Nehemiah Returns to Confront Compromise and Restore Covenant Faithfulness

Neh 13:6 In all this, i. e. , while this was taking place, I was not in Jerusalem; for in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes I went to the king, and after the lapse of some days I entreated the king (נשׁאל like 1Sa 20:6, 1Sa 20:28). What he entreated is not expressly stated; but it is obvious from what follows, ”and I came to Jerusalem,” that it was permission to return to Judea.

Even at his first journey to Jerusalem, Nehemiah only requested leave to make a temporary sojourn there, without giving up his post of royal cup-bearer; comp. Neh 2:5. Hence, after his twelve years’ stay in Jerusalem, he was obliged to go to the king and remain some time at court, and then to beg for fresh leave of absence. How long he remained there cannot be determined, - ימים לקץ, after the lapse of days, denoting no definite interval; comp.

Gen 4:3. The view of several expositors, that ימים means a year, is devoid of proof. The stay of Nehemiah at court must have lasted longer than a year, since so many illegal acts on the part of the community as Nehemiah on his return discovered to have taken place, could not have occurred in so short a time. Artaxerxes is here called king of Babylon, because the Persian kings had conquered the kingdom of Babylon, and by this conquest obtained dominion over the Jews.

Nehemiah uses this title to express also the fact that he had travelled to Babylon.

Neh 13:7 At his return he directed his attention to the evil committed by Eliashib in preparing a chamber in the court of the temple (בּ הבין like Ezr 8:15) for Tobiah.

Neh 13:8-9 This so greatly displeased him, that he cast out all the household stuff of Tobiah, and commanded the chamber to be purified, and the vessels of the house of God, the meat-offering and the frankincense, and probably the tenths and heave-offerings also, the enumeration being here only abbreviated, to be again brought into it. From the words household stuff, it appears that Tobiah used the chamber as a dwelling when he came from time to time to Jerusalem.

Neh 13:8-9 This so greatly displeased him, that he cast out all the household stuff of Tobiah, and commanded the chamber to be purified, and the vessels of the house of God, the meat-offering and the frankincense, and probably the tenths and heave-offerings also, the enumeration being here only abbreviated, to be again brought into it. From the words household stuff, it appears that Tobiah used the chamber as a dwelling when he came from time to time to Jerusalem.

Neh 13:10-14 The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. - Neh 13:10. “And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field. ” The Levites, i. e. , the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministry their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (Neh 12:47).

When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (Neh 12:28.) , and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the meaning of the בּרח, to flee to the fields.

Neh 13:10-14 The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. - Neh 13:10. “And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field. ” The Levites, i. e. , the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministry their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (Neh 12:47).

When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (Neh 12:28.) , and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the meaning of the בּרח, to flee to the fields.

Neh 13:10-14 The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. - Neh 13:10. “And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field. ” The Levites, i. e. , the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministry their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (Neh 12:47).

When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (Neh 12:28.) , and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the meaning of the בּרח, to flee to the fields.

Neh 13:10-14 The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. - Neh 13:10. “And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field. ” The Levites, i. e. , the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministry their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (Neh 12:47).

When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (Neh 12:28.) , and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the meaning of the בּרח, to flee to the fields.

Neh 13:10-14 The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. - Neh 13:10. “And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field. ” The Levites, i. e. , the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministry their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (Neh 12:47).

When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (Neh 12:28.) , and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the meaning of the בּרח, to flee to the fields.

Neh 13:15 Field-work and trading on the Sabbath done away with. - Neh 13:15. In those days, i. e. , when he was occupied with the arrangements for worship, Nehemiah saw in Judah (in the province) some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses, and also wine, grapes, and figs, and all kinds of burdens, and bringing it to Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day.

The מביאים is again taken up by the second וּמביאים, and more closely defined by the addition: to Jerusalem. Robinson describes an ancient wine-press in his Biblical Researches , p. 178. On כּל־משּׂא, comp. Jer 17:21. ואעיד, and I testified (against them), i. e. , warned them on the day wherein they sold victuals. ציד, food, victuals; Psa 132:15; Jos 9:5, Jos 9:14.

He warned them no longer to sell victuals on the Sabbath-day. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that Nehemiah saw how the market people in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem started while it was still the Sabbath, not for the purpose of selling during that day, but for that of being early in the market on the next day, or the next but one. The text, however, offers no support to such a notion.

In Neh 13:16 it is expressly said that selling took place in Jerusalem on the Sabbath; and the very bringing thither of wine, grapes, etc. , on the Sabbath, presupposes that the sale of these articles was transacted on that day.

Neh 13:16 Tyrians also were staying therein, bringing fish and all kind of ware (מכר), and sold it on the Sabbath to the sons of Judah and in Jerusalem. ישׁב is by most expositors translated, to dwell; but it is improbable that Tyrians would at that time dwell or settle at Jerusalem: hence ישׁב here means to sit, i.e., to stay awhile undisturbed, to tarry.

Neh 13:17-18 Nehemiah reproved the nobles of Judah for this profanation of the Sabbath, reminding them how their fathers (forefathers) by such acts (as rebuked e. g. , by Jeremiah, Jer 17:21.) had brought upon the people and the city great evil, i. e. , the misery of their former exile and present oppression; remarking in addition, “and ye are bringing more wrath upon Israel, profaning the Sabbath,” i.

e. , you are only increasing the wrath of God already lying upon Israel, by your desecration of the Sabbath. Comp. on the last thought, Ezr 10:10, Ezr 10:14. He also instituted measures for the abolition of this trespass.

Neh 13:17-18 Nehemiah reproved the nobles of Judah for this profanation of the Sabbath, reminding them how their fathers (forefathers) by such acts (as rebuked e. g. , by Jeremiah, Jer 17:21.) had brought upon the people and the city great evil, i. e. , the misery of their former exile and present oppression; remarking in addition, “and ye are bringing more wrath upon Israel, profaning the Sabbath,” i.

e. , you are only increasing the wrath of God already lying upon Israel, by your desecration of the Sabbath. Comp. on the last thought, Ezr 10:10, Ezr 10:14. He also instituted measures for the abolition of this trespass.

Neh 13:19 He commanded that the gates of Jerusalem should be closed when it began to be dark before the Sabbath, and not re-opened till the Sabbath was over. In the description of this measure the command and its execution are intermixed, or rather the execution is brought forward as the chief matter, and the command inserted therein. “And it came to pass, as soon as the gates of Jerusalem were dark (i.

e. , when it was dark in the gates) before the Sabbath, I commanded, and the gates were shut; and I commanded that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath,” i. e. , after sunset on the Sabbath-day. צלל, in the sense of to grow dark, occurs in Hebrew only here, and is an Aramaean expression. Nehemiah also placed some of his servants at the gates, that no burdens, i.

e. , no wares, victuals, etc. , might be brought in on the Sabbath. אשׁר is wanting before יבוא לא; the command is directly alluded to, and, with the command, must be supplied before יבוא לא. The placing of the watch was necessary, because the gates could not be kept strictly closed during the whole of the day, and ingress and egress thus entirely forbidden to the inhabitants.

Neh 13:20 Then the merchants and sellers of all kinds of ware remained throughout the night outside Jerusalem, once and twice. Thus, because egress from the city could not be refused to the inhabitants, the rest of the Sabbath was broken outside the gates. Nehemiah therefore put an end to this misdemeanour also.

Neh 13:21 He warned the merchants to do this no more, threatening them: ”If you do (this) again (i.e., pass the night before the walls), I will lay hands on you,” i.e., drive you away by force. The form לנים for לנים occurs only here as a “semi-passive” formation; comp. Ewald, §151, b . From that time forth they came no more on the Sabbath.

Neh 13:22 A further measure taken by Nehemiah for the sanctification of the Sabbath according to the law, is so briefly narrated, that it does not plainly appear in what it consisted. “I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and they should come keep the gates to sanctify the Sabbath-day. ” The meaning of the words השּׁערים שׁמרים בּאים is doubtful.

The Masoretes have separated בּאים from שׁמרים by Sakeph; while de Wette, Bertheau, and others combine these words: and that they should come to the keepers of the doors. This translation cannot be justified by the usage of the language; for בּוא with an accusative of the person occurs only, as may be proved, in prophetical and poetical diction (Job 20:22; Pro 10:24; Isa 41:25; Eze 32:11), and then in the sense of to come upon some one, to surprise him, and never in the meaning of to come or go to some one.

Nor does this unjustifiable translation give even an appropriate sense. Why should the Levites go to the doorkeepers to sanctify the Sabbath? Bertheau thinks it was for the purpose of solemnly announcing to the doorkeepers that the holy day had begun, or to advertise them by some form of consecration of its commencement. This, however, would have been either a useless or unmeaning ceremony.

Hence we must relinquish this connection of the words, and either combine השּׁערים שׁמרים as an asyndeton with בּאים: coming and watching the gates, or: coming as watchers of the gates; and then the measure taken would consist in the appointment of certain Levites to keep the gates on the Sabbath, as well as the ordinary keepers, thus consecrating the Sabbath as a holy day above ordinary days. Nehemiah concludes the account of the abolition of this irregularity, as well as the preceding, by invoking a blessing upon himself; comp.

rem. on Neh 13:14. על חוּסה like Joe 2:17.

Neh 13:23-24 Marriages with foreign wives dissolved. - Neh 13:23 and Neh 13:24. “In those days I also saw, i. e. , visited, the Jews who had brought home Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite wives; and half of their children spoke the speech of Ashdod, because they understood not how to speak the Jews’ language, and according to the speech of one and of another people.

” It is not said, I saw Jews; but, the Jews who ... Hence Bertheau rightly infers, that Nehemiah at this time found an opportunity of seeing them, perhaps upon a journey through the province. From the circumstance, too, that a portion of the children of these marriages were not able to speak the language of the Jews, but spoke the language of Ashdod, or of this or that nation from which their mothers were descended, we may conclude with tolerable certainty, that these people dwelt neither in Jerusalem nor in the midst of the Jewish community, but on the borders of the nations to which their wives belonged.

הושׁיב like Ezr 10:2. וּבניהם precedes in an absolute sense: and as for their children, one half (of them) spake. יהוּדית (comp. 2Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11; 2Ch 32:18) is the language of the Jewish community, the vernacular Hebrew. The sentence וגו ואינם is an explanatory parenthesis, ועם עם וכלשׁן still depending upon מדבר: spake according to the language, i. e. , spake the language, of this and that people (of their mothers).

The speech of Ashdod is that of the Philistines, which, according to Hitzig ( Urgeschichte u. Mythol. der Philistäer ), belonged to the Indo-Germanic group. The languages, however, of the Moabites and Ammonites were undoubtedly Shemitic, but so dialectically different from the Hebrew, that they might be regarded as foreign tongues.

Neh 13:23-24 Marriages with foreign wives dissolved. - Neh 13:23 and Neh 13:24. “In those days I also saw, i. e. , visited, the Jews who had brought home Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite wives; and half of their children spoke the speech of Ashdod, because they understood not how to speak the Jews’ language, and according to the speech of one and of another people.

” It is not said, I saw Jews; but, the Jews who ... Hence Bertheau rightly infers, that Nehemiah at this time found an opportunity of seeing them, perhaps upon a journey through the province. From the circumstance, too, that a portion of the children of these marriages were not able to speak the language of the Jews, but spoke the language of Ashdod, or of this or that nation from which their mothers were descended, we may conclude with tolerable certainty, that these people dwelt neither in Jerusalem nor in the midst of the Jewish community, but on the borders of the nations to which their wives belonged.

הושׁיב like Ezr 10:2. וּבניהם precedes in an absolute sense: and as for their children, one half (of them) spake. יהוּדית (comp. 2Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11; 2Ch 32:18) is the language of the Jewish community, the vernacular Hebrew. The sentence וגו ואינם is an explanatory parenthesis, ועם עם וכלשׁן still depending upon מדבר: spake according to the language, i. e. , spake the language, of this and that people (of their mothers).

The speech of Ashdod is that of the Philistines, which, according to Hitzig ( Urgeschichte u. Mythol. der Philistäer ), belonged to the Indo-Germanic group. The languages, however, of the Moabites and Ammonites were undoubtedly Shemitic, but so dialectically different from the Hebrew, that they might be regarded as foreign tongues.

Neh 13:25-27 With these people also Nehemiah contended (אריב like Neh 13:11 and Neh 13:17), cursed them, smote certain of their men, and plucked off their hair (מרט, see rem. on Ezr 9:3), and made them swear by God: Ye shall not give your daughters, etc. ; comp. Neh 10:31. On the recurrence of such marriages after the separations effected by Ezra of those existing at his arrival at Jerusalem.

Nehemiah did not insist on the immediate dissolution of these marriages, but caused the men to swear that they would desist from such connections, setting before them, in Neh 13:26, how grievous a sin they were committing. “Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin on account of these? ” (אלּה על, on account of strange wives). And among many nations there was no king like him (comp.

1Ki 3:12. , 2Ch 1:12); and he was beloved of his God (alluding to 2Sa 12:24), and God made him king over all Israel (1Ki 4:1); and even him did foreign women cause to sin (comp. 1Ki 11:1-3). “And of you is it heard to do (that ye do) all this great evil, to transgress against our God, and to marry strange wives? ” Bertheau thus rightly understands the sentence: “If the powerful King Solomon was powerless to resist the influence of foreign wives, and if he, the beloved God, found in his relation to God no defence against the sin to which they seduced him, is it not unheard of for you to commit so great an evil?

” He also rightly explains הנשׁמע according to Deu 9:23; while Gesenius in his Thes. still takes it, like Rambach, as the first person imperf. : nobisne morem geramus faciendo ; or: Should we obey you to do so great an evil? (de Wette); which meaning - apart from the consideration that no obedience, but only toleration of the illegal act, is here in question - greatly weakens, if it does not quite destroy, the contrast between Solomon and לכם.

Neh 13:25-27 With these people also Nehemiah contended (אריב like Neh 13:11 and Neh 13:17), cursed them, smote certain of their men, and plucked off their hair (מרט, see rem. on Ezr 9:3), and made them swear by God: Ye shall not give your daughters, etc. ; comp. Neh 10:31. On the recurrence of such marriages after the separations effected by Ezra of those existing at his arrival at Jerusalem.

Nehemiah did not insist on the immediate dissolution of these marriages, but caused the men to swear that they would desist from such connections, setting before them, in Neh 13:26, how grievous a sin they were committing. “Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin on account of these? ” (אלּה על, on account of strange wives). And among many nations there was no king like him (comp.

1Ki 3:12. , 2Ch 1:12); and he was beloved of his God (alluding to 2Sa 12:24), and God made him king over all Israel (1Ki 4:1); and even him did foreign women cause to sin (comp. 1Ki 11:1-3). “And of you is it heard to do (that ye do) all this great evil, to transgress against our God, and to marry strange wives? ” Bertheau thus rightly understands the sentence: “If the powerful King Solomon was powerless to resist the influence of foreign wives, and if he, the beloved God, found in his relation to God no defence against the sin to which they seduced him, is it not unheard of for you to commit so great an evil?

” He also rightly explains הנשׁמע according to Deu 9:23; while Gesenius in his Thes. still takes it, like Rambach, as the first person imperf. : nobisne morem geramus faciendo ; or: Should we obey you to do so great an evil? (de Wette); which meaning - apart from the consideration that no obedience, but only toleration of the illegal act, is here in question - greatly weakens, if it does not quite destroy, the contrast between Solomon and לכם.

Neh 13:25-27 With these people also Nehemiah contended (אריב like Neh 13:11 and Neh 13:17), cursed them, smote certain of their men, and plucked off their hair (מרט, see rem. on Ezr 9:3), and made them swear by God: Ye shall not give your daughters, etc. ; comp. Neh 10:31. On the recurrence of such marriages after the separations effected by Ezra of those existing at his arrival at Jerusalem.

Nehemiah did not insist on the immediate dissolution of these marriages, but caused the men to swear that they would desist from such connections, setting before them, in Neh 13:26, how grievous a sin they were committing. “Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin on account of these? ” (אלּה על, on account of strange wives). And among many nations there was no king like him (comp.

1Ki 3:12. , 2Ch 1:12); and he was beloved of his God (alluding to 2Sa 12:24), and God made him king over all Israel (1Ki 4:1); and even him did foreign women cause to sin (comp. 1Ki 11:1-3). “And of you is it heard to do (that ye do) all this great evil, to transgress against our God, and to marry strange wives? ” Bertheau thus rightly understands the sentence: “If the powerful King Solomon was powerless to resist the influence of foreign wives, and if he, the beloved God, found in his relation to God no defence against the sin to which they seduced him, is it not unheard of for you to commit so great an evil?

” He also rightly explains הנשׁמע according to Deu 9:23; while Gesenius in his Thes. still takes it, like Rambach, as the first person imperf. : nobisne morem geramus faciendo ; or: Should we obey you to do so great an evil? (de Wette); which meaning - apart from the consideration that no obedience, but only toleration of the illegal act, is here in question - greatly weakens, if it does not quite destroy, the contrast between Solomon and לכם.

Neh 13:28-29 Nehemiah acted with greater severity towards one of the sons of Joiada the high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat. He drove him from him (מעלי, that he might not be a burden to me). The reason for this is not expressly stated, but is involved in the fact that he was son-in-law to Sanballat, i. e. , had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 2:10), who was so hostile to Nehemiah and to the Jewish community in general, and would not comply with the demand of Nehemiah that he should dismiss this wife.

In this case, Nehemiah was obliged to interfere with authority. For this marriage was a pollution of the priesthood, and a breach of the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Hence he closes the narrative of this occurrence with the wish, Neh 13:29, that God would be mindful of them (להם, of those who had done such evil) on account of this pollution, etc.

, i. e. , would punish or chastise them for it. גּאלי, stat. constr. pl . from גּאל, pollution ( plurale tant .) It was a pollution of the priesthood to marry a heathen woman, such marriage being opposed to the sacredness of the priestly office, which a priest was to consider even in the choice of a wife, and because of which he might marry neither a whore, nor a feeble nor a divorced woman, while the high priest mighty marry only a virgin of his own people (Lev 21:7, Lev 21:14).

The son of Joiada who had married a daughter of Sanballat was not indeed his presumptive successor (Johanan, Neh 12:11), for then he would have been spoken of by name, but a younger son, and therefore a simple priest; he was, however, so nearly related to the high priest, that by his marriage with a heathen woman the holiness of the high-priestly house was polluted, and therewith also “the covenant of the priesthood,” i. e.

, not the covenant of the everlasting priesthood which God granted to Phinehas for his zeal (Num 25:13), but the covenant which God concluded with the tribe of Levi, the priesthood, and the Levites, by choosing the tribe of Levi, and of that tribe Aaron and his descendants, to be His priest (לו לכהנו, Exo 28:1). This covenant required, on the part of the priests, that they should be “holy to the Lord” (Lev 21:6, Lev 21:8), who had chosen them to be ministers of His sanctuary and stewards of His grace.

Josephus ( Ant . xi. 7. 2) relates the similar fact, that Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, married Nikaso, a daughter of the satrap Sanballat, a Cuthite; that when the Jewish authorities on that account excluded him from the priesthood, he established, by the assistant of his father-in-law, the temple and worship on Mount Gerizim (xi. 8. 2-4), and that many priests made common cause with him.

Now, though Josephus calls this Manasseh a brother of Jaddua, thus making him a grandson of Joiada, and transposing the establishment of the Samaritan worship on Gerizim to the last years of Darius Codomannus and the first of Alexander of Macedon, it can scarcely be misunderstood that, notwithstanding these discrepancies, the same occurrence which Nehemiah relates in the present verses is intended by Josephus. The view of older theologians, to which also Petermann (art.

Samaria in Herzog’s Realenc . xiii. p. 366f.) assents, that there were two Sanballats, one in the days of Nehemiah, the other in the time of Alexander the Great, and that both had sons-in-law belonging to the high-priestly family, is very improbable; and the transposition of the fact by Josephus to the times of Darius Codomannus and Alexander accords with the usual and universally acknowledged incorrectness of his chronological combinations.

He makes, e. g. , Nehemiah arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth year of Xerxes, instead of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, while Xerxes reigned only twenty years.

Neh 13:28-29 Nehemiah acted with greater severity towards one of the sons of Joiada the high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat. He drove him from him (מעלי, that he might not be a burden to me). The reason for this is not expressly stated, but is involved in the fact that he was son-in-law to Sanballat, i. e. , had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 2:10), who was so hostile to Nehemiah and to the Jewish community in general, and would not comply with the demand of Nehemiah that he should dismiss this wife.

In this case, Nehemiah was obliged to interfere with authority. For this marriage was a pollution of the priesthood, and a breach of the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Hence he closes the narrative of this occurrence with the wish, Neh 13:29, that God would be mindful of them (להם, of those who had done such evil) on account of this pollution, etc.

, i. e. , would punish or chastise them for it. גּאלי, stat. constr. pl . from גּאל, pollution ( plurale tant .) It was a pollution of the priesthood to marry a heathen woman, such marriage being opposed to the sacredness of the priestly office, which a priest was to consider even in the choice of a wife, and because of which he might marry neither a whore, nor a feeble nor a divorced woman, while the high priest mighty marry only a virgin of his own people (Lev 21:7, Lev 21:14).

The son of Joiada who had married a daughter of Sanballat was not indeed his presumptive successor (Johanan, Neh 12:11), for then he would have been spoken of by name, but a younger son, and therefore a simple priest; he was, however, so nearly related to the high priest, that by his marriage with a heathen woman the holiness of the high-priestly house was polluted, and therewith also “the covenant of the priesthood,” i. e.

, not the covenant of the everlasting priesthood which God granted to Phinehas for his zeal (Num 25:13), but the covenant which God concluded with the tribe of Levi, the priesthood, and the Levites, by choosing the tribe of Levi, and of that tribe Aaron and his descendants, to be His priest (לו לכהנו, Exo 28:1). This covenant required, on the part of the priests, that they should be “holy to the Lord” (Lev 21:6, Lev 21:8), who had chosen them to be ministers of His sanctuary and stewards of His grace.

Josephus ( Ant . xi. 7. 2) relates the similar fact, that Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, married Nikaso, a daughter of the satrap Sanballat, a Cuthite; that when the Jewish authorities on that account excluded him from the priesthood, he established, by the assistant of his father-in-law, the temple and worship on Mount Gerizim (xi. 8. 2-4), and that many priests made common cause with him.

Now, though Josephus calls this Manasseh a brother of Jaddua, thus making him a grandson of Joiada, and transposing the establishment of the Samaritan worship on Gerizim to the last years of Darius Codomannus and the first of Alexander of Macedon, it can scarcely be misunderstood that, notwithstanding these discrepancies, the same occurrence which Nehemiah relates in the present verses is intended by Josephus. The view of older theologians, to which also Petermann (art.

Samaria in Herzog’s Realenc . xiii. p. 366f.) assents, that there were two Sanballats, one in the days of Nehemiah, the other in the time of Alexander the Great, and that both had sons-in-law belonging to the high-priestly family, is very improbable; and the transposition of the fact by Josephus to the times of Darius Codomannus and Alexander accords with the usual and universally acknowledged incorrectness of his chronological combinations.

He makes, e. g. , Nehemiah arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth year of Xerxes, instead of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, while Xerxes reigned only twenty years.

Neh 13:30-31 Nehemiah concludes his work with a short summary of what he had effected for the community. “I cleansed them from all strangers” (comp. Neh 13:23. , Neh 9:2; Neh 13:1.) , “and appointed the services for the priests and Levites, each in his business, and for the wood-offering at times appointed (Neh 10:35), and for the first-fruits” (Neh 10:36.) The suffix to וטהרתּים refers to the Jews.

נכר, strange, means foreign heathen customs, and chiefly marriages with heathen women, Neh 13:23. , Neh 9:2; Neh 13:1. משׁמרות העמיד, properly to set a watch, here used in the more general sense of to appoint posts of service for the priests and Levites, i. e. , to arrange for the attendance upon those offices which they had to perform at their posts in the temple, according to the law; comp.

Neh 10:37, Neh 10:39; Neh 12:44-46; Neh 13:13. וּלקרבּן and ולבּכּוּרים, Neh 13:31, still depend on משׁמרות ואעמידה: I appointed the attendance for the delivery of the wood for the altar at appointed times (comp. Neh 10:35), and for the first-fruits, i. e. , for bringing into the sanctuary the heave-offering for the priests. The בּכּוּרים are named as pars pro toto , instead of all the תרוּמות prescribed by the law.

On the arrangements connected with these two subjects, viz. , the purification from heathen practices, and the restoration of the regular performance of divine worship, was Nehemiah’s whole energy concentrated, after the fortification of Jerusalem by a wall of circumvallation had been completed. He thus earned a lasting claim to the gratitude of the congregation of his fellow-countryman that returned from Babylon, and could conclude his narrative with the prayer that God would remember him for good.

On this frequently-repeated supplication (comp. Neh 13:14, Neh 13:22, and Neh 5:19) Rambach justly remarks: magnam Nehemiae pietatem spirat . This piety is, however - as we cannot fail also to perceive - strongly pervaded by the legal spirit of post-Babylonian Judaism.

Neh 13:30-31 Nehemiah concludes his work with a short summary of what he had effected for the community. “I cleansed them from all strangers” (comp. Neh 13:23. , Neh 9:2; Neh 13:1.) , “and appointed the services for the priests and Levites, each in his business, and for the wood-offering at times appointed (Neh 10:35), and for the first-fruits” (Neh 10:36.) The suffix to וטהרתּים refers to the Jews.

נכר, strange, means foreign heathen customs, and chiefly marriages with heathen women, Neh 13:23. , Neh 9:2; Neh 13:1. משׁמרות העמיד, properly to set a watch, here used in the more general sense of to appoint posts of service for the priests and Levites, i. e. , to arrange for the attendance upon those offices which they had to perform at their posts in the temple, according to the law; comp.

Neh 10:37, Neh 10:39; Neh 12:44-46; Neh 13:13. וּלקרבּן and ולבּכּוּרים, Neh 13:31, still depend on משׁמרות ואעמידה: I appointed the attendance for the delivery of the wood for the altar at appointed times (comp. Neh 10:35), and for the first-fruits, i. e. , for bringing into the sanctuary the heave-offering for the priests. The בּכּוּרים are named as pars pro toto , instead of all the תרוּמות prescribed by the law.

On the arrangements connected with these two subjects, viz. , the purification from heathen practices, and the restoration of the regular performance of divine worship, was Nehemiah’s whole energy concentrated, after the fortification of Jerusalem by a wall of circumvallation had been completed. He thus earned a lasting claim to the gratitude of the congregation of his fellow-countryman that returned from Babylon, and could conclude his narrative with the prayer that God would remember him for good.

On this frequently-repeated supplication (comp. Neh 13:14, Neh 13:22, and Neh 5:19) Rambach justly remarks: magnam Nehemiae pietatem spirat . This piety is, however - as we cannot fail also to perceive - strongly pervaded by the legal spirit of post-Babylonian Judaism.

This 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. Its 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). From 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.

The 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 Hävernick ( 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.

And 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. Bleek’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. When, 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.

If, 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.

No 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 Stähelin, 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 Hävernick, 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.

The 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. Luther 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. Later 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 chasm between the times of the prophets and the days of our Lord.

” “The book itself and its position in the canon plainly testify, that the people to whom the victory over the world was promised, separated themselves farther and farther from communion with the holy God, trusted to their own arm and to worldly power, and could not, therefore, but be worsted in their contest with the empire of the times. ” Such a verdict is justified neither by the circumstance, that the Jews, who reject Christ’s redemption, understand and over-estimate this book in a carnal manner, nor by the fact, that the name of God does not once occur therein.

With respect to the first point, the book itself is not to blame for being misused by Jews who have not accepted the redemption which is by Christ, to nourish a fanatical hatred of all Gentiles. Even if Esther and Mordochai were filled with a spirit of revenge toward the Gentiles, no reproach could in consequence be cast on the book of Esther, which neither praises nor recommends their actions or behaviour, but simply relates what took place without blame or approval.

But neither are the accusations raised against Esther and Mordochai founded in truth. The means they took for the deliverance and preservation of their people were in accordance with the circumstances stated. For if the edict promulgated by Haman, and commanding the extermination of the Jews, could not, according to the prevailing law of the Medo-Persians, be repealed, there was no other means left to Mordochai for the preservation of his countrymen from the destruction that threatened them, than the issue of a counter-edict permitting the Jews to fight for their lives against all enemies who should attack them, and conceding to them the same rights against their foes as had been granted to the latter against the Jews by the edict of Haman.

The bloodshed which might and must ensue would be the fault neither of Mordochai nor Esther, but of Haman alone. And though Mordochai had irritated the haughty Haman by refusing him adoration, yet no Jew who was faithful to the commands of his God could render to a man that honour and adoration which are due to the Lord only. Besides, even if the offence of which he was thereby guilty against Haman might have incited the latter to punish him individually, it could offer no excuse for the massacre of the entire Jewish nation.

As for the second point, viz. , the non-mention of the name of God in this book, we have already remarked, 3, that this omission is not caused by a lack of devoutness of reverence, the narrative itself presenting features which lead to an opposite conclusion. In the answer which Mordochai sends to Esther’s objection to appear before the king unbidden, “If thou holdest thy peace, there shall arise help and deliverance for the Jews from another place,” is expressed the assured belief that God would not leave the Jews to perish.

To this must be added, both that the Jews express their deep sorrow at the edict of Haman by fasting and lamentation (Est 4:1-3), and that Queen Esther not only prepares for her difficult task of appearing before the king by fasting herself, but also begs to be assisted by the fasting of all the Jews in Susa (Est 4:16). Now fasting was a penitential exercise, and the only form of common worship practised by Jews dwelling among Gentiles; and this penitential exercise was always combined with prayer even among the heathen (comp.

Jon 3:5.) , though prayer and calling upon God might not be expressly mentioned. Finally, the occasion of this conflict between Jews and Gentiles was a religious one, viz. , the refusal of adoration to a man, from fear of transgressing the first commandment. All these things considered, we may with Stähelin appropriate what Lutz in his bibl. Hermeneutik , p.

386, says concerning this book: “A careful survey will suffice to show, that the religious principle predominates in the book of Esther, and that there is a religious foundation to the view taken of the occurrence. For it is represented as providential, as an occurrence in which, although the name of God is unmentioned, a higher Power, a Power on the side of Israel, prevails.

Even in single features a closer inspection will plainly recognise a religious tone of feeling, while the whole book is pervaded by religious moral earnestness. ” It is this religious foundation which has obtained and secured its position in the canon of the inspired books of the O. T. The book is a memorial of the preservation of the Jewish people, during their subjection to a universal empire, by means of a special and providential disposition of secular events, and forms in this respect a supplement to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which relate the restoration of the Jewish community to the land of their fathers.

On the additions to the book of Esther in the Alexandrinian version, which Luther, after the example of Jerome, excluded from the book and relegated to the Apocrypha under the title of Stücke in Esther , comp. my Lehrb. der Einleitung , 237, and O. F. Fritzsche’s kurzgef. exeget. Hdb. zu den Apokryphen des N. T. p. 68f. For the exegetic literature, see Lehrb.

der Einl. v. 150. Comp. also E. Ph. L. Calmberg, liber Esterae interpretatione latina brevique commentario illustr. , Hamb. 1837, 4, and Bertheau’s Commentary, quoted p. 12. Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom then assembled in Susa, for the purpose of showing them the greatness and glory of his kingdom; while the queen at the same time made a feast for the women in the royal palace (Est 1:1-9).

On the seventh day of the feast, the king, “when his heart was merry with wine,” sent a message by his chief courtiers to the queen, commanding her to appear before him, to show the people and the princes her beauty, and on her refusal to come, was greatly incensed against her (Est 1:10-12). Upon inquiring of his astrologers and princes what ought in justice to be done to the queen on account of this disobedience, they advised him to divorce Vashti by an irrevocable decree, and to give her dignity to another and better; also to publish this decree throughout the whole kingdom (Est 1:13-20).

This advice pleasing the king, it was acted upon accordingly (Est 1:21 and Est 1:22). The banquet. Est 1:1-3 mark a period. משׁתּה עשׂה, which belongs to ויהי, does not follow till Est 1:3, and even then the statement concerning the feast is again interrupted by a long parenthesis, and not taken up again and completed till Est 1:5. On the use of ויהי in historical narratives at the beginning of relations having, as in the present instance and Rth 1:1, no reference to a preceding narrative, see the remark on Jos 1:1.

Even when no express reference to any preceding occurrence takes place, the historian still puts what he has to relate in connection with other historical occurrences by an “and it came to pass. ” Ahashverosh is, as has already been remarked on Ezra 4, Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis. Not only does the name אחשׁורושׁ point to the Old-Persian name Ks'ayars'a (with א prosthetic), but the statements also concerning the extent of the kingdom (Est 1:1; Est 10:1), the manners and customs of the country and court, the capricious and tyrannical character of Ahashverosh, and the historical allusions are suitable only and completely to Xerxes, so that, after the discussions of Justi in Eichhorn’s Repert .

xv. pp. 3-38, and Baumgarten, de fide , etc. , pp. 122-151, no further doubt on the subject can exist. As an historical background to the occurrences to be delineated, the wide extent of the kingdom ruled by the monarch just named is next described: “He is that Ahashverosh who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces. ” מדינה ... שׁבע is not an accusative dependent on מלך, he ruled 127 provinces, for מלך, to reign, is construed with על or בּ, but is annexed in the form of a free apposition to the statement: “from India to Cush;” as also in Est 8:9.

הדּוּ is in the Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Hidhu; in Zend, Hendu; in Sanscrit, Sindhu, i. e. , dwellers on the Indus, for Sindhu means in Sanscrit the river Indus; comp. Roediger in Gesenius, Thes . Append. p. 83, and Lassen, Indische Alterthumsk . i. p. 2. כּוּשׁ is Ethiopia. This was the extent of the Persian empire under Xerxes. Mardonius in Herod.

7:9 names not only the Sakers and Assyrians, but also the Indians and Ethiopians as nations subject to Xerxes. Comp. also Herod. 7:97, 98, and 8:65, 69, where the Ethiopians and Indians are reckoned among the races who paid tribute to the Persian king and fought in the army of Xerxes. The 127 מדינות, provinces, are governmental districts, presided over, according to Est 8:9, by satraps, pechahs, and rulers.

This statement recalls that made in Dan 6:2, that Darius the Mede set over his kingdom 120 satraps. We have already shown in our remarks on Dan 6:2 that this form of administration is not in opposition to the statement of Herod. iii. 89f. , that Darius Hystaspis divided the kingdom for the purpose of taxation into twenty ἀρχαί which were called σατραπηΐ́αι. The satrapies into which Darius divided the kingdom generally comprised several provinces.

The first satrapy, e. g. , included Mysia and Lydia, together with the southern part of Phrygia; the fourth, Syria and Phoenicia, with the island of Cyprus. The Jewish historians, on the other hand, designate a small portion of this fourth satrapy, viz. , the region occupied by the Jewish community (Judah and Benjamin, with their chief city Jerusalem), as מדינה, Ezr 2:1; Neh 1:3; Neh 7:6; Neh 11:3.

Consequently the satrapies of Darius mentioned in Herodotus differ from the medinoth of Dan 6:2, and Est 1:1; Est 8:9. The 127 medinoth are a division of the kingdom into geographical regions, according to the races inhabiting the different provinces; the list of satrapies in Herodotus, on the contrary, is a classification of the nations and provinces subject to the empire, determined by the tribute imposed on them.

Est 1:2 The words: in those days, take up the chronological statement of Est 1:1, and add thereto the new particular: when King Ahashverosh sat on the throne of his kingdom in the citadel of Susa. שׁבת does not involve the notion of quiet and peaceable possession after the termination of wars (Clericus, Rambach), but that of being seated on the throne with royal authority.

Thus the Persian kings are always represented upon a raised seat or throne, even on journeys and in battle. According to Herod. vii. 102, Xerxes watched the battle of Thermopylae sitting upon his throne. And Plutarch ( Themistocl . c. 13) says the same of the battle of Salamis. Further examples are given by Baumg. l. c. p. 85f. On the citadel of Susa, see Neh 1:1, and remarks on Dan 8:2.

Est 1:3 “In the third year of his reign he made a feast to all his princes and his servants, when the forces of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, were before him. ” משׁתּה עשׂה, to make, to prepare, i. e. , to give, a feast; comp. Gen 21:8. The princes and the servants are, all who were assembled about him in Susa. These are specified in the words which follow as חיל פ.

We might supply ל before חיל from the preceding words, (viz.) the forces, etc. ; but this would not suit the לפניו at the end of the verse. For this word shows that an independent circumstantial clause begins with חיל, which is added to call attention to the great number of princes and servants assembled at Susa (Bertheau): the forces of Persia ... were before him: when they were before him.

By חיל, the host, the forces, Bertheau thinks the body-guard of the king, which, according to Herod. vii. 40, consisted of 2000 selected horsemen, 2000 lancers, and 10,000 infantry, is intended. There is, however, no adequate reason for limiting חיל to the body-guard. It cannot, indeed, be supposed that the whole military power of Persia and Media was with the king at Susa; but חיל without כּל can only signify an élite of the army, perhaps the captains and leaders as representing it, just as “the people” is frequently used for “the representatives of the people.

” The Persians and Medes are always named together as the two kindred races of the ruling nation. See Dan 6:9, who, however, as writing in the reign of Darius the Mede, places the Medes first and the Persians second, while the contrary order is observed here when the supremacy had been transferred to the Persians by Cyrus. On the form פּרס, see rem. on Ezr 1:1.

After the mention of the forces, the Partemim , i. e. , nobles, magnates (see on Dan 1:3), and the princes of the provinces are named as the chief personages of the civil government.