CRITICAL NOTES.]
Esther 8:7.] The answer of Ahasuerus is a refusal, but one softened as much as possible. He first dwells on the proofs he bad just given of his friendly feeling towards the Jews; he then suggests that something may be done to help them without revoking the decree. Finally, he excuses himself by appealing to the well-known immutability of Persian law.—Rawlinson. Sheltering his imbecility behind the immutability of the law, the king commits the work of saving the Jews to the wit of Mordecai; but reminds him that his device shall stand. Thus Ahasuerus prepares the way for a most fearful conflict of laws. “The suggestion of Ahasuerus quickened the inventive powers of Esther and Mordecai. The scribes were at once summoned, and a decree issued, not revoking the former one, but allowing the Jews to stand on their defence, and to kill all who attacked them. It has been pronounced incredible that any king would thus have sanctioned civil war in all the great cities of his empire; but some even of the more sceptical critics have pronounced that Xerxes might not improbably have done so.”—De Wette. Besides, there would be no slaughter at all if their enemies did not first attack the Jews. The probability was, that, when the Jews were permitted to arm themselves and stand on the defensive, there would be no conflict at all. But the result showed, that, in many parts of the empire, the heathen attempted to destroy the Jews in spite of the edict—Whedon.
Esther 8:8. Snow and the king’s edict. Here, a second time in the history of Artaxerxes, we have a proof of the felt inconvenience of that law, which despotism itself could not set aside. Gladly would the king be a party to the practical defeating of the object of it; but in its literal acceptation it must stand.
It is said that something like the principle of the unchangeableness of the purposes of the kings of Persia has been preserved in that country even till recent times. And a circumstance may be here alluded to in illustration of this, which although somewhat strange and almost ludicrous, yet does bear some resemblance to the difficulty in which Artaxerxes felt himself place I between the unalterable law, and the willingness which he displayed at the same time to get quit of the obligation to observe it literally. A Persian king, who reigned not very many years ago (Aga Mahmed Khan), having set out upon a military expedition, and encamped in a place convenient for his purpose, gave forth his edict that the encampment should not be removed until the snow had disappeared from the neighbouring mountains. The season was severe. The snow clung to the mountains longer than usual, and in the mean time the army became straitened for supplies. Here was an unexpected difficulty. The king’s appointment must stand, but the result was likely to be ruinous. To avert the difficulty, then, a vast multitude of labourers were despatched to clear away as far as they could the snow that was visible from the camp; and with their aid, and the help of a few days of sunshine, the snow disappeared, and then immediately the army was put in motion.—Davidson.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Esther 8:7-8
A MONARCH’S IMBECILITY
Weak men usually trust to cunning. The lion leaps straight upon its enemy, but the fox has recourse to trick; and so the strong man, who knows his own purpose, boldly faces obstacles; while the weak employ indirect courses. Even an open lie may betray less feebleness of character than the mean evasions to which some men have resort. The one bespeaks a bold bad man, the other reveals a cowardly bad man. As a known enemy is always preferable to a treacherous ally; so the strong but wicked man is to be preferred to the weakling. The great qualities which the former will be likely to possess may win admiration; but the latter will be only despised. The fact is, that the weaker man is at heart as false as the other, but has not the courage to sin boldly. He therefore tries to cheat both God and the devil. The weakness of a weak man is never seen so clearly as after he has committed some palpable error. He does not manfully confess his mistake, but twists and shuffles till he persuades himself that his error was, at worst, a matter of necessity. Always distrust the man who is the victim of circumstances. Great men make their circumstances, and little men are made by them. Not unfrequently the path to heaven seems to lead only to a choice of difficulties. Our corrupt hearts and emasculated wills declare that virtue is impossible, and that the only path open to us is one that leads through transgression. When the tradesman smooths over a palpable dishonesty by speaking of the necessities of trade; or when, in times of persecution, the timid confessor throws the incense upon the impious altars of idolatry; they are always ready to excuse the enormity of their sin by the force of the temptation: that is, they say they are tempted of God. But no circumstances can make the good man sin, or the really strong man bend. If, then, we have done evil, let us take our own share of the blame, and not cast it upon our circumstances. Yet circumstances usually make a second sin easier than the first. In that downward path each step is accompanied by an increasing impetus; and thus sins of an enormity to shock the inexperienced become easily possible when other sins have prepared the way. As an army that is once beaten becomes by that very fact more likely to be defeated again, so a man who has once been mastered by temptation will be all the more likely to yield when next be is assailed. Thus Ahasuerus finds that his wicked compliance with Haman has enwrapped him in difficulty. A good man could never have fallen so low; a wise man could never have been so foolish; and a strong man could never have descended to such a monstrous device. He was unable to resist the pleading of Esther; and therefore his course was boldly to disavow his infallibility. Let him convene an assembly of notables, manfully confess his error, and henceforth declare that the laws of Persia could be altered. But this was too brave a course. To confess an error would shake the national respect for authority. He therefore pleads his circumstances, and rather than acknowledge an error, plunges the whole empire in danger of civil war. Even this responsibility he does not fully assume. The weakling throws upon Mordecai the duty of contriving a remedy against his own mistakes.
I. A weak man’s self-defence. “I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hands upon the Jews.” Even if the whole race of the Hebrews perish, the king had proved his affection for Esther by endowing her with the wealth, and sacrificing to her the life, of her enemy. Wonderful devotion! He had given what cost him nothing; he had hanged a man of an alien race! Surely these Oriental monarchs prove that “lust dwells hard by hate.” His love for Esther was simply a passion which had not yet spent its novel force; and her beauty was rewarded by the life of her foe. Ahasuerus was unworthy of his queenly wife. She is inspired with profound tenderness for her people; and he appeases her patriotism by the execution of a foe. Yet what would the wealth of Haman benefit Esther when her heart was broken for her murdered kinsmen? There are griefs which wealth cannot solace, and which vengeance cannot forget. Better a thousand Hamans alive than one Jew murdered. Yet, clearly, the monarch fancies that Esther will pardon the edict which he has signed because of the punishment which he has meted out. He sees that he has exposed himself to the hatred and contempt of his fair wife by yielding to the devices of Haman, and therefore he offers her the life of her enemy as a proof of his devotion. How much nobler had he said, “Oh, queen, I have weakly allowed myself to be led to the verge of a great wickedness; now that my eyes are open to my folly, I must in some way reverse the decree.” But he was too weak. With a maudlin tenderness, like that of a drunken man, while she is inspired with an almost Divine passion of patriotism, he pleads his affection for her person. Surely Esther despised him in her heart. As if it was so easy to forget that he had agreed to murder all her race. Thus we have a great wickedness and a small propitiation. As if the hero of one hundred swindles flung a copper to a beggar; as if a cowardly murderer gave a crust to his victim’s orphan; as if a life-long sinner offered to God the compensation of a Sunday prayer; so Ahasuerus hopes that Haman’s death will make Esther unmindful of the wickedness devised against her kindred.
II. A weak man’s “non possumus.” “That which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s seal, may no man reverse.” What I have written I have written. Rulers too often say, “Thus I order; let my will stand instead of a reason.” Weakness and folly usually turn to obstinacy. He who is easily imposed upon at last takes a determined stand, and usually takes it in the wrong place. The determination of the wise is no way to be feared, for they will yield to right reason; but it requires a surgical operation to make an argument penetrate to the brain of a fool: hence the fool is obstinate, because he cannot understand. States also which take an immoveable stand upon the “wisdom of our ancestors” are in a fair way to ruin. Time is the great innovator, and therefore lapse of time brings vast changes into the body politic; and hence “he that will not apply new remedies, must expect new diseases.” So science continually takes new departures; and he who rested in the discoveries of a previous generation, would be the laughing-stock of his own. There is but one unchanging truth,—the revelation of Jesus Christ,—and even that assumes varying aspects. As the sun now draws near and now departs, now is glorious in mid-day, and yet soon leaves-us in darkness, while still himself unchanged and, as far as our earth is concerned, unmoved, so our holy religion is compelled to vary with the varying aspects of the times. Only the fool never learns wisdom. So Ahasuerus says, “Take it not amiss that I do not reverse the decree of Haman, for the king’s writing stands unaltered for ever.”
III. A weak man’s refusal of responsibility. “Write ye also for the Jews as it liketh you in the king’s name.” Having done the mischief, he commits to Mordecai the work of undoing it. Ahasuerus had already had proof of the folly of committing his power to the hands of his minister; but even experience will not make fools wise; he now trusts equal power to Mordecai. Doubtless the king was right in thus committing himself to the skill and loyalty of the new minister; doubtless, also, this minister did the best possible for him to do in the circumstances; but if the king had bestirred himself in a true kingly manner, as already suggested, it would not have been necessary to deluge the land with blood. Few evils are more ruinous to a State than the dread of responsibility. It leads speedily to anarchy. A monarch who never decides, a general who fears to take prompt and vigorous action, a statesman who dares not step beyond the line of musty precedent, are greater curses to a land than even open wickedness. In this world folly and weakness are often punished more severely than sin.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Esther 8:7-8
Esther 8:7. Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews. The king could not grant to Esther everything that she requested. But he assures her, that it was not for want of good will either to herself or to her people that he did not in direct terms reverse the decree procured by Haman. His love to Esther appeared in the rich present of the confiscated estate of Haman. His good wishes to her people appeared in the ignominious death of their capital enemy. But kings cannot do everything. The most noble and potent prince in the world had not the power of rescinding his own decrees, however desirous he might be of undoing foolish things done by himself.
Esther 8:8. Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh you, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s ring: for the writing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring, may no man reverse. The king himself could not reverse it; and therefore we find that Darius the Mede laboured in vain till the going down of the sun to save Daniel from the lions’ den, and passed a miserable sleepless night in the anguish of a fruitless repentance for passing a mischievous law, which he could not abolish. The Persians thought their kings highly honoured in that their decrees were inviolable. But this honour, like some others enjoyed by absolute princes, was a burden too heavy to be borne by mortals. It precluded them from the comforts of repentance, too often necessary for vain men, who, though they would be wise, are born like the wild ass’s colt.
The king, therefore, could not give Esther and Mordecai a warrant to pass an act rescissory of his own decrees against the Jews. But he allows them to frame a decree in his name, and to seal it with his ring, for counteracting its effects. As the first decree retained its force, the king could not legally punish those wicked enemies of the Jews, who might take the advantage of it to gratify their malice. Their murders were already legalized by a decree that could not be altered. But a law for the protection of the Jews, which did not rescind the former, might possibly be devised by the wisdom of Mordecai; and to establish such a law the king gave him his ring. He had been too ready on the former occasion to lend his authority; but now he commits it to a safe hand, and under necessary restrictions. He gave his ring to Haman to seal a bloody decree; he now gives it to Mordecai to seal a just and necessary decree for the preservation of many precious lives. The inviolability of the king’s decrees, which gave him so much trouble by guarding the wicked laws procured by Haman, would guard the intended decree from violation.—Lawson.
It was a fundamental article in the constitution of Persia, that a law once enacted was irrevocable. A most preposterous provision! and worse than preposterous—irrational and unrighteous. Of all the absurdities into which nations have fallen in their systems of legislation, especially where the power is entrusted to the arbitrary will and caprice of a single individual, this is the most absurd—giving perpetuity and effect to every species of injustice and oppression and cruelty, proceeding on the presumptuous assumption of infallibility, and arrogating the right which belongs exclusively to the Supreme Being, who cannot do wrong, all whose enactments are necessarily founded in truth and rectitude, and “the righteousness of whose testimonies is everlasting.” This arrogance of the Persian despots has never been equalled, except by the claim to infallibility set up by “the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” No human authority, civil or sacred, whether exercised singly or collectively, is free from error, and consequently its decisions and enactments must always be subject to review and reversal. Some laws may be morally unalterable, in consequence of their being founded on the eternal principles of rectitude and justice, so that the repeal of them would be unjust and morally wrong; but this does not belong to them simply as human laws, with respect to all of which the maxim of our law holds good—the legislature which enacts can annul.—McCrie.
The absurdity of the Persian law, that a decree once passed was unrepealable, has been often commented upon. It has been said that it was the assumption of a prerogative which was to be exercised by God only, and that it rests with him alone to say what can never be altered. But whilst this is true on the side of the Divine infallibility, we have instances in which God provides for the reversal of his threatening and solemn affirmation, when the people, against whom these are made, change in their relation and conduct towards himself. Nineveh was to be destroyed in forty days from the time that the prophet uttered the proclamation in its streets; but when the inhabitants bowed themselves to the earth in deep penitence and humility, the time was allowed to expire without the judgment having been inflicted. But the law of Persia would not have permitted even of this suspended action. It took no account of altered circumstances. By his own act the king rendered himself helpless to defend those who might, as in the case of the Jews, have been hastily and rashly condemned to death. No allowance was made for mistakes in judgment, inadvertence, or what might turn out to be bad legislation. Besides the presumption involved in such a law, as though the king could do no wrong, it must often have led to great injustice and cruelty. What, for example, was Artaxerxes now to do? He would gladly have yielded to Esther’s pleading. He clearly apprehended the unrighteousness of the decree which had been issued, and could not fail to look with dismay on the consequences which would result from its being carried into effect. Nevertheless, all that he could do in the face of this pretentious and foolish law was to leave the matter in the hands of Mordecai and Esther to make another edict “as it liketh you,” which might not cancel the former one, however much it should have this design, and which, when passed, would be equally irreversible.—McEwen.
For ill to man’s nature, as it stands perverted, hath a natural motion strongest in continuance; but good, as a forced motion strongest at first. Surely every medicine is an innovation, and he that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator; and if time of course alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel do not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?—Bacon.
The greatest tyranny that ever was invented in the world is the pretence of infallibility, for Dionysius and Phalaris did leave the mind free, pretending only to dispose of body and goods according to their will; but the Pope, not content to make us do and say what he pleaseth, will have us also to think so, denouncing his imprecations and spiritual menaces if we do not.—Isaac Barrow.