Esther 1 Footnotes

1:1 The 127 provinces mentioned here should not be confused with the mention of 120 satraps in Dn 6:1. This difference does not reveal an error. First, the texts come from two different periods during Persian rule. The Daniel text relates an incident that occurred in the early years of the Persian Empire during the reign of a ruler identified as Darius, whereas this passage refers to a later time in the Persian period during the reign of Ahasuerus/Xerxes. It is certainly possible that different administrations subdivided the empire differently. Second, the Esther passage refers to administrative districts, whereas the Daniel passage refers to administrators. It is also possible that some administrators had more than one province assigned to them. Also, this passage should not be compared to the mention by Herodotus that Darius had divided the Persian Empire into twenty satrapies (Her 3:89). Verse 1 refers to “provinces” (Hb medinoth), which are smaller regions than “satrapies” (Hb satrapeiai).

1:3-4 Critics question the likelihood that the king would have held a feast that lasted 180 days. They contend that this is an exaggeration that reveals the fictional nature of the story. It is of interest that the noncanonical book of Judith mentions a victory celebration by Nebuchadnezzar that lasted 120 days (Jdt 1:16). However, it is likely that two different activities are described here. The king held a feast for all these people, and he also displayed the wealth of his kingdom for 180 days. There is no reason to think that the people feasted for 180 days and then immediately followed that with a weeklong banquet (Est 1:5). When examined in the light of the historical record, the events gain more clarity. Ahasuerus became king in 486 BC. In 484 BC he successfully put down two revolts. It is easy to imagine that the king would celebrate these victories with a feast. Furthermore, it was around this time that he began to prepare for his campaign against Greece, which began in 480 BC. Many scholars believe that Ahasuerus used the six-month period described here to convince his leadership that he had the wealth that would be required to field an army large enough to defeat Greece.

1:10-12 The king commanded his wife to display herself in an inappropriate manner. We are not given the details of why Vashti felt her appearance at the banquet would be inappropriate. The writer’s primary focus in the narrative is to explain Esther’s rise to the throne. In the course of doing so, he shows Ahasuerus to be a pompous and selfish man, driven by his own lusts, and ruling by whim. In contrast, Vashti, brief though her appearance is, conveys strength. While the king condemned Vashti’s refusal to put herself on display, the Bible does not.

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).