Esther 1:22

Est 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.

Ver. 22. That every man should have rule in his own house] Aequum sane edictum, modo moderatum, A righteous decree, had it been but rightly made use of, and not abused to tyranny and rough dealing. Aristotle saith, that the husband ought to have a civil power over his wife, as being her better in honour, speech, gravity, and dignity. Menander and Euripides say the same, holding it unfit that the hen should crow, that the woman should usurp authority over the man; this nature and Scripture do both condemn. But why should these Persian princes at this time send forth such an edict as this? Was it because this good law of nature began to be depraved and obliterated among them, as it was among the Egyptians, where the queen is more honoured than the king, and in private houses the wife than the husband, as Diodorus Siculus reporteth? Or had they a mind to divulge their own shame, and to tell the world that they were least masters at home, and must therefore have a law made to force obedience? Or was it not, lastly, to countenance the king’s rash and unlawful putting away of his wife, for so light a cause; like as Cambyses, their recent king, having a mind to marry his own sister, made a law, that any man should have liberty to do the like? Whatever it was that moved them to send forth this decree, surely there was little need to excite men to use their authority over their wives, since they are apt enough to do so without bidding. Therefore St Paul, after, wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, doth not say, and subjoin, husbands rule over your wives, but, husbands love your wives, and be not bitter against them, Col 3:19.

And that it should be published according to the language of every people] That so being particularly understood, it might appear more authentic and weighty, and so take away the hatred from the lawgivers for the wrong they had done the queen. Some render it thus, that he should speak according to the language of his own people, that is, say they, that each man should keep and observe the liberty of his own nation, by commanding his people, and governing his own family, without any contradiction.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Est 1:22. That it should be published according to the language of every people — That all sorts of persons, not men only, but women also, might understand it, and therefore be inexcusable if they did not comply with it.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:22 The decree was published in each region in its own script and language so that the decree would be understood by every language group in the vast Persian Empire. • every man should be the ruler of his own home: It was already the cultural norm throughout the ancient Near East at that time that men ruled their houses. The decree added legal enforcement of the custom.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

That is, that the wife should be subject to the husband and at his commandment.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 22. That every man should bear rule in his own house] Both God's law and common sense taught this from the foundation of the world. And is it possible that this did not obtain in the Persian empire, previously to this edict? The twentieth verse has another clause, That all wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. This also was universally understood. This law did nothing. I suppose the parade of enactment was only made to deprive honest Vashti of her crown. The Targum adds, "That each woman should speak the language of her husband." If she were even a foreigner, she should be obliged to learn and speak the language of the king. Perhaps there might be some common sense in this, as it would oblige the foreigner to devote much time to study and improvement; and, consequently, to make her a better woman, and a better wife. But there is no proof that this was a part of the decree. But there are so many additions to this book in the principal versions, that we know not what might have made a part of it originally.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(22) He sent letters.—The Persian Empire was the first to possess a postal system (see esp. Herod. vii. 98). The Greek word for “compel,” in Mat_5:41; Mat_27:32, is simply a corruption of the Persian word for the impressment of men and horses for the royal service.

That every man should . . .—The following words are, literally, be ruling in his own house, and speaking according to the language of his own people. The former clause may probably be taken as a proof of the existence of an undue amount of female influence generally in Persia; the second clause is more doubtful. The English Version does distinct violence to the Hebrew, perhaps because the literal rendering yielded a somewhat peculiar sense. Taking the words exactly as they stand, they can only mean that in a house where two or more languages are used, from the presence of foreign wives, the husband is to take care that his own language is not supplanted by any of theirs. This is intelligible enough, but is perhaps rather irrelevant to what goes before.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. he sent letters into all the king’s provinces] There was an excellent system of posts in Persia, which, according to Herodotus, was in full working order in the time of Xerxes. See further on Est_3:13.

to every people after their language] It would be interesting to know in detail the languages in which these letters may be supposed to have been written. We cannot, however, hope to attain completeness in our list, although there are a considerable number which we may confidently include, as spoken by the subjects of an Empire reaching ‘from India even unto Ethiopia’ (see Est_1:1 with note). They may be classed as follows:

(1) Semitic. In Babylonia Assyrian or the cognate Babylonian was the language of the government, while probably Aramaic, which is closely akin to these, was commonly spoken. This last, it would appear, was used throughout a large portion of the Persian Empire, and Aramaic inscriptions—one of them bearing date in the fourth year of Xerxes[61]—have been found in a country as distant from the centre of Persian rule as Egypt. The great Semitic family of languages, of which Aramaic is a member, prevailed in more or less varying forms (in addition to the above-named Assyrian and Babylonian) in a large part of the Persian king’s dominions, viz. Phoenician, Arabic, Hebrew, and Western or Biblical Aramaic.

[61] See the Palaeographical Society’s Oriental Series, plate lxiii.

(2) Turanian. In parts of Assyria and Babylonia there may also have been surviving dialects which belong to a wholly different group of languages, and formed the speech of the old Accadian and Sumerian population. These were branches of the Turanian or Agglutinative family of which Turkish is one of the representatives at the present day. To this class also belonged Georgian, the most important of the languages spoken on the southern side of the principal Caucasus range.

(3) Aryan. This great family, to which can be traced most of the languages of modern Europe, would include Sanscrit and Prakrit, the latter of which is the mother of a large number of the Indian dialects, Zend, the old language of Bactria, and, lastly, the language of Greece, which doubtless at the time of Xerxes was making its way steadily eastward from the country of its birth.

and should publish it according to the language of his people] The literal rendering of the Hebrew is that every man should be ruling in his own house and speaking according to the language of his own people. This has been explained to refer to cases where men had taken wives from other nations. The wife then must conform to her husband as regards the matter in question, and the language used in the family must be the mother tongue of the latter (so the Targum). The clause will thus be a particular application of the general ordinance that ‘every man should bear rule in his own house.’ Nehemiah (Neh_13:23 f.) points out as one of the evils of marriages between Jews and non-Jews confusion of language on the part of the children of such unions.

It is, however, doubtful if the text is sound, and a conjecture has been widely adopted, which involves the change of not more than one Heb. consonant.[62] The meaning then will be, and shall speak whatsoever seems good to him, i.e. shall give whatever orders he chooses. In favour of this emendation it is pointed out that the new verb introduced by it into the Heb. text is one which, though not very frequent elsewhere, occurs in three other passages in this Book (Est_3:8, Est_5:13, Est_7:4). On the other hand it is dubious whether the construction which it involves is permissible Hebrew. The LXX. omits the words, and translates the preceding clause, so that they might have fear in their houses, meaning apparently, so that the husbands might be respected at home.[63]

[62] כָּל־שֹׁוֶה עִמּוֹ instead of כִּלְשׁוֹן עַמּוֹ.

[63] ὥστε εἶναι φόβον αὐτοῖς ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις αὐτῶν.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he sent letters unto all the king's provinces,.... The one hundred and twenty seven provinces, Est 1:1, which, according to the Targum, were written and sealed with his own seal; which is very probable:

into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; that is, these letters were written in the language, and in the characters in which that language was written, used in each of the provinces to which these letters were sent, that they might be easily read and understood by all: the sum of which was:

that every man should bear rule in his own house; be prince, lord, and master there, and his commands obeyed, not only by his children and servants, but by his wife also:

and that it should be published according to the language of every people; but as this is expressed, or at least implied, in the first clause of this verse, it should rather be rendered, "and that he should speak according to the language of his people"; and so is the latter Targum; it seems as if a man, who had married a woman in another country, in complaisance to her had neglected his own native tongue, and used hers in the family, by which means he lost, or seemed to lose, his authority in it: now, to guard against this, this part of the law was made; and, according to Jarchi, the husband was to compel his wife to learn and speak his language, if she was a foreigner; to which agrees the first Targum, which paraphrases the whole thus,"that a man rule over his wife, and oblige her to speak according to the language of her husband, and the speech of his people;''and, in later times, Bahram Gaur forbid any other language, besides the Persian, to be used within his port, either in speaking or writing (b).

(b) Vid. Castel. Lexic. Persic. col. 266.

Next: Esther Chapter 2

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

He sent letters - The Persian system of posts incidentally noticed in the present book Est 3:12-15; Est 8:9-14, is in entire harmony with the accounts of Herodotus and Xenophon.

Into every province according to the writing thereof - The practice of the Persians to address proclamations to the subject-nations in their own speech, and not merely in the language of the conqueror, is illustrated by the bilingual and trilingual inscriptions of the Achaemenian monarchs, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes Ochus, each inscription being of the nature of a proclamation.

The decree was not unnecessary. The undue influence of women in domestic, and even in public, matters is a feature of the ancient Persian monarchy. Atossa completely ruled Darius. Xerxes himself was, in his later years, shamefully subject to Amestris. The example of the court would naturally infect the people. The decree therefore would be a protest, even if ineffectual, against a real and growing evil.

And that it should be published ... - Render it: “and speak the language of his own people;” in the sense that the wife’s language, if different from her husband’s, should in no case be allowed to prevail in the household.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

That all sorts of persons, not men only, (who by study or travel many times understand divers languages,) but the women also, might understand it, and therefore be inexcusable if they did not comply with it; for which end it was not only written in each language, for that writing might come but to few hands, but moreover it was published in the several cities and towns by such persons as used to publish the king’s edicts. Others, that he should speak in the language of his own people, i.e. that men should not, in compliance with their wives, who were oft of other nations and languages, inure themselves to it, and bring their wives’ language into the family; but that men should use their own proper language, and cause their wives and children to use it; this being one sign of dominion, and therefore frequent after this time among the Greeks and Romans, who, together with their victorious arms, brought in their language into other countries, and in a great measure imposed it upon them.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. He sent letters — Herodotus (viii, 98) thus describes the Persian system of letter carrying: “There is nothing mortal that proceeds faster than these messengers. They detail and arrange so many men and horses as there are days’ journeys, a horse and a man being appointed for each day’s journey, and neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor night prevents them from finishing their allotted race as soon as possible. The first racer delivers his message to the second, and the second to the third, and so on.”

Every province according to the writing thereof — That is, according to its written alphabetical character in use in each province.

To every people after their language — According to their vernacular dialect. The same alphabetical character might be used, as is still common, for several different languages. The bilingual and trilingual inscriptions of Persia and other oriental lands are standing evidences and illustrations of the ancient practice of writing public documents in various characters and languages.

That every man should bear rule in his own house — No doubt the king’s letters contained much more than this, but we have here only the general purport of the royal decree. Rawlinson remarks that “the undue influence of women in domestic, and even in public, matters is a feature of the ancient Persian monarchy. Herodotus (vii, 8) tells us that Atossa completely ruled Darius. Xerxes himself was, in his later years, shamefully subject to Amestris. (Ibid., 9:111.) The example of the court would naturally infect the people. The decree would, therefore, seem to have been not so much an idle and superfluous act as an ineffectual protest against a real and growing evil.” (Com. in loco.) If the decree itself be considered unnecessary and absurd, let it be remembered that this was not the only absurd thing which Xerxes did.

And that it should be published — Our version is here faulty. The latter part of the verse should be rendered, That every man rule in his own house, and speak according to the language of his own people. That is, not only should every man be lord in his family, but he should require his own native language to be used by his wife and children. Multitudes throughout the empire married foreign wives, and the use of different languages in the same household may have often led to other troubles besides those mentioned in Neh_13:24. Foreign wives were therefore required to learn the language of their husbands, in order that the husband’s pre-eminence and authority in his own house might be the better maintained. Some critics have sought to emend the text, so as to make it read, speak all that suited him; but this reading is purely conjectural, sustained by no parallel, and yields but a trivial thought.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he sent. Rather, and he sent." Besides publishing the decree, Ahasuerus sent letters prescribing certain things, viz.:

1. That every man should bear rule in his own house; and,

2. That every man should speak his own language in his family, andnot that of his wife, if it were different.

This is the plain meaning of the existing text, which cannot bear either of the senses suggested in the Authorised Version.

Rule in the house.

The purport of the edict here recorded was good, although there seems something almost ludicrous in the feelings and the fears which prompted its framers and promulgators. "That every man should bear rule in his own house" seems scarcely a regulation to be prescribed by political authority.

I IT IS A PRINCIPLE FOUNDED UPON NATURAL, DIVINE AUTHORITY. It is written upon the very constitution of human nature that a wife should be directed by her husband, and children by their father. If purpose is visible anywhere, it is in this domestic law.

II IT IS A PRINCIPLE SANCTIONED BY SCRIPTURE. From the first it was said to the woman, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The apostle thus admonishes the female sex: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." "The husband," we are told, "is the head of the wife.

III THE RULE IN QUESTION SHOULD BE COMMENDED BY THOUGHTFUL WISDOM ON THE PART OF HIM WHO EXERCISES IT. If the husband is a fool, it is not easy for the wife to submit. Bat if he be a man of knowledge, experience, and self-control, the wife will usually, gladly and gratefully, be guided by his desires and requests.

IV THIS SWAY SHOULD BE EXERCISED WITH GENTLENESS AND FORBEARANCE. Nothing is more hateful or contemptible than the rule of a domestic tyrant, and such a rule encourages either rebellion or deceit. Children lose all respect for an unreasonable and passionate father. The household with such a head is wretched indeed. Affection and consideration should be manifest in the demeanour and requirements of all in authority over a family.

V SUCH A RULE SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED WITH FRANK SUBMISSION. Women are very much what men make them. Let them be treated with affection and courtesy, and the response will usually be cheerful compliance.

VI SUCH A RULE IS CONTRIBUTIVE TO ORDER AND HAPPINESS. The family is so far like the state; tyranny awakens resentment and provokes resistance, whilst a righteous and considerate rule is acknowledged with gratitude, and is productive of happiness. A home where there is anarchy is a hell upon earth; a home where a woman rules is a monstrous and loathsome spectacle. Darius and Xerxes are said, both of them, to have been too much governed by their wives. History abounds with instances in which the legitimate power of the wives of kings has been exceeded, and in which kings" mistresses have corrupted courts, and to some degree nations also.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

and speak according to the language of his nationality He can compel his wife to learn his language if her native tongue is different.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.