Matthew Henry and I read the Bible together most mornings. I greatly value his seventeenth-century English point-of-view. Quite often his remarks fit neatly into today’s news cycle.
Recently we were reading in the book of Esther Chapter Three. Let me give you the setting; reading from Esther Chapter One.
“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:)That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace. 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:” Esther 1:1-3
At this banquet, King Ahasuerus commands Queen Vashti to appear before all his nobles. She refuses. (We can discuss at another time whether his command was valid and her refusal was acceptable) King Ahasuerus, with the willing consent of his highest counselors, divorces his queen. His aids were thinking I’m sure the Queen’s actions might set a dangerous precedent. You really can’t have wives just willy-nilly refusing their husband’s commands. But I digress, and you probably know the story anyway. As time moves along, a Jewish orphan by the name of Esther providentially becomes Queen in Vashti’s place.
Among the advisors surrounding King Ahasuerus is a man named Haman who manages to get himself promoted. Chapter Three records Haman was “set above all the princes.” It seems to go to his head as he orders everyone must bow to him in his presence.
There is however one man in the Kingdom who refuses to bow. His name is Mordecai and he, while a minor figure at court, is not just a nobody. Oh, and by the way, the new queen Esther is his niece. They are both Jews, but no one knows that… yet.
Haman is enraged. He decides he must make an example of Mordecai. But then it occurs to him he might just be able to get rid of Mordechai and all the Jews as well. He hatches a plot, and this is where my friend Matthew’s wisdom shines through.
Henry in his commentary on Chapter Three writes these words, “The enemies of God’s people could not give them (referring to the Jews) such bad treatment as they do if they did not first give them a bad name.”
Henry, in seventeenth-century England, is saying a government wanting to get rid of an undesirable people first needs to give them a “bad name.” it was true then and it’s true now. This brings us to today and to recent history.
You could be forgiven if you thought the Holocaust was an isolated, one of a kind, thing, but here it is, ready to go many centuries before. Haman’s plot didn’t succeed and he came to a bad end, but only because of the timely acts of Providence.
So what about today? We have a government seemingly bent on destroying personal freedoms, blocking social media accounts, marginalizing those who dare to speak against such policies, and those who object to government control of every facet of their lives.
And just like in King Ahasuerus’ day our government is surrounded by advisors. They are called giant corporations, mainstream media, Hollywood, professional sports organizations, Liberal politicians, and other famous figures.
And Matthew Henry from seventeenth-century England points out a glaring truth. Before the government can rid itself of the problem causing people, they have to be given a “bad name.”
In Mordechai’s day, the Jewish people needing to be eliminated were called, “a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom, and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them. – Esther 3:8A.
But today the “king” chooses names like racist, white supremacist, Patriot, Conservative, Christian, etc.
The question is, will Providence intervene this time?