Esther 1 Footnotes

1:19 Skeptics note that there is no extrabiblical evidence for this policy. They claim that such a policy would make it very difficult to administer a kingdom. Granted such a policy could make things difficult at times, but it does not make them impossible. In Esther, the king overcame a later problem with this policy by permitting Esther and Mordecai to issue another command that in essence allowed the Jews to counter the effects of an irrevocable law (see 3:10-12; 8:8-10). Herodotus provides an example of a similar type of policy. He notes that at the Royal Supper, the annual celebration of the king’s birthday, no one who made a request of the king could be denied the request. It was called “the law of the Supper” (Her 9:109). In this case as well, Herodotus relates that the king attempted to prevent the fulfillment of the request by circumventing it rather than canceling it.

1:22 The king and his advisers were worried that Vashti’s disobedience would encourage other wives to disobey their husbands, so the king issued a command that husbands were to be the masters in their homes. The Hebrew word for “master” (sarar) refers to a lord/subject relationship. This is not what the Bible teaches about headship. The biblical model of headship is to be exercised in the home in a spirit of servant-leadership, not a spirit of domination. This passage should not be used to teach the principle of headship, nor should it be used to discredit that model. What the king had in mind here is unbiblical (Eph 5:22-33).