Esther 1:10-12 - Homilies By D. Rowlands

The tyrant-slave.

Distance frequently gives us exaggerated notions of greatness, while closer intimacy would speedily dispel the illusion. To the best part of the known world the name of Ahasuerus was associated with unrestrained power, but this passage reveals his real position. Extremes meet; an absolute tyrant may be at the same time an absolute slave. This was precisely the case with Ahasuerus. He was—

I. AN ABSOLUTE TYRANT . He occupied a position of unlimited authority, and exercised his authority in an arbitrary manner. Note—

1 . That the possession of absolute power is in itself a great wrong. It is a violation of the inalienable rights of communities that any man through the mere accident of birth—or even through his own superior abilities—should become an irresponsible ruler over them; and history shows that this violation has always been fraught with disastrous consequences.

2 . The use made of absolute power in the case before us. This is a most ignoble passage in the life of a king of such high pretensions.

II. AN ABSOLUTE SLAVE . We find that—

1 . He was a slave of his appetite. "The king's heart was merry with wine;" he had taken more drink than was good for him, and was beginning to feel the effects of it. A sorry spectacle! He who ought to have set a pattern of dignified demeanour to those beneath him, degrading himself below the level of the brute creation. Millions have done and are doing the same thing. Alexander conquered the world, but a lawless appetite conquered Alexander.

2 . He was a slave of his passions. "The king was very wroth, and his anger burned within him." Accustomed as he was to be implicitly obeyed, he could not endure his will to be thwarted. The demon within him was roused, and he was no longer master of himself; he must obey the promptings of unreasoning rage, however much he might regret it in calmer moments. Truly, "he that is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city."

3 . He was a slave of his pride. He was induced to depose the queen because he imagined that his dignity had been compromised. No doubt he loved her, and it must have cost him a pang to be separated from her, but pride would not allow him to revoke his decree. Like King Herod, who preferred to behead John the Baptist rather than confess that he had made a foolish oath. He may have called it courage to himself, but it was in reality the most contemptible cowardice.—R.