Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Esther 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,
10 22. Vashti’s disgrace
10. he commanded Mehuman etc. ] The names of the seven chamberlains, or rather, eunuchs, who were sent to fetch Vashti, vary much in their form in the LXX. and other versions. Their derivation is, like their nationality, quite uncertain, inasmuch as the Persian market was largely supplied with men of other races for this purpose.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Est 1:10
When the heart of the king was merry with wine.
Intoxication
There is a difference between not being intoxicated and being sober. A person may be able to speak and to walk, and yet may be guilty of excess in the use of strong drink. He may not have lost the use of his senses, and yet have lost the sound use of his senses. He may lose his guard, and expose himself defenceless to the attack of temptation. Reason is the glory of a man, and whatever tarnishes or dims the lustre of this crown is criminal. Next to reason, speech is mans glory, and everything which causes it to falter is sinful. Whatever makes a man slow to hear, swift to speak, swift to wrath–whatever makes him rash in counsel, and precipitate in action–whatever makes him say or do what is unbecoming his character, and what he would be ashamed of at another time–cometh of evil, and may be the source of great vexation to himself and injury to others. (T. McCrie.)
Drunkenness does not destroy responsibility
The worst effect of the vice of drunkenness is its degrading influence on the conduct and character of men. It robs its victims of self-respect sad 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. It is no excuse to plead that a drunkard is a madman unaccountable for his actions; he is accountable for having put himself in hie degraded condition. 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. (W. F. Adeney, M. A.)
The drunkards excuses and the drunkards woe
I. The drunkards excuses.
1. Good-fellowship. But can friendship be founded on vice; especially on a vice which impairs the memory and the sense of obligation, leads to the betrayal of secrets, and stirs up strife end contention?
2. It drowns care. But the drunkards care must arise either from the ill state of his health, the unfortunate position of his worldly affairs, or the stings of a guilty conscience; and in either case his temporary oblivion is purchased at the cost of an aggravation of the evils which cause him to desire it.
II. The drunkards woe. This is made up of the miserable effects.
1. Temporal.
(1) Poverty.
(2) Contempt.
(3) Ill-health.
(4) An untimely death.
2. Spiritual.
(1) The understanding is depraved and darkened.
(2) The will is enfeebled and dethroned.
(3) Regard for men, reverence for God, are destroyed.
Drunkenness travels with a whole train of other vices, and requires the whole breadth of the broad way to give it room. (Claphams Selected Sermons.)
Afraid of drink
Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and a large number of the most distinguished of the Confederate officers imitated the example of their chief, and were strict temperance men. Upon one occasion Jackson was suffering so much from fatigue and severe exposure that his surgeon prevailed on him to take a little brandy. He made a very wry face as he swallowed it, and the doctor asked, Why, general, is not the brandy good? It is some that we have recently captured, and I think it very fine. Oh, yes! was the reply, it is very good brandy. I like liquor–its taste and its effects–and that is just the reason why I never drink it. Upon another occasion, after a long ride in a drenching rain, a brother officer insisted upon Jacksons taking a drink with him; but he firmly replied, No, sir, I cannot do it. I tell you I am more afraid of King Alcohol than of all the bullets of the enemy.
The battle with drink
And drink is such a degrading enemy to the intellectual man: the foe is unworthy of his steel. The battle of drink is not like the old contests of chivalry, when knight assailed knight with unblemished shield, and there was such a grace and elegance about the conflict that even defeat was not dishonourable. It is more like a battle with a chimney-sweep falling foul of you, rolling on you his heavy bulk till he has you sprawling in the mud, and so smearing you that you become an object of loathing–to yourself, if you have any sense of shame, and certainly to all who pass by. Could any humiliation be deeper? (G. W. Blaikie.)
The safety of temperance
Suppose there were two lines of railroad; on one of them was an accident regularly once a week, sometimes on one day, and sometimes on another; and on the other there never had been an accident. Suppose your only son wanted to go the journey traversed by the respective lines, and he were to come to you saying, Which road shall I take, father? would you dare to tell him to take that upon which the accidents were so frequent, because it was the most fashionable? You would say at once, Take the safe road, my boy. And that is just what we temperance folks say. (John B. Gough.)
Wise abstinence
There was a half-witted boy in one of the southern counties of Scotland who was known as an innocent or natural. Upon one occasion he was enticed into a public-house where a company of young men were drinking. Some of them offered spirits to this supposed simpleton, whereupon he instantly and absolutely refused them, saying, If the Lord Almighty has given few wits to Daft Davie, He has at least given him sense enough to keep the little that he has! (Sunday School.)
Alls well that ends well; but wine never ends well. (A. M. Symington, B. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. He commanded Mehuman] All these are doubtless Persian names; but so disguised by passing through a Hebrew medium, that some of them can scarcely be known. [Persian] Mehuman signifies a stranger or guest. We shall find other names and words in this book, the Persian etymology of which may be easily traced.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Chamberlains, or eunuchs; which were much in use and in favour in the eastern courts, and particularly with the Persian emperors, as ancient histories inform us.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10-12. On the seventh day, when theheart of the king was merry with wineAs the feast daysadvanced, the drinking was more freely indulged in, so that the closewas usually marked by great excesses of revelry.
he commanded . . . the sevenchamberlainsThese were the eunuchs who had charge of the royalharem. The refusal of Vashti to obey an order which required her tomake an indecent exposure of herself before a company of drunkenrevellers, was becoming both the modesty of her sex and her rank asqueen; for, according to Persian customs, the queen, even more thanthe wives of other men, was secluded from the public gaze. Had notthe king’s blood been heated with wine, or his reason overpowered byforce of offended pride, he would have perceived that his own honor,as well as hers, was consulted by her dignified conduct.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
On the seventh day,…. Of the feast, the last day of it, which the Rabbins, as Jarchi observes, say was the sabbath day, and so the Targum:
when the heart of the king was merry with wine; when he was intoxicated with it, and knew not well what he said or did; and the discourse at table ran upon the beauty of women, as the latter Targum; when the king asserted there were no women so beautiful as those of Babylon, and, as a proof of it, ordered his queen to be brought in:
he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains, that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king; or “eunuchs”, as the word is sometimes rendered; and such persons were made use of in the eastern countries to, wait upon women, and so were proper to be sent on the king’s errand to the queen.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Vashti’s Refusal to Appear; Vashti Divorced. | B. C. 519. |
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, 11 To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, 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, (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 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 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 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 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.
We have here a damp to all the mirth of Ahasuerus’s feast; it ended in heaviness, not as Job’s children’s feast by a wind from the wilderness, not as Belshazzar’s by a hand-writing on the wall, but by is own folly. An unhappy falling out there was, at the end of the feast, between the king and queen, which broke of the feast abruptly, and sent the guests away silent and ashamed.
I. It was certainly the king’s weakness to send for Vashti into his presence when he was drunk, and in company with abundance of gentlemen, many of whom, it is likely, were in the same condition. When his heart was merry with wine nothing would serve him but Vashti must come, well dressed as she was, with the crown on her head, that the princes and people might see what a handsome woman she was, Est 1:10; Est 1:11. Hereby, 1. He dishonoured himself as a husband, who ought to protect, but by no means expose, the modesty of his wife, who ought to be to her a covering of the eyes (Gen. xx. 16), not to uncover them. 2. He diminished himself as a king, in commanding that from his wife which she might refuse, much to the honour of her virtue. It was against the custom of the Persians for the women to appear in public, and he put a great hardship upon her when he did not court, but command her to do so uncouth a thing, and make her a show. If he had not been put out of the possession of himself by drinking to excess, he would not have done such a thing, but would have been angry at any one that should have mentioned it. When the wine is in the wit is out, and men’s reason departs from them.
II. However, perhaps it was not her wisdom to deny him. She refused to come (v. 12); though he sent his command by seven honourable messengers, and publicly, and Josephus says sent again and again, yet she persisted in her denial. Had she come, while it was evident that she did it in pure obedience, it would have been no reflection upon her modesty, nor a bad example. The thing was not in itself sinful, and therefore to obey would have been more her honour than to be so precise. Perhaps she refused in a haughty manner, and then it was certainly evil; she scorned to come at the king’s commandment. What a mortification was this to him! While he was showing the glory of his kingdom he showed the reproach of his family, that he had a wife that would do as she pleased. Strifes between yoke-fellows are bad enough at any time, but before company they are very scandalous, and occasion blushing and uneasiness.
III. The king thereupon grew outrageous. He that had rule over 127 provinces had no rule over his own spirit, but his anger burned in him, v. 12. He would have consulted his own comfort and credit more if he had stifled his resentment, had passed by the affront his wife gave him, and turned it off with a jest.
IV. Though he was very angry, he would not do any thing in this matter till he advised with his privy-counsellors; as he had seven chamberlains to execute his orders, who are named (v. 10), so he had seven counsellors to direct his orders. The greater power a man has the greater need he has of advice, that he may not abuse his power. Of these counsellors it is said that they were learned men, for they knew law and judgment,that they were wise men, for they knew the times,and that the king put great confidence in them and honour upon them, for they saw the king’s face and sat first in the kingdom,Est 1:13; Est 1:14. In the multitude of such counsellors there is safety. Now here is,
1. The question proposed to this cabinet-council (v. 15): What shall we do to the queen Vashti according to the law? Observe, (1.) Though it was the queen that was guilty, the law must have its course. (2.) Though the king was very angry, yet he would do nothing but what he was advised was according to law.
2. The proposal which Memucan made, that Vashti should be divorced for her disobedience. Some suggest that he gave this severe advice, and the rest agreed to it, because they knew it would please the king, would gratify both his passion now and his appetite afterwards. But Josephus says that, on the contrary, he had a strong affection for Vashti, and would not have put her away for this offence if he could legally have passed it by; and then we must suppose Memucan, in his advice, to have had a sincere regard to justice and the public good. (1.) He shows what would be the bad consequences of the queen’s disobedience to her husband, if it were passed by and not animadverted upon, that it would embolden other wives both to disobey their husbands and to domineer over them. Had this unhappy falling out between the king and his wife, wherein she was conqueror, been private, the error would have remained with themselves and the quarrel might have been settled privately between themselves; but it happening to be public, and perhaps the ladies that were now feasting with the queen having shown themselves pleased with her refusal, her bad example would be likely to have a bad influence upon all the families of the kingdom. If the queen must have her humour, and the king must submit to it (since the houses of private persons commonly take their measures from the courts of princes), the wives would be haughty and imperious and would scorn to obey their husbands, and the poor despised husbands might fret at it, but could not help themselves; for the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping,Pro 19:13; Pro 27:15; and see Pro 21:9; Pro 25:24. When wives despise their husbands, whom they ought to reverence (Eph. v. 33), and contend for dominion over those to whom they ought to be in subjection (1 Pet. iii. 1), there cannot but be continual guilt and grief, confusion and every evil work. And great ones must take heed of setting copies of this kind, v. 16-18. (2.) He shows what would be the good consequence of a decree against Vashti that she should be divorced. We may suppose that before they proceeded to this extremity they sent to Vashti to know if she would yet submit, cry Peccavi–I have done wrong, and ask the king’s pardon, and that, if she had done so, the mischief of her example would have been effectually prevented, and process would have been stayed; but it is likely she continued obstinate, and insisted upon it as her prerogative to do as she pleased, whether it pleased the king or no, and therefore they gave this judgment against her, that she come no more before the king, and this judgment so ratified as never to be reversed, v. 19. The consequence of this, it was hoped, would be that the wives would give to their husbands honour, even the wives of the great, notwithstanding their own greatness, and the wives of the small, notwithstanding the husband’s meanness (v. 20); and thus every man would bear rule in his own house, as he ought to do, and, the wives being subject, the children and servants would be so too. It is the interest of states and kingdoms to provide that good order be kept in private families.
3. The edict that passed according to this proposal, signifying that the queen was divorced for contumacy, according to the law, and that, if other wives were in like manner undutiful to their husbands, they must expect to be in like manner disgraced (Est 1:21; Est 1:22): were they better than the queen? Whether it was the passion or the policy of the king that was served by this edict, God’s providence served its own purpose by it, which was to make way for Esther to the crown.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Queen Deposed, Verses 10-22
On the last day of his banquet King Ahasuerus was well intoxicated. His debauched mind conceived of a plan to parade his beautiful queen before his dissipated courtiers, something he might not have done in his sober moments. This goes to illustrate the power of intoxication over the mind of those who indulge in it (Eph 5:18). The king intended to bring in the queen with great fanfare and show, sending all seven of his chamberlains to conduct her. She was to wear the royal crown and perhaps to dress in her finery that he might display her beauty before the lustful eyes of his drunken cronies.
To her credit Vashti refused to join in this shocking demand of the king. although she might have known what it might cost her in the king’s favor. He was well know, as secular history confirms, for his foolish deeds. The whole affair of Vashti and the following beauty contest borders on the idiotic. He is said to have had the sea beaten with chains because the waves destroyed his pontoons when he was trying to cross the Hellaspont to Greece during his Greek campaign.
Vashti’s refusal humiliated the king, and he seethed with anger because she had defied his command. To save face there had to be some kind of punishment of her on his part. He called in seven of his counselors, who were trained in the law of Media and Persia and who were his closest advisers, and put the problem to them. What would the law allow him to do to Queen Vashti for her disobedience to the king’s command? One of the counselors, Memucan, had an answer. He reasoned that Vashti’s disobedience was not harmful to the king only,
but to all the men of the empire as well. The refusal of the queen to obey the king would become known widely over the empire, and all the wives of the realm would conclude that they could disobey their husbands also. Such a thing, Memucan concluded, would cause great contention throughout the realm, for there would be trouble in every house where the conduct of Vashti should become known.
Memucan advised the king to issue an edict, unalterable according to the custom of the Medes and Persians, that Vashti should be put away by the king and never allowed to come into his presence. Another queen more amenable to the king’s demands should be selected to fill her place. This new law should be published throughout the empire so that when it was known in every house the wives would be obedient and respectful of their husbands. The proposal was pleasing to Ahasuerus, and he had it issued as law and sent out in every language of his empire. It made it legal that every man should be master of his house and the spokesman of it. While the law of Ahasuerus was provoked by the refusal of a sinful demand, it was, nevertheless, according to God’s intent as set forth in the beginning (Gen 3:16) and in keeping with New Testament instruction (Eph 5:22-24).
Note these lessons: 1) worldly rulers go to great lengths to bring about their own selfish desires; 2) drunkenness causes otherwise sensible people to do foolish things; 3) an honorable woman will not so behave to arouse the lusts of men; 4) God’s wise law has decreed that the wife should be subject to her husband.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.]
Est. 1:12. Vashti refused to come] It was regarded as something unheard of if the queen appeared in public unveiled.Lange. Vashti means the best.
Est. 1:13. Which knew the times] Astrologers and magicians; generally to be learned.
Est. 1:14. The seven princes] refers in the present case to the seven Amshaspands, in others to the days of the week, or the seven planets.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 1:10; Est. 1:14
A CATALOGUE OF NAMES
Names are applied to persons and things to set forth their distinguishing characteristics, and to separate one from the other. The name of the person should represent and bring before us the person so designated. But the names of these seven eunuchs and seven princes do not give us any indication of their peculiar properties. These names are names only. The persons named are lost in the oblivion of the past.
I. Human names are needful to the perfection of the historic record. This Book of Esther is a history as well as a drama. For the consistency of the drama, and to the perfection of the historic record, there must be the record of names. We may wish to know something about the persons named, but the historian cannot always check his narration to describe every person to whom allusion must be made. All he has to do is to give a faithful and general account of the transactions recorded.
II. Human names are useful as being incidental testimonies to the veracity of the history. A long list of names is dry reading. It sometimes makes an unpleasant break in the even flow of the narrative, but it gives an air of truthfulness to the record. It shows that the writer either has much skill, or is speaking about real transactions with which he is familiar. We have no just reason to suppose that these sacred writers were endowed with the worldly cunning which led them to conjure and insert names for the purpose of making their myths appear something more than mythical compositions. There is the evident absence of all deep art in their compositions. There is a simplicity which speaks of veracity.
III. Human names are recognized by the Divine mind. Language itself must be of Divine origin. We cannot conceive human language having come into existence in any other way. Names, then, are part of the Divine plan. The God of order must approve of those names which are needful to the orderly movements of society. They are plentifully employed in the Divine book. There are distinctions on earth, and names are needful to preserve those distinctions. There are distinctions in heaven, and perhaps names will continue in that sublimer sphere.
IV. Human names may be entered on the historic page and the owners sink away into obscurity. These seven eunuchs and seven princes have for us no deep interest; their glory is gone, their names only abide. How touching it is to reflect that the greater part by far of the race become only meaningless names! We have even no certain data for the interpretation of these names. They have generally but little resemblance to known Persian names. But we may go further. The best known names of the present will be crowded out of prominence by the names of coming celebrities. There are vast multitudes in this country who do not know the names, and still fewer who are acquainted with the characters, of those great men who have fashioned our countrys history. So passes speedily away all human glory. The name of Christian will ever abide.
V. Human names may be entered on the historic page without any merit on the part of the owners. If historic scrolls contained only the names of the meritorious, if even of the meritorious from a human standpoint, how short would be the list! The work of the historian would be very considerably abridged. These names are inserted on account of their connection with the sacred story.
VI. Human names may be recorded in a sacred list and yet the owners not themselves be sacred. This number seven was peculiarly sacred to the Persians. If these eunuchs and princes had been of sacred character, if they had been known for deeds of goodness, we may reasonably suppose that the Divine penman would have paused in order to testify of their noble characters. This course is from time to time pursued in the Bible. Many that are unsacred have their names written on the sacred lists of earth. It is difficult, yea impossible, to keep our sacred lists perfect. The names of the unworthy and the impure will get inserted. The sacred list of heaven alone is perfect. Characters, not reputations, are considered in Divine judgments. Not the skilful utterers, but the consistent doers of Divine words will be written on Divine lists.
VII. Better than the celebrity of human names is the immortality of noble deeds. The most celebrated of human names will vanish. Noble deeds alone are immortal. When the names now blazoned forth on the pages of history, or trumpeted in the ears of the world, are known no more, then will be remembered the names of Gods faithful ones. For God is not unrighteous to forget their works and their labours of love.
Be good, my child, and let who will be clever
Do noble deeds, not dream them all day long;
And so make life, death, and that vast forever
One grand, deep song.Charles Kingsley.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 1:10; Est. 1:14
It is to be added, also, that mere genealogies, bare narratives of the number of years which persons, called by such and such names, lived, do not carry the air of fiction; perhaps do carry some presumption of veracity; and all unadorned narratives, which have nothing to surprise, may be thought to carry somewhat of the like presumption too.Butlers Analogy.
Every human name more or less historic. Some persons exercise a direct historic influence; others are but incidentally associated with the great facts of time.Dr. Parker.
In a similar way, many of the driest portions of the historic booksthe genealogies, for exampleminister to the same end. The mere frequency and copiousness of such matter, untinctured with the smallest trace of mythological influences, and attended, as it often is, with a break in the continuity and interest in the narrative, is, pro tanto, a voucher that the writings in which they occur are neither fiction nor myth. We can understand the moderate use which Homer or De Foe may have made of such matter; that is, just so far as to impart a general air of verisimilitude. But whole pages together of nothing but names are so preposterously beyond all imaginable necessities of allusion, and so destructive of all interest in the reader, that we may safely infer that the introduction of such matter, to the extent we find it in the Bible, will admit of no such solution. As little will it admit of a mythical origin; for though myths may be a gradual and insensible growth of the popular imagination, they are yet true to the principles on which they have been constructed and embellished, to amuse or instruct; and neither the one purpose nor the other can be answered by whole chapters containing nothing but long catalogues of names.The Superhuman Origin of the Bible, by Henry Rogers.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 1:10-12
FALSE MERRIMENT AND ITS RESULT
When the heart of the king was merry with wine he sent the seven eunuchswhich refers in the present case to the seven Amshaspands, in others the number refers to the days of the week, or the seven planetsto bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the people and the princes her beauty. But the queen Vashti refused to come at the kings commandment: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.
I. Here is false merriment. There is a merriment which is wholesome, and there is a merriment which is injurious. That merriment which is the outcome of a nature working harmoniously will do good, and will leave pleasant reflections; but that merriment which is the outcome of a nature where alcohol has sunk into temporary oblivion all unpleasant views, and has unduly excited into delirious joy, will work damage, and when it has gone a bitter memory will remain. The last state of the mans heart made merry with wine is always worse than the state before the heart was reached by the delusive liquor. The false, both in nature and in morals, cannot be without either attendant or consequent evils. Better no merriment than that which is purchased at the expense of future repose. Let the heart of man be merry with the new wine of heaven.
II. Here false merriment leads to a foolish command. When the heart is thus merry with wine the head gets wrong. The directing portion of the brain is disordered and weakened by alcohol. Strange freaks are performed, and the merry heart too often becomes a broken heart. Very suggestive is the statement when the heart of the king was merry with wine. Nothing is said about the head. The stomach is too often the strongest force in a drunkards frame. Ahasuerus, in his maudlin state, did not dream that his beloved and beautiful queen would dare to be disobedient. He gave a foolish command. His folly brought its bitter fruit. He sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Let us be careful how and whom we command.
III. A foolish command leads to a humiliating refusal. It never occurred to this proud and merry-making monarch that a woman would venture to refuse, when courtiers fawned and flattered, and when princes rendered obeisance. In the very climax of his glory and his merriment he received a blow which was more humiliating than defeat on the battle-field. What a consternation when Vashti refused to come! If there was one thing more than another calculated to make this king sober, it was the tidings that Vashti refused to come. Our troubles come from quarters where we least expect them.
IV. This humiliating refusal leads to a still more humiliating display. Sometimes fools are so silly as not to see that they have been humiliated. But Ahasuerus had not been rendered senseless by the copious draughts of rich wine; he had just enough sense left to see that he had received a great affront; therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. A king in a childish passion. How unkingly! This royal child asked for his queen to be brought, as an over-spoilt child asks for a fresh toy to gratify a surfeited nature, and then begins to cry and make a farcical scene because the request is refused. If there was one manly spirit present at the scene, he must have blushed for his country to see it governed by such a pitiful specimen of manhood. Here learn
1. That human greatness reveals human weakness. Earthly kings are not omnipotent. Only God is all-powerful; and oftentimes with the small hand of his weakest creatures he touches the strong man and makes him tremble. In the day of proudest successes we receive the most humiliating strokes.
2. An uncurbed will must meet with strange rebuffs. A Persian monarchs command was not to be disputed, and thus he did not learn to respect the rights of others. While we uphold our own rights, and maintain a proper dignity, we must remember that others have rights. Spoiled children must come to grief.
3. That at Divine feasts alone do we find the best at the last. Where Ahasuerus and his like preside the best wine is drunk first, and at the conclusion the guests are only too glad to escape without personal harm. Where Christ presides the joyful guests exclaim, Thou hast kept the good wine till now.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 1:10-12
1. It was certainly the kings weakness to send for the queen into his presence when drunk.
(1) He dishonoured himself as a husband. He ought to have protected, and not exposed, his wife.
(2) He diminished himself as a king in commanding that from his wife which she might refuse, much to the honour of her virtue.
2. Perhaps it was not her wisdom to deny him.
(1) She refused, though he sent his command by seven honourable messengers.
(2) Had she come, while she did it in pure obedience, it had been no reflection upon her modesty.M. Henry.
1. Great pleasure is often followed by equally great displeasure.
2. Occasions of joyous feasting commonly end in sorrow.
3. Although beauty is a gift of God, still one should not make a boast of it, nor yet be proud of it.
4. Pride occasions much sorrow, and often plunges into destruction.
Est. 1:12. Therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. ANGER. I. THE DEFORMITY OF ANGER. What an ugly thing is anger, dispossessing a man of his soul (which is possessed by patience), and disfiguring his body with fieriness of eyes, furiousness of the looks, distortion of the face, inflammation of the nostrils. The Hebrews call anger Aph, because therein the nose riseth, the colour changeth, the tongue stammereth, the teeth gnash, the hands clasp, the feet stamp, the pulse beats, the heart pants, the whole man swells like a toad, glows like a devil, tormenting himself before his time; whence many heathens have advised the angry man to look at his face in a glass, and so grow ashamed of his distemper.
II. THE DISGRACE OF ANGER. The Holy Ghost hath stigmatized the angry person for a fool in grain, such an one as exalts folly, sets it upon high to be seen of all, and proclaims himself a fool; yea, the worst of fools; for proud, haughty scorner is his name that dealeth in proud wrath; that is his title. Thus God loads such a man with disgrace. And whereas he thinks by his big looks and high terms to carry it among men (as Lamech did), when he hath gotten revenge especially; the Apostle purposely disgraceth revenge of injury by a word signifying disgrace, loss of victory, or impotency of mind. And, indeed, it is unmanliness of spirit, and little wit in the head, that causeth a great deal of passion in the heart, as we see in infants and sick people. Thunder, hail, tempest, neither trouble nor hurt the celestial bodies; no more doth anger great minds. The tops of some mountains are said to be so high above the middle region of air, that not so much as the dust of them is moved out of the place from years end to years end: so is it here. Great spirits and men of understanding are, like the upper region, in a perpetual serenity; or, at least, like the highest planets, that of all the rest are thought to be lowest in course, or like a diamond that is neither bruised nor cut.
III. THE DANGER OF ANGER. It consumes the body; it confounds the soul. Fevers, colics, palsies, pleurisies, apoplexies, inflammation, consumption, are caused by it, while it dries up the radical moisture (that balsam of the body), boils the heart into brine, and, viper-like, makes an end of the owner; who, as he lived undesired, so he dies unlamented, as Nerva, Valentinian, and other choleric kings and persons of great note, who hereby have wrought their own ruth and ruin. And for the poor soul it is indisposed, by unadvised anger, for prayer or any other duty to God or man. He is laid open, like an unwalled city, to many sins, mischiefs, and miseries; temporal, spiritual, and eternal. He that lives and dies in this fury becomes a prey to the furies of hell.Trapp.
Est. 1:10; Est. 1:12.What has thus degraded the king? Wine. The king was happy in the obedience of princes, but unhappy in the disobedience of his wife. What a disappointment! He showed the glory of his kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty many days; but he also showed that, with all his glory, he could not command a woman. Disputes between husbands and wives are bad at any time, but much worse in the presence of company. Though a mighty king, he was also a poor slave. He drank wine to excess. He issued an unrighteous command. He was carried away by anger. Rich man! Yet how poor, with all thy wealth. A sober slave is more respected, and more to be respected, than a drunken king. I will not come, said Vashti; and all the persuasion of the great men could not persuade her. When asked to violate our conscience, let us dare to say, No. If husbands expect obedience from their wives, let them be reasonable in their commands. The guilt of disobedience sometimes rests upon him who issues the command. Husbands, provoke not your wives to anger. They have given themselves to and for you. Wives, do not dishonour those husbands who have chosen you before all others. Perhaps Vashti thought, What means this uncouth motion? More than six months hath this feast continued, and all this while we have enjoyed the wanton liberty of our sex. Were the king himself this command could not be sent. It is the wine, and not he, that is guilty of this errand: is it for me to humour him in so vain a desire? Will it agree with our modest reservedness to offer ourselves to be gazed at by millions of eyes? Who knows what wanton attempt may follow upon this ungoverned excess? This very message argues that wit and reason hath yielded their place to that besotting liquor. Vashti refuseth to come. The blood that is once inflamed with wine is apt to boil with rage. It vexes him to think that those nobles whom he meant to send away astonished with the demonstration of his power and majesty should now say, What boots it Ahasuerus to rule afar off when he cannot command at home? In vain doth he boast to govern kings, while he is checked by a woman.Bishop Hall.
And his anger burned within him; as Nebuchadnezzars also did upon a like occasion, hotter than his seven times heated oven, or than the mountain Etna doth. Moses anger waxed hot in him, so that he knew not well what he did in it, it raised such a smoke. Jonah was ready to burst with anger; his blood boiled at his heart as brimstone doth at the match. Therefore is the heart set so near the lungs, that when it is heated with anger it may be allayed and cooled by the blast and moisture thereof. Josephus saith that he brake off the feast upon this occasion.Trapp.
We see that God reserves the best for the last. Gods last works are his best works. The new heaven and the new earth are the best; the second wine that Christ created himself was the best; spiritual things are better than natural. A Christians last is his best. God will have it so for the comfort of Christians, that every day they live they may think, my best is behind, my best is to come; that every day they rise they may think, I am nearer heaven one day than I was before, I am nearer death, and therefore nearer Christ. What a solace is this to a gracious heart! A Christian is a happy man in his life, but happier in his death, because then he goes to Christ; but happiest of all in heaven, for then he is with Christ. How contrary to a carnal man, that lives according to the sway of his own base lusts! He is miserable in his life, most miserable in his death, but most miserable of all after death. I beseech you lay this to heart. Methinks, considering that death is but a way for us to be with Christ, which is far better, this should sweeten the thinking of death to us, and we should comfort ourselves daily that we are nearer happiness.Sibbes.
Ahasuerus went from bad to worse, as we all do whenever we fail to practise the self-denial of obedience to God. Pride, luxury, excess in wine, mad upsetting of the first laws of nature, these came first; then followed in its order furious anger, which may do anything. He was stung in the apple of his eye. When I am bringing to so triumphant a finish the pageant planned since I came to the throne, when everybody is thinking how supremely grand I am above all men, to be thus humiliated by a woman! Ah, sire! had you respected yourself you would have been spared all the humiliation.Symington.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 1:10-12
VASHTIS DILEMMA
There are great crises in the history of individuals as well as of nations. An arrestive hand checks our progress. We are compelled to pause and deliberate. Such a crisis had now arrived in the history of Vashti. The great turning-point of her life now appears. The question is, Shall I be unqueenly, and thus remain a queen? or shall I be queenly, and become unqueened? Summon up thy heroism, Vashti; all thy fortitude will now be required.
I. She receives an unkingly message. Doubtless the seven chamberlains would give the kings message in true courtly style; but even courtly words may indicate unkingly intentions. It was so in this case. Vashti was to leave the company of her guests, and put on the crown royal, which was a high-pointed turban; and consequently she was to appear in entire royal apparel. We may suppose that her person was to be graced with costly robes of splendid colours from the province of Cashmir, and with garments made of the finely-wrought and richly-variegated silks of the Medians. Pearls from the Persian Gulf would flash their varied and chastened colours. Rich jewels would not be wanting to increase the splendour. And gold from the distant parts of the empire would manifest the vastness of the kings resources, and tend to set forth the charms of the queens person. Being purified with oil of myrrh and sweet odours, she would emit a pleasant fragrance by her every motion, as well as display her beauty in new and attractive aspects to the beholders. No purpose was to be served beyond that of showing the people and the princes her beauty. She was to throw aside her self-respect, to divest herself of true queenly attributes, and appear with her face unveiled, in order that the courtly revellers might feast upon her countenance; and thus she was to do that which was abhorrent to an Eastern womans sense of propriety. No wonder if her spirit rebelled against such unkingly purposes. The kings of time are cruel to their favourites. At first they may be loaded with honours; but afterwards, if any offence is given, the honours are taken away, and the favourites made to feel that it would have been better for them to have remained in obscurity. A despots guests are not to be envied, for the arbitrary and unreasonable nature of his commands may turn their laughter into weeping. But in the long run despots are cruel to themselves. The merciful man doeth good to his own soul; but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh. However, let us remember that the King of heaven is no unreasoning despot. His commandments are not grievous, and are for the highest good of those to whom they are given. The guests at Divine feasts need never fear that he will send unkingly messages. And should they disobey there will be given opportunity for confession and time for amendment. This merciful king bears long and compassionately even with hardened offenders. Blessed indeed are those who serve the King of heaven, and sit down at Divine feasts!
II. She displays a queenly spirit. If Vashti were simply a vain woman,proud of her mere physical beauty,it may be fairly conjectured that the desire to display her charms would overpower the spirit of self-assertion, which some suppose to be the explanation of her conduct. This was undoubtedly the one opportunity of her life for reaching the climax of earthly glory. It was indeed a great occasion when womanly vanity would induce compliance; but Vashti rose superior to the seductive prospect. Many of our modern Vashtis would have rushed to the banqueting-hall, and the spirit of self-assertion would not have been allowed to overmaster the spirit of vanity. Not only women, but many men have sacrificed far more than Vashti was called upon to sacrifice in order to obtain a portion even of that applause which would have greeted the queenly beauty had she, with winning smiles and graceful movements, presented herself at the kings command. But she refused to go, and nobly braved the worst consequences rather than violate her modesty, and appear in public unveiled. For anything we know to the contrary, she may have tried reasonable methods in order to extricate herself from the difficult position. But who can reason with a despot who has been made unreasonable by wine, and whose smallest caprice must not be thwarted? The narrative simply states the result, that she refused to go at the command of the monarch. However, if Vashtis assailants still persist that she was an arrogant and supercilious beauty,that she was intoxicated with admiration and with her exalted position,there is something to admire in that daring spirit which was ready to brave death rather than obey a command which appeared to her unreasonable: for she would know that a Persian monarchs rage might mean death to the offender. Certainly obedience is due to those in authority; but the command of conscience is superior to the commands of husbands, or of kings. The commands of conscience should be supreme; but there is a danger lest the voice of mere caprice be confounded with the voice of conscience. The commands must be prayerfully and carefully examined. The voices must be tried. Have they a Divine sound? Then all must follow the directions of the all-imperative voice, though it leads to banishment, to spoliation, and even to death.
III. Her queenly spirit was not appreciated. It provoked the wrath of the king, and his anger burned in him. And the courtiers and great ladies did not appear to her defence. There is ever a natural tendency for the strong to oppress the weak. Throughout all ages women have found it difficult to get their due from men. Christianity has been womans great elevator and benefactor; and she has been, as is most fitting, its most faithful adherent and propagator. But still womans weakness is too often trespassed upon by manly strength. To be on the side of right, if supported by might, excites little or no opposition; but to be on the side of right when it is the side of weakness is to be guilty of folly and of rebellion against constituted authority. Even to this day the inebriated Ahasuerus has his apologists, though they may not mean it; and the unqueened Vashti is followed in her retirement with the pitying sneer of those who assert that she failed because she was not a sagacious woman. The banished Vashtis ought to receive full credit for the heroism of their conduct. Shameful it is that those who profess to believe in persecuted apostles, in slain reformers, and in a crucified Jesus, should always be carefully looking about for some error in conduct, for some failure in policy, in order to account for the non-success of those whom society has banished from its palaces. Not only ancient, but modern critics would account for the beheading of John by the statement that he made a rude and personal attack; for the stoning of Stephen, by the suggestion that he spoke truth in an unpalatable form; for the unpopularity of Paul, that his bodily presence was weak; and for the banishment of Vashti, by the supposition that she was arrogant and unwise in her method of refusal. The Vashtis must be prepared for some depreciation if they resolutely adhere to, and firmly follow, that which they believe to be true, and noble, and virtuous. But this may be their consolation, that time is on their side, and that the Great Supreme accepts sincerity of motive; yes, though the consequent action be not the wisest. For he is not a hard task-master. Let the true-hearted Vashtis rejoice, for their judgment is with God.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 1:10-12
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. Ahasuerus formerly behaved like a king. His wine, and the vessels in which it was drunk, were royal, according to the state of the king; but now his behaviour is like one of the vain fellows. He boasts of the extraordinary beauty of his wife. In defiance of the manners of the Persians, and of the laws of decency, he will now have her brought into a drunken assembly of princes and peasants for a public show. What is it that has thus degraded the great king? An honest peasant that knows how to guide his affairs, and to govern his family with discretion, is more truly royal than Ahasuerus, exposing his shame before his people. Wine has transformed him from a king to a clown, or something below a clown. It is said, that the Spartans used to compel their slaves to intoxicate themselves, that they might show them in their cups to their children, and thus produce in their minds a perpetual detestation of this worse than beastly vice. You have no occasion to bring drunken men into the presence of your children. Scripture gives you pictures of this vice sufficient for your admonition and theirs. It is plain from the instance before us, that a sober slave is more respectable than a drunken king.
She was fair to look upon, and all the princes and people must, for once, be gratified with a sight of her shining countenance, that they might admire the kings happiness in the possession of such unrivalled beauty. Vain man! Did he not know that the most glorious beauty of the human face as of the visible creation, is but a fading flower? Still less did he know, that this beauty, in a days time, would be no longer his property, and that he would lose the possession of it by his own folly. Let those who have wives, however beautiful, be as though they had them not; for the fashion of this world passeth away.
Vashti had good reason to beg to be excused from appearing in a company where too many were merry with wine. She is too often imitated by women who have promised obedience to their husbands. They will allege, that the meaning of their promise was that they were to obey their husbands in all reasonable things. If by reasonable things they meant things in which they could give obedience with a good conscience, the limitation would be very proper. But a more frequent meaning which they have for the expression is, things which please their own humours. If these only are the matters in which they are disposed to yield obedience, the promise ought never to have been made; for whenever they conform themselves to their own humours, rather than to the known will of their husbands, they break a solemn promise.
If husbands expect due obedience from their wives, let them be always reasonable in their commands. You see, that all the authority of the greatest king in the world could not make Vashti obedient to a foolish command. She will rather encounter the kings wrath; and the wrath of a king is like messengers of death.
Therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. He was confounded and shocked at the unexpected disappointment. He hoped to show to all his people and princes in Shushan how happy he was, and only showed them his misery.Rev. G. Lawson.
Then took place the succession of violent scenes, so thoroughly characteristic of Oriental despotism, but which to the Hebrew historian was so familiarized, that they appear to fill him rather with admiration than astonishment and horrorthe order for the queen to unveil herselfcontrary to the immemorial usage of Persia, and therefore the sure sign of the kings omnipotencebefore the assembled court, the rage of the king at her refusal, and her instantaneous divorce. In the annual Persian representation of the tragedy of the sons of Ali, an English ambassador is brought as begging their lives; and to mark his nationality a boy dressed up as an unveiled woman accompanies him as the ambassadress.Stanleys Jewish Church and Note.
The queen refused to appear at the kings command as delivered by the eunuchs, because she did not choose to stake her dignity as a queen and a wife before his inebriated guests. The audacity of Persians in such a condition is evident from history.Keil.
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. To disobey human commands may be dangerous, may bring temporal disadvantage, but to despise Gods laws is degrading, and will bring eternal ruin.Lange.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 1:13-14
THE SEVEN WISE MEN
Where shall wisdom be found, and where is the place of understanding? At first sight we may naturally look for it in the palaces of kings, for they have the opportunity of gathering round them the choicest spirits in the realm. They have money at their command; and money answereth all things. The wise mans wisdom is too often a mere article of barter, and is sold to the highest bidder. The prospect of money sometimes causes the wise man to prostitute his wisdom to foolish purposes. But the wisdom of courtiers is not always directed by highest moral motives. The wisdom may be great, but the moral power weak. True wisdom is oftener found in lowly hearts and true. A poor wise man may by his wisdom deliver the city; and yet no man remember that same poor man. Poverty has its drawbacks. Little wisdom counts for much where there is much wealth, sounding titles, and an exalted position.
I. The character of these wise men. In general we may say that they were men of learning and men of business. Observation was joined with meditation to the extension of their knowledge. They were not mere bookworms, but studied men and things. They might judge the times by heavenly phenomena as astrologers; but, like the princes of Issachar, they also may have been men who knew the times, what Israel ought to do. The perfectly wise man must study men as well as books. It is well to know human law and judgment; it is better to know Divine law. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. This defines the nature of true wisdom. Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil, that is understanding.
II. The favour granted to these wise men. Ancient kings preserved their dignity by exclusiveness. Only a few were admitted to familiar intercourse. These wise men saw the kings face. This earths grandest King frequented the thronged highways. He was the guest of publicans and of sinners. His greatness was not dependent upon the pomp of circumstances. His royalty could stand the rude stare of the multitude. The eye of faith, though possessed by the lowliest, may still see the face of heavens King. The pure in heart shall see, and do see, God.
III. The exalted position occupied by these wise men. They sat the first in the kingdom. Many would regard them with envy. But highest seats are not always the most pleasant. Golden chairs may be uneasy; silken couches may have their pricking thorns. A wise man may sit the first in the kingdom to-day, and tomorrow he may be elevated to the gallows on which Haman was hung. Lofty seats are dizzy and dangerous places. Christs spiritual kingdom affords safe and pleasant seats for all its subjects.
IV. The noble qualities of these wise men were ignobly used. They knew the times, so as to trim their sails to the best advantage for themselves. Their wisdom was a mere marketable commodity. It was ready to be used anyhow for the procuring of either wealth, or place, or power. They knew law and judgment, but they knew that what was law for the despot was not law for the oppressed subject. Prudence is a virtue; but prudence may be degraded into mere timeserving policy. There is a wisdom which dares to do right, and brave all consequences.
V. The vision with which these men were favoured had no transforming power. They saw the kings face, but did not catch the inspiriting influence of a mighty soul. There must have been in that wide realm faces better worth seeing than that of the weak-minded despot. We cannot gather from this account that these wise men were any nobler for this favoured vision. The face of heavens King has transforming power. Its light dispels the darkness of humanity; its Divine influences rain down and change the very faces of beholders. But we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. The likeness is being now and here fashioned. Each Christians face should bear the impress of royalty. Christians too should emit transforming and purifying influences.
VI. The exalted position occupied by these wise men was not employed for the advantage of the oppressed. Where is the use of being great if we cannot use our greatness to help the little? High seats should be occupied not for self-glorification, but to lift up our fellows out of the pits of wretchedness. We do not read that these men bent from their proud positions to rescue a condemned womancondemned before she had been heard, and banished without an opportunity of saying a word in justification of her conduct. Surely it is better to err on the side of mercy. Let those in high places consider the weaknesses and the awful temptations of those in low places.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 1:13-14
Whereshould the perfection of wisdom be, if not in the courts of great princes? or what can the treasuries of monarchs purchase more valuably precious than learned and judicious attendance? or what can be so fit for honour as the wisest? These were his oracles in all his doubts; these are now consulted in this difficulty. Neither must their advice be secretly whispered in the kings ear, but publicly delivered in the audience of all the princes. It is a perilous way that these sages are called to go, betwixt a husband and wife, especially of such power and eminency.Bishop Hall.
As he had seven chamberlains to execute his orders, so he had seven counsellors to direct his orders. The greater power a man hath, the greater need he hath for advice, that he may not abuse his power.M. Henry.
Of these Persian privy counsellors it is said
1. That they were wise men.
2. They were skilful in the times, that is, well versed in histories, and well furnished with experiences.
3. That they knew the laws, which they had ready, and at their fingers ends, as we say.
4. They also knew judgment, that is, equity and moderation, without which utmost right might be utmost wrong, as, indeed, it proved in the case in hand.Trapp.
Which knew the times. The good man can say, like the psalmist, My times are in thy hand. The sovereign Arbiter of destiny holds in his own power all the issues of our life; we are not waifs and strays upon the ocean of fate, but are steered by infinite wisdom toward our desired haven. Providence is a soft pillow for anxious heads, an anodyne for care, a grave for despair.
Est. 1:14. The kings of Persia did not suffer themselves to be seen by all persons on all occasions. These were a favoured few. But all that love the Lord shall see the Kings face in heaven. That will be a happy sight. The sorrows of life will then be past; death will then be destroyed; heaven and all its joys will be ours for ever.
Which sat the first in the kingdom. A great privilege which depended upon wealth, and upon the favour of the king. They who sit with Christ in his kingdom will have no title because of earthly position. It will be because of goodness, and the grace and mercy which saves us.Rev. C. Leach, F.G.S.
He that would mount cares not what attendance he dances at all hours, upon whose stairs he sits waiting, what enormities he soothes, what deformities he imitates, what base offices he does prostrate himself to, so he may rise. The poor man envies the great for his honour; the great perhaps envies the poor more for his peace, for as he lives obscurely, so securely. He that rightly knows the many public and more secret vexations incident to honour would not, as that king said of his crown, stoop to take it up, though it lay at his feet before him. When the Lord hath set thee up as high as Haman in the court of Ahasuerus, or promoted thee to ride with Joseph in the second chariot of Egypt; were thy stock of cattle exceeding Jobs; did thy wardrobe put down Solomons, and thy cupboard of plate Belshazzars when the vessels of Gods temple were the ornature; yet all these are but the gifts of Wisdoms left hand, and the possessors may be under the malediction of God.
How many rich merchants have suddenly lost all! how many noblemen sold all! how many wealthy heirs spent all! Few Sundays pass over our heads without collections for shipwrecks, fires, and other casualties; demonstrative proofs that prosperity is inconstant, riches casual. And for honour, we read that Belisarius, an honourable peer of the empire, was forced in his old age to beg from door to door. Frederic, a great emperor, was so low brought that he sued to be made but the sexton of a church.Adams.
A great English writer has pictured an imaginary character as having a sweet look of goodness, which drew out all that was good in others. There must have been some such Divine attraction to the poor and outcast in the looks and whole person of our Lord.Geikie. This Kings face has not only a sweet look of goodness, but a transforming power of goodness. To see aright this Kings face is not only to have our goodness drawn out, but to have the badness expelled, and fresh goodness imparted. By the process of devoutly and lovingly gazing we are experiencing the process of being changed into the same Divine image.
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
(10) Was merry with wine.The habit of the Persians to indulge in wine to excess may be inferred from Est. 1:8.
Chamberlains.Literally, eunuchs. The names of the men, whatever they may be, are apparently not Persian. The enumeration of all the seven names is suggestive of personal knowledge on the part of the writer.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
DIVORCE OF VASHTI, Est 1:10-22.
10. On the seventh day The last day of the feast. Compare Est 1:5.
Merry with wine “The Persians are much addicted to wine,” writes Herodotus, (i, 133.) “They are accustomed to debate the most important affairs when intoxicated, but they reconsider such deliberation the next day, when they are sober, and if they approve it when sober also, they adopt it, if not, they reject it, and whatever they have first resolved on when sober, they reconsider when intoxicated.” This feast of Ahasuerus seems to have increased in riot and drunken revelry as the days passed.
The seven chamberlains Rather, eunuchs, who had principal charge of the royal harem. Their number corresponded to that of the princes, Est 1:14.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
EXPOSITION
THE DISGRACE OF VASHTI (Est 1:10-22).
On the seventh day of the feast “to all in Shushan” (Est 1:5), the king having excited himself with drink, took it into his head to send a message to Vashti, requiring her to make her appearance in the banquet of the men, since he desired to exhibit her beauty to the assembled guests, as “she was fair to look on” (Est 1:11). His design must have been to present her unveiled to the coarse admiration of a multitude of semi-drunken revellers, in order that they might envy him the possession of so lovely a wife. Such a proceeding was a gross breach of Persian etiquette, and a cruel outrage upon one whom he above all men was bound to protect. Vashti, therefore, declined to obey (Est 1:12). Preferring the risk of death to dishonour, she braved the anger of her despotic lord, and sent him back a message by his chamberlains that she would not come. We can well understand that to an absolute monarch such a rebuff, in the face of his whole court and of some hundreds or thousands of assembled guests, must have been exasperating in the extreme. At the moment when he had thought to glorify himself by a notable display of his omnipotence, he was foiled, defeated, made a laughing-stock to all Susa. “Therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.” It is to his credit that, being thus fiercely enraged, he did not proceed to violence, but so far restrained himself as to refer the matter to the judgment of others, and ask the “seven princes” the question, “What is to be done according to law unto queen Vashti, for not performing the commandment of the king?” (verse 15). The advice of the princes, uttered by one of their body (verses 16-20), and assented to by the remainder (verse 21), was, that Yashti should be degraded from the position of queen, and her place given to another. This sentence was supported by specious arguments based upon expediency, and ignoring entirely the outrageous character of the king’s command, which was of course the real, and sole, justification of Vashti’s disobedience. It was treated as a simple question of the wife’s duty to obey her husband, and the husband’s right to enforce submission. Ahasuerus, as might be expected, received the decision of his obsequious counsellors with great satisfaction, and forthwith sent letters into all the provinces of his vast empire, announcing what had been done, and requiring wives everywhere to submit themselves unreservedly to the absolute rule of their lord (verse 22).
Est 1:10
When the heart of the king was merry with wine. We are told that once a year, at the feast of Mithra, the king of Persia was bound to intoxicate himself (Duris, Fr. 13). At other times he did as he pleased, but probably generally drank reason was somewhat obscured. Mehuman, etc. Persian etymologies have been given for most of these names, but they are all more or less uncertain; and as eunuchs were often foreigners, mutilated for the Persian market (Herod; 3:93; 8:105), who bore foreign names, like the Hermotimus of Herodotus (8:104-106), it is quite possible that Persian etymologies may here be out of place. Bigtha, however, if it be regarded as a shortened form of Bigthan (Est 2:21) or Bigthana (Est 6:1-14.), would seem to be Persian, being equivalent to Bagadana (= Theodorus), “the gift of God.” Chamberlains. Really, as in the margin, “eunuchs.” The influence of eunuchs at the Persian court was great from the time of Xerxes. Ctesias makes them of importance even from the time of Cyrus (‘Exc. Pera,’ 5, 9).
Est 1:11
Vashti with the crown royal. We have no representation of a Persian queen among the sculptures; but Mousa, a Parthian queen, appears on a coin of her son Phraataces, crowned with a very elaborate tiara. It consists of a tall stiff cap, not unlike the cidaris of a Persian king, but is apparently set with large jewels. Vashti’s “crown royal” was probably not very dissimilar. To show the princes and the people her beauty. More than one Oriental monarch is reported to have desired to have his own opinion of his wife’s beauty confirmed by the judgment of others. Candaules, king of Lydia, is said to have lost his crown and his life through imprudently indulging this desire (Herod; 1.8-12). So public an exposure, however, as that designed by Ahasuerus is not recorded of any other monarch, and would scarcely have been attempted by any one less extravagant in his conduct than Xerxes.
Est 1:12
But the queen Vashti refused. Vashti’s refusal was morally quite justifiable. Neither a husband’s nor a king’s authority extends to the wanton requirement of acts that, if done, would disgrace the doer for life. Had Vashti complied, she would have lost the respect not only of the Persian nation, but of the king himself. Therefore was the king very wroth. Had Ahasuerus really loved his wife, or been a man of fair and equitable disposition, be would have excused her refusal, and felt that he had deserved the rebuff. But, not really loving her, and being of a hot and ungovernable temper, he was violently enraged with her, as he always was when anything fell out contrary to his wishes (see Herod; 7:11, 35, 39, etc.).
Est 1:13
Then the king said to the wise men. Angry as he was, Ahasuerus had still some power of self-restraint. He was in the presence of his whole court, and of a great assembly of the people. It would not be seemly that he should vent his passion in violent words, imprecations, or threats. His dignity required that he should at any rate seem calm, and, instead of issuing any hasty order, should proceed deliberately to consider what were the next steps to be taken. Xerxes appears to have been rather fond of asking advice; and he now, in a sufficiently dignified way, required the opinion of his “wise men” on the practical question, What was to be done to Vashti? (see Est 1:15). Which knew the times. i.e. persons who were well acquainted with past times, and knew what it was customary to do on each occasion. For so was the king’s manner toward all that ]mew law and judgment. Rather, “For so was the business of the king brought before such as knew law and judgment.” Each matter which concerned the king was submitted to learned persons for their opinion before any actual step was taken. It is not a special practice of Ahasuerus, but a general usage of the Persian monarchy, which m noticed.
Est 1:14
And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, etc. The chief native advisers of Xerxes in the early part of his reign appear to have been Mardonius and Artabanus (Pers, Artapana), who was his uncle (Herod; 7.5-17). It is possible that Mardonius may be here represented by Marsena, and Artabanus by Admatha; but the names could only have taken these shapes by a large amount of corruption. The other form have a general Persian air, but do not admit of even conjectural identification. The seven princes of Persia and Media. Ezra assigns to the Persian monarch seven special counsellors (Est 7:1-10 :14), and Herodotus says that there were seven leading families in Persia whose heads were specially privileged (3:84). The title, however, “princes of Persia and Media,“ is not found anywhere but here. Which saw the king’s face. Among the privileges said by Herodotus to have been reserved to the heads of the great families, one of the most valued was that of free access to the monarch at all times, unless he were in the seraglio.
Est 1:15
What shall we do to queen Vashti according to law? Literally, “According to law, what is there to do to queen Vashti?” Law is given the prominent place, as though the king would say, Let us put aside feeling, and simply consider what the law is. If a queen disobeys the king openly in the face of his court, what, according to law, is to be done to her?
Est 1:16
And Memucan answered. We gather from Memucan’s reply that the Persian law had provided no penalty for the case in handhad, in fact, not contemplated it. He first argues the matter on general grounds of morality (Est 1:16) and expediency (Est 1:17, Est 1:18), and then proposes the enactment of a new lawa privilegiumassigning Vashti a special punishment for her contempt of the king’s order. The “decree” (Est 1:20) would not have been necessary had there already existed a law on the point. Vashti, the queen, hath not done wrong to the king only. With the servility to be expected in an Oriental and a courtier, Memucan throws himself wholly on the king’s sideinsinuates no word of blame against his royal master, on whom in justice the whole blame rested; but sets himself to make the worst he can of Vashti’s conduct, which (he says) was a wrong not to Ahasuerus only, but to the whole male population of the empire, the princes included, who must expect their wives to throw off all subjection, in imitation of the queen’s example, if her conduct were allowed to go unpunished. As such a condition of things would be intolerable, the king is urged to disgrace her publicly.
Est 1:17
They shall despise their husbands. Literally, “their lords,” but the word is the one ordinarily used for “husband.” When it shall be reported. Rather, “while they say,” or “and shall say.” (So the Vulgate”ut contemnant et dicant.“)
Est 1:18
The ladies. Rather, “the princesses.” Translate the whole passage as follows:“Likewise shall the princesses of Persia and Media, which have heard of the deed of the queen, say this day to all the king’s princes.” Not only will the wives of the common people get hold of the story, and quote Vashti’s example as often as they wish to disobey their husbands, but our own wives too will disobey us on the same pretext, and will begin forthwith “this day.” Too much contempt and wrath. Literally, “sufficient;” but the meaning is that given by our translators”quite enough,” “more than enough.” Contempt on the part of the wives; wrath on the part of the husbands.
Est 1:19
A royal commandment. Literally, “a command of the kingdom”i.e. a public, not a domestic, order. Under ordinary circumstances such a matter as the disgrace of a favourite wife would have been settled in the secrecy of the seraglio, without calling general attention to it. In Memu-can’s opinion, the publicity of Vashti’s disobedience had made it expedient that she should be disgraced publicly. Let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes. A sentence upon an individual was not a very suitable thing to add to a national code of laws; but we see from Daniel (Dan 6:8, Dan 6:9) that decrees of quite a temporary character were sometimes attached to the code for the express purpose of rendering them unalterable; and so it seems to have been in this instance. Unto another. Literally, as in the margin, “unto her companion.” Memucan assumes that one of the existing inmates of the seraglio will be elevated into the place vacated by Vashti. This was the ordinary course, but on the present occasion was not followed.
Est 1:20
The king’s decree. The “commandment” of the preceding verse is here given the formal name of pithgam, “decree,” which is a Persian word, used also in Ezra (Ezr 4:17; Ezr 5:7, Ezr 5:11). For it is great. These words seem at first sight superfluous. Perhaps their force is thisLet a decree be made, and then, great as the empire is, the lesson will be taught to all: otherwise there will be many to whom it will never penetrate.
Est 1:21
The king did according to the word of Memucan. This expression must not be pressed too closely. It does not imply more than that Memucan’s advice was followed in a general wayVashti disgraced, and the grounds of her disgrace published throughout the provinces. We cannot be sure that the decree was “written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes.” Even if it was, it was always possible for a Persian king to give himself a dispensation from the law (see Herod; 3:58).
Est 1:22
For he sent. Rather, “and he sent.” Besides publishing the decree, Ahasuerus sent letters prescribing certain things, viz.:
1. That every man should bear rule in his own house; and,
2. That every man should speak his own language in his family, and not that of his wife, if it were different.
This is the plain meaning of the existing text, which cannot bear either of the senses suggested in the Authorised Version.
HOMILETICS
Est 1:9-11
Queen Vashti.
It would seem that the character of Vashti has been by many writers darkened in order to bring out the brightness of Esther’s virtues. But it is not fair to make one queen simply the foil to the other. Haughty, disobedient, defiant, Vashti may have been, but she was placed in no ordinary position, and treated in no ordinary manner.
I. Observe THE POSITION OF VASHTI. Her name (according to some) indicates her beauty, and it is expressly said that she was fair to look upon. She was the legitimate wife of Ahasuerus. If he were Xerxes, it is possible she may have been the Amestris of the Greek historians. She fulfilled her royal duties. We read of her feasting the ladies, the princesses, in the royal palace; within doors, and apart from the men.
II. Observe THE INSULT OFFERED TO VASHTI. When his heart was merry with wine, the king bade his chamberlains bring the queen, in her stately robes, and with her royal crown upon her head, before him, that he might show her beauty to the princes and to the people. Now this was
1. A violation of national custom. We are told indeed, that, when in their cups, the Persian kings would dismiss their wives and send for their concubines and singing girls. It was certainly a command contrary to custom, however it may have been in accordance with the capricious character of Xerxes.
2. An outrage upon her womanly modesty. That a young and beautiful woman should appear before a vast company of boisterous and half-intoxicated nobles, and this that they might admire her loveliness, was a foul shame.
3. A derogation from her wifely dignity. The king should have honoured Vashti as his consort, worthy of respectful treatment; for the disgrace of the wife is the disgrace of the husband. Ahasuerus must have been despised by any sober and honourable noble who heard him give this order.
4. It was a slur upon her royal station. This station was acknowledged by her position at the head of the table, where the banquet was given to the chief ladies of the realm. If it was fit that she should preside as hostess, it was not fit that she should be brought forward for the general gaze and admiration, like a courtesan famous for beauty and infamous for immodesty.
III. Observe THE FAULT CHARGEABLE UPON VASHTI. This was disobedience and defiance. But
1. It was a fault with much to extenuate it. The command was unreasonable. Compliance would have done no one concerned any good, and would have outraged her own modesty.
2. It was a fault punished with disproportionate severity. Certainly it was harsh and cruel to deprive Vashti of her position as queen because of her refusal to comply with the unreasonable requirement of a drunken husband. Disputes between the nearest akin are often the most keen. It was with reason that the inspired apostle penned the admonition”Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them!”
Est 1:12
The king’s anger.
Scripture never spares the great. Their follies and vices are exposed and castigated. The Old Testament has some striking examples of the sin of anger and wrath. Moses gave way to temptation, and sinned in his anger. Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury when the Hebrew youths would not worship the golden image he had set up. Jonah was angry when Nineveh was spared, and when the gourd was withered. In all these cases there was no sufficient cause to justify wrath. So was it with Ahasuerus.
I. THE OCCASION OF THE KING‘S ANGER. His own drunken and foolish wish was thwarted, and thus his pride was wounded. “It is not for kings to drink wine, lest they drink and forget the law.” The law of Solon punished a drunken magistrate with death. The wish of Ahasuerus was thwarted by a woman, and that woman his wife. He was not accustomed to meet with opposition or resistance to his will, and could ill brook his consort’s disobedience. Circumstances heightened his anger. He had boasted of his wife’s beauty and complaisance, and now, in the presence of his lords, to whom he had boasted, his vaunt was proved empty and vain.
II. THE UNREASONABLENESS AND FOLLY OF THE KING‘S ANGER. A monitor might have put to him the question, “Doest thou well to be angry?” If he had not been intoxicated with pride, as well as with wine, he would have blamed himself instead of his spouse, the queen. How much indefensible, unreasonable, and ridiculous anger there is in human society! How often the wrathful would do well to transfer their indignation from others to themselves! “Be ye angry, and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath!” In those occupying high and prominent and influential positions, anger is very unseemly. Here was a man bearing rule over 127 provinces, and yet unable to rule his own spirit!
III. THE RESULTS OF THE KING‘S ANGER.
1. It was tempered by counsel. Ahasuerus did not act at once under the impulse of his burning indignation and resentment. This was good. But he should have taken counsel of his own heart, and not of flatterers who ministered to his passions.
2. It led him to part with his wife, and to proclaim his own folly in a public, imperial decree. The man who lashed the sea, who cruelly slew the eldest son of Pythius, who dishonoured the corpse of the brave Leonidas, was just the man to act as here described. It is true that the king’s anger was overruled by Providence for good; but this is no palliation of his serious offence. We have in this narrative a warning against yielding to the impulses of capricious anger. There is a time to be angry; but we may well suspect ourselves when we are under the influence of vehement feeling of this kind. “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation!” “Consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself.” Christ left us “an example, who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” “Blessed are the meek.” “Forgive one another, even as God, for Christ’s sake, hath forgiven you!”
Est 1:13
Wise men.
Wisdom is the skill which some men possess of devising means to secure any end that is aimed at. It is what Aristotle termed an intellectual virtue. There is no position in life where wisdom is not useful. And in the highest positions, in Church and in State, it is a quality which is justly held in very high esteem. Counsellors of kings and ministers of state need a large measure of practical wisdom. The same may be said of pastors of Christian Churches, and of officers of Christian societies and organisations of all kinds.
I. THE FOUNDATION OF WISDOM IS NATURAL SAGACITY. It is sometimes said of men that they are “born fools,” and it is certain that some are by nature more endowed than others with insight into character, and with fertility of devices and resources. A cunning man is seldom wise, for he usually overreaches himself, and awakens distrust in the minds of his acquaintances.
II. WISDOM IS NURTURED BY THE HABIT OF DELIBERATION. It is proverbial that hasty men are unwise; they will not allow themselves time to see more than one side of a subject. To weigh with calmness and impartiality the possible plans of action is conducive to a wise decision.
III. WISDOM IS STRENGTHENED BY KNOWLEDGE AND STUDY. Not every well-informed and learned man is wise; but few men are wise whose knowledge is scanty, and whose experience is contracted. Two kinds of knowledge are referred to in this passage.
1. Historical knowledge, or knowledge of the times. To study the history of nations and of the affairs of state is a good preparation for the life of a politician, a statesman (vide some excellent remarks in Bossuet’s ‘Lectures on Universal History,’ addressed to the Dauphin of France).
2. Legal knowledge. The counsellors of the king of Persia are said to have known law and judgment, obviously very essential to men in their position.
IV‘. THE POSSESSION OF WISDOM IS A MOST RESPONSIBLE TRUST. Like other good things, it may be used, and it may be abused. There is a great danger lest the counsellors of kings should give advice fitted to please rather than to profit. It is well, therefore, that all such should remember that they are themselves accountable to the Lord and Judge of all. If wisdom be employed to secure merely selfish ends, or to flatter the ambitious and the vain, it will prove in every way a curse.
Lessons:
1. Let the truly wise, who use their wisdom to good purpose, be regarded with general honor and esteem.
2. Let those who are consulted by others because of their repute for wisdom seek grace to give good counsel, as in the sight of the Lord.
3. Let the young seek to acquire practical wisdom, and let them remember that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.”
Est 1:13-20
Counsel.
The king of Persia had two bad counsellors, wine and anger. It showed some degree of common-sense on his part that, instead of acting upon impulse, he waited to ask the advice of his ministers, those privileged and trusted men who were nearest to the throne. If they had advised him well he might have avoided making an exhibition of his own folly to his people. But their plan was to fall in with the inclinations of their sovereign. This, whilst we must blame it, we cannot wonder at; for few dared to oppose the vain and imperious monarchs of Persia.
I. GOOD COUNSEL SHOULD BE SINCERE AND HONEST IN ITSELF. It sometimes happens that a person called upon for advice sees what it would be right to advise, but gives advice contrary to that which his judgment would approve. It is better to decline advising than to do this.
II. GOOD COUNSEL SHOULD BE DISINTERESTED AS REGARDS THE GIVER. If one advises so as to secure his own interest at the expense of the friend who trusts and consults him, he acts with baseness, and deserves contempt.
III. GOOD COUNSEL SHOULD BE FAITHFUL AS REGARDS THE RECEIVER. In advising the great, counsellors are too often guided by a desire to fall in with their inclinations, to flatter their pride and vanity, to minister to their lusts. Flatterers are bad counsellors, though by their flattery they may advance themselves. Their motto is, Mihi placer quicquid regi placer (that pleases me which pleases my lord, the king).
IV. GOOD COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY. Advice which is not to the point, or which is given when it is too late for it to be of use, is vain. How many a misguided youth has had reason to exclaim, Why was I not warned or directed while warning and direction might have been of use?
Est 1:17, Est 1:18
The influence of example.
Where can be found a more striking proof of the general belief in the force of example than in this passage? The counsellors of the king of Persia were not men likely to be led away by their feelings or fancies. Yet they supposed that the conduct of one woman might influence the domestic demeanour and spirit and habits of the women of an empire throughout its 127 provinces! And they proposed to counteract the evil influence of Vashti’s disobedience by. a most unusual proceeding, by a stringent law affecting every household throughout the realm! The conduct of the queen made the highest personages in the land uneasy, and was thought capable of affecting the meanest and the most distant.
I. EXAMPLE IS ALWAYS INFLUENTIAL. This is owing to a principle in human nature. We are naturally social and imitative. The power of example over children is known to all. But no age is exempt from its action. Some persons live with the constant sense that their spirit and conduct will affect those of others. But if persons have no such sense, none the less is it true that their influence “tells.” This is the explanation of fashionin manner, in speech, in social usages, even in beliefs. None of us can say how much he is what he is through the influence of others’ example.
II. EXAMPLE IS INFLUENTIAL BOTH FOR GOOD AND EVIL. That we should influence and be influenced by example is a Divine arrangement. It works both ways; and to the action of example the cause of virtue and religion is immensely indebted; whilst the same principle explains the prevalence of error, vice, and sin. Let every hearer call to mind the influences to which he has been exposed, and trace up to them the position he occupies, as well as the character which has been formed in him. This exercise will make him tremble to think of the responsibility under which he lies for his own influence over his fellow-creatures.
III. THE POWER OF EXAMPLE IS ENHANCED BY HIGH STATION. Vashti was a queen, and what she did was known to multitudes, and was influential, more or less, over all who knew it. A queen sets fashions, gives social laws, even influences, to some extent, the morals of the community. A vicious court is a curse to the land. For a virtuous and benevolent sovereign, subjects cannot be too grateful. Others in high station, alike in the Church and in the world, will affect the habits of many by their good or evil example. Public persons, it has been said, are the looking-glasses before which others dress themselves. It is of highest importance that the springs should be sweetened, lest the streams be poisoned and deleterious.
Practical application:
1. Let us gratefully acknowledge God’s goodness in using the principle in question for our benefit. Scripture is full of good examples. The history of the Church teems with such. The Christian society around us contains many excellent and inspiring examples for our imitation.
2. Especially let as be thankful for the example of our Divine Saviour. He was not only our Redeemer, but our Exemplar also. He “left us an example that we should follow his steps.” It is the one faultless, peerless example to humanity.
3. Let us be careful what examples we study, and what influences we place ourselves under.
4. Let us be very circumspect in the education of the young, that we have brought to bear upon their hearts such influences as God may bless to their salvation.
5. Let us “watch and pray” that our influencespurposed and unconscious alikemay be for the highest good of all with whom we are associated.
Est 1:22
Rule in the house.
The purport of the edict here recorded was good, although there seems something almost ludicrous in the feelings and the fears which prompted its framers and promulgators. “That every man should bear rule in his own house” seems scarcely a regulation to be prescribed by political authority.
I. IT IS A PRINCIPLE FOUNDED UPON NATURAL, DIVINE AUTHORITY. It is written upon the very constitution of human nature that a wife should be directed by her husband, and children by their father. If purpose is visible anywhere, it is in this domestic law.
II. IT IS A PRINCIPLE SANCTIONED BY SCRIPTURE. From the first it was said to the woman, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The apostle thus admonishes the female sex: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” “The husband,” we are told, “is the head of the wife.”
III. THE RULE IN QUESTION SHOULD BE COMMENDED BY THOUGHTFUL WISDOM ON THE PART OF HIM WHO EXERCISES IT. If the husband is a fool, it is not easy for the wife to submit. Bat if he be a man of knowledge, experience, and self-control, the wife will usually, gladly and gratefully, be guided by his desires and requests.
IV. THIS SWAY SHOULD BE EXERCISED WITH GENTLENESS AND FORBEARANCE. Nothing is more hateful or contemptible than the rule of a domestic tyrant, and such a rule encourages either rebellion or deceit. Children lose all respect for an unreasonable and passionate father. The household with such a head is wretched indeed. Affection and consideration should be manifest in the demeanour and requirements of all in authority over a family.
V. SUCH A RULE SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED WITH FRANK SUBMISSION. Women are very much what men make them. Let them be treated with affection and courtesy, and the response will usually be cheerful compliance.
VI. SUCH A RULE IS CONTRIBUTIVE TO ORDER AND HAPPINESS. The family is so far like the state; tyranny awakens resentment and provokes resistance, whilst a righteous and considerate rule is acknowledged with gratitude, and is productive of happiness. A home where there is anarchy is a hell upon earth; a home where a woman rules is a monstrous and loathsome spectacle. Darius and Xerxes are said, both of them, to have been too much governed by their wives. History abounds with instances in which the legitimate power of the wives of kings has been exceeded, and in which kings’ mistresses have corrupted courts, and to some degree nations also.
HOMILIES BY F. HASTINGS
Est 1:10
A drunken device.
I. Drunkenness leads to further FOLLY. “When the wine is in the wit is out,” is always true. The Persian monarch yielded to the allurements of the cup, and was betrayed into a stupid act. He desired to exhibit the beauty of his queen to a miscellaneous crowd. He had already shown nearly all he possessed. Anything and everything that could call forth admiration from his numerous guests had been laid under tribute. The festivities are closing, and the king, with muddled brain, bethinks himself of one more device for extorting more flattery and adulation. On his Sultana only the eyes of his eunuchs and himself, of mankind, had rested. He is proud of her somewhat after the same manner in which a man might at this day be proud of having on his walls the finest painting, in his cabinet the rarest jewel, or in his stables the swiftest horse.
II. Drunkenness induces a violation of MARITAL OBLIGATIONS. Had Ahasuerus loved Vashti as he ought, he would have been considerate as to her feelings. Whatever consideration he might have had when sober, he has none now. He imagines that his drunken whim is to be law. Vashti then was to him nothing more than a mere harem ornament, a slave for whom a goodly price had been paid out of his coffers. An indulgence in a like habit to that of Ahasuerus has led many to act with the same foolishness, harshness, and injustice. Known only to themselves has been the shuddering dread of many a wife lest the knowledge of a husband’s secret failings should be bruited abroad. Known only to themselves the many shifts to make up for deficiencies for necessary household expenditure, deficiencies caused by a husband’s folly and extravagance. Known only to themselves, the number of weary hours during which they sit watching or lie waking, waiting for the return of their dissolute lords. Known only to themselves also the many insults, the ill-usage to which they are subjected, the inflamed passions and embittered spirits they have to withstand. God have mercy on the thousands of sad women who have had to taste, like Vashti, the bitter results of a husband’s drunken stupidity! God have mercy, for men have little.
III. Drunkenness often brings painful REBUFFS. Impatiently the king awaits the arrival of Vashti. Little dreams he of a rebuff. Excited as he is at the close of the festivities, and elated, both by the flattery he has received as well as the wine he has drunk, he is in no mood to brook any opposition to his will, or even delay in carrying out his drunken devices. He has sent the chamberlains for Vashti. At length they reappear. The king looks up from his cups. “What! and is not the queen coming?” He soon hears the explanation of her absence. Bowing low, and in the hesitating tones of one who has a disagreeable task to perform, the chief chamberlain tells “that the queen refuseth to come at the king’s commandment.”
IV. Drunkenness fosters unreasoning PASSION. How in a moment is overcast the face of the king, hitherto so complacent, the throne even of dignity still. A lowering, threatening scowl sits on his brow. More swift than any hurricane that ever swept over devoted and unsuspecting voyagers is the storm of anger that sweeps over the countenance of Ahasuerus. Shall a mere woman cross him? Shall all his glory, power, majesty be by that one woman checked? “The king was very wroth, and his anger burned in him” (Est 1:12).
V. Drunkenness always covers a man with SHAME. The king was put to shame by his own act before others. Most annoying was the thought that the refusal of the queen was known to the princes and nobles. They would say, “The king cannot bear rule in his own house, and how shall he govern rightly the great dominion of Persia?” The king could better endure the obstinate conduct of his queen were it known only to himself. To have his domestic affairs known abroad, the common subject of conversation in every street, the gossip in every bazaar, and the butt of ridicule in every harem of his vast dominion, this is unbearable. The king is ashamed. Even drink does not banish that feeling from him.
VI. Drunkenness constantly creates vain REGRETS. There are regrets for folly, for expenditure, and for consequences. Ahasuerus, when he recovered from the effect of his inebriety, would begin to regret that he had acted so unwisely. He knew he had lowered himself in the eyes of others, and he had lost the one to whom he was attached, as far as such a man under such a system could be attached. The evidence of his regret is seen in the first verse of the second chapter. Many have to regret even worse consequences. Sometimes under the effect of drink men have crippled and even killed children and wives. The very gallows have shaken with the quivering regrets of those who have had to expiate the crimes they bad committed under the influence of drink. But the most overwhelming regret of all will be that which will take possession of the soul when it discovers the terrible truthfulness of the words, “No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1Co 6:10).H.
Est 1:14
Privileged persons.
“Seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom.” It has always been the custom of kings to surround themselves with those who should be able to help or advise, or be the media of transmitting their desires or decrees to the people. These officers of state have been called “wise men,” viziers, councillors, ministers. They form the executive. In Persia there was no electoral representation, the government was absolute. Hence the seven men whose names are mentioned were appointed by the king, and his whim could remove them. So long as they were in favour they were accounted privileged persons. Two things are told of them:
I. They had a PRIVILEGED SIGHT.
II. They had a PROMINENT POSITION.
I. It was the custom of the kings of Persia to seclude themselves as much as possible from their subjects. Only those who were appointed to come near might see his face. This reserve was assumed in order to foster reverence and awe of the great king among the people. When one who had been permitted to approach, and had gained the king’s favour, lost it, the attendants immediately covered his face that he might not look on the king. “As the word went out of the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face” (Est 7:8). The seven wise men here mentioned were permitted to see the king’s face at any time. The rulers of Persia assumed the title of “king of kings.” That which was assumed by them belongs only to God. Who can see his face? He dwells in light “unapproachable.” When Jacob wrestled with the angel of the Lord, he carried a reminder thereof in the limp or lameness, the result of the touch of that supernatural Being. When Moses desired to see the Divine glory he was bidden in a cleft rock; when he communed with God his face glistened so that be had to hide it beneath a veil. When Manoah offered a sacrifice, and the angel whose name was “secret” did wondrously, he feared he would be slain because of the visit from another world. “No man hath seen God at any time.” Man could not see the unutterable glory and live. But there is One, “the only begotten Son,” who not only saw his face, but rested “in the bosom” of the Divine Father, and “hath declared him.” He gives to us this privileged sight also. God was in Christ. The meaning- of the incarnation was this, that men looking at Christ looked on “God manifest in the flesh.” Philip wanted a further view of the Father, and Christ told him, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Intercourse was possible under the old dispensation; sight was made possible under the new. Faith in Christ sees God. “The pure in heart see God” not only hereafter, but here. This is a high privilege. The Queen of Sheba said to Solomon, “Happy are thy men, and happy are these thy servants which stand continually before thee and hear thy wisdom.” The happiness of the true Christian is to stand ever in the presence of God. This privilege is the gift of God’s grace. None could admit to the sight of his mercy and glory unless he had graciously permitted it. The sight is not for a few, but for all who will come unto him through Christ.
II. The PROMINENT POSITION occupied by the “wise men” of Persia may suggest the advance which comes through spiritual character. “To sit first” in the kingdom is not to be the one aim, but it will be given to those for whom it is preparedthose who are prepared for it. High spiritual qualities give pre-eminence. This pre-eminence is not to be sought for itself. There must be no ambition, or we are those unfitted for it. Spiritual character must be sought as its own reward, and because it pleases God. James and John made a great mistake when they asked, through their mother, Christ for a promise of prominent position. “The last will be first, and first last.” Heaven is no place of pomp, but of discrimination of character. Mere questions of precedence, whether in court, ecclesiastical, or municipal affairs, are generally petty, because based on mere accident and opinion. In heaven character will decide precedence. Those nearest the throne will probably be those who felt themselves the most unworthy; men like Paul, who felt himself “less than the least of all saints.” The great thing for us is not to seek pre-eminence, but inner spiritual power; by simple faith, humility, zeal, unselfishness, devoutness, living as in the presence of God, and having every thought and action in harmony with God’s will. As the current of a river sets to the ocean, so the whole “set” of a life may be God-ward. The seven men who “sat first in the kingdom” were in their position that they might advise the king. When we are brought into God’s kingdom it will be to drink in of his wisdom. These men also could be easily removed. Their position depended on the whim of the monarch, and therefore was insecure. When we are once brought into God’s kingdom above we shall be safe for ever. No enemy shall dislodge, no storm trouble, no sin assail, but we shall be safe for ever. We read of Haman being “advanced,” and of the king setting “his seat above all the princes that were with him” (Est 3:1). This must have been gall and wormwood to the rest of the princes. No such jealousy will enter the hearts of those who are permitted to behold in heaven the King’s face, and to sit in his kingdom.H.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Est 1:10-12
A noble womanly refusal.
We know from actual history literally nothing of Vashti, except her name, and what is written of her in the present connection. But it is evident that she could not have been merely one of the inferior wives of the Eastern king, although this has been suggested. She is not only emphatically called queen, but she acts as the queen, “making a feast for the women,” while Ahasuerus makes his for the princes and the general people; and the choice and the bearing of her successor, Esther, point the same way. The name of Vashti appears to view a moment; it then utterly disappearsand in disgrace. Yet not in shame; neither in the shame of sin or folly, nor in the shame even of error of judgment and want of true wisdom. No; for “posterity approve her saying” and her doing. Our gaze was at first invited to her as one “very fair to look upon,” a meteor of beauty. So her descending track, swift as it was, is one of real splendour; amid thick darkness around it marks a welcome line of light, and leaves a glory on our vision! This is all the more remarkable to be said of a heathen woman. Notice here a noble womanly refusal, and the womanly ground of it noble. We have here the spectacle of a woman who risked, who no doubt knew that she forfeited, a high position and all splendour of earthly prospects from that time forward, because she would not prejudice the due of her own womanly nature; because she would not be party to robbing herself of her feminine birthright; because she would not be minished in aught of her modesty’s ultimate and indefeasible rights. When her affronted but determined voice and verdict were heard, as she “refused to come,” this was heard in themto wit, the clear ring of true womanly instinct and of intelligent womanly feeling.
I. THIS WAS A NOBLE REFUSAL BECAUSE OF WHAT IT COST. That “cost” may be reckoned in several ways. For instance, there was present
(1) the cost of effort, and effort of the most severely trying kind. There are many who stand at no cost except this. They will be liberal, and even wasteful in expenditure, i.e. in any other expenditure than that of effort. The prices of ease, luxury, they do not object to, but the price of effort frightens them at once. There were several dements also in the effort made by Vashti. There was the effort of resisting a husband’s familiar authority. There was the effort of resisting an Eastern husband’s peremptory command. There was the effort of breaking through the national custom of centuries ingrained in the race, and which made the wife a slave to passion and despotic rule. The severity of such effort must have been heightened by the consideration of the struggle being with a potentate of dominion unparalleled and of notorious unscrupulousness, sustained on the part of that woman single-handed. We read of those who backed up the insulting and licentious order of the king, but we do not read of one solitary voice according help and sympathy to the refusing queen. Now there are senses in which effort compels our admiration, even when the object of it fails to command our approval. Great is the inertia of human nature, held enmeshed in the toils of habit, of custom, of conventionality, of apprehended consequences, of jealous misconstruction, of envious detraction, of artificial forebodings that magnify themselves alike so monstrously and so successfully. Correspondingly noble and impressive was this woman’s effort, whose “NO,” though she sank because of it, crashed through all the forces that environed her, and its report resounded through a kingdom. The effort, then, the severity of it in relation to its kind, and the object of it, do in this case all command our approval and our strong admiration. Then
(2) the cost of this refusal is to be judged from the consequences which ensued. As against conscience, the right, and Divine law, consequences ought to decide nothing, that is to say, they are not to be put in the balance to weigh down one side or the other. These all are to be obeyed in and of themselves. So soon as their voice is heard, understood, and not misconceived, that voice is to be followed, let it lead whither it will. Their command is sovereign, and they may be well trusted to vindicate it sooner or later. There is indeed a sense in which it is of the highest importance to observe consequences, and to put them into the balance, viz; when we are studying the entire structure of our moral nature. A just observing of consequences therein is then equivalent to a scrutiny of tendencies, and the moral argument from tendencies in this sense is most legitimate, and should be irresistible. To them, when fairly tracked from beginning to end, reverent regard is due, and, once ascertained, the greatest weight should be accorded to them. A partial and broken study of consequences is what is unreliable and proportionately dangerous. Sidelong glances at immediate, or early, or merely present life consequences are what betoken inherent weakness or ignoble timidity of principle. Yet while the consideration of consequences should count nothing against the demands of right, and the commands of conscience and the Divine law, the kind of attention paid to them measures for us conveniently and justly the force or weakness of principle. The temporal consequences which one foresaw or reckoned upon will often sufficiently explain what buoyed him upit was a vision of earthly grandeur, wealth, success, nothing higher. And the temporal, the threatening, the immediately impending consequences which another saw, rather than foresaw, are the significant tell-tale of the high-strung principle, the determined purpose, the noble force, which without a rival reigned within him. The weight of suffering in the hand is vastly greater than that in some undefined distance of prospect. The storm of grief and of sorrow that is now ready to burst on the very head looms terrific. The deposing of a queen, the divorcing of a wife, the disgracing of a woman in the eyes of all men, and of her own sex in particular, vain or not vainthese are consequences that overwhelm! Reckon we so then the cost of consequences to the queen, wife, woman who “refused to come at the king’s commandment.” Was this not a noble womanly refusal?
II. THIS WAS a NOBLE REFUSAL BECAUSE OF THE GROUND OF IT. It can perhaps scarcely be said that there were grounds for it. There were a multitude of (what very many would have considered) reasons why Vashti should not have refused to come, and there might truly have been reasons more than one, had she been differently situated, why she should have done as she actually did. Had she lived, for instance, at a different time of day, had she lived in a different country, had she belonged to a different race, there might have been some variety of reasons why she should have taken up the position she did, and adhered to it. But in point of fact there was probably great singleness of reason for this her great boldness of utterance and of action. Under certain circumstances one would have been glad to suppose that other considerations also played their part, and had their influence in Vashti’s peremptory negative decision. But we should be artificial, ungenuine, and guilty of an anachronism if we supposed these now. And that we cannot bring these lesser lights to throw their fainter rays on the scene leaves it in the undivided glory of God’s light. Here was his purity shedding its unflickering light on the thick darkness of that showy, sensual feast. The less we can justly set Vashti’s refusal down to the higher conscious reflex acts of our nature, and moral effects resulting from them, the more is it attributable to the calm light of that lamp which God has hung in the retired and sacred cabinet of the bosom of woman, to decorate it, and to bless with its religious glimmering through the windows all that come near enough, but not too near! It is the lamp of sweet purity, of nature’s own modesty, burning ever still with shame! That it is nature‘s modesty means that God’s own hand hung it, lighted it. That it was burning in so unlikely a place, in such unfavourable conditions, at such a time, is all comfort and joy to our faith, for it means that God’s hand had been round it, and shielded it so that it was not puffed out by the untoward gusts around. And that “frail woman”borne upon now by every present-time influence, literally thronged with inducements to sink all shame for an hour that she might reign still for years, besieged with earthly motives to succumb and yield obedience to a coarse commanddid refuse to succumb, ran the gauntlet of all consequences whatsoever, and, with an aroused indignation that would sleep no more, flung back the brutal mandate in the face of him who sent it, is fitted to show us how “in weakness” certain “strength is made perfect,“ and how the things amazing and “impossible with man, are possible with God;” yes, even facile to his Spirit’s breath.B.
Est 1:16-22
The parody of legislature.
If any be tempted at first to think of the king’s conferences (as here reported) with those whom we will call his statesmen as though they were scarcely serious and in earnest,fortunate to be carried on within the protection of closed doors; the monarch, in fact, secretly smiling at his ministers, and they in turn scarcely dissembling in his presence their real convictions of his impossible folly and of their own obsequious and shallow proposals,yet it would be found impossible to sustain this supposition. It will not bear investigation! The doors were but a short while closed doors, and the after proceedings give evidence ample that this was not intended to be any mere travesty of a privy council, however much to our eye it may resemble it. Assuming, therefore, what we do not doubt will be correctly assumed, that the occasion was one of widespread social bearings: and that the proceedings here narrated were of a bona fide character, we have again an impressive illustration of the fact that God’s work in the constitution of human nature, God‘s force in human feeling and life, insists on bearing down all artificial barriers and sweeping away all such obstruction. It possesses such a cumulative character. In silence, in depth of operation, in the multiplication of an exceeding number of persistent vital ultimate facts in the constitution of the human family, a force is often stealthily generating and surely gaining headway, .which at last tears down all that opposed, and that long seemed sure of its oppressing grasp. The “too much contempt and wrath” slowly “arise,” and are sure to find opportunity to take their revenge, even on the part of “a feeble folk!“ Thus a folk feeble enough, when considered one by one, will prove irresistible in combination!
I. NOTICE HOW THE HUMAN HEART, HUMAN LIFE IN ITS TENDEREST MAKE, IN ITS MOST YIELDING MOOD, RESENTS IN THE LONG RUN ARBITRARY FORCE. Even the feminine character knows despotism to be an unnatural thing, a discreditable violation of its own rights. The less obtrusive the claims of that feminine character, the more should they be studied by anticipation. Even that yielding’ disposition craves reason before force, right before might, considerateness before compulsion. The husband, the father, the social temper, the national temper, that forgets and sins against this has only to forget it and sin against it long enough to reap whirlwind and the most real of ruin. To what a pass had the treatment long meted out to women of the country and the age in question now come! What a humiliating confession from head-quarters when the king himself, “who reigned from India unto Ethiopia,” and these elder “seven wise men of the east,” are found thrown into a pitiable panic, a paroxysm of apprehension, lest there should happen a moral and social insurrection of their women, “great and small,” throughout the vast extent of the country and its “one hundred and twenty-seven provinces,” against, forsooth, “their husbands;” and in the sense, forsooth, of “despising” them and disputing their rule!
II. NOTICE TWO POLITICAL ALTERNATIVES. What must be either the degenerate social state of a nation, or its ripened state in any individual direction for some very radical alternative, when the spark that is feared is such a thing as this, anything analogous to thisthe one word “no” of one woman! The one resisting act of a wife, who is a queen, to the rude and licentious command of her husband, who is a king! The country of which this is true, the constitution of which this is true, in any part of it, must be dry indeed for a conflagration!
III. NOTICE THE INDESCRIBABLE INANITY OF THE MERE MAKING AND PROCLAMATION OF A DECREE ON A MORAL AND SOCIAL SUBJECT WHEN IT IS NOT BASED ON REASON, ON NATURAL RELIGION, ON EDUCATION, to say nothing of other religious sanction; or when the just utterances of these authorities are rendered utterly indistinct, are stifled by the improper conduct of one half of the people, towards the other half, who may be aimed at by the decree. No number of decrees, no severity of sanctions attached to them, could possibly bring all the women of a vast country to honour and obey from the heart their husbands, while these should continue to act towards them in a manner contrary to the Divine voice and to the charter of creation! The illustration which this history offers is patent and bold. The case appears a violent one; the position one to which modern days offer no sufficient parallel. It is a call for unbounded gratitude on the part of England, if it be so. But the lesson for other lands is still wanted in its most alphabetic form; and who can deny that all nations need the delicate guidance of the same principle in outline, though in a less visible, less common form?
IV. LASTLY, WHEN THE LAST COMES TO THE LAST, COURTIERS AND THE MOST OBSEQUIOUS OF THEM DO NOT THINK SO MUCH OF THEIR ROYAL MASTERS AS THEY DO OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR FELLOWS. Kingdoms are not made for kings, the ruled for rulers, but the reverse. And, probably without a thought of it himself, Memucan in his answer (Est 1:16) shows himself keeping by no means to the view of the position which the king had set forth and enlarged upon in his question. Supposing there to have been (what there was not) advantage obtainable in the decree, the insult (so interpreted) that had been offered to the king is almost thrust on one side, while the wily counsellors seem forthwith to scent the opportunity of an advantage to themselves and the widespread people! So the magnified affronts of the great are turned by Providence to a very different use from the vindication of their individual pride or vanity.
Conclusion.While there is perhaps not a little in these verses which invites and almost provokes our modern satire, there is certainly one great impression resulting from the whole, and deserving of the fullest attention and most constant memory namely, that great moral, social, religious effects must not be sought primarily by mere legislative enactment. They must be sought by a diligent use of corresponding methods, and then even will be found only in God’s blessing upon them.B.
HOMILIES BY D. ROWLANDS
Est 1:10-12
The tyrant-slave.
Distance frequently gives us exaggerated notions of greatness, while closer intimacy would speedily dispel the illusion. To the best part of the known world the name of Ahasuerus was associated with unrestrained power, but this passage reveals his real position. Extremes meet; an absolute tyrant may be at the same time an absolute slave. This was precisely the case with Ahasuerus. He was
I. AN ABSOLUTE TYRANT. He occupied a position of unlimited authority, and exercised his authority in an arbitrary manner. Note
1. That the possession of absolute power is in itself a great wrong. It is a violation of the inalienable rights of communities that any man through the mere accident of birthor even through his own superior abilitiesshould become an irresponsible ruler over them; and history shows that this violation has always been fraught with disastrous consequences.
(1) It subordinates the common weal to individual interest. The well-being of society is possible only on the supposition that the good of the greatest number should be of the first importance, and that individuals should be willing to sacrifice everything if necessary for its attainment. Despots, however, proceed on the supposition that everything exists for their private benefitextensive territories, the wealth of nations, and even the lives of their subjects.
(2) It tends to make the ruler himself capricious. To expect a man to be moderate, reasonable, and just at all times in such a position is to make too great a demand on human nature; the temptations to which he is exposed are more than an ordinary mortal can withstand.
(3) It tends to make the people servile and unprincipled. Where one will is supreme there is nothing certain: law, justice, rectitude become meaningless; duty resolves itself into pleasing the potentate, who holds the power of life and death in his own hands. The natural outcome of this is the spread of meanness, duplicity, dishonesty among all classes, from the highest to the lowest. The apologists of despotism sometimes refer to the position of a father in his family in justification of the institution. But a father is not absolute in the widest sense; and even if he were, the danger inseparable from the possession of so much power is neutralised by the love he bears for his own flesh and blood.
2. The use made of absolute power in the case before us. This is a most ignoble passage in the life of a king of such high pretensions.
(1) He seemed to assume that no consideration was due to anybody but himself. The sole purpose of the prolonged festivities was to gratify his own vanity. And when he thought that the presence of the queen would add to his own pleasure, he never paused to consider whether it might not be painful to the queen herself. Selfishness makes men thoughtless, unjust, and cruel, even to those who have the strongest claims upon their tenderness.
(2) He commanded what was unlawful according to the accepted notions of the time. Eastern women led a secluded life, and were not permitted to expose their countenances to the gaze of strangers. Besides, for a modest woman to display her charms in the presence of drunken revellers was a degradation from which she must have recoiled with unutterable aversion.
(3) He afterwards punished as disobedience what was really obedience to a higher law of duty. The queen was deposed simply for daring to protect her honour. In this respect she takes her place among, a noble bandthe glorious army of martyrs, who, rather than violating their consciences at the bidding of bloodthirsty tyrants, submitted to imprisonment, torture: and death. Wrong can never really flourish. It may appear prosperous to superficial observers, but a deeper knowledge of the state of things must reveal the penalty which it entails. This king, amidst the dazzling splendours with which he surrounded himself, might have imposed upon his fellow-men, and made them gaze with longing eyes upon the elevated position which he occupied; but after all there are unmistakable indications here that the absolute tyrant was
II. AN ABSOLUTE SLAVE. We find that
1. He was a slave of his appetite. “The king’s heart was merry with wine;” he had taken more drink than was good for him, and was beginning to feel the effects of it. A sorry spectacle! He who ought to have set a pattern of dignified demeanour to those beneath him, degrading himself below the level of the brute creation. Millions have done and are doing the same thing. Alexander conquered the world, but a lawless appetite conquered Alexander.
2. He was a slave of his passions. “The king was very wroth, and his anger burned within him.” Accustomed as he was to be implicitly obeyed, he could not endure his will to be thwarted. The demon within him was roused, and he was no longer master of himself; he must obey the promptings of unreasoning rage, however much he might regret it in calmer moments. Truly, “he that is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.”
3. He was a slave of his pride. He was induced to depose the queen because he imagined that his dignity had been compromised. No doubt he loved her, and it must have cost him a pang to be separated from her, but pride would not allow him to revoke his decree. Like King Herod, who preferred to behead John the Baptist rather than confess that he had made a foolish oath. He may have called it courage to himself, but it was in reality the most contemptible cowardice.R.
Est 1:16-18
Court influence.
We may admit the general truth of a principle, and yet deny its application to a particular case. Doubtless wrong-doing on the part of the queen might have exerted an unwholesome influence upon other women, but it by no means follows that her conduct in the present instance was open to this objection. On the contrary, might not her bravery in maintaining the honour of her sex in the face of so much danger strengthen the hands of others when placed in similar difficulties? The subject suggested by this passage is the responsibility of greatness. Let us inquire
I. WHAT CONSTITUTES GREATNESS. By greatness we mean, in a general way, the position of a man who for certain well-defined reasons towers above the rest of his fellow-men. Evidently, therefore, it may be of various types.
1. The greatness of position. Some are born heirs to titles and kingdoms. Distinction is thrust upon them before their wishes are consulted. Their lives mingle with the web of history simply on account of their birth.
2. The greatness of wealth This differs from the preceding in that it is confined to no favoured class. A man may have a most humble origin, and yet through industry and perseverance may become a millionaire.
3. The greatness of genius. This is the gift of God. It resembles that of position, in that men are born into it; but it also resembles that of wealth, in that it is fully enjoyed only through labour. John Milton would have been a genius had he been “mute and inglorious;” but it was the effort he put forth in producing ‘Paradise Lost’ that made him immortal.
II. WHAT CONSTITUTES THIS RESPONSIBILITY.
1. The fact that the great are members of society. No member of society, however great or however humble, can be independent. His actions touch his fellows at so many points that they have a right to control his conduct to that extent.
2. The great determine their own actions. No man is a mere puppet of circumstances. A high position may involve conditions which hamper the will, but they cannot rob it altogether of its freedom. In so far then as actions are free the agent is responsible for them.
3. The great exert an influence. This is true of all, but especially of the great. And this was the point on which Memucan so emphatically insisted.
(1) Influence is independent of our will. We can shape our own conduct, but we cannot regulate its effects upon others. We cannot plead that we never desired it, when we are charged with ruining others by our example, for those who copy us as a rule do not ask our permission. Does the subject of a deadly fever desire to spread infection?
(2) The influence of the great is powerful in proportion to their greatness. They are the observed of all observers. They are cities set on a hill which cannot be hid. Jeroboam son of Nebat made Israel sin, and the wickedness of the people for several generations was attributed to the influence of his example.
(3) It is far easier to influence for evil than for good. The effect produced upon an object is as much due to the object itself as to the power exerted. A blow that would leave iron uninjured might shatter glass to atoms. The original bias of the human heart is toward evil, so that it needs little help in that direction. No great eloquence is required to persuade the miser to hoard his money, or the spendthrift to squander his substance.
This subject has a practical application. What is true of the great with regard to influence is true of all to some extent. It is true that a taper is unspeakably less than the sun, but it produces the same effect in its own sphere as the larger luminary does in his.
1. Ministers of religion exert an influence. Not merely in the pulpit, but in their intercourse with the world.
2. Parents exert an influence. Their actions will generally produce a deeper impression than their words.
3. Associates exert an influence. Men are constantly brought together in the various pursuits of life. In the workshops in the market-place, in the transactions of business, each man is unconsciously contributing his share to the making or the marring of the characters of those with whom he comes in contact.R.
HOMILIES BY W. DINWIDDLE
Est 1:10, Est 1:11
The fruit of excess.
The king’s inconsistent excess betrayed him into an unworthy and foolish act. When heated with wine he summoned Queen Vashti to appear before him, crowned, that she might “show the princes and people her beauty.”
I. AN OUTWARD RESPECTFULNESS OF MANNER DOES NOT MAKE AMENDS FOR ANY DISHONOURABLE INTENT. In sending to Vashti the seven chamberlains who waited on himself, the king showed some respect for her dignity. He perhaps hoped by this parade to overcome any objection she might have to obey his strange command. But the quality of evil is not affected by the garnishings with which men clothe and try to conceal it. Sin is often so disguised as to be made attractive to the unwary, but it is still sin; and the “pure in heart” who “see God” are not deceived.
II. WRONG–DOING BREEDS FEAR IN THE MOST RECKLESS MOMENTS OF SELF–CONFIDENCE. The emphatic way in which the number and names of the chamberlains are given seems to indicate that there was some fear of the queen in the king’s heart. He knew her character, and was not unconscious of the insult implied in his command. Having, under the excitements of wine and vanity, conceived and expressed the desire that her beauty should be publicly exhibited, he could not draw back, but he thought to convey his will to her with such accompaniments as would either flatter or overawe her into obedience. A dishonest heart has fears that are only known to itself. It is most timid and craven when it assumes the loudest bravery. Its bristling feathers of authority are often the signs of an inward distrust. Conscious rectitude of purpose and action is the true spring of courage. A heart that is pure in its affections and intents is bold and strong in all circumstances. It is an evil conscience that “makes cowards of us all.” A good conscience will make heroes of the humblest.
III. WHEN UNJUST TO OURSELVES WE ARE IN GREAT DANGER OF BEING UNJUST TO OTHERS. If the king had been himself true to the law which he had promulgated, he would never have thought of subjecting Vashti to a humiliating exposure. When men recognise their own obligations to righteous law, and submit themselves unto God, they are careful to observe the duties they owe to their friends and neighbours. Indifference to the feelings and rights of others implies a want of self-subordination to holy and honourable rule. It is only the unregulated, whose moral and spiritual nature is not braced by habitual subjection to principle, who are willing to trample on the sensibilities of those over whom natural or social ties give them power.
IV. THE EXCITEMENTS PRODUCED BY UNGOVERNED PASSIONS OR ARTIFICIAL STIMULATION DO NOT EXCUSE THE EVILS OR CRIMES TO WHICH THEY MAY LEAD. An unbridled temper, a blinding lust, or vinous intoxication, has often been pled in mitigation of the gravest offences. But one sin cannot justify or excuse another and consequent sin. If a man allows, his. reason and. conscience to. be unseated, whether by anger, or lust, or strong drink, he is responsible for every evil result that may follow. There is no sin which does not carry within it the seeds of other sins. This is a solemn thought, and one which should put all men on their guard against the first beginnings of sin.D.
Est 1:12
Justifiable disobedience.
The commission of the seven chamberlains to the queen was in vain. Vashti refused to appear before the king and his guests. Why this disobedience? Several considerations, favourable and unfavourable, may be suggested.
I. CONSIDERATIONS UNFAVOURABLE TO VASHTI.
1. She knew the absolute authority with which the king was invested. In this knowledge she had become his wife and queen. Ought she not, therefore, to have obeyed him, even at personal sacrifice, when he commanded her, with befitting circumstance, to come to him, that her beauty might be seen and admired?
2. She knew the importance of the occasion, and the disappointment and humiliation that would fall on the king, her husband, if she ventured to disobey his command. Should she not have been willing to suffer pain herself in order to save the king from the pain of a public manifestation of revolt against his declared will? Such self-denial is sometimes good, and, whenever good, is praiseworthy.
3. She may have been influenced merely by the wilfulness of pride. All reflection on the claims of duty, on the requirements of the occasion, and on the effects of her conduct on the king’s dignity and peace, may have been rendered impossible by the flushings of a resentful pride. Nothing more easily drowns reflection, nothing is more unreasoning and unreasonable, than a haughty and self-exalting disposition. Pride is a bad helm for the guidance of life.
4. Whatever the queen’s motive, her answer to the chamberlains may have been given in an abrupt and defiant manner. It is a good quality, and a proof either of self-discipline or of a kindly and sympathetic nature, to be able to express even strong feelings in ways that will not kindle wrath or breed discord. “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” We must observe, however, that nothing is said of the manner in which the queen responded to the king’s messengers. All we are told is that she refused.
II. CONSIDERATIONS FAVOURABLE TO VASHTI.
1. The king’s command showed a want of sympathy with her in her faithful diligence as entertainer of the women. Inside the palace she was doing the work which the king’ was doing in the garden court. Why should she be called away from this real and appropriate work to pose herself as the central figure of an idle and foolish pageant? The command was inconsiderate and frivolous. Honest work, however secretly performed, is to be preferred at all times to showy ostentations which minister only to the gratification of self. A humble mind and a diligent hand are better in a woman than the most lauded beauty that courts the gaze of the world.
2. The king’s command was a violation of custom. We know the seclusion in which Eastern women then, as now, lived. It was a shame to a woman to appear unveiled before any man except her husband. Vashti would be staggered when she received the message of the chamberlains. National or social customs may be bad, but they cannot be safely or wisely departed from except under the force of enlightened and conscientious reasons. Especially are they binding when any breach of them implies a conscious self-degradation.
3. The king’s command was the result of partial drunkenness. Vashti could hardly fail to perceive its cause. She would know that the king could not have issued it if he had been in possession of his sober senses. It is said of one that he appealed from Alexander drunk to Alexander sober. So may have been the thought of Vashti. Rather than subject herself to insult, she would risk the immediate displeasure of the king, in the hope that when he came to his right mind he would perceive the wisdom and propriety of her conduct.
4. The king’s command was an outrage on Vashti, as queen, as wife, and as woman.
(1) As sole and acknowledged queen of the empire, she could not, without utter loss of dignity, stoop to expose herself, as a royal puppet, to the excited multitude.
(2) As the true and legitimate wife of the king, she could not, consistently with wifely honour, allow her beauty to be made a public plaything and gazing-stock at the whim of a wine-flushed and self-forgetting husband.
(3) As a woman (apart altogether from outward position), every true instinct would make her shrink from exhibiting herself as a mere wanton to eyes that were inflamed with wine. If she had been of a soft nature she might have yielded, at the cost of much suffering’. If she had been proud of her beauty, and shameless, she might have gladly obeyed. But she was neither so soft as to submit to outrage, nor so unprincipled as to welcome it. A modest spirit is the most precious jewel which nature grants to women, and when it is sanctified by the fear of God and the love of Jesus, its power as an instrument of good is wonderfully increased.
5. The king’s command threatened the reputation of Vashti. It was given to the chamberlains in presence of the princes and nobles, and it was delivered to Vashti in presence of the women. Thus all were informed of it, and all understood its meaning. If Vashti had obeyed it, she would have lost caste in the estimation of her own sex, and she would have imperilled, if not sacrificed altogether, the respect and reverence of the “princes and people,” and even of the king himself. The praise of men may, and often does, cost too much. It should never be allowed to enter into rivalry with the praise of God, or the approbation of a good conscience. At the same time, the esteem of the gooda high reputation for integrity of heart and lifeis of exceeding price, and is usually but the reflection of the Divine favour. All who play fast and loose with their reputed character, as honourable or godly men and women, give evidence that they are loosely attached to the sacred principles of truth and virtue (see 1Pe 2:2). Vashti may be taken as an example of devotion to just thought and pure feeling. At all hazards she did what her true mind and heart would only allow her to do. She risked much, and in the event she suffered much. But we do not pity her. Whatever were the motives that inspired her, our sympathies go with her in her refusal to obey the king’s command. We give her honour as a woman who, in very trying circumstances, was true to herself and her position. The one act by which she is known has made her name honourable in all time. Her firmness in a critical moment may also be regarded as an illustration of the Divine providence. It produced results which she could not anticipate. It paved the way for that great deliverance of the Jews from the devices of the wicked of which this book is the record. Honest action, whatever troubles it may bring, never goes without its ultimate reward. The lines of self-denying allegiance to truth stretch far; eternity only will realise their full issue.D.
Est 1:12
Anger.
Vashti’s disobedience kindled in the king’s mind
(1) a strong resentmenthe “was very wroth.”
(2) An abiding resentment”his anger burned in him.” Considering the man and the circumstances, this should not surprise us.
1. It was a case of rebellion. The worst crime in the view of a despot is to dispute his will. Nothing so easily inflames anger in a man who is used to power and unused to self-control as any want of submission to his authority.
2. The rebellion was in the king’s own household. It was the queen, his wife, who ventured to disobey him. Men naturally expect a special readiness of sympathy and co-operation from those who are united to them by blood or family ties. And resentment caused by opposition from such relations as wife or children often assumes a peculiar intensity. But weak and self-willed minds are apt to abuse these ties by exacting more than is just. We should be especially considerate in our demands on the obedience or service of those who have the highest claims on our respect and love.
3. The rebellion was made public. A private humiliation is much more easily borne than one suffered in presence of many. Vashti’s refusal to appear was announced before the princes and the assembled citizens. This circumstance would add a sting to the affront, and supply fuel to the flame of the king’s wrath. One of the penalties of wrong-doing is that it cannot be kept secret. In its effects at least it is sure to become known, and to bring confusion and shame on the evil-doer.
4. The rebellion occurred at an unfortunate time. It was just before the close of the prolonged festival that the queen failed in submission to her husband’s command. So far all had gone well. All ranks had been obsequious and flattering. Not a jarring note had arisen to disturb the serenity of the vain king’s heart. But now, when the triumph seemed complete, the glory of it was utterly despoiled by the disobedience of Vashti. A bitter sense of humiliation and a burning anger were the necessary results.
5. The rebellion was produced by the king’s own act. He had been guilty of a folly that was full of risk. The consciousness that he had brought the dishonour on himself would be no salve to his mind. It would only aggravate the wound that had been inflicted on his pride, and the helpless rage that unmanned him. Sufferings, however severe, that come on us from without are light compared with those that are hatched by our own follies and misdeeds. It has been often observed that the hatred of ungodly men is greater to those whom they have injured than to those from whom they have received injury. According to this law of the natural heart, the anger of the king against Vashti, instead of being allayed or softened, would be increased by the knowledge that she had been driven to rebellion by his own foolish conduct. It should be remarked, however, that though the king’s anger can be understood and explained, it cannot be approved. For
I. ANGER IS NEVER DIGNIFIED. It shows a want of self-command. The king lost dignity when he became “very wroth” in presence of his guests. He was no longer king, but a suffering subject under the will or caprice of Vashti. Anger always makes a man look inferior to the occasion that gives birth to it.
II. ANGER INVARIABLY ADDS TO A SUPPOSED OR REAL HUMILIATION. If the king had received Vashti’s refusal to obey him with a calm mind and a pleasant countenance, as a thing personal to himself and Vashti, and therefore above the observance of the crowd, the last hour of the banquet might have been in keeping with all the other hours that had preceded it. But his breaking into an ungovernable fury brought the festival to a miserable close. The princes and people separated in confusion and fear. The king’s anger did not mend matters.
III. ANGER IS ALWAYS UNJUST. There can be no true judgment when the mind is perturbed by wrathful feelings. The angry man is shut up to one view of the conduct that has enraged him. He sees everything through the mist of his passion. The last man to judge or act truly is he who has given up the reins of temper, and yielded himself to the power of anger.
IV. ANGER IS ALWAYS SELFISH. It is violently selfish. Like the king of Persia, it has no consideration for the thoughts, influences, or circumstances which have actuated those against whom it is turned, or for the initiative or contributory wrong-doing of the heart in which it burns. While it lasts it is simply absorbed by the self that is pained, and has no regard for others. All the springs of charity are dried up when anger rules a soul.
V. ANGER IS A PROLIFIC CAUSE OF INJUSTICE AND CRUELTY. It led Ahasuerus, as we shall see, to be unjust and cruel to Vashti. But to what terrible and varied crimes does it give birth in ordinary life! What a place it occupies in our criminal records! How many injure others and ruin themselves by giving “place to wrath!” There is much in the every-day experience of the world to warn men against allowing themselves to yield to the power of anger.
VI. ANGER IS A SIN AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN RULE OF LIFE. There is an anger which is Christlike. “Be ye angry and sin not,” said Paul. But that is an anger, or holy indignation, against sin and its temptations. It has reference to things that are evil, and not to persons. Jesus himself hated sin and all its works, but he loved sinners and died for them. We cannot cherish at the same time the forgiving spirit of Christ and the feeling of anger towards any man. It was at once a recognition of our weakness, and a desire that we should strive to overcome it, that led the apostle to write, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.”
Additional lessons:We have here an instance of
1. A just punishment. The king’s vanity, inflamed by wine, brought upon him a severe retribution. Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, and David’s grief under the pestilence, were heavy punishments of a vain presumption. But to such a man as Ahasuerus the rebellion of his queen, with all its attendant circumstances, was about as weighty an infliction as was possible. It was peculiarly fitting to the case.
2. A sandy foundation. No miracle was needed to bring down into humiliating collapse the edifice of vain-glory which the king had been laboriously rearing for himself throughout the festival. Many a showy fabric thus unexpectedly tumbles about the head of its builder. A little thing will destroy a false grandeur, an unprincipled reputation, or a selfish happiness. A building to stand must have a good foundation. There is only one foundationthat of God’s truth and love in Jesus Christon which character, reputation, life-influence, happiness, and hope may safely build. Build there, and when all the storms of life have done their worst, you and your life-work will still abide. The kingdom of Christ is an everlasting kingdom. “They that trust in the Lord shall never be put to shame.”D.
Est 1:13
Motives of self-restraint.
If the anger which burned in the king had issued in a determination to put the disobedient Vashti to death, his will would have been obeyed, and his example would not have been singular. History affords many instances of the sacrifice of wives by despotic kings under the influence of violent passion. What withheld Ahasuerus from this last stretch of authority? Several causes are suggested.
I. AFFECTION. Vashti had both beauty of face and form, and nobility of character. That the king was fully sensible of the attractiveness of her presence is shown by his request that she should appear before his guests at the banquet. In spite of her disobedience and the anger it excited in his mind, it is very probable that a lingering affection curbed any desire he may have had to inflict on her an immediate and summary punishment. There are few greater treasures than the power to win such an esteem and love from relatives and friends as will not only be a fruitful pleasure in times of peace, but exercise a restraining influence on tempers that have become turbulent and unruly. Many qualities are needed to give a man or woman possession of it. Yet all, by a godly self-discipline, may acquire it in measure.
II. FEAR. It can hardly be doubted that Vashti’s nature was a more powerful one than that of the king. The closing incident of the feast implies that the king was proud of his wife, and that the queen had some consciousness of power over her husband. From the little that is writtenlittle, but tellingwe gather that Vashti had been accustomed to a strong personal ascendancy in her intercourse with the king. And now, when anger burned in his heart against Vashti, the weak and self-indulgent king hesitated, and wavered, and sought the advice of others. He was still under the influence of a nature superior to his own. It is well to consider that there are forces in the world higher and mightier than the material. The grace and strength of character possessed by a single woman may be stronger than the wrathful will of a monarch who commands legions, and whose nod millions are ready to obey.
III. LAW. The unalterable character given to the laws of the Medes and Persians displayed, though in an unwise and awkward way, a more than usual respect for the claims of public law. King Ahasuerus inherited a sort of reverence for the fixed code of the empire, and it was “his manner,” or habit, to consult legal experts in all matters of difficulty. This habitual regard for law asserted itself in his treatment of Vashti’s rebellion, and assisted in preventing his wrath from wreaking itself at once in violent action. The king’s recognition of the claims of law is commendable. Notice
1. That law is the authoritative teaching of experience. It is the accumulated and embodied wisdom of a nation. As civilisation advances in communities, their laws become at the same time more just and more humane, and they acquire inherent force in proportion as they reflect the principles of truth and right. Bad laws imply a low moral and social condition, and can only secure obedience through the fear excited by cruel penalties. Good laws carry with them an authority of their own which has greater power for good than the heaviest penal sanctions.
2. That law is a guide and teacher of the ignorant. There are multitudes in every country to whom it becomes the chief practical educator as to what is right between man and man. The more deeply grounded it is in truth, the higher it will be in influence. The restraints which it imposes, the awards which it metes out, lead men to reflect on the principles and ends which underlie it. If it be based on Christian ideas of justice, those ideas will emerge in the thoughts and mould the character of the people who are governed by it. Law is a great educator.
3. That law is a restraint on the evil-disposed. Even criminals who set law at defiance have their power much crippled by its just punishments. But very many who in heart rebel against it are only kept orderly and reputable in their outward conduct by fear of its rightful authority. Thus society is guarded by it against an anarchy and confusion of wickedness which would make life unsafe and intolerable. On the ground of social order we should cherish and encourage respect for law.
4. That law is a protection to the innocent, the weak, and the right-minded. It throws a benign shield over the young and tender, and it affords an open and safe field for upright living, and for the efforts of holy Christian beneficence. Without law there could be no freedom for the righteous and law-loving. A lawless liberty is the direst of oppressions. As the voice of government, law, in the words of Peter (1Pe 2:14) is “for the praise of them that do well.”
From these reflections on law we learn
1. The duty of all citizens.
(1) To obey honestly and heartily the law under which they live. A solemn responsibility rests on them to give all honour to constituted authority.
(2) To use through legitimate means what power they possess to bring the law of their country into harmony with perfect justice and freedom. Christians are not released by their religion from civil obligations. On the contrary, the faith and life of Christ only sanctifies, and makes more binding on the conscience, the claims of natural, social, and political ties. We learn
2. The immense value of the Christian revelation of righteous law. That law affects all the affairs and intereststhe least as well as the greatestof human life. Nothing lies beyond its sovereign reach. It affects
(1) Nations. The more fully and regally it is admitted into the governments, and laws, and customs of corporate societies, the higher is the level which such societies attain with respect to all the elements that constitute true prosperity and happiness.
(2) Persons. Whatever be the outward conditions under which men live, their personal submission to the Christian law of life is an inestimable blessing both to themselves and to others. The Divine law which they recognise in faith and conduct makes them superior to all that is false and injurious in existing human laws; and their example of purity, humility, integrity, charity, and godly fear tells on many hearts that may be watching it in silence. We should be unfeignedly and deeply thankful for Christ’s law; for his revelation of the mind of God in perfect holiness and perfect love; and we should strive earnestly to commend it to others, and to infuse it into the law and life of the nation to which we belong. “Oh, how love I thy law!” should be the life-note of individual men and women. “Great peace have they which love thy law,” should express their inward comfort, and the incentive of their active labour for God and good.D.
Est 1:13, Est 1:14
Counsellors.
I. RESPECT FOR COUNSEL AND COUNSELLORS. This implies
1. A proper humility. Some men are too proud to seek advice from others; they resent it as an impertinence when it is offered. Others place so much confidence in their own judgment that they fail to see the need of extraneous help. But the facts of life, as well as the verdicts of conscience and religion, condemn both pride and self-confidence as foolish and hurtful. How often are they brought low in presence of their own acts i
2. A proper sense of responsibility. We cannot estimate what may be the effect of any particular act. The well-being of others as well as ourselves may be deeply concerned in conduct which we treat lightly, and therefore heedlessly pursue. A thoughtful consideration of our responsibility to God and our neighbour for our actions and their results would make us welcome the light of a kindly counsel, by whomsoever given. Especially should those who occupy positions of great influence seek and value the aid of good counsellors.
II. QUALIFICATIONS OF COUNSELLORS. Few possess the peculiar gifts and acquirements needed to give them the character of good and trustworthy advisers. Such a character demands a combination of high qualities. This is true in connection not only with matters of grave importance, but with the affairs of ordinary life. In our passage we have certain qualifications indicated
1. Wisdom, or knowledge. The men whom the king consulted on the case of Vashti are called “wise men who knew the times.” They were learned in the wisdom of their day, and had studied the laws of the empire and the principles on which they were grounded. A special knowledge is required to grapple with, and throw light on, matters that are involved, perplexing, and attended by heavy risks. In presence of such matters ignorance is helpless or presuming, while imperfect knowledge is sure to mislead. Only a wisdom which is familiar with facts and principles can be trusted in cases where the counsellor is required.
2. Experience. A theoretical knowledge may be good and necessary, but it is not sufficient to guide in practical matters. Men may learn much from books and abstract meditation, but unless they are accustomed to apply what they have learned, or to study its applications, in the events of every-day life, their counsel in cases of difficulty will be of little value. The men whom it was “the king’s manner” to consult were skilled both in “law” and in “judgment.” Their knowledge was not only ideal or speculative, but practical and experimental. They had trained themselves to apply law in giving judgment. They had learned to discriminate, to weigh evidence, and to pronounce verdicts in the light of existing laws. Experience is the greatest of teachers, and those who have benefited most by its lessons are most capable of discharging the duty of counsellors. As in law, so also in all other human interests. In commerce, the best adviser will be the man who has passed through, in an honourable and successful way, all the vicissitudes of a commercial life. The same is true with respect to religious needs and anxieties. The true counsellor to the distressed soul will be the Christian who has himself experienced the struggles with sin, the renewing grace of God, and the redeeming love of Jesus Christ.
3. Reputation and standing. It is said that the king’s advisers were “next” to himself; that they “saw the king’s face,” and that they “sat the first in the kingdom.” Their wisdom had made them eminent, and the effect of their counsel would be in proportion to their eminence. They had much to gain or lose by the answer they might give to the king’s proposition. Their reputation and standing were at stake. It is easy for men of small character and influence to offer flippant or heedless advice. But those whose acknowledged wisdom has raised them to a position which gives power to their judgments are usually careful as to the opinions they express. At any rate they stand out before others as possessing a special claim on the confidence of those who require the guidance of enlightened counsel. From this consideration let us learn
(1) The value of a good social reputation. It should be cherished as a treasure beyond price.
(2) The influence of a good social reputation. It is incalculable. It tells on many. It works unseen. It goes far beyond the visible sphere of its action.
(3) The burden of a good social reputation. It is weighty. A great responsibility attaches to it.
III. A DIVINE COUNSELLOR IS MADE KNOWN. Christ never fails those who trust and follow him. Among his recorded names are “the Wisdom,” “the Word,” and “the Counsellor.” He is interested in all that interests man for time and eternity. His voice may be heard in connection with all duties, all positions, all eventsa voice of truth, righteousness, and love. If we listen to him we shall neither live nor die in vain.D.
Est 1:15, Est 1:16
Counsel.
The proverb says, “Where no counsel is, the people fall; but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” (Pro 11:14). The truth of this proverb is conditioned by one of two things. It assumes that the counsellors are
1. All wise and true. But this cannot be said of any human assembly, or parliament, or senate, or cabinet. If any body of counsellors could lay just claim to it, then the safety of a perfect wisdom and truth would be the necessary result. Nothing could resist its power. This condition, however, being impossible, we must resort to the alternative assumption, viz; that the counsellors are
2. All free. In this case the conflict of opinion and aim must ultimately bring to the light what is just and good. It is the principle of free discussion that governs the proceedings of our modern parliaments. Prejudice and corrupt motive may find a place in the doings of such parliaments, but through the controversies which arise truth gradually emerges into power, and sooner or later shapes itself into irreversible laws. Circumstances, however, may elicit advice which is opposed to the better knowledge or free judgment of those who give it. A despotic king, or an infatuated people, may destroy counsel, or force it away from the lines of truth, “What to do with Vashti?” was the proposition of the king to his wise men. From the advice which was given and accepted we learn
I. SOME OF THE MARKS OF GOOD COUNSEL.
1. It does not flatter. The words of Memucan were framed to please the king. They were very artful in their flattery. Vashti’s sin against the king was expanded into a sin against all the husbands in the empire. Her punishment would confer a benefit on both “princes and people” in all the provinces. A soothing and solace to the king’s wounded vanity! The desire to please and the desire to be pleased are both enemies to good counsel.
2. It is above fear. As the fear of disgrace or suffering is the greatest trial to honesty of counsel, so the conquering of such a fear, in circumstances that seemed to justify it, is its greatest triumph. Here Memucan and his companions failed. They knew the anger that burned in the king’s heart, and their advice showed an anxiety to avert the effects of that anger from themselves. They valued their heads more than their virtue. Under fear, wisdom was willing to assume the guise of cunning. To get good counsel it is better to win confidence than to inspire fear. Fear is always false; love only is true.
3. It is unselfish. Whenever counsel is given, whether with or without asking, it should be entirely in the interest of those to whom it is given. Any underlying element of selfish thought is weakening, if not vitiating. It is clear that Memucan and his fellow wisdom-mongers had much regard to their own position in the advice which they gave.
4. It is just. It takes into view the interests of those whose character or position may be affected by it. Unfair or one-sided judgments arc opposed to it. In Vashti’s case the counsel given assumed that she had been guilty of conduct that deserved the severest punishment, without so much as noticing the circumstances which led to it and which may have justified or palliated it. It was assumed that the queen had been disobedient, had set a bad example, and had injured not only the king, but the whole empire. Nothing was said of the folly of the king’s command. Nothing was allowed for the womanly feelings that were outraged by it. Injustice in counsel deprives it of the quality of goodness or true wisdom.
5. It is reasonable. Any counsel which violates common sense, or bears a ludicrous aspect, is unworthy to he given or followed. Such counsel can only be offered to men who are known to lack a reasonable mind, or come from men who are swayed rather by policy than by principle. The advice given about Vashti is so foolish in its form as to suggest that the “wise men” were befooling their king.
II. HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR THE GREAT TO GET GOOD COUNSEL! To secure that advice shall be founded on truth, they must
1. Be known to desire the truth. For the most part, a man possessing power will only receive counsel that is fashioned to suit his character and wishes. If he loves and seeks the truth, those who advise him will speak the truth. A wise and truthful counsel will grow up around him. But if he lives falsely and hates to be disturbed in his false living, the counsel that is given him will be after his liking.
2. Be able to discern the truth. Good instincts will not protect a weak man from the impositions of plausible cunning. A desire to learn and to do what is right may be defeated by a want of capacity to distinguish between competing counsels. This power of discernment, with respect to the quality of advice, greatly varies in men. Some possess it as a natural gift; some only acquire it after long experience; many never get hold of it; all have need to cultivate it with earnest care. It is a great power in the practical conduct of life.
3. Be resolute to learn the truth. For kings and other great people to get good counsel, it must be known that they will only listen to counsel that is good. A desire for the truth, and a capacity to discern it, may be accompanied by an utter want of active and determined will. Then counsel will become uncertain; honest thoughts will grow timorous in expression; dishonest thoughts will grow bold. An irresolute will favours the solicitude of bad guides. As there is a Divine Counsellor, so there is a Divine counselthe word of the living Godholy, wise, true, just, loving, and safe. All who take and follow that counsel are made “wise unto salvation,” and are “well instructed” in the things that are “unto holiness,” and that “belong to peace.”D.
Est 1:17, Est 1:18
Example.
These verses speak of the force of example, and suggest some thoughts respecting it.
I. THE INFLUENCE OF EXAMPLE IS PECULIARLY SUBTLE AND DEEP. This arises from the fact that it is not an abstract, but a living thing. It is the embodiment of principles, good or bad, in an active human life. It touches and lays hold of, more or less, the actuating spirit of those who come within its circle. Fine professions go for little when personal character and conduct belie them. Nor has precept much power when not conjoined with a harmonious example. “Example is better than precept,” in the sense that it is the action of soul on soul, and will therefore tell on those who see it, when precept will only fall heedlessly on the ear.
II. THE INFLUENCE OF EXAMPLE TRAVELS FAR AND WIDE. It is seen and felt beyond the knowledge or the immediate circle of the man who gives it. Men are observed and their actions weighed when they do not suspect it. When one life is impressed by the example of another, the impression does not stop there, but is conveyed to other lives, and is thus extended indefinitely. This is true of negative as well as of positive qualities, and of ordinary conduct as well as of particular acts.
III. THE INFLUENCE OF EXAMPLE IS CONTINUOUS. Special conduct on special occasions is but a vivid expression of the spirit that animates the daily life. A man’s example continues with his life, and being continuous, its influence is accumulative. Even after his death it may long continue to exert power, either through the written record, or through descendants whose character has been affected by it.
IV. THE INFLUENCE OF EXAMPLE IS INCREASED BY HIGH POSITION. The higher a man stands in social rank, the more widely will he be observed, and the more readily imitated. There is an instinctive reverence for rank in the human heart which should make royal, noble, or wealthy persons very careful as to the example they set. But all positions are relative. Thus a parent is as great in the eye of a child as a monarch is in view of the subject. The Christian minister in relation to his flock; the teacher to his pupil; the master to his servant; the cultivated to the ignorantall these also occupy a position of eminence, and their example exerts a corresponding influence.
V. THE INFLUENCE AND TRUE QUALITY OF EXAMPLE ARE NOT ALWAYS TO BE JUDGED BY PREVAILING HABITS OR POPULAR NOTIONS. It may run counter to these and be condemned by them, and yet be good. Passing fashions of thought and life afford no fixed standard of example. Vashti’s disobedience was accounted bad as an example because it was a violation of the custom which laid on wives a slavish submission to their husbands. But judged by a higher law than that of custom, her example was good both to the king and to his subjects. Whatever conduct recognises the claims of truth, conscience, purity, and modest self-respect must be allowed to be good; whatever conduct tramples on or is indifferent to such things must be adjudged evil.
VI. THE INFLUENCE AND TRUE QUALITY OF EXAMPLE CANNOT BE FAIRLY JUDGED BY THOSE WHOM IT HAS AFFRONTED and filled with malice or wrath How could the king in his burning anger, or his advisers under the flame of that anger, do justice to the conduct of Vashti? Wrath is a bad judge.
VII. THE INFLUENCE AND TRUE QUALITY OF EXAMPLE ARE OFTEN MORE JUSTLY ESTIMATED IN AFTER TIMES THAN AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE EXAMPLE WAS GIVEN. As between the king and Vashti judgment now would go against the king. Many a character and many an action, when time has scattered the mists of passion, have appeared in a new light, and received a tardy justice by the reversal of contemporary verdicts.
VIII. THE ONLY PERFECT EXAMPLE KNOWN AMONGST MEN IS THAT OF JESUS, THE SON OF GOD. The more fully we regulate our conduct by the spirit of his life, the more influential for good will be our own life-example (see Mat 16:24; Joh 13:15; 1Pe 2:21).D.
Est 1:19
Penalties.
In connection with the penalty imposed on Vashti the following remarks may be made:
I. PENALTIES ARE INTENDED TO ENFORCE LAWS, or, in other words, to deter men from crime. With many law would have little power apart from the penalties attached to the transgression of it. Those who are not governed by virtue, or the love of God and truth, may be commanded by fear.
II. PENALTIES OUGHT TO BE EQUITABLE. As the servants of justice, they should have some real proportion to the trespass committed. Even supposing Vashti to have failed in temper or in wisdom, her punishment was out of all proportion to her faultmost cruel and unjust. Excessive penalties are themselves an injustice, and, as all experience testifies, rather encourage than repress crime.
III. PENALTIES, while being adequate to the offence, SHOULD CONTEMPLATE THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE OFFENDER. The king’s decree against Vashti gave no room for explanation, repentance, or amendment, When penalties do nothing more than inflict pain and privation, they are likely to harden transgressors in evil, and thus to prepare new and weightier scourges for the society which they are designed to protect.
IV. PENALTIES SHOULD NEVER BE THE INSTRUMENTS OF VENGEANCE OR WRATH. They should be the award of impartial and unimpassioned justice. Of the punishment of Vashti a burning anger was the spring.
V. PENALTIES SHOULD NEVER BE INFLICTED EXCEPT WHEN GUILT HAS BEEN CLEARLY PROVED. In the action of our law courts the maxim is recognised that it is better to let the guilty escape than to allow punishment to fall on the innocent. The benefit of any doubt is given to the accused.
VI. PENALTIES FURNISH A MOTIVE FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF CRIME ONLY TO THE EVIL–DISPOSED. The good honour and love the principles on which just laws are founded, and freely live by them. If all men were governed by a pure conscience and the love of God there would be no need for penal codes.
VII. PENALTIES ARE ATTACHED TO DIVINE AS WELL AS TO HUMAN LEGISLATION. No law of God can be broken with impunity. In the cross of Jesus Christ mercy and justice meet, and through that sacrifice an infinite mercy is justly offered to all men. As to the future punishment of the impenitent we can say little, because little is revealed; that we must leave trustfully with him whose judgments are truth and whose ways are righteous. It should be the prayerful aim of all Christians so to enter into the love of God in Christ as to be raised above the fear of the law. “Fear hath torment;” “but perfect love casteth out fear” (1Jn 4:18).D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
(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, (11) To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew 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, (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 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 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 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 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.
We have here the relation of the sad effects of feasting and drunkenness, which for the most part end in broils and contentious, and sometimes even in bloodshed and murder. Reader! recollect in your own knowledge whether you cannot call to mind evils resulting from intemperance. Indeed it can produce no good. The pampering our corrupt appetites, and feeding more than nature requires for sustenance, is at all times pernicious. Here we have ancient history of a divorce between Ahasuerus and his queen. And in more modern times what horrible consequences have ensued in public bodies, and in private life, from the excess of sensuality. Reader! depend upon it the happiness of man, even in relation to this life only, must consist in crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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,
Ver. 10. On the seventh day ] Here we have Luxuriosi convivii luctuosum exitum, a sad end of a luxurious feast. Sin usually endeth tragically. On the six former days of the feast, having farced his body with good cheer like a woolsack, and inflamed it with wine wherein was excess, he bethinks himself of other pleasures. Vina parant animos Veneri (Ovid). Aristophanes calleth wine the milk of Venus and fuel of lust. Ambrose saith that lust is fed with feasts, nourished with delicacies, kindled with wine, set on flame with drunkenness (lib. i. de Paenit. c. 4). A belly filled with wine foameth out filthiness, saith Jerome.
When the heart of the king was merry with wine
He commanded Mehuman
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Est 1:10-12
10On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, 11to bring Queen Vasti before the king with her royal crown in order to display her beauty to the people and the princes, for she was beautiful. 12But Queen Vasti refused to come at the king’s command delivered by the eunuchs. Then the king became very angry and his wrath burned within him.
Est 1:10 and on the seventh day The use of the number 7 in Esther 1 is recurrent. See note at Est 1:5.
the heart of the king was merry with wine This context shows the problem of alcohol abuse. See Special Topic at Ezr 7:17.
The phrase itself was an idiom describing the satisfaction of wine and a full dinner (cf. Jdg 16:25; 1Sa 25:36; 2Sa 13:28; Pro 15:15, or satisfaction in general, 1Ki 8:66).
eunuchs This Akkadian term can refer to castrated males (later usage, but possible here because of their dealings with the harem). It was quite common for administrators in the ancient world to have eunuchs and it was a title (e.g., 2Ch 18:8; Jer 39:3; Jer 39:13). It was used of a married man in Genesis 39, which shows it was not always taken literally.
Some of these personal names have been found in Persian documents and monuments. They do not have any connection with Greek names (refuting a supposed second century Greek authoriship) and are probably Persian in origin. This helps substantiate the historical setting as fifth century B.C. from Persia.
Est 1:11 to bring Queen Vasti before the king with her royal crown Older Jewish commentators suggest that she was commanded to appear in only her crown! Josephus says that in Persia strangers were not allowed to look at a man’s wife. Whatever the reason (cultural or personal), Vasti would not come before this large number of drunken men.
Placing the royal crown on someone’s head was a sign of affirmation (cf. Est 6:8) and status (cf. Est 1:11; Est 2:17). It was a symbol of Persian royal authority and power.
Herodotus (9.108-113) says the king was married to a strong willed woman named Amestris. Her father was one of the seven special families and an army general. He had helped Darius I (Xerxes I’s father) during a time of rebellion (cf. Herodotus 3.61-84). She was the mother of Artaxerxes I, who was born the very year of Vasti’s demotion, 483 B.C. She had great influence with her son, even when he became king. The name Vasti does not appear anywhere outside of Esther.
Est 1:12 Kings were not accustomed to being rebuffed (cf. Est 1:15). The two VERBS (BDB 893, KB 1124, Qal IMPERFECT and BDB 128, KB 145, Qal PERFECT) describe the king’s rage growing within him and becoming a settled wrath!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
commanded. Hebrew. ‘amar. So rendered in verses: Est 1:1, Est 1:15, Est 1:17; Est 2:20; Est 4:13; Est 6:1; Est 9:14, Est 9:25. Note the different words rendered “command” and “decree” in this book.
seven chamberlains = seven eunuchs. This shows the minuteness of the writer’s knowledge.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
chamberlains
Or, enunchs.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the heart: Gen 43:34, Jdg 16:25, 1Sa 25:36, 1Sa 25:37, 2Sa 13:28, Pro 20:1, Ecc 7:2-4, Ecc 10:19, Eph 5:18, Eph 5:19
Harbona: Est 7:9, Harbonah
chamberlains: or, eunuchs, Dan 1:3-5, Dan 1:18, Dan 1:19
Reciprocal: Gen 37:36 – officer Jdg 19:6 – let thine heart Rth 3:7 – his heart 2Ki 9:32 – eunuchs Est 2:2 – king’s servants Est 4:5 – appointed to attend upon her Mat 14:6 – danced Mar 6:22 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:10 On the {g} 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,
(g) Which was the last day of the feast that the king made for the people as in Ezr 1:5.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
2. The queen’s dismissal 1:10-22
The Persian kings castrated many of the men who served the king and his family (Est 1:10) so they could not have sexual relations with the female members of the royal court and start dynasties of their own.
"Vashti" ("best," "the beloved," or "the desired one," Est 1:11) was evidently the Persian name of the queen whom Herodotus referred to as Amestris (her Greek name). [Note: J. Stafford Wright, "The Historicity of Esther," in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, p. 40-42.] It is not possible to determine why Vashti refused to obey the king’s summons (Est 1:12).
"The Rabbis added midrashic embellishments to the story of Vashti, holding that her refusal was the king’s order that she appear naked before his guests. . . . According to the Talmud the queen refused to come because Gabriel had smitten her with leprosy." [Note: Edwin M. Yamauchi, "The Archaeological Background of Esther," Bibliotheca Sacra 137:546 (April-June 1980):105.]
The important point for the writer was that she did not appear, not why she did not.
The counsel of seven (Est 1:13-14) continued in existence for at least 25 years after this event (cf. Ezr 7:14). These men were cabinet-level officials in the government. The king’s advisers feared that Vashti’s rebellion would lead to a popular women’s liberation movement and to a revolution among the aristocratic wives particularly (Est 1:17-18).
There is extra-biblical evidence that no one could revoke Persian laws once they were official (Est 1:19; cf. Est 8:8; Dan 6:8). [Note: See Wright, pp. 39-40.]
Herodotus (ca. 484-426 B.C.) traveled in western Persia shortly after Ahasuerus’ reign. He wrote the following concerning the Persian postal service (the original Pony Express), to which the writer of Esther alluded several times (Est 1:22; cf. Est 8:10).
"Nothing mortal travels so fast as these Persian messengers. The entire plan is a Persian invention; and this is the method of it. Along the whole line of road there are men (they say) stationed with horses, in number equal to the number of days which the journey takes, allowing a man and horse to each day; and these men will not be hindered from accomplishing at their best speed the distance which they have to go, either by snow or rain, or heat, or by the darkness of night. The first rider delivers his dispatch to the second, and the second passes it to the third; and so it is born from hand to hand along the whole line." [Note: Herodotus, 8:98.]
The last phrase of Est 1:22 evidently means that the husband’s authority in the home was evident by the fact that his family spoke only his native language. [Note: C. F. Keil, The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, p. 332.] The Persian Empire encompassed many different language groups.
"When a marriage took place between people of different ethnic backgrounds, the mother’s language would normally prevail in the home and tend to become the language of the children [cf. Neh 13:23-24]." [Note: Gordis, p. 53.]
The first chapter, even the whole book, is highly satirical of the Persian nobility and empire.
"It is indeed a derisive eye that our narrator has cast upon the royal court he describes: A king who rules the whole known world spends his time giving lavish banquets! . . .
"From the satirical depiction of the grandiose and lavishly excessive lifestyle of the Persian court, our narrator turns to undisguised farce: the king who rules the whole world cannot bend his own wife to his will! . . .
"But its [the first chapter’s] mockery has also a sinister side. It reveals a society fraught with danger, for it is ruled by the pride and pomposity of buffoons whose tender egos can marshal the state’s legislative and administrative machinery for the furtherance of selfish and childish causes. Indeed, in such a setting, it will not seem incongruous to find this same machinery of state mobilized to effect the slaughter of one of its own minorities, or to find that this is an end that the king can both blissfully contemplate and cavalierly condone." [Note: Frederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, pp. 354, 355 Cf. Proverbs 12:16; 14:17.]
"The Bible doesn’t tell us what happened to Vashti. Many biblical scholars believe she was Amestris, the mother of Artaxerxes who ruled from 464 to 425 B.C. It’s likely that Esther was either out of favor or dead; for Amestris exercised great influence as the queen mother during her son’s reign.
"Artaxerxes was born in 483, the year of the great banquet described in Esther 1. It’s possible that Vashti was pregnant with her son at the time and therefore unwilling to appear before the men." [Note: Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary/History, p. 710.]