ESTHER Chapters 1-3 Introduction “The basic starting point of the book of Esther would go all the way back to the deportation of Jehoiachin, 598 B.C., for it was at this time that the ancestors of Mordecai, Esther’s foster father, were carried to Babylon (Esther 2:5-6). But the story probably spans about nine years. It opens with the feast of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), king of Persia, in the third year of his reign, 483 B.C. (1:1-3), and ends with the establishment of the Feast of Purim in the twelfth year, 474 B.C. (3:7; 8:12; 9:1). Chronologically, this would place the events in the book of Esther in the long period between the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra” 1 Concerning the date of the book, the author saw the necessity of identifying the Persian monarch during whose reign the events of the book took place (1:1). Therefore, the book must have been written sometime after 483 B.C.. The reader is also told that the greatness of Moredcai is also recorded in the official court records of the Persian Empire (10:1:3). This seems to place the writing of this book sometime after the lifetime of Mordecai. The book may have been written sometime between 450-400 B.C. The unique feature of the book of Esther is that it is the only book in the Bible that does not mention God. And yet, God’s providential workings and His rulership of even the kingdoms of men is probably more powerfully demonstrated in this book than any other. The purpose of the book is twofold: 1. It demonstrates God’s providential care of His people, even those outside of Palestine. “Esther implicitly teaches God’s providential care of His people. Vashti’s deposition, Esther’s selection as her successor, and Mordecai’s discovery of the plot against the king and his subsequent reward, are only a few of the many ‘chance’ happenings that are better explained by God’s way of effecting the deliverance of His people from their persecutors” (Gaebelein p. 793). 2. It commends to the Jewish people the observance of the Feast of Purim by relating how it originated (9:24-28). Lessons To Learn 1. The faith of the individual can change history. 2. Human agents are the tools God uses to bring justice. 3. God is the Lord of history. 4. God can protect His people without working a miracle. 1
Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah-Esther, Clayton Winters, pp. 156-157 1
5. God’s providence reaches even into the heart of heathen empires. 6. Those who plot to destroy or hinder God’s people will in the end be destroyed by their own plots. Overview The book tells of a plot by Haman the Agagite to eradicate the entire Jewish population from the Persian Empire because of his hatred for a Jew named Mordecai (3:6,13). To accomplish this, he obtained an irrevocable decree from King Xerxes (3:8,9,13). But Esther, a beautiful cousin reared by Mordecai as his own daughter, had become Xerxes’ queen in the place of the deposed Vashti (2:16,17). Through the influence and persuasion of Mordecai, she risked her life to inform the King of the ramifications of Haman’s plan (4:16). Being thus exposed, Haman was hung on gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai (7:9,10). Xerxes, although he could not reverse his own decree, immediately issued another order which allowed the Jews to defend themselves against their enemies. As a result, this turned into a great victory for the Jewish exiles (9:111). In commemoration of such deliverance on the 13 th and 14th days of Adar 474 B.C., the Feast of Purim was instituted (9:17-19), and made a national celebration. Historical Accuracy “In spite of attempts to discredit the historical accuracy of the Persian background depicted in the book, the accuracy of the descriptions of the Persian court and the customs of the times, as well as a profusion of precise dates and Persian names continues to withstand attacks and provides impressive evidence for the historical nature of the book. The character of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) is consistent with what is known about him through secular historians such as Herodotus, Aeschylus, and Juvenal (e.g., his sumptuous drinking parties, extravagant gifts, irrational temper). His Greek campaign fits precisely within the events of his marital problems and explains the lapse of time between the third (1:3) and seventh years (2:16)” (Gaebelein p. 789).
Chapter 1 1:1 The expression, “Now it took place”, is a conventional Hebrew way to begin a story. The name “Xerxes” is a Greek derivation from Persian khsyay’rsha and refers to Xerxes I, who reigned from 485-465 B.C. From his father Darius he had inherited the great Persian Empire that extended from India to Ethiopia. India here refers to the area drained by the Indus River, now Pakistan. Ethiopia was the territory south of Egypt, now the northern part of the Sudan. The Hebrew word used throughout the book to refer to Xerxes, is the name “Ahasuerus” (ah has you EH rus), which is considered a variant of Xerxes ‘ name.
2
1:2 The city of Susa (SUE suh) (the present-day Shush), is located about 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf. This was the winter residence and capital of ancient Elam. Other royal residences were also located in Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis. In the summer this city was unbearably hot. 1:3 The third year of his reign would have been 483 B.C. The mention of all these leaders agrees with the fact that the Persian Empire had a very large administrative system. “Ctesias, the court physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, said that as many as 15,000 guests were entertained at once at Persian banquets. King Assurnasirpal of Assyria was reported to have entertained 69,574 guests for ten days” (Gaebelein p. 798). 1:4 Though not stated, this banquet probably corresponds to the great feast Xerxes gave when he was planning to invade Greece. According to Herodotus it took Xerxes four years to get ready for the invasion that he launched in 481 B.C. “No doubt the 180 days involved planning sessions in which all the provinces’ leaders were being prepared for the war effort, as well as being impressed with Xerxes’ wealth and splendor. The campaign was to be a costly affair” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 702). 1:5 This seven day feast appears to have followed the 180 days of displaying his wealth, it was held in the king’s enclosed garden. Persian palaces usually stood in the midst of a park, surrounded by a fortified wall. 1:6-7 Notice the detail given, from the interior decorating, to the fact that wine was served in golden goblets and no two were alike. Magnificent Persian drinking goblets, such as are mentioned here, have been found by archeologists. 1:8 No one was compelled to drink; however no restrictions were placed on what a guest could consume. 1:9 At the same time the men were being entertained by the king, Queen Vashti gave a banquet for the women in the royal palace. Point to Note: According to secular records, the only known wife of Xerxes was called Amestris, the daughter of the Persian general Otanes. Some conclude that Vashti and Amestris are the same person. If this is true, then secular history notes that Amestris was a very cruel woman. “Herodotus says she had the mother of her husband’s paramour brutally murdered and had fourteen noble Persian young men buried alive in an act of religious devotion” (Gaebelein p. 789). 1:10 The names of these seven eunuchs are all Persian. “Mehuman” (meh HUE man), “Biztha” (BIHZ thah), “Harbona” (hahr BOE nuh), “Bigtha” (BIG thuh), “Abagtha” (uh BAG thuh), “Zethar” (ZEE thar), “Carkas” (KAHR cuss). 3
1:11-12 Some interpreters had held that the king was requiring the queen to appear nude, wearing only her crown, but the writer doesn’t explain Vashti’s refusal. Speculation on this verse ranges from Vashti objected because she was a modest and virtuous woman, to Vashti refused the request of a drunken husband, because she was just as drunk as herself. “It seems most likely to us that it was the request of an intoxicated husband refused by a wife who also had tarried too long at the wine” (Winters p. 163). It has also been suggested that perhaps she was at this time pregnant with Artaxerxes, who was born in 483 B.C. 1:12-21 The king consulted with his wise men about what he should do concerning Vashti’s refusal. This refusal was interpreted by these wise men as setting a dangerous tone and precedent for the women in the Persian Empire to show disrespect to their husbands. Vashti must be removed from her royal position, and her office as queen given to another. Points to Note: 1.
It seems obvious that Xerxes did not have an emotionally intimate relationship with the women he married. This is again apparent later when Esther noted to Mordecai that she had not even seen the king for a month and was afraid to ask to see him (4:11). 2. These seven wise men may have formed the “council of the seven” which are mentioned in Ezra 7:14 and Herodotus 3:31. Their high rank gave them special access to the king. 3. Apparently, Persian law kept Xerxes from taking his own vengeance. 4. The advisors also wanted to be sure that Vashti could never again be restored to the king’s favor, lest she take vengeance on them. 5. Note, nothing in the text says that the king divorced Vashti, Jewish tradition says that she was executed, but she may have remained as one of Xerxes’ secondary wives. If Vashti and Amestris are the same person, then she wasn’t executed, for Amestris surfaces in the reign of her and Xerxes’ son Artaxerxes and becomes a very powerful figure. According to secular history, while Xerxes was in Sardis after the invasion of Greece he fell in love with his niece. Amestris waited until the king’s birthday to make a request of her husband which, according to palace custom, he could not refuse. Amestris was granted the right to mutilate the mother of the king’s young mother. 6. “Vashti’s actions were an offense, not only to her own husband, but to all the princes of the realm. Those women present at Vashti’s banquet would know immediately of the queen’s defiance. They would thus be encouraged to treat their own husbands with contempt…Vashti would no longer see the face of Xerxes in the sense that she would no longer appear by his side in her official capacity” (Smith p. 691).
1:22 The Persian Empire was noted for its excellent postal system; so it was not long before the contents of the king’s decree were known throughout the kingdom.
4
Chapter 2 Verse 16 of this chapter indicates that Esther came before the king in the seventh year of his reign (479 B.C.). Between chapter 1 and 2 is a period of four years. During this time Xerxes invaded Greece and his immense fleet defeated the Greeks at Thermopylae, but was later defeated at the famous Battle of Salamis in 480 B.C. and the Battle of Plataea in 479. 2:1 After the war with Greece, Xerxes began to long for the company of his queen. “Throughout the book it is evident that the king was led along by his officials…Like all men of power he had to rely on others to be his eyes and ears on the outside, and did not always receive the best information” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 703). “Historians tell us that he had returned to his palace at Susa to console himself with the pleasure of his harem” (Winters p. 166). 2:2-4 The plan was put forward to select a new queen from among the fairest maidens in the empire. “Hegai” (HEG igh), was the eunuch who was in charge of the royal harem. “The fact that he had a harem in Susa is known from other sources” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 703). 2:5-6 Here Mordecai is introduced. The great grandfather of Mordecai, Kish, a Benjamite, had been deported to Babylon at the same time that King Jechoniah (Jehoiachin), had been sent into exile (598 B.C.). By the time the story of the book of Esther began, Mordecai was a servant in the king’s palace, and sat in an exalted position at the king’s gate (2:24). 2:7 “Hadassah” (hah DAH suh, “myrtle”) is Esther’s Hebrew name, and she had lost both of her parents, hence Mordecai was raising her. The name “Esther” (“star”) is Persian in origin. The name “Mordecai” is a Babylonian name taken from the god Marduk. 2:8 Evidently, Esther was simply taken and she didn’t have any choice whether she wanted to be in this harem (2:3). 2:9 Esther found favor in the eyes of Hegai and was quickly given special treatment. 2:10-11 Mordecai had instructed Esther to keep her Jewish heritage a secret. Mordecai may have sensed the rise of an anti-Semitic faction within the empire. Mordecai clearly had sources within the palace which gave him information concerning Esther’s condition. Point to Note:
5
In this book we see God’s providential workings despite some human shortcomings. Mordecai may have meant well, but the king’s ignorance of her nationality almost meant her undoing as well as that of her people. I don’t know of any reason why Esther had to tell people she was Jewish, but if Mordecai’s motivation was fear, then the lesson we learn is that God protected and used Esther and Mordecai in spite of their shortcomings. 2:12-14 Each girl went through a 12 month beauty course, which was designed to enhance her attractiveness. From these verses it seems clear that Esther was not in a beauty contest simply to win the king’s affections; the women were being prepared to have sexual relations with the king, after which they would be transferred to another harem, under Shaashgaz, which consisted of the concubines. Most of the women were relegated to living the rest of their lives in the harem of the concubines, many probably never again seeing the king. The sexual union established the woman as the king’s legal concubine. 2:15 Esther was content to stay with Hegai’s advice, which was wise since certainly he knew what pleased the king. Points to Note: 1.
While some might accuse Esther of fornication here, it seems that these virgins were viewed as engaged to the king, and the sexual union was viewed as part of a marriage agreement. He didn’t have sex with these women and then tell them to leave, rather, he took care of them for the rest of their lives as secondary wives. 2. “When Esther’s turn came to be taken to the king, she did not request any of the usual ornaments or cosmetics to enhance her beauty. She only took the things that Hegai, the king’s eunuch, had suggested. She trusted him to know what would please the king” (Gaebelein p. 808). In this, Esther appears to be very humble.
2:15 Esther impressed the people who came into contact with her. Apparently Esther didn’t place all her confidence in her physical appearance, but was a woman who had inner beauty as well (1 Peter 3:1ff). 2:16 The seventh year of his reign would be 479 B.C., and the tenth month was the Babylonian name (“Tebeth” TEE beth), for our December-January. 2:17-20 Esther finds favor in the eyes of the king more than all the other virgins and she given the position which once belonged to Vashti. Esther finds favor in the eyes of the king more than all the other virgins and is given the position which once belonged to Vashti. Yet, even with such a position of power, she didn’t become arrogant, but still submitted to the advice of Mordecai. “Esther had been careful to keep her nationality secret, as Mordecai had instructed her. From the time she first came under his care, she had been obedient to his 6
commands and continued to listen to him, even after being elevated to the position of queen. Her continued obedience to Mordecai becomes important to the plot” (Gaebelein p. 810). Mordecai’s position at the gate was not that of an idle man, but infers some kind of duty or official position he occupied. Men who “sat at the gate” were frequently elders and leading, respected citizens who settled disputes that were brought to them. 2:21-22 During the time that Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate, he either overheard, or was informed about, a plot to kill Xerxes by two of the king’s officers. Bigthan (BIG than) and Teresh (TEE resh) were men who “guarded the door”, that is, probably guarded the door to the king’s private apartment. The reason they became angry with the king is not stated. Mordecai got word to Esther, and she relayed the information to the king, giving credit to Mordecai. “Plots against Persian monarchs were not uncommon. Xerxes was in fact assassinated in his bedroom in a similar situation in 465 B.C.” (Gaebelein p. 810). 2:23 The entire event was recorded in the “Book of the Chronicles”, that is, the official court records of memorable events. “Herodotus tells of King Xerxes, who had his secretaries record each time he saw one of his officers behaving with distinction during a battle against the Greeks” (Breneman p. 323).
Chapter 3 3:1 Some time later, the king elevated a man by the name of Haman by giving him a place of honor above all other nobles of the empire. Haman was the son of Hammedatha (ham ih DAY thuh), and he is called an “Agagite” (A gah gite), which means “belonging to Agag”. “Because Haman was an Agagite, some have supposed that he was descended from Agag, king of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:8). However, it seems unlikely that a high-ranking Persian official would be related to a west Semite who lived 600 years earlier. Archeologists have uncovered an inscription which indicates that Agag was also the name of a province in the Persian Empire” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 705). Since Mordecai was of the same tribe as King Saul (Esther 2:5; 1 Samuel 9:1-2), some have tried to argue that here we see again the age-old rivalry between Israel and Amalek. The only problem with such a parallel is that Saul didn’t kill Agag, but had spared him. It was Samuel who finally killed Agag (1 Samuel 15). 3:2-5 Mordecai refuses to bow down before Haman. Although the Israelites used the custom of bowing down to superiors (2 Samuel 14:4; 18:28; 1 Kings 1:16), “the Persians saw it as an act of reverence that bordered on recognizing the official as divine” (Breneman p. 327). Points to Note:
7
1.
It would seem that Mordecai bowed before the king, for the people are surprised when he refuses to bow before Haman. 2. Some commentators feel that Mordecai refused to bow before Haman, because Haman was an Agagite, hence possibility an Amalekite, a people long recognized as confirmed enemies of the Jews. 3. The reason Mordecai gave for this refusal, that he was a Jew points to two possible explanations: First, such an act would have been idolatry in his mind. Or, Mordecai knew that Haman considered such an act to be far more than a simple act of respect, but viewed it as worship. The Jewish people did bow to show respect, but the faithful refused to bow when such bowing would be interpreted as an act of worship (Daniel 3:11ff). Secondly, he refused to bow due to nationalistic pride, that is, he refused to bow before the hereditary enemy of Israel.
3:5-6 So great was Haman anger and his own injured pride that he determined to destroy all the Jews in Xerxes’ kingdom. 3:7 In the month of Nisan, our March-April of 474 B.C., Haman had his personal astrologers cast the lot. The lot indicated that the thirteenth day of the twelfth month (March 7th, 473 B.C.), was the best time to carry out such an attack against the Jews. In Haman’s mind it was very important to find the most opportune or lucky day to carry out his scheme. “Here it would seem the providence of God overruled chance (cf. Proverbs 16:33). The Jews would have nearly a year to take countermeasures against Haman’s program of ethnic cleansing” (Smith p. 695). Point to Note: One of the lessons of this book is how God’s providential care is superior to human superstitions or lucky charms. Haman is relying upon luck, chance, or occult practices, but in the end he will fail. In fact, his use of the occult only tends to help God’s people by giving them more time. “The Persian religious system stressed fate and chance. Haman was allowing fate, by the casting of the lot to dictate his move against the Jewish nation” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 705). The month chosen by the lot was the 12 th month, our February-March, which was almost a year later. 3:8 Evidently there were many Jews in the Persian Empire and in addition, they were scattered all through the Empire. Before he could destroy such a large number of Jews, he had to gain the king’s permission. Notice how Haman operates. He doesn’t mention the term “Jew”, rather he leaves these people unnamed. “Haman cleverly omitted the name of the group he wished to attack for fear that the king would recall previous occasions when his predecessors had rendered favorable edicts on behalf of the Jews” (Smith p. 695). He lied, the Jews did observe the kings laws, the only laws they wouldn’t obey would be laws which conflicted with the law of God. Mordecai had been so faithful to the king 8
that he had revealed an assassination plot. In like manner, Christians in the first century were accused to being law-breakers (1 Peter 2:12). 3:9 Haman then offered to reimburse the royal treasury with ten thousand talents of silver (750,000 pounds)—equivalent to two-thirds of the annual income of the entire empire to pay for the carrying out of such a plan. Haman must have been very wealthy. The king so trusted Haman that he did not even inquire as to what people would be affected. He handed Haman his signet ring so that he might authorize extermination. Apparently, Haman expected to gain back much of this silver by plundering the Jews who were exterminated and taking their wealth. 3:11 The expression, the “silver is yours”, may either mean, “keep your money Haman” or, “you can have the goods and wealth of the people to be exterminated” (3:13). According to 4:7 it appears that payment was to be made and some interpret the above expression as an example of Oriental politeness that did not actually mean he rejected the payment. In verse 13 we find why some people were willing to play a part in such an extermination. The people who murdered would be rewarded with some of the possessions of the deceased. The horrible things that people will do when they are infected by greed (1 Timothy 6:10; James 4:1-3). 3:12-15 The edict was sent out to every corner of the Empire. The people in the city of Susa were bewildered, apparently such a decree had never before come from the royal court. “Haman’s bloodthirstiness, along with Xerxes’ seeming indifference to such atrocities, was incredible even to a sophisticated society which was used to cruel behavior. Perhaps other minority populations wondered if they would be the next to be annihilated” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 706). Meanwhile, Haman callously celebrated the edict over a drink. Point to Note: In this whole account the king himself looks very naïve and callused. He didn’t even ask for the name of the race being exterminated, he didn’t even investigate the matter. One explanation for this might be that from all outward appearances Haman appeared to be a very trustworthy individual (Matthew 7:15ff).
9