CHAPTER ONE

 

 

1:1:  “Ahasuerus” = His name means, “If I remain silent I will become poor.”

 

Since Grotefend, in 1802, read the name of Xerxes in a Persian inscription, and found it to be, letter for letter, the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, research has continually mounted up towards the confirmation of the historical character of the Book.  The language has been confirmed to belong to the time of the Persian dominion.  It is marked by the presence of old Persian words, the knowledge of which had passed away by the 2nd Century B.C., and has been recovered only through the decipherment of the Persian monuments.

 

1:8:  “none did compel” = Not meaning “no one was forced.”  But rather, “No one was denied whatever they desired.”  Because, “the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man's pleasure.”

 

1:9:  “Also Vashti the queen made a feast” = Vashti means, “beautiful [see verse 11].”  In fact, Vashti really means, “ravishing beauty.”  She was stunning in beauty; the most gorgeous beautiful woman in the kingdom the king could own.  This in turn can give us an idea of how beautiful Hadassah was.

 

“We read with pleasure of the feast of queen Vashti.  This was not a feast attended by a promiscuous number, but a feast given by the queen for the women of rank in the kingdom, who were entertained with modest courtesy, without wantonness or sensuality.”  3BC:1139.

 

1:12:  “queen Vashti refused” = Vashti “acted in harmony with a pure conscience.  Vashti refused to obey the king’s command, thinking that when he came to himself, he would commend her course of action. . . Vashti did not carry out his orders because she knew that wine had been freely used, and that Ahasuerus was under the influence of the intoxicating liquor.  For her husband’s sake as well as her own, she decided not to leave her position at the head of the women of the court.”  2BC:1139.

 

“Occasions of indulgence such as are pictured in the first Chapter of Esther, do not glorify God.  But the Lord accomplishes His will through men who are nevertheless misleading others.  If God did not stretch forth His restraining hand, strange presentations would be seen.  But God impresses human minds to accomplish His purpose, even though the one used continues to follow wrong practices.  And the Lord works out His plans through men who do not acknowledge His lessons of wisdom.  In His hand is the heart of every earthly ruler, to turn whithersoever He will, as He turneth the waters of the river.  Through the experience that brought Esther to the Medo-Persian throne, God was working for the accomplishment of His purposes for His people.  That which was done under the influence of much wine worked out for good to Israel.”  MS:39, 1910; 3BC:1139.

 

1:19:  “that it be not altered” = Here is my Daniel 6:15 Note:  “That no decree nor stature which the king establisheth may be changed” = This is also mentioned in Esther 1:19 & 8:8.  According to historian Diodorus Siculus, an ancient Greek historian between B.C. 60-30, in his writing Bibliotheca Historica, he mentions an occasion when Darius III (not to be confused with the Darius mentioned in Daniel) changed his mind but could no longer repeal a death sentence he had passed on an innocent man.

 

 

CHAPTER TWO

 

 

2:5:  “Jew” = The term “Jew” came about because of where one was from, i.e., the land of Judea.  However, the term no-a-days has come to mean ones religion.

 

“Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish” = It has been noticed that about 400 years have been left out in this lineage, that being between Shimei and Jair.  But even more noticeable is that King Saul is left out, that being between Kish and Shimei.  The reason?  Because Saul did not execute the order to “utterly destroyed the Amalekites,” First Samuel 15:20.  Characters are left out of lineages when they are deemed unrighteous to be included.

 

2:7:  “Hadassah” = This is Esther’s real name.  Interesting that the name “Esther” means, “Something hidden,” in Hebrew, while it signifies a “star” in Persian, most likely from which the name originates.  Her Hebrew name “Hadassah,” signified a “myrtle,” to which the Israelites, and good men among them, are sometimes compared (See Zec. 1:8).

 

2:12:  “purification” = According to verse 17, “the king loved Esther above all the women.”  Was she more beautiful than all of the other women?  In the king’s eyes, possibly.  But I believe there was an advantage that Esther had above all of the other virgins.

 

But first, all the virgins were required to bath in Myrrh, which is used for purification and healing.  It also gives off a distinctive and wonderfully fragrant scent.  It was used as women use “perfume” today.  It can be described as smelling like the freshness of the pine trees in the woods.  Therefore, the king would want his woman to be wearing “perfume.”

 

Pliny, in “lib.” 13, cap. 1, states “that ointments were first invented by the Persians.  Oil of myrrh was used, not only on account of its fragrancy, but to make the skin soft and smooth, and to clear it from all manner of scurf; and the sweet odours were necessary, in those hot countries, to take away all ill scents, and, as some think, to enliven and invigorate the constitution.”

 

The phrase, “sweet odours,” should have been translated as “balsam,” which is a spice used as a fragrant “perfume.”  It was highly prized and is mentioned several times in the Book Song of Solomon to describe a fragrance and pleasant aroma (Son. 4:10, 14; 5:1 & 13; 6:2; 8:14).  It was an ingredient in the anointing oil and fragrant incense used in the Tabernacle rituals (Exo. 25:6; 30:23; 35:8, 28).  It was one of the gifts to Solomon from the Queen of Sheba and was a feature in the king’s storehouses (2Ki. 20:13; Isa. 39:2; Eze. 27:22).  Its main use was for the smoothing and softening of the skin and to remove all ill scents through sweat.

 

In regards to “with other things for the purifying of the women,” Persians believed, according to “John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible,” that “by bathing and rubbing of certain oils [my Note:  Myrrh & balsam], purification of women could be achived.”

 

Esther’s advantage is found in verse 18, where the “great feast” provided by the king is called “Esther’s feast,” meaning that it would have been “Kosher,” as specified by Biblical (Jewish) Law standards.  And that was the difference between all of the other virgins above that of Esther, i.e., her dietary restrictions gave her an advantage.  Just as explained with Daniel’s advantage over his contemporaries (see Daniel, Chapter 1).  And according to verse 9, Hegai (verse 8, the “keeper of the women”) liked Esther’s personality, and he immediately “gave her her things for purification [not only that but] “with such things as belonged to her.”  In other words, Hegai did not restrict her dietary laws or modestly dressing habits (non-restrictive clothing that affects how the body reacts), et cetera.  For according to the “IVP Bible Background,” “One common suggestion is that a process was used in which the woman was daily exposed to the smoke of burning spices so that both her clothing and her skin would absorb the aroma.  Archaeologists have discovered many cosmetic burners that they believe were used in this way.”

 

To support my point, here is “Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible:”  “Now we know that those who feed on coarse strong food, which is not easily digested, have generally a copious perspiration, which is strongly odorous; and in many, though in every respect amiable, and even beautiful, this odour is far from being pleasant [My Note:  Especially in the hot environment that these women were in].  Pure, wholesome, easily digested, and nourishing aliment, with the frequent use of the hot bath, continued for twelve months, the body frequently rubbed with olive oil, will in almost every case remove all that is disagreeable of this kind.  This treatment will give a healthy action to all the subcutaneous vessels, and in every respect promote health and comfort.”

 

2:23:  “hanged on a tree” = Josephus, in his work, “Antiqu.” l. 11. c. 6. sect. 4., says they were crucified; but hanging was frequent among the Persians and better agrees with the Hebrew word here used, i.e., “talah,” meaning, “to suspend.”  Many in those days were also “impaled,” i.e., hung from a stake being stuck into their bodies.

 

 

CHAPTER THREE

 

 

3:1:  “Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite” = Haman represents Satan, who is given power over the earth under the restraint of God.

​

The “Targums” makes him to descend from Amalek, and to be of the stock or family of Agag, which was a common name of the kings of Amalek; and so does Josephus, in his work “Ut supra,” [“Antiqu.” l. 11. c. 6.] Section 5.  Agag also might be the name of a family or city in Persia.

 

“Hammedatha” literally means, “double,” and therefore should be translated as, “the son of the double.”  Therefore, in reading my “theory” note in the next paragraph, Haman would literally be a “double” of king Agag, or better, a direct descendant of.

 

There is a theory that Haman was a royal Amalekite, a descendant of the very king Agag whom King Saul was supposed to have slain (1Sa. 15:1-28).  If Saul had followed his instructions, there wouldn’t have been a Haman (although Satan, i.e., God would have allowed the use of another).  For Saul’s failure, his kingdom was taken away.  Mordecai also was a result of David’s having refused to take vengeance upon Shimei so many years earlier (2Sa. 16:5-13; 19:16-23; cf. 1Ki. 2:36-46).

 

The truth is, as stated in the “International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:”  “A ridiculous notion, which, though widely accepted, has no better foundation than a rabbinic suggestion or guess, represents him as a descendant of Agag, the king of Amalek, who was slain by Samuel.  But the language of Scripture (see 1Sa. 15:33 [And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.  And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.]) indicates that when Agag fell, he was the last of his house.  Besides, why should his descendants, if any existed, be called Agagites and not Amalekites?  Saul’s posterity is in no case termed Saulites, but Benjamites, or Israelites.  But the basis of this theory has been swept away by recent discovery.

 

“Agag was a territory adjacent to that of Media.  In an inscription found at Khorsabad, Sargon, the father of Sennacherib, says: ‘Thirty-four districts of Media I conquered and I added them to the domain of Assyria:  I imposed upon them an annual tribute of horses.  The country of Agazi (Agag). . . I ravaged, I wasted, I burned.’  It may be added that the name of Haman is not Hebrew, neither is that of Hammedatha his father.  ‘The name of Haman,’ writes M. Oppert, the distinguished Assyriologist, ‘as well as that of his father, belongs to the Medo-Persian.’ ”

 

3:7:  “from day today, and from month to month” = From “John Gill’s Bible Commentary” we read:  “. . .the lot was cast for every month and every day of the month throughout the year, to find out which was the most lucky month, and which the most lucky day in that month, to destroy the Jews in, and none could be found till they came to the last month, and the thirteenth day of that month, Est. 3:13, the providence of God so overruling the lot, that there might be time enough for the Jews, through the mediation of Esther to the king, to prevent their destruction.”

 

3:13:  “the letters” = “The decree [Sunday-Law] which is to go forth against the people of God will be very similar to that issued by Ahasuerus against the Jews in the time of Esther.”  RH, January 23, 1908; ARA:202; Mar:198; 5T:450.

 

3:15:  “but the city Shushan was perplexed” = From “John Gill’s Bible Commentary” we learn:  “The court was agreed, but the city was divided, as the Targum says, with the joy of strange nations, and the weeping of the people of Israel, there being many Jews in the city; with whom no doubt there were many in connection, through affinity or friendship, or commerce, that were concerned for them.”

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR

 

 

4:3:  “fasting” = It would appear that this “fasting” could be broken during the evening (if fasting was done all day) as implied by the fast called for by Hadassah in verse 16.

 

4:5:  “Hatach” = Witch literally means, “Verily,” or it could better be translated as “Truth,” for this was a “truthful” servant that Esther could trust.

 

4:8:  “for her people” = The fact that Hatach now knows Hadassah’s identification is commendable to him in that it appears he told no one else, unless the “they” in verse 12 applies to others, or Hadassah sent more than just Hatach for emphases.

 

 

CHAPTER FIVE

 

 

5:10:  “Zeresh” = Literally meaning, “gold.”  A better understanding of the marriage relationship here, in relation to her husband (see verse 11), would be to call her, “Gold Digger.”

 

5:14:  “gallows be made of fifty cubits” = The Hebrew for “gallows” is, “‘ets,” and simply means “wood.”  Therefore, this would be a wooden structure approximately 75 feet high; obviously for all to see the perpetrator.  If we then go to Genesis 40:22, we learn that “hang” means “to be hung up.”  It is the same as in Joshua 10:26.  This is a sharpened piece of wood, or better, a stake.  People were impaled upon these “timbers,” and “hanged thereon” Ezra 6:11.  In fact, this “stake” was to be placed into the middle of what was left of this person’s “house” and it would become the cities “dunghill” thereafter.  This is the ultimate disgrace for one’s family.  This is how it was done in those ancient days, and therefore may not have changed at the time of Messiah and how our Lord may have been “crucified.”  Our Lord endured for you and for me the ultimate disgrace.  See my Bible Study:  “CHRIST, HOW CRUCIFIED.”

 

Another literal translation of “‘ets,” is “tree.”  This lines up with Deuteronomy 21:23, which Galatians 3:13 quotes.  This was done anciently as a form of public shame (see Gen. 40:19).  Thus, the possible reference to Jesus hanging upon a “tree” is surmised.

 

 

CHAPTER EIGHT

 

 

8:1:  “king Ahasuerus give the house of Haman the Jews’ enemy unto Esther the queen” = According to Medio-Persian law, when anyone conspired against the king or his property (the queen in this case), that person’s property became a possession of the king.

 

8:2:  “the king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it unto Mordecai” = Apparently, the king realizes that Mordecai is a righteous man in that he instilled such a wonderful character in his queen through raising her, and that he had saved the kings life (see Est. 6:1-3).

 

8:8:  “may no man reverse” = Here is my Daniel 6:15 Note:  “That no decree nor stature which the king establisheth may be changed” = This is also mentioned in Esther 1:19 & 8:8.  According to historian Diodorus Siculus, an ancient Greek historian between B.C. 60-30, in his writing Bibliotheca Historica, he mentions an occasion when Darius III (not to be confused with the Darius mentioned in Daniel) changed his mind but could no longer repeal a death sentence he had passed on an innocent man.

 

 

CHAPTER NINE

 

 

9:16:  “slew of their foes seventy and five thousand” = The massacre of 75,000 by the Jews would unlikely have been mostly Persians; but rather enemies in the provinces, because the Persians would have sympathized with them once learning the heritage of their queen.

 

9:26:  “Purim, after the name of Pur” = The “lot,” because of the lots cast by Haman.  See Esther 3:7.

​