Esther 1:16 - Exposition

And Memucan answered . We gather from Memucan's reply that the Persian law had provided no penalty for the case in hand—had, in fact, not contemplated it. He first argues the matter on general grounds of morality ( Esther 1:16 ) and expediency ( Esther 1:17 , Esther 1:18 ), and then proposes the enactment of a new law—a privilegium— assigning Vashti a special punishment for her contempt of the king's order. The " decree " ( Esther 1:20 ) would not have been necessary had there already existed a law on the point. Vashti, the queen, hath not done wrong to the king only . With the servility to be expected in an Oriental and a courtier, Memucan throws himself wholly on the king's side—insinuates no word of blame against his royal master, on whom in justice the whole blame rested; but sets himself to make the worst he can of Vashti's conduct, which (he says) was a wrong not to Ahasuerus only, but to the whole male population of the empire, the princes included, who must expect their wives to throw off all subjection, in imitation of the queen's example, if her conduct were allowed to go unpunished. As such a condition of things would be intolerable, the king is urged to disgrace her publicly.