Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Esther 2:6
Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.
6. who had been carried away ] According to Heb. grammar, the relative pronoun should refer to Mordecai. If, however, he was even as a boy one of the captives in the time of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin, 2Ki 24:6), b.c. 598, and if, as we have seen, Ahasuerus is to be identified with Xerxes, Mordecai’s age would be something like 120 years, while his cousin Esther must also have been much too old. To get rid of this difficulty (which would only be diminished, not removed, if we were to adopt the otherwise very improbable view that an earlier ruler than Xerxes is intended), it has been sought, in contravention of the grammatical usage of the original, to make the antecedent to be not Mordecai but Kish, taken as the name of the great-grandfather of the former, and as otherwise unknown. But the true explanation doubtless is that the chronological difficulty never occurred to the framer of the story, nor, probably, to his earliest readers, and that he simply meant to represent Mordecai as one of the Jews in exile.
whom Nebuchadnezzar etc. ] See 2Ki 24:10 ff.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who had been carried away: this may be referred either,
1. To Kish, Mordecais grandfather last mentioned; or,
2. To Mordecai, who was then carried away, either,
1. In the loins of his parents, in which sense Levi is said to be tithed in Abraham, Heb 7; and as those persons named Ezr 2 are said to have been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, Ezr 2:1, which is not true of the most of them in their own persons, but only as in their fathers loins. Or,
2. In his own person; and then indeed he was a man of more than ordinary years. But of that See Poole “Est 1:1“.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Who had been carried away from Jerusalem,…. Which, according to some f, is to be connected, not with Mordecai, but with Kish, his great-grandfather; and indeed otherwise Mordecai must be now a very old man, and Esther his first cousin, they being brothers’ children, must be at an age, one would think, not to be reckoned among young virgins, and not be so amiable as she is represented; and indeed, according to the former Targum, she was seventy five years of age, which is not credible; and yet this, and more she must be, to be equal to Mordecai, if he was carried captive, as follows:
with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away; which was eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for so long Zedekiah reigned after that captivity of Jeconiah: hence Sir John Marsham g makes this affair of Esther to be within the time of the Babylonish captivity, and places Ahasuerus her husband between Darius the Mede and Cyrus, contrary to history and Scripture, see Da 6:28
f Vid. Rainold. de Lib. Apocryph. Praelect. 113, 117, 146. g Chronicon. see. 18. p. 609, 621.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(6) Who had been . . .The antecedent is obviously Kish, though as far as the mere grammar goes it might have been Mordecai.
Jeconiah.That is, Jehoiachin. (See 2Ki. 24:12-16.)
Nebuchadnezzar . . . had carried away.This was in 598 B.C., 117 years before this time, so that the four generations are readily accounted for.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Who had been carried away The relative who, here, must refer to Kish, not to Mordecai; for it is scarcely possible that a captive of Nebuchadnezzar should have been an officer of the Persian court in the time of Xerxes. Daniel was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar, and continued till the reign of Cyrus, (Dan 1:1; Dan 1:21,) and the fact is mentioned as worthy of special remark. Had Mordecai been his contemporary, and yet have lived on to the time of Xerxes, the fact would no doubt have received special notice. But the attempt of Tyrwhitt ( Esther and Ahasuerus) to show that a great-grandson of a captive taken by Nebuchadnezzar could not have been contemporary with Xerxes, is every way futile. Kish may have been a mere child when taken captive, and Shimei and Jair may not have been the first born. Arguments based on parallel lines of descent are often misleading, for, of the great-grandchildren of two contemporaries, some may be mere infants when others are of mature age.
Jeconiah Another form of the name Jehoiachin. Comp. 2Ki 24:12, with Jer 24:1.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Est 2:6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.
Ver. 6. Who had been carried away from Jerusalem ] Kish had, not Mordecai; unless it were in the loins of his great grandfather. Kish and his posterity were of those good figs mentioned in Jeremiah; but goodness is no target against affliction.
– nec te tua plurima Pentheu
Labentem texit pietas (Virg.).
With the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah
Whom Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had carried away
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jeconiah = Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:6).
carried away. Compare 2Ki 24:14, 2Ki 24:15. Jer 52:24-34:133 years before the generally received date (i.e. 598-465 = 133), which, therefore, cannot be correct. From the carrying away of Jeconiah to the marriage of Esther to Astyages in his seventh year was only twenty-two years (489-467). See App-50.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Jeconiah
Or, Jehoiachin; 2Ki 24:6.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Jeconiah: 2Ki 24:6, 2Ki 24:14, 2Ki 24:15, 2Ch 36:9, 2Ch 36:10, 2Ch 36:20, Jeboiachin, Jer 22:24, Jer 22:28, Coniah, Jer 24:1
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Est 2:6. Who had been carried away from Jerusalem This may refer either to Kish, Mordecais grandfather, last mentioned, or to Mordecai himself, which, however, is not probable, as in that case he must have been a very old man, not less than a hundred and forty years of age.