neither does “Women’s Lib.”

The king and the princes were all favorable to Memucan’s solution to the problem (v. 21), and letters were sent to all the provinces under the king’s rule to the effect that every man should be master in his own house. Thus the letter practically agreed with the Christian principle that the husband is head of the wife (Eph 5:23), but it failed to agree with the instructions given to husbands in this same chapter, “Husbands, love your wives” and “husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies” (Eph 5:25; Eph 5:28).

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of {a} Ahasuerus, (this [is] Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, [over] an {b} hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

(a) Also called Darius, who was now the favourite monarch and had the government of the Medes, Persians and Chaldeans. Some think he was Darius Hystaspis also called Artaxerxes.

(b) Dan 6:1 makes mention of only 120 leaving out the number that are imperfect as the scripture uses in various places.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

I. GOD’S PREPARATIONS 1:1-2:20

Joyce Baldwin believed that the writer composed the book in a chiastic structure that focuses on the providence of God in the king’s sleepless night. [Note: Baldwin., p. 30.]

A    Opening and background (ch. 1)

    B    The king’s first decree (chs. 2-3)

        C    The clash between Haman and Mordecai (chs. 4-5)

            D    "On the night the king could not sleep" (Est 6:1)

        C’    Mordecai’s triumph over Haman (chs. 6-7)

    B’    The king’s second decree (chs. 8-9)

A’    Epilogue (ch. 10)

This first major part of the book explains how God placed a simple Jewish young woman in position to deliver her people from possible extinction.

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

1. The king’s feast 1:1-9

Ahasuerus is the Hebrew name of the Persian king, Khshayarsha, whom we know better in ancient history by his Greek name, Xerxes. [Note: Lewis B. Paton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther, p. 54. Cf. Ezra 4:5-7; Daniel 11:2.] He reigned over the Persian Empire from 486 to 464 B.C. and was the son of Darius I (521-486 B.C.). Another high-ranking Persian government officer, Artabanus, eventually assassinated him.

Xerxes is famous in secular history for two things: his defeat at the hands of the Greeks, and his building of the royal Persian palace at Persepolis. In 481 B.C. he took about 200,000 soldiers and hundreds of ships to Greece to avenge his father Darius’ loss at the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.). However, he too suffered defeat, in a three-fold manner. His soldiers lost the battle of Thermopylae to the Spartans, his army also lost at the battle of Plataea, and the Greeks destroyed his navy in the battle of Salamis.

The writer mentioned the vast area Xerxes controlled (cf. Est 8:9; Est 10:1). Perhaps he did this to avoid confusion with another Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1) whose son, Darius the Mede, governed the Babylonian provinces under Cyrus the Great from 539 to about 525 B.C. "India" refers to the territory that is now western Pakistan. "Cush" was the upper (southern) Nile region including southern Egypt, the Sudan, Eritrea, and northern Ethiopia, land west of the Red Sea. The 127 "provinces" (Heb. medina) were governmental units of the empire. These were political subdivisions of the satrapies (cf. Est 3:12). [Note: F. B. Huey Jr., "Esther," in 1 Kings-Job, vol. 4 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 798.]

"Susa" (Est 1:2) is the Greek name for the Hebrew "Shushan." It was a winter capital and had formerly been the capital of the kingdom of Elam. Susa was the name of both the capital city and the royal fortress that occupied a separate part of the city. [Note: Ibid., p. 298.] Other Persian capitals were Ecbatana (200 miles north of Susa, modern Hamadan, Ezr 6:2), Babylon (200 miles west, Ezr 6:1), Pasargadae, and Persepolis (both 300 miles southeast). [Note: See Edwin M. Yamauchi, "The Achaemenid Capitals," Near Esat Archaeology Society Bulletin, NS8 (1976):5-81.] Persepolis was Xerxes’ main residence. [Note: Breneman, p. 304.] Forty years after the events the writer described in the Book of Esther, Nehemiah served as cupbearer to Artaxerxes, Xerxes’ son (cf. Neh 1:1 to Neh 2:1).

The Hebrew word translated "capital" (NASB) or "citadel" (NIV; habirah) refers to an acropolis or fortified area that stood 72 feet above the rest of the city. A wall two and one-half miles long surrounded it. [Note: Ibid.]

The third year of Ahasuerus’ (Xerxes’) reign (Est 1:3) was evidently 482 B.C. For 180 days (six months) he entertained his guests (Est 1:4). This was evidently the military planning session that Ahasuerus conducted to prepare for his campaign against the Greeks. The Greek historian Herodotus referred to this meeting and said it took Ahasuerus four years (484-481 B.C.) to prepare for his Greek campaign. [Note: Herodotus, The Histories, 7:8, 20.] Ahasuerus’ Persian army suffered defeat at the hands of the Greeks at Plataea in 479 B.C.

"While labourers received barely enough to live on, even though they were producing works of art that are still unsurpassed, life at court was extravagant beyond imagining. The more lavish the king’s hospitality, the greater his claim to supremacy." [Note: Baldwin, p. 55.]

White and violet (blue, Est 1:6) were the royal colors of Persia. [Note: John C. Whitcomb, Esther: Triumph of God’s Sovereignty, p. 37.] This palace burned to the ground about 435 B.C., toward the end of Artaxerxes’ reign. [Note: A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, p. 352.]

Banquets are a prominent feature of this story. At least nine receive mention (Est 1:1-9; Est 2:18; Est 3:15; Est 5:4; Est 5:8; Est 8:17; Est 9:17-19).

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

AHASUERUS AND VASHTI

Est 1:1-22

THE character of Ahasuerus illustrates the Nemesis of absolutism, by showing how unlimited power is crushed and dissolved beneath the weight of its own immensity. The very vastness of his domains overwhelms the despot. While he thinks himself free to disport according to his will, he is in reality the slave of his own machinery of government. He is so entirely dependent for information on subordinates, who can deceive him to suit their own private ends, that he often becomes a mere puppet of the political wire-pullers. In the fury of his passion he issues his terrible mandates, with the confidence of a master whose slightest whim is a law to the nations, and yet that very passion has been cleverly worked up by some of his servants, who are laughing in their sleeves at the simplicity of their dupe, even while they are fawning on him with obsequious flattery. In the story of Esther Ahasuerus is turned about hither and thither by his courtiers, according as one or another is clever enough to obtain a temporary hearing. In the opening scene he is the victim of a harem plot which deprives him of his favourite consort. Subsequently Haman poisons his mind with calumnies about a loyal, industrious section of his subjects. He is only undeceived by another movement in the harem. Even the jealously guarded women of the royal household know more of the actual state of affairs in the outside world than the bewildered monarch. The king is so high above his realm that he cannot see what is going on in it, and all that he can learn about it passes through such a variety of intermediary agents that it is coloured and distorted in the process.

But this is not all. The man who is exalted to the pedestal of a god is made dizzy by his own altitude. Absolutism drove the Roman Emperor Caligula mad, it punished the Xerxes of Herodotus with childishness. The silly monarch who would decorate a tree with the jewellery of a prince in reward for its fruitfulness, and flog and chain the Hellespont as a punishment for its tempestuousness, is not fit to be let out of the nursery. Such conduct as his discovers an ineptitude that is next door to idiocy. When the same man appears on the pages of Scripture under the name of Ahasuerus, his weakness is despicable. The most keen-sighted ruler of millions is liable to be misinformed, the strongest administrator of a gigantic empire is compelled to move with difficulty in the midst of the elaborate organisation of his government. But Ahasuerus is neither keen-sighted nor strong. He is a victim of the last court intrigue, a believer in the idlest gossip, and he is worse, for even on the suppositions presented to him he behaves with folly and senseless fury. His conduct to Vashti is first insulting and then ungrateful, for fidelity to her worthless husband would prompt her to decline to risk herself among a crew of drunken revellers. His consent to the diabolical proposal of his grand vizier for a massacre, without an atom of proof that the victims are guilty, exhibits a hopeless state of mental feebleness, His equal readiness to transfer the mandate of wholesale murder to persons described indefinitely as the “enemies” of these people shows how completely he is twisted about by the latest breeze. As the palace plots develop we see this great king in all his pride and majesty tossed to and fro like a shuttle-cock. And yet he can sting. It is a dangerous game for the players, and the object of it is to get the deadly venom of the royal rage to light on the head of the opposite party. We could not have a more certain proof of the vanity of “ambition that oer leaps itself” than this conversion of immeasurable power into helpless weakness on the part of the Persian sovereign. We naturally start with this glaring exhibition of the irony of fate in our study of Ahasuerus, because it is the most pronounced factor in his character and career. There are other elements of the picture, however, which are not, like this, confined to the abnormal experience of solitary rulers. Next to the revenge of absolutism on its possessor, the more vulgar effects of extravagant luxury and self-indulgence are to be seen in the degraded Persian court life. Very likely the writer of our Book of Esther introduces these matters with the primary object of enhancing the significance of his main theme by making us feel how great a danger the Jews were in, and how magnificent a triumph was won for them by the heroic Jewess of the harem. But the scene that he thus brings before us throws light on the situation all round. Xerxes idea of unbridled power is that it admits of unlimited pleasure. Our authors picture of the splendid palace, with its richly coloured awnings stretched across from marble pillars to silver rods over the tesselated pavement, where the most exalted guests recline in the shade on gold and silver seats, while they feast hugely and drink heavily day after day, . shows us how the provinces were being drained to enrich the court, and how the royal treasury was being lavished on idle festivity. That was bad enough, but its effects were worse. The law was license. “The drinking was according to the law,” and this law was that there should be no limit to it, everybody taking just as much wine as he pleased. Naturally such a rule ostentatiously paraded before a dissolute company led to a scene of downright bestial debauchery. According to Herodotus, the Persians were addicted to drunkenness, and the incident described in the first chapter of Esther is quite in accordance with the Greek historians account of the followers of Xerxes.

The worst effect of this vice of drunkenness is its degrading influence on the conduct and character of men. It robs its victims of self-respect and manliness, and sends them to wallow in the mire with swinish obscenity. What they would not dream of stooping to in their sober moments, they revel in with shameless ostentation when their brains are clouded with intoxicating drink. Husbands, who are gentle and considerate at other times, are then transformed into brutes, who can take pleasure in trampling on their wives. It is no excuse to plead that the drunkard is a madman unaccountable for his actions; he is accountable for having put himself in his degraded condition. If he is temporarily insane, he has poisoned his own intellect by swallowing a noxious drug with his eyes open. He is responsible for that action, and therefore he must be held to be responsible for its consequences. If he had given due consideration to his conduct, he might have foreseen whither it was tending. The man who has been foolish enough to launch his boat on the rapids cannot divert its course when he is startled by the thunder of the falls he is approaching, but he should have thought of that before leaving the safety of the shore.

The immediate consequence of the disgusting degradation of drunkenness, in the case of Ahasnerus, is that the monarch grossly insults his queen. A moments consideration would have suggested the danger as well as the scandal of his behaviour. But in his heedless folly the debauchee hurls himself over the precipice, from the height of his royal dignity down to the very pit of ignominy, and then he is only enraged that Vashti refuses to be dragged down with him. It is a revolting scene, and one to show how the awful vice of drunkenness levels all distinctions; here it outrages the most sacred rules of Oriental etiquette. The seclusion of the harem is to be violated for the amusement of the dissolute kings boon companions.

In the story of Esther poor Vashtis fall is only introduced in order to make way for her Hebrew rival. But after-ages have naturally sided with the wronged queen. Was it true modesty that prompted her daring refusal, or the lawful pride of womanhood? If so, all women should honour Vashti as the vindicator of their dues. Whatever “womans rights” may be maintained in the field of politics, the very existence of the home, the basis of society itself, depends on those more profound and inalienable rights that touch the character of pure womanliness. The first of a womans rights is the right to her own person. But this right is ignored in Oriental civilisation. The sweet English word “home” is unknown in the court of such a king as Ahasuerus. To think of it in this connection is as incongruous as to imagine a daisy springing up through the boards of a dancing saloon. The unhappy Vashti had never known this choicest of words, but she may have had a due conception of a womans true dignity, as far as the perverted ideas of the East permitted. And yet even here a painful suspicion obtrudes itself on our notice. Vashti had been feasting with the women of the harem when she received the brutal mandate from her lord. Had she too lost her balance of judgment under the bewitching influence of the wine-cup? Was she rendered reckless by the excitement of her festivities? Was her refusal the result of the factitious courage that Springs from an unwholesome excitement or an equally effective mental stupor? Since one of the commonest results of intoxication is a quarrelsomeness of temper, it must be admitted that Vashtis flat refusal to obey may have some connection with her previous festivities. In that case, of course, something must be detracted from her glory as the martyr of womanliness. A horrible picture is this-a drunken king quarrelling with his drunken queen, these two people, set in the highest places in their vast realm, descending. from the very pinnacle of greatness to grovel in debased intemperance! It would not be fair to the poor, wronged queen to assert so much without any clear evidence in support of the darker view of her conduct. Still it must be admitted that it is difficult for any of the members of a dissolute society to keep their garments clean, Unhappily it is only too frequently the case that, even in a Christian land, womanhood is degraded by becoming the victim of intemperance. No sight on earth is more sickening. A woman may be loaded with insults, and yet she may keep her soul white as the soul of St. Agnes. It is not an outrage on her dignity, offered by the drunken king to his queen that really marks her degradation. To all fair judgments, that only degrades the brute who offers it, but the white lily is bruised and trampled in the dust when she who wears it herself consents to fling it away.

The action of Ahasuerus on receipt of his queens refusal reveals another trait in his weak character. Jealous eyes always watching the favourite of the harem discover an opportunity for a gleeful triumph. The advisers of the king are cunning enough to set the action of Vashti in the light of a public example. If a woman in so exalted a position is permitted to disobey her husband with impunity, other wives will appeal to her case and break out of bounds. It is a mean plea, the plea of weakness on the part of the speaker, Memucan, the last of the seven princes. Is this man only finding an excuse for the king? or may it be supposed that his thoughts are travelling away to a shrew in his own home? The strange thing is that the king is not content with wreaking his vengeance on the proud Vashti. He is persuaded to utilise the occasion of her act of insubordination in order to issue a decree commanding the subjection of all wives to their husbands. The queens conduct is treated as an instance of a growing spirit of independence on the part of the women of Persia, which must be crushed forthwith. One would think that the women were slaves, and that the princes were acting like the Romans when they issued repressive measures from dread of a “Servile War.”

If such a law as this had ever been passed, we might well understand the complaint of those who say it is unjust that the function of legislation should be monopolised by one sex. Even in the West, where women are comparatively free and are supposed to be treated on an equality with men, wrong is often done because the laws which concern them more especially are all made by men. In the East, where they are regarded as property, like their husbands camels and oxen cruel injustice is inevitable. But this injustice cannot go unpunished. It must react on its perpetrators, blunting their finer feelings, lowering their better nature, robbing them of those sacred confidences of husband and wife which never spring up on the territory of the slave-driver.

But we have only to consider the domestic edict of Ahasuerus to see its frothy vanity. When it was issued it must have struck everybody who had the faintest sense of humour as simply ridiculous. It is not by the rough instrumentality of the law that difficult questions of the relations between the sexes can be adjusted. The law can see that a formal contract is not violated with impunity. The law can protect the individual parties to the contract from the most brutal forms of cruelty-though even this is very difficult between husband and wife. But the law cannot secure real justice in the home. This must be left to the working of principles of righteousness and to the mutual considerateness of those who are concerned. Where these elements are wanting, no legislation on matrimony can restore the peace of a shattered home.

The order of Ahasuerus, however, was too indefinite to have very serious results. The tyrannical husband would not have waited for any such excuse as it might afford him for exacting obedience from his oppressed household drudge. The strong-minded woman would mock at the kings order, and have her own way as before. Who could hinder her? Certainly not her husband. The yoke of years of meek submission was not to be broken in a day by a royal proclamation. But wherever the true idea of marriage was realised-and we must have sufficient faith in human nature to be assured that this was sometimes the case even in the realm of Xerxes-the husband and wife who knew themselves to be one, united by the closest ties of love and sympathy and mutual confidence, would laugh in their happiness and perhaps spare a thought of pity for the poor, silly king who was advertising his domestic troubles to the world, and thereby exhibiting his shallow notions of wedded life-blind, absolutely blind, to the sweet secret that was heaven to them.

We may be sure that the singular edict remained a dead letter. But the king would be master in his own palace. So Vashti fell. We hear no more of her, but we can guess too well what her most probable fate must have been. The gates of death are never difficult to find in an Oriental palace; there are always jealous rivals eager to triumph over the fall of a royal favourite. Still Ahasuerus had been really fond of the queen who paid so dearly for her one act of independence. Repenting of his drunken rage, the king let his thoughts revert to his former favourite, a most dangerous thing for those who had hastened her removal. The easiest escape for them was to play on his coarse nature by introducing to his notice a bevy of girls from whom he might select a new favourite. This was by no means a dignified proceeding for Esther, the maiden to whom the first prize in the exhibition of beauty was awarded by the royal fancier. But it gave her the place of power from which to help her people in their hour of desperate need. And here we come to some redeeming features in the character of the king. He is not lacking in generosity, and he owns to a certain sense of justice. In the crowd of royal cares and pleasures, he has forgotten how an obscure Jew saved his life by revealing one of the many plots that make the pleasures of a despot as hollow a mockery as the feast of Damocles. On the chance discovery of his negligence, Ahasuerus hastens to atone for it with ostentatious generosity. Again, no sooner does he find that he has been duped by Haman into an act of cruel injustice than he tries to counteract the mischief by an equally savage measure of retaliation. A strange way of administering justice! Yet it must be admitted that in this the capricious, blundering king means honestly. The bitter irony of it all is that so awful a power of life and death should be lodged in the hands of one who is so totally incapacitated for a wise use of it.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary