Esther 1
McGeeCHAPTER 1THEME: The wife who refused to obey her husbandThis chapter out of the history of a pagan nation is inserted in the Word of God for a very definite purpose: to teach the providence of God. We shall see this as we turn the pages of this story. It begins with the law of a heathen kingdom and a difficultya matrimonial difficulty. It was a very personal affair that arose in the kingdom, but it had international repercussions.
Esther 1:1
First we should understand that Ahasuerus is not the name of the man, but the title. It means “high father” or “venerable king.” As the word Caesar is a title and does not identify the man, so Ahasuerus does not identify this Persian king in secular history. There is quite a divergence of opinion concerning his identity. The viewpoint that I hold is that Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther is Xerxes the Great of Persia, because he is the one who actually brought the kingdom to its zenith. Xerxes is the man who made the last great effort to the East to overcome the West, and it was a tremendous effort. A volume published by the British Museum in 1907 entitled The Sculptures and Inscriptions of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistun in Persia establishes with the “Cyrus Cylinders” translation that Ahasuerus and Esther were the parents of the Cyrus of Isa_44:28; Isa_45:1. Xerxes reigned over a kingdom, a great empire, from India to Ethiopia. It extended through the Fertile Crescent which was the very heartland of the world.
Esther 1:2
This banquet would pale into insignificance anything that man might attempt in our day. There were 127 provinces in his kingdom, and out of each of these he brought a delegation (how many, I don’t know), so that he had present probably one or two thousand people for this banquet. This is what we would call a very swanky affair. It cost millions of dollars. It was a banquet to end all banquets. It was a great event in the history of the world. How can God get in on a scene like this? Well, He will by His providence. “God stands in the shadows, keeping watch over His own.”
Esther 1:4
For 181 days Ahasuerus boarded these fellows. He had a perpetual smorgasbord for six months! The father of Louis XV of France was talking with the preceptor and the exchequer of the kingdom about this banquet, and he said that he did not see how the king had the patience to have that kind of a banquet. The exchequer, who was handling the finances for Louis XV, said that he did not see how he financed it. This banquet revealed the wealth, the luxury, and the regal character of this oriental court. As I have indicated the reason for it seems obvious. He had called in all of his princes and all of his rulers from every corner of his kingdom that he might win their wholehearted support of the military campaign to capture Greece and to make himself the supreme ruler of the world of that day. And, of course, he almost succeeded in that attempt. I am confident he would have succeeded had not God already predicted that the operation would eventuate in failure, that the power would move from the East to the West. Xerxes wanted his princes and rulers to know that he was able to pay for the war he was contemplating. He displayed the wealth of his kingdom by giving this great pagan feast. The banquet was pagan from beginning to end. It was a godless thing. There are those who try to find spiritual lessons here. Very candidly, I see none whatsoever. What I do see is God’s introducing us to a pagan court where decisions are made that affect the world. It looks as if God is left out, but God wants you to know that He is overruling these circumstances, and He is going to accomplish His own purpose.
Esther 1:5
Xerxes brought the banquet to a climax in the last seven days. Apparently he brought in a tremendous population of people for the final seven days in the court of the garden.
Esther 1:6
The silver, the gold, the jewels, and the beautiful hangings tell us of the wealth of this kingdom. It is a gaudy display. The ruins of those palaces still testify to the richness of Persia. A few years ago this same kingdom of Persia celebrated its twenty-five hundredth anniversary in the same place. Television coverage and current magazines showed something of the tremendous wealth. The banquet cost millions of dollars. There was a great deal of criticism of it because of the poverty in that land. But the banquet Xerxes put on was costly beyond imagination. Judging from secular history, the purpose of Xerxes in giving this banquet was to win support for his forthcoming military campaign. He wanted everyone to know he could afford a war. He used a feast to convince his princes and rulers. We have seen this method used on a comparably small scale in our day. Several years ago, when one of the great automobile concerns came out with a new model, they brought all of their dealers from over the world to Detroit for a convention. It was made up of drinking parties and banquets and was held with the idea of selling the dealers on the new model that was to come out. So it was with Xerxes, only he was bidding for their support in a new campaign. Human nature does not change. In the Medo-Persian Empire, Xerxes was getting ready to go to war, but first he put forth a great selling effort.
Esther 1:7
This banquet, pagan from beginning to end, ended in a drunken orgy.
Esther 1:8
This verse tells us that “the drinking was according to the law; none did compel.” Even these pagan oriental rulers, who had absolute sovereignty, never forced anyone to drink, although they themselves were given to it, as was this man Xerxes, as we shall see. But today we are more civilized and a man either has to drink or get out. Some businessmen tell me that it is almost impossible today to go to some business meetings and not participate in a cocktail party. One executive in acompany told me that the president of the concern called him to his office and rebuked him because he had not participated in drinking at a company cocktail party. You would think that this president would want sober men for his executives. But, you see, we are civilized, and we compel people to drink.
Esther 1:9
Vashti made a feast for the women’s auxiliary. The men brought their wives, but they did not go to the same banquet in that day. It was a breach of social custom for men and women to attend the same feast. It was different from our present-day banquets. The women were kept in separate quarters. The banquet for the men was serious business, and apparently they did not mix sex and business. Xerxes was selling a war; so Vashti entertained the women at another banquet.
Esther 1:10
This verse tells us that the king got drunk. He overstepped himself. You did not have to drink at these banquets, but if you wanted to, you could have all you wanted. It seems that the king was not a teetotaler. The king was “high” on the seventh day. Here the question arises concerning not only this king but any king or ruler: Is he a fit ruler if he is engaged in drunkenness? We are told that the oriental people today are asking if America with all of her drunkenness is in a position to be the leader of the nations of the world. This is a question that America must answer within the next few years. If it continues as it is today, drunkenness will ultimately destroy our land. We find Xerxes under the influence of alcohol, doing something that he would never have done if he had been sober. He commanded his chamberlains who served in his presence to bring Vashti to the banquet.
Esther 1:11
The king had displayed his wealth and his luxury, and he had demonstrated to them his ability to carry on the campaign he had in mind. Now, under the influence of alcohol, he does something that is contrary to the proprieties of that day. He will display Vashti, who is a beautiful woman to look at. He decides that he will bring her into the banquet court before that convention of men. He would never have done this had he not been drunk. It was a very ungentlemanly thing to do. In fact, it was positively crude. He wanted everyone to see Vashti, his treasure, his crowning jewel, as it were.
Esther 1:12
The king said to his guests, “I have a real surprise for you. I want you to see my queen. She is going to stand before you with the crown royal upon her head. She is very beautiful.” In a few minutes one of the chamberlains whispered in the king’s ear, “She won’t come.” Don’t tell me that women did not have rights in that day! Vashti turned down the king’s request. Imagine having to get up and say, “I’m very sorry, gentlemen, but we will have to change the program of the evening. Our main attraction did not arrive. The queen will not be here this evening.” That started the buzzing throughout the banquet. The guests began to say, “What kind of a king is he that he cannot even command the queen?” Although I feel that Vashti was perfectly justified in refusing to come at the king’s commandment, I think she should have thought the thing over. She should have considered the fact that her refusal might cause a scandal that would hurt her husband in his position. Under the circumstances she should have gone to the banquet. She should have obeyed the king.
Esther 1:13
This situation called for a crisis meeting of the cabinet. The men named in this passage were the princes who met with him privately and personally, just as the cabinet meets with the President of the United States. Now this whole thing might sound silly to us today, but in that day it was no incidental matter. The queen had refused to obey a commandment of the king. The cabinet had to take care of this crisis. Here they are preparing for a great campaign, and the queen will not do what the king asks her to do. What should be done with her? It seems that there was no law which they could exercise.
Esther 1:16
We’ve heard much about the fact that back in those days women were chattel. In many cases that was true, but apparently Vashti had a lot of freedom, and there was no law which could force her to obey the king’s command to come to the banquet. The cabinet was going to have to come up with a severe and harsh law to take care of the situation. About this time a little fellow named Memucan speaks up. He’s the spokesman, and a henpecked husband. How do I know he is henpecked?
He is afraid that, when the deed of the queen comes to the attention of all women, they will look with contempt upon their husbands. Memucan is Mr. Milquetoast. If the queen gets away with this, he would not want to go home. I don’t think he had much to say in his own home. I think his wife made most of the decisions.
This, perhaps, is one of the reasons he spoke out at this cabinet meeting. There are many men who take orders from others in their employmentthey never get a chance to express themselves. Then they go home and their wives won’t let them express themselves either. I have known such men who speak out when they serve on church boards. They talk and talk, but they make no contribution to the welfare and development of the church. They talk but have nothing to say. They make suggestions that have no merit. Memucan is this kind of a man.
Esther 1:17
This man, Memucan, is one of the princes, you see. He says, “I will have a fight over this matter when I go home.” In fact, I think he came to the conclusion that if something was not done, he would not go home. Perhaps you have heard of the henpecked husband who came to the office one morning and boasted, “Last night my wife was down on her knees to me.” One of the fellows, knowing the situation, was a little skeptical. He said, “What were the circumstances, and what exactly did she say to you?” He looked a little embarrassed and admitted, “Well, she was down on her knees, looking under the bed, and she said, ‘Come out from under there, you coward!’” There is also the story about the man who told the people in his office that his wife said that he was a model husband. He told this to a hard-boiled secretary and she did not commend him. Instead she said, “Why don’t you look up the word model in the dictionary, and you won’t be so proud of it.” He took her advice. A “model,” he found out, was a small imitation of the real thing. That is what Memucan was. He was henpecked; he was Mr. Milquetoast. He said loud and clear, “Something must be done to protect our homes in this matter.” And actually it was a real crisis because the king and queen set an example for the kingdom. Notice Memucan’s proposal.
Esther 1:19
I trust that you realize the setting for the Book of Esther is a pagan court. A pagan law is being enacted which has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law, neither is it Christian by any means. It is a new law, but it is the law of the Medes and the Persians.
Esther 1:20
The queen is set aside. No more is she to be the queen. It happened because she refused to obey the king. A decree went out. It declared that in the kingdom a wife was to honor her husband, and he was to rule. Apparently, this had not been true before in the empire of the Medes and Persians. Now it is law, and it cannot be altered or changed. This law reveals the character of Xerxes as he stands in profane history. You will remember that he took his army, the largest that had ever been marshaled, as far as Thermopylae. Also he came with a fleet of three hundred ships which were destroyed at Salamis. This man, in a fit of madness, went down to the sea and beat the waves with a belt for destroying his fleet! Now a man who will do that evidently has something radically wrong with him. It seems that he was a man who suffered from some form of abnormality, as most of the world rulers haveand still do.
Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler were men of abnormal mental processes. Nebuchadnezzar, great man that he was, represented as the head of gold, suffered from a form of abnormality known as hysteria. We find him moving through these cycles in the Book of Daniel. Any man today who even wants to be a world ruler ought to be examined by a psychiatrist! However, forms of abnormality have not kept men from achieving greatness in the history of the world. This is true of Xerxes. He was a man of tremendous ability yet in unreasoning anger he allowed this banishment of his lovely queen. It became the law of the Medes and Persians, an edict, which could not be altered. Although later the king himself wanted to break the law, he could not. The law of the Medes and the Persians could not be broken.