Ester 1: 1 – 2
Today’s Starting Lineup
1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this was the Ahasuerus who reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia), 2 in those days when King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the citadel,
I think it will be beneficial for us to take a look first at some information relative to the whole book of Ester before we begin our verse by verse study. It will I believe paint a enlightening picture of what we are about to study. So, let’s take a look at today’s starting lineup.
First of all there are no solid grounds for identifying the author of the book. All we can say is that he was almost certainly a Jew, that he probably lived in Persia, being familiar with Persian customs, manners and institutions, and that he had a firm belief in the overruling power of God.
Furthermore, the total lack of mention of our Heavenly Father Yahweh [YHWH] or God, of the Torah (the Law), or of specific elements of Jewish worship, point to someone eager to reconcile the Persian empire with the Jewish people, as good solid members of the empire. It would have been extraordinary at a later date for the above to apply. It was when the Jews were being most actively persecuted that they responded by a firm appeal to YHWH and the Torah, and there would be no reason for the non-mention of either at such times, even by someone seeking to be conciliatory towards their overlords. But in seeking to counter the charge that they observed their own laws and refused to observe the laws of the king (3.8) it is perfectly understandable. We would therefore date the book in the second half of the 5th century BC.
The book deals with the question of the proposed treatment of Jews in the Persia empire during the reign of ‘Ahasuerus’, when a powerful courtier by the name of Haman, angry at not receiving from Jews the extreme obeisance that he demanded, determined to annihilate them, seeking to use his influence for that purpose. It indicates how they were signally delivered from what was for them a time of grave national emergency. It was a crisis even exceeding their slavery in Egypt, for it threatened almost total annihilation, something that Esther herself brings out in chapter 7 verse 4. The intervention of God is, however, left to be inferred from the history outlined, as, quite unusually, the name or title of God is nowhere specifically mentioned in the book. On the other hand it is made quite clear that Mordecai was absolutely sure of some kind of intervention. Consider, for example these golden nuggets of information:
• 1). That Mordecai spoke of Esther as ‘coming to the kingdom for such a time as this’ (4.14). He clearly saw in her incorporation into the harem, and selection by the king, the distinct purpose of God, although spoken of in the indirect way which would become common later when the constant use of the Name of God was frowned on.
•
• 2). That even if Esther was disobedient he was sure that ‘enlargement and deliverance will arise to the Jews from another place’ (4.14). This could only indicate his certainty of the over-ruling hand of God. It is another example of indirect usage.
•
• 3). That Esther called the Jews to engage in a three day fast over the situation, which she clearly considered would help her cause, and which every reader would see as being accompanied by prayer (4.16).
•
• 4). That the response of both Mordecai and his fellow Jews was to fast and ‘cry out’, and weep and wail, and wear sackcloth and ashes, clearly with the aim of moving their God to action (4.1-3; 9.31).
•
• 5). That when the people heard of their deliverance they ‘had light and gladness and joy and honour’, all words associated elsewhere with worship. Light coming upon His people was a sign of God’s activity as the prophet Isaiah points out in chapter 9 verse 2 of his book. Thus this could only indicate an attitude of worship.
These acts could only indicate religious entreaty and celebration, whilst fasting would hardly have been expected to prevail if it was not directed towards God. Esther especially clearly considered that it would help her cause. Besides the very fact that the reader knew that the book was dealing with the Jews as a people meant that certain assumptions would be expected to be made, for the Jews undoubtedly saw themselves as God’s people, and all that happened to them as related to God. The Book was accepted into the canon precisely because the Jews did see what happened as an indication of their God’s direct activity, and saw the Book as portraying that fact.
Interestingly many ancient Jews saw the divine name as included in the opening consonants of four words in 5.4 spoken by Esther, which are Yabo’ Hamelech Wehemen Hayom (YHWH) that is, ‘let the king come this day, and Haman’. This was seen by many as indicating secretly to Jews that YHWH would also be present (Esther would, of course, have spoken in Persian, so that this arrangement was the author’s). The words are especially significant because, apart from the usual opening courtesy, they are the first words addressed by Esther in her approach to the king. Such devices were known among early scribes. It would certainly fit in with the unquestionably unusual, but undoubtedly deliberate, lack of the mention of God or of worship.
That the omission of the Name and Title of God was deliberate can hardly be doubted in view of the author’s constant skirting of religious matters and non-mention of the Torah. And along with it is the omission of any reference to praise and worship (although to have ‘light and gladness and joy and honour’ certainly comes close to it) except in a general way not specific to the Jews (e.g. in the stress on fasting). However if the book had partly an apologetic purpose in a situation where there was strong feeling against the Jews and their distinctions in some quarters, the author may well have been reluctant to emphasise the unique features of Judaism. He may well have wanted Persians, and others, to recognise that the Jews were not so very much different after all, and could be seen as an integral part of the empire. Thus along with a warning against interfering with the Jews went the equally important message that the Jews were not so different after all. Haman declared concerning the Jews that ‘their laws are diverse from those of every people, nor do they keep the king’s laws’. If the writer wanted to underline the fact that this was not in fact true, we can understand why he played down the differences between the Jews and other peoples in the empire, and did not draw overt attention to the uniqueness of the God of Israel, rather leaving the facts to do the talking. Any overt mention of YHWH might have emphasised those differences, any overt mention of ‘God’ might have caused confusion with Persian deities. He may thus have felt it best to keep silent. In the end this appears to be the only explanation which fits in with all the facts.
But we must not be misled. The influence of the gods on daily life was an axiom of the ancient world. They saw their whole lives as being affected by the decisions of the gods. Thus the battle between Mordecai the Jew and Haman the Gentile would also have been seen by Jews, and by others, as a battle between the God of the Jews and other gods, between the free activity of God and the power of fate as indicated by the casting of the lot which portrayed the will of the gods. The only unusual factor here, as far as Jewish literature is concerned, is why this was not made clearly apparent?
A good question that should be asked then is - Why should the writer have taken the approach that he did? I have already suggested what is possibly the main reason, but a number of further possibilities are now suggested, each of which, on top of what has been said above, might have affected the writer’s position:
• 1). That the author had such a reverence for the Name of God that He preferred to avoid its use. For instance we note the words of Ecclesiastes 5.2, ‘God is in Heaven and you are on the earth, therefore let your words be few’. From this scripture we should consider that the writer may not have wanted the Sacred Name to be published among the Persians. And he may similarly not have wished to expose the true worship of the Jews to their heathen neighbours. Furthermore he may have felt that to directly connect God’s Name with shameful events (a Jewess entering a harem without revealing her nationality, where she would consequently not ever be able to be ritually ‘clean’ or engage in true worship) would have besmirched the Name of God, and have given the Gentiles a false impression. Indeed it is significant in this regard that the Feast of Purim, which resulted from what is described in the Book of Esther, was originally a mainly secular feast.
Also, the Jews would go out of their way in using variances instead of directly using the Name of God. From our study of the bible we see how the Jews in our Lord Jesus’ day, and even our Master The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, would use certain words as a substitute for using the Name or title of ‘God’. Consider for example Matthew’s use of ‘the Kingdom of Heaven’ where Mark and Luke use ‘the Kingdom of God’. Consider also the High Priest’s question to to Adoni Jesus, ‘are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?’ (Mark 14.61), and our Holy Lord Jesus’s reply ‘you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power’ (Mark 14.62). Such delicacy may well have contributed to the phenomenon seen here, and have been taken to an extreme because of the situation. On the other hand in no other case are we aware that this was felt to such an extent that the lack of mention of the Name of God was absolute, although it would almost certainly have been the case with some individuals (and the writer was an individual), and was probably more so by some in the dispersion, living among Gentiles.
• 2). That the author wanted to make clear that, whilst God had intervened on behalf of His people ‘worldwide’, the background to the story was such that it was not to be seen as a situation that met with God’s approval. These were a people who should not have been where they were. God had called His people to return to the Land, and Cyrus had given them permission to return. Therefore those who had not done so were, on the whole, guilty of disobedience to the covenant. Furthermore they were much laxer in their treatment of the covenant. In this very story these non-returnees are revealed as none too scrupulous in their observance of that covenant. For example Mordecai encourages the introduction of his Jewish relative into a Persian king’s harem (2.8), where he knows that she will be unable to follow Jewish dietary laws, and indeed will not be able to participate in Jewish worship, and in spite of that encourages her to conceal her Jewish identity (2.10). Thus the author may have been intending to indicate that, whilst the Jews in Persia could benefit by His mercy even though they were out of the land, they could not benefit by His Name or true worship because they had not sought Him with all their hearts. Mordecai did not want God’s Name associated with Esther, why then should God’s Name be associated with him? We should recognise that around this time there was a very real sense in which Ezra/Nehemiah saw a ‘new Israel’ as having been established in the land, and the true worship of God as having been established there, from the time of the return. The writer may well, therefore, have been intending to indicate that worship outside the land, and especially by a compromising people, was not to be seen as true covenant worship, deserving covenant protection. They were on the outskirts of God’s ways. God’s main attention was concentrated on His people gathered ‘in the land’. Nevertheless it is made apparent that He still did not fail His people, even though He might not act openly.
•
• 3). That the author was afraid that if he used the Name or Title of God, or religious vocabulary, it could easily be misinterpreted by contemporaries in Persia as referring to Persian gods and worship, or even be utilised by them for that purpose in order to demonstrate how the gods of Persia had protected the Jews. By not using the title of God he prevented a possible alignment with, for example, Ahura Mazda, the Persian ‘God of Heaven’. It should be noted that in a deeply religious age he also avoided reference to the religion of Persia or Persian gods, again leaving them to be inferred. He was clearly expecting his readers to ‘read in’ what lay behind the events he deals with. The gods of Persia are seen as clearly bested, for Haman, with his superstitious obedience to the gods, is executed, whilst Mordecai the Jew triumphs.
•
• 4). That the author wished to reveal how God worked in an unseen way in bringing about His purposes. His purposes for His people are seen as continuing to work out without Him even being brought into the equation, as He quietly fashions history in accordance with His will. He brings home that even Jews in Persia are not outside His purview. But neither are they in the centre of His will and worship. Indeed, some of the ‘coincidences’ depicted are quite remarkable, and would suggest to people at that time the hand of God. The Jews could hardly have failed to see in them that God was at work. Some, of course, cavil at the coincidences, suggesting that they indicate a work of fiction, but life is in fact full of such coincidences, many more remarkable than fiction, so that that argument really does not hold. And as someone once said, ‘when I pray the coincidences start to happen, and when I cease praying the coincidences cease’.
Examples of such coincidences are:
1). That Queen Vashti insulted her husband the king with the consequence that the beautiful Jewess Esther replaced her in the king’s confidence at just the right time (4.14), thus enabling her to act as she did.
2). That Esther, an exceedingly beautiful Jewess, who was also loyal, true and modest, was in the right place at the right time.
3). That the king, as a consequence of being unable to sleep (6.1), learned about Mordecai’s patriotic act the very night before Haman was hoping to have him executed.
4). That Haman, having anticipated honours for himself, had to bestow those honours on Mordecai, and having built a gallows for Mordecai, found that he was hung on it himself.
Each or all of these factors may well have swayed the writer’s mind as he considered how to portray what he knew. And he may well have wanted to indicate that God continued the protection of His people even when He appeared not to be present, and even when they failed to worship Him as they should.
The book of Ester describes what happened during the reign of ‘Ahasuerus’ . The Septuagint calls this guy ‘Artaxerxes’ or ‘Xerxes’. He reigned from 485 to 465 BC.
An interesting question arises from the fact that an early historical writer Herodutus refers to Xerxes’ wife as Amestris, the daughter of a Persian general, a wife who accompanied him on his expedition against the Greeks in the third year of his reign. But it should be noted that he nowhere calls her ‘the Queen of Persia’, or says that she was his only wife. And, of course, Xerxes had a harem. He would have had many wives. Furthermore, if Vashti was deposed as ‘Queen’ before his expedition, (no longer enjoying her ‘royal estate’ - 1.19), Xerxes would necessarily take along with him on that expedition another wife, and that could not have been Esther as he had not yet met her. But he may not necessarily have made that wife ‘Queen’. The truth is that we simply do not know enough about Amestris, or indeed Vashti, for it to be a difficulty one way or the other. Certainly Xerxes’ father Darius had laid down that the queen must be descended from one of the families of the seven chief nobles of Persia. But Xerxes’ mother was not from one of those families (she was the daughter of Cyrus), and yet she was clearly queen mother, so that it is apparent that Darius did not follow his own stipulation. Why then should Xerxes?
Another issue which brings forth critics is as to whether a Persian king would have been willing to make such a decree as that for the annihilation of the Jews. But we know from history how such kings were often willing to be persuaded by royal favourites to do all kinds of things, and we do know how capricious a king Xerxes was. If Haman had worked on him so as to convince him how dangerous the Jews were, emphasising their unwillingness to compromise with state religion, and their separatist ways (3.8), and stressing that they were always therefore prone to rebellion, Xerxes may well have been persuaded. And especially so as he had already received reports of their rebelliousness elsewhere (see Ezra 4.6). After all it was he who in his early days destroyed the rebellious Babylon and disfigured their gods, something which his fathers had been unwilling to do, and at that time the intended annihilation of people, such as the Magians under Darius, was not unknown. Furthermore the Persian kings who followed Cyrus the Great saw no problem with the deportation of peoples along the lines previously followed by the Assyrians and Babylonians. So apart from Cyrus they were not as humane as they are often portrayed.
The main purpose of the book lies precisely in the continuing emphasis in it of what we might call the hand of Providence, something which comes out so strongly in the book. The author clearly wants to bring out how the invisible God of the Jews, the Unseen, without coming into prominence, directs history in accordance with His will, even for the undeserving, because He has His hand upon them. This would seem to us the message that the author was trying to get over to his contemporaries in Persia in spite of their low religious state and their secular interests. And central to it is the fact that the sacred lot was cast against God’s people only for its effectiveness to be overturned. He thus wanted them, and us, to know that, as their history revealed, ‘Providence’ was watching over the affairs of God’s people, even when they had failed to return to the land that He had given them. He had not utterly forsaken them. But an important secondary lesson is that in order for Providence to succeed, those in a position to do so must be willing to act in the spirit of ‘if I perish, I perish’ (4.16), whilst in contrast God’s people must never abase themselves before the overweening arrogance of the world whatever might be the cost (3.2). With regard to the latter we should note that, whatever we might feel about Mordecai’s attitude towards Haman, the author clearly shows no disapproval of it.
It appears that if this book got its way into the hands of Ahasuerus then we can see why the writer listed all the flattery of the king as the ruler of a great empire. He is depicted in 1.1-8 (and in 10.1-2) in all his greatness, but he is then revealed as unable to command the respect of his Queen (1.12), and as showing such favouritism that he fails to fulfil his basic duties as a Persian king (those duties revealed in 1.13-15), by abdicating his responsibilities and giving undue influence to one man without enquiry (chapter 3). Even his remedying of the situation is seen to be as a result of the influence of his new Queen (chapter 7). He is depicted as a weak and easily persuadable monarch. The picture is somewhat alleviated by the words in 10.1-2 again declaring his greatness. No one could accuse the writer of outward disloyalty. But he has nevertheless got over his point. The great king had feet of clay.
In contrast the book gives the impression of a strong overruling hand that is in total control and steps in to remedy the mistakes of Ahasuerus. It is this hand which causes Queen Vashti, with her self-interest, to fall and be replaced by a noble Queen whose concern is for her people as God’s people, so that she is in the right place at the right time, with great influence over the king. It is this hand which enables Mordecai to perform a service for the king, but prevents it being rewarded until the opportune moment has arrived when it occurs as a result of a ‘chance’ occurrence combining the king’s sleeplessness with the reading of the account of Mordecai’s service. And it is this hand, reflected in the king’s goodwill towards Esther, which causes Esther to prevail over Haman, causes Mordecai to prosper politically, and finally enables the Jews to protect themselves against their enemies. Here is One, unseen but real, Who is in total control, Who is on the side of the Jews, and Whose appointments are successful.
Another major presentation is that of the conflict between ‘Mordecai the Jew’, as representing the people of God, revealed as unwilling to offer unrestrained obeisance to anyone but God (before Whom, however, he wears sackcloth), and Haman, as representing what was worst in the Persian empire, claiming total allegiance, and even semi-divine honours, for himself, and yet controlled by his slavish submission to the will of the gods as revealed by the sacred lot. On the one hand we have Mordecai who refuses to offer unrestricted, almost idolatrous, obeisance to a man making such high claims for himself that they were above the norm, and on the other we have Haman who demands total, almost idolatrous, allegiance to himself, above that which was the norm for high level officials, and will brook no opposition. It is Mordecai who comes through the conflict unbowed and triumphant.
Yet another major point underlies the narrative and that is the triumph of God over Fate. In 3.7, at the time of the new year when such things were done, the wise men of Persia, under Haman’s supervision, ‘cast pur’ (that is, the sacred lot) to determine the timing of happenings over the coming year. It was this casting of the sacred lot which determined the date selected for the destruction of the Jews, delaying its occurrence for eleven months, and yet underlining its certainty. It was seen as determined by the will of the gods. What followed, that is, the decree against the Jews, was based on that certainty. But the narrative then goes on to indicate that what was determined by ‘pur’, the sacred lot, failed, and in consequence the feast of Purim, named after ‘pur’ (9.26), was established, celebrating the victory of God and the overriding of the sacred lot. ‘Pur’ had been replaced by ‘Purim’. Whilst it is true that the name of God is not mentioned, and the feast did not specifically have an overtly religious purpose, any such celebration in those days, especially among the Jews, would have at its core religious worship, and especially in this case as it was celebrating deliverance. This is in fact made clear by the fact that observance of the feast was commanded (9.20-21), and was a time of ‘feasting and gladness, and of sending portions to one another, and gifts to the poor’ (9.19, 22), all things associated with the observance of the Law.
A little time ago there was a movie called ‘A night with the king.’ If you have ever seen this movie try to get it out of your mind because it does not accurately reflect the book of Ester.
The reigning king of Persia [Ahasuerus] at the time when the incidents in the book took place was in reality Xerxes I [His real name]. He was a cruel and vicious monarch, capable of extreme acts. When a storm prevented him from crossing the Hellespont he ordered that the Hellespont be whipped and chained, and the bridge builders slain. Furthermore, after his army had been hospitably entertained on its march on Greece by Pythius the rich Lydian who also offered to contribute an enormous sum towards defraying the expenses of the war, he was infuriated by the request of Pythius, that the eldest of his five sons who were in Xerxes’ army might be released, to be the comfort of his declining years. As a consequence Xerxes commanded that this son be hewn into two pieces, and the parts placed so that his army passed between them. He would later murder his own brother and his brother’s wife in very unpleasant circumstances.
When he came to the throne his first tasks were to complete the building of the palace in Susa begun by Darius his father, and to bring a rebellious Egypt back into subjugation. The subjugation of Egypt was completed in the second year of his reign, and on achieving that he turned his attention towards Greece, in order to further his late father’s ambitions, and in order to wipe out what he saw as their insult towards his father consequent on the defeat at Marathon, and in order to expand his empire even further. This would lead to a four year campaign against Greece which, after early successes, including the taking of Athens, resulted in the decimation of the Persian fleet (thus hitting his supply lines) and the withdrawal of Xerxes, leaving his general Mardonius to face the final humiliating defeats.
The opening chapter of Esther speaks of events which took place at this time that is, in the third year of his reign (1.3), and seemingly therefore refers to what took place before the Greek expedition, a gathering together of the king’s nobles and officers. Indeed the gathering of the nobles and king’s officers (mentioned by Herodotus) may well have been with that campaign in view. It was this expedition which explains the gap in years between the deposing of Vashti, in the third year of his reign (1.3), and the rise of Esther in the seventh year of his reign (2.16). Whilst on expedition he satisfied himself with the attractions of an older, and possibly his first, wife, Amestris, the daughter of a Persian general, who had two grown up sons active in the campaign. We learn this from Herodotus. Like most kings of those days Xerxes would have had a number of wives. But Amestris was never called ‘the queen of Persia’ by Herodotus.
The prime purpose of verses 1-9 is to bring out the magnificence and wealth of King Ahasuerus. In them we are told of the vast extent of his empire (verse 2), the magnificence of his hospitality (verses 3, 7-10), the wide extent of his military power and wealth (verse 4), and the splendour of his palace (verse 6). He is thus depicted as a great King. And yet the author will go on to demonstrate that even this great king failed in kingship, and had to submit to the invisible God, and benefit His people.
1.1 ‘Now it came about in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even to Cush (roughly Northern Sudan), over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces),’
The opening statement ‘Now it came about.’ is a typical introduction to a Biblical book. It indicates a connection with what has gone before, and suggests that the author saw his work as historical, and as closely associated with Israel’s past history.
‘In the days of Ahasuerus.’ The origin of the name Ahasuerus is almost certainly the Persian khshayarsha, and the Hebrew representation is very similar to that on the Behistan inscription which gives the Babylonian version of Xerxes name. The Septuagint wrongly interpreted it as Artaxerxes (or saw Xerxes as Artaxerxes), and it is noteworthy with regard to this, that in Ezra 4.6-7 Ahasuerus is specifically differentiated from Artaxerxes. This would point to Ahasuerus as being Xerxes I, who preceded Artaxerxes I. Xerxes I reigned 485-465 BC.
In a few words we can see the great extent of his kingdom - ‘Reigned from India even to Cush (the Northern Sudan).’ ‘India’ covers an area included in what we know as Pakistan. It consists of that part of the Indus valley and plains east of the Afghan mountains which were incorporated into the Persian empire by Darius I. Cush was south of Egypt, and mainly covered the region of Northern Sudan, and possibly parts of Ethiopia.
Under Darius I the empire was divided up into twenty satrapies, each of which was subdivided into a number of provinces. The number of satrapies constantly varied. Here the information is provided that there were at this time 127 provinces, thus averaging 6 provinces per satrapy. This involved a large administrative burden.
1.2 ‘That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace,’
At this time Xerxes was reigning from Susa (Shushan) which we know from external sources to have been the case. And it would be from there that he planned his operation against the Greeks. It was to be a huge enterprise. We can therefore understand why, after his initial planning which itself took years, he would gather there his nobles and principal officers who would have responsibility for planning and organising the whole affair. And necessarily such people had to be royally entertained.
Susa was a winter residence of the kings of Persia and had formerly been the capital of the kingdom of Elam. It was the name of both the capital city and of the royal fortress that occupied a separate part of the city. It was there that Nehemiah would later approach Xerxes’ son, Artaxerxes, about the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1.1). Ecbatana (200 miles north of Susa) was their summer residence, and according to Herodotus was a Medan city. It was there that the decree of Cyrus was discovered by Darius (Ezra 6.2). Persepolis (‘Persian city’ - 300 miles southeast) was, however, Xerxes' main residence and the ceremonial capital of the empire.
So, now that we have taken a look at the background of the book of Ester and viewed the starting lineup, let’s play ball, or rather begin our study of the book of Ester
