Esther 1 - CSB Study Bible

Esther 1

1:1-2 Ahasuerus is the Hebrew name for King Xerxes, who ruled from 486 to 465 BC; he is mentioned only two other times in the rest of the OT (Ezr 4:6; Dn 9:1). Critical scholars regard the statement that Ahasuerus ruled 127 provinces as an error, yet this is not an impossible figure (cp. Dn 6:1). The Persian records speak of satrapies, which according to various accounts, would number between twenty and thirty-one; but the term used in this verse is provinces (Hb medinah), which would be subdivisions of a satrapy. An example of this from Ezra-Nehemiah (see note at Ezr 4:11) would be the division of the satrapy of “Beyond the River” into many provinces, such as Samaria and Yehud (Hb for Judah). The easternmost border of the vast Persian Empire was the Indus River, now in Pakistan but once part of India during the time of the British raj. The westernmost extent of the empire was to Cush, the region south of Egypt called Upper Nubia, which today is part of northern Sudan.

Chapter 1 of Esther is set in the fortress (Hb birah) at Susa, one of the three capital cities of the Persian Empire along with Ecbatana and Persepolis (some would argue that Babylon was also a capital city). It is located in what is today southwestern Iran and was the capital of the ancient empire of Elam during the second millennium BC. During Xerxes’s rule Susa was the usual location of his winter palace.

1:3-4 In the third year of Ahasuerus, probably 483 BC, there occurred the first of ten feasts recorded in Esther, which are important structural and thematic markers in the book. The word “feast” (Hb mishteh) is derived from the Hebrew verb shathah, meaning “to drink.” The feast was more of a drinking bout than a meal. The ancient Greek writers mentioned that the Persians were famous (or infamous) for their prodigious drinking.

Many critical scholars assume the mention of 180 days to be a legendary exaggeration. However, it is not clear whether v. 4 suggests that the party itself went on for 180 days, or instead that for a half year after the party there was a royal celebration in which Ahasuerus displayed the glorious wealth of his kingdom. It is more likely the latter, since it is difficult to imagine how the government could function during a six-month drunken celebration. Also, it seems unlikely that a 180-day party would continue into the brutal summer heat, a time when the royal family normally relocated to their summer palace in Ecbatana.

1:5-8 Unlike the first feast, the second banquet (or “feast,” v. 3; Hb mishteh) was not for the nobility but for all the citizenry in the fortress of Susa. The event is described in great detail (v. 6) to highlight the opulence and wealth of the king. For the Persians, it must have been regarded as a fabulous party because the royal wine flowed freely, according to the king’s bounty (lit “according to the hand of the king”). Moreover, according to royal decree each guest could drink as much as he desired or was capable of drinking since there are no restrictions (lit “as to the law [Hb dath] of the drinking, no restraint”).

1:9 The third feast was given by Queen Vashti, who is mentioned in this verse; it was only for the women. Both biblical and extrabiblical sources demonstrate that women were often present at the feasts, but their presence was not mentioned at the two earlier feasts (vv. 3,5). Neither Persian nor Greek records mention a queen named Vashti, but rather identify Amestris as queen during Xerxes’s reign. Most critical scholars regard the reference to Vashti as a historical blunder on the part of the author of Esther. However, several prominent OT scholars suggest that “Vashti” may be not a proper name but a title, possibly related to the Avestan (ancient Indo-Iranian language) Vahishta, meaning “the best.” Vashti disappears from the story when she is replaced by Esther (2:17).

1:10-12 Jewish readers who were well versed in the Scriptures would probably recognize the ominous mention of feeling good from the wine. King Belshazzar was also “under the influence of the wine” (Dn 5:2) when he literally saw the writing on the wall. Most of the references to eunuchs in the OT occur in the book of Esther. They held positions of power, such as serving as cupbearer, and could be trusted with the care of the royal wives and concubines. Three of the names listed for the eunuchs (Mehuman, Biztha . . . Carkas) have parallels with names found in the Elamite Persepolis texts (Edwin Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible). The king’s call for seven eunuchs could suggest that Queen Vashti was carried to the banquet on a royal litter.

No one was as shocked as King Ahasuerus when Queen Vashti refused his royal command. Both of the Jewish Targums of Esther (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hb text) state that the king commanded Vashti to appear before his drunken friends wearing only her crown, but this is an unlikely reading of the text. Ahasuerus’s intense fury was predictable. His own wife had publicly disobeyed the most powerful man in the Persian Empire. The chronology of this event may give additional insight into the king’s anger. If this occurred in “the third year” (v. 3) of Ahasuerus’s rule (483 BC), it might coincide with the preparations for war with the Greeks. As Karen Jobes writes, “Ahasuerus needed his men to obey his commands as they went to war, but in his own palace he could not even get his own wife to obey.”

1:13-14 Some suggest the phrase who understood the times refers to astrologers and translate the phrase as “who understood propitious times.” However, the answer from these wise men does not mention the stars or the zodiac. More likely the reference to those who “understood the times” is like the usage in 1Ch 12:32 in which the men of Issachar “understood the times,” that is, they were simply wise men. The names of the seven wise men, also called officials (Hb sarim), are not identifiable with known Persian individuals, but for three of the men (Meres, Marsena, and Memucan), Elamite parallels have been found for their names (see Yamauchi).

1:15 It was customary for the king to consult with advisers (v. 13).

1:16-17 Memucan’s recommendation (vv. 19-20) was based on his assertion that Queen Vashti’s action was not just a personal affront but also a universal affront against all (Hb kol) the officials and all (Hb kol) the peoples who lived in all (Hb kol) the provinces. Memucan’s exaggeration served only to legitimize the poor advice he was about to give the king.

1:18 The syntax of the Hebrew text of v. 18 is difficult because there is no object for the verb they will say (Hb to’marna). One simple solution is to assume the loss of a definite article marker (Hb ’eth) before the phrase who hear. This would give a translation such as “the noble women of Persia and Media will say what they have heard about the queen’s act.”

1:19 The irrevocability of the laws of Persia and Media is not documented either in Persian or Greek literature, although it is mentioned several times in the OT (8:8; Dn 6:8,12). Some scholars regard this as an historical inaccuracy on the part of the author; Michael V. Fox writes, “It would be impossible to run a government by such a principle.” But as D. J. A. Clines very plausibly notes, “The meaning here is that the decision should be incorporated among official decisions so that it will be strictly carried out.” The consort was always called “Queen Vashti” until this verse; now she is simply Vashti.

1:20 This passage is replete with irony and satire. King Ahasuerus, who could not control his own wife, now issues a universal decree that all women would honor their husbands.

1:21-22 The final phrase of the decree is unusual and has engendered much debate: and speak in the language of his own people. Some scholars suggest changing the text, while others follow the LXX and simply delete it (NRSV, NLT). Another possibility is to understand the phrase “speak in the language of the people” as referring to the decree and not to the husband. The issuance of the decree to the entire empire is ironic because it ensured that everyone in the empire would know about the king’s marital struggles, and not just the “noble women” of Susa (v. 18).

Betulah designated young woman, for betulah is paired with bachur, which implies fit young man (2Ch 36:17). A betulah was normally unmarried (Lv 21:14) and was expected to be a virgin because Israelite sexual law put a penalty on premarital sex (Dt 22:23-29). Betulah may not have had to entail virginity, for this fact is sometimes added after the word (Gn 24:16). Occasionally betulah must signify virgin (Ezk 44:22; Est 2:2). Tamar probably tore her dress, one worn by virgins, to mark her grief at losing this status (2Sm 13:18-19). Betulah can encompass an engaged woman (Jl 1:8). Harem virgins are still called betulah after spending a night with the king (Est 2:17), and a betulah can be ravished (Is 23:12). Whether betulah is virgin or young woman depends on what Scripture emphasizes. The stress can be on youth and stage in life (Ezk 9:6) or on virginity (Dt 22:19).