{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"EST","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Esther","commonName":"Esther","introduction":"The Book of Esther\n\nIntroduction\n\n1. Name, Contents, Object, and Unity of the Book of Esther\n\nThis book bears the name of אסתּר or אסתּר מגלּת, book of Esther, also briefly that of מגלּה with the Rabbis, from Esther the Jewess, afterwards raised to the rank of queen, to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance from the destruction with which they were threatened, as related in this book.\n\nIts contents are as follows: - Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom at Susa; and on the seventh day of this feast, when his heart was merry with wine, required the Queen Vashti to appear before his guests and show her beauty. When she refused to come at the king's commandment, she was divorced, at the proposal of his seven counsellors; and this divorce was published by an edict throughout the whole kingdom, lest the example of the queen should have a bad effect upon the obedience of other wives to their husbands (Est 1). When the king, after his wrath was appeased, began again to feel a tenderness towards his divorced wife, the most beautiful virgins in the whole kingdom were, at the advice of his servants, brought to the house of the women at Susa, that the king might choose a wife at his pleasure. Among these virgins was Esther the Jewess, the foster-daughter and near relative of Mordochai, a Benjamite living in exile, who, when brought before the king, after the customary preparation, so pleased him, that he chose her for his queen. Her intercourse with Mordochai continued after her reception into the royal palace; and during his daily visits in the gate of the palace, he discovered a conspiracy against the life of the king, and thus rendered him an important service (Est 2). Ahashverosh afterwards made Haman, an Agagite, his prime minister or grand visier, and commanded all the king's servants to pay him royal honours, i.e., to bow down before him. When this was refused by Mordochai, Haman's indignation was so great, that he resolved to destroy all the Jews in the whole empire. For this purpose he appointed, by means of the lot, both the month and day; and obtained from the king permission to prepare an edict to all the provinces of the kingdom, appointing the thirteenth day of the twelfth month for the extermination of the Jews throughout the whole realm (Est 3:1-15). Mordochai apprised Queen Esther of this cruel command, and so strongly urged her to apply to the king on behalf of her people, that she resolved, at the peril of her life, to appear before him unbidden. When she was so favourably received by him, that he promised beforehand to grant whatever she had to request, even to the half of his kingdom, she first entreated that the king and Haman should eat with her that day. During the repast, the king inquired concerning her request, and she answered that she would declare it on the following day, if the king and Haman would again eat with her (Est 4:1-8). Haman, greatly elated at this distinction, had the mortification, on his departure from the queen, of beholding Mordochai, who did not rise up before him, in the gate of the palace; and returning to his house, formed, by the advice of his wife and friends, the resolution of hanging Mordochai next day upon a gallows; for which purpose he immediately caused a tree fifty cubits high to be prepared (Est 5:9-14). Next night, however, the king, being unable to sleep, caused the records of the kingdom to be read to him, and was thereby reminded of the obligation he was under to Mordochai. When, on this occasion, he learnt that Mordochai had as yet received no reward for his service, he sent for Haman, who had resorted thus early to the court of the palace for the purpose of obtaining the royal permission for the execution of Mordochai, and asked him what should be done to the man whom the King desired to honour. Haman, thinking his honour concerned himself, proposed the very highest, and was by the king's command obliged, to his extreme mortification, himself to pay this honour to Mordochai, his wife and friends interpreting this occurrence as an omen of his approaching ruin (Est 6:1-14). When the king and Haman afterwards dined with Esther, the queen begged for her life and that of her people, and pointed to Haman as the enemy who desired to exterminate the Jews. Full of wrath at this information, the king went into the garden of the palace; while Haman, remaining in the room, fell at the feet of the queen to beg for his life. When the king, returning to the banquet chamber, saw Haman lying on the queen's couch, he thought he was offering violence to the queen, passed sentence of death upon him, caused him to be hanged upon the gallows he had erected for Mordochai (Est 7:1-10), and on the same day gave his house to the queen, and made Mordochai his prime minister in the place of Haman (Est 8:1-2). Hereupon Esther earnestly entreated the reversal of Haman's edict against the Jews; and since, according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, an edict issued by the king and sealed with the seal-royal could not be repealed, the king commanded Mordochai to prepare and publish throughout the whole kingdom another edict, whereby the Jews were permitted, to their great joy and that of many other inhabitants of the realm (Est 8:3-17), not only to defend themselves against the attacks of their enemies on the appointed day, but also to kill and plunder them. In consequence of this, the Jews assembled on the appointed day to defend their lives against their adversaries; and being supported by the royal officials, through fear of Mordochai, they slew in Susa 500, and in the whole kingdom 75,000 men, besides 300 more in Susa on the day following, but did not touch the goods of the slain. They then celebrated in Susa the fifteenth, and in the rest of the kingdom the fourteenth, day of the month Adar, as a day of feasting and gladness (Est 9:1-19). Hereupon Mordochai and Queen Esther sent letters to all the Jews in the kingdom, in which they ordered the yearly celebration of this day, by the name of the feast of Purim, i.e., lots, because Haman had cast lots concerning the destruction of the Jews (Est 9:20-32). In conclusion, the documents in which are described the acts of Ahashverosh and the greatness of Mordochai, who had exerted himself for the good of his people, are pointed out (Est 10:1-3).\n\nFrom this glance at its contents, it is obvious that the object of this book is to narrate the events in remembrance of which the feast of Purim was celebrated, and to transmit to posterity an account of its origin. The aim of the entire contents of this book being the institution of this festival, with which it concludes, there can be no reasonable doubt of its integrity, which is also generally admitted. Bertheau, however, after the example of J. D. Michaelis, has declared the sections Est 9:20-28 and Est 9:29-32 to be later additions, incapable of inclusion in the closely connected narrative of Est 1-9:19, and regards Est 10:1-3 as differing from it both in matter and language. The sections in question are said to be obviously distinct from the rest of the book. But all that is adduced in support of this assertion is, that the words קיּם, to institute (Est 9:21, Est 9:27, Est 9:29, Est 9:31), סוּף, to come to an end, to cease (Est 9:28), the plural צומות, fasts (Est 9:31), and an allusion to the decree in a direct manner, occur only in these sections. In such a statement, however, no kind of consideration is given to the circumstance that there was no opportunity for the use of קיּם סוּף and the plur. צומות in the other chapters. Hence nothing remains but the direct introduction of the decree, which is obviously insufficient to establish a peculiarity of language. Still weaker is the proof offered of diversity of matter between Est 9:20-32 and Est 9-9:19; Bertheau being unable to make this appear in any way, but by wrongly attributing to the word קיּם the meaning: to confirm a long-existing custom.\n\n2. Historical Character of the Book of Esther\n\nThe feast of Purim is mentioned, 2 Macc. 15:36, under the name of Μαρδοχαΐκή ἡμέρα, as a festival existing in the time of Nicanor (about 160 b.c.); and Josephus tells us, Ant. xi. 6. 13, that it was kept by the Jews during a whole week. Now the institution of this festival must have been based upon an historical event similar to that related in this book. Hence even this is sufficient to show that the assertion of Semler, Oeder, and others, that this book contains a fictitious parable (confictam esse universam parabolam), is a notion opposed to common sense. For if this festival has been from of old celebrated by the Jews all over the world, it must owe its origin to an occurrence which affected the whole Jewish people, and the names Purim and Mordochai's day are a pledge, that the essential contents of this book are based upon an historical foundation. The name Purim (i.e., lots), derived from the Persian, can be suitably explained in no other manner than is done in this book, viz., by the circumstance that lots were cast on the fate of the Jews by a Persian official, who contemplated their extermination, for the purpose of fixing on a favourable day for this act; while the name, Mordochai's day, preserves the memory of the individual to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance. Hence all modern critics admit, that at least an historical foundation is thus guaranteed, while a few doubt the strictly historical character of the whole narrative, and assert that while the feat of Purim was indeed celebrated in remembrance of a deliverance of the Jews in the Persian empire, it was the existence of this festival, and the accounts given by those who celebrated it, which gave rise to the written narrative of the history of Esther (thus Bertheau). On the other hand, the historical character of the whole narrative has been defended not only by Hvernick (Einl.), M. Baumgarten (de fide libri Estherae, 1839), and others, but also, and upon valid grounds, by Staehelin (spec. Einl. in die kanon. BB. des A. T. 51f.). The objections that have been raised to its credibility have arisen, first from the habit of making subjective probability the standard of historical truth, and next from an insufficient or imperfect attention to the customs, manners, and state of affairs at the Persian court on the one hand, or an incorrect view of the meaning of the text on the other. When, e.g., Bertheau as well as Bleek (Einleit. p. 286) says, \"The whole is of such a nature that the unprejudiced observer cannot easily regard it as a purely historical narrative,\" Cleric. (dissert. de scriptoribus librr. hist. 10) far more impartially and correctly decides: Mirabilis sane est et παράδοξος (quis enim neget?) historia, sed multa mirabilia et a moribus nostris aliena olim apud orientales ut apud omnes alios populos contigerunt. The fact that King Ahashverosh should grant his grand vizier Haman permission to publish an edict commanding the extermination of the Jews throughout his empire, is not challenged by either Bleek or Bertheau; and, indeed, we need not go so far as the despotic states of the East to meet with similar occurrences; the Parisian massacre of St. Bartholomew being a sufficient proof that the apparently incredible may be actual reality.\n\n(Note: Rosenmller (bibl. Altertumsk. i. 1, p. 379) calls to mind Mithridates king of Pontus, who, when at war with the Romans, secretly issued an order to all the satraps and local authorities his realm, to assassinate all Romans, without distinction of age or sex, on an appointed day, in consequence of which 80,000 perished on one day; also the pasha of Zaid Mehmed in the sixteenth century, who surprised the nation of the Druses, and put to death all whom he met with (comp. Arvieux, merkw. Nachr. i. p. 391); and then continues: \"It is almost more incredible that a ruler should, from the blindness of religious zeal, either execute or drive out of his realm 100,000 of his most diligent and prosperous subjects; yet the history of modern Europe offers us, in Ferdinand the Catholic, who chased 300,000 Jews from Spain, and Louis XIV, who, after putting some thousands of Protestants to death, banished hundreds of thousands from France, examples of such incredible events.\")\n\nAnd all the other statements of this book, however seemingly unaccountable to us, become conceivable when we consider the character of King Ahashverosh, i.e., as is now generally admitted, of Xerxes, who is described by Greek and Roman historians as a very luxurious, voluptuous, and at the same time an extremely cruel tyrant. A despot who, after his army had been hospitably entertained on its march to Greece, and an enormous sum offered towards defraying the expenses of the war, by Pythius the rich Lydian, could be betrayed into such fury by the request of the latter, that of his five sons who were in the army the eldest might be released, to be the comfort of his declining years, as to command this son to be hewn into two pieces, and to make his army pass between them (Herod. vii. c. 37-39; Seneca, de ira, vii. 17); a tyrant who could behead the builders of the bridge over the Hellespont, because a storm had destroyed the bridge, and command the sea to be scourged, and to be chained by sinking a few fetters (Herod. vii. 35); a debauchee who, after his return from Greece, sought to drive away his vexation at the shameful defeat he had undergone, by revelling in sensual pleasures (Herod. ix. 108f.); so frantic a tyrant was capable of all that is told us in the book of Esther of Ahashverosh.\n\nBleek's objections to the credibility of the narrative consist of the following points: a. That it is inconceivable that if the Persian despot had formed a resolution to exterminate all the Jews in his kingdom, he would, even though urged by a favourite, have proclaimed this by a royal edict published throughout all the provinces of his kingdom twelve months previously. In advancing this objection, however, Bleek has not considered that Haman cast lots for the appointment of the day on which his project was to be carried into execution; the Persians being, according to Herod. iii. 128, Cyrop. i. 6. 46, frequently accustomed to resort to the lot; while not only in Strabo's time, but to the present day, also, everything is with them decided according to the dicta of soothsayers and astrologers. If, then, the lot had declared the day in question to be a propitious one for the matter contemplated, the haughty Haman would not reflect that the premature publication of the edict would afford a portion of the Jews the opportunity of escaping destruction by flight. Such reflections are inconsistent with absolute confidence in the power of magical decisions; and even if what was possible had ensued, he would still have attained his main object of driving the Jews out of the realm, and appropriating their possessions. - b. That at this time Judea, which was then almost wholly reinhabited by Jews, was among the provinces of Persia, and that hence the king's edict commanded the extermination of almost all the population of that country. This, he says, it is difficult to believe; and not less so, that when the first edict was not repealed, the second, which granted the Jews permission to defend themselves against their enemies, should have resulted everywhere in such success to the Jews, even though, from fear of Mordochai the new favourite, they were favoured by the royal officials, that all should in all countries submit to them, and that they should kill 75,000 men, equally with themselves subjects of the king. To this it may be replied: that Judea was, in relation to the whole Persian realm, a very unimportant province, and in the time of Xerxes, as is obvious from the book of Ezra, by no means \"almost wholly,\" but only very partially, inhabited by Jews, who were, moreover, regarded with such hostility by the other races dwelling among them, that the execution of the decree cannot appear impossible even here. With regard to the result of the second edict, the slaughter of 75,000 men, this too is perfectly comprehensible. For since, according to Medo-Persian law, the formal repeal of a royal edict issued according to legal form was impracticable, the royal officials would understand the sense and object of the second, and not trouble themselves much about the execution of the first, but, on the contrary, make the second published by Mordochai, who was at that time the highest dignitary in the realm, their rule of action for the purpose of ensuring his favour. Round numbers, moreover, of the slain are evidently given; i.e., they are given upon only approximate statements, and are not incredibly high, when the size and population of the kingdom are considered. The Persian empire, in its whole extent from India to Ethiopia, must have contained a population of at least 100,000,000, and the number of Jews in the realm must have amounted to from two to three millions. A people of from two to three millions would include, moreover, at least from 500,000 to 700,000 capable of bearing arms, and these might in battle against their enemies slay 75,000 men. Susa, the capital, would not have been less than the Stamboul of the present day, and would probably contain at least half a million of inhabitants; and it by no means surpasses the bounds of probability, that in such a town 500 men should be slain in one day, and 300 more on the following, in a desperate street fight. Nor can the numbers stated by looked upon as too high a computation. The figures are only rendered improbable by the notion, that the Jews themselves suffered no loss at all. Such an assumption, however, is by no means justified by the circumstance, that such losses are unmentioned. It is the general custom of the scriptural historians to give in their narratives of wars and battles only the numbers of the slain among the vanquished foes, and not to mention the losses of the victors. We are justified, however, in supposing that the war was of an aggravated character, from the fact that it bore not only a national, but also a religious character. Haman's wrath against Mordochai was so exasperated by the information that he was a Jews, that he resolved upon the extermination of the people of Mordochai, i.e., of all the Jews in the realm (Est 3:4-6). To obtain the consent of the king, he accused the Jews as a scattered and separated people, whose laws were different from the laws of all other nations, of not observing the laws of the king. This accusation was, \"from the standpoint of Parseeism, the gravest which could have been made against the Jews\" (Haev. Einl. ii. 1, p. 348). The separation of the Jews from all other people, a consequence of the election of Israel to be the people of God, has at all times inflamed and nourished the hatred of the Gentiles and of the children of this world against them. This hatred, which was revived by the edict of Haman, could not be quenched by the counter-edict of Mordochai. Though this edict so inspired the royal officials with fear of the powerful minister, that they took part with, instead of against the Jews, yet the masses of the people, and especially the populations of towns, would not have paid such respect to it as to restrain their hatred against the Jews. The edict of Mordochai did not forbid the execution of that of Haman, but only allowed the Jews to stand up for their lives, and to slay such enemies as should attack them (Est 8:11). The heathen were not thereby restrained from undertaking that fight against the Jews, in which they were eventually the losers.\n\nWhen, however, c. Bleek finds it \"utterly unnatural\" that, after the Jews had slain 500 of their foes in one day in Susa, the king should, at the request of Esther, whose vengeance and thirst of blood were not yet appeased, have granted an edict that the slaughter should be renewed on the following day, when no attack upon the Jews was permitted, his objection rests upon a sheer misunderstanding of the whole affair. The queen only requested that \"it should be granted to the Jews in Susa to do to-morrow also, according to the decree of to-day\" (Est 9:13), i.e., \"to stand for their lives, and slay all who should assault them\" (Est 8:11). This petition presupposes that the heathen population of Susa would renew the attack upon the Jews on the next day. Hence it is evident that Bleek's assertion, that the heathen were not allowed on that day to renew their attack upon the Jews, is an erroneous notion, and one at variance with the text. Together with this erroneous assumption, the reproach of vengeance and bloodthirstiness raised against Esther is also obviated. Her foresight in securing the lives of her people against renewed attacks, betrays neither revenge nor cruelty. Unless the heathen population had attacked the Jews on the second day, the latter would have had no opportunity of slaying their foes. How little, too, the Jews in general were influenced by a desire of vengeance, is shown by the fact so repeatedly brought forward, that they laid not their hand on the spoil of the slain (Est 9:9, Est 9:15), though this was granted them by the royal edict (Est 8:11). - d. Bleek's remaining objections are based partly upon misrepresentations of the state of affairs, and partly upon erroneous notions of Eastern customs.\n\n(Note: E.g., the remark that, though all Susa was thrown into consternation by the edict of Haman, it rejoiced greatly at the second; where Bleek has inserted all to make the matter appear incredible by exaggeration. In the text we only read \"the city of Susa was perplexed\" (Est 3:15), \"the city of Susa rejoiced and was glad\" (Est 8:15); i.e., in the city of Susa there was in the one instance perplexity, in the other rejoicing. Also that the king published a special decree in all the provinces of his kingdom, that every man should be master in his own house, - a misinterpretation of the passage Est 1:22; see the explanation of this verse. Finally, the difficulty that Esther, as queen-consort, should have concealed her nationality so long as is stated in the narrative, can exist only for those unacquainted with the state of affairs in the harem of an Oriental prince. The Persian monarchs, who had a fresh concubine for each day, would certainly be ignorant of the descent of each; and though, according to Herod. 3:84, the queens were generally of the race of Achaemenides, yet the same historian also relates (3:31) of Cambyses, that the royal δικασταί declared to him, with respect to his marriage with a sister, that: τῷ βασιλεύοντι Περσέων ἐξεῖναι ποιέειν τὸ ἂν βούληται. The case, too, of a concubine being raised to the rank of queen by a Persian monarch is not inconceivable.)\n\nIf, then, all the objections raised against the credibility of the narrative may by thus disposed of, we are perfectly justified in adhering to a belief in the historical character of the whole book, since even Bleek cannot deny, that some at least of \"the customs and arrangements of the Persian court are both vividly and faithfully depicted.\" To this must be added the statement of the names of the individuals who take part in the narrative, e.g., the courtiers, Est 1:10; the seven princes of Persia, Est 1:14; the keeper of the women's houses, Est 2:8 and Est 2:14; the ten sons of Haman, Est 9:7-9, and others; and the reference to the book of the chronicles of the Medes and Persians, as the documents in which not only the acts of Ahashverosh, but also the greatness of Mordochai, were written (Est 10:2). As the numerous and otherwise wholly unknown names could not possibly be invented, so neither can the reference to the book of the chronicles be a mere literary fiction. When, therefore, Bertheau thinks, that the writer of this book, by thus bringing forward so many small details, by stating the names of otherwise unknown individuals, and especially by giving so much accurate information concerning Persian affairs and institutions, - the correctness of which is in all respects confirmed both by the statements of classical authors and our present increased knowledge of Oriental matters, - certainly proves himself acquainted with the scene in which the narrative takes place, with Persian names and affairs, but not possessed also of an historical knowledge of the actual course of events; we can perceive in this last inference only the unsupported decision of a subjectivistic antipathy to the contents of the book.\n\n3. Authorship and Date of the Book of Esther\n\nNo certain information concerning the author of this book is obtainable. The talmudic statement in Baba bathr. 15. 1, that it was written by the men of the Great Synagogue, is devoid of historical value; and the opinion of Clem. Al., Aben Ezra, and others, that Mordochai was its author, as is also inferred from Est 9:20 and Est 9:23 by de Wette, is decidedly a mistaken one, - the writer plainly distinguishing in this passage between himself and Mordochai, who sent letters concerning the feast of Purim to the Jews in the realm of Persia. Other conjectures are still more unfounded. The date, too, of its composition can be only approximately determined. The opinion that in Est 9:19 the long existence of the feast of Purim is presupposed, cannot be raised to the rank of a certainty. Nor does the book contain allusions pointing to the era of the Greek universal monarchy. This is admitted by Sthelin, who remarks, p. 178: \"The most seemingly valid argument in support of this view, viz., that Persian customs are explained in this book, Est 1:1, Est 1:13 (for Est 7:8, usually cited with these passages, is out of the question, and is the king's speech in answer to Est 8:5), is refuted by the consideration, that the book was written for the information of Palestinian Jews; while Hvernick, ii. 1, p. 361, refers to a case in Bohaeddin, in which this biographer of Saladin, p. 70, though writing for Arabs, explains an Arabian custom with respect to prisoners of war.\" On the other hand, both the reference to the chronicles of the Medes and Persians (Est 10:2), and the intimate acquaintance of the writer with Susa and the affairs of the Persian monarchy, decidedly point to the fact, that the date of its composition preceded the destruction of the Persian empire, and may perhaps have been that of Artaxerxes I or Darius Nothus, about 400 b.c. The omission, moreover, of all reference to Judah and Jerusalem, together with the absence not only of theocratic notions, but of a specially religious view of circumstances, favour the view that the author lived not in Palestine, but in the more northern provinces of the Persian realm, probably in Susa itself. For though his mode of representing events, which does not even once lead him to mention the name of God, is not caused by the irreligiousness of the author, but rather by the circumstance, that he neither wished to depict the persons whose acts he was narrating as more godly than they really were, nor to place the whole occurrence - which manifests, indeed, the dealings of Divine Providence with the Jewish people, but not the dealings of Jahve with the nation of Israel - under a point of view alien to the actors and the event itself, yet a historian acquainted with the theocratic ordinances and relations of Judah would scarcely have been capable of so entirely ignoring them.\n\n4. The Canonicity of the Book of Esther\n\nThe book of Esther has always formed a portion of the Hebrew canon. It is included also among the twenty-two books which, according to Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8, were acknowledged by the Jews as δικαίως πεπιστευμένα. For Josephus, who repeatedly asserts, that the history of the Hebrews from Moses to Artaxerxes was written by the prophets and worthy to be believed, relates also in his Jewish Antiquities (l. xi. c. 6) the history of Esther, Mordochai, and Haman. Certain critics have indeed desired to infer, from the statement in the Talmud, Jerush. Megill. 70. 4, that \"among the eighty elders who contended against the institution of the feast of Purim by Esther and Mordochai as an innovation in the law, there were more than thirty prophets,\" that the Jews did not formerly attribute the same authority to the book of Esther as to the other Scriptures (Movers, loci quidam historiae canonis V. T. p. 28; Bleek, Einl. p. 404); but even Bertheau doubts whether this passage refers to the whole book of Esther. For it treats unambiguously only of the fact Est 9:29-32, which is very specially stated to have been an institution of Esther and Mordochai, and concerning which differences of opinion might prevail among the Rabbis. The further remark of Movers, l.c., that the oldest patristic testimonies to the inclusion of this book in the canon are of such a nature, ut ex iis satis verisimiliter effici possit, eum tunc recens canoni adjectum esse, because it occupies the last place in the series of O.T. writings given by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome, according to Jewish authority, and because the canons of the Greek Church, which more accurately enumerate the books received by the synagogue, do not contain the book of Esther, is also incorrect. For (1.) the lists of the canonical books of the O.T. given by Origen (in Euseb. hist. eccl. vi. 25) and Epiphanius give these books not according to their order in the Hebrew canon, but to that of the Alexandrinian version, while only Jerome places the book of Esther last. (2.) In the lists of the Greek Church this book is omitted only in that given in Euseb. hist. eccl. iv. 26, from the eclogae of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and in that of Gregory of Nazianzen, while it is included in those of Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem; a circumstance which leads to the supposition that it might have been omitted by an oversight in transcription in those of Origen and Epiphanius. Only Athanasius (in his epist. fest.), Amphilochius (in the Jambi ad Seleuc.), and the author of the Synopsis Athanasius, who is supposed not to have lived till the tenth century, reckon it among the apocryphal books; while Junilius (of the sixth century) remarks that there were many in his days who doubted the canonicity of the book of Esther. From this it is sufficiently obvious, that these doubts were not founded upon historical tradition, but proceeded only from subjective reasons, and were entertained because offence was taken, first at the non-mention of the name of God in this book, and then at the confessedly apocryphal additions mingled with this book in the Alexandrinian translation. The author of the Synopsis Ath., moreover, expressly says that the Hebrews regarded this book as canonical. The well-known harsh judgments of Luther in his work de servo arbitrio: liber Esther, quamvis hunc habent in canone, dignior omnibus, me judice, qui extra canonem haberetur, and in his Table Talk, are purely subjective.\n\n(Note: \"And while the Doctor was correcting the second book of Maccabees he said: I am so hostile to this book and that of Esther, that I wish they did not exist; they are too Judaizing, and contain many heathenish improprieties.\")\n\nLuther could never reconcile himself to this book, because he felt that the saving truths of Scripture were absent from it. The later Jews, on the contrary, exalted it even far above the Thorah and the prophets.\n\n(Note: Comp. the collection of rabbinical eulogies of this book in Aug. Pfeiffer, thes. herm. p. 597f., and in Carpzov's introd. i. p. 366.)\n\nLater Protestant theologians, too, have, in their efforts to justify the canonicity of this book, over-estimated its canonical value, and attributed to the history therein related, Messianic references which are foreign to its meaning (comp. the verdict given upon it in Carpzov's Introd. in V. T. p. 369f.). The moderate opinion of Brentius is: hic liber utilis est ad docendam fidem et timorem Dei, ut pii non frangantur adversis, sed invocantes nomen Domini ex fide, accipiant spem salutis; impii vero alieno supplicio terreantur et ad pietatem convertantur. This opinion is one far better founded than the depreciatory decision of modern critics, that this book breathes a spirit of revenge and pride (de Wette-Schrader); or of Bertheau, that \"Esther and Mordochai are full of a spirit of revenge and hostility not to Gentile ways, but to the Gentiles themselves, of cruelty, and of ungodly confidence in a victory over the world, by worldly power and the employment of worldly means,\" and that this book \"belongs to the historical records of the revelation made to Israel, only in so far as it helps to fill up the chas","order":17,"numberOfChapters":9,"sha256":"f74d2bfd2556542aad2be1d10a1cf58d8d8fbbabbb37511f40f276bd968572d5","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/EST/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"EST","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":9,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/EST/9.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"EST","chapter":9},"totalNumberOfVerses":49},"chapter":{"number":9,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["The Jews avenged of their enemies. - Est 9:1. In the twelfth month, on the thirteenth day of the same - the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities, etc. Several parenthetical clauses succeed this definition of time, so that the statement of what then took place does not follow till נקהלוּ, Est 9:2. These parenthetical clauses state not only the meaning of the day just named, but also give a general notice of the conflict between the Jews and their enemies. The first runs: \"when the word of the king drew nigh and his decree to be done,\" i.e., when the execution of the royal decree approached. The second is: \"on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have the mastery of them, and it was changed (i.e., the contrary occurred), that the Jews had the mastery over them that hated them.\" בּ שׁלט, to rule, to have the mastery over. נהפוך is infin. abs., used instead of the imperf. הוּא is referred by Bertheau to יום: the day was changed from a day of misfortune to a day of prosperity for the Jews, alluding to Est 9:22; but it is not a change of the day which is here spoken of, but a change of the hope of the enemies into its opposite; hence we must regard הוּא as neuter: it was changed, i.e., the contrary occurred. The pronoun המּה serves to emphasize the subject; comp. Ewald, 314, a, who in this and similar cases takes הוּא המּה in the sense of ipse, ipsi.\nEst 9:2-3\nבּעריהם, in their cities, i.e., the cities in which they dwelt in all the dominions of the king. יד לשׁלח, to stretch out the hand (as also in Est 2:21; Est 3:6, for the purpose of killing) against those who sought their hurt, i.e., sought to destroy them. \"And no one stood before them (בּפני עמד, like Jos 10:8; Jos 21:42, and elsewhere), because the fear of them fell upon all people (see rem. on Est 8:17). And all the rulers of the provinces, and the satraps and governors (comp. Est 8:9), and those that did the king's business (המּלאכה עשׁי, see rem. on Est 3:9), supported the Jews (נשּׂא like Ezr 1:4), because the fear of Mordochai fell upon them.\"\nEst 9:4\n\"For Mordochai was great in the king's house (was much esteemed by the king), and his fame went through all the provinces (שׁמעו as in Jos 6:27; Jos 9:9; Jer 6:24); for this man Mordochai became continually greater;\" comp. Ch2 17:12, where the partic. גּדל stands instead of the inf. abs. גּדול.\nEst 9:5\nThus supported, the Jews inflicted defeat upon their enemies with the sword, and with slaughter and destruction. הכּה with בּ, to deal a blow upon or against some one, to cause or bring about upon enemies a defeat; comp. e.g., Sa2 23:10; Sa2 24:17; Num 22:6. The notion is strengthened by וגו מכּת־חרב, literally, to strike a stroke of the sword, and of slaughter, and of destruction, in accordance with the decree, Est 8:11. \"And did according to their will to those that hated them,\" i.e., retaliated upon their enemies at their discretion.\nEst 9:6\nIn the citadel of Susa they destroyed (in round numbers) 500 men.\nEst 9:7-10\nAlso they slew the ten sons of Haman, whose names are given, Est 9:7-9;\n(Note: The peculiar position of the names of the sons of Haman in editions of the Bible, grounded as it is upon the ancient mode of writing, must originally have been intended merely to give prominence to the names, and facilitate their computation. The later Rabbis, however, have endeavoured to discover therein some deeper meaning. This mode of writing the names has been said to be signum voti, ut a ruina sua nunquam amplius resurgant, or also a sign quod sicut hi decem filii in linea perpendiculari, unus supra alterum, suspensi fuerint. Comp. Buxtorf, Synagoga jud. pp. 157-159 of the Basle edit. 1580. What is indicated by the smaller forms of the letters ת, שׁ, and ז, in the first, seventh, and tenth names, is not known; the larger ו in the tenth may have been meant to give prominence, by the character employed, to this name as the last.)\nbut on the spoil they laid not their hand, though this was allowed to them, Est 8:11, as it had been commanded to their enemies by Haman's edict, Est 3:13, ut ostenderent, se non aliud quam vitae suae incolumitatem quaerere; hanc enim perdere volebant ii qui occidebantur. C. a Lapide. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["When on the same day an account was given to the king of the result of the conflict, and the number of those slain in Susa reported, he announced to Queen Esther: the Jews have slain in the citadel of Susa 500 men and the ten sons of Haman; \"what have they done in the rest of the king's provinces?\" i.e., if they have killed 500 men in Susa, how many may they not have slain in other parts of the kingdom? and then asked her what else she wished or required. With respect to the words, comp. Est 5:6, and Est 7:2. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["Esther requested: \"let it be granted to the Jews which are in Susa to do to-morrow also according to the decree of to-day (i.e., exactly as to-day), and let the ten sons of Haman be hanged upon the tree,\" i.e., their dead bodies nailed on crosses - majoris infamiae causa, according to Hebrew and Persian custom; comp. Deu 21:22 and the explanation of Ezr 6:11. On the motive for this request, see above, p. 194. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["The king commanded it so to be done. \"Then was a decree given at Susa, and they hanged the ten sons of Haman.\" The decree given in Susa does not refer to the hanging of the sons of Haman, but to the permission given to the Jews to fight against their enemies on the morrow also. This is required not only by a comparison of Est 8:13, but also by the connection of the present verse; for in consequence of this decree the Jews assembled on the 14th Adar (comp. ויּקּהלוּ, then they assembled themselves, Est 9:15), while the hanging of the sons of Haman, on the contrary, is related in an accessory clause by a simple perfect, תּלוּ. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["On this second day the Jews slew 300 more; comp. Est 9:10. - Est 9:16. The rest of the Jews in the provinces, i.e., the Jews in the other parts of the kingdom, assembled themselves and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes 75,000, but upon the spoil they laid not their hand. על עמד like Est 8:11. The מאיביהם ונוח inserted between על נ ועמד and והרוג is striking; we should rather have expected the resting or having rest from their enemies after the death of the latter, as in Est 9:17 and Est 9:18, where this is plainly stated to have taken place on the day after the slaughter. The position of these words is only explained by the consideration, that the narrator desired at once to point out how the matter ended. The narrative continues in the infin. abs. instead of expressing this clause by the infin. constr., and so causing it to be governed by what precedes. Thus - as Ew. 351, c, remarks - all the possible hues of the sentence fade into this grey and formless termination (viz., the use of the infin. absol. instead of the verb. fin.). This inaccuracy of diction does not justify us, however, in assuming that we have here an interpolation or an alteration in the text. The statement of the day is given in Est 9:17, and then the clause following is again added in the inf. absol.: \"and they rested on the 14th day of the same (of Adar), and made it a day of feasting and gladness.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["The Jews in Susa, on the other hand, who were both on the 13th and 14th Adar still fighting against their enemies, and did not rest till the 15th, made this latter their day of rejoicing. - In Est 9:19 it is again stated that the Jews in the country towns and villages made the 14th their day of gladness, and this statement is appended by על־כּן to make this appear the result of what precedes. The Chethiv הפּרוזים is perhaps an Aramaic expression for פּרזים, Deu 3:5 and Sa1 6:18. פּרוזי means the inhabitants of the open, i.e., unfortified, towns and villages of the plains in contrast to the fortified capital; see on Deu 3:5. On פּרזות, compare Eze 38:11; Zac 2:8. וגו מנות משׁלוח, and of mutual sending of gifts, i.e., portions of food; comp. Neh 8:10, Neh 8:12. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["The feast of Purim instituted by letters from Mordochai and Esther. Est 9:20. Mordochai wrote these things, and sent letters to all the Jews, etc. האלּה הדּברים does not mean the contents of the present book but the events of the last days, especially the fact that the Jews, after overcoming their enemies, rested in Susa on the 15th, in the other provinces on the 14th Adar, and kept these days as days of rejoicing. This is obvious from the object of these letters, Est 9:21 : וגו עליהם לקיּם, to appoint among them \"that they should keep the 14th day of the month Adar and the 15th day of the same yearly, as the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies, and as the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a glad day, that they should keep them as days of feasting and joy, and of mutual sending of portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.\" יום עשׂה, to keep, to celebrate a day. The עשׂים להיות, Est 9:21, is after long parentheses taken up again in אותם לעשׂות. קיּם, to establish a matter, to authorize it, comp. Rut 4:7. Both the 14th and 15th Adar were made festivals because the Jews on them had rest from their enemies, and celebrated this rest by feasting, some on the former, some on the latter day. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["And the Jews undertook to do as they had begun, and as Mordochai had written to them. They had begun, as Est 9:22 tells us, by keeping both days, and Mordochai wrote to them that they should make this an annual custom. This they agreed to do in consequence of Mordochai's letters. The reason of their so doing is given in Est 9:24 and Est 9:25, and the name of this festival is explained, Est 9:26, by a brief recapitulation of the events which gave rise to it. Then follows, Est 9:26 and Est 9:27, another wordy statement of the fact, that it was by reason of this letter, and on account of what they had seen, i.e., experienced, that the annual celebration of this feast was instituted for a perpetual memorial to all Jews at all times (Est 9:28 and Est 9:29). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["For Haman, the enemy of all the Jews, had devised against the Jews to destroy them (comp. Est 3:1, Est 3:6.), and had cast Pur, that is the lot (see on Est 3:7), to consume them and to destroy them. המם, mostly used of the discomfiture with which God destroys the enemies, Exo 14:24; Deu 2:15, and elsewhere. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":25,"content":["וּבבאהּ, and when it (the matter), not when she, Esther, came before the king, - for Esther is not named in the context, - he commanded by letters (Est 8:8), i.e., he gave the written order: let the wicked device which he devised against the Jews return upon his own head; and they hanged him and his sons upon the tree. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":26,"content":["Wherefore they called these days Purim after the name Pur. This first על־כּן refers to what precedes and states the reason, resulting from what has just been mentioned, why this festival received the name of Purim. With the second על־כּן begins a new sentence which reaches to Est 9:28, and explains how it happened that these feast-days became a general observance with all Jews; namely, that because of all the words of this letter (of Mordochai, Est 9:20), and of what they had seen concerning the matter (על־כּכה, concerning so and so), and what had come upon them (therefore for two reasons: (1) because of the written injunction of Mordochai; and (2) because they had themselves experienced this event), the Jews established, and took upon themselves, their descendants, and all who should join themselves unto them (proselytes), so that it should not fail (i.e., inviolably), to keep (to celebrate) these two days according to the writing concerning them and the time appointed thereby year by year. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":28,"content":["And that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and these days of Purim are not to pass away among the Jews, nor their remembrance to cease among their seed. The participles ונעשׂים נזכּרים still depend on להיות, Est 9:27. Not till the last clause does the construction change in להיות לא to the temp. finit. יעבור ולא is a periphrasis of the adverb: imperishably, inviolably. כּכתבם, secundum scriptum eorum, i.e., as Mordochai had written concerning them (Est 9:23). כּזמנּם, as he had appointed their time. מן סוּף, to come to an end from, i.e., to cease among their descendants. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":29,"content":["A second letter from Queen Esther and Mordochai to appoint fasting and lamentation on the days of Purim. Est 9:29. And Esther the queen and Mordochai the Jew wrote with all strength, that is very forcibly, to appoint this second letter concerning Purim, i.e., to give to the contents of this second letter the force of law. הזּאת refers to what follows, in which the contents of the letter are briefly intimated. The letter is called השּׁנית with reference to the first letter sent by Mordochai, Est 9:20.\nEst 9:30-32\nAnd he (Mordochai) sent letters, i.e., copies of the writing mentioned Est 9:29, to all the Jews in the 127 provinces (which formed) the kingdom of Ahashverosh, words of peace and truth, i.e., letters containing words of peace and truth (Est 9:31), to appoint these days of Purim in their portions of time according as Mordochai the Jew and Esther the queen had appointed, and as they (the Jews) had appointed for themselves and for their descendants, the things (or words = precepts) of the fastings and their lamentations. בּזמנּיהם, in their appointed times; as the suffix relates to the days of Purim, the זמנּים can mean only portions of time in these days. The sense of Est 9:29-31 is as follows: According to the injunctions of Esther and Mordochai, the Jews appointed for themselves and their descendants times also of fasting and lamentation in the days of Purim. To make this appointment binding upon all the Jews in all provinces of the Persian monarchy, Esther and Mordochai published a second letter, which was sent by Mordochai throughout the whole realm of King Ahashverosh. To this is added, Est 9:32, that the decree of Esther appointed these matters of Purim, i.e., the injunction mentioned vv. 29-31, also to fast and weep during these days, and it was written in the book. הסּפר, the book in which this decree was written, cannot mean the writing of Esther mentioned. Est 9:29, but some written document concerning Purim which has not come down to us, though used as an authority by the author of the present book. The times when the fasting and lamentation were to take place in the days of Purim, are not stated in this verse; this could, however, only be on the day which Haman had appointed for the extermination of the Jews, viz., the 13th Adar. This day is kept by the Jews as אסתּר תּענית, Esther's fast.\n(Note: According to 2 Macc. 15:36, the victory over Nicanor was to be celebrated on the 13th Adar, but, according to a note of Dr. Cassel in Grimm's kurzgef. exeget. Handb. zu den Apokryphen, on 2 Macc. 15:36, the festival of Nicanor is mentioned in Jewish writings, as Megillat Taanit, c. 12, in the Babylonian Talmud, tr. Taanit, f. 18b, in Massechet Sofrim 17, 4, but has been by no means observed for at least the last thousand years. The book Scheiltot of R. Acha (in the 9th century) speaks of the 13th Adar as a fast-day in memory of the fast of Esther, while even at the time of the Talmud the \"Fast of Esther\" is spoken of as a three days fast, kept, however, after the feast of Purim. From all this it is obvious, that a diversity of opinions prevailed among the Rabbis concerning the time of this fast of Esther.) \n"]}],"introduction":"The Jews Avenged of Their Enemies. The Feast of Purim Instituted - Esther 9\nOn the day appointed by both edicts, the Jews assembled in the towns and provinces of the kingdom to slay all who sought their hurt, and being supported by the royal officials, inflicted a great defeat upon their enemies (Est 9:1-10). At the queen's desire, the king granted permission to the Jews in Susa to fight against their enemies on the following day also (Est 9:11-15), while in the other towns and districts of the kingdom they fought for their lives only on the 13th of Adar; so that in these places they rested on the 14th, but in Susa not till the 15th, and consequently kept in the latter the one day, in the former the other, as a day of feasting and rejoicing (Est 9:16-19). The observance of this day of resting as a festival, under the name of Purim, by all the Jews in the Persian monarchy, was then instituted by Esther and Mordochai (Est 9:20-32). \n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/EST/9.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"EST","chapter":9},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOB/1.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOB","chapter":1},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/EST/8.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"EST","chapter":8},"numberOfVerses":13}