Esther 1

ESTHER

Don and Elsie DeWelt who not only encouraged me to write but have had the courage to publish what I have written. and whose lives display the same daring and determination to save God’s people as Esther’S. .

with special thanks to my secretary, Mrs. Penny Skaggs whose help with my administrative and instructional tasks was invaluable in completing this work.

Esther INTRODUCTION

Author: Quite simply, we do not know who the author was. The name Esther is probably from Ishtar, a Persian or Akkadian word meaning, star (Venus). Jewish rabbinical tradition (Bava Betraa part of the Talmud) says: … the man of the Great Synagogue wrote. the roll of Esther. Others (including Josephus and Ibn Ezra) attribute the authorship of the book to Mordecai, Esther’s uncle. We just do not know with any certainty who wrote this book. The author was probably a Persian Jew. Familiarity with Persian life and customs forces that conclusion. The author of this book made use of some of Mordecai’s writings (Esther 9:20), the official records of the kings of Media and Persia (Esther 2:23; Esther 10:2), and probably the eyewitness accounts preserved through oral tradition.

Date: The book was evidently written after the death of Ahasuerus (Xerxes). We set this date because Esther 10:2 implies that the official state history of the reign of Ahasureus had already been written when the book of Esther was composed. Ahasureus died by assassination in 465 B.C. Scholars have pointed to the absence of any traces of Greek influence either in language or thought as evidence that the book of Esther may not be dated any later than 330 B.C. While on the other hand, the intimate and exact knowledge of Persian culture of the fifth century B.C. indicates the most likely date to be somewhere between 460-450 B.C.

Canonicity: The unique nature of the book of Esther has caused problems concerning its canonicity. The problems will be dealt with later. Esther has been accepted as an authoritative part of the revelation of God from a very early date. Its canonicity may be traced as follows:

a.

The Council of Jamnia, held by Jewish scholars and rabbis in 90 A.D., was to discuss the canon of the Old Testament. The very fact that the canonicity of a few books (one of which was Esther) was challenged proves these books had earlier been considered canonical.

b.

Josephus (cir. 90 A.D.) indicates that the same books we have in our present Old Testament (including Esther) are the same ones considered canonical by Jewish leaders of his day.

c.

Melito of Sardis (170 A.D.) went to Palestine himself and confirmed the canonicity of the O.T. as we have it today.

d.

Origen, Christian scholar of about 250 A.D. confirms the canon of the O.T. as it is today.

e.

The Jewish Talmud of about 400 A.D. confirms the canonicity of Esther.

f.

The scientific scholarship of 20 centuries (manuscript discoveries, archaeological discoveries) has amassed an accumulation of evidence to convince any honest student that Esther is truly a part of God’s revelation to man.

One of the most significant arguments for the canonicity of the book of Esther is that there is no reasonable explanation for the historic fact of the Feast of Purim as observed by succeeding generations of Jews except that such remarkable events as recorded in this book actually took place there and then. Persian Culture: Where did the Persians come from? In the hills of what is today known as Iran lived a rugged, dynamic man called Cyrus. Isaiah predicted his rise to fame over 100 years before he was born! (See Isaiah, Vol. III, by Butler, pg. 108-112; College Press.) He began his rise to world conquest among the shepherds of this land of majestic mountains and ferocious deserts. Under the leadership of Cyrus, this army of former shepherds overthrew the Median government and by 550 B.C. Cyrus had united the Medes and Persians into an unbeatable fighting force. By 547 B.C. Cyrus had defeated Croesus, king of Lydia (Asia Minor, known today as Turkey). Then he conquered Babylon (539 B.C.) and continued expanding his territorial rule until he was slain in battle near the southern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Persian government was unique to a Mesopotamian world that had formerly been divided into many different warring clans and tribes. It was the first time people of many different races and cultures were controlled under one ruler and government. Cyrus and his immediate successors were very wise in administering their rule. All citizens (regardless of race) were given equal rights and the same demands of citizenship were made of all citizens. As long as there was no political rebellion, most people were allowed to worship according to their ethnic religions and maintain their cultural distinctions. In some instances they were even permitted to keep their own rulers (subordinate to the emperor of Persia, of course). There were three capital cities in Persia. This made it possible for the emperors to travel throughout their empire and keep in touch with their subjects. The cities were: Susa or Shushan, in the delightfully temperate and fertile valley of the Choaspes River (river Ulai, Daniel 8:2) and many Jews lived here later in the days of Esther and NehemiahPersian emperors wintered here; Persepolis, down in the deserts east of the Persian Gulf about 200 miles, whose ruins are visible today, was the royal seat of the Achaemenid kings of Persia. It was a city of grandeur and strong defenses, but burned and looted by Alexander the Great in 331 B.C., and; Ecbatana, the capital of Media, located in the cool mountainous region just south of the Caspian Sea, the summer residence of the emperors of Persia.

Persian emperors administered their rule through The Law of the Medes and The Persians. Once a law was passed, it could never be changed. Not even a king could change it (cf. Daniel 6:12 ff.). This was actually beneficial to the citizens in two ways: (a) It meant that the laws necessary to maintaining the structures of society were above the individual’s whims, even those of capricious emperors! Not even the emperor was as powerful as the law. (b) Those who had the responsibility of making laws and enforcing them were very careful to make sure the law was a good and just law before it was passed. If even those who make the laws could not change them to suit their own fancies, it tended to make for laws that were more just for everyone.

The empire was divided into twenty-one provinces called satrapies. Each province was ruled by a satrap who might be a local ruler or a Persian noble. The emperor appointed his own elite inspectors to check up on the satraps and these inspectors were called the eyes and ears of the emperor, (cf. Daniel 6:1-5), and if the emperor received an unfavorable report about one of his satraps, he usually executed the culprit.

In order to create a good economic base for the empire, Persian rulers instituted a standardized currency, built an empire-wide road system and policed it with soldiers so that it was said a woman could travel across the country in safety. They set up a type of pony express whereby the emperor could be in touch with information from any part of his empire within almost one week. Every 14 miles along the main roads was an express station where messengers would change horses so they could travel the 1600 miles between Sardis (in Asia Minor or Lydia) and Susa in one week.

The Persians were not exactly monotheists, but neither were they polytheists. They thought it was foolish to worship many gods, but they did not mind other peoples being polytheists. Their god was Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord. Zoroaster, a philosopher who lived about 600 B.C., taught that Mazda created the earth and that Mazda’s holy spirit wars against an evil spirit, Ahriman. Human beings are involved in a warfare between these good and evil spirits. There was an element of Messianism in Zoroastrianism for it taught that after the earthly life of a future Savior, God would finally triumph over evil, and all souls on the side of good would pass over the bridge of decision and enjoy eternal bliss while all on the side of evil would be tortured forever. Zoroaster stressed truth and mercy. Some think that Isaiah 45:7 (contextually predicting the reign of Cyrus about 180 years later) is a prophetic rebuttal of Zoroastrianism. The teachings of Zoroaster were written in twenty-one volumes and are known as Zend Avesta.

Persian Imperialism: When Cyrus defeated Croesus (king of Lydia), all the cities Greece had colonized in Ionia (Asia Minor) came under Persian rule. In 500 B.C. these cities rebelled against Persian rule, but Darius I suppressed the rebellion even though the Ionians had help from the mainland Greeks. Interference from the Greek mainlanders angered Darius so he decided to invade the mainland and bring all Greece under Persian control.

In 490 B.C. the Persian army sailed across the Aegean Sea and landed on the plains of Marathon, just north of Athens. The Athenians, greatly outnumbered sent a runner to Sparta for help, The runner made the 150 miles over hilly, rocky territory in two days, but the Spartans were having a festival and refused to send help until after the celebration. The Athenians attacked, scattered the Persian forces, killing 6400 Persians while losing only about 200 men. It was a great victory for the Greeks. The Battle of Marathon was significant for if Persia had conquered Greece and destroyed her culture (her ideas on democratic and republican forms of government, her art and. philosophies) the history of western civilization might be far different than it is today.

Darius-’ son, Xerxes (Ahasuerus) was determined to complete what his father could not. Xerxes took the throne in 486 B.C. In 483 B.C. Xerxes (Ahasuerus) gave his great banquet (Esther 1:3) probably to display his pomposity and power in preparation for the invasion of Greece. This was the banquet where he was humiliated by his wife Vashti. Three years later, 480 B.C., Xerxes had a pontoon bridge stretched across the Dardanelles Strait using 674 small boats as pontoons. When a storm temporarily destroyed part of the bridge, Xerxes took his rage out by trying to scourge the sea and by executing the engineers who built the bridge. Finally Xerxes and his massive force walked across the bridge and invaded Greece. For three days a small force of Spartans held up the massive Persian army at Thermopylae (a narrow mountain pass). The Persians found a way around this pass through a Greek deserter, destroyed the Spartan army and marched down to Athens. There they burned the city to the ground. The Athenians, however, escaped to their fleet of small boats and tricked the Persian navy (350 large, cumbersome ships) into the small Bay of Salamis where 200 of the Pesian ships were destroyed. Xerxes made a hasty retreat to Persia, leaving a large army still in Greece. This force was totally defeated at the battle of Plataea in 479 B.C. The battle of Plataea became the watershed of Persian imperialism. Persia remained a powerful empire for another 150 years, but she began to deteriorate culturally and morally from the days of Xerxes until Alexander the Great finally conquered her in 330 B.C.

Xerxes: Xerxes (Ahasuerus) (486-465 B.C.) was the son of Darius by Atossa, a daughter of Cyrus. For twelve years he served under his father as viceroy of Babylon before succeeding to the throne at the death of Darius. The Persian form of the name Xerxes is Khshayarsha, which, in Hebrew is rendered Ahasuerus (cf. Ezra 4:6 and the Book of Esther). Xerxes lived 14 years after the loss of Greece, but little is known about him in that time. He was murdered by a usurper, Artabanus, who is said to have reigned seven months before being killed by Artaxerxes, the third son and legitimate heir to Xerxes. Xerxes was about 55 years old when he was assassinated. He was reportedly very rich and indulgent and habitually acted like an impudent, petulant brat. The episode with the pontoon bridge, the Vashti incident, and the hasty accession to the spiteful hate of Haman all agree well with this description. He was given to ostentation and loved display and appears to have been susceptible to the flattery and intrigue of fawning courtiers. Xerxes is probably the fourth Persian ruler mentioned in Daniel 11:2. For thorough treatment of Persian historical background see Daniel, by Paul T. Butler, College Press, Chapter s six, eight and eleven.

Some Historical Difficulties in Esther:

Herodotus, Greek historian of the 5th century B.C., says that a woman named Amestris, daughter of a Persian named Otanes, was Xerxes-’ queen in the seventh year of his reign. The book of Esther says Esther was. Amestris and Esther cannot be the same person since Amestris was cruel, even to the point of sadistic brutality. Amestris was a Persian. There are those who might think there is a historical contradiction between the biblical record and Heredotus. However, Herodotus does not say Esther was not a queen at some time during the reign of Xerxes; neither does the Bible say Amestris was not a queen at some time during the reign of Xerxes. Therefore, there is no contradiction. It is altogether possible that Xerxes, having given his banquet in the third year of his reign (483 B.C.) (Esther 1:3) and deposed Vashti, then made Amestris queen. After this, Xerxes entered into his first campaign against Greece (480 B.C.) and was defeated. He returned, deposed Amestris and elevated Esther to queenship in the seventh year (479-478 B.C.) (Esther 2:16) of his reign. Omission by Herodotus of Esther and Vashti does not mean he contradicts the Bible. Omission in the book of Esther of Amestris does not mean that the Bible contradicts Herodotus. It might be of interest to remember that on the basis of an omission of the name of Belshazzar by Herodotus, many critics of the Bible denied the historicity of Daniel’s bookthat is, until archaeological discoveries verified the existence of King Belshazzar and the historicity of Daniel’s account concerning him!

The statement in Esther 2:5-6 has been offered by some as evidence of the historical inaccuracy of the book of Esther. Critics insisted this passage was an historical faux pas because it implies that Mordecai was taken captive from Palestine in the deportation of Jehoiachin in 597 B.C. Mordecai was, of course, a contemporary of Xerxes. That would have made Xerxes and Nebuchadnezzar contemporariesan historical impossibility! However, the proper antecedent of the relative pronoun -esher (who) in verse six is not Mordecai but Kish, his great grandfather. Actually, the time between the deportation of Jehoiachin in 597 B.C. and the time of Mordecai (483 B.C.) is just the right amount of time for the three generations between Kish and Mordecai!

A third Objection to the accuracy of the text of Esther is in connection with the statement (Esther 9:16) that the Jews killed 75,000 enemies throughout the empire in one day. First, it was by command of the emperor that the Jews in every city carry out this execution. Second, there were 500 executed in Susa, the capital, in one day (Esther 9:6). It would only require that 500 be executed in 150 cities each to total 75,000. When the vastness of the Persian empire is considered (Asia Minor and parts of Greece on the west, to India on the east; Armenia on the north, to Palestine and Egypt on the south) it is not in the least incredible that it actually happened. Josephus mentions that a small detachment of the Roman army killed more than 15,000 Jews in one day who were fleeing from Gadara during the Jewish revolt (64-70 A.D.). The Septuagint gives the number slain in Esther 9:16 as 15,000, but the Hebrew text probably gives the accurate number. We will deal with the ethics of the situation in our comments on the text.

Fourth, the book’s historicity was impugned because no trace of the name Mordecai was to be found in secular history. Critical opinions have been changed since archaeological inscriptions were found mentioning a certain Marduk-ai-a (Mordecai??) as an official in Susa during the reign of Xerxes (See A Survey of O.T. Introduction, Gleason Archer, Moody Press, pg. 405.).

The science of archaeology has provided undeniable evidence of the historical accuracy of the book of Esther. An inscription of Artaxerxes II (404-359 B.C.) states that the palace of Xerxes (Esther’s husband 486-465 B.C.) was destroyed by fire in the reign of Artaxerxes I (464-424 B.C.). The ruins were located in Susa and very definite portions of the palace were identified: e.g., the king’s gate (Esther 4:2); the inner court (Esther 5:1); the outer court (Esther 6:4); the palace garden (Esther 7:7); and even one of the dice or lots (called Pur in Persian) were found (Esther 3:7)! Now if this palace was destroyed in the reign of Artaxerxes I (464-424 B.C.), it was destroyed within 30 years of the time of Esther’s living in the palace (486-424 B.C.). Yet the critics who attack the historicity of the book would have us believe that an unknown author 200 years after this palace was destroyed could describe its ground plans in intimate and perfect detail! The reader may find more information of Esther’s palace in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, art. 1009a.

The most important criticism of the book of Esther, however, is not aimed toward its historicity, but toward its theology. The total absence of the name of God is the chief difficulty for many critics. The Talmud gives Deuteronomy 31:18 as a reason why God’s name is not mentioned. Because of the sin of idolatry, God had cast them into captivity and veiled His face from the Jews. The promise of this judgment is intensified in the Prophets. Edward J. Young (An Introduction to the Old Testament, pub. Eerdmans, pg. 378) theorizes, These Jews in Persia. showed no desire to return to Palestine. Their theocratic spirit. was weak. despite that fact, God had not rejected them. He would still watch over them.. But, since these Jews were no longer in the theocratic line, so to speak, the Name of the covenant God (Yahweh) is not associated with them. since they are in this distant, far country, and not in the land of promise, His name is not mentioned.. By causing us to behold the workings of providence, the book does, after all, turn our eyes to God who determines the destinies of men and nations. Perhaps more significant is the indication from the book of Esther itself that it is, after all, primarily an extract from the official documents of the Persian Court and this would account for both its minute secular details and the omission of the name of God (e.g. Esther 2:23; Esther 3:14; Esther 6:2; Esther 8:9-14; Esther 9:14; Esther 9:20; Esther 9:29-32; Esther 10:1-3). Matthew Henry said, If the name of God is not here, His finger is. No other book in the Bible teaches the providence of God as forcibly as the book of Esther. The providence of God preserving the Jews through Esther is no more astonishing than that predicted (Daniel 2:20-23) and recorded in the life of Daniel. God’s providence is over all things. Nothing just happens, even in a pagan empire. One commentator says,-’ It is almost universally agreed that this omission (of the name of God) must have been intentional. He offers the theory that since Esther was to be read at the annual Feast of Purim and it was such a time of merry-making, the author feared that the Divine Name might be profaned, or that the book might be profanely treated by Gentiles because of its story of the triumph of the Jews over their enemies.

Outline: The Providence of God Preserving His People

I.

Pageant of Xerxes, Esther 1:1-22

II.

Promotion of Esther, Esther 2:1-23

III.

Perverseness of Haman, Esther 3:1-15

IV.

Pluck of Esther, Esther 4:1-17

V.

Plan of Esther, Esther 5:1-8

VI.

Petulance of Haman, Esther 5:9-14

VII.

Pride of Haman, Esther 6:1-14

VIII.

Plea of Esther, Esther 7:1-10

IX.

Proclamation of Xerxes, Esther 8:1-17

X.

Preservation of the Jews, Esther 9:1-19

XI.

Purim Instituted, Esther 9:20-32

XII.

Postscript, Esther 10:1-3

Value: The Book of Esther, in the Hebrew Bible, is the last of the five Megilloth. The Megilloth (literally, the word means, rolls or scrolls) is a group of writings (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther) which are used in the Jewish liturgical year. Song of Solomon is read at Passover (first month); Ruth is read at Pentecost (third month); Lamentations is read in the fifth month (Ab); Ecclesiastes is read at the Feast of Tabernacles (seventh month); and Esther is read at the Feast of Purim (twelfth month). At one time it was normal for every Jewish household to possess a scroll or book of Esther for such liturgical purposes. Among the Jews Esther is the best known of all the books of the Bible. The impetus for a patriotic Jewish nationalism provided by the book would make it very popular among Jewish people. The book is of the caliber of literary excellence. It is recognized to be a valuable source of information filling many gaps in the accounts of classical historians. It is thus an invaluable research source for biblical historians. It has all the merits of great literature: distinct characterization; graphic, vivid descriptions; clear and concise language; action; plot; resolution; drama. A vast body of Jewish apocryphal literature has grown up around the book of Esther which is of no value whatever because of its unhistorical nature. Its greatest value is the lesson that God is able to providentially preserve those who trust Him in the face of overwhelming opposition.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

What was Ahasureus-’ Greek name?

How large was his Persian empire?

What kind of feast was being held by the Persian emperor?

What was his purpose in holding the feast?

How would you characterize Ahasuerus?

Why do you think Vashti refused the emperor’s demand?

Why did the emperor panic when Vashti refused him?

Memucan’s advice was born of what shrewdness?

Do you believe the emperor’s decree was as necessary as Memucan advised?

What lessons are to be learned here?

Esther 1:1-8

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

A. Display

TEXT: Esther 1:1-8

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

Today’s English Version, Esther 1:1-8

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

COMMENTS

Esther 1:1-2 Potentate: -‘Achashewerosh is the Hebrew equivalent of the Persian Khshayarsha (which is Xerxes in Greek). Ahasuerus is generally recognized by historians as Xerxes I (486-465). It is not the same Ahasuerus as named in Ezra 4 and Daniel 9 (who was probably Cambyses, the immediate successor of Cyrus the Great). The author of Esther distinguishes this Ahasuerus by describing his reign from India to Ethiopa. The Hebrew word for India is hoddu an old Persian word meaning Hindu or Sanskrit meaning, great river; hence, Indus River. The empire of Xerxes extended from the Indus River on the east to Ethiopia (Cush, in Hebrew) in the south, and to Lydia (Asia Minor) on the east (see map on page 271). At one time, the Persian empire even extended east into the Greek mainland. Some have been skeptical about the statement that Xerxes ruled over 127 provinces, because Herodotus wrote that the empire was divided into 20 satrapies. The Hebrew word translated provinces is medinah and it is not certain at all that medinah represents the same as the word satrapy. Medinah may very well represent a subdivision of the Persian satrapy. According to Herodotus there were about 60 nations under the Persian rule so it is altogether possible that the 20 satrapies or 60 nations were subdivided into smaller provinces (127 of them). Xerxes assumed the throne in 486 B.C. Shushan (Susa) was the city from which he was ruling in the third year of his reign. The Hebrew word birah is translated palace but is, more accurately, fortress. This was the whole palatial section of the city of Susa which was much more strongly fortified than the city surrounding it. The birah included the courts, gardens, out-buildings and the royal palace itself. Furthermore, the same word birah is used in Esther 2:5 to indicate that Mordecai lived within the fortress and in Esther 9:12 showing that as many as 500 other common citizens lived within the fortress of Susa. The main city had a circumference of six to seven miles, and the birah (fortress) was enclosed with a massive wall about two and one half miles square. As late as 1100-1200 A.D. there were 7000 Jews living in Susa. By 1500 A.D. the city became uninhabited and fell into ruins.

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

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

Esther 1:6 Palace: The description of the palace is in no way an exaggeration. Tapestries and awnings of expensive, imported linens in pure white, deep green and royal blue were fastened with soft white linen cords to solid silver rings and tall pillars of marble. Some of these columns of marble were 67 feet high. In 1884-86 a Frenchman named Dieulafoy excavated the ruins of this great palace. One writer has said, There is no event described in the Old Testament whose structural surroundings can be so vividly and accurately restored from actual excavations as -Shushan the palace,-’ Couches (used to recline upon when eating, probably much like the later Roman triclinium) were either overlaid heavily with gold and silver or made of pure gold and silver. The floors of the palace were made of beautifully patterned and variable-colored marbles red, white, mother-of-pearl yellow, and black.

Esther 1:7-8 Party: The feasting passion of the Persians was insatiable. Some of these feasts had as many as 15,000 guests at one time, and cost nearly $100,000 for each banquet session. As noted before (Esther 1:3) mishetteh means a drinking bout. Wine flowed freely, according to the bounty of the king. The Hebrew word translated bounty is yod and is literally, hand. In other words, the good, choice wine of the imperial wine-cellars was distributed according to the king’s boundless means. Ordinarily, everyone present drank only upon command or invitation according to the law of ritual and the whim of the emperor or toastmaster. At these feasts, however, that law had been suspended and everyone was allowed to drink as they pleased. The Persians were noted for their drinking. Xenophon (434-355 B.C.), Greek historian and soldier, knew this and wrote, They drink so much that they cannot stand upright on their feet, and must be carried out. This was the setting and these were the circumstances surrounding critical decisions made by the emperor Xerxes. The results or consequences of his decisions were used by the Lord God Jehovah to save the Jews of the dispersion from extinction and thus provide a witness to the revealed Word of God through the centuries awaiting the Messiah’s coming. No matter how depraved or stupid the behavior of man, all will ultimately redound to the goal and glory of God.

Esther 1:9-12

B. Defiance

TEXT: Esther 1:9-12

9

Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.

10

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

11

to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the peoples 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 the chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.

Today’s English Version, Esther 1:9-12

Meanwhile, inside the royal palace Queen Vashti was giving a banquet for the women. On the seventh day of his banquet the king was drinking and feeling happy, so he called in the seven eunuchs who were his personal servants, Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar, and Carkas. He ordered them to bring in Queen Vashti, wearing her royal crown. The queen was a beautiful woman, and the king wanted to show off her beauty to the officials and all his guests. But when the servants told Queen Vashti of the king’s command, she refused to come. This made the king furious.

COMMENTS

Esther 1:9-11 Demand: Three different lexicons give three different meanings to the name Vashti; one lexicon says it means, beauty (a word of Persian origin); another says Vashti means, best; while still another says the meaning is while drinking (from the Hebrew root shatha). It is more likely to be of Persian origin. Some have suggested that Vashti was not the actual name of the queen but a word of endearment such as, sweetheart or darling. There is no evidence that Persian custom demanded women feast separately from men. Esther invited Haman and the emperor to a feast (Esther 5:3 ff). Vashti made her feast in the beth-hammalekuth, or, house of the king (palace). On the last day of the drinking bout, when the heart of the king was detov (lit. at good) or merry with wine, he ordered seven of his most trusted servants to bring the beautiful queen into the huge hall where all the inebriated men were carousing. The Jewish Talmud and other Jewish commentators think the command to be that Vashti should be brought in with only the royal crown, that is, naked. The custom of women appearing publicly only when veiled was doubtless as serious then in Persia as it is now in Iran. It would have been threatening enough to her modesty to appear fully dressed but without her veil before hundreds of drunken men. She would have been ridiculed ever after as a common trollop. Of course, the king’s demand might have actually required her to appear completely naked. That is more in character with the behavior of an intemperate man like Xerxes after drinking too much wine. The word translated fair is the Hebrew word tov which means literally, good, pleasing, delightful or *very excellent.

Esther 1:12 Denial:* Vashti refused. That was all there was to it. She presumptuously and deliberately disobeyed the emperor’s demand and sent the servants back empty-handed. Why did Vashti refuse? We must speculate. Perhaps her moral standards were high enough that she refused to do what was wrong. It would not be impossible that Vashti had adopted the higher moral standards of the Hebrew people around her. Some would question Vashti’s morals because the feast she made for the women (Esther 1:9) was also a mishetteh (drinking bout). Most likely, Vashti’s refusal was motivated by her desire to retain her social and political status. Any queen who would allow herself to be exploited and degraded like a common prostitute could never command respect for her person or position again. Vashti, too, may have become inebriated and with the false courage that comes with drunkenness, dared to defy the emperor’s command. Whatever Vashti’s reason, the emperor was enraged. A literal rendering would be, And was angry the king, very (exceedingly), and his anger blazed within him. The word translated very is -ud and means, steaming, powerful, excessively, fiery. Xerxes, who just moments ago was feeling good all over and merry in his heart, is now steaming and burning with red-hot anger. What fools we are to put into our mouths that which would take away our brains! (Shakespeare). How devastating drunkenness is to cause a monarch to lose all sense of propriety toward one who occupies the position of queen of the realm!

Esther 1:13-22

C. Decree

TEXT: Esther 1:13-22

13

Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times, (for so was the king’s manner toward all that knew law and judgment;

14

and the next unto him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom,)

15

What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not done the bidding 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 peoples that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus.

17

For this deed of the queen will come abroad unto all women, to make their husbands contemptible 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

And this day will the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the deed of the queen say the like unto all the king’s princes. So will there arise much contempt and wrath.

19

If it please the king, let there go forth 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 the 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 kingdom, (for it is great,) all the wives will give to their husbands honor, 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 should speak according to the language of his people.

Today’s English Version, Esther 1:13-22

Now it was the king’s custom to ask for expert opinion on questions of law and order, so he called for his advisers, who would know what should be done. Those he most often turned to for advice were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucanseven officials of Persia and Media who held the highest offices in the kingdom. He said to these men, I, King Xerxes, sent my servants to Queen Vashti with a command, and she refused to obey it! What does the law say that we should do with her? Then Memucan declared to the king and his officials; Queen Vashti has insulted not only the king but also his officialsin fact, every man in the empire! Every woman in the empire will start looking down on her husband as soon as she hears what the queen has done. They-’ll say, -King Xerxes commanded Queen Vashti to come to him, and she refused.-’ When the wives of the royal officials of Persia and Media hear about the queen’s behavior, they will be telling their husbands about it before the day is out. Wives everywhere will have no respect for their husbands, and husbands will be angry with their wives. If it please Your Majesty, issue a royal proclamation that Vashti may never again appear before the king. Have it written into the laws of Persia and Media, so that it can never be changed. Then give her place as queen to some better woman. When your proclamation is made known all over this huge empire, every woman will treat her husband with proper respect, whether he’s rich or poor. The king and his officials liked this idea, and the king did what Memucan suggested. To each of the royal provinces he sent a message in the language and the system of writing of that province, saying that every husband should be the master of his home and speak with final authority.

COMMENTS

Esther 1:13-15 Panic: When Vashti disobeyed the emperor’s order, panic ensued. The image he had built for himself by this grandiose feast was destroyed in one stroke. It was such an unprecedented response, the emperor did not know how he should act. He knew the queen’s actions would be known sooner or later throughout the empire. Along with the gossip must go a story of the emperor handling the situation. But how shall it be handled? He hastily convened a meeting with his wise men. These are well-known men who are next unto him and probably would be likened to our President’s cabinet members. They were not astrologers or magi as the Talmud thinks. They are men learned in the laws and customs of Persian governmentfamiliar with all precedents set in the past and presently having the power of law. The Hebrew word used here for law is dath and not the usual torah (Mosaic law). Dath is a word used in the O.T. only during the Persian period and is used of the emperor’s laws Esther 3:8; Haman used the word to refer to the laws of the Jews Esther 3:8; it is used for the rules of drinking at a feast Esther 1:8; for purifying of women Esther 2:12. The Hebrew word translated the times is ha-‘itim and most often means past times. Some commentators have theorized that the times refers to the winds of a social upheaval (an ancient equal rights movement) then beginning to blow in Persia. Since the word ha-‘itim almost always means times of the past it is doubtful that such a movement was then in progress. Most assuredly, if Vashti’s impertinence is not squelched, a feminist movement would soon be started! That was the definite conclusion of the emperor’s advisory council. There were seven families of the first rank (Ezra 7:14) in Persia, from which the king was supposed to take his wives. The chiefs of each of these seven families had access to the king at all times, except when he was in the company of one of his wives.

Esther 1:16-20 Prompting: Why did Xerxes wish to punish Vashti according to law? Apparently there was no law at that time to cover such behavior. The emperor eventually made one, but it was after the fact. Perhaps Xerxes did not have the courage or the abillity to handle Vashti’s insolence as a husband should. Perhaps the deflation of his ego prompted him to seek a servere punishment to recover his damaged image. Memucan recognized that the politically expedient thing to do was suggest some punishment which would make it appear Vashti’s behavior was a serious matter of public policy and concerned the welfare of the whole empire. It would not do, of course, to allow the citizens to think Vashti’s punishment was merely the gratification of the emperor’s personal rage.

Memucan, a true male-chauvinist, believed that a woman’s respect and surrender is insured through male despotism. Some men believe the only way to assert masculinity is to exploit and tyrannize the opposite sex. The only real and lasting way a man may command the respect and devotion of a woman is to love her with all his heart and actions. Memucan may have known deep in his heart the truth of that last statement, but practically, feared such an answer would not satisfy the emperor’s impetuous rage. There is no reason to suppose that Vashti’s behavior would cause such catastrophic rebellion as depicted by Memucan. The probable cause of Vashti’s rebellion in the first place was the domineering attempt of Xerxes to profane her womanhood before a whole host of male-chauvinists. Memucan’s advice to reinforce male domination and exploitation by royal decree would hardly remedy the situation created by Vashti’s refusal to obey her husband. It is true that women of that culture were, in some instances, treated as chattel by men. Vashti’s defiance caused more of a stir in the hearts of men of the empire than in the women. The contempt and wrath Memucan feared was that of the men of the empire. There may have been political intrigue involved in Memucan’s advice. It appears he expected the emperor to dispose of Vashti’s royalty to another better than she. Did Memucan have someone specifically in mind? If he expected the emperor to choose the next queen from one of the families of the first-ranked seven, perhaps Memucan had a maiden from his own family in mind. Whatever the case, Memucan’s advice is very specific that the emperor make it a public decree (written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes) so that it could not be changed. Vashti’s deposition and banishment must be irrevocable. If the way were left open for her to regain Xerxes-’ favor and restoration to the throne, she would surely execute her vengeance on Memucan.

Esther 1:21-22 Precedent: We tend to agree with the Jewish rabbis in the Midrash that Xerxes was utterly devoid of sense in so decreeing, and, Nay more, he made himself a laughing-stock. There was no need for such a decree. The women of Persia would not be able to overthrow the government or revolutionize the cultural status-quo because of Vashti’s disobedience. This royal law protected the myth of male superiority about as much as the attempt to legislate female equality by an equal rights amendment in the United States! It is apparent from certain incidents in the book of Esther that wives were held in considerable esteem by their husbands (cf. Esther 5:10; Esther 5:13; Esther 7:1-2, etc.). Xerxes certainly could neither insure his own male superiority nor that of the men of his empire by passing a law. He already had at his disposal enough force to depose or slay a queen who disobeyed him if he wished. But Vashti had already proved that in spite of all his power and laws he could not force her to prostitute her womanhood if she did not wish to do so! But Memucan’s advice pleased the intemperate king and his princes.

The precedent-setting decree was sent out to the whole empire. Since there were people of different languages (and probably different dialects), the decree was written in as many different languages as were necessary. The practice of the Persians to address proclamations in different languages is illustrated by the bilingual and trilingual inscriptions from Cyrus to Artaxerxes, and especially by that one of Darius preserved on the Behistun Rock (see map, page 271). The decree of Xerxes was, Let every man bear rule in his own house, and, speak according to the language of his people. The latter part of that decree seems superfluous. Jewish commentators take the phrase to mean that if a husband and wife were of different race and language, the husband was not to allow the wife’s language to prevail in the home. He was to compel his wife to learn and speak his language. What happened to Vashti? There is no record. So far as we know, Vashti was never given an opportunity to speak in her own defense. Nor do we find anyone else speaking out on her behalf. Her fate was decided according to the whim of an egotistical and intemperate tyrant. Jewish tradition believes she was executed. The history of deposed kings and queens of the East would substantiate that tradition. Disgraced potentates were usually put to the sword. Led into rashness by his own intemperance and given foolish counsel by his advisors, Xerxes is trapped. His hand is forced, he banishes the one closest to him and now he is alone with himself. He is in desperate need of a wise consort.

We may learn the following lessons from this chapter:

Pride and arrogance feeds on the exploitation of others.

Intemperance, especially in alcohol, causes people to disregard decency and sacrifice personal integrity.

No woman, not even a pagan one, likes to be treated as a mere object or thing to satisfy male gratification.

The proper functioning of members of a household cannot be sustained through civil legislationit must be established through love.

Almighty God uses the consequences of men’s evil deeds to carry out His plan of redemption for the world.