Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryEsther 1

The Book of ESTHER INTRODUCTION 1. Title. The book of Esther takes as its name that of the heroine of the story. Her original Hebrew name was Hadassah (see ch. 2:7), but she probably came to be known as Esther about the time of her marriage to Ahasuerus (Xerxes), king (486–465 B.C.) of the Medo-Persian Empire (see PK 598). Her Hebrew name, Hadassah, means “myrtle,” while Esther is probably a Persian name meaning “star.” Mordecai, who had adopted Hadassah, his cousin, as his daughter, may have given her the Persian name Esther at the time he charged her not to make her nationality known (see ch. 2:10). The book of Esther is a dramatic story of how God used a courageous young woman of surpassing beauty to save her people at a time of crisis, when extermination threatened them. As in the story of Ruth, we see the important role of women in God’s great plan for the salvation of His people. Ruth was a Gentile who decided to identify herself with Israel and to accept their God as her God, while Esther was a Jewess who, in God’s providence, became queen of the greatest nation of her time. She realized the truth and urgency of the question addressed to her by her foster father: “Who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (ch. 4:14, RSV). With a prayer to God, she courageously risked her own life to save the lives of God’s people scattered in all parts of the empire. The story of Esther stirs its readers to a realization of the opportunities God’s providence may bring to the weakest of the weak. Perhaps we too have “come to the kingdom for such a time as this.” 2. Authorship. The author of the book of Esther is unknown. The author’s profound concern for the welfare of the Jewish people at a time of national crisis points to him as one of that race. His identification of Mordecai as a Benjamite (ch. 2:5) may suggest that he himself was of the tribe of Benjamin. The fact that the Jews “scattered abroad” (ch. 3:8) alone are mentioned, and never those of Jerusalem and Judea, implies that he was concerned exclusively with the former, and was therefore perhaps one of them. The many Persian words in the book, together with its intimate knowledge of Persian affairs and customs, suggest that he was a resident of Persia proper rather than of one of the outlying provinces of the empire. Recent excavations at Susa (Shushan) confirm the fact that the writer was intimately acquainted with the palace and with Persian court customs and regulations. Impressed by these archeological discoveries, various scholars are inclined to think that the author of the book must have been attached to the Persian court at that time or soon after, at least as a minor official, or that he had direct access to this information through someone who was. It is possible that the author was Ezra, who led an expedition to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (457 B.C.). Ezra was a learned authority on Jewish law (see Ezra 7:1–14), and may have served as a royal clerk, probably as a legal counselor of the king (see PK 607). It is apparent that under any circumstances Artaxerxes had great confidence in him (see Ezra 7:25–28). The crisis occasioned by Haman probably came in the year 474/473 B.C., some 16 or 17 years prior to Ezra’s departure for Jerusalem. It is therefore reasonable to think that Ezra was sufficiently familiar with the details of the story to have written it. As a zealous patriot (Ezra 7:27, 28), a devout priest (vs. 1–5), a pious reformer (chs. 9:1 to 10:14), a “ready scribe” (ch. 7:6), and an able administrator (vs. 6, 10, 21, 25, 26), Ezra must have taken a profound interest in this crisis, which came

when he was a young man. Certainly he was qualified to write the book of Esther. Again, Nehemiah may have been the author. From the postscript to the book of Esther (ch. 10) it may be inferred that Ahasuerus (Xerxes) was dead at the time of writing, for “all the acts of his power and of his might” were “written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia.” If this be true, then the book of Esther was written after 465 B.C., in which year Ahasuerus was assassinated by his courtier Artabanus. It is implied also that the Persian Empire was still the great world power; the book would accordingly have been written before the fall of Persia in 331 B.C. The numerous intimate details of the narrative, many of which are now confirmed by archeology, suggest, however, that the writing was done soon after the events occurred, probably by someone personally acquainted with one or more persons named in the story. Some have suggested that Mordecai might have been the author. The fact that he is known to have held minor court offices (Esther 2:11, 19, 21–23; 3:2–5; 4:1, 2, 6; 5:13) prior to his promotion to be prime minister of the realm (chs. 8:1, 2, 7–10, 15; 9:3, 4, 20, 31; 10:3) would account adequately for the obvious familiarity of the author with the palace and with court customs and regulations. Furthermore, Mordecai is the only person specifically mentioned in the Bible as having this intimate familiarity and also having access to the official texts of the various decrees referred to. Certainly, Mordecai could have written the book of Esther. A cuneiform tablet now in the Berlin Museum mentions a high state official by the name of Marduka (the Babylonian transliteration of Mordecai), who, with the title sipîr, served as an influential counselor at the court of Shushan in the time of Xerxes. No other person by this name, and holding this office in Susa under Xerxes, is known, either in the Bible or from other sources. At the order of Ahasuerus, and in the royal name and with the royal seal, Esther and Mordecai sent official decrees to all parts of the realm explaining the sudden change in royal policy and authorizing the Jews to defend themselves (ch. 8:9–14; cf. ch. 9:31, 32). Some have thought that what is now known as the book of Esther may have been included in the messages sent out to the Jews by Esther and Mordecai, but the references noted hardly seem to justify such a conclusion. But it is entirely possible that Mordecai may have written the book of Esther in addition to the particular documents noted in the book. The fact that he is referred to in the third person throughout the book has no bearing upon the question of whether he may have been its author. Thus, when all is said and done, the author of the book of Esther remains unknown. All that can be said with certainty is that he must have been a Jew living in Shushan about the time the events narrated in the book occurred. 3. Historical Setting. At the death of Darius I (Hystaspes, or, “the Great”) in 486 B.C. his son Xerxes ascended the throne and ruled until his death in 465 B.C., and was in turn succeeded by his son Artaxerxes. The Ahasuerus of the Bible is thus the Xerxes of history. The name Ahasuerus is from the Latin transliteration of ’Achashwerosh, the Hebrew equivalent of the Babylonian Achshiyarshu. The translators of the LXX confused Ahasuerus with Artaxerxes. The Ahasuerus of the books of Ezra and Esther is not the Ahasuerus of Dan. 9:1, who was the father of Darius the Mede.

During the closing years of the reign of Darius Hystaspes and the early part of the reign of his son and successor, Xerxes (Ahasuerus), the Persian Empire was at the height of its power. According to Esther 1:1 the domain of Ahasuerus extended from the northwestern frontier of India westward to the northern boundary of Ethiopia. From east to west its length was 3,000 mi., and in width it varied from 500 to 1,500 mi. Its area was about 2,000,000 sq. mi. Shushan (Susa) was one of the capitals of the Persian Empire, an honor it shared with Ecbatana and Persepolis. The Persians were a branch of the Indo- European family of races, and were the first of that group, in fact, to become the dominant world power. For a further consideration of the period of Persian history in which the events of the book of Esther occurred, see pp. 59–61. From the viewpoint of Bible history the chief event during the reign of Cyrus (c. 553– 530 B.C.), first king of the Persian Empire, was the decree of his first regnal year authorizing the Jews to return to Palestine (see pp. 96, 97), and to rebuild the Temple (Ezra 5:13). Pursuant to this decree Zerubbabel led some 50,000 Jews back to Judea in 536 and began the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1:5, 6; 3:1–10). After a time, however, work came to a halt as the result of various difficulties and discouragements that arose (see Ezra 4:1–5, 24; cf. Haggai 1:1–4). So far as the Jews were concerned the reign of Cambyses (530–522), son and successor of Cyrus, was of minor importance, for he seems to have taken little if any interest in their welfare. But soon after Darius Hystaspes (522– 486) ascended the throne he confirmed the original decree of Cyrus by issuing one of his own (see Ezra 4:24; 6:1), which resulted in the completion of the Zerubbabel Temple in 515 B.C. (see Ezra 6:1, 15). Early in the 5th century Athens assisted the Greeks living on the west coast of Asia Minor in their struggle to be free from Persian rule. Darius met this challenge to his power by leading an army into Greece to punish the Athenians. With an army of insignificant size the Athenians met the mighty hosts of Persia on the beach at Marathon and administered to the invaders a decisive defeat that made necessary the immediate withdrawal of Darius to Asia (490 B.C.). While making preparations for a new invasion of Greece, however, Darius died (486 B.C.). His son and successor, Xerxes I, or Ahasuerus (486–465 B.C.), returned to Greece, only to suffer a major defeat at Salamis (480 B.C.). Xerxes thereupon returned permanently to Asia, leaving his general Mardonius in charge. Mardonius was defeated at Plataea the following year, and as a result Persian forces left Europe never to return. The great feast in the third year of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) seems to have been held shortly before he left Shushan (Susa) on his disastrous expedition to Greece. It was no doubt prior to his departure in 482/481 B.C. that the command was issued to “gather together all the fair young virgins” (Esther 2:3). To carry out fully this decree undoubtedly required several months. Soon after Xerxes’ return to Susa, apparently, Esther was brought before him and made queen. Continued reverses at the hands of the Athenian fleet on the western shores of Asia Minor, during the next few years, together with disturbances elsewhere in the far-flung empire, may have conditioned the mind of the king to look with favor upon Haman’s plan to exterminate the Jews. This plan, if carried into effect, would have marked a direct reversal of the former friendly and even generous policy of Persian monarchs toward the Jews, as demonstrated during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. The signal deliverance of the Jews through the courage of Esther served to restore the Jews to royal favor and

prepared the way for the labors of Ezra and Nehemiah a few years later, and particularly for the momentous decree of Xerxes’ son and successor, Artaxerxes I (465–423 B.C.), in the year 457 B.C. The chronological data supplied by the book of Esther are as follows: Event Esther Year– Month– Day B.C. Date* The great 1:3 3 Between Apr. 14, 483–Apr. feast 2, 482 Esther 2:12 [6 10 ?] “ Jan. 2, 479–Jan. 30, summoned 479 Esther 2:16 7 10 “ Dec. 22, 479–Jan. made 20, 478 queen Haman 3:7 12 1 “ Apr. 5, 474–May 3, casts lots 474 Haman’s 3:12 12† 1 13 Apr. 17, 474 decree Mordecai’s 8:9 12† 3 23 June 25, 474 decree Purim 3:13; 12† 12 13 March 8, 473 8:12; 9:1, 17-19 4. Theme. The Babylonian captivity marks a distinct break in Jewish national life. For a time the stream of Jewish history disappeared and ran underground, and when it reappeared its whole character was changed. The Jews were no longer so much a nation as they were a people and a church. The Bible contains no history of the Exile and of postexilic times, as history is usually defined, but the spirit of the period is admirably conveyed in the narratives of Daniel and Esther. The book of Esther is one of the five rolls that have been, from ancient times, read in every synagogue on the five festal occasions of the year. It seems to have been this annual cycle of readings that determined the location of Esther in the Hebrew canon. The order of the five is: Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The book of Esther comes fifth because it is read at the final festival of the year, the days of Purim (see on chs. 3:7; 9:26). Considered as literature the book of Esther is at once both an idyl and an epic. It depicts a crisis in the fortunes of God’s people that threatened them with annihilation. The instrument of deliverance is a Jewess, elevated from a quiet life with her cousin and foster father, Mordecai, to be queen of a world empire. The narrative displays Esther as a woman of clear judgment, remarkable self-control, and noble self-sacrifice. The challenge of Mordecai, “Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (ch. 4:14), projected the youthful queen to the heights of heroic action. In solemn dignity her spirit rose to answer the demand of the hour in the courageous and thrilling words, “If I perish, I perish.” When at the critical moment the scepter was held out to her she did not immediately identify the villain, but with remarkable restraint and deliberate care guided the king and Haman into a situation calculated to be most favorable to her purpose. Fiction could not conceive of a more dramatic and surprising

series of coincidences than those that led up to the exposure and death of Haman. In Purim, the Feast of Lots, the Jews ever commemorate Heaven’s disposal of Haman’s evil plan, which a “lot” had presumably indicated would succeed (see ch. 3:7). The religious character and moral teaching of the book of Esther may be summarized thus: 1. Though God’s name does not appear in the entire book, His providence is manifest throughout. No disbeliever in God could possibly have written the book; no believer can read it without finding his faith strengthened. Deliverance is presented by the writer as the result of a living faith in God. 2. The book of Esther provides an account of the origin of an important Jewish national festival, the Feast of Purim, which is still observed with rejoicing each year. 3. A vital moral lesson pervades the narrative. With the passing of Haman’s brief day of popularity the transitory nature of earthly power and prosperity becomes painfully evident. God humbles the proud and exalts those who trust in Him. 4. The providence of God is strikingly displayed. Divine power is united with human effort. The means used are human, but the deliverance itself is divine. Outline of the Book. I. Esther Made Queen of Persia, 1:1 to 2:20. A. The official feast of 180 days, 1:1–4. B. The public feast of 7 days, 1:5–9. C. Vashti’s refusal to appear before Ahaseurus, 1:10–12. D. Vashti deposed as queen, 1:13–22. E. The search for a new queen, 2:1–4. F. Esther taken to the palace, 2:5–11. G. Esther made queen of the realm, 2:12–20. II. Haman’s Plot to Exterminate the Jews, 2:21 to 3:15. A. Mordecai, a royal officer, saves the life of Ahaseurus, 2:21–23. B. Haman’s promotion; his resentment toward Mordecai, 3:1–5. C. Haman’s plot to take revenge on Mordecai’s race, 3:6–11. D. Haman’s decree of extermination against the Jews 3:12–15. III. Esther Champions the Cause of Her People, 4:1 to 5:8. A. In consternation, the Jews fast at Haman’s decree, 4:1–3. B. Mordecai appeals to Esther, 4:4–14. C. Esther accepts the challenge, 4:15–17. D. Esther entertains the king and Haman at a banquet, 5:1–8. IV. The Fall of Haman, 5:9 to 7:10. A. Haman’s plot to hang Mordecai, 5:9–14. B. Ahasuerus reminded of Mordecai’s loyal service, 6:1–3. C. Haman compelled to honor Mordecai, 6:4–11. D. Haman warned of the failure of his plot, 6:12–14. E. Esther accuses Haman before Ahasuerus, 7:1–8. F. The execution of Haman, 7:9, 10. V. The Triumph of the Jews Over Their Enemies, 8:1 to 10:3. A. Countermanding the decree of Haman, 8:1–14. B. Mordecai advanced and his people restored to favor, 8:15–17. C. The deliverance and rejoicing of the Jews, 9:1–19.

D. Proclamation of the Feast of Purim, 9:20–32. E. Mordecai made prime minister of Persia, 10:1–3.

Ahasuerus. Heb. ’Achashwerosh, a transliteration of the Persian Khshayârshâ. In some Babylonian tablets the spelling is Achshiyarshu. In the consonantal alphabet of the Elephantine papyri the name appears as Chshy’rsh and Chshyrsh. The meaning of the name is not known. In Greek Khshayârshâ became Xerxes, and in Latin, Assuerus. The names Xerxes and Ahasuerus are therefore equivalent, the one coming from the Persian through the Greek, and the other through both Hebrew and Latin (see PK 598). This is. The writer of the book of Esther seems to have known of more than one ruler named Ahasuerus. The Ahasuerus of the book of Esther is not to be confused with the Ahasuerus of Dan. 9:1, who lived half a century earlier. On the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 see Additional Note on Ezra 4.

Ellen G. White

The throne of his kingdom. The Persian monarch resided part of the year at Ecbatana and sometimes visited Persepolis and Babylon, but Shushan (Susa) was at this time the seat of government (see Dan. 8:2; Esther 9:12). Shushan the palace. Shushan was in the province of Elam (see Dan. 8:2), about 100 mi. (161 km.) north of the present shore line of the Persian Gulf, and a little more than 200 mi. (322 km.) east of Babylon. Originally the capital of Elam, centuries before the time of Esther, the city was situated at the eastern edge of the Tigris valley where the latter rises to meet the Iranian hills. Amid its extensive ruins, which cover an area of more than 3 sq. mi. (4.8 sq. km.), may be seen what remains of the spacious palace in which much of the dramatic narrative of the book of Esther took place. This palace, erected on the site of the former Elamite castle, was originally built by Darius Hystaspes, predecessor of Xerxes. For a brief description of it, see on vs. 5, 6.

The third year. This year ran from approximately April 14, 483 B.C., to April 2, 482 B.C. Perhaps the “feast,” which continued for six months, began in the early spring of the year when the rains were past and travel would be easier and more pleasant. A feast. Or, “banquet.” The word originally meant a “drinking bout.” In view of the fact that Ahasuerus left Shushan a year or two later for his invasion of Greece (see Introduction to Esther), it has been suggested that the princes, governors, and army chiefs were called in from all parts of the realm to participate in planning what all fully expected to be a brilliant and successful campaign. Herodotus (vii. 8) records that Xerxes convened such a council. Perhaps the various officials were summoned in relays over the six months’ period, each for the purpose of discussing with the king his particular responsibility in connection with the campaign. It would be most improbable to find all the officials of the vast empire gathered together thus except for specific political and military discussions. Princes. Or, “[appointed] officials.” Servants. That is, his “courtiers.”

Power. Heb. chayil, “host” (Ex. 14:4), “army” (v. 9), “valiant [man]” (1 Sam. 16:18), etc. If one objective of the feast was, as suggested, the laying of plans for the coming Greek campaign, Ahasuerus would certainly include his chief military officers. Persia and Media. This order, the reverse of that in Daniel (chs. 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15; 8:20), appears repeatedly in the Esther narrative (ch. 1:3, 14, 18, 19) and implies that the account belongs to the time when Persia had replaced Media as the leading partner in the dual empire (see Dan. 7:5; 8:3). In Esther 10:2 the original order is given, perhaps because in “the chronicles” the Median kings came first. Nobles. From a Persian word adopted into the Hebrew language, meaning “the first [men].” Princes of the provinces. That is, the governors, or satraps, in charge of conquered territories. History attests the presence of the satraps at a great convocation in Susa prior to the disastrous campaign against Greece.

Shewed the riches. Ostentation was characteristic of Xerxes. Vain display marked the huge army with which he invaded Greece. The fabulous wealth of Persia is commented on by contemporary writers of various nationalities. Among the glories of the Persian palace were the walls draped with gold, the marble pillars and rich hangings, a golden plane tree and a golden vine. Excavations at Susa (Shushan) have proved that the writer of Esther was intimately acquainted with the palace and with Persian court customs and regulations, since the descriptions he gives agree to the last detail with the results of archeological investigation. Impressed by this fact, scholars affirm that only someone who knew the royal palace personally, or who knew someone who did, could have given the story its accurate setting. An hundred and fourscore days. It is not necessary to suppose that the same persons were entertained throughout this whole period. It would hardly be safe for the provincial governors all to leave their provinces at the same time, and to remain away for that length of time. It is probable that Ahasuerus entertained a succession of guests during the six months that the “feast” continued.

A feast. Perhaps Ahasuerus’ purpose was to secure the loyalty of the subjects of the capital city during his extended absence in Greece. If so, this was an astute political move. Only males, of course, were included, for Queen Vashti gave a separate banquet for the women (v. 9). The court of the garden. The ruins of Xerxes’ palace are sufficiently well preserved to make possible a description of some of its parts. The king’s gate in which Mordecai sat, the court where Esther appeared unbidden—these and some other sections of the palace have been located. The palace are occupied approximately 300 yards on each side. The main gate lay to the south. To the northeast of the palace proper was the spacious apadâna, or throne hall. This immense building, 330 ft. on a side, was probably reached by stairs of gigantic proportions. The flat roof of the central part was supported by 36 slender, fluted columns with carved capitals, and arranged in 6 rows of 6 columns each. The front of the building was perhaps open, whereas the rear and side walls were of brick, faced with enamel friezes. Gold, silver, and precious stones were used lavishly in the decoration of the throne hall. Greek writers tell of a golden plane tree and a golden vine in this court. To

the northwest of the palace proper, it is thought, was the “garden,” or park. It was in and about the apadâna that many of the incidents related in the book of Esther occurred.

White, green, and blue, hangings. Literally, “white cotton and violet [material].” The word rendered “green” in the KJV is from the Sanskrit word for “cotton.” Note that the word “hangings” is supplied. These “hangings,” or awnings, were probably made of white and violet cotton fabric. Cords of fine linen and purple. Strong “cords” would be required to support the awning if it extended, as some have thought, from the central pillared hall across the mosaic-paved court, a space of nearly 60 ft. Pillars of marble. The pillars at Shushan were of dark-blue limestone. The Hebrew word shesh, “marble,” probably refers to this limestone or alabaster rather than to what we usually think of as “marble.” Pavement. The four Hebrew words translated “red,” “blue,” “white,” and “black” do not denote colors, but the various kinds of stone and other materials in the mosaic pavement. Dark-blue limestone is mentioned as being used in the pavement as well as for the pillars.

Vessels of gold. Golden goblets were found in considerable numbers in the Persian camp near Plataea by the victorious Greeks. Diverse one from another. This detail must have come from an eyewitness, or from one who had received an account of the banquet from an eyewitness. Royal wine. Or, “wine of the kingdom,” that is, from the royal cellar.

According to the law. The king made an edict, it would seem, that each guest should drink as much as he wished to personally, rather than vie with the others in a drinking bout.

Vashti the queen. The only wife of Xerxes of whom the Greeks made record was Amestris. Xerxes had married her before ascending the throne, when he became of marriageable age. Herodotus and Ctesias speak of her cruelty and dissolute ways. However it cannot be proved that Amestris and Vashti were the same person. Like Esther (see ch. 2:7), the queen may have been known by more than one name.

Ellen G. White

Chamberlains. Literally, “eunuchs,” who alone would have access to the women’s quarters. The derivation and meaning of the names of these eunuchs are doubtful. Eunuchs were often foreign slaves deliberately mutilated for sale on the Persian market. The Persians considered the number 7 sacred.

Ellen G. White

Bring Vashti. Having displayed the wealth and glory of his kingdom, Ahasuerus’ thoughts finally turned to his beautiful queen. The display of her beauty would, he thought, climax the exhibition.

Vashti refused. The reason for the queen’s refusal is not clear. Some have suggested that Ahasuerus intended an immodest display of Vashti’s beauty, but the context provides no clue as to whether this was his purpose. The Jewish targums, however, assume that her motive for refusing to appear was her desire to avoid such a display, Josephus attributes her refusal to what he, mistakenly, thought to be a Persian custom, one that presumably prohibited married women from associating with strangers. Other ancient Jewish writers set forth a variety of imaginary or preposterous explanations, none of which warrant serious consideration. Ahasuerus’ order specifying that Vashti wear the royal crown (v. 11) implies that he was thinking of her, not merely as a beautiful woman, but also as the first woman of the

land. That it was actually good taste for Persian women to appear at the banquet table with strangers is evident from Esther 5:4. Chaldean wives and concubines also joined their husbands in drunken feasting (Dan. 5:2). According to Neh. 2:1–6 the queen of Ahasuerus’ son and successor, Artaxerxes I, accompanied her lord at wine. Several Greek writers confirm the presence of Persian women at feasts. Herodotus, a contemporary of Ahasuerus, speaks of Amestris (see on Esther 1:9) at the king’s birthday feast (ix. 110). There is no reason for thinking that contemporary Persian custom secluded women, and that it would therefore have been improper for Vashti to appear when summoned, in spite of the fact that the men were drinking (see ch. 7:7). The fact that Vashti held a banquet for the women of Shushan simultaneously with that of Ahasuerus for the men implies cooperation with his policy in promoting popular loyalty to the throne. Nothing in the record gives a clue to the reason for Vashti’s refusal to obey the king’s command. His anger burned. See on Gen. 4:5.

Ellen G. White

Wise men. That is, the king’s advisers. Angry as he is, Ahasuerus seeks counsel. In the presence of his whole court it would be unseemly for him to vent his passion in violent words and threats. Instead of issuing a hasty order, he proceeds deliberately to consider what steps should be taken. Ahasuerus seems to have relied heavily on his counselors (see chs. 3:8–10; 8:1–8; 9:12–14), and now invites the opinion of his “wise men” as to how to deal with Vashti. Knew the times. Persons of learning and experience who were acquainted with precedents and knew what would be the proper thing to do on any particular occasion. The king’s manner. That is, his method of proceeding. Each matter that concerned the king he submitted to learned men for their opinion before making his decision. It was probably a general usage of the Persian monarchy to which the writer here makes reference, rather than the practice of Ahasuerus only.

The seven princes. Ezra also credits the Persian monarch with seven special counselors (see Ezra 7:14), who might be considered the king’s cabinet. Herodotus observed that there were seven leading families in Persia whose heads had special privileges. Saw the king’s face. Among the special privileges of these men, one of the most valued was that of free access to the monarch at all times.

According to law. The king did not wish to appear vindictive. Furthermore, the rulers of Persia were in a certain sense limited monarchs (see Esther 1:19; 8:8; cf. Dan. 6:8–16). It is as if the king said, Let us put aside all feeling and simply consider what the law requires. If a queen disobeys the king openly in the face of his court, what, according to proper legal procedure, should be done to her? Back of this emphasis on law was the boast of the Medo-Persian government that Medo-Persian laws were unchangeable.

Memucan answered. Memucan is spokesman for the entire group of seven special counselors. In his answer he implies that Persian law provided no penalty for the case at hand. It had not, in fact, contemplated a case of this kind. There was no precedent. To the king only. On behalf of the seven counselors, Memucan takes the matter away from being simply one of a personal grudge on the part of the king, and raises it to the level of a matter of state. He thus exonerates the king of vindictiveness and provides a basis in common law for dealing with the case.

Ellen G. White

Despise their husbands. Literally, “cause to be despised their lords in their eyes.” Memucan here implies that Vashti had despised Ahasuerus. Whether he refers to Vashti’s motive for not obeying the royal command or simply to the act itself is not clear.

The ladies. Heb. śaroth, plural of śarah, “princess” (see on Gen. 17:15). The “princesses” would speak discourteously to their husbands, the princes. The writer is careful to refer to Persia before Media (see on Esther 1:3). Too much contempt and wrath. Or, “contempt and wrath in plenty” (RSV), that is, contempt on the part of the wives and wrath on the part of the husbands.

A royal commandment. Literally, “a command of the kingdom.” Under ordinary circumstances such a matter as the disgrace of a favorite wife would have been settled in the secrecy of the seraglio, without calling general attention to it. In Memucan’s opinion the publicity of Vashti’s disobedience made it expedient that she be dealt with publicly. Be written. An edict concerning an individual was hardly a suitable thing to add to a national code of laws, but decrees of a temporary nature were sometimes attached to the code, apparently for the express purpose of giving them force by rendering them unalterable (Dan. 6:8, 9). Come no more. Vashti was to be banished, not from the palace, but from the king’s presence. This, together with the loss of her favored position as queen, would bring supreme disgrace. Beauty alone could not save her (see on v. 12).

The king’s decree. Here the “commandment” of the previous verse is called a “decree.” For it is great. Or, “vast as it is” (RSV).

The king did. Vashti was separated, but not divorced, from the king. The grounds for this action were published throughout the provinces, so that none might misunderstand. Ahasuerus’ care in handling the case suggests the idea that Vashti may have been the daughter of a prominent Persian whose support the king sought to retain, or perhaps the daughter of the prince of one of his subject peoples.

For he sent. More exactly, “and he sent.” Besides publishing the decree, Xerxes issued with it a covering letter designed to safeguard the realm against the dangers Memucan had pointed out (see v. 18).