The
Royal Book of Esther
Do
we really know her place in Bible history?
Why is Esther a Royal Book? What makes it
Royal? Who was Esther?
Where did she come from? Of all the stories of the captivity or ancient Israel, why was
this one so important that God would place it in the canon, thus making it a part of the
Holy Bible? Is this book important for God’s People as we approach
the end time?
The
Royal Book of Esther is one of the shortest books in the entire Bible. The account began
in the third year of the reign of king Ahasuerus and ended sometime during the twelfth
year of his reign. The name of God is not invoked even once, nor is it to be found in the
entire book (except as it appears in acrostic form in five places, and few, if any, are
even aware of that). Even the Jews involved were given Persian names. Biblical scholars
feel that this book and the events contained therein are related to, or associated with,
the Jews who came out of the captivity of Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, but they associate no
purpose to that knowledge.
Esther
does indeed carry an important message for God’s end time people, but first we must see
clearly the original events and participants of that time. We must understand what has
come before in order to comprehend what will come after. The purpose of this article is to
uncover certain historical events and personalities,
which, although in plain sight for centuries, have been hidden from the scholars and the
world, and in some respects, even God’s own people. Once this is done, you will be able
to begin to place in proper perspective the captivity, plus the efforts in the rebuilding
of the second Temple. Hopefully, this will help to provide us with a keener understanding
of just what God is building today and what will transpire in the approaching "end
time". You will see the hand of God intervening in the world to bring about His own
will. The world has consistently refused to acknowledge God’s participation in directing
the course of history. However, without acknowledging God’s intervention we are left
with the historical confusion and contradictions, which exists today.
The
book of Esther exists, in part, because of one particular Persian king at a particular
time in history. Without this king, there is no
story of Esther, no lesson and no end time prophecy. Yet, typically, the vast
majority of Bible scholars attribute to this king certain character traits that are
offensive, obnoxious and obscene. WHY? Does the Bible support these claims? Does the Bible
truly portray this king, as so many would lead us to believe? Let’s look at the facts.
First,
however, if we are to successfully uncover true history, there is one vital act we must
do. We need to remember something!
We need to remember what Herbert Armstrong stressed again and again? "Believe
God!" The first crucial step in learning to believe God is to prove that God exists.
If you are reading this, then one would hope that by now you have proven completely,
without a single doubt, that there is a Supreme God who rules this universe according to
His own immutable LAW. The rule that we absolutely must apply to Esther, if we are ever to
understand her message for God’s people today, and in the end time, is "Believe
God!" We must believe what God has written. It does not matter if every Bible scholar
who has ever existed says something is a certain way. If God says it is not, then it is
not! If God says something is a certain way then it does not matter if a
thousand people, all with intelligent, educated minds, say otherwise. It will be exactly
the way God said it had to be;
no matter how unlikely, improbable or incredible it would appear.
Why all the scholars are all wrong!
Esther
begins with: "Now it
came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India
even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces:) 2 In those
days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in
Shushan the palace, 3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes
and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being
before him:"
Almost,
without exception, the typical so-called Bible scholar will tell you that this king called
"Ahasuerus" is the Persian king known to historians as "Xerxes."
Xerxes I was king of the Persian Empire from 486 - 465 BC.
The
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, copyright 1967, under Ahasuerus, on page 23 states:
"...
King of Persia, mentioned in the book of Esther. There seems to be
little
doubt [emphasis and comments mine throughout -
some commentators
state it as absolute fact]
that he is to be identified with the well known
Xerxes,
who reigned from 486 to 465 BC. The main support for this
identification is to be found in the linguistic
equivalence of the names, as noted
below. In addition, a close similarity has been noted between the
character of Xerxes and the character of the king of the Persians portrayed
in the book of Esther. There are also historical
correlations. ..."
The
historical correlations have to do with the timing of preparations for an invasion of
Greece and then, following the failure of the invasion, a period in Xerxes’ seventh year
when he consoled himself in his harem. Thus, this would supposedly relate to the seventh
year of Ahasuerus when he married Esther.
The
collapse of the historical correlations will be addressed as needed later. Suffice it to
say, for now, that as weak as these historical connections are, one cannot presume to
establish an identity from them alone. Therefore, after the removal of the main
supposition underpinning the Ahasuerus/ Xerxes connection, these historical correlations
become a mute point and cease to exist.
Is
there any linguistic equivalence? Eerdmans’ New Bible Dictionary, reprinted Jan. 1979,
page 21, article Ahasuerus opens:
AHASUERUS
(ahasweros, the Hebrew equivalent of the Persian khshayarsha). In the
Elephantine Aramaic papyri the consonants appear as kys’rs. The resemblance of
the latter to the Greek Xerxes is reasonably close, and the Babylonian version of
Xerxes’ name on the Behistun inscription is close to the Hebrew as above. Xerxes I was
king of Persia (485 - 465 BC).
Yes,
it is close, it is very close. In fact, they are not only close, but they are the same
word, just in different languages. But, just what does that prove? Let’s see what Ahasuerus
meant and we will begin to see what it proves. According to the Companion Bible, page 618,
item #7 it reads: "The names of some of the kings mentioned have been hitherto
regarded as proper names; whereas according to Sir Henry Rawlinson, Professor Sayce, The
Encyclopedia Britannica, and The Century Encyclopedia of Names, at least three of these
are (?) appellatives (like Pharaoh, Abimelech, Czar, Shah, Sultan); viz. Ahasuerus,
which means "the venerable king", Artaxerxes, which means "The great
king", and Darius, which means "The maintainer".
Furthermore,
in Appendix 57 of the Companion Bible, discussing this subject, states:
It
must be noted that the confusion which has hitherto been experienced
arises
from the fact that appellatives have been mistaken for proper names;
to say nothing of the confusion arising from their
transliteration or translation
into other languages.
These
appellatives, like Pharaoh and Abimelech, are general titles of a
line
of kings, such as the modern Czar, Sultan, Shah, &c. Hence
AHASUERUS means "the Mighty", and "is the
name, or rather the title, of
four Median and Persian monarchs" (Kitto, Bib. Encycl. I, p. 91). "In
every
case the identification of the person named is a matter of controversy".
See The Encycl. Brit., 11th (Cambridge) edn., vol.
I, p. 429.
Artaxerxes
means Great King, or Kingdom, and is synonymous with
Artachshast
(Arta = Great, and Kshatza = Kingdom,
preserved in the modern
"Shah"). According to Prideaux he is identified with the Ahasuerus
of Est. 1.1 (vol. I, p. 306).
So we
see that Ahasuerus was not really a
name, but rather a title, to be used, displayed and worn by one whose right it is,
namely, the king himself. Biblical scholars have placed themselves in a corner by
attributing the king Ahasuerus to a particular time in history because the king of that
period was called by the same general title. How many people remember the name of the
leader of Iran in 1976? Few at best, but of those who were aware of the leader of Iran in
1976, all of them would recognize his title, the Shah of Iran. The title ‘Shah’ might
just as well have become ‘Xerxes’, because it was in ancient Greek. Does that mean
that there were no previous "shahs" in Iran (Persia)? Of course not! What the
Biblical scholars did in the case of Ahasuerus was to "label" him as
"Xerxes" because "Ahasuerus" translates into "Xerxes" in the
Greek. In their effort to identify "Ahasuerus" in history they have managed to
conceal his true identity from the world, and
from God’s people as well, by "miss-identifying" him. Although we
typically know these rulers today by one particular name, they originally possessed a
number of names simultaneously. For example, the King of Persia who conquered Babylon also
acquired the title, "King of Babylon" as a result. Furthermore, all of the
successors to his throne appropriated that title as well when they ruled over Persia and
Babylon. The Bible also establishes this for us.
Nehemiah
13:6 But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem: for in the two and thirtieth year of
Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king, and after certain
days obtained I leave of the king:
In
chapter 13, Nehemiah called a Persian king the king of Babylon. Was this
king a Chaldean? Of course not, he was Persian and the king of Persia, and the king of the
Medes as well! The title used depended upon which use "fits" the title.
Now,
with the "main support", allegedly identifying Ahasuerus as Xerxes, discredited
and therefore eliminated from consideration, the two or three events which have a similar
time frame between those two titles becomes virtually useless. Also, the similarity
between the character of Xerxes and the so-called character of Ahasuerus may be confronted
and also discarded. The character of Ahasuerus is nothing like the character of Xerxes,
but more on that later, too. The supposed similarity arises from trying to read more into
some parts of what was written in Esther while ignoring other parts of what was written in
an attempt to force a match between Xerxes, or whoever one wishes to insert here, and
Ahasuerus. Only the Bible has the authority to provide the kingly identity, which it does,
and in a very simple way.
So, who was King Ahasuerus?
As we
have learned so far, sometimes it is easier to eliminate the men he was not. Then whoever
is left, no matter how remote the likelihood, has to be the real king. Therefore, let’s
first consider the clues revealed in the opening three verses of Esther.
The
first clue we will consider is found in verse 2: "in those days, when the king
Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan (Susa) the palace,"
or as it says in the RSV, "in those days when King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne
in Susa the capital". Susa was the capital city of the Persians not the Medes. Verse
3 bears out that there were both Medes and Persians involved with this gathering. Verse 1
tells us that this Ahasuerus ruled over a vast territory or empire, which,
according to its own description, included both the territories of the Medes and Persians.
The clue is placing the king in his own royal capital of Susa. This gives us a beginning
time frame from which an earlier date is not possible.
In
Daniel 8:1-4, & 20, we find a prophecy involving Susa and a Ram with two horns of
slightly different proportions. Verse 20 explains that this vision is speaking of the
Medo-Persian Empire, which was soon to come on the scene. Actually, both countries were
already in existence and both were already powerful at the time that Daniel received the
vision. HOWEVER, when Daniel, while in Babylon in the third year of Belshazzar, saw
the vision, it was the Medes who were the dominant "horn" or power. The Persians
were still subject to and in confederation with the Medes. The capitol of the Medes was
Ecbatana, not Susa. This
places the time of Ahasuerus "within" the vision DURING the later Persian
dominance, a time when the Persians included the Medes as a part of the Persian Empire.
This period began in 550 BC when the Persian King Cyrus defeated Astayages, his own
grandfather and king of the Medes.
At
the other end of the time frame, we know that the Greeks, led by Alexander the Great,
defeated the Persians in 330 BC, thus ending the Persian Empire. So, Ahasuerus had to
reign somewhere between 550 BC and 330 BC. That would still leave Xerxes and Artaxerxes in
the running, but not for long.
Esther
2:5-6 introduces another important clue. There was a Jew named Mordecai, in Susa, the
capitol of Persia, who had originally been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar and carried
away to Babylon along with Jeconiah, king of Judah (also known as Jehoiachin in II Chron.
36 & II Kings 24) in what we know to be about 597 BC. (As a side note, Daniel went
into Babylonian captivity in 605 BC, also by Nebuchadnezzar.) If Ahasuerus had
been Xerxes the Great, as so many think, then Mordecai would have to have been at
least 111 years old in 486
BC, assuming that he was an
infant in 597 BC. When taken captive, Mordecai was young, but not an infant. He was an
adolescent, or very young adult, probably in his late teens because the Bible records that
Nebuchadnezzar took the princes and nobles of Judah in those first deportations. See 2
Kings 24:12 - 16; & 25:12. This creates several problems.
First
of all, Mordecai was elevated to a position next to Ahasuerus in rank in
the entire kingdom. This occurred sometime after the twelfth year of the reign of
Ahasuerus (Est. 10) From this we could determine his age to be at least in his mid
130’s. Could he have lived to be 130 plus years old? Yes, but it would have been a
remarkable event of which neither the Bible, or history has made mention of. Furthermore,
if it is Xerxes, and Mordecai did live to be 140 - 150 years old by the time of his death,
then we still have what would be for Ahasuerus and ourselves, a much greater problem.
What
do we know about Esther? Remember that Mordecai raised her as his own child. Esther was
the daughter of Mordecai’s uncle. So, his father and her father were brothers. Mordecai
was apparently older and more
established than Esther, otherwise how would he have been able to take care of her
at all? Esther’s parents must have died sometime between 597 BC and at a time
sufficiently before the third year of the reign of Ahasuerus to make it necessary and
important for Mordecai to intervene on her behalf by helping to raise her.
Esther
2:7 records the fact that Esther was "fair and beautiful." Esther was a virgin,
too, of course. So, how old can one be and still be in a position to compete with other
"fair young virgins" as required in chapter 2, verse 3? Could she be 100 years
old? 75? 50? or? Do you suppose that a "fair young virgin", to
king Ahasuerus, would have been other than we might think of one today? The word young is
#5291 and includes anything from infancy to adolescence. Let’s just say that this
leaves age 100 out of consideration. In fact, anything (or age) with wrinkles is left out,
and that is what eliminates Xerxes, too. For Esther to be Mordecai’s cousin there is
just no sensible way for Mordecai to be 118 years of age or more, and still have a cousin
young enough to fit the kings criteria.
Just
applying the "can’t be’s" we have looked at so far narrows our possibilities
to a finite number of kings. If we eliminate Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, because his reign
(529 - 522 BC) did not go but 7 years, we are left with only two possibilities. Only Cyrus
the Great who ruled over Persia and Media from 550 BC to his death in 529 BC, and Darius I
(or Darius Hystaspis) who ruled the Medo-Persian empire
between 521 and 486 BC remain as contenders. It was not Darius as he had a different role
to play in history. Furthermore, Esther would have to be over age 50, hardly a fair young
virgin of marriageable age, as was the requirement. The only king left to consider is
Cyrus the Great. To my knowledge, not a single scholar has ever associated Cyrus with
Ahasuerus, yet we have just demonstrated that it could not have been any other king. We
are left with no other choice; Ahasuerus must have been Cyrus the Great!
Now,
let’s line up the years of Cyrus with the years of Ahasuerus.
550
BC This year is the year of accession and is not included in Persian or
Babylonian
reckoning. This is
the year Cyrus conquered the Medes.
549
BC This would be counted as the first year of the reign of Cyrus king of
Persia
(see footnote concerning the explanation of 2 Chron. 36:22 &
Ezra 1:1).
548
BC 2nd year of Cyrus
547
BC 3rd " " " Vashti banished for disobedience.
546
BC 4th " " "
545
BC 5th " " "
544
BC 6th " " "
543
BC 7th " " " Esther becomes Queen, tenth month, Tebeth.
542
BC 8th " " "
541
BC 9th " " "
540
BC 10th " " "
539
BC 11th " " " Babylon falls to Cyrus’ Persian empire. Daniel 5
538
BC 12th " " " The events of Esther 3:7 onward. Haman’s plot, etc.
Special expanded view of 539 & 538 BC:
539
BC Persian reckoning also counts, or begins their year from spring to spring
Hence
Nisan 1, as opposed to, for example, Egyptian reckoning which determined their years from
January 1st through December 31st as we do today. Therefore, something could occur in a
particular year of a king’s reign, but fall into a later year on our calendar. This
occurs in a number of places in and around the building of the second temple, and
determining dates using Darius I (Darius Hystaspis) are excellent examples of this
circumstance.
539
BC, In the fall of this year, the Persians diverted the river that
went through Babylon and on October 16 (the last day of the Feast of
Tabernacles,
538
BC, Cyrus the Great makes famous proclamation allowing Jews to return to
Jerusalem
and rebuild the temple. This occurred in the first year of
Cyrus’ reign over Babylon. Since he defeated Babylon in
October of
538
BC, In Nisan, Haman hatched his plot to exterminate the Jews. The edict was
officially
recorded and announced on the 13th of Nisan and sent to all
Provinces of the Empire. (Esther 3:12)
538
BC, In Sivan 23, Mordecai’s edict was issued and sent to all 127 provinces of
the
kingdom. Esther 8:9
537
BC, On Adar 13, the Jews defeated their enemies. After this, Mordecai
instituted
Adar 14 & 15 to be celebrated by the Jews as the days the Jews got relief from
their
enemies, etc. (see Esther 9:20 - ff.)
Notes of interest:
1) It
is 70 days from Nisan 13 through Sivan 23.
2)
Esther 3:15 relates that when Haman’s edict went out "the city (people) Shushan was
perplexed." (Esther 3:15) Why? Why would the inhabitants of Shushan be perplexed
(#943 used only in Ex. 14:3 & Joel 1:18), or "be entangled," or better yet,
be "confused," as the word means. There was nothing confusing in the decree of
Haman. It was a death warrant for the Jews, plain and simple. The city could only be
"confused" because there was another decree that had been decreed earlier than
Haman’s, a decree that was favorable to the Jews. There had to be confusion coming out
of the palace itself for the city to be confused. The only decree that fits the
requirement, the only decree which would have a bearing or benefit to the Jews, the only
decree which would leave a Persian confused upon hearing the second decree (from Haman,
but under the king’s ring) is the decree of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return to
Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple and return to Jerusalem!
3)
The decree of Cyrus was issued after the defeat of Babylon (October 29th, 539 BC). It
would have officially been announced sometime after Oct. 29th, but certainly before Nisan
13 of 538 BC. Due to Persian reckoning, the twelfth year of the reign of Cyrus began Nisan
1, 538 BC.
4)
Adar 14 & 15 are to be kept by all Jews and their descendants, and all those who would
enjoin themselves to the Jews, that without fail they would keep these two days according
to what is written and at the time appointed every year, from year to year. (see Esther
9:27 - 32)
5)
Most Biblical scholars depict Ahasuerus as a drunken, sensual slob of a king. This is the
result of trying to attribute actual historical traits that
were exhibited by Xerxes (486 - 465 BC) to Ahasuerus of the book of Esther. However, they
are in complete error. The attribution of Xerxes’ traits, being transferred to
Ahasuerus, comes from these Biblical scholars own misunderstanding of scripture.
(Esther 1:7, 10, 11)
Notice
Esther 1:8: ALL the drinking was according to the law; none did compel. What was the law?
That one could, should and would drink only as much as they were able to without losing
control of their faculties, nor to become drunk. If a person only wanted to have two
glasses of wine, then he would only drink two glasses. If he became drunk then he would be
in violation of the law. This was definitely not a "drunk fest". This was simply
a feast. Social graces were to be
expected, EXACTLY as God allows us to drink in moderation at the Feast of Tabernacles
while still exhibiting exemplary behavior!
Some
consider the beckoning of Vashti in verse 11 to be for lewd purposes. That assertion
is not supported by verse 11. What is supported is that the king had a very beautiful wife
in whom he, up until then, was well pleased. Some say that Vashti was upset by the method
that the king used to call her, the sending of the chamberlains. Yet, this was the
standard way to beckon the queen. She
would have taken no offense at that. There was another reason for her refusal, but
it was not any of the reasons the Biblical scholars have ever discovered.
As
for Vashti, some Biblical scholars try to compare her to, or identify her as, Amestris,
daughter of Otanes. Amestris was the queen of Xerxes and was not banished. This gives
these "scholars" considerable consternation, yet they continue to try to fit a
round peg into a square hole, lest they be forced to admit that God exists and believe
God.
6) 2
Chron. 36:22 & Ezra 1:1 speak of the proclamation occurring in the FIRST year of
Cyrus. This is impossible if it is referring to 550 BC, since the Jews were still in
captivity under Babylonian rule. However, it does fit 539 -538 BC, when we consider that
this is the first year of Cyrus as king of Babylon, and it was from Babylon that the Jews
were freed to return to Jerusalem. These scriptures simply denote the time, in view of the
geographical place, of the reign of Cyrus and offer no contradiction to the Bible, or to
history.
7)
Consider this one last point. At the time that the edict of Mordecai went out to the
kingdom there were 127 provinces. In Esther 1:1 this quantity is used to identify which
king Ahasuerus the author was referring to. It does not mean, or infer, that at anytime
prior to the twelfth year of Ahasuerus there were 127 provinces, only that at sometime
during the reign of Ahasuerus there were 127 provinces. We do know that there were 127
provinces in the reference to Esther 8:9, the twelfth year of Ahasuerus.
Towards
the end of the eleventh year of Cyrus,
his kingdom experienced a growth surge. Ahasuerus had seven princes over the
Medo-Persian Empire, but what did he do with the addition of the Babylonian Empire? In
Daniel 6:1 Darius set 120 princes, or satraps, over the former Babylonian kingdom. Is it
simply a coincidence that 120 plus 7 equals 127? Is it only a coincidence that this
occurred just prior to the twelfth year of the reign of Cyrus over the Medo-Persian
Empire? Is it just an accident of history that all the successors to Cyrus had different numbers
of princes? Finally, did it just, "turn out" that Cambyses, Darius I, and Xerxes
all enlarged the kingdom from the previous ruler? Only Cyrus matched the
criteria necessary to be Ahasuerus, what a coincidence!
If
you have any questions or would like to correspond with me
concerning this article you may do so by contacting Richard Fix at the following
e-mail address: rfix@hyperusa.com
Although the research that went into producing this article was exhaustive, the
article is, by comparison, only a brief synopsis. There is a considerable amount of
documentation, Biblical and otherwise, that was not included. If you feel that you have
found a flaw or an "oversight", or a "contradiction" of some kind
please contact me and allow me the opportunity to provide any relative specifics as might
be necessary. You input and questions are appreciated.
We
hope that you have enjoyed reading this article and that it will add to your
understanding, love, and awe of our God and Father.
Richard
Fix
January
1998