Esther 9:16

Est 9:16 But the other Jews that [were] in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey,

Ver. 16. But the other Jews that were, &c.] Though they were but a nation, scattered and peeled, a contemptible and feeble folk, lately destined to destruction; yet by faith they subdue kingdoms, escape the edge of the sword, out of weakness become strong, wax valiant in fight, turn to flight whole armies of the aliens, Heb 11:33-34, prevail and prosper against all the malignant power of Persia: thus were they helped with a little help (as it is, Dan 11:34), that God might have a great deal of glory, as indeed he had.

Gathered themselves together] United their forces, as Est 9:2, which while our ancestors (the old Britons) did not against the Romans who invaded them, they were easily and quickly conquered. Et dum pugnabant singuli vincebantur universi, And while they fought by themselves, they were all conquored. saith Tacitus, who was here, with his father-in-law, Agricola, an eye-witness of what he writeth.

And stood for their lives] Not one whereof was lost in this hot encounter, in this sharp revenge they took off their avowed enemies. This was even a miracle of God’smercy: "Who would not fear thee, O King of nations," &c.

And had rest from their enemies] Or, That they might have rest from their enemies; who would not otherwise be quieted, but by the letting out of their life-blood; but would make an assault upon the harmless Jews, though it were to die for it; so that upon the matter they were their own deathsmen, besides the wilful loss of their immortal souls, which our Saviour showeth, Mat 16:26, to be a loss, 1. Incomparable, 2. Irreparable.

And slew of their foes seventy and five thousand] Neither was it any dishonour to them to be God Almighty’s slaughtermen. Even the good angels are executioners of God’s righteous judgments, as they were at Sodom, in Sennacherib’s army, and oft in the Revelation. There cannot be a better or more noble act than to do justice upon obstinate malefactors.

But they laid not their hands on the prey] They would not once foul their fingers therewith. No godly man in Scripture is taxed for covetousness, that sordid sin. {See Trapp on "Est 9:10"}

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 9:16. And had rest from their enemies — Who could not stand before them, and therefore ceased to molest them. But they laid not their hands on the prey — It is probable Mordecai, in his letters, had charged them not to make use of the liberty the king had given them to take the spoil, inasmuch as it appears they universally avoided it.

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

9:16 75,000 seems like quite a large number. The Old Greek translation has 15,000 and the Targum has 10,107 men. The Hebrew word translated thousands can also indicate an extended family or lineage, so it is possible that 75 extended families were killed.

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

Read Esther 8:11.

Meaning, that they laid hands on none that were not this enemies of God.

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

(16) Seventy and five thousand.—The number as given in the LXX. is fifteen thousand, perhaps a more probable number. On the whole history, Bishop Wordsworth well remarks, “It shows the recklessness of human life, even of their own subjects, which then prevailed among the sovereigns of the most celebrated nations of the Eastern world; and it displays the ruinous consequences which would have resulted to human civilisation if Ahasuerus (Xerxes) had been victorious at Salamis. If Greece had not triumphed in that struggle with Asia, Oriental ruthlessness and Oriental polygamy might have become dominant in the West, and greater difficulties would have obstructed the progress of civilisation and Christianity. The Book of Esther reveals to us that the hand of God wrought for the deliverance of mankind at the Straits of Salamis, and on the banks of the Asopus at Platæa, as well as for the preservation of the Jews in the provinces of Persia.”

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

But the Jews that were at Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth day thereof, and on the fourteenth day thereof,.... Of the month Adar; that is, they gathered together to defend themselves, and destroy their enemies, on both these days, having the decree renewed for the fourteenth as they had for the thirteenth:

and on the fifteenth day of the same they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness; as the Jews in the provinces did on the fourteenth.

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

Seventy and five thousand - The Septuagint gives the number as 15,000; and this amount seems more in proportion to the 800 slain in Susa.

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

Lives. In many cases they would probably be attacked, as Aman’s edict was perhaps still in force, as well as that of Mardochai. Hence both parties would be upon the watch. (Haydock) --- Seventy-five. Roman Septuagint has only 15,000. Complutensian, 10,035. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

16. And had rest from their enemies — The position of these words in the middle of the verse is noticeably strange. There maybe here some disarrangement of the text, or it may be, as Keil suggests, “that the narrator desired at once to point out how the matter ended.” Such apparent disorder of the text is not always to be regarded as evidence of corruption by transcribers. The Hebrew writers are not always the best models of accuracy and perfection of literary style.

Seventy and five thousand — “The slaughter of these seventy-five thousand shows,” says Wordsworth, “that a very large number of their heathen enemies, who had been exasperated against the Jews, had prepared themselves for an attack upon them; and that, presuming upon their own numbers and forces, as compared with the Jews, they assaulted them in order to destroy and despoil them, and to enrich themselves with their property; and that the Jews made a vigorous resistance, and, by the help of God, routed their assailants with a great discomfiture. The slaughter was not the consequence of a vindictive spirit in the Jews, but of the bitter animosity of their enemies; and it proves that the Jews would have been extinguished, (as Haman’s decree intended that they should be,) if God had not interfered to rescue them from destruction.”

The same writer also records the two following inferences from the history of this terrible slaughter: 1) “It shows the recklessness of human life, even of their own subjects, which then prevailed among the sovereigns of most celebrated nations of the Eastern world, and it displays the ruinous consequences which would have resulted to human civilization if Ahasuerus (Xerxes) had been victorious at Salamis. If Greece had not triumphed in that struggle with Asia, Oriental ruthlessness and Oriental polygamy might have become dominant in the West, and greater difficulties would have obstructed the progress of civilization and Christianity. The Book of Esther reveals to us that the hand of God wrought for the deliverance of mankind at the straits of Salamis, and on the banks of the Asopus, at Plataea, as well as for the preservation of the Jews in the provinces of Persia.” 2) “It also displays the unhappy consequences of that proud assumption of infallibility which was implied in the Medo-Persian maxim, that laws once enacted may never be repealed. Such a claim to the divine attribute of infallibility, whether it be made by Eastern potentates or Western pontiffs, shuts the door against repentance, and involves them in a perpetual necessity of erring, and is fraught with the most disastrous consequences to all who are under their sway.”

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

Gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives. i.e. did as the edict directed them. (Est_8:11) And had rest from their enemies. The idea of "rest" seems out of place when the subject of the narrative is slaughter, and the number of the slain has still to be told. Some suspect corruption, others an interpolation. And slew of their foes seventy and five thousand. The LXX had in their copies fifteen for seventy-five, or one-fifth of the received number. The smaller number is more in harmony with the 500 killed at Susa than the larger one.

The law of national self-preservation.

This passage, with two somewhat similar passages preceding it, may read at first like the narration of sanguinary cruelty, and the indefensible havoc of human life. Our strongest sympathies were but very lately with the Jews, for whom fearful destruction was devised without the slightest shadow of justifiable provocation. We rejoiced with them when the cloud that overhung burst, and they seemed to be delivered from their former terrible outlook. But already we begin perhaps to repent, and to feel that neither our sympathy nor our gratulation were well merited. Though the destruction that threatened the Jews, and with such aggravating circumstances, is averted, it is little (even though it be true that they were not the side originally in fault), if all that is gained is, that the hands that shed blood are changed from the one side to the other. If no slaughter is spared, if for pity"s sake human life be not saved, if those who were the unjustly doomed become in the hour of their own mercy the first to doom others, even though they may do so with tenfold provocation and with some rough sort of justice, we may be inclined to feel for a moment that there was after all not so very much to choose between the two. A little closer study of the context, however, will suffice to show that such is not a fair description of the case. The subject suggests rather the statement of the law of self-preservation, not of the individual, but of the nation. Again, therefore, we have a.question of great interest offering itself on the scale of national magnitude. This circumstance will facilitate the consideration of it under conditions in some respects more favourable. When treated as a question affecting the individual, it has often been entangled by casuistry; but when considered in the unusual proportions here presenting themselves, its broader, bolder outlines will perhaps come out to view more plainly. The right of taking life for the sake of self-preservation, or in self-defence, may be sufficiently sketched out of the material of the present narrative. If that right is to be fairly allowed for, and at the same time limited as exactly as may be, it may be said to postulate the following conditions:

I THAT THE OCCASION BE ONE OF UNDOUBTED NECESSITY. In the present instance the whole number of the Jews scattered throughout the 127 provinces now subject to Ahasuerus had been threatened with extermination. There could be no doubt of their imminent danger, and of their helplessness. When Esther (Est_8:5) supplicated the king "to reverse the letters devised by Haman which he wrote to destroy the Jews in all the king"s provinces," the king met the difficulty of his former irreversible decree and irreversible letters by giving authority to the threatened Jews "to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy all the power of the people and province that would assault. (Est_8:11) He cannot reverse his own former decree literally, but by a fiction he does so very really, very effectually. Esther and Mordecai would at that time have been gladly content to have simply removed from their own race the decree that doomed them, but from the time that this way of putting the matter was revealed by the king, and the whole responsibility of saving themselves was thrown so far on their own efforts, the occasion became one of undoubted necessity. It was not war, it was not murder, it was not gratuitous massacre it was a case of self-defence.

II THAT THERE BE THE LEAST SACRIFICE OF LIFE THAT WOULD ATTAIN THE NEEDFUL END. It is remarkable that the exact number should be so carefully given of the two slaughters in Shushan (vers. 6, 15), and of the aggregate of that (ver. 16) which took effect through the "king"s provinces." That Esther asked for another day"s opportunity of taking the lives of the enemies of her people in Shushan (vers. 13-15) may safely be understood to be owing to special necessities not given in detail. It need not for one moment indicate any wish that one life more should be sacrificed than should be necessary for the safety of the Jews. Now when the sum-total of the slain are added, amounting to 75, 800, first, the number, large as it seems, probably does not reach the number of the Jews who were to have been exterminated; secondly, it is certain there was no comparison between the numbers relatively for in the case of the Jews the slaughter was to have been of all, while 75, 800 were but a small proportion of the entire population not Jews; and thirdly, there not only is no evidence of there having been any indiscriminate slaughter on the part of the Jews, but presumably none were slain except such as rose up to slay. This self-defence, therefore, on the part of the Jews probably left more living men than would have been left under the circumstances if the Jews had suffered their own lives to be unresistingly taken.

III THAT THE LEAST POSSIBLE GAIN OUTSIDE OF THE ONE GAIN OF LIFE, THE SUPREME OBJECT SOUGHT, BE TAKEN BY THE ACT OF SELF-DEFENCE. In the decree granted by King Ahasuerus special provision was spontaneously made that the Jews should appropriate the spoil on their successful resistance of the enemy. Nevertheless, when the time came they refused to do so. And evidently much significance attached to this conduct. It is repeated as many as three times in this chapter. On every occasion on which a victory on their part is announced, this is added-that instead of laying hands on the prey, they emphatically refrained from doing so. This differences self-defence, and the taking of life in self-defence, very greatly from other occasions in which life is taken.

IV THAT REVENGE BE THE LEAST POSSIBLE ELEMENT IN IT. In cases of sudden need of self-defence there will be no room for the feeling of revenge. Self-defence, however, will by no means be requisite only in such cases. Where there is long delay it is impossible to predicate that none of the spirit of revenge may enter into the hearts of some out of the many; but there is no need to suppose that now there was any in the hearts of the principals. Esther and Mordecai desired one thing the safety of their people. They wished for "rest from their enemies." They probably felt that they were the ministers of righteous retribution. They desired that Haman"s ten sons "hanged on the gallows" should still drive home on an impressed populace the sense and conviction of what a force righteous retribution was, and how much men ought "to stand in awe" because of it; but there is no proof whatever that in all the relief to the bitterness of their soul revenge played any part. The lessons of this portion of the narrative are not needed for the pulpit on every Lord"s day certainly, but it may be they are provided here, in the universality of the use of the Divine book, for some special and solemn crises. B.

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