Bible Commentaries
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Esther 1
The Banquet of King Ahashveroshand the Divorce of Queen Vashti - Esther 1
Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquetto the grandees of his kingdom then assembled in Susa, for the purpose ofshowing them the greatness and glory of his kingdom; while the queen atthe same time made a feast for the women in the royal palace (Esther 1:1-9). Onthe seventh day of the feast, the king, “when his heart was merry withwine,” sent a message by his chief courtiers to the queen, commanding herto appear before him, to show the people and the princes her beauty, andon her refusal to come, was greatly incensed against her (Esther 1:10-12). Uponinquiring of his astrologers and princes what ought in justice to be done tothe queen on account of this disobedience, they advised him to divorceVashti by an irrevocable decree, and to give her dignity to another andbetter; also to publish this decree throughout the whole kingdom (Esther 1:13-20). This advice pleasing the king, it was acted upon accordingly (Esther 1:21 and Esther 1:22).
The banquet. Esther 1:1-3 mark a period. משׁתּה עשׂה, which belongs to ויהי, does not follow till Esther 1:3, andeven then the statement concerning the feast is again interrupted by a longparenthesis, and not taken up again and completed till Esther 1:5. On the use ofויהי in historical narratives at the beginning of relations having,as in the present instance and 1:1, no reference to a precedingnarrative, see the remark on Joshua 1:1. Even when no express reference toany preceding occurrence takes place, the historian still puts what he hasto relate in connection with other historical occurrences by an “and it cameto pass.” Ahashverosh is, as has already been remarked on Ezra 4,Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis. Not only does the nameאחשׁורושׁ point to the Old-Persian name Ks'ayars'a (with א prosthetic), but the statements also concerning the extent of thekingdom (Esther 1:1; Esther 10:1), the manners and customs of the country andcourt, the capricious and tyrannical character of Ahashverosh, and thehistorical allusions are suitable only and completely to Xerxes, so that,after the discussions of Justi in Eichhorn's Repert. xv. pp. 3-38, andBaumgarten, de fide, etc., pp. 122-151, no further doubt on the subject canexist. As an historical background to the occurrences to be delineated, the wideextent of the kingdom ruled by the monarch just named is next described:“He is that Ahashverosh who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127provinces.” מדינה … שׁבע is not an accusativedependent on מלך, he ruled 127 provinces, for מלך,to reign, is construed with על or בּ, but is annexed in the form of afree apposition to the statement: “from India to Cush;” as also in Esther 8:9. הדּוּ is in the Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Hidhu; inZend, Hendu; in Sanscrit, Sindhu, i.e., dwellers on the Indus, for Sindhumeans in Sanscrit the river Indus; comp. Roediger in Gesenius, Thes. Append. p. 83, and Lassen, Indische Alterthumsk. i. p. 2. כּוּשׁ isEthiopia. This was the extent of the Persian empire under Xerxes. Mardonius in Herod. 7:9 names not only the Sakers and Assyrians, butalso the Indians and Ethiopians as nations subject to Xerxes. Comp. alsoHerod. 7:97, 98, and 8:65, 69, where the Ethiopians and Indians arereckoned among the races who paid tribute to the Persian king and foughtin the army of Xerxes. The 127 מדינות, provinces, aregovernmental districts, presided over, according to Esther 8:9, by satraps,pechahs, and rulers. This statement recalls that made in Daniel 6:2, that Darius the Mede set overhis kingdom 120 satraps. We have already shown in our remarks on Daniel 6:2 that this form of administration is not in opposition to the statementof Herod. iii. 89f., that Darius Hystaspis divided the kingdom for thepurpose of taxation into twenty ἀρχαί which were called σατραπηΐ́αι . The satrapies into which Darius divided the kingdom generallycomprised several provinces. The first satrapy, e.g., included Mysia andLydia, together with the southern part of Phrygia; the fourth, Syria andPhoenicia, with the island of Cyprus. The Jewish historians, on the otherhand, designate a small portion of this fourth satrapy, viz., the regionoccupied by the Jewish community (Judah and Benjamin, with their chiefcity Jerusalem), as מדינה, Ezra 2:1; Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 7:6; Nehemiah 11:3. Consequently the satrapies of Darius mentioned in Herodotus differ fromthe (medinoth) of Daniel 6:2, and Esther 1:1; Esther 8:9. The 127 medinoth are a divisionof the kingdom into geographical regions, according to the races inhabitingthe different provinces; the list of satrapies in Herodotus, on the contrary,is a classification of the nations and provinces subject to the empire,determined by the tribute imposed on them.
Esther 1:2
The words: in those days, take up the chronological statement ofEsther 1:1, and add thereto the new particular: when King Ahashverosh sat onthe throne of his kingdom in the citadel of Susa. שׁבת does notinvolve the notion of quiet and peaceable possession after the terminationof wars (Clericus, Rambach), but that of being seated on the throne withroyal authority. Thus the Persian kings are always represented upon araised seat or throne, even on journeys and in battle. According to Herod. vii. 102, Xerxes watched the battle of Thermopylae sitting upon histhrone. And Plutarch (Themistocl. c. 13) says the same of the battle ofSalamis. Further examples are given by Baumg. l.c. p. 85f. On the citadelof Susa, see Nehemiah 1:1, and remarks on Daniel 8:2.
Esther 1:3
“In the third year of his reign he made a feast to all his princes andhis servants, when the forces of Persia and Media, the nobles and princesof the provinces, were before him.” משׁתּה עשׂה, tomake, to prepare, i.e., to give, a feast; comp. Genesis 21:8. The princes andthe servants are, all who were assembled about him in Susa. These arespecified in the words which follow as חיל פ. We might supplyל before חיל from the preceding words, (viz.) the forces, etc.; butthis would not suit the לפניו at the end of the verse. For thisword shows that an independent circumstantial clause begins with חיל, which is added to call attention to the great number of princes andservants assembled at Susa (Bertheau): the forces of Persia … were beforehim: when they were before him. By חיל, the host, the forces,Bertheau thinks the body-guard of the king, which, according to Herod. vii. 40, consisted of 2000 selected horsemen, 2000 lancers, and 10,000infantry, is intended. There is, however, no adequate reason for limiting חיל to thebody-guard. It cannot, indeed, be supposed that the whole military powerof Persia and Media was with the king at Susa; but חיל withoutכּל can only signify an élite of the army, perhaps the captains andleaders as representing it, just as “the people” is frequently used for “therepresentatives of the people.” The Persians and Medes are always namedtogether as the two kindred races of the ruling nation. See Daniel 6:9, who,however, as writing in the reign of Darius the Mede, places the Medesfirst and the Persians second, while the contrary order is observed herewhen the supremacy had been transferred to the Persians by Cyrus. Onthe form פּרס, see rem. on Ezra 1:1. After the mention of theforces, the Partemim, i.e., nobles, magnates (see on Daniel 1:3), and theprinces of the provinces are named as the chief personages of the civilgovernment.
Esther 1:4-6
“When he showed the glorious riches of his kingdom and theexcellent honour of his greatness many days, one hundred and eightydays.” This verse has been understood by most expositors as stating thatthe king magnificently and splendidly entertained all the grandeesmentioned in Esther 1:3 for a full half-year, and gave them a banquet which lasted180 days. Clericus supposes proceedings to have been so arranged, thatthe proceres omnium provinciarum were not entertained at one and thesame time, but alii post alios, because all could not be absent together per sex menses a suis provinciis. Bertheau, however, thinks that the historiandid not purpose to give an exact and graphic description of the proceeding,but only to excite astonishment, and that they who are astonished will notinquire as to the manner in which all took place. The text, however, doesnot say, that the feast lasted 180 days, and hence offers no occasion forsuch a view, which is founded on a mistaken comprehension of Esther 1:4, whichcombines וגו בּהראתו with משׁתּה עשׂה ofEsther 1:3, while the whole of Esther 1:4 is but a further amplification of thecircumstantial clause: when the forces, etc., were before him; thedescription of the banquet not following till Esther 1:5, where, however, it isjoined to the concluding words of Esther 1:4: “when these (180) days were full,the king made a feast to all the people that were found in the citadel ofSusa, from great to small, seven days, in the court of the garden of theking's house.”This verse is thus explained by Bertheau: after the soldiers, nobles, andprinces of the district had been entertained for six months, all the maleinhabitants of Susa were also entertained in a precinct of the palace garden,the women being feasted by Vashti the queen in the palace (Esther 1:9), It is,however, obvious, even from Esther 1:11, which says that on the seventh day ofthis banquet the king commanded the queen to appear “to show the peopleand the princes her beauty,” that such a view of the occurrence isinadmissible. For this command presupposes, that the people and princeswere assembled at the king's banquet; while, according to the view ofBertheau and older expositors, who insist on two banquets, one lasting180 days, the other seven, the latter was given to the male inhabitants ofSusa only. The princes and people of the whole kingdom did not,however, dwell in Susa. These princes and people, to whom the queen wasto show her beauty, are undoubtedly the princes and servants of the king,the forces of Persia and Media, and the nobles and princes of theprovinces enumerated in Esther 1:3. With this agrees also the description of the guests invited to the sevendays feast. בּשׁוּשׁן הנּמצאים כּל־העם does not signify “all theinhabitants of Susa,” but all then present, i.e., then assembled in the citadelof Susa. הנּמצאים used of persons means, those who for somepurpose are found or present in any place, in distinction from its usualinhabitants; comp. 1 Chronicles 29:17; 2 Chronicles 34:32; Ezra 8:25; and העם does not here signify people in the sense of population, but peoplewho are met in a certain place, and is used both here and Nehemiah 12:38 of anassembly of nobles and princes. קטן ועד למגּדול, moreover, does not mean old and young, but high and low, thegreater and lesser servants (עבדים) of the king, and informs us that ofthose assembled at Susa, both princes and servants participated withoutexception in the banquet.
This view of Esther 1:3-5 is confirmed by the consideration, that if the seven daysbanquet were a different one from that mentioned in Esther 1:3, there could be noreason for naming the latter, which would then be not only entirelyunconnected with the narrative, but for which no object at all would bestated; for בּהראתו cannot be translated, as in the Vulgate, by utostenderet, because, as Bertheau justly remarks, ב cannot indicate apurpose. From all these reasons it is obvious, that the feast of whichfurther particulars are given in Esther 1:5-8 is the same משׁתּה which theking, according to Esther 1:3, gave to his שׂרים and עבדים, and thatthe text, rightly understood, says nothing of two consecutive banquets. The sense of Esther 1:3-5 is accordingly as follows: King Ahasuerus gave to hisnobles and princes, when he had assembled them before him, and showedthem the glorious riches of his kingdom and the magnificence of hisgreatness for 180 days, after these 180 days, to all assembled before him inthe fortress of Susa, a banquet which lasted seven days. The connection of the more particular description of this banquet, bymeans of the words: when these (the previously named 180) days wereover, following upon the accessory clause, Esther 1:4, is anacoluthistic, and theanacoluthon has given rise to the misconception, by which Esther 1:5 isunderstood to speak of a second banquet differing from the משׁתּה of Esther 1:3. The purpose for which the king assembled the grandees ofhis kingdom around him in Susa fore a whole half-year is not stated,because this has no connection with the special design of the present book. If, however, we compare the statement of Herod. vii. 8, that Xerxes, afterthe re-subjection of Egypt, summoned the chief men of his kingdom toSusa to take counsel with them concerning the campaign against Greece, itis obvious, that the assembly for 180 days in Susa, of the princes andnobles mentioned in the book of Esther, took place for the purpose ofsuch consultation. When, too, we compare the statement of Herod. vii. 20, that Xerxes wasfour years preparing for this war, we receive also a corroboration of theparticular mentioned in Esther 1:3, that he assembled his princes and nobles inthe third year of his reign. In this view “the riches of his kingdom,” etc.,mentioned in Esther 1:4, must not be understood of the splendour andmagnificence displayed in the entertainment of his guests, but referred tothe greatness and resources of the realm, which Xerxes descanted on to hisassembled magnates for the purpose of showing them the possibility ofcarrying into execution his contemplated campaign against Greece. Thebanquet given them after the 180 days of consultation, was held in thecourt of the garden of the royal palace. בּיתן is a later form ofבּית, which occurs only here and Esther 7:7-8. חצר,court, is the space in the park of the royal castle which was prepared forthe banquet. The fittings and furniture of this place are described in Esther 1:6. “White stuff,variegated and purple hangings, fastened with cords of byssus and purpleto silver rings and marble pillars; couches of gold and silver upon apavement of malachite and marble, mother-of-pearl and tortoise-shell.”The description consists of mere allusions to, or exclamations at, thesplendour of the preparations. In the first half of the verse the hangings ofthe room, in the second, the couches for the guests, are noticed. חוּר from חור means a white tissue of either linen or cotton. Bertheau supposes that the somewhat larger form of ch is intended todenote, even by the size of letter employed, the commencement of thedescription. כּרפּס, occurring in Sanscrit, Persian, Armenian, andArabic, in Greek κάρπασος , means originally cotton, in Greek, according tolater authorities, a kind of fine flax, here undoubtedly a cotton texture ofvarious colours. תּכלת, deep blue, purple. The hangings of the space set apart were of these materials. Blue andwhite were, according to Curtius Esther 6:6, Esther 6:4, the royal colours of thePersians; comp. M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums, ii. pp. 891 and 951of the third edition, in which is described also the royal table, p. 952. Thehangings were fastened (אחוּז) with cords of white byssus andpurple to rings and pillars of white marble. מטּות, couches(divans) of gold and silver, i.e., covered with cloth woven of gold and silverthread, were prepared for the guests at the feast. These couches wereplaced upon a tesselated, mosaic-like floor; the tesselation being composedof stones of various colours. בּהט, in Arabic a mock stone, inlxx σμαραγδίτης , a spurious emerald, i.e., a green-coloured stoneresembling the emerald, probably malachite or serpentine. שׁשׁ iswhite marble; דּר, Arabic (darrun), (darratun), pearl, lxx πίννινος λίθος , a pearl-like stone, perhaps mother-of-pearl. סחרת, a kind ofdark-coloured stone (from סחר = שׁחר, to be dark), black,black marble with shield-like spots (all three words occur only here).
Esther 1:7-8
The entertainment: “And drinks poured into vessels of gold!and vessels differing from vessels, and royal wine in abundance, accordingto the hand of a king. (Esther 1:8) And the drinking was according to law; ninedid compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house todo according to every one's pleasure.” השׁקות, inf. Hiph., to giveto drink, to hand drinks, is used substantively. The golden drinking vesselswere of various kinds, and each differing in form from another. Greatvariety in drinking vessels pertained to the luxury of Persians; comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 8, 18. מלכוּת יין is wine fromthe royal cellar, therefore costly wine. Many interpreters understand it ofthe Chalybonian wine, which the Persian kings used to drink. See rem. onEzekiel 27:18. המּלך כּיד, according to the hand of theking, i.e., according to royal bounty; comp. 1 Kings 10:13. The words: “the drinking was according to law, none did compel,” aregenerally understood to say, that the king abolished for this banquet, theprevailing custom of pledging his guests. According to Grecian information(see Baumgarten, p. 12f.), an exceedingly large quantity of wine was drunkat Persian banquets. This sense of the words is not, however, quite certain. The argument of Baumgarten, Si hic mos vulgaris fuisset in epulis regiis, sine dubio haec omnia non commemorata essent, no more holds good thanhis further remark: formulam illamאנס אין כּדּת non puto adhibitam fuisse, nisi jam altera contraria אנס כּדּת solemnis esset facta. The historian can have noticed thisonly because it was different from the Jewish custom. Bertheau also justlyremarks: “We are not told in the present passage, that the king, on thisoccasion, exceptionally permitted moderation, especially to such of hisguests as were, according to their ancestral customs, addicted tomoderation, and who would else have been compelled to drinkimmoderately. For the words with which this verse concludes, which theyimply also a permission to each to drink as little as he chose, are speciallyintended to allow every one to take much. על יסּד, toappoint concerning, i.e., to enjoin, comp. 1 Chronicles 9:22. בּית רב, those over the house, i.e., the court officials.
Vashti the queen also gave a banquet to the women in the royal house(palace) which belonged to King Ahashverosh, probably in the royalapartments of the palace, which were placed at her disposal for this greatfeast to be given to the women. The name Vashti may be compared withthe Old-Persian (vahista), i.e., optimus. In Persian (šty), means a beautifulwoman. This statement serves as an introduction to the scene whichfollows. Esther 1:10 and Esther 1:11. On the seventh, i.e., the last day of the banquet,when the king's heart was merry with wine, he commanded his sevenchamberlains to bring Vashti the queen before him, with the royal crown,to show here beauty to the people and princes. וגו לב כּטוב, when the heart of the king was merry through wine, i.e., when thewine had made him merry, comp. 2 Samuel 13:28; Judges 16:25. It was theoffice of the seven eunuchs who served before the king (את־פּני משׁרת like 1 Samuel 2:18) to be the means of communication betweenhim and the women, and to deliver to them messages on the part of themonarch. Their number, seven, was connected with that of theAmshaspands; see rem. on Esther 1:14. The attempts made to explain theirseveral names are without adequate foundation; nor would much be gainedthereby, the names being of no significance with respect to the matter inquestion. In the lxx the names vary to some extent. The queen was toappear with the crown on her head (כּתר, κίδαρις or κίταρις , a highturban terminating in a point), and, as is self-evident, otherwise royallyapparelled. The queen was accustomed on ordinary occasions to take hermeals at the king's table; comp. Herod. ix. 110. There is, however, anabsence of historical proof, that she was present at great banquets. Thenotice quoted from Lucian in Brissonius, de regio Pers. princ. i. c. 103, isnot sufficient for the purpose.
The queen refused to appear at the king's command as delivered by theeunuchs, because she did not choose to stake her dignity as a queen and awife before his inebriated guests. The audacity of Persians in such acondition is evident from the history related Herod. Esther 1:18.
The king, greatly incensed at this disobedience to his behest, inquired ofhis wise men what was to be done to Queen Vashti according to law. These wise men are Esther 1:13 designated as those “who knew the times,” i.e.,astrologers and magi, who give counsel according to celestial phenomena;comp. the wise men of Babylon, Daniel 2:27; Daniel 5:15; Isaiah 44:25; Isaiah 47:13; Jeremiah 50:35. Of these he inquires, “for thus was the business of the kingconducted before all that knew law and judgment.” דּבר heredoes not signify word or speech, but matter, business; and the meaning ofthis parenthetical sentence is, that in every matter, the king, beforedeciding, applied to those who were skilled in law and judgment to heartheir opinions concerning it. With this is joined a second explanatoryparenthetical sentence, Esther 1:14: “And those next him were Carshena, etc., theseven princes of the Persians and Medes, who behold the king'scountenance, who hold the first seat in his kingdom.” אליו הקּרב is indefinite, and may be understood as expressing theplural. It is perhaps questionable how this clause should be combined with whatprecedes, whether with ודין דּת כּל־ידעי, before all that knewlaw and judgment and those next him, or with לחכמים, Esther 1:13:he spoke to the wise men … and those next him. In any case the sense is,that the seven princes of the Persians and Medes were also numberedeither among the wise men who knew the times, or those who were skilledin the law. These seven princes are the seven king's counsellors of Ezra 7:14, and by their number of seven form a counterpart to the sevenAmshaspands. They who see the face of the king, i.e., are allowed directintercourse with him. Herod. iii. 84 relates of the seven princes whoconspired the overthrow of the pretended Smerdis, that they resolved, thatit should be permitted them to present themselves unannounced before thefuture king. Hence many expositors identify these seven princes with theauthorities called the seven counsellors, but without sufficient grounds. The number seven frequently recurs, - comp. the seven eunuchs, Esther 1:5, theseven maidens who waited on Esther 2:9, - and refers in the present case to theseven Amshaspands, in others to the days of the week, or the sevenplanets. ראשׁנה היּשׁבים, who sit first, i.e., in thehighest place, i.e., constitute the highest authority in the realm. What theking said (Esther 1:13) does not follow till Esther 1:15: “According to law, what is to bedone to Queen Vashti, because she has not done the word of the king,” i.e.,not obeyed his command by the eunuchs? כּדת, according to law,legally, is placed first because it is intended emphatically to assert that theproceeding is to be in conformity with the law. עשׂה with בּ, toinflict something on any one.
The counsel of the wise men. Esther 1:16. Memucan, who was the lastmentioned in Esther 1:14, comes forward as spokesman for the rest, and declaresbefore the king and the princes, i.e., in a solemn assembly, and evidently asthe result of a previous joint consultation: Vashti the queen has not donewrong to the king alone, but also to all the princes and all the people,because the example of the queen will lead all the Median and Persianwives to despise their husbands. Therefore an irrevocable edict is to bepublished decreeing the divorce of Queen Vashti, and this law publishedthroughout the whole realm, that all wives may show honour to theirhusbands. Vashti has not transgressed against the king alone (Esther 1:16), butagainst all the princes and people in all the provinces of King Ahashverosh(Esther 1:16). In what respect, then, is the latter assertion true? We are told Esther 1:17 and Esther 1:18. “For the deed of the queen will come abroad to (על forאל) all women, to bring their husbands into contempt in their eyes(the infin. להבזות stating the result), while they will say,” etc. (the suffix of בּאמרם relates to the women, who will appeal tothe disobedience of the queen). Esther 1:18. “And this day (i.e., already) the princesses of the Persians andMedians, who hear of the act of the queen (דּבר, not the word,but the thing, i.e., her rejection of her husband's command), will tell it to allthe princes of the king, and (there will be) enough contempt andprovocation. קצף is an outburst of anger; here, therefore, aprovocation to wrath. Bertheau makes the words זק בז וּכדי theobject of תּאמרנה, which, after the long parenthesis, is united tothe copula by w, and for, “to speak contempt and wrath,” reads: to speakcontemptuously in wrath. But this change cannot be substantiated. Theexpression, to speak wrath, is indeed unexampled, but that is no reason formaking קצף stand for בּקצף, the very adoption of such anellipsis showing, that this explanation is inadmissible. The words must betaken alone, as an independent clause, which may be readily completed byיהיה: and contempt and wrath will be according to abundance. כּדי is a litotes for: more than enough. The object of תּאמרנה must be supplied from the context: it - that is, what the queen saidto her husband. In the former verse Memucan was speaking of all women;here (Esther 1:18) he speaks only of the princesses of the Persians and Medes,because these are staying in the neighbourhood of the court, and willimmediately hear of the matter, and “after the manner of the court ladiesand associates of a queen will quickly follow, and appeal to her example”(Berth.).
That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give herroyal estate unto another that is better than she. After this argument on the queen's conduct, follows the proposal: “If itplease the king (על טּוב like Nehemiah 2:5), let there go fromhim a word of the kingdom (i.e., a royal edict), and let it be written(entered) in the laws of the Persians and the Medes, and not pass away,that Vashti come no more before King Ahashverosh; and let the king giveher queenship (her royal rank) to another who is better than she.” An edictissued by the king, entered among the laws of the Persians and Medes, andsealed with the royal signet (Esther 8:8), does not pass away, i.e., remains inforce, is irrevocable (comp. Daniel 6:9). The counsellors press for the issueof such an edict, for the purpose of making it impossible to the king totake Vashti again into favour, lest they should experience her vengeance onthe restoration of her influence. רעוּתהּ, her companion, is anyother woman, Vashti being here regarded merely as a woman. הטּובה includes both beauty and good behaviour (Berth.). By this means,add the counsellors in Esther 1:20, all the ill effects of Vashti's contumacy will beobviated. “And when the king's decree, which he shall make, is heard in hiswhole kingdom, for it is great, all wives shall give honour to theirhusbands, from great to small.” פּתגּן is according to the Keri tobe pointed as the constructive state, פּתגּם. The expressionעשׂה פּתגּן is explained by the circumstance, that פתגם signifies not only edict, decree, but also thing (see on Daniel 3:16): to do athing. In the present verse also it might be so understood: when the thingis heard which the king will do in his whole kingdom. The parentheticalclause, for it is great, is intended to flatter the king's vanity, and induce aninclination to agree to the proposal. “From great to small” signifies highand low, old and young.
The saying pleased the king and the princes, and the king carried it intoexecution. He sent letters into all his provinces to make known hiscommands, and to let all husbands know, that they were to bear rule intheir own houses. “In every province according to its writing, and to everypeople according to their speech” (comp. Esther 8:9), that his will might beclearly understood by all the subjects of his wide domain, who spokedifferent languages and used different alphabetical characters. The contentsof these letters follow in וגו להיות, that every man should bemaster in his own house. These words state only the chief matter andobject of the edict; but they presuppose that the fact which gave rise tothe decree, viz., the refusal of Vashti, and her consequent deposition, werealso mentioned. The last words: “and that he shall speak according to thelanguage of his people,” are obscure. Older expositors understand them to mean, that every man was to speakonly his native language in his house, so that in case he had a foreign wife,or several who spoke other languages, they might be obliged to learn hislanguage, and to use that alone. Bertheau, on the other hand, objects thatsuch a sense is but imported into the words, and in no wise harmonizeswith the context. Both these assertions are, however, unfounded. In thewords, the man shall speak according to the language of his people, i.e., heshall speak his native tongue in his house, it is implied that no otherlanguage was to be used in the house, and the application of this law toforeign wives is obvious from the context. The rule of the husband in thehouse was to be shown by the fact, that only the native tongue of the headof the house was to be used in the family. Thus in a Jewish family theAshdodite or any other language of the wife's native land could not havebeen used, as we find to have been the case in Judaea (Nehemiah 13:23). All other explanations are untenable, as has been already shown byBaumgarten, p. 20; and the conjecture set up after Hitzig by Bertheau, thatinstead of עמּו כּלשׁון we should read עמּו כּל־שׁוה, every one shall speak what becomes him, gives not only a trivial,and not at all an appropriate thought, but is refuted even by the fact thatnot עם שׁוה, but only ל שׁוה (comp. Esther 3:8) could bear the meaning: to be becoming to any one. Such a commandmay, indeed, appear strange to us; but the additional particular, that everyman was to speak his native tongue, and to have it alone spoken, in hisown house, is not so strange as the fact itself that an edict should be issuedcommanding that the husband should be master in the house, especially inthe East, where the wife is so accustomed to regard the husband as lordand master. Xerxes was, however, the author of many strange facts besidesthis.
Add Comment
Comments