Esther 1:7 Kommentar

Several things in this chapter itself are very instructive and of great use; but the design of recording the story of it is to show how way was made for Esther to the crown, in order to her being instrumental to defeat Haman's plot, and this long before the plot was laid, that we may observe and admire the foresight and vast reaches of Providence. "Known unto God are all his works" before-hand. Ahasuerus the king, I. In his height feasts all his great men (Est 1:1-9). II. In his heat he divorces his queen, because she would not come to him when he sent for her (Est 1:10-22). This shows how God serves his own purposes even by the sins and follies of men, which he would not permit if he know not how to bring good out of them.

This chapter relates, how that Ahasuerus, a great king of Persia, made a feast, first for the grandees of his kingdom, and then for his people, as his queen did for the women, Est 1:1, who being sent for by him, and she refusing to come, was, by the advice of one of his counsellors, divorced from him, and an order made and published throughout his dominions, that every man should bear rule in his own house, Est 1:10.

They gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being divers one from another,.... In the pattern and workmanship of them, though of the same metal, which diversity made the festival the more grand; earthen cups, with the Persians, were reckoned very mean; when a king would disgrace a man, he obliged him to use earthen cups (d). The Targum represents these vessels to be the golden vessels of the temple at Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar carried away; which could not be, since they had been delivered by Cyrus to Zerubbabel, Ezr 1:7, and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king; such as the king was able to give, the best he had, and that in great plenty; the wine the kings of Persia used to drink, as Strabo (e) relates, was Chalybonian wine, or wine of Helbon, as it is called, Eze 27:18; see Gill on Eze 27:18, but by the wine of the kingdom, as it may be rendered, is meant wine of the country; the wine of Schiras is reckoned the best in Persia (f). (d) Ctesias in Athenaei Deipnosoph. l. 11. (e) Geograph. l. 15. p. 505. (f) Universal History, vol. 5. p. 85.

Though these preparations for so rich a feast seem intended to portray in concrete terms the parade of wealth and the abundance of delights possessed by a powerful king, it is actually a very sanctified allegory which symbolizes the magnitude of spiritual riches, and the excellence of the necessities of life, provided by the most powerful of kings, namely the Lord Christ, which he—in accord with his method of dispensation—has generously distributed to each of his faithful ones. For this king of great wealth, who was convinced by the entreaties of his faithful wife to do away with the imminent destruction of the Jews which wicked men were plotting, prefigures no one more than our Redeemer who is accosted every day by the prayers of the Church who is his dearest wife, and frees his chosen ones from the hands of their enemies, and subjects their adversaries to the punishment they deserve. And that Esther prefigures the Church, no one can doubt; nor may she be described as the bride of anyone but Christ. That is why no one should reject this interpretation merely because this actual king was faithless, as though this would mean he could never be a figure of the just king; for we do not say that anyone’s treacheries or transgressions are the sum of his behavior, whether he is trustworthy or even faithless: “He did not sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2). “For how can light associate with darkness; or what can Christ have in common with Belial (2 Corinthians 6)?” Rather, the good actions and just judgments of any individual should be associated with no less an authority than the one from whom comes every good, about whom it is written: “He will judge the world in fairness, and the peoples in his truth” (Psalm 9). For the transgressions and sins of the faithful do not provide the most accurate representation of their character, as do the errors and wicked actions of the gentiles; and the reason we are saying this is because certain of our teachers have used David’s behavior toward Uriah and his wife as a prefiguration of Christ and the Church. Why would anyone want to suggest that Moses’ doubts at the “waters of dissension,” Aaron’s deception about manufacturing the calf, Solomon’s lust, Ezekiel’s arrogance, Peter’s denial, and Saul’s blasphemy are fitting prefigurations of our Redeemer? And yet no one can properly deny that the good actions and the correct doctrines of those men offered a great deal of evidence on his behalf. No one, therefore, ought to take us to task for comparing, by some sort of analogy, the righteous works and the just judgments of a great king to the king and judge of all the ages; since whatever is good belongs to him, and every sin flees his presence. But if anyone should feel that what we are saying is inappropriate, let him read the prophet Isaiah who compared Cyrus, the king of Persia and a gentile, to our Redeemer when he said in the person of the Lord: “I will give you hidden treasures and the secrets of hidden things so that you may know that I am the Lord, since I the God of Israel call on your name for the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen one; and I have summoned you in your name, I have made you like me though you have not acknowledged me. I am the Lord and there is none greater; aside from me there is no God. I have strengthened you, though you have not acknowledged me” (Isaiah 45). Let him read as well the short works of the Fathers, who said that the deeds—or rather, the misdeeds—of the shameful kings Saul and Jeconiah were symbolic prefigurations of the holy actions of our Redeemer—that is, they interpret the death of Saul, who was anointed king but was quite rightly killed for his crimes, in reference to the death of Christ the innocent king; and they explain the fact that Jeconiah was exiled from Judah to Babylonia—which he deserved because of his sins—as a prefiguration of the grace of that same Redeemer of ours, which was why he deigned to wander through the world for sake of saving the nations once he had left the Jews behind for their faithlessness. They also reported that the actions of Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar should be understood as prefigurations of the enemies of the Church; for example: Pharaoh commands the male infants of the people of God to be killed in the river and the females spared, because the Devil wishes to extinguish the sturdy aspects of our behavior, and to nourish the feckless and weak ones. In the same way, Nebuchadnezzar ordered all the peoples subject to him to bow down and worship his statue to the sounds of orchestras and musicians; and the Devil uses the sweetness of earthly pomp to try and steer the human race away from proper intent, and to pervert the hearts of the deceived into indulging their desire, which is “the worship of images.” If, therefore, certain actions—namely the just punishment of shameful men—prefigured not only wicked acts but good ones, could not the good actions or words of good men, which are contained in the writings of the prophets, also have prefigured the good deeds of those who came after them? After all, the power of the sacred narrative is (as someone has said) that it tells us about what happened at o time or another so that it may spell out what is going to come; it approves of the actor so that it may reprove him in the guise of an allegory, and condemns what has happened to persuade us allegorically of what is going to happen. Let us also consider the short works of St. Augustine, who said that the seven husbands of a single wife who died without children, with whom the Sadducees were testing the Lord because they denied the idea of resurrection, were likewise a sure prefiguration of the sacrament of the Church. In fact, he taught that the wife, and her barrenness and death, as well as the deaths of her husbands, prefigured noteworthy events even though the Lord himself did not tell this story, and neither did any of the evangelists who were writing in his person; instead they recorded the unspeakable words that wicked men had thrown in the Lord’s face, on account of the Lord’s very sanctified response. So when the faithful reader finds these sentiments and others like them among the statements of the sacred Fathers, he should not give the credit to us if we choose to include assertions of a similar character in our own brief works.

“So in the third year of his rule, King Ahasuerus held a grand feast for all his officials and young men, the famous heroes of Persia and Media, and the chiefs of the provinces in his presence, so that he could show off the wealth of the glory of his kingdom.” For our Redeemer—whom Ahasuerus represented in both his title and his rank—is interpreted as “my entry” or “my court”, because in the third era of that age the eternal ruler of man in the Father and the Holy Spirit opened wide to the human race the sacrament of his incarnation; and he has opened up for us the entryway to life and served to his faithful ones the most ample of spiritual banquets. The first era, then, was before the Law, the second was under the Law, and the third was under grace, namely when he fulfilled his preaching in the Gospels and prepared for all the nations an opulent meal of his body and blood. That is to say, the Lord himself was spiritually commending to us, in as a mystery, the excellence of this feast through the Gospel parable in which he described the king who threw a wedding for his son, and the great meal prepared by a man. “So the great king held a feast for seven days, in the entryway of the garden and the grove that the king had planted and cultivated by hand,” because for the entire period of that life which transpires in multiples of the number seven, our Redeemer satisfies his chosen ones with the pasturage of the divine word and the feasts of the virtues, in the Church of this world where each of the faithful readies himself— with correct faith and good works—to enter Paradise and the celestial kingdom. Hence they will become accustomed in every respect to the delights and the pleasures of the heavenly kingdom where fruit-bearing trees are planted, that is, where holy men and those who are famous for their good deeds show—through the divine gift that has been lavished on them—the beauty of holy conduct and proper doctrine. Hanging there “from every spot are tents the color of the sky, and fine linen and blue,” because it is there that the spiritual ornament of study, and the splendor of celestial wisdom, flash with the brilliance of the virtues whose proper purpose is to instruct us in those things. For that matter, the color of linen mimics (as some claim) the appearance of gold, and has deservedly been compared to the sheen of divine wisdom which excels above all in the cultivation and the practice of righteousness. “And these tents were stretched with ropes of flax and purple, and were supported by marble columns.” For flax signifies the mortification of the flesh, purple the blood of martyrdom, ivory the chastity of the body, and marble columns the solidity of the sacred teachers. It therefore makes sense that, as we are told, the tents of various colors were held up with ropes of flax and purple by ivory circles on marble columns, because the beauty of the holy Church ought to shine in the contemplation of wisdom—or rather in the perfection of the virtues—through the restraint and chastity of bodies, i.e. with the honor of martyrdom among the teachers of the sacred Gospels; and it ought, through both the word and the example of these men, to reach the notice of many people so that those who have been taught, encouraged and comforted by them may be able to reach, as they should, the court of the celestial empire. There were also “gold and silver couches spread about a floor inlaid with emerald and Parian marble, which he decorated with a marvelous variety of pictures,” because the humility of the saints, which is decorated with diverse kinds of the various virtues, provides the peace of inner contemplation to the chosen of God when they consider the divine word and investigate the true wisdom. It is there that the sweetness of knowing and loving God is lavished generously upon those who seek righteously in the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is about this couch that the bride speaks in the Song of Songs: “Our couch is bright with flowers;” in other words, when any of the saints make use of the tranquility of his times and depart from times of tribulation, it is then above all that they are free to make use of the sacred couches, fasting, prayer and all the other fruits of the spirit. They may then raise themselves up high in the contemplation of ethereal matters to gaze in all directions upon the glory of the divine majesty, since they have been given a respite from less essential concerns. The emerald is, after all, so called because it is so green; and Parian is the whitest kind of marble; and it is fitting that, as we are told, the floor where the couches were placed was set with these two stones, since it is through the whiteness, i.e. the chastity of the body, and the greenness of the good sense which is always verdant in the grace of God, that the foundations of humility are solidly laid where the reward of eternal peace is prepared for all those who deserve it. Hence it is written: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5). And “He who has well humbled himself will be properly raised up” (Matthew 23). That is why the same Truth says to the disciples elsewhere in the Gospels: “Learn from me because I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls; for my yoke is smooth, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11). “And those who were invited to the royal feast drank from golden goblets.” Those who drink from golden goblets are those who draw divine wisdom from the precious sayings of the sacred Gospels; and those who are served foods in different kinds of vessels are those who—by reading the Law and the prophets, and the apostles and the Gospels—are known to accept the manifold meals of spiritual doctrine on which are fed the souls brought up for eternal life. And as befits the magnificence of a king, wine is also served to the guests in exceptional abundance, since the gift of celestial grace is generously granted to each and every one of the faithful in accordance with the dispensation of divine mercy and the grant of the Holy Spirit. This is because, in Paul’s judgment: “the charity of God is spread throughout our hearts by the Holy Spirit which was given to us (Romans 5)”; and “To each one is given a manifestation of the Spirit for their use. Indeed, one person is able through the Spirit to speak the words of wisdom, while another, through the same Spirit, speaks the words of knowledge; to another is given faith in that same Spirit; to another, the grace of healing in that one Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the power to discern spirits; to another, the varieties of languages; to another, the interpretation of speech” (1 Corinthians 12). And what we said a moment ago—i.e. that he did not force to drink anyone who did not wish to do so, but as the king had decreed he sat each of his officials at tables so that each could take whatever he liked—symbolizes the freedom of grace in which no one is forced against his will to accept a spiritual gift, rather the willing participation of each individual is sought in accordance with that statement of the Lord where he says: “Whoever can accept this, let him accept it” (Matthew 19). And in the same spirit: “If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments” (ibid.). And again: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven; and come, follow me” (ibid.). For at the festive and sacred feast of the holy Church, our king seats his teachers at the table of the Holy Scriptures so that they might dispense to each of the faithful the doctrines that are suited to him, and adapt to each man’s character the preaching of the word so that each one might take from it whatever he perceives as feasible and useful to him. Of course, the words of a teacher must be crafted with such skill that even though the faults of his hearers differ from one another, they should be suited to each individual and yet not contradict themselves; in this way he may maneuver in a single pass between the moderate passions, while at the same time cutting out—in the manner of a double-edged sword—the tumors of carnal thoughts. He may, accordingly, preach humility to the arrogant without making the timid more afraid; he may lavish authority upon the timid without loosening up on the arrogant; he may preach to the indolent and the sluggish attention to good works, without giving the impulsive the license to act without restraint; he may place limits upon the impulsive without making the indolent secure in their laziness; he may dampen the wrath of the impatient without encouraging carelessness among the easygoing and the gentle; he may enflame the feckless to take action without adding fuel to the irritable; he may fill the miserly with the desire to give generously, without having to preach tightfistedness to the prodigal; he may praise marriage to the promiscuous, without enticing the continent back to excess; he may praise bodily virginity to the continent, without causing married couples to look down on the fruitfulness of the flesh. He will preach the good in such a way that the bad will not also be commanded alongside it; he will praise the highest good without despising the final one; he will foster the final one so that for as long as it is believed sufficient, no one will ever turn from it toward the highest. So the faithful and wise slave who has been appointed the manager by his master, and gives his fellow slaves their share of the wheat on time, is praised by his master’s words; and he is promised that he will be put in charge of all his goods. Hence it is necessary that one who ministers with the cup of the word should possess the means of discretion, so that he may obtain from his ministry praise and reward rather than condemnation and torment.

Even though from the historical point of view it simply appears to show the abundance of riches and the luxury of delights of a powerful king, … according to the holier mystery of our most powerful king, namely, Our Lord Christ, this preparation of a most magnificent banquet signifies the greatness of the spiritual riches and the excellence of the living treasures that he distributes according to the measure of his dispensation to each of his faithful.

Ahasuerus makes royal feasts for his nobles and people, Est 1:1-9. Vashti is sent for by the king, but refuses to come, Est 1:10-12. Vashti is disgraced; and a law made for the subjection of women, Est 1:13-22. The whole history of this book in its connected order, with the occurrences in the Persian empire at that time, will be found in the introduction: to which the reader is referred. Concerning the author of this book there are several opinions: some attribute the work to Ezra; some to one Joachim, a high priest; others, to the men of the Great Synagogue; and others to Mordecai. This latter is the most likely opinion: nor is that to be disregarded which gives to Mordecai for co-partner Ezra himself; though it is likely that the conclusion, from Est 9:23 to the end of the book, was inserted by another hand, and at a later time. Though some Christians have hesitated to receive the book of Esther into the sacred canon; yet it has always been received by the Jews, not only as perfectly authentic, but also as one of the most excellent of their sacred books. They call it מגילה megillah, The Volume, by way of eminence; and hold it in the highest estimation. That it records the history of a real fact, the observation of the feast of Purim, to the present day, is a sufficient evidence. Indeed, this is one of the strongest evidences that any fact can have, viz., that, to commemorate it, a certain rite, procession, feast, or the like, should have been instituted at the time, which, without intermission, has been continued annually through every generation of that people, and in whatsoever place they or parties of them may have sojourned, to the present day. This is the fact concerning the feast of Purim here mentioned; which the Jews, in all places of their dispersion, have uninterruptedly celebrated, and do still continue to celebrate, from the time of their deliverance from the massacre intended by Haman to the present time. Copies of this book, widely differing from each other, exist in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek, and Latin. All these differ much from the Hebrew text, particularly the Greek and the Chaldee: the former has many additional paragraphs; and the latter, as it exists in the London Polyglot, contains five times more than the Hebrew text. To notice all the various readings, additions, and paraphrases, in the above copies, would require a volume of no inconsiderable magnitude. The reader who is curious may consult the above Polyglot. This book does not appear to be extant in Arabic, or in any other of the Oriental languages, besides the Hebrew and Syriac. The question may naturally arise, What was the original of this book? or, In what language was it written? Though learned men in general decide in favor of a Hebrew original, yet there are many reasons which might be urged in favor of the Persian. Several of the proper names are evidently of a Persian origin; and no doubt all the others are so; but they are so transformed by passing through the Hebrew, that they are no longer discernible. The Hebrew has even retained some of the Persian words, having done little else than alter the character, e.g., Esther, Mehuman, Mishak, Melzar, Vashti, Shushan, Pur, Darius, Paradise, etc., several of which will be noted in their proper places. The Targum in the London Polyglot is widely different from that in the Complutum, Antwerp, and Paris editions. The principal additions in the Greek are carefully marked in the London Polyglot, but are too long and too numerous to be inserted here. It is a singular circumstance that the name of God does not once occur in the whole of this book as it stands in Hebrew.

Vessels being diverse - They had different services of plate.

AHASUERUS MAKES ROYAL FEASTS. (Est. 1:1-22) Ahasuerus--It is now generally agreed among learned men that the Ahasuerus mentioned in this episode is the Xerxes who figures in Grecian history.

they gave them drink in vessels of gold--There is reason to believe from this account, as well as from Est 5:6; Est 7:2, Est 7:7-8, where the drinking of wine occupies by far the most prominent place in the description, that this was a banquet rather than a feast.

The Banquet of King Ahashverosh and the Divorce of Queen Vashti - Esther 1 Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom then assembled in Susa, for the purpose of showing them the greatness and glory of his kingdom; while the queen at the same time made a feast for the women in the royal palace (Est 1:1-9). On the seventh day of the feast, the king, "when his heart was merry with wine," sent a message by his chief courtiers to the queen, commanding her to appear before him, to show the people and the princes her beauty, and on her refusal to come, was greatly incensed against her (Est 1:10-12). Upon inquiring of his astrologers and princes what ought in justice to be done to the queen on account of this disobedience, they advised him to divorce Vashti by an irrevocable decree, and to give her dignity to another and better; also to publish this decree throughout the whole kingdom (Est 1:13-20). This advice pleasing the king, it was acted upon accordingly (Est 1:21 and Est 1:22).