King Xerxes promoted Haman, the Agagite, to a position of high authority, commanding respect and reverence from the king's subjects, which led to conflict with Mordecai, who refused to bow to him. Haman sought to annihilate the Jews, fueled by pride and a historic enmity tied to his lineage. The narrative illustrates themes of pride, power, and the consequences of prejudice and hatred.

1. ESTHER 3 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Haman’s Plot to Destroy the Jews
1 After these events, King Xerxes honored Haman
son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, elevating him
and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of
all the other nobles.
BAR ES, "The name, Haman, is probably the same as the Classical Omanes, and in
ancient Persian, “Umana”, an exact equivalent of the Greek “Eumenes.” Hammedatha is
perhaps the same as “Madata” or “Mahadata”, an old Persian name signifying “given by
(or to) the moon.”
The Agagite - The Jews generally understand by this expression “the descendant of
Agag,” the Amalekite monarch of 1 Sam. 15. Haman, however, by his own name, and the
names of his sons Est_9:7-9 and his father, would seem to have been a genuine Persian.
The Classical writers make no mention of Haman’s advancement; but their notices of
the reign of Xerxes after 479 B.C. are exceedingly scanty.
CLARKE, "Haman - the Agagite - Perhaps he was some descendant of that Agag,
king of the Amalekites, spared by Saul, but destroyed by Samuel; and on this ground
might have an antipathy to the Jews.
Set his seat above all the princes - Made him his prime minister, and put all the
officers of state under his direction.
GIL, "After these things,.... After the marriage of Esther, and the discovery of the
conspiracy to take away the king's life, five years after, as Aben Ezra observe, at least
more than four years, for so it appears from Est_3:7
did King Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite;
whom both the Targums make to descend from Amalek, and to be of the stock or family
of Agag, the common name of the kings of Amalek; and so Josephus (g); but this is not

2. clear and certain; in the apocryphal Esther he is said to be a Macedonian; and Sulpitius
the historian says (h) he was a Persian, which is not improbable; and Agag might be the
name of a family or city in Persia, of which he was; and Aben Ezra observes, that some
say he is the same with Memucan, see Est_1:14,
and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him;
erected a throne for him, higher than the rest, either of his own princes and nobles, or
such as were his captives, see 2Ki_25:28. It was the custom of the kings of Persia, which
it is probable was derived from Cyrus, to advance those to the highest seats they thought
best deserved it: says he to his nobles, let there be seats with you as with me, and let the
best be honoured before others;--and again, let all the best of those present be honoured
with seats above others (i).
HE RY, "I. Haman advanced by the prince, and adored thereupon by the people.
Ahasuerus had lately laid Esther in his bosom, but she had no such interest in him as to
get her friends preferred, or to prevent the preferring of one who she knew was an
enemy to her people. When those that are good become great they still find that they
cannot do good, nor prevent mischief, as they would. This Haman was an Agagite (an
Amalekite, says Josephus), probably of the descendants of Agag, a common name of the
princes of Amalek, as appears, Num_24:7. Some think that he was by birth a prince, as
Jehoiakim was, whose seat was set above the rest of the captive kings (2Ki_25:28), as
Haman's here was, Est_3:1. The king took a fancy to him (princes are not bound to give
reasons for their favours), made him his favourite, his confidant, his prime-minister of
state. Such a commanding influence the court then had that (contrary to the proverb)
those whom it blessed the country blessed too; for all men adored this rising sun, and
the king's servants were particularly commanded to bow before him and to do him
reverence (Est_3:2), and they did so. I wonder what the king saw in Haman that was
commendable or meritorious; it is plain that he was not a man of honour or justice, of
any true courage or steady conduct, but proud, and passionate, and revengeful; yet was
he promoted, and caressed, and there was none so great as he. Princes' darlings are not
always worthies.
JAMISO , "Est_3:1-15. Haman, advanced by the king, and despised by Mordecai,
seeks revenge on all the Jews.
After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman ... set his seat
above all the princes — that is, raised him to the rank of vizier, or prime confidential
minister, whose pre-eminence in office and power appeared in the elevated state chair
appropriated to that supreme functionary. Such a distinction in seats was counted of
vast importance in the formal court of Persia.
K&D, "The elevation of Haman above all the princes of the kingdom is said in a
general manner to have taken place “after these things,” i.e., after the matters related in
Est 2. ‫ל‬ ֵ ִ, to make great, to make any one a great man; ‫א‬ ָ ִ‫,נ‬ elevated, is more precisely
defined by the sentence following: he set his seat above all the princes that were with
him, i.e., above the seat of all the princes about the king; in fact, advanced him to the
highest post, made him his grand vizier. Haman is called the son of Hammedatha ‫י‬ִ‫ג‬ָ‫ג‬ ֲ‫א‬ ָ‫,ה‬
the Agagite, or of the Agagites. ‫י‬ִ‫ג‬ָ‫ג‬ ֲ‫א‬ recalls ‫ג‬ָ‫ג‬ ֲ‫א‬ kings of the Amalekites, conquered and

3. taken prisoner by Saul, and hewn in pieces by Samuel, 1Sa_15:8, 1Sa_15:33. Hence
Jewish and Christian expositors regard Haman as a descendant of the Amalekite king.
This is certainly possible, though it can by no means be proved. The name Agag is not
sufficient for the purpose, as many individuals might at different times have borne the
name ‫ג‬ָ‫ג‬ ֲ‫,א‬ i.e., the fiery. In 1 Sam 15, too, Agag is not the nomen propr. of the conquered
king, but a general nomen dignitatis of the kings of Amalek, as Pharaoh and Abimelech
were of the kings of Egypt and Gerar. See on Num_24:7. We know nothing of Haman
and his father beyond what is said in this book, and all attempts to explain the names are
uncertain and beside the mark.
BE SO ,"Esther 3:1. After these things — About five years after, as appears from
Esther 3:7. Did Ahasuerus promote Haman the Agagite — An Amalekite, of the
seed-royal of that nation, whose kings were successively called Agag. And set his
seat above all the princes — Gave him the first place and seat which was next the
king.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
HAMA 'S PLOT TO KILL THE E TIRE JEWISH RACE;
ASHAMED TO KILL JUST O E MA ; HAMA DECIDED TO
EXTERMI ATE THE WHOLE ISRAEL OF GOD
"After these things did king Ahashuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha
the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with
him. And all the king's servants that were in the king's gate, bowed down, and did
reverence to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai
bowed not down, nor did him reverence. Then the king's servants, that were in the
king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment?
ow it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto
them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand: for he
had told them that he was a Jew. And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not
down, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. But he thought scorn
to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had made known to him the people of
Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout
the whole kingdom of Ahashuerus, even the people of Mordecai."
"They told Haman" (Esther 3:4). Tale bearers in all generations have deserved the
contempt in which they are generally held. These tale bearers were the cause of
many thousands of deaths which ultimately resulted from Haman's hatred. Haman
might never have noticed Mordecai's refusal to bow down, had it not been for the
gossips.
The thing that stands out in this paragraph is the egotistical pride of Haman. Only
one man in a multitude did not bow down to him; and he was at once angry enough
to kill a whole race of people!
Haman would have launched his evil plan at once, but first there was the necessity

4. to get the king's permission to do so.
"Haman the Agagite" (Esther 3:1). See our introduction to Esther for comment on
this. This name of a remote ancestor of Haman should not be viewed as, "A mere
epithet to indicate contempt and abhorrence."[1] Haman was indeed a descendant
of King Agag, an ancient enemy of Israel in the days of King Saul. The Jewish
historian Josephus agreed with this.
The reason why Mordecai would not bow down to Haman was probably due to the
fact that, "Haman was demanding not mere allegiance but worship; and Mordecai
refused it on the grounds of the First Commandment. Israelites were expected to
prostrate themselves before their kings."[2]
CO STABLE, "Verses 1-6
2. Haman"s promotion3:1-6
The events we read in chapter3took place four years after Esther became queen (cf.
Esther 2:16; Esther 3:7).
Agag was the name of an area in Media that had become part of the Persian
Empire. [ ote: Gleason L. Archer Jeremiah , A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction, p421.] However, Agag was also the name of the Amalekite king whom
Saul failed to execute ( 1 Samuel 15:8; cf. umbers 24:7). By mentioning both Kish,
Saul"s father, and Agag, the Amalekite king, the writer may have been indicating
that both men were heirs to a long-standing tradition of ethnic enmity and
antagonism. [ ote: Bush, p384. Cf. Baldwin, pp71-72; and Longman and Dillard,
pp221-22.] King Saul, a Benjamite, failed to destroy King Agag, an Amalekite; but
Mordecai, also a Benjamite ( Esther 2:5), destroyed Haman, an Amalekite. This
story pictures Haman as having all seven of the characteristics that the writer of
Proverbs 6:16-19 said the Lord hates: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed
innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to
evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.
[ ote: Wiersbe, pp716-17.]
Mordecai"s refusal to bow before Haman ( Esther 3:2) evidently did not spring
from religious conviction (cf. 2 Samuel 14:4; 2 Samuel 18:28; 1 Kings 1:16) but from
ancient Jewish antagonism toward the Amalekites. [ ote: Bush, p385; Wiersbe,
p718.] Mordecai did not have to worship Haman (cf. Daniel 3:17-18). ot even the
Persian kings demanded worship of their people. [ ote: Paton, p196.] evertheless,
Ahasuerus had commanded the residents of Susa to honor Haman ( Esther 3:3). So
this appears to have been an act of civil disobedience on Mordecai"s part. Probably
people knew that Mordecai was a Jew long before his conflict with Haman arose (
Esther 3:4).
"While the fact that he was a Jew (4) would not preclude his bowing down, the faith
of the exiles tended to encourage an independence of judgment and action which
embarrassed their captors ( Daniel 3; Daniel 6)." [ ote: Baldwin, pp72-73.]

5. Haman might have been successful in getting Mordecai executed. However, when he
decided to wipe out the race God chose to bless, he embarked on a course of action
that would inevitably fail (cf. Genesis 12:3).
ELLICOTT, "(1) Haman . . . the Agagite.— othing appears to be known of Haman
save from this book. His name, as well as that of his father and his sons, is Persian;
and it is thus difficult to see the meaning of the name Agagite. which has generally
been assumed to imply descent from Agag, king of the Amalekites, with whom the
name Agag may have been dynastic ( umbers 24:7; 1 Samuel 15:8). Thus Josephus
(Ant. xi. 6. 5) and the Chaldee Targum call him an Amalekite. But apart from the
difficulty of the name being Persian, it is hard to see how, after the wholesale
destruction of Amalek recorded in 1 Samuel 15, any members should have been left
of the kingly family, maintaining a distinct tribal name for so many centuries. In one
of the Greek Apocryphal additions to Esther (after Esther 9:24) Haman is called a
Macedonian.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:1 After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son
of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the
princes that [were] with him.
Ver. 1. After these things did Ahasuerus promote Haman] Four years after his
marriage with Esther, or near upon, did Ahasuerus magnify and exalt Haman,
Hominem profanum et sceleratum, as one saith, a profane wicked person; merely
for his mind sake, to show his sovereignty, and that he would, like some petty god
upon earth, set up whom he would, and whom he would, put down, Daniel 4:19.
Alexander the Great made Abdolominus, a poor gardener, king of Sidon. Whether
it were also by flattery or sycophancy, or some new projects for establishing his
tyranny, and increasing his tributes, that Haman had insinuated himself into this
king’s favour, it is uncertain. Sure it is that Mordecai, a better man, lay yet
unlooked upon; like good corn he lay in the bottom of the heap, when this vilest of
men was exalted, Psalms 12:8. Thus oft empty vessels swim aloft, rotten posts are
gilt with adulterate gold, the worst weeds spring up bravest; and when the twins
strove in Rebekah’s womb, profane Esau comes forth first, and is the firstborn,
Genesis 25:25. But while they seek the greatest dignities, they mostly meet with the
greatest shame; like apes, while they be climbing, they the more show their
deformities. They are lifted up also, ut lapsu graviore ruant, that they may come
down again with the greater poise. It was, therefore, well and wisely spoken by
Alvarez de Luna, when he told them who admired his fortune and favour with the
king of Castile, You do wrong to commend the building before it be finished, and
until you see how it will stand.
The son of Hammedatha the Ayagite] i.e. The Amalekite, of the stock royal; so that
Haman was the natural enemy of the Jews, like as Hannibal was of the Romans. An
old grudge there was, an inveterate hatred; Amalek was Esau’s grandchild, and the
enmity between these two peoples was, as we say of runnet, the older the stronger.

6. And advanced him] Set him aloft upon the pinnacle of highest preferment; as
Tiberius did Sejanus; as Louis XI of France did his barber; as our Henry VIII did
Wolsey; and our recent kings, Buckingham. But princes’ favourites should consider
with themselves that honour is but a blast, a magnum nihil, a glorious fancy, a rattle
to still men’s ambition; and that as the passenger looketh no longer upon the dial
than the sun shineth upon it, so it is here.
And set his seat above all the princes] This cup of honour his weak head could not
bear; this blast so blew up the bubble that it burst again. Sejanus-like, he now began
to sacrifice to himself, little thinking of that utter ruin to which he was hasting.
Physicians used to say, that ultimus sanitatis gradus est morbo vicinus. Sure it is,
that when the wicked are near unto misery, they have greatest preferment and
prosperity. When Tiberius was desirous to rid his hands of Sejanus, he made him
his colleague in the consulship, and set him above all his courtiers. Ahasuerus
intended not any harm to Haman when he raised him to this pitch of preferment;
but it puffed him up, and proved his bane. one are in so great danger as those that
walk upon pinnacles; even height itself makes men’s brains to swim. Every man is
not a Joseph, or a Daniel. They were set above all the princes, and could not only
bear it, but improve it for the glory of God, and the good of his people. Sed o quam
hoc non est omnium! High seats are not only uneasy, but dangerous, and how few
are there that do not (as Isis’ ass) think themselves worshipful for the burden they
bear! ( Hones onus) .
WHEDO , "1. Haman the son of Hammedatha — “The name Haman is probably
the same which is found in the classical writers under the form of Omanes, and
which in ancient Persian would have been Umana, or Umanish, an exact equivalent
of the Greek Eumenes. Hammedatha is, perhaps, the same as Madata or Mahadata,
(Madates of Q. Curtius,) an old Persian name signifying ‘given by (or to) the
moon.’” — Rawlinson.
The Agagite — Perhaps a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite. 1 Samuel 15:9; 1
Samuel 15:32. It was no impossible thing for a descendant of the royal family of
Amalek to become an officer in the court of Persia. Some, however, suggest that the
Agagite is an epithet which Jewish hatred has applied to Haman, with the design of
associating him with the hated Amalekite.
Set his seat above all the princes — Made him his chief favourite and prime
minister. Thus ebuchadnezzar and Darius honoured Daniel, who was also a
foreigner.
Daniel 2:48; Daniel 6:1-3.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "HAMA

7. Esther 3:1-6;, Esther 5:9-14;, Esther 7:5-10
HAMA is the Judas of Israel. ot that his conduct or his place in history would
bring him into comparison with the traitor apostle, for he was an open foe and a
foreigner. But he is treated by popular Judaism as the Arch-Enemy, just as Judas is
treated by popular Christianity. Like Judas, he has assigned to him a solitary pre-
eminence in wickedness, which is almost inhuman. As in the case of Judas, there is
thought to be no call for charity or mercy in judging Haman. He shares with Judas
the curse of Cain. Boundless execration is heaped on his head. Horror and hatred
have almost transformed him into Satan. He is called "The Agagite," an obscure
title which is best explained as a later Jewish nickname derived from a reference to
the king of Amalek who was hewn in pieces before the Lord. In the Septuagint he is
surnamed "The Macedonian," because when that version was made the enemies of
Israel were the representatives of the empire of Alexander and his successors.
During the dramatic reading of the Book of Esther in a Jewish synagogue at the
Feast of Purim, the congregation may be found taking the part of a chorus and
exclaiming at every mention of the name of Haman, "May his name be blotted out,"
"Let the name of the ungodly perish," while boys with mallets will pound stones and
bits of wood on which the odious name is written. This frantic extravagance would
be unaccountable but for the fact that the people whose "badge is sufferance" has
summed up under the name of the Persian official the malignity of their enemies in
all ages. Very often this name has served to veil a dangerous reference to some
contemporary foe, or to heighten the rage felt against an exceptionally, odious
person by its accumulation of traditional hatred, just as in England on the fifth of
ovember the "Guy" may represent some unpopular person of the day.
When we turn from this unamiable indulgence of spiteful passion to the story that
lies behind it, we have enough that is odious without the conception of a sheer
monster of wickedness, a very demon. Such a being would stand outside the range of
human motives, and we could contemplate him with unconcern and detachment of
mind, just as we contemplate the destructive forces of nature. There is a common
temptation to clear ourselves of all semblance to the guilt of very bad people by
making it out to be inhuman. It is more humiliating to discover that they act from
quite human motives-nay, that those very motives may be detected, though with
other bearings, even in our own conduct. For see what were the influences that
stirred in the heart of Haman. He manifests by his behaviour the intimate
connection between vanity and cruelty.
The first trait in his character to reveal itself is vanity, a most inordinate vanity.
Haman is introduced at the moment when he has been exalted to the highest
position under the king of Persia; he has just been made grand vizier. The
tremendous honour turns his brain. In the consciousness of it he swells out with
vanity. As a necessary consequence he is bitterly chagrined when a porter does not
do homage to him as to the king. His elation is equally extravagant when he
discovers that he is to be the only subject invited to meet Ahasuerus at Esther’s
banquet. When the king inquires how exceptional honour is to be shown to some
one whose name is not yet revealed, this infatuated man jumps to the conclusion

8. that it can be for nobody but himself. In all his behaviour we see that he is just
possessed by an absorbing spirit of vanity.
Then at the first check he suffers an annoyance proportionate to the boundlessness
of his previous elation. He cannot endure the sight of indifference or independence
in the meanest subject. The slender fault of Mordecai is magnified into a capital
offence. This again is so huge that it must be laid to the charge of the whole race to
which the offender belongs. The rage which it excites in Haman is so violent that it
will be satisfied with nothing short of a wholesale massacre of men, women, and
children. "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth"-when it is fanned by the
breath of vanity. The cruelty of the vain man is as limitless as his vanity.
Thus the story of Haman illustrates the close juxtaposition of these two vices, vanity
and cruelty; it helps us to see by a series of lurid pictures how fearfully provocative
the one is of the other. As we follow the incidents, we can discover the links of
connection between the cause and its dire effects.
In the first place, it is clear that vanity is a form of magnified egotism. The vain man
thinks supremely of himself, not so much in the way of self-interest, but more
especially for the sake of self-glorification. When he looks out on the world, it is
always through the medium of his own vastly magnified shadow. Like the Brocken
Ghost, this shadow becomes a haunting presence standing out before him in huge
proportions. He has no other standard of measurement. Everything must be judged
according, as it is related to himself. The good is what gives him pleasure; evil is
what is noxious to him. This self-centred attitude, with the distortion of vision that it
induces, has a double effect, as we may see in the case of Haman.
Egotism utilises the sufferings of others for its own ends. o doubt cruelty is often a
consequence of sheer callousness. The man who has no perception of the pain he is
causing or no sympathy with the sufferers will trample them under foot on the least
provocation. He feels supremely indifferent to their agonies when they are writhing
beneath him, and therefore he will never consider it incumbent on him to adjust his
conduct with the least reference to the pain he gives. That is an entirely irrelevant
consideration. The least inconvenience to himself outweighs the greatest distress of
other people, for the simple reason that that distress counts as nothing in his
calculation of motives. In Haman’s case, however, we do not meet with this attitude
of simple indifference. The grand vizier is irritated, and he vents his annoyance in a
vast explosion of malignity that must take account of the agony it produces, for in
that agony its own thirst for vengeance is to be slaked. But this only shows the
predominant selfishness to be all the greater. It is so great that it reverses the
engines that drive society along the line of mutual helpfulness, and thwarts and
frustrates any amount of human life and happiness for the sole purpose of
gratifying its own desires.
Then the selfishness of vanity promotes cruelty still further by another of its effects.
It destroys the sense of proportion. Self is not only regarded as the centre of the
universe; like the sun surrounded by the planets, it is taken to be the greatest object,

9. and everything else is insignificant when compared to it. What is the slaughter of a
few thousand Jews to so great a man as Haman, grand vizier of Persia? It is no more
than the destruction of as many flies in a forest fire that the settler has kindled to
clear his ground. The same self-magnification is visibly presented by the Egyptian
bas-reliefs, on which the victorious Pharaohs appear as tremendous giants driving
back hordes of enemies or dragging pigmy kings by their heads. It is but a step from
this condition to insanity, which is the apotheosis of vanity. The chief characteristic
of insanity is a diseased enlargement of self. If he is elated the madman regards
himself as a person of supreme importance-as a prince, as a king, even as God. If he
is depressed he thinks that he is the victim of exceptional malignity. In that case he
is beset by watchers of evil intent, the world is conspiring against him, everything
that happens is part of a plot to do him harm. Hence his suspiciousness, hence his
homicidal proclivities. He is not so mad in his inferences and conclusions. These may
be rational and just, on the ground of his premisses. It is in the fixed ideas of these
premisses that the root of his insanity may be detected. His awful fate is a warning
to all who venture to indulge in the vice of excessive egotism.
In the second place, vanity leads to cruelty through the entire dependence of the
vain person on the good opinion of others, and this we may see clearly in the career
of Haman. Vanity is differentiated from pride in one important particular-by its
outward reference. The proud man is satisfied with himself, hut the vain man is
always looking outside himself with feverish eagerness to secure all the honours that
the world can bestow upon him. Thus Mordecai may have been proud in his refusal
to bow before the upstart premier, if so his pride would not need to court
admiration; it would be self-contained and self-sufficient. But Haman was possessed
by an insatiable thirst for homage. If a single obscure individual refused him this
honour, a shadow rested on everything. He could not enjoy the queen’s banquet for
the slight offered him by the Jew at the palace gate, so that he exclaimed, "Yet all
this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s
gate." [Esther 5:13] A selfish man in this condition can have no rest if anything in
the world outside him fails to minister to his honour. While a proud man in an
exalted position scarcely deigns to notice the "dim common people," the vain man
betrays his vulgarity by caring supremely for popular adulation. Therefore, while
the haughty person can afford to pass over a slight with contempt, the vain creature
who lives on the breath of applause is mortally offended by it and roused to avenge
the insult with corresponding rage.
Selfishness and dependence on the external, these attributes of vanity inevitably
develop into cruelty wherever the aims of vanity are opposed. And yet the vice that
contains so much evil is rarely visited with a becoming severity of condemnation.
Usually it is smiled at as a trivial frailty. In the case of Haman it threatened the
extermination of a nation, and the reaction from its menace issued in a terrific
slaughter of another section of society. History records war after war that has been
fought on the ground of vanity. In military affairs this vice wears the name of glory,
but its nature is unaltered. For what is the meaning of a war that is waged for "la
gloire" but one that is designed in order to minister to the vanity of the people who
undertake it? A more fearful wickedness has never blackened the pages of history.

10. The very frivolity of the occasion heightens the guilt of those who plunge nations
into misery on such a paltry pretext. It is vanity that urges a savage warrior to
collect skulls to adorn the walls of his hut with the ghastly trophies, it is vanity that
impels a restless conqueror to march to his own triumph through a sea of blood, it is
vanity that rouses a nation to fling itself on its neighbour in order to exalt its fame
by a great victory. Ambition at its best is fired by the pride of power, but in its
meaner forms ambition is nothing but an uprising of vanity clamouring for wider
recognition. The famous invasion of Greece by Xerxes was evidently little better
than a huge exhibition of regal vanity. The childish fatuity of the king could seek for
no exalted ends. His assemblage of swarms of men of all races in an ill-disciplined
army too big for practical warfare showed that the thirst for display occupied the
principal place in his mind, to the neglect of the more sober aims of a really great
conqueror. And if the vanity that lives on the world’s admiration is so fruitful in evil
when it is allowed to deploy on a large scale, its essential character will not be
improved by the limitation of its scope in humbler spheres of life. It is always mean
and cruel.
Two other features in the character of Haman may be noticed. First, he shows
energy and determination. He bribes the king to obtain the royal consent to his
deadly design, bribes with an enormous present equal to the revenue of a kingdom,
though Ahasuerus permits him to recoup himself by seizing the property of the
proscribed nation. Then the murderous mandate goes forth, it is translated into
every language of the subject peoples, it is carried to the remotest parts of the
kingdom by the posts, the excellent organisation of which, under the Persian
government, has become famous. Thus far everything is on a large scale, betokening
a mind of resource and daring. But now turn to the sequel. "And the king and
Haman sat down to drink." [Esther 3:15] It is a horrible picture-the king of Persia
and his grand vizier at this crisis deliberately abandoning themselves to their
national vice. The decree is out, it cannot be recalled-let it go and do its fell work. As
for its authors they are drowning all thought of its effect on public opinion in the
wine-cup; they are boozing together in a disgusting companionship of debauchery
on the eve of a scene of wholesale bloodshed. This is what the glory of the Great
King has come to. This is the anticlimax of his minister’s vanity at the moment of
supreme success. After such an exhibition we need not be surprised at the abject
humiliation, the terror of cowardice, the frantic effort to extort pity from a woman
of the very race whose extermination he had plotted, manifested by Haman in the
hour of his exposure at Esther’s banquet. Beneath all his braggart energy he is a
weak man. In most cases self-indulgent, vain, and cruel people are essentially weak
at heart.
Looking at the story of Haman from another point of view, we see how well it
illustrates the confounding of evil devices and the punishment of their author in the
drama of history. It is one of the most striking instances of what is called "poetic
justice," the justice depicted by the poets, but not always seen in prosaic lives, the
justice that is itself a poem because it makes a harmony of events. Haman is the
typical example of the schemer who "falls into his own pit," of the villain who is
"hoist on his own petard." Three times the same process occurs, to impress its

11. lesson with threefold emphasis. We have it first in the most moderate form when
Haman is forced to assist in bestowing on Mordecai the honours he has been
coveting for himself, by leading the horse of the hated Jew in his triumphant
procession through the city. The same lesson is impressed with tragic force when the
grand vizier is condemned to be impaled on the stake erected by him in readiness
for the man whom he has been compelled to honour. Lastly, the design of murdering
the whole race to which Mordecai belongs is frustrated by the slaughter of those
who sympathise with Haman’s attitude towards Israel-the "Hamanites," as they
have been called. We rarely meet with such a complete reversal of fate, such a
climax of vengeance. In considering the course of events here set forth we must
distinguish between the old Jewish view of it and the significance of the process
itself.
The Jews were taught to look on all this with fierce, vindictive glee, and to see in it
the prophecy of the like fate that was treasured up for their enemies in later times.
This rage of the oppressed against their oppressors, this almost fiendish delight in
the complete overthrow of the enemies of Israel, this total extinction of any
sentiment of pity even for the helpless and innocent sufferers who are to share the
fate of their guilty relatives-in a word, this utterly un-Christlike spirit of revenge,
must be odious in our eyes. We cannot understand how good men could stand by
with folded arms while they saw women and children tossed into the seething
cauldron of vengeance, still less how they could themselves perpetrate the dreadful
deed. But then we cannot understand that tragedy of history, the oppression of the
Jews, and its deteriorating influence on its victims, nor the hard, cruel spirit of
blank indifference to the sufferings of others that prevailed almost everywhere
before Christ came to teach the world pity.
When we turn to the events themselves we must take another view of the situation.
Here was a rough and sweeping, but still a complete and striking punishment of
cruel wrong. The Jews expected this too frequently on earth. We have learnt that it
is more often reserved for another world and a future state of existence. Yet
sometimes we are startled to see how apt it can be even in this present life. The cruel
man breeds foes by his very cruelty, he rouses his own executioners by the rage that
he provokes in them. It is the same with respect to many other forms of evil. Thus
vanity is punished by the humiliation it receives from those people who are irritated
at its pretensions, it is the last failing that the world will readily forgive, partly
perhaps because it offends the similar failing in other people. Then we see meanness
chastised by the odium it excites, lying by the distrust it provokes, cowardice by the
attacks it invites, coldness of heart by a corresponding indifference on the side of
other people. The result is not always so neatly effected nor so visibly demonstrated
as in the case of Haman, but the tendency is always present, because there is a
Power that makes for righteousness presiding over society and inherent in the very
constitution of nature.
PARKER, "Progress
I course of time Esther succeeded Vashti as queen. Some have blamed Mordecai

12. for not returning with his people, for lingering in the strange land when he might
have gone home. But who can tell what he is doing? How foolish is criticism upon
human action! We think we have great liberty, and we have a marvellous way of
blinding ourselves to the tether which binds us to a centre. We want to do things
and cannot; we say we will arise and depart, and behold we cannot gather ourselves
together or stand up. Some event occurs which entirely alters our whole purpose.
We long to be at home, and yet we cannot begin the journey thitherward. Men
should stand still and think about this, because in it is the whole mystery of Divine
Providence. We cannot account for ourselves. There are those who challenge us to
state our reasons for pursuing such and such a course of action; when we come to
write down our reasons we have nothing to write. Do not scatter blame too freely. If
life comes easily to you, so that you can manage it with the right hand and with the
left, without any anxiety or difficulty, be quite sure that you are living a very poor
life. Do not boast of your flippancy. An easy life is an ill-regulated life. A life that
can account for itself all the four-and-twenty hours, and all the days of the year, is a
fool"s life. Blessed are they who know the pain of mystery, who see before them an
angel whom they cannot pass, who hear a voice behind them, saying, This is the
way; walk ye in it: though it look so bare and hard and uphill, yet this is the way.
Out of all this should come great religious consideration. We want to sit beside our
friend, and cannot; we want to return to the old homestead, and no ship will carry
us; we want to get rid of burdens, and in endeavouring to throw off the weight we
only increase it All this is full of significance. We may look at it in one of two ways:
either fretfully and resentfully, and thus may kick against the pricks, and find how
hard it is to play that game of opposition against God; or we can accept the lot and
say, "I am called to be here; I should like to have laboured in another land, but thou
hast fixed me here; I should have loved to surround myself with other
circumstances, but thou hast determined the bounds of my habitation: Lord, give
me light enough to work in, give me patience in time of stress, and give me the
strength of confidence."
The nationality was concealed; it was not known that Mordecai was a Jew, beyond a
very limited circle, nor was it known that Esther belonged to the Jewish race. We
say, How wrong! Who are we that we should use that word so freely? Who gave us
any right or title to scatter that word so liberally? Even things that are purely
human, so far as we can see them, have mysteries that ought to be recognised as
regulating forces, as subduing and chastening all the actions of life. Why did not
Mordecai declare his nationality? Who asks the question? Do you know what it is to
be down-trodden, never to be understood, always to have ill-usage heaped upon
you? Do you know what it is to be spat upon, taunted, reviled, loaded with
ignominy? If Song of Solomon , you will be merciful and generous, because you will
be just. Many a man is suffering to-day from misconstruction, who could explain
everything if he cared to do so. Some men would be as courageous as the boldest of
us if they had not been ill-treated in youth. You must go back to the antecedents if
you would understand many things which now occasion perplexity and excite even
distrust. If the boy has had no chance in life; if he has been hungered, starved in
body, starved in mind, beaten by cruel hands, or turned away from by still more
cruel neglect; if he has had no one to fight his little battles; if every time he lifted up

13. his face he was smitten down,—what if he should turn out to be a man who fears to
speak his mind, who hesitates long before he adopts a definite action and policy?
Who are these brave people who would always be at the front? They are always at
the front when there is any fault-finding to be done, but never found there when any
great sacrifice is to be completed. There may be explanations even of suspicious
actions. Suspicion would vanish if knowledge were complete. Out of all this comes
the sweet spirit of charity, saying, Be careful, be tender, be wise; judge not, that ye
be not judged: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Many
a man is more courageous than he appears to be, and there may yet come a time
when he will prove his courage. It requires long years to forget first
disappointments, early ill-usage, infantile neglect. Some are better at the end than
they were at the beginning. Some men are good at a long race. Others are quicker at
the start: they get on the road very speedily and ostentatiously, and the despised
runner comes along labouringly, but he is an awkward man on a long race; he will
wear the little flimsy creature down, and when he is asked a thousand miles away
where his competitor Isaiah , he will say, I do Hot know. Some come to the full
estate of their power almost at once—"soon ripe, soon rot." Others require long
time, and they are younger at sixty than they were at thirty. We are not Judges ,
blessed be God. Would heaven we could withhold the word of censure, and say,
These men would be better if we knew them better; they are in quality as good as we
are; they have not been growing in the same rich soil, but they may flourish when
we are forgotten. Let us, then, see how the little story unfolds itself.
Here is a man advanced without any discoverable reason. His name is Haman, "the
son of Hammedatha the Agagite "—an information which tells nothing, a pedigree
which is a superfluity. But the king, whose character we have just studied a little,
promoted him, advanced him; and whenever a man is advanced without reason he
loses his head. A man must always be greater than his office. o honour we can
confer upon him can move his equanimity or disturb his dignity, for whilst he is
modest as virtue he is still conscious of a divinely-given power which keeps all office
under his feet. A man arbitrarily set on the throne will fall off. Any one who is less
than his office will be toppled over. Men must grow, and when they grow they will
be modest; the growth is imperceptible. The grand old oak knows nothing about its
grandeur; it has been developing for centuries, and is unconscious of all admiration.
Entitle yourselves to promotion and advancement by solid character, large
knowledge, faithful industry, steady perseverance, by moral quality of every name
and degree; then when you come to high office you will be modest, calm, thankful,
generous. Haman went up to the second place without, so far as we can discover on
the face of the record, right or reason.
"But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence" ( Esther 3:2).
This was not little or pedantic on Mordecai"s part; the reason is religious. Here is
an act of Oriental prostration which means religious homage, and Mordecai knew
but one God. He was not wanting in civility, he was faithful to religious conviction.
Some men would bow down to a dog if they could increase their salary by so doing!
Bowing down, they would say, costs nothing: why should we trouble ourselves about

14. a sentimental Acts , a piece of etiquette and ceremony? we can get promotion by it,
and the end will justify the means. Mordecai was in a strange country, but he was a
Jew still. He was an honest believer in God. He knew well enough what Haman
could do for him; he knew also what Haman could do against him: but he was of a
fine quality of soul. He will talk presently, and then we shall know something about
him. He is grand in silence, he is overwhelming in speech. He will not talk long, but
he will talk fire. This was told to Haman, and the question was asked "whether
Mordecai"s matters would stand: "look at his record, track his footprints, set the
bloodhounds upon him. He had told them that he was a Jew, and that probably was
given as his reason; and the very reason he assigned was turned into a charge
against him. It would appear as if, in stating that he was a Jew, he meant to explain
why he did not throw himself down in the common prostration. Men often have
their reasons turned like sharp swords against them; their very confidence is turned
into an impeachment. He who lives with bad men must expect bad treatment.
Haman then began to take notice of the Jew.
"And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was
Haman full of wrath" ( Esther 3:5).
Little natures require great revenge. Little natures endeavour to magnify themselves
by exaggeration. Small statues require high pedestals. Haman will not lay hands
upon Mordecai, he will lay hands upon the whole Jewish race, so far as that race
can be discovered in the country, and he will kill every Prayer of Manasseh ,
woman, and child. Was he a right man to be promoted and advanced? Elevation
tests men. A little brief authority discovers what is in a man"s heart. How many
men are honest, and modest, and gentle, and gracious, until they become clothed
with a little brief authority! They do not know themselves—what wonder if they
forget themselves? Haman therefore resolved upon the extirpation of the Jews in his
country—
"And Hainan said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad
and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws
are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king"s laws: therefore it is not for
the king"s profit to suffer them. If it please the king, let it be written that they may
be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that
have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king"s treasuries" ( Esther 3:8-
9).
It is of no use being in office unless you do something. Have a bold policy—kill
somebody! Be active!
"And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of
Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews" enemy. And the king said unto Haman, The
silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee" (
Esther 3:10-11).
This is the effect of self-indulgence on the human will. We have seen how the king

15. lived. We cannot tell exactly what time passed between the action we have just
studied and the action which is now before us, but probably a considerable period
passed. The man"s soul has gone down. You may ruin any man by luxury. Inflame
his ambition, and he may seem to be a strong man; but ask him to do anything that
is of the nature of resentment, and he will instantly succumb: his will had been
destroyed. Xerxes said in effect to Haman, Do whatever thou pleasest: I hear the
chink of silver in thy hand, thou hast promised tribute and support,—go and write
any number of letters you like, and kill any number of men you please, but let me
alone. Then came the dark day in history—that day all cloud, that day that had no
morning, no noontide no hint of blue.
MACLARE , "THE ET SPREAD
Esther 3:1 - Esther 3:11.
The stage of this passage is filled by three strongly marked and strongly contrasted
figures: Mordecai, Haman, and Ahasuerus; a sturdy nonconformist, an arrogant
and vindictive minister of state, and a despotic and careless king. These three are
the visible persons, but behind them is an unseen and unnamed Presence, the God of
Israel, who still protects His exiled people.
We note, first, the sturdy nonconformist. ‘The reverence’ which the king had
commanded his servants to show to Haman was not simply a sign of respect, but an
act of worship. Eastern adulation regarded a monarch as in some sense a god, and
we know that divine honours were in later times paid to Roman emperors, and
many Christians martyred for refusing to render them. The command indicates that
Ahasuerus desired Haman to be regarded as his representative, and possessing at
least some reflection of godhead from him. European ambassadors to Eastern courts
have often refused to prostrate themselves before the monarch on the ground of its
being degradation to their dignity; but Mordecai stood erect while the crowd of
servants lay flat on their faces, as the great man passed through the gate, because he
would have no share in an act of worship to any but Jehovah. He might have
compromised with conscience, and found some plausible excuses if he had wished.
He could have put his own private interpretation on the prostration, and said to
himself, ‘I have nothing to do with the meaning that others attach to bowing before
Haman. I mean by it only due honour to the second man in the kingdom.’ But the
monotheism of his race was too deeply ingrained in him, and so he kept ‘a stiff
backbone’ and ‘bowed not down.’
That his refusal was based on religious scruples is the natural inference from his
having told his fellow-porters that he was a Jew. That fact would explain his
attitude, but would also isolate him still more. His obstinacy piqued them, and they
reported his contumacy to the great man, thus at once gratifying personal dislike,
racial hatred, and religious antagonism, and recommending themselves to Haman as
solicitous for his dignity. We too are sometimes placed in circumstances where we
are tempted to take part in what may be called constructive idolatry. There arise, in
our necessary co-operation with those who do not share in our faith, occasions when
we are expected to unite in acts which we are thought very straitlaced for refusing to
do, but which, conscience tells us, cannot be done without practical disloyalty to
Jesus Christ. Whenever that inner voice says ‘Don’t,’ we must disregard the

16. persistent solicitations of others, and be ready to be singular, and run any risk
rather than comply. ‘So did not I, because of the fear of God,’ has to be our motto,
whatever fellow-servants may say. The gate of Ahasuerus’s palace was not a
favourable soil for the growth of a devout soul, but flowers can bloom on dunghills,
and there have been ‘saints’ in ‘Caesar’s household.’
Haman is a sharp contrast to Mordecai. He is the type of the unworthy characters
that climb or crawl to power in a despotic monarchy, vindictive, arrogant, cunning,
totally oblivious of the good of the subjects, using his position for his own
advantage, and ferociously cruel. He had naturally not noticed the one erect figure
among the crowd of abject ones, but the insignificant Jew became important when
pointed out. If he had bowed, he would have been one more nobody, but his not
bowing made him somebody who had to be crushed. The childish burst of passion is
very characteristic, and not less true to life is the extension of the anger and thirst
for vengeance to ‘all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of
Ahasuerus.’ They were ‘the people of Mordecai,’ and that was enough. ‘He thought
scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone.’ What a perverted notion of personal dignity
which thought the sacrifice of the one offender beneath it, and could only be
satisfied by a blood-bath into which a nation should be plunged! Such an extreme of
frantic lust for murder is only possible in such a state as Ahasuerus’s Persia, but the
prostitution of public position to personal ends, and the adoption of political
measures at the bidding of wounded vanity, and to gratify blind hatred of a race, is
possible still, and it becomes all Christian men to use their influence that the public
acts of their nation shall be clear of that taint.
Haman was as superstitious as cruel, and so he sought for auguries from heaven for
his hellish purpose, and cast the lot to find the favourable day for bringing it about.
He is not the only one who has sought divine approval for wicked public acts.
Religion has been used to varnish many a crime, and Te Deums sung for many a
victory which was little better than Haman’s plot.
The crafty denunciation of the Jews to the king is a good specimen of the way in
which a despot is hoodwinked by his favourites, and made their tool. It was no
doubt true that the Jews’ laws were ‘diverse from those of every people,’ but it was
not true that they did not ‘keep the king’s laws,’ except in so far as these required
worship of other gods. In all their long dispersion they have been remarkable for
two things,-their tenacious adherence to the Law, so far as possible in exile, and
their obedience to the law of the country of their sojourn. o doubt, the exiles in
Persian territory presented the same characteristics. But Haman has had many
followers in resenting the distinctiveness of the Jew, and charging on them crimes of
which they were innocent. From Mordecai onwards it has been so, and Europe is to-
day disgraced by a crusade against them less excusable than Haman’ s. Hatred still
masks itself under the disguise of political expediency, and says, ‘It is not for the
king’s profit to suffer them.’
But the true half of the charge was a eulogium, for it implied that the scattered
exiles were faithful to God’s laws, and were marked off by their lives. That ought to
be true of professing Christians. They should obviously be living by other principles
than the world adopts. The enemy’s charge ‘shall turn unto you for a testimony.’
Happy shall we be if observers are prompted to say of us that ‘our laws are diverse’
from those of ungodly men around us!

17. The great bribe which Haman offered to the king is variously estimated as equal to
from three to four millions sterling. He, no doubt, reckoned on making more than
that out of the confiscation of Jewish property. That such an offer should have been
made by the chief minister to the king, and that for such a purpose, reveals a depth
of corruption which would be incredible if similar horrors were not recorded of
other Eastern despots. But with Turkey still astonishing the world, no one can call
Haman’s offer too atrocious to be true.
Ahasuerus is the vain-glorious king known to us as Xerxes. His conduct in the affair
corresponds well enough with his known character. The lives of thousands of law-
abiding subjects are tossed to the favourite without inquiry or hesitation. He does
not even ask the name of the ‘certain people,’ much less require proof of the charge
against them. The insanity of weakening his empire by killing so many of its
inhabitants does not strike him, nor does he ever seem to think that he has duties to
those under his rule. Careless of the sanctity of human life, too indolent to take
trouble to see things with his own eyes, apparently without the rudiments of the idea
of justice, he wallowed in a sty of self-indulgence, and, while greedy of adulation and
the semblance of power, let the reality slip from his hands into those of the
favourite, who played on his vices as on an instrument, and pulled the strings that
moved the puppet. We do not produce kings of that sort nowadays, but King Demos
has his own vices, and is as easily blinded and swayed as Ahasuerus. In every form
of government, monarchy or republic, there will be would-be leaders, who seek to
gain influence and carry their objects by tickling vanity, operating on vices,
calumniating innocent men, and the other arts of the demagogue. Where the power
is in the hands of the people, the people is very apt to take its responsibilities as
lightly as Ahasuerus did his, and to let itself be led blindfold by men with personal
ends to serve, and hiding them under the veil of eager desire for the public good.
Christians should ‘play the citizen as it becomes the gospel of Christ,’ and take care
that they are not beguiled into national enmities and public injustice by the specious
talk of modern Hamans.
LA GE, "Esther 3:1-7. The author in very brief terms places the elevation of
Haman, the Agagite; by the side of the exaltation of Esther, as shown in the previous
chapter. Hence it is the more surprising that he adds what we would least expect
upon the elevation of Esther, namely, that Haman, provoked by the apparent,
irreverence shown to him by Mordecai, resolves to destroy the Jews.
Esther 3:1. After these things did king Ahasuerus—in Esther 3:7 we are in the
twelfth year of the reign of Ahasuerus, five years after Esther 2:16, but here
somewhat sooner—promote Haman the son of Hammedatha.—‫ל‬ ֵ‫ִרּ‬‫גּ‬ usually used in
bringing up children, here means to make him a great man—and set his seat above
all the princes that (were) with him,i.e. above all those princes who were in his
immediate presence, above his chief officers. He made him, so to speak, his Grand
Vizier. Haman from humajun=magnus, augustus, or according to Sanscrit somán,
meaning a worshipper of Somar, was a son of Hammedatha, whose name is formed
from haomo, soma, and signifies one given by the moon (Benfey, Monatsnamen,
p199). owhere else do we find it Hammedatha, but rather Madathas (in Xenophon)
or Madathes (in Curt. v3, 6). This form according to Pott (Zeitschr. der D. M. G.,

18. 1859, p424) has the same signification; and probably the ‫ה‬ is placed at the beginning
on the ground that it may readily have fallen away, and thus is regarded as the
article and so pointed. It is quite possible that the author knew the meaning of these
names, and found them significant in what follows. Haman would accordingly be
noted as a representative of heathendom.[F 10] The epithet ‫ֽי‬‫ג‬ָ‫ג‬ֲ‫ָא‬‫ה‬ leads us to this
conclusion. One tiring is certain, that this designation with Jewish interpreters, as
Josephus and the Targums, had in it a reminder of the Amalekitish king Agag in
Saul’s time ( 1 Samuel 15:8; 1 Samuel 15:33). But we have evidence more nearly at
hand, since Esther and Mordecai in Esther 2:6 are traced back to a family that had
to do with the Agag just mentioned. Haman may not have been an actual
descendant of the Amalekitish king, nor yet have been known as such. But possibly
our author desired to designate him as a spiritual offshoot of that race.[F 11] Agag
was a king, and hence also a representative of that people which had kept aloof from
Israel from motives of bitterest enmity, and at decisive times had placed itself in the
way in a very hateful manner (comp. Exodus 17:8 sqq. and my Comment. on
Deuteronomy 25:17), and against whom the Lord also declared an eternal war (
Exodus 18:15; umbers 24:20). As an Amalekite, he formed, as is fully shown in the
Targums, a link for Haman with the equally rejected and hateful rival people, the
Edomites. Again, the author would seem to indicate that the flame of conflict, which
soon broke out between Haman and Mordecai, inasmuch as it was originally war
between heathendom and Judaism, had burned from ancient ages; and when
Mordecai so vigorously withstood his opponent, causing his fall and destruction, he
thereby only paid off a debt which had remained due from the time of Saul upon the
family of Kish, since Saul had neglected to manifest the proper zeal by destroying
the banished king (Agag). In the second Targum (on Esther 4:13) Mordecai gives
expression of this view to Esther, namely, that if Saul had obeyed and destroyed
Agag, Haman would not have arisen and opposed the Jews. The author doubtless
placed Haman in relation to Agag in particular, and not to the Amalekites in
general, since he was a leader and prince, and not a common man of the people. The
Arabs and even later Jews applied such genealogical distinctions to Greeks and
Romans (comp. e. g. Abulfeda, Historia Anteislamica). In the Old Testament the
word ‫כּוּשׁ‬ in Psalm 7:1 offers only a doubtful analogy; but on the other hand in
Judges 18:30 the change of Mosheh into Menashsheh is a parallel case wherein the
faithless Levite Jonathan comes into a spiritual connection with the godless king
Manasseh.
PULPIT, "MORDECAI, BY WA T OF RESPECT, OFFE DS HAMA ,
AHASUERUS' CHIEF MI ISTER. HAMA , I REVE GE, RESOLVES TO
DESTROY THE E TIRE ATIO OF THE JEWS (Esther 3:1-6). A break,
probably of some years, separates Esther 2:1-23. from Esther 3:1-15. In the interval
a new and important event has occurred a new character has made appearance
upon the scene. Haman, the son of Hammedatha, an Agagite, has risen high in the
favour of Ahasu-erus, and been assigned by him the second place in the kingdom. It
has been granted him to sit upon a throne; and his throne has been set above those
of all the other "princes" (Esther 3:1). He has in fact become "grand vizier," or
chief minister. In the East men are so servile that a new favourite commonly
receives the profoundest homage and reverence from all classes, and royal orders to

19. bow down to such an one are superfluous. But on the occasion of Haman's elevation,
for some reason that is not stated, a special command to bow down before him was
issued by Ahasuerus (Esther 3:2). All obeyed as a matter of course, excepting one
man. This was Mordecai the Jew. Whether there was anything extreme and unusual
in the degree of honour required to be paid to the new favourite, or whether
Mordecai regarded the usual Oriental prostration as unlawful, we cannot say for
certain; but at any rate he would not do as his fellows did, not even when they
remonstrated with him and taxed him with disobedience to the royal order (Esther
3:3). In the course of their remonstrances—probably in order to account for his
reluctance—Mordecai stated himself to be a Jew (Esther 3:4). It would seem to have
been after this that Haman's attention was first called by the other porters to
Mordecai's want of respect—these persons being desirous of knowing whether his
excuse would be allowed and the obeisance in his case dispensed with. Haman was
violently enraged (Esther 3:5); but instead of taking proceedings against the
individual, he resolved to go to the root of the matter, and, if Mordecai would not
bow down to him because he was a Jew, then there should be no more Jews—he
would have them exterminated (Esther 3:6). It did not occur to him that this would
be a matter of much difficulty, so confident was he of his own influence over
Ahasuerus, and so certain that he would feel no insuperable repugnance to the
measure. The event justified his calculations, as appears from the latter part of the
chapter (Esther 3:10-15).
Esther 3:1
After these things. Probably some years after—about b.c. 476 or 475. Haman, the
son of Hammedatha. "Haman" is perhaps Umanish, the Persian equivalent of the
Greek Eumenes. "Hammedatha" has been explained as "given by the moon"
(Mahadata), the initial h being regarded as the Hebrew article. But this mixture of
languages is not probable. The Agagite. The Septuagint has βουγαῖος, "the
Bugaean." Both terms are equally inexplicable, with our present knowledge; but
most probably the term used was a local one, marking the place of Haman's birth or
bringing up. A reference to descent from the Amalekite king Agag (Joseph; 'Ant.
Jud.,' 11.6, § 5) is scarcely possible.
BI 1-6, "After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman.
The prosperous wicked man
Matthew Henry says: “I wonder what the king saw in man that was commendable or
meritorious? It is plain that he was not a man of honour or justice, of any true courage or
steady conduct, but proud and passionate and revengeful; yet he was promoted and
caressed, and there was none as great as he. Princes’ darlings are not always worthies.”
I. The wicked man in prosperity. Haman is typical. He is the progenitor of a long line
that by skilful plotting rise above the heads of superior men. In this world rewards are
not rightly administered. Push and tact get the prize.
II. The prosperous wicked man is surrounded by fawning sycophants. “The king had so
commanded.” A king’s commandment is not required to secure outward homage
towards those in high places. Clothe a man with the outward marks of royal favour, and

20. many are at once prepared to become his blind adulators. Imperialism is glorified in
political, literary, and ecclesiastical spheres. Power in arms, push in business, skill in
politics, success in literature, and parade in religion are the articles of the creed in which
modem society believes.
III. The prosperous wicked man is surrounded by meddling sycophants. Even admirers
may be too officious. If Haman had known and seen all, he might have prayed, “Save me
from my friends.” The king’s servants, in their selfish zeal, frustrated their own purposes
of aggrandisement. How often in trying to grasp too much we lose all.
IV. The prosperous wicked man finds that false, greatness brings trouble. That greatness
is false which is not the outcome of goodness. The course of wicked prosperity cannot
run smooth. Haman meets with the checking and detecting Mordecai.
V. The prosperous wicked man may learn that an unrestrained nature brings trouble.
Haman was intoxicated with his greatness. He was full of wrath. Wrath is cruel both to
the subject and the object.
VI. The prosperous wicked man unwittingly plots his own downfall. Haman’s wrath led
him to dangerous extremes. Poor Haman! Already we see thee treading on a volcano.
Thy hands are digging the pit into which thou shalt fall. Thy minions are preparing the
gallows on which thou thyself shalt be hung. Learn—
1. Prosperity has its drawbacks.
2. “Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the lowly than to divide the spoil with the
proud.”
3. That our greatest troubles often spring from our own depraved natures. (W.
Burrows, B. A.)
Mordecai and Haman
I. The insecurity of earthly greatness. The king in this story was exposed to the plot of
Bigthan and Teresh. From it he was saved by the intervention of Mordecai, though by
and by to fall beneath the assassin’s blow. Great are the perils of the great. Their lives
often, behind all the splendour that takes the public eye, a sad story.
II. The divine foresight of and preparation for coming evil. The plotters, Bigthan and
Teresh, paid the penalty with their lives. But what had that plot to do with the great story
of this book—Israel’s deliverance from Haman? Much, for mark, the plot was detected
by Mordecai. The news was conveyed to Esther, and by her to the king. Thus God’s
design for Israel’s deliverance precedes Haman’s design for Israel’s destruction Oh! the
Divine preparations! How God goes before us! Does Jacob look round upon famished
Canaan? Lo! by the hand of long-lost Joseph, God has prepared for him a house in
Egypt. Do we come into peril? Before we reach it God has been preparing for us a way of
escape. His love is older than our sin—than all sin.
III. The dignity of conscientiousness in little things. Mordecai would not bow to Haman.
Not from disloyalty. He had stood by the king and saved him from the plotted death.
Because—this is the reason he gave—because he was a Jew: and Haman, he knew, was
the Jews’ enemy. Others bowed—he could not. A little thing, do you say, to bow to
Haman? but s little thing may have much effect on others, as this had on Haman—on
ourselves; and, often repeated, is not little in its influence. He had conscience in this
matter, and to defile it had not been a little harm. Conscience can appear in little things,

21. but it deems nothing little that affects it, that expresses it. The early Christians would
rather die than cast a few idolatrous grains of incense into the fire. Many an English
martyr went to the prison and the stake rather than bow down to the wafer-god of
Romanism. In little things, as some would deem them, we can take a stand for Christ.
IV. The wickedness of revenge. Had Haman a just grudge against Mordecai? Let him
have the matter out with Mordecai alone? No; that will not suit him. He would punish a
whole nation. The proud became the revengeful. If a man is humble and has a lowly
estimate of himself, he will bear in silence the contempt and unkindness of men. But
pride is easily wounded—sees slights often where none were intended. On a great
platform we see, in the case of Haman, to what sin wounded pride will hurry a man. And
to what a doom! We need to beware. Are none of us ever tempted harshly to judge a
whole family because of the conduct of one of its members? to say, in the spirit of
Haman, he is bad—the whole lot is bad? “Hath any wronged thee?” says Quarles, “be
bravely revenged; slight it, and the work is begun; forgive it, and the work is finished.”
V. The patience of faith. The king’s life had been saved by Mordecai. But no honour had
come to him for the service—no reward. And now an edict is out against him and his
nation, dooming them all to death. And does he regret the stand that he has taken? Does
he loudly complain of the king’s ingratitude? He keeps silence. God will think on him for
good. Oh, troubled one I oh, darkened life! oh, soul tempest-tossed, “only believe.” The
clouds will pass—will melt into the eternal blue! (G. T. Coster.)
Haman and Mordecai
1. It shows in a lurid but striking manner the diabolical character of revenge. Pride is
pride, and revenge is revenge in quality, although they only show themselves in
words with little stings in them, and by insinuations that have no known ground of
verity. If we do not make it our business to chastise our spirits and purify them from
the seeds and shadows of these vices, in the forms in which they can assail us, can we
be quite sure that if we were on the wider stage, and had the ampler opportunity, we
should not be as this devilish Amalekite?
2. A lesson of personal independence. What meanness there is in this country in
bowing down to rank! in letting some lordly title stand in the place of an argument!
in seeking high patronage for good schemes, as men seek the shadow of broad trees
on hot days! in running after royal carriages! in subservience to power, and adulation
of wealth! Rise up, Mordecai, in thy Jewish grandeur, and shame us into manliness,
and help us to stand a little more erect!
3. Finally, a lesson of patience and quietness to all the faithful. Obey conscience,
honour the right, and then fear no evil. Is the storm brewing? It may break and carry
much away, but it will not hurt you. A little reputation is not you. A little property is
not you. Health even is not you, nor is life itself. The wildest storm that could blow
would only cast you on the shores of eternal peace and safety. But more probably the
storm may melt all away in a while and leave you in wonder at your own fears. (A.
Raleigh, D. D.)

22. 2 All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt
down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had
commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai
would not kneel down or pay him honor.
BAR ES, "Mordecai probably refused the required prostration, usual though it was,
on religious grounds. Hence, his opposition led on to his confession that he was a Jew
Est_3:4.
CLARKE, "The king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate - By servants here,
certainly a higher class of officers are intended than porters; and Mordecai was one of
those officers, and came to the gate with the others who were usually there in attendance
to receive the commands of the king.
Mordecai bowed not - ‫לאיכרע‬ lo yichra. “He did not bow down;” nor did him
reverence, ‫ישתחוה‬ ‫ולא‬ velo yishtachaveh, “nor did he prostrate himself.” I think it most
evident, from these two words, that it was not civil reverence merely that Haman
expected and Mordecai refused; this sort of respect is found in the word ‫כרע‬ cara, to
bow. This sort of reverence Mordecai could not refuse without being guilty of the most
inexcusable obstinacy, nor did any part of the Jewish law forbid it. But Haman expected,
what the Persian kings frequently received, a species of Divine adoration; and this is
implied in the word ‫שחה‬ shachah, which signifies that kind of prostration which implies
the highest degree of reverence that can be paid to God or man, lying down flat on the
earth, with the hands and feet extended, and the mouth in the dust.
The Targum, says that Haman set up a statue for himself, to which every one was
obliged to bow, and to adore Haman himself. The Jews all think that Mordecai refused
this prostration because it implied idolatrous adoration. Hence, in the Apocryphal
additions to this book, Mordecai is represented praying thus: “Thou knowest that if I
have not adored Haman, it was not through pride, nor contempt, nor secret desire of
glory; for I felt disposed to kiss the footsteps of his feet (gladly) for the salvation of
Israel: but I feared to give to a man that honor which I know belongs only to my God.”
GIL, "And the king's servants that were in the king's gate,.... Or court, all his
courtiers; for it cannot be thought they were all porters, or such only that
bowed and reverenced Haman; gave him divine honours, as to a deity; for such
were given to the kings of Persia (k), and might be given to their favourites, and seems to

23. be the case; for, though Haman might not erect a statue of himself, or have images
painted on his clothes, as the Targum and Aben Ezra, for the Persians did not allow of
statues and images (l); yet he might make himself a god, as Jarchi, and require divine
worship, with leave of the king, which he had, yea, an order for it:
for the king had so commanded concerning him; which shows that it was not
mere civil honour and respect, for that in course would have been given him as the king's
favourite and prime minister by all his servants, without an express order for it; this,
therefore, must be something uncommon and extraordinary:
but Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence; which is a further proof that it
was not mere civil honour that was required and given; for that the Jews did not refuse
to give, and that in the most humble and prostrate manner, and was admitted by them,
1Sa_24:8 1Ki_1:16, nor can it be thought that Mordecai would refuse to give it from
pride and sullenness, and thereby risk the king's displeasure, the loss of his office, and
the ruin of his nation; but it was such kind of reverence to a man, and worship of him,
which was contrary to his conscience, and the law of his God.
HE RY 2-4, " Mordecai adhering to his principles with a bold and daring resolution,
and therefore refusing to reverence Haman as the rest of the king's servants did, Est_
3:2. He was urged to it by his friends, who reminded him of the king's commandment,
and consequently of the danger he incurred if he refused to comply with it; it was as
much as his life was worth, especially considering Haman's insolence, Est_3:3. They
spoke daily to him (Est_3:4), to persuade him to conform, but all in vain: he hearkened
not to them, but told them plainly that he was a Jew, and could not in conscience do it.
Doubtless his refusal, when it came to be taken notice of and made the subject of
discourse, was commonly attributed to pride and envy, that he would not pay respect to
Haman because, on the score of his alliance to Esther, he was not himself as much
promoted, or to a factious seditious spirit and a disaffection to the king and his
government; those that would make the best of it looked upon it as his weakness, or his
want of breeding, called it a humour, and a piece of affected singularity. It does not
appear that any one scrupled at conforming to it except Mordecai; and yet his refusal
was pious, conscientious, and pleasing to God, for the religion of a Jew forbade him, 1.
To give such extravagant honours as were required to any mortal man, especially so
wicked a man as Haman was. In the apocryphal chapters of this book (ch. 13:12-14)
Mordecai is brought in thus appealing to God in this matter: Thou knowest, Lord, that it
was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down
to proud Haman, for I could have been content with good will, for the salvation of
Israel, to kiss the soles of his feet; but I did this that I might not prefer the glory of man
above the glory of God, neither will I worship any but thee. 2. He especially thought it a
piece of injustice to his nation to give such honour to an Amalekite, one of that devoted
nation with which God had sworn that he would have perpetual war (Exo_17:16) and
concerning which he had given that solemn charge (Deu_25:17), Remember what
Amalek did. Though religion does by no means destroy good manners, but teaches us to
render honour to whom honour is due, yet it is the character of a citizen of Zion that not
only in his heart, but in his eyes, such a vile person as Haman was is contemned, Psa_
15:4. Let those who are governed by principles of conscience be steady and resolute,
however censured or threatened, as Mordecai was.
JAMISO , "all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and

24. reverenced Haman — Large mansions in the East are entered by a spacious vestibule,
or gateway, along the sides of which visitors sit, and are received by the master of the
house; for none, except the nearest relatives or special friends, are admitted farther.
There the officers of the ancient king of Persia waited till they were called, and did
obeisance to the all-powerful minister of the day.
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence — The obsequious homage of
prostration not entirely foreign to the manners of the East, had not been claimed by
former viziers; but this minion required that all subordinate officers of the court should
bow before him with their faces to the earth. But to Mordecai, it seemed that such an
attitude of profound reverence was due only to God. Haman being an Amalekite, one of a
doomed and accursed race, was, doubtless, another element in the refusal; and on
learning that the recusant was a Jew, whose nonconformity was grounded on religious
scruples, the magnitude of the affront appeared so much the greater, as the example of
Mordecai would be imitated by all his compatriots. Had the homage been a simple token
of civil respect, Mordecai would not have refused it; but the Persian kings demanded a
sort of adoration, which, it is well known, even the Greeks reckoned it degradation to
express. As Xerxes, in the height of his favoritism, had commanded the same honors to
be given to the minister as to himself, this was the ground of Mordecai’s refusal.
K&D, "Est_3:2
All the king's servants that were in the gate of the king, i.e., all the court officials, were
to kneel before Haman and bow themselves to the earth. So had the king commanded
concerning him. This mark of reverence was refused by Mordochai.
BE SO , "Esther 3:2. For the king had so commanded concerning him — To bow
the knee, and give reverence to all great persons, was a common respect due to
them, and there needed not a particular command from the king requiring it to be
shown by all his servants to Haman; since, no doubt, they paid it to all princes, and
would much more pay it to him who took place of them all, and was his sovereign’s
favourite. There was therefore, probably, more implied in the reverence
commanded to be paid to him than what proceeded from a mere civil respect. The
kings of Persia, we know, required a kind of divine adoration from all who
approached them; and, as they arrogated this to themselves, so they sometimes
imparted it to their chief friends and favourites, which seems to have been the case
with regard to Haman at this time. And if so, we need not wonder that a righteous
Jew should deny that honour, or the outward expressions of it, to any man; since the
wise and sober Grecians positively refused to give it to their very kings themselves,
the people of Athens once passing sentence of death on one Timocrates, a citizen of
theirs, for prostrating himself before Darius, though he was then one of the greatest
monarchs upon earth. The author of the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther
seems to imply that this was the case of Mordecai, whom he introduces praying thus,
chap. Est 13:12, &c. “Thou knowest, O Lord, that it is not in contempt, or pride, nor
for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman, for I would
willingly kiss his feet for the salvation of Israel; but I did this, that I might not
prefer the glory of man to the glory of God, nor adore any one but thee my Lord
alone.” See Valer. Max., lib. 6, cap. 3. We may observe further here, that Mordecai
should refuse to pay such obeisance, as all others paid to Haman at this time, will

25. appear the less strange, if we consider that Haman being of that nation against
which God pronounced a curse, (Exodus 17:14,) Mordecai might think himself, on
this account, not obliged to pay him the reverence which he expected; and if the rest
of the Jews had the like notion of him, this might be a reason sufficient for his
extending his resentment against the whole nation. See Dodd.
COKE, "Esther 3:2. Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence— Josephus tells
us, that Haman, taking notice of this singularity in Mordecai, asked him what
countryman he was; and, finding him to be a Jew, broke out into a violent
exclamation at his insolence; and in his rage formed the desperate resolution, not
only to be revenged of Mordecai, but to destroy the whole race of the Jews; well
remembering, that his ancestors the Amalekites had been formerly driven out of
their country, and almost exterminated, by the Jews. That Mordecai should refuse
to pay such obeisance as all others paid to Haman at this time, will appear the less
strange, if we consider that, Haman being of that nation against which God
pronounced a curse, Exodus 17:14. Mordecai might think himself on this account
not obliged to pay him the reverence which he expected; and if the rest of the Jews
had the like notion of him, this might be a reason sufficient for his extending his
resentment against the whole nation. But there seems to be, in the reverence which
the people were commanded to pay him, something more than what proceeds from
mere civil respect: the king of Persia, we know, required a kind of divine adoration
from all who approached his presence; and, as the kings of Persia arrogated this to
themselves, so they sometimes imparted it to their chief friends and favourites,
which seems to have been the case with Haman at this time; for we can hardly
conceive why the king should give a particular command that all his servants should
reverence him, if by this reverence no more was intended than that they should
show him a respect suitable to his station: but if we suppose that the homage
expected from them was such as came near to idolatry, we need not wonder that a
righteous Jew should deny that honour, or the outward expressions of it, to any
man; since the wise and sober Grecians positively refused to give it to their very
kings themselves; the people of Athens once passing sentence of death upon a citizen
of theirs for prostrating himself before Darius, though he was then one of the
greater monarchs upon earth. The author of the apocryphal additions to the book of
Esther seems to intimate that this was the case with Mordecai, whom he introduces
praying thus, chap. 13:12, &c. "Thou knowest, O Lord, that it is not in contempt or
pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman; for I
would willingly kiss his feet for the salvation of Israel; but I did this, that I might
not prefer the glory of man to the glory of God, nor adore any one but thee my Lord
alone." See Valer. Max. lib. 6: cap. 3 and Poole.
ELLICOTT, "(2) Bowed not.—Perhaps, rather, did not prostrate himself, for such
was the ordinary Eastern practice (see Herod. iii. 86, vii. 7, 34, 136, viii. 118). The
objection on Mordecai’s part was evidently mainly on religious grounds, as giving to
a man Divine honours (Josephus l.c.), for it elicits from him the fact that he was a
Jew (Esther 3:4), to whom such an act of obeisance would be abhorrent. Whether
Mordecai also rebelled against the ignominious character of the obeisance, we
cannot say.

26. TRAPP, "Esther 3:2 And all the king’s servants, that [were] in the king’s gate,
bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him.
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did [him] reverence.
Ver. 2. And all the kiny’s servants] His courtiers and others; not his menial servants
only.
That were in the king’s gate] Where the courtiers used to walk, that they might be
on call; and where others attended that had business at the court.
Bowed, and reverenced Haman] ot with so much readiness and diligence as
impudence and baseness; for should men bow to a molten calf, because made up of
golden earrings? Many of these cringing courtiers could not but hate Haman in
their hearts, and were as ready to wish him hanged, and to tell the king shortly after
where he might have a fit gallows for him. So Sejanus’s greatest friends, who had
deified him before, when once he fell out of the emperor’s favour, showed
themselves most passionate against him, saying, that if Caesar had clemency, he
ought to reserve it for men, not use it toward monsters.
For the king had so commanded concerning him] And if the king had commanded
these servile souls to worship a dog or a cat, as the Egyptians did, a golden image, as
ebuchadnezzar’s subjects did, to turn the glory of the incorruptible God into the
similitude of a corruptible man, of four-footed boasts or creeping things, as Romans
1:23, they would have done it. Most people are of King Henry’s religion, as the
proverb is, resolving to do as the most do, though thereby they be undone for ever.
This is to be worse than some heathens. {See Trapp on "Acts 4:19"} But why should
Ahasuerus be so hasty to heap such honours upon so worthless and wicked a person,
but that he had a mind to proclaim his own folly to all his kingdom?
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence] He did not, he durst not, though
pressed and urged to it with greatest importunity. And why? not because Haman
wore a picture openly in his bosom, as the Chaldee paraphrast and Aben Ezra give
the reason; not merely (if at all, which some doubt of) because he was a cursed
Amalekite; but because the Persian kings required, that themselves and their chief
favourites (such as proud Haman was) should be reverenced with a kind of divine
honour, more than was due to any man. This the Jews were flatly forbidden by their
law to do. The Lacedemonians also were resolute against it, as Herodotus in his
seventh book relateth. Pelopidas the Theban would not be drawn to worship the
Persian monarch in this sort. o more would Conon the Athenian general. And
when Timagoras did, the Athenians condemned him to die for it. It was not
therefore pride or self-willedness that made Mordecai so stiff in the legs that he
would not bend to Haman, but fear of sin, and conscience of duty. He knew that he
had better offend all the world than God and his own conscience: ihil praeter

27. peccatum timeo I fear nothing before sin. (Basil).
WHEDO , "2. The king’s servants… bowed — This was but a mark of respect to
any officer of high rank, and is a common custom in all courts.
Reverenced Haman — The Hebrew involves the idea of prostrate reverence as to a
superior being — bowing on the knees, and touching the forehead to the ground.
‫משׁתחוים‬ . Septuagint, ‫,נסןףוךץםןץם‬ fell prostrate, worshipped. Vulgate, Flectebant
genua et adorabant — bowed their knees and adored. The Chaldee paraphrase has
it that they bowed down to a statue which had been set up in honour of Haman.
This at once explains why Mordecai bowed not. Haman required worship like a god,
and this would have been idolatry with a Jew. Mordecai is represented in the
apocryphal Esther (xiii, 12) as praying: “Thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in
contempt nor pride that I did not bow down to Haman; for I would have been glad,
for the salvation of Israel, to kiss the soles of his feet. But I did this that I might not
glorify man more than God; neither would I worship any, O God, but thee.”
LA GE, "Esther 3:2. All the servants of the king, who had their posts in the gate of
the king, i.e., all royal court-officers, were obliged to bow the knee before Haman
and to prostrate themselves; for the king had so commanded concerning him (ְ‫ל‬, as
with ‫ַר‬‫מ‬‫אָ‬ and similar verbs, comp. e. g. Genesis 20:13). It was a custom among the
Persians to bow before the king, fall prostrate, and kiss the ground (Herodot. iii86;
vii36; viii118; Xenophon, Cyrop. 5:3, 18; Esther 8:3; Esther 8:14), so also before the
high officials and other distinguished men (Herodot. iii134). Mordecai, however,
refused to do reverence to Haman. He did this not from stubbornness or personal
enmity. It is clear from Esther 3:4 that it was because of his character as a Jew
alone; otherwise that fact would not have been mentioned in this connection. Again
the Jews could not have thought such ceremony under all circumstances unfitting or
non-permissible, as did the Athenians, perhaps, who regarded its observance (before
Darius) by Timagoras, as a crime worthy of death; or as did the Spartans (Herod.
viii136), and later still the Macedonians, who would not fall down before Alexander
the Great according to Persian custom. This mode of obeisance was established and
sanctified for the Jews by the manifold examples of the fathers (comp. e.g. Genesis
23:12; Genesis 42:6; Genesis 48:12; 2 Samuel 14:4; 2 Samuel 18:28; 1 Kings 1:16).
Even the Alexandrine translators and the authors of the Targums, as also the
majority of modern interpreters, agree that bowing the knee and prostration upon
the face has here a religious significance. Persians regarded their king as a Divinity,
and paid him divine honors, as is abundantly attested by classical authors. Inֶ◌
schylus, Pers., 644sqq, it is said: “Darius was called their Divine Counsellor, he was
full of divine Wisdom of Solomon, so well did Hebrews, Persia’s Shu-shan-born god,
lead the army.” Curtius says ( Esther 8:5; Esther 8:11): “The Persians not only out
of devotion, but also from motives of policy, reverenced their kings as gods, for
majesty is the safeguard of the empire.” Comp. also Plutarch Themist. 27. In
Haman as the chief officer it was doubtless intended to manifest a reflection of the
divine dignity of the king, which should have reverence paid to it. Mordecai, it is
held, thought that bowing the knee before Haman would be idolatry, and contrary
to the commandment: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any

28. likeness.” But this law in itself would hardly have restrained him therefrom. Against
this speaks, not only. Esther 3:4, which does not make a reference to the word of his
God, nor yet to his monotheism, but only to his general character as a Jew; this,
however, might be explained from the very slight indication in the style of our
author. But the greatest difficulty in the way of this view is the circumstance that
from such a conviction in regard to the act of bowing the knee, he must also refuse
its performance even before Ahasuerus. In that case a later more intimate relation
could not have subsisted between them. Moreover the facts seem against this view,
since such Jews as Ezra, and especially ehemiah, pious and loyal to the Law, found
no difficulty at all observing the usual customs in their relations with the Persian
kings of their time. It must certainly have been in his mind that to him Haman was
an Agagite and Amalekite, i.e. a man placed under the curse and bann of God. He
regarded bowing the knee before him as idolatry, if at all such, for the reason that a
distinction only belonging to the representative of God would here be shown to one
cast out and banished by God. Brenz says correctly: “The apocryphal statement (in
the Sept. version) that Mordecai is said to affirm, that he would adore none but
God, although a pious remark, is nevertheless not appropriate to this place.…
Mordecai had in view certain passages ( Exodus 17:5 and 1 Samuel15), from which
he understood that the whole race of Amalek and all the posterity of Agag the king
of the Amalekites, to which Haman belonged, were accursed and condemned by
God. Therefore Mordecai, stirred by the Holy Spirit, confesses with magnanimous
candor that he is a Jew, and is unwilling to bless by his veneration one whom God
had cursed.” In this view of the case Feuardent and Rambach substantially concur.
If, on the contrary, we hold that Haman was not really an Agagite, and that the
Jews regarded him as such only because of his disposition, then, of course, we must
suppose that it was Mordecai’s arbitrary will which regarded Haman as one
rejected by God. Haman’s inimical disposition against the Jews would not in itself
have given a valid ground to the enmity of Mordecai. On the contrary it would still
have been his duty to honor him because of his office. But this objection rests upon a
stand-point such as we cannot assign either to Mordecai nor yet to the author of our
book. It would have been different had it only had reference to a common personal
enmity of Haman against Mordecai. But as the enemy of the Jews, who hates and
persecutes them in toto because of their laws and religion, every one thought it
proper to count him among those transgressors for whose extermination nearly all
the Psalmists had prayed, over whom they had already seen the curse of God
suspended, before whom one was not to manifest reverence, but rather abhorrence.
It is well to bear in mind that Haman is not an enemy of the Jews, such as were so
many heathen kings and rulers before him, but that in him the hate specially against
the Jewish law was perfected, whereas other heathen magnates had usually
manifested great indifference towards it. Mordecai had certainly abundant
opportunity to become informed as to the kind of enmity thus exhibited. The author
has not given this point great prominence because in his usual manner he thought
he had done enough if he designated him as the Agagite. If this assumption be
correct, then the import of our book is somewhat more general than is usually held;
it does not in that case signify that the people of God can as such refuse to pay
homage to men in certain definite ways and modes, but rather that to certain
persons, as those who are rejected of God, all honorable distinctions may be denied.

29. But it at all events amounts to this, that God’s people may not lessen the reverence
due to Him by doing reverence to others; for homage shown to those rejected of God
would be against the honor of God, would be idolatry. In so far as Haman is an
enemy of the Jews, who will not allow the observance of their law and religion, the
final question would after all be whether the people of God, together with its law
and religion, can be suppressed by heathendom, or whether it will have the victory.
Comp. also Seiler on this chapter.
PULPIT, "All the king's servants. Literally, "the king's slaves"—the lower officers
of the court, porters and others, of about the same rank as Mordecai. Bowed and
reverenced Haman. i.e. prostrated themselves before him in the usual Oriental
fashion. For the king had so commanded. o reason is assigned for this order, which
was certainly unusual, since the prostration of an inferior before a superior was a
general rule (Herod; 1.134). Perhaps Haman had been elevated from a very low
position, and the king therefore thought a special order requisite. Mordecai bowed
not. Greeks occasionally refused to prostrate themselves before the Great King
himself, saying that it was not their custom to worship men (Herod; 7.136; Plut;
'Vit. Artax.,' § 22; Arrian; 'Exp. Alex.,' 4.10-12, etc.). Mordecai seems to have had
the same feeling. Prostration was, he thought, an act of worship, and it was not
proper to worship any one excepting God (see Revelation 22:9).
3 Then the royal officials at the king’s gate asked
Mordecai, “Why do you disobey the king’s
command?”
GILL, "Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate,.... Observing
the behaviour of Mordecai towards Haman from time to time:
said unto Mordecai, why transgressest thou the king's commandment? of
giving reverence to Haman, which they knew he could not be ignorant of.
K&D, "Est_3:3-4
When the other officials of the court asked him from day to day, why he transgressed
the king's commandment, and he hearkened not unto them, i.e., gave no heed to their

30. words, they told it to Haman, “to see whether Mordochai's words would stand; for he
had told them that he was a Jew.” It is obvious from this, that Mordochai had declared
to those who asked him the reason why he did not fall down before Haman, that he
could not do so because he was a Jew, - that as a Jew he could not show that honour to
man which was due to God alone. Now the custom of falling down to the earth before an
exalted personage, and especially before a king, was customary among Israelites; comp.
2Sa_14:4; 2Sa_18:28; 1Ki_1:16. If, then, Mordochai refused to pay this honour to
Haman, the reason of such refusal must be sought in the notions which the Persians
were wont to combine with the action, i.e., in the circumstance that they regarded it as
an act of homage performed to a king as a divine being, an incarnation of Oromasdes.
This is testified by classical writers; comp. Plutarch, Themist. 27; Curtius, viii. 5. 5f.,
where the latter informs us that Alexander the Great imitated this custom on his march
to India, and remarks, §11: Persas quidem non pie solum, sed etiam prudenter reges
suos inter Deos colere; majestatem enim imperii salutis esse tutelam. Hence also the
Spartans refused, as Herod. 7.136 relates, to fall down before King Xerxes, because it was
not the custom of Greeks to honour mortals after this fashion. This homage, then, which
was regarded as an act of reverence and worship to a god, was by the command of the
king to be paid to Haman, as his representative, by the office-bearers of his court; and
this Mordochai could not do without a denial of his religious faith.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:3 Then the king’s servants, which [were] in the king’s gate, said
unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?
Ver. 3. Then the king’s servants, &c.] See Esther 3:2.
Said unto Mordecai] Tempting his piety and constancy not once, but often, alleging
the king’s commandment, together with his aloneness in refusing to obey it,
Haman’s power, displeasure, &c. Thus they presented to Mordecai both irritamenta
and terriculamenta, i.e. allurements and frightenments, according to that of the
apostle, Hebrews 11:37, they were tempted on both hands, but all in vain. Sapientis
virtus, per ea quibus petitur, illustratur. The virtue of wisdom is shown by means of
desiring these things. This constancy wicked men call obstinacy, but they speak evil
of what they know not, viz. the power of the Spirit, and the privy armour of proof,
that the saints have about their hearts.
Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?] Right or wrong, it matters not
with many, if the king or state have commanded a thing, done it must be. But what
said that martyr to the Popish bishop, pressing him with this argument, and
affirming that the king’s laws must be obeyed, whether they agree with the word of
God or not, yea, though the king were an infidel? If Shadrach, Mesheeh, and
Abednego had been of your mind, my lord (said Roger Coo, martyr),
ebuchadnezzar had not confessed the living God. True it is that we must give unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. But in addition, we must see to it that we give
unto God the things that are God’s, Matthew 22:21, where the three articles used in
the original are very emphatical, ‫פןץ‬ ‫פב‬Y ‫פש‬ ‫סןץ‬Y‫.וש‬ And it is a saying of
Chrysostom, If Caesar will take to himself God’s part, by commanding that which is

31. sinful, to pay him such a tribute is not tributum Caesaris, but servitium diaboli, an
observing of Caesar, but a serving of the devil.
LA GE, "Esther 3:3-4. The other officers daily questioned Mordecai because of his
refusal, and finally reported him to Haman to see whether Mordecai’s matters
would stand (would withstand, succeed): for he had told them that he was a Jew.—
By “his words,” we can only understand an assertion that, as a Jew, he was
prevented from participating in the ceremony of doing homage to Haman.
PULPIT, "The king's servants, which were in the gate with Mordecai, were the first
to observe his disrespect, and at once took up the matter. Why were they to bow
down, and Mordecai not? Was he any better or any grander than they? What right
had he to transgress the king's commandment? When they urged him on the point
day after day, Mordecai seems at last to have explained to them what his objection
was, and to have said that, as a Jew, he was precluded from prostrating himself
before a man. Having heard this, they told Haman, being curious to see whether
Mordecai's matters (or, rather, "words") would stand, i.e. whether his excuse would
be allowed, as was that of the Spartan ambassadors who declined to bow down
before Artaxerxes Longimanus (Herod; 1. s. c.).
4 Day after day they spoke to him but he refused
to comply. Therefore they told Haman about it to
see whether Mordecai’s behavior would be
tolerated, for he had told them he was a Jew.
BAR ES, "Whether Mordecai’s matters would stand - Rather, “whether
Mordecai’s words would hold good” - whether, that is, his excuse, that he was a Jew,
would be allowed as a valid reason for his refusal.
GIL, "Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him,.... Putting him in
mind of his duty to obey the king's command, suggesting to him the danger he exposed
himself to, pressing him to give the reasons of his conduct:
and he hearkened not unto them; regarded not what they said, and continued

32. disobedient to the king's order, and disrespectful to Haman
that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand; they
informed Haman that Mordecai refused to give him reverence as the king had ordered;
this they did to try whether such a conduct would be suffered and bore with, and
whether Mordecai would persevere in it when taken notice of:
for he had told them that he was a Jew; which was all the reason he gave why he
would not reverence Haman; and a reason sufficient, because, by a fundamental law of
his religion, he was not to worship mere man, but God only: and this confirms what has
been before observed; for this would have been no reason for refusing civil respect and
honour, but was a strong one for denying religious worship and reverence; and no
wonder that the Jews should refuse it, when even the Grecians, though Heathens,
refused to give the Persian kings the divine honours they required (m); yea, the
Athenians put Timagoras to death for prostrating himself in such a manner to Darius
(n); for the Persian kings were, as Aristotle says (o), called Lord and God, and said to
hear and see all things.
HE RY 4-6, "Haman meditating revenge. Some that hoped thereby to curry favour
with Haman took notice to him of Mordecai's rudeness, waiting to see whether he would
bend or break, Est_3:4. Haman then observed it himself, and was full of wrath, Est_3:5.
A meek and humble man would have slighted the affront, and have said, “Let him have
his humour; what am I the worse for it?” But it makes Haman's proud spirit rage, and
fret, and boil, within him, so that he becomes uneasy to himself and all about him. It is
soon resolved that Mordecai must die. The head must come off that will not bow to
Haman; if he cannot have his honours, he will have his blood. It is as penal in this court
not to worship Haman as it was in Nebuchadnezzar's not to worship the golden image
which he had set up. Mordecai is a person of quality, in a post of honour, and own cousin
to the queen; and yet Haman thinks his life nothing towards a satisfaction for the
affront: thousands of innocent and valuable lives must be sacrificed to his indignation;
and therefore he vows the destruction of all the people of Mordecai, for his sake, because
his being a Jew was the reason he gave why he did not reverence Haman. Herein appear
Haman's intolerable pride, insatiable cruelty, and the ancient antipathy of an Amalekite
to the Israel of God. Saul the son of Kish, a Benjamite, spared Agag, but Mordecai the
son of Kish, a Benjamite (Est_2:5), shall find no mercy with this Agagite, whose design
is to destroy all the Jews throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus (Est_3:6), which,
I suppose, would include those that had returned to their own land, for that was now a
province of his kingdom. Come and let us cut them off from being a nation, Psa_83:4.
Nero's barbarous wish is his, that they had all but one neck.
BE SO , "Esther 3:4. To see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand — Whether
he would persist in his refusal, and what the event of it would be; for he had told
them that he was a Jew — And therefore did not deny this reverence to Haman out
of pride, or any personal grudge against him, much less from a rebellious mind, and
contempt of the king’s authority and command, but merely out of conscience, being
obliged, as a Jew, to give such honour to God only.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:4 ow it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he
hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters

33. would stand: for he had told them that he [was] a Jew.
Ver. 4. ow it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him] This, if they did of
good-will (as at first perhaps they did), it was a friendly office, and may shame
many of us who are so backward to Christian admonition (see my common-places),
that spiritual alms, that we are bound freely to distribute, 1:22-23. But it; as is
likely, at length at least they did it to ingratiate with Haman, and out of envy to
Mordecai, because he did not comply and comport with them, what did they else but
act the devil’s part, and the rather, because they were importunate and impudent as
not to take an answer?
And he hearkened not unto them] They did but surdo fabulam (as they say), beat
upon cold iron; this matter was not malleable, this man not to be prevailed with, to
do aught against his conscience. The heavens shall sooner fall than I will alter mine
opinion, said that martyr. This the persecutors called obstinacy; seal pro hac
obstinatione fidei morimur, saith Tertullian, but for this obstinacy of faith we gladly
die; and the stronger any are in faith the more resolute in warrantable purposes.
The strength of Israel repenteth not, 1 Samuel 15:29. Inconstancy comes from
weakness.
That they told Haman] Purposely to pick a thank and curry favour. Go not about as
a tale bearer, Leviticus 19:16. The word signifieth as a pedlar, that first filleth his
pack with tales and slanders, and then venteth them to the hurt of others. Such are
fitly joined with flatterers, Proverbs 20:19, and with murderers, Ezekiel 22:9. Such
a wretched pedlar was Doeg, and such were these evil instruments in the text, whose
tongues were as sharp as the quills of a porcupine, the poison of asps was under
their lips. And although it was truth they told Haman, yet because they did it not for
any love to the truth, nor for respect to justice, nor for the bettering of either party,
but only to undo the one, and to incense the other, they were no better than
slanderers.
To see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand] Whether he would stick to his
principles, and not start aside for any terror, Philippians 1:28.
For he had told them that he was a Jew] That is, by interpretation, a confesssor;
yea, more, he was a stout professor of the truth; and though he had hitherto
concealed himself, yet now (since they will needs have it so) he plainly tells them his
country, and his conscience, the true cause of his peremptoriness, which they held
and called pride and stubbornness.
WHEDO , "4. He hearkened not unto them — He would not be persuaded from his
purpose to remain true to the principles of his religion. His course was dictated, not
by obstinacy, but by firmness of religious principle. Herodotus (vii, 136) relates the
case of certain Spartans who visited Shushan in the time of Xerxes, and, when

34. ushered into the royal presence, refused to prostrate themselves and worship the
king, on the ground that it was contrary to their customs to worship a man.
They told Haman — Until they told him, Haman seems not to have noticed that
Mordecai did not bow down to him.
Whether Mordecai’s matters would stand — Whether the religious scruples of a
Jew would be tolerated in opposition to Persian laws and customs.
5 When Haman saw that Mordecai would not
kneel down or pay him honor, he was enraged.
GIL, "And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him
reverence,.... For, after the information given him, he observed and watched him, to
see whether he bowed and did him reverence or not:
then was Haman full of wrath; exceedingly displeased and angry; it was such a
mortification to him he could not bear.
K&D, "Est_3:5-6
When, then, Haman, whose attention had been called to the fact, saw, when next he
went in unto the king, that Mordochai did not fall down before him, he was full of wrath,
and (Est_3:6) thought scorn, i.e., in his pride esteemed it too contemptible, to lay hands
on Mordochai alone, i.e., to execute him alone, for this opposition to the royal
commands; for they had showed him the people of Mordochai, i.e., had told him that as
a Jew Mordochai had refused this act of worship, and that the whole Jewish nation
thought and acted accordingly. Therefore he sought to destroy all the Jews that were
throughout the whole kingdom of Ahashverosh, the people of Mordochai. The subject
Haman is repeated before ‫שׁ‬ ֵ ַ‫ב‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫ו‬ for the sake of clearness, because it was not expressly
named with ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ב‬ִ ַ‫.ו‬ ‫י‬ ַ‫כ‬ ְ ְ‫ר‬ ָ‫מ‬ ‫ם‬ ַ‫ע‬ is in apposition to ‫ים‬ ִ‫הוּד‬ְ ַ‫ל־ה‬ ָⅴ: all the Jews as the people of
Mordochai, because they were the people of Mordochai and shared his sentiments.
BE SO , "Esther 3:5. Then was Haman full of rage — Josephus tells us, that
Haman, taking notice of this singularity in Mordecai, asked him what countryman
he was, and finding him to be a Jew, broke out into a violent exclamation at his

35. insolence, and in his rage formed the desperate resolution, not only to be revenged
on Mordecai, but to destroy the whole race of the Jews; well remembering that his
ancestors, the Amalekites, had been formerly driven out of their country, and
almost exterminated by the Jews.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him
reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.
Ver. 5. And when Haman saw] Stirred up by these pestilent flatterer, qui crabronem
furiosum magis irritaverant, as one saith, he took special notice of Mordecai’s
irreverence, which with more discretion he might have dissembled. When an
inconsiderate fellow had stricken Cato in the bath, and afterwards cried him mercy,
he replied, I remember not that thou didst strike me. It is a sign of weakness to be
too soft and sensible of an indignity; "I was as a deaf man that heard not, and as one
dumb, in whose mouth is no reproof," Psalms 38:13-14. The best apology to words
and carriages of scorn and petulance is that of Isaac to Ishmael, viz. patience and
silence.
That Mordecai bowed not, &c.] A great business to enrage him so much, but that he
was set on by that old man slayer.
Sic leve, sic parvum est, animum quod laudis avarum
Subruit, aut reficit -
So trivial, so small is it, the spirit because greedy of praise, will be undermined or
restored. A small wind raiseth a bubble, ambition rideth without reins, and hath
inhabitatorem Dracohere Apostatam, the devil at inn with it.
Then was Haman full of wrath] He swelled like a toad, glowed like a devil; being
transformed as it were into a breathing devil, he seeks the utter extirpation of that
people, of whom, concerning the flesh, Christ was to come, Romans 9:5, wishing the
same to them which Caligula in a rage did to the people of Rome, I would ye had all
but one neck, that I might cut you all off at one blow, E‫ויקופו‬ ‫בץקוםב‬ ‫וםב‬ ‫.יט‬ Josephus
tells us, that he brake out into this blustering speech, Liberi Persae me adorant. Hic
autem, servus cum sit, tamen hoc facere dedignatur: The Persians, though free men,
reverence me, and yet this slave thinks himself too good to do it. This he uttered no
doubt with a very harsh and hateful intention of the voice, such as was that of the
two brethren in evil, whose anger was fierce and their wrath cruel, when, Genesis
34:31, they answered their aggrieved father, Should he deal with our sister as a
harlot? Genesis 49:5; Genesis 49:7; where the word Zonah (harlot) hath a great
letter, to note their vehemency, rage, and rudeness.
LA GE, "Esther 3:5-6. Haman, when he had convinced himself of the conduct of

36. Mordecai, regarded it lightly, and did not deem it sufficient to punish him alone; for
the people to whom Mordecai belonged, had been told him, hence Haman knew that
he belonged to the despised people of the Jews. But he rather strove to destroy all
the Jews in the whole realm of Ahasuerus as being of the same mind with Mordecai.
[F 12]
ISBET, "A STURDY ALIE
‘Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not.’
Esther 3:5
I. A sturdy soul was Mordecai.—He was not going to give a prostration of homage,
which he reserved for God alone, to the haughty noble who sprang from the hated
race of Amalek.
II. What a contrast within and without the palace when the decree was signed!—
Within, revelry, the king and Haman sat down to drink. Without, perplexity and
alarm, for who could anticipate what the near future might disclose, if the king
could sacrifice an entire nation for the whim of a favourite? But God was standing
‘within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.’ For
III. They always lose who fight against God.—They may be great, like Haman. They
may be able, unscrupulous, ambitious. They may exact homage from every one. The
chances are, we say, that they shall march from success to success. But the Lord of
hosts is their antagonist. His boundless power, His sovereign authority, His
invincible might, are opposed to them. So it is our safety never to ally ourselves with
them.
IV. They always win who side with God.—They may be forgotten and despised, like
Mordecai at the gate. But they are ruled by principle and conscience. They cannot
give honour to what is not true, what is not honest, what is not good. ‘The short man
who could not bow,’ Oliver Cromwell said of James Guthrie, and it is their
character. All things work together for these men’s good. The system of nature, the
ordinances of grace, the Holy Spirit within the soul, the Saviour on the throne—
these are their friends. ‘’Tis better,’ Robert Browning sings, ‘being good than bad.’
PULPIT, "When Haman saw. Apparently Mordecai's disrespect had not been
observed by Haman until the "king's servants" called his attention to it. Then,
naturally enough, he was greatly offended, and felt exceedingly angry at what
seemed to him a gross impertinence. Mordecai's excuse did not pacify him—perhaps
seemed to him to make the matter worse, since, if allowed, it would justify all the
Jews in the empire in withholding from him the respect that he considered his due.

37. 6 Yet having learned who Mordecai’s people
were, he scorned the idea of killing only Mordecai.
Instead Haman looked for a way to destroy all
Mordecai’s people, the Jews, throughout the
whole kingdom of Xerxes.
BAR ES, "To destroy all the Jews - In the East massacres of a people, a race, a
class, have at all times been among the incidents of history, and would naturally present
themselves to the mind of a statesman. The Magophonia, or the great massacre of the
Magi at the accession of Darius Hystaspis, was an event not then fifty years old, and was
commemorated annually. A massacre of the Scythians had occurred about a century
previously.
GILL, "And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone,.... That would
not be a sufficient gratification of his revenge; he was too low and mean a person only to
wreak his vengeance on; nothing short of his whole nation would satisfy him:
for they had showed him the people of Mordecai; that they were the Jews; for
Mordecai had told the king's servants, that talked with him on the subject, that he was a
Jew, and gave that as a reason why he could not and would not reverence Haman:
wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the
whole kingdom of Ahasuerus; even the people of Mordecai; and that not merely to
be revenged on Mordecai, but because he plainly saw, that both by his example, and
upon the same principle with him; they would all to a man refuse to give him reverence;
and therefore he was resolved to root them out of the whole empire, that he might not be
mortified by them.
BE SO , "Esther 3:6. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone — He
thought that particular vengeance was unsuitable to his quality, and to the greatness
of the injury; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews — Which he
attempted from that implacable hatred which, as an Amalekite, he had against
them; from his rage against Mordecai; and from Mordecai’s reason of this
contempt, because he was a Jew, which, as he truly judged, extended itself to all the
Jews, and would equally engage them all in the same neglect. And doubtless Haman
included, those who were returned to their own land; for that was now a province of
his kingdom.

38. TRAPP, "Esther 3:6 And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they
had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the
Jews that [were] throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, [even] the people of
Mordecai.
Ver. 6. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone] He thought it a small
matter, saith Josephus, ‫חדחףבפן‬ ‫,ליךסןם‬ a thing below him, too little for his revenge,
which, like fire, burneth all it can lay hold upon, especially when as here it ariseth
from ambition, which, like choler adust, if constructed and stopped in its course, is a
dangerous passion, and endeth in burning fevers and madness. Haman thought
scorn, contempsit in oculis suis, contempt in his eyes, so the Hebrew, to foul his
fingers with Mordecai alone, the whole nation must perish, and all the children of
God that were scattered abroad, as he once said, John 11:50; John 11:52. In like
manner, nostri temporis Hamanus, saith Merlin upon this text, the Haman of our
time (meaning the duke of Guise, as I suppose), when as by the king’s favour he was
promoted, and promised himself the crown, there being but one family only that
stood in his way, he desired together with it to overturn all the Reformed religion
and to root out all the remembrance of the Churches in France. Hence the Parisian
Massacre, wherein Merlin had his part, being household chaplain to the admiral,
and by a miracle of God’s mercy escaping those hellish cut throats. The first
occasion of that bloody massacre, I have somewhere read, was this (Other things I
know were pretended, as if the Protestants had plotted and practised against the
king, queen mother, and the princes of the blood, and coin stamped with this
inscription, Virtus in rebelles, &c. Courage in rebellion). The pope sent to the
cardinal of Lorraine, brother to the duke of Guise, a table, wherein was painted our
lady with a little child in her arms, by the most excellent painter in Christendom,
and consecrated with his own hands, and enclosed it in a case of silk, and a letter
with it, giving him high commendation and thanks for his zeal against the
Huguenots. The messenger that carried the present fell sick by the way, and finding
one going into France, entreated him to deliver the present to the cardinal. The
cardinal read the letter, and laid the table on his bed, for he would not open it, till
he might do it with greater solemnity. For this purpose he invited the duke of Guise
to dinner with many other great personages. In the meanwhile one that liked not the
cardinal, found means to change the table, &c. At dinner the letter was read, and
the table taken out of the case in the sight of the cardinal and all his guests, wherein
was painted in place of our lady and her child, the cardinal of Lorraine stark naked,
the queen mother, the young Queen of Scots, and the old duchess of Guise naked
also, hanging about the cardinal’s neck, and their legs wrapped between his legs. I
cannot say much for the man that did this prank; but that the cardinal and his
complices should thereupon design all the French Protestants to destruction, should
butcher thirty thousand of them in a month, one hundred thousand of them in one
year, some say three hundred thousand; that upon the news of it the pope should
proclaim a jubilee for joy, and the cardinal of Lorraine give the messenger a
thousand crowns, &c. This was matchless atrocious savagery, this was Haman-like
hatred, this was cruelty beyond that of Simeon and Levi, which made good Jacob, in
a deep detestation of that dreadfulness, cry out, "O my soul, come not thou into

39. their secret," &c, Genesis 49:6.
For they had showed him the people of Mordecai] viz. That he was a Jew.
Josephus’s note upon this text is: Haman naturally hated the Jews, as those that had
anciently destroyed the Amalekites’ countrymen, he might easily call to mind what
Saul had done to them, and David, and, lastly, the tribe of Simeon. God had
sentenced them long since to utter destruction; and yet deferred the first execution
for about four hundred years’ time; and now again, after more than five hundred
years, Haman, the Agagite, is thus exalted, but for a mischief, as the eagle carrieth
the tortoise on high in her talons, that she may break it in the fall, and feed upon it.
Patientia laesa fit furor.
Wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews] Ut sanguineam
famem expleret; as a wolf, breaking into the fold, kills all the
flock; as fowlers take away the young and the dams together, putting
both into the bag (which God forbade, Deuteronomy 22:6); as Esau, that
rough man, came with four hundred cut-throats at his heels, to
destroy the mother with the children, Genesis 32:11; as Uladus,
prince ef Wallachia, was wont, together with the offender, to execute
the whole family, yea, sometimes the whole kindred; as Selilnus, the
Great Turk, in revenge of the loss he received at the battle of
Lepanto, resolved to put to death all the Christians in his
dominions, in number infinite; as Philip of Spain sailed out of the
Low Countries homewards, vowing to root out all the Lutherans there,
and protesting that he had rather have no subjects than such (Hist.
of Count. of Trent, 417); as cruel Dr Story, a great persecutor in
Queen Mary’s reign, and hanged for a traitor in Queen Elizabeth’s,
whose death he had conspired, cursing her daily in his grace at
meals, and greatly repenting that he and others had laboured only

40. about the young sprigs and twigs, as he phrased it, while they should
have stricken at the root, and clean rooted it out (A.D. 1571, Camd.
Eliz.); lastly, as the gunpowder Papists, who had prepared by
proclamations to further that horrid plot (if it had taken effect)
upon the Puritans, and under that name to have murdered all those
that had but looked toward religion.
That were throughout the whole kingdom] Herein he showed himself
a right Amalekite, Mali corvi malum ovum, dirt kneaded with blood
( P‫נוצץסבלוםןע‬ ‫בילבפי‬ ‫,)חכןע‬ as one said of Tiberius, He presumed
he might have what he pleased of the king, and, therefore, made
account to make but a breakfast of his enemies, the Jews, to whom he
said in his heart, as once Caligula did to the Roman consuls,
Rideo, quod uno nutu meo iugulare vos omnes possim, I cannot but
laugh to think that I can nod you all to death.
Even the people of Mordecai] Who were more renowned by him than
Co was by Hippocrates, Thebes by Epaininondas, Stagira by Aristotle,
Hippo by Augustine, &c.
WHEDO , "6. He thought scorn — Literally, it was contemptible in his eyes. To
punish Mordecai alone was too little a thing, in his estimation, to reconcile his
offended honour. The whole nation or race of Mordecai must perish to make
atonement for this his sole offence. Such wholesale massacres were not uncommon
in the East. For the offence of the pseudo-Smerdis the Persians sought to destroy all
the Magi, and even celebrated the event by a festival called Magophonia — “the
slaughter of the Magi.” — Herod., 3:79. Such a tyrant as Xerxes, with such a
minister as Haman were just the men to cause such slaughter upon slight
provocation.
PULPIT, "He thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone. If Haman had simply
said to Ahasuerus, "There is one of your menials who persistently disobeys a royal

41. edict, and at the same time insults me," Ahasuerus would, as a matter of course,
have told him to put the menial to death. But the revengeful temper of the man was
such that this seemed to him insufficient. Mordecai had insulted him as a Jew, and
the Jews should pay the penalty. Mordecai should be punished not only in person,
but in his kindred, if he had any, and in his nation. The nation itself was
contumacious and troublesome (Esther 3:8); it would be well to get rid of it. And it
would be a grand thing to wipe out an insult offered by an individual in the blood of
a whole people. Haman therefore sought to destroy all the Jews that were
throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. Massacres on a large scale—not
unknown in the West, witness St. Bartholomew's—are of frequent occurrence in the
East, where human life is not held in much regard, and the caprices of absolute
monarchs determine the course of history. There had been a general massacre of the
Magi upon the accession of Darius Hystaspis, the father of Xerxes (Herod; 3.79),
and one of Scythians about a century before (ibid. 1.106). These were examples
which might occur to Haman. A later one is the Roman massacre of Mithridates in
b.c. 88.
7 In the twelfth year of King Xerxes, in the first
month, the month of isan, the pur (that is, the
lot) was cast in the presence of Haman to select a
day and month. And the lot fell on[a] the twelfth
month, the month of Adar.
BAR ES, "In the first month ... - i. e. in March or April of 474 B.C.
“Pur” is supposed to be an old Persian word etymologically connected with the Latin
“pars”, and signifying “part” or “lot.” The practice of casting lots to obtain a lucky day
still obtains in the East, and is probably extremely ancient. A lot seems to have been cast,
or a throw of some kind made, for each day of the month and each month of the year.
The day and month which obtained the best throws were then selected. Assyrian
calendars note lucky and unlucky days as early as the eighth century B.C. Lots were in
use both among the Oriental and the Classical nations from a remote antiquity.
“Adar,” the twelfth month, corresponds nearly to our March. It seems to have derived
its name from “adar”, “splendor,” because of the brightness of the sun and the flowers at
that time.

42. CLARKE, "The first month - That is, of the civil year of the Jews.
The month Nisan - Answering to a part of our March and April.
The twelfth year of king Ahasuerus - According to the chronology in our Bibles,
about five hundred and ten years before Christ.
They cast Pur, that is, the lot - This appears to be the Hebrew corruption of the
pure Persian word pari, which signifies any thing that happens fortuitously. There is an
addition here in the Greek text that was probably in the original, and which makes this
place very plain. I shall set down the whole verse, and give the Greek in a parenthesis,
that it may be read consecutively with what is in the Hebrew: “In the first month, that is,
the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot,
before Haman, from day to day, and from month to month.” (ᆞστε απολεσαι εν µιᇮ ᅧµερᇮ
το γενος Μαρδοχαιου, και επεσεν ᆇ κληρος εις την τεσερακαιδεκατην του µηνος ᆇς εστιν Αδαρ
“that they might destroy in one day the people of Mordecai; and the lot fell on the
fourteenth day of the month Adar.”)
We see plainly intimated by the Hebrew text that they cast lots, or used a species of
divination, to find which of the twelve months would be the most favorable for the
execution of Haman’s design; and, having found the desired month, then they cast lots,
or used divination, to find out which day of the said month would be the lucky day for
the accomplishment of the enterprise. But the Hebrew text does not tell us the result of
this divination; we are left to guess it out; but the Greek supplies this deficiency, and
makes all clear. From it we find that, when they cast for the month, the month Adar was
taken; and when they cast for the day, the fourteenth (Heb. thirteenth) of that month
was taken.
Some have questioned whether Pur may not have signified also some game of chance,
which they played before or with Haman, from day to day, to divert him from his
melancholy, till the lucky time came in which he was to have the gratification of slaying
all the people who were objects of his enmity; or they cast lots, or played, who should get
the property of such and such opulent families. Holinshed, one of our ancient historians,
informs us that, previously to the battle of Agincourt, the English army, under Henry V.,
were so thinned and weakened by disease, and the French army so numerous, that
“Frenchmen, in the mean while, as though they had been sure of victory, made great
triumphe, for the captaines had determined before how to divide the spoil; and the
souldiers, the night before, had plaied the Englishmen at dice.” To this the chorus of
Shakspeare alludes: -
“Proud of their numbers, and secure of soul,
The confident and over-lusty French
Do the low-rated English play at dice.
- The poor condemned English,
Like sacrifices by their watchful fires,
Sit patiently and inly ruminate
The morning’s danger; and their gestures sad,
Investing lank-lean cheeks, and war-worn coats,
Presenteth them unto the gazing moon
So many horrid ghosts.
Hen. V.
Monstrelet, who is an impartial writer, does not mention this.

43. Did Haman and his flatterers intend to divide the spoils of the designed-to-be-
massacred Jews in some such manner as this?
GIL, "In the first month, that is the month Nisan,.... Which was the first month
of the sacred year of the Jews, by divine appointment, Exo_12:2, and there called Abib,
and answers to part of February and part of March; from hence it is clear this book was
written by a Jew, and very probably by Mordecai:
in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus; four years and near two months after his
marriage of Esther, Est_2:16,
they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman; being a Persian word, it is explained
in Hebrew a lot, the word signifying "steel" in the Persian language. Reland (p)
conjectures that this was that sort of lot called "sideromantia". Who cast this lot is not
said; whether Haman himself, or one of his servants: perhaps a diviner. The latter
Targum calls him Shimshai the scribe:
from day today, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is the
month Adar; which answers to part of January and part of February; so that the lot
was cast for every month and every day of the month throughout the year, to find out
which was the most lucky month, and which the most lucky day in that month, to
destroy the Jews in and none could be found till they came to the last month, and the
thirteenth day of that month, Est_3:13, the providence of God so overruling the lot, that
there might be time enough for the Jews, through the mediation of Esther to the king, to
prevent their destruction; so in other nations the Heathens had their lucky and unlucky
days (q).
HE RY, "Haman values himself upon that bold and daring thought, which he
fancied well became his great spirit, of destroying all the Jews - an undertaking worthy
of its author, and which he promised himself would perpetuate his memory. He doubts
not but to find desperate and bloody hands enough to cut all their throats if the king will
but give him leave. How he obtained leave, and commission to do it, we are here told. He
had the king's ear, let him alone to manage him.
JAMISO , "In the first month ... they cast Pur, that is, the lot — In resorting
to this method of ascertaining the most auspicious day for putting his atrocious scheme
into execution, Haman acted as the kings and nobles of Persia have always done, never
engaging in any enterprise without consulting the astrologers, and being satisfied as to
the lucky hour. Vowing revenge but scorning to lay hands on a single victim, he
meditated the extirpation of the whole Jewish race, who, he knew, were sworn enemies
of his countrymen; and by artfully representing them as a people who were aliens in
manners and habits, and enemies to the rest of his subjects, he procured the king’s
sanction of the intended massacre. One motive which he used in urging his point was
addressed to the king’s cupidity. Fearing lest his master might object that the
extermination of a numerous body of his subjects would seriously depress the public
revenue, Haman promised to make up the loss.
K&D, "To ensure the success of this great undertaking, viz., the extermination of all

44. the Jews in the kingdom, Haman had recourse to the lot, that he might thus fix on a
propitious day for the execution of his project. Astrology plays an important part among
all ancient nations, nothing of any magnitude being undertaken without first consulting
its professors concerning a favourable time and opportunity; comp. rem. on Eze_21:26.
Est_3:7
“In the first month, i.e., Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahashverosh, they cast Pur,
i.e., the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to the twelfth month, i.e.,
the month Adar.” The subject of ‫יל‬ ִ ִ‫ה‬ is left indefinite, because it is self-evident that this
was done by some astrologer or magician who was versed in such matters. Bertheau tries
unnaturally to make Haman the subject, and to combine the subsequent ‫ן‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫ל‬ with
‫ל‬ ָ‫ּור‬ ַ‫:ה‬ ”Haman cast Pur, i.e., the lot, before Haman,” which makes Pur signify: the lot
before Haman. ‫ן‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫ל‬ means in the presence of Haman, so that he also might see how
the lot fell. ‫וּר‬ is an Old-Persian word meaning lot (sors); in modern Persian, bâra
signifies time, case (fois, cas), pâra or pâre, piece (morceau, pièce), and behr, behre, and
behre, lot, share, fate; comp. Zenker, Turco-Arabic and Persian Lexicon, pp. 162 and
229. The words ”from day to day, from month to the twelfth month,” must not be
understood to say, that lots were cast day by day and month by month till the twelfth;
but that in the first month lots were at once cast, one after the other, for all the days and
months of the year, that a favourable day might be obtained. We do not know the
manner in which this was done, “the way of casting lots being unknown to us.” The
words: from month to the twelfth month, are remarkable; we should expect from month
to month till the twelfth month. Bertheau supposes that the words ‫ּום‬‫י‬ ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ל‬ ָ‫ּור‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ּל‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ ְ‫ל‬
‫ר‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫לשׁ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ were omitted after ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ ֵ‫וּמ‬ through the eye of the transcriber passing on from the
first ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ ְ‫ל‬ to the second. The text of the lxx actually contains such words, and the
possibility of such an oversight on the part of a transcriber must certainly be admitted.
In the book of Esther, however, the lxx translation is no critical authority, and it is just as
possible that the author of the Hebrew book here expresses himself briefly and
indefinitively, because he was now only concerned to state the month determined by lot
for the undertaking, and intended to mention the day subsequently.
BE SO ,"Esther 3:7. They cast Pur, that is, the lot — “Haman, being determined
to destroy Mordecai and the Jews, called together his diviners, to find out what day
would be most lucky for his putting this design into execution. The way of
divination, then in use among the eastern people, was by casting lots; and therefore
having tried in this manner, first each month, and then each day in every month,
they came to a determination at last, that the thirteenth day of the twelfth month
would be most fortunate for the bloody execution. It was in the first month of the
year when Haman began to cast lots, and the time for the execution of the Jews was
by these lots delayed till the last month of the year; which plainly shows, that though
the lot be cast into the lap, yet the whole disposing thereof is from the Lord,
Proverbs 16:33. For hereby almost a whole year intervened between the design and
its execution, which gave time for Mordecai to acquaint Queen Esther with it, and
for her to intercede with the king for the revoking or suspending the decree, and
thereby preventing the conspiracy. The reader will find this decree in Joseph.

45. Antiq., lib. 11, cap. 6. Houbigant renders this verse, The lot, which is called Pur, was
drawn before Haman from day to day, from month to month, for the twelfth
month.” See Poole and Dodd.
COFFMA , "Verse 7
HAMA RECEIVES THE KI G'S PERMISSIO TO DESTROY ISRAEL
"In the first month, which is the month isan, in the twelfth year of king
Ahashuerus, they cast Put, that is, the lot, from day to day, and from month to
month, to the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. And Haman said unto king
Ahashuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the
peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from the laws
of every people; neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for the king's
profit to suffer them. If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed:
and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those that have charge
of the king's business, to bring it into the king's treasuries. And the king took his
ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite,
the Jews' enemy. And the king said unto Haman, the silver is given thee, and the
people also, to do with them as seemeth good to thee."
Critical enemies of the Bible, having no other grounds upon which they may deny or
object to the text, sometimes must fall back upon their subjective imaginations that
this or that Biblical statement is "unrealistic, unreasonable, or unlikely to have
occurred." One may find plenty of such subjective objections to what is written
here.
Some ask, "Would any king have given blanket permission to anyone to destroy a
considerable percentage of the people in his whole kingdom"? The answer to that is
that, "Xerxes certainly did so." And even that was not any more unreasonable or
stupid than some other actions of that evil king as reported by Herodotus.
Others have pointed out that it was a terribly foolish thing for Haman to have
published a whole year in advance his intention of exterminating the Jews.
Archaeology, however, has uncovered dramatic information on how this happened.
"Haman's method for fixing the date for the destruction of the Jews has been
revealed by excavations at Susa (Shushan) by M. Dieulafoy, who actually recovered
one of those quadrangular prisms engraved with the umbers 1,2, 5,6. The word
`pur' is derived from the Persian puru, that is, `lot'; and it is now known that `they
cast Pur' (Esther 3:7) means that they cast lots."[3] This fully explains why almost a
year elapsed between Haman's decision to massacre the Jews, which he published at
once, and the date set for the execution of his ruthless plan.
Significantly, Haman was so sure of receiving the king's permission, that he actually
cast lots for the day he would do it before mentioning the matter to the king. Also,
that tremendous promise of ten thousand talents of silver, which was well over
$10,000,000.00, which Haman promised to pay into the king's treasury, was also
most likely based upon the presumption by Haman that the king would not accept

46. it.
COKE, "Esther 3:7. They cast Pur, that is, the lot— Haman, being determined to
destroy Mordecai and the Jews, called together his diviners, to find out what day
would be most lucky for his putting this design in execution. The way of divination
then in use among the eastern people was, by casting lots; and therefore, having
tried in this manner, first each month, and then each day in every month, they came
to a determination at last, that the 13th day of the 12th month would be most
fortunate for the bloody execution. It was in the first month of the year when
Haman began to cast lots, and the time for the execution of the Jews was by these
lots delayed till the last month in the year; which plainly shews, that, though the lot
be cast into the lap, yet the whole disposing thereof is from the Lord; Proverbs 16:33
for hereby almost a whole year intervened between the design and its execution,
which gave time for Mordecai to acquaint queen Esther with it, and for her to
intercede with the king for the revoking or suspending of the decree, and thereby
preventing the conspiracy. The reader will find this decree in Joseph. Antiq. lib. 11:
cap. 6. Houbigant renders this verse, The lot, which is called Pur, was drawn before
Haman from day to day, from month to month, for the twelfth month.
CO STABLE, "1. The casting of lots3:7
Haman cast the lot-pur is the Persian word for "lot"-to determine the day most
favorable to wipe out the Jews. In the pagan ancient ear East, it was unthinkable
to make plans of this magnitude without astrological guidance. The lot supposedly
revealed the day most propitious for this act. [ ote: The ew Bible Dictionary,
1962ed, s.v. "Magic and Sorcery," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.] The official casting of
lots happened during the first month of each year to determine the most opportune
days for important events. [ ote: W. W. Hallo, "The First Purim," Biblical
Archaeologist46:1 (1983):19-27.] This may explain why Haman cast lots in the first
month and chose a date so much later to annihilate the Jews. However, God
controlled the lot-casting ( Proverbs 16:33) and gave the Jews almost a year to
prepare for conflict with their enemies. Archaeologists have found quadrangular
prism type dice at Susa, and perhaps it was this kind of device that Haman used to
make his decision on this occasion. [ ote: Wood, p409.]
"Though determined by lot, the day chosen seems maliciously ironical. The
number13was considered unlucky by the Persians and the Babylonians, while the
thirteenth day of the first month, the day on which the edict decreeing the Jews"
destruction was dispatched ( Esther 3:12), is the day preceding Passover, the
commemoration of the deliverance from slavery in Egypt." [ ote: Bush, p386.]
ELLICOTT, "(7) In the first month . . . the twelfth year.—In the March or April of
474 B.C.
isan.—The later name of the month, known in the Pentateuch as Abib. In this
month the Passover had been first instituted, when God smote the Egyptians with a
terrible visitation, the death of the first-born, and bade the destroying angel spare

47. the houses with the blood-besprinkled door-posts. It was in the same month that the
Passover received its final fulfilment, when “Christ our Passover was sacrificed for
us,” when no mere earthly Egypt was discomfited, but principalities and powers of
evil.
Pur.—This is evidently a Persian word for “lot,” for both here and in Esther 9:24
the usual Hebrew word is added. It is doubtless connected with the Latin pars,
portio. and the English part. The people who cast Pur were seeking for a lucky day,
as indicated by the lots, for the purpose in hand. A lot was cast for each day of the
month, and for each month in the year, and in some way or other one day and one
mouth were indicated as the most favourable. The notion of lucky and unlucky days
seems to have been prevalent in the East in early times. and iudeed has, to a certain
extent. found credence in the West.
The twelfth month.—The lucky month is thus indicated, but not the day. The LXX.
adds a clause saying that it was on the fourteenth day, doubtless an interpolation on
the strength of Esther 3:13.
Adar.—The lunar month ending at the new moon in March. It was the twelfth
month, so that nearly a year would intervene between the throwing of the lot and
the carrying out of the scheme. Thus in God’s providence ample time was allowed
for redressing matters.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:7 In the first month, that [is], the month isan, in the twelfth
year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that [is], the lot, before Haman from day to
day, and from month to month, [to] the twelfth [month], that [is], the month Adar.
Ver. 7. In the first month] The time is thus noted, ad maiorem historiae fidem et
lucern, to give more credit to the history, and to lend some light to it.
That is, the month isan] The Chaldees call it Abib, from the new fruits or ears of
grain then first appearing. It was the first month unto Israel, in respect of sacred,
not civil, affairs, because of their coming out of Egypt therein. It answereth to part
of March with us, and part of April.
In the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus] When Esther had now been queen for over
four years, and, being greatly beloved, was in a capacity to do her people good. This
was a sweet providence, the remedy was ready before the disease broke out. o
country hath more venomous creatures than Egypt, none more antidotes. So
godliness hath many troubles, and as many helps against trouble.
They cast Pur, that is, the lot] The old interpreter addeth in urnam, into the pitcher.
And the new annotations tell us that, about casting lots, there was a pitcher into
which papers, with names of the several months written on them, and rolled up,

48. were cast; yea, also papers with the names of every day and of every month were
cast in; then one, blindfolded, put in his hand and pulled out a paper, and according
to the marks which they had set down, such a month proved lucky, and such a day
in the month; and, by God’s providence, it so fell out that their supposed lucky day
was on the twelfth month, whereby it came to pass that their plot was defeated
before the time of accomplishing thereof, Esther 9:1-11.
From day to day, &c.] This is not to be taken as if they had continued twelve months
about in casting of these lots; but as in the note next above.
That is, the month Adar] In all which time that wicked Haman might have
bethought himself (as one noteth), and returned to a better mind toward God’s
people. But he, after the hardness of his heart, that could not repent, treasured up
unto himself wrath against the day of wrath, &c., Romans 2:5.
WHEDO , "7. The first month… isan — Corresponding nearly with our April. It
was the first month of the Jewish year, the month of the passover.
Exodus 12:2. It was called also Abib. Exodus 13:4; Exodus 34:18.
They cast Pur — Pur is a Persian word, and, according to our author, signifies the
lot. Haman’s diviners cast lots before him in order to determine a favourable or
lucky day for carrying out his fierce design against the Jews. “The practice of
casting lots,” says Rawlinson, “to obtain a lucky day, remains still in the East, and is
probably extremely ancient. Assyrian calendars note lucky and unlucky days as
early as the eighth century B.C. Lots were in use both among the oriental and the
classical nations from a remote antiquity.
From day to day — We are not to understand that they spent a whole year in
casting lots. On the first month they cast lots for each day of the month, and for
each month of the year, and then, comparing all together, decided which was the
most lucky day for their purpose. They fixed upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth
month. Esther 3:13; Esther 8:12; Esther 9:1.
To the twelfth month — Literally, from month to month the twelfth. The twelfth
month was called Adar, and corresponds nearly with our March. We should not fail
to observe the providence that so disposed the lot in this case (Proverbs 16:33) as to
defer the execution of Haman’s bloody design for nearly a year, thus affording time
for Mordecai and Esther to secure its defeat.
LA GE, "Esther 3:7. Haman reasoned that for such a difficult and great
undertaking he must select an especially appropriate day, and for this purpose he
caused lots to be cast day after day throughout the whole year, and stopped at every
day to see whether it was the one most proper for the undertaking. It was in the first
month, that Isaiah, the month isan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, when

49. this was done. Since he found a suitable day only in the twelfth month, namely, the
thirteenth day of the month, according to Esther 3:13, it is clear that he manifested
much persistency and endurance. Possibly, what in itself is not of great moment,
namely, the time in which he examined every single day, is here given, in order to
give due prominence to the greatness of his zeal. Possibly another reason may have
obtained in this designation of time. If the day of extermination was determined on
already in the month of isan, and proclaimed on the thirteenth of that month
(comp. Esther 3:12) then it is clear that the Jews were for a whole year harassed in
their mind regarding their fate in view of the edict which was now no longer a secret
to them. Especially, if those living in and around Shushan had already heard on the
14 th or 15 th isan what was determined relative to them, then the most sacred joy
which came to them in the Paschal festival was turned into utter sorrow. That it was
the Paschal month in which their destruction was determined on, is by our author
not so clearly expressed, since he seems to omit what might be understood as self-
evident, but deserves consideration here. It seemed as if the old Paschal celebration,
which indicated the ancient redemption out of the slavery from the world, was now
to be abolished; as if Israel was now again to be handed over into the despotism and
cruelty of foreign rulers. Instead of partaking of a feast it was enjoined on
Mordecai, Esther and her friends to fast, as is shown in the old Targums (comp.
chap. Esther 4:1; Esther 4:16). But the more the ancient deliverance from Egypt
seemed to be divested of its import, the more the new deliverance from Persia must
have risen in significance; the more doubtful the joy of the Paschal-feast became, the
more was the rejoicing of the feast of Purim enhanced. The feast of Purim as the
second celebration of deliverance was hence co-ordinate with the Paschal festival as
being the first deliverance, but in such a manner that the former became a vital
support to the latter.
We do not regard Haman as the subject (Bertheau) to be supplied with ‫פּוּר‬ ‫ִיל‬‫פּ‬ִ‫ה‬, as is
generally assumed according to Esther 3:6, but an indefinite “ Hebrews,” some one,
i.e., “they.” The author seems to presume that casting of lots in such cases as the one
in hand was not infrequent, and that some one had the office of casting the lots, so
that the subject of ‫ִיל‬‫פּ‬ִ‫ה‬, may be implied as impersonal. If Haman himself had been
the subject, then the words ‫ן‬ָ‫מ‬ָ‫ה‬ ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ְ‫פּ‬ִ‫ל‬ following ‫ל‬ ָ‫ַגּוֹר‬‫ה‬ ‫הוּא‬ would be remarkable, instead
of which one would expect to find it ‫ָיו‬‫נ‬ָ‫פּ‬ֶ‫ל‬. Bertheau connects this sentence with the
explanatory phrase ‫ל‬ ָ‫ַגּוֹר‬‫ה‬ ‫,הוּא‬ as if the use of the foreign word ‫פּוּר‬ by the Jews did
not mean every lot, but only that cast before Haman. But then the author would
have expressed it more easily and shorter: This is the lot of Haman and not the lot
before Haman. That ‫פּוּר‬ in the Old-Persian signified lot may not be doubted. Even in
Modern-Persian it is behr and behre, “appointment, fate, portio, pars; so that a
ground meaning, such as “lot,” is not improbable (comp. Zenker, Turkisch-arab-
pers. Handw‫צ‬rterbuch, p229). It lies still more natural to compare it with, para or
pare= “piece,” morceau, pi‫ט‬ce, originally perhaps also portio (ib. p162).[F 13] The
casting of lots in ancient times was very common (comp. Van Dale, Orac. ethn. c14;
Potter’s Arch‫ז‬ol. I:730) and is especially mentioned of the Persians (comp. Herod.
III:128). The opinion, so closely connected with Astrology, that one day was
favorable and another unfavorable for a certain undertaking, is met with also
among other ancient peoples, and very extensively among the Persians. Indeed it

50. obtains in those regions even to-day (comp. Rosenmdller, Morgenland, III, p302).
[F 14]
The words: from day to day, and from month to month, are not to be understood as
if the casting of lots had been continued from one day to another, etc., and thus
repeated over and over, but, as is clear from Esther 3:13, the meaning is that, in the
first month every day of the year one after the other was brought into question.
[F 15] It is noticeable that, in addition to the words: “from month to month,” the
number of the chosen month is added, the twelfth. One would expect such a
sentence as this to follow: “And the month was chosen, and then the number.” At
least after the phrase, “from month to month,” it would have been added “up to the
twelfth month.” Hence Bertheau concludes that the Sept. has given the words here:
“And the lot fell upon the fourteenth day of the month, which is Adar,” because they
found them in the text, and that the eye of the copyist slipped all between the first
‫שׁ‬ֶ‫ֹד‬ ‫ְח‬‫ל‬ to the second, after which latter follow the designation of the day and its
number. But since the Sept. also adds: “In order to destroy the people of Mordecai
in one day,” it is plain that it supplemented our verse with the thirteenth verse; and
since it was not the fourteenth day, but the thirteenth (according to Esther 3:13;
Esther 9:18-19) that was designated, it is clear that the Sept. assumed to make
changes arbitrarily. Probably the author in his customary short style spoke just as
we read it. The use of the cardinal number instead of the ordinal made such a
contraction possible; and the statement as to which day had been decided by the lot,
might readily be wanting here.
BI 7, "In the first month, they cast Pur, that is, the lot.
The time of the lot
The drawing of the lot took place in the month Nisan, or about March of our year, and
the day fixed by it was the thirteenth day of Adar, or February—a period of nearly twelve
months intervening. The patience of Haman would be sadly tried by this result, but his
superstitious fears would prevent him from acting contrary to the decision of “Pur.” In
tracing the deep lines of providence in the whole narrative, however, we cannot help
seeing a higher and more beneficent wisdom than that of chance. Had an earlier day
been decided upon, sufficient time might not have been given to Mordecai to use the
means which he did to frustrate the conspiracy. If the suspense of the Jews was a trial of
their faith, and an incentive to prayer, the interval was also a boon in so far as it gave
Mordecai leisure for deliberate action in view of the king’s subsequent decree. No doubt,
in this instance, the disposing of the lot was of the Lord—a disposing of it very different
from the intention of those who used it. So may the lot become in the hands of those who
believe in its decisions the means for the accomplishment of the retributive purposes of
God. (T. McEwan.)
The blind method of revenge
Revenge, when it becomes a master passion, is the worst madness.
I. Revenge is blind in its method. This is illustrated in the conduct of Haman. He caused
the lot to be cast to find out the favourable day for the accomplishment of his purpose.

51. 1. He was blind to the fact that there is no chance.
2. He was blind to the fact that so-called chance might as easily be against him as for
him.
3. He was blind to the fact that “the lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing
thereof is of the Lord.”
II. Haman persisted in his revengeful purpose. What a glorious revolution would soon
take place, if the good were as persistent in the pursuit of merciful purposes as the bad
are in revengeful projects. Every bad passion is injurious in its permanence.
III. Revenge is destructive in its patience. Haman was willing to wait twelve months in
order that his revenge might be the more signally marked. But his very patience worked
his ruin. Time is not on the side of revengeful waiters. (W. Burrows, B. A.)
8 Then Haman said to King Xerxes, “There is a
certain people dispersed among the peoples in all
the provinces of your kingdom who keep
themselves separate. Their customs are different
from those of all other people, and they do not
obey the king’s laws; it is not in the king’s best
interest to tolerate them.
CLARKE, "Their laws are diverse from all people - Such they certainly were;
for they worshipped the true God according to his own laws; and this was not done by
any other people then on the face of the earth.
GIL, "And Haman said unto King Ahasuerus, Or "had said" (r), as some choose to
render it; nor indeed is it likely that Haman should cast lots to know when would be a
proper time to destroy the Jews, until he had got leave of the king to do it:
there is a certain people scattered abroad, and dispersed among the people
in all the provinces of thy kingdom; for, though many of the Jews returned to their
own land, on the proclamation of Cyrus, yet others remained, being well settled as to

52. worldly things, and not having that zeal for God and his worship as became them, and
not caring to be at the trouble and expense of such a journey, and especially those of the
ten tribes; now Haman, through contempt of them, mentions them not by name, only
describes them as a scattered insignificant people:
and their laws are different from all people; concerning their diet and
observation of days, and other things; so Empedocles, an Heathen, observes (s) of the
Jews, that they were a separate people from all others in those things; for he says,"they
separated not only from the Romans, but even from all men; for, having found out an
unmixed way of living, they have nothing common with men, neither table nor libations,
nor prayers, nor sacrifices, but are more separate from us than the Susians or Bactrians,
or the more remote Indians:"
neither keep they the king's laws; and, no doubt, he had a special respect to the
non-observance of the king's command to give him reverence; and in like manner the
Jews are represented by Heathen writers, as by Tacitus (t), Juvenal (u), and others:
therefore it is not for the king's profit to suffer them; that is, to dwell in his
dominions; he got nothing by them, and they might be prejudicial to his subjects, and
poison them with their notions; and since they were not obedient to the laws of the
kingdom, it was not fit and equitable that they should be continued in it.
HE RY, " He makes a false and malicious representation of Jews, and their
character, to the king, Est_3:8. The enemies of God's people could not give them such
bad treatment as they do if they did not first give them a bad name. He would have the
king believe, 1. That the Jews were a despicable people, and that it was not for his credit
to harbour them:”A certain people there is,” without name, as if nobody knew whence
they came and what they were; “they are not incorporated, but scattered abroad and
dispersed in all the provinces as fugitives and vagabonds on the earth, and inmates in all
countries, the burden and scandal of the places where they live.” 2. That they were a
dangerous people, and that it was not safe to harbour them. “They have laws and usages
of their own, and conform not to the statutes of the kingdom and the customs of the
country; and therefore they may be looked upon as disaffected to the government and
likely to infect others with their singularities, which may end in a rebellion.” It is no new
thing for the best of men to have such invidious characters as these given of them; if it be
no sin to kill them, it is no sin to belie them.
K&D, "Est_3:8-9
Haman having by means of the lot fixed upon a favourable day for the execution of the
massacre, betook himself to the king to obtain a royal decree for the purpose. He
represented to the monarch: “There is a people scattered abroad and dispersed among
the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom, and their laws are different from all
other people (i.e., from the laws of all other people), and they keep not the laws of the
king, and it is not fitting for the king to leave them alone. Est_3:9. If it seem good to the
king, let it be written (i.e., let a written decree be published) to destroy them; and I will
weigh ten thousand talents of silver to those who do the business, that they may bring
them into the treasuries of the king.” This proposal was very subtilly calculated. First
Haman casts suspicion on the Jews as a nation scattered abroad and dwelling apart, and

53. therefore unsociable, - as refractory, and therefore dangerous to the state; then he
promises the king that their extermination will bring into the royal treasury a very
considerable sum of money, viz., the property of the slaughtered. Ten thousand talents
of silver, reckoned according to the Mosaic shekel, are £3,750,000, according to the civil
shekel £1,875,000; see rem. on 1Ch_22:14. ‫ה‬ ָ‫אכ‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ ַ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ּשׁ‬‫ע‬, those who execute a work,
builders in 2Ki_12:12, are here and Est_9:3 the king's men of business, who carry on the
king's business with respect to receipts and disbursements, the royal financiers.
BE SO , "Esther 3:8. And Haman said unto King Ahasuerus — After he had
found which would be a lucky day for putting his design into execution; There is a
certain people scattered abroad — Mean and contemptible, not worthy to be
named; and dispersed among the people — Who therefore, if tolerated, may poison
all thy subjects with their pernicious principles, and whom thou mayest easily crush,
without any great noise or difficulty; in all the provinces of thy kingdom — For
though many of their brethren were returned to their own land, yet great numbers
of them stayed behind, either because they preferred their ease and worldly
advantages before their spiritual profit, or they wanted conveniences or opportunity
for removing; and their laws are diverse from all people — They have rites, and
customs, and a religion peculiar to themselves; and therefore are justly offensive to
all thy subjects, and may either infect them with their notions, or occasion great
dissensions and distractions among them; neither keep they the king’s laws — As is
manifest by Mordecai’s bold contempt of thy late edict concerning me, which
contempt being shown by him as a Jew, the whole nation are involved in his crime,
and are prepared to do the same when they have occasion; therefore it is not for the
king’s profit to suffer them — To wit, to live in this kingdom. I do not seek herein so
much my own revenge as thy service.
CO STABLE, "2. Haman"s request3:8-9
Perhaps Haman did not mention the Jews by name since Ahasuerus" predecessors,
Cyrus and Darius I (Hystaspes), had issued proclamations favorable to them ( Ezra
1:1-4; Ezra 6:3-5; Ezra 6:8-12). In any case, his failure to mention them by name, set
him up for Esther"s revelation that it was her people whom Haman planned to
destroy ( Esther 7:4). The Jews did indeed live a separated life, as Haman said (cf.
umbers 23:9), but they were not a dangerous, rebellious element within the
empire, which he claimed (cf. Jeremiah 29:7).
The10 ,000 talents of silver Haman offered to pay into the king"s treasury amounted
to about two-thirds of the entire empire"s income. [ ote: Herodotus, 3:95. Bush,
p387 , considered this figure satiric hyperbole. He believed Haman wanted the king
to understand that the benefit that would come to him by executing the Jews would
be extremely large.] Bush considered this figure satiric hyperbole. He believed
Haman wanted the king to understand that the benefit that would come to him by
executing the Jews would be extremely large. [ ote: Bush, p387.] Perhaps Haman
could have afforded to do this because he had plans to confiscate the Jews"
possessions ( Esther 3:13). Undoubtedly he planned to make a large profit
personally as well.

54. "The planned massacre, gruesome though it was, was not without precedents.
In522BC, at the time of King Cambyses" death, Smerdis the Magus usurped the
throne. When he was put to death in a conspiracy every Persian in the capital took
up his weapons and killed every Magus he could find. [ ote: Herodotus, 3:64-80.] If
darkness had not put an end to the slaughter, the whole caste would have been
exterminated." [ ote: Baldwin, p74.]
ELLICOTT, "(8) A certain people scattered abroad . . .—A certain part of the
nation had returned with Zerub-babel, but (Ezra 2:64) these only amounted to
42,360, so that the great majority of the nation had preferred to stay comfortably
where they were in the various districts of the Persian Empire.
either keep they . . .—The charge of disloyalty has been a favourite weapon in the
hands of persecutors. Haman was not the first who had brought this charge against
the Jews (see Ezra 4:13; Ezra 4:16). Our Lord’s accusers were those who knew no
king but C‫ז‬sar. The early Christians found to their cost how deadly was the
accusation of disloyalty to the Empire.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain
people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy
kingdom; and their laws [are] diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s
laws: therefore it [is] not for the king’s profit to suffer them.
Ver. 8. And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus] After that, by sortilegy (or sorcery,
for it is no better, as the very name showeth, and Varro affirmeth), he had light
upon a lucky day, wherein to speak to the king, and a black day, wherein to do
execution, he taketh the boldness to move the king in it. ow Mr Perkins affirmeth,
that, as men do put confidence in lot sorcery, or the like diabolical divinations, or
else they cannot attain to any foreknowledge by them; so therein, explicitly or
implicitly, they have confederacy with the devil. Oh that this were well considered!
There is a certain people] ot worth the naming.
Scattered abroad] But was that their fault? was it not their misery rather, that God
had threatened them, Deuteronomy 3:2, and were they not, therefore, to be pitied,
and not preyed upon? It is said of Queen Elizabeth, that she hated, no less than did
Mithridates, such as maliciously persecuted virtue forsaken of fortune (Camd. Eliz.
531).
And dispersed among the people] And, therefore, the more dangerous, since every
sect strives to spread their opinions, and these, being antimagistratical, may do
much harm, and draw many from their obedience, prove seedsmen of sedition. It
may very well be that the sect of the Essenes were now beginning among the Jews,

55. who taught that God alone, and no mortal man, was to be acknowledged for Lord
and Prince (Joseph. l. 18, c. 2). Hence they were called Esseni, or Hashoni, that is,
rebels, and for their sakes the whole nation might be the worse thought of (as if they
were all such), like as the Protestants were in France, for the Anabaptists’ sake, in
the reign of King Francis (Scultet. An. 454).
In all the provinces of thy kingdom] Quarum proventu gaudet, alitur, insolescit.
Where they do no good, but devour grain, as vermin, as excrements in human
society, and deserve to be knocked on the head, which may easily be done, because
they are dejected, and not able to make headway against an adversary.
And their laws are diverse from all people] So they were, and better, their enemies
themselves being judges, Deuteronomy 4:6-8. Prosper’s conceit was, that they were
called Iudaei , because they received Ius Dei, their laws from God, who might say to
them, as once Joseph did to his brethren, Genesis 45:12, Behold, your eyes see, that
it is my mouth that speaketh unto you. And, therefore, if Demosthenes could say of
laws in general, that they were the invention of Almighty God ( ‫טוןץ‬ ‫פןץ‬ ‫;)וץסחלב‬ and
if Cicero could say of the laws of the twelve tables in Rome, that they far exceeded
and excelled all the libraries of all the philosophers, how much more true was all
this of the laws of the Jews, given by God, and ordained by angels in the hand of a
mediator, Moses! Seneca, though he jeered the Jews for their weekly Sabbath as
those that lost the seventh part of their time, yet he could not but say that, being the
basest people, they had the best laws, and gave laws unto all the world. Those holy
Levites, ehemiah 9:13, acknowledge, with all thankfulness, that God had given
them right judgments, true laws, good statutes and commandments, whereby he
severed them from all other people, as his own peculiar, and this was their glory
wherever they came, though the sycophant in the text turneth their glory into
shame, as one that loved vanity, and sought after leasing, Psalms 4:2.
either keep they the king’s laws] Mordecai indeed would not do him reverence,
because it went against his conscience; no move would others of them keep the
king’s laws in like case, but obey God rather than man, where they could not do
both. Otherwise they were charged, Jeremiah 29:7, to seek the peace of the cities
where they abode, and to submit to their civil and municipal laws; and so they did,
doubtless, for the generality of them. But this impudent liar represents them to the
king as refractories and rebels, &c. The devil began his kingdom by a lie, and by lies
he upholdeth it. He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning; but first a liar,
and thereby a murderer. He cannot handsomely murder, except he slander first,
Song of Solomon 5:6; the credit of the Church must first be taken away, and then
she is wounded; traduced she must be, and thence persecuted. Thus David is
believed to seek Saul’s life; Elijah is the troubler of Israel; Jeremiah, the trumpet of
rebellion; the Baptist, a stirrer up of sedition; Christ, an enemy to Caesar; Paul, a
pestilent incendiary; the primitive Christians, a public mischief; the Reformed
Churches, antimagistratical; this colour of right, yea, of piety, was laid upon the
French Massacre, and by edicts a fair cloak sought to cover that impious fraud, as if

56. there had been some horrid treason hatched by the Huguenots (Camd. Eliz.). The
primitive persecutors used to put Christians into bears’ and dogs’ skins, or other
ugly creatures, and then bait them; so wicked men put religion and its professors
into ugly conceits and reports, and then speak and act against them.
Therefore it is not for the king’s profit] Heb. It is not meet, equal, or profitable to
the king to suffer them, ut insolescat per licentiam, so the Vulgate Latin rendereth
it, but without warrant from the Orig. See how this sycophant fills his mouth with
arguments, the better to achieve his desire. An elaborate set speech he maketh,
neither is there a word in it but what might seem to have weight. He pretends the
king’s profit and the public good, concealing and dissembling his ambition, avarice,
envy, malignity, that set him awork. Politicians, when they soar highest, are like the
eagle, which, while aloft, hath her eye still upon the prey, which by this means she
spies sooner, and seizes upon better. In parabola ovis capras suas quaerunt, as the
proverb hath it. Haman holds it not fit there should be more religions than one in a
kingdom, for preventing of troubles. ebuchadnezzar was of the same mind when
he commanded all men to worship his golden image. But must all, therefore, die that
will not do it? and is it for the king’s profit that the righteous be rooted out? Is not
semen sanctum statumen terrae? the holy seed the stay of the State? Isaiah 6:13, the
beauty and bulwark of the nation? See Jeremiah 5:1, Ezekiel 2:2-10, Absque
stationibus non staret mundus.
WHEDO , "8. A certain people scattered abroad — Emphatically such were the
Jews at this time. From the fall of Samaria, (2 Kings 17:6,) the tribes of Israel had
become more and more dispersed among the people in all the provinces of the East,
until their tribe divisions could be now but faintly recognised. Many had returned to
Jerusalem, as the Book of Ezra shows, and others returned afterwards, but
thousands more continued to dwell in the various countries whither they had
become dispersed.
Their laws are diverse from all people — The Jews were, unquestionably, “a
peculiar people,” and adherence to their customs brought Mordecai and Haman
into conflict.
either keep they the king’s laws — Mordecai’s offence was not the first instance of
a Jew’s refusal, from religions scruples, to keep the laws of the heathen kings.
Instance the case of Daniel and his companions, (Daniel 1:8; Daniel 3:16-18; Daniel
6:10,) and compare the charge of the Samaritan chiefs, Ezra 4:12-16.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "The Solitariness of Principle
Esther 3:8
In this story of the Persian Empire it is related how Haman, the king"s chief
favourite, felt insulted because Mordecai the Jew neglected to give him sufficient
honour. His wounded dignity demanded revenge, but could not be satisfied with
merely inflicting punishment on the man who had offended him. Because Mordecai

57. was a Jew he would have the indignity wiped out by the extermination of the whole
tribe. So Haman, by a little judicious flattery of the king, by misrepresenting the
character of the Jewish exiles who lived within the bounds of the great Persian
Empire, got a decree against them. "There is a certain people dispersed among the
provinces of thy kingdom, and their laws are diverse from those of every people." It
was a false charge as Haman put it, implying a Jewish conspiracy against the
Empire. But in another sense it was true. The Jews were a separate people even in
the midst of the Persian Empire, with rites and ceremonies, and religious beliefs,
and practices of their own. The same sort of charge was made against the Christian
Faith in the Roman Empire, with the same falseness and evil purpose, and with the
same inherent truth. Christians were persecuted and harried because of their
singularity, because they were in Rome and yet did not do as the Romans did.
I. Progress is ever got by dissent. There must be points of departure, lines of
cleavage, difference; or else there is stagnation and ultimate death. It is from
singularity that the race has hope for the future. Great movements of thought have
ever sprung from dissent. Our Christian religion lays greater stress than ever on the
solitariness of principle, making it even an individual thing instead of a racial
difference, as with the Jews. The Church is set in the world as a model for the
world, a great object-lesson to induce it upward to a higher level of thought and
action. And what is the Church but a certain people whose laws are diverse from
those of all other peoples. But the Christian faith, with its doctrine of the special
illumination of the Holy Spirit to the receptive soul, goes even further, and puts the
emphasis on the individual, making the soul responsible to God alone. It enforces
the imperative of principle, calling a man out, if need be, to stand alone, making
him, it may be, diverse from all people for conscience sake. A great soul is alone.
From the very nature of the case greatness in anything isolates. A great man is
always, to begin with, in a minority. Commonplace men on the whole prefer the
commonplace.
II. But this singularity must be the fruit of principle to be worth anything; it must
be for conscience sake. The diverseness from all other people must be in obedience
to laws, which make their irresistible appeal to conscience. If it is due to desire for
notoriety, or through eccentricity, it is beneath contempt. But the cure for such is
simple. This weak craving for notice will be curbed by the thought that all
singularity carries with it a corresponding responsibility. It tunes the life to a high
pitch; and failure is all the more pitiful. It demands stern adherence to principle. It
fixes a more inflexible standard. The only excuse for laws diverse from all people is
that they should be higher laws and be obeyed with wholehearted loyalty, and the
very moral necessity laid upon a man"s conscience to be singular. The unflinching
advocacy of an unpopular cause for conscience sake gives to the character strength
and solidity.
—Hugh Black, University Sermons, p77.
LA GE, "Esther 3:8-11. In order to gain the king also over to his own murderous
plan, and to obtain of him a legal edict, Haman said to the king: There is a certain

58. people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy
kingdom.[F 16]—‫נוֹ‬ ְ‫ֶשׁ‬‫י‬ has the un inserted before the suffix as in 1 Samuel 14:39; 1
Samuel 23:23; Deuteronomy 29:14 (Ewald’s Lehrb., p262 e). ‫ָד‬‫ח‬ֶ‫א‬ is a numeral. He
means: “Only one of the many peoples has dared to disobey the laws of the king.”
This one, however, is so generally scattered and dispersed among the others that the
evil example is of no small moment. It seems as if Haman here gave expression to a
presentiment, whose fulfilment is declared by Seneca when he (De superstit. 3, p427)
says: “Such power have the customs of this detestable people already gained that
they are introduced into all lands; they the conquered have given laws to their
conquerors.” Their laws (are) diverse from all (other) people, especially from the
laws of this realm (comp. in Esther 3:1, “above all the princes”).[F 17]Therefore it
(is) not for the king’s profit to suffer them.—‫ֶה‬‫ו‬ֹ ‫,שׁ‬ as in Esther 3:8; Esther 5:13,
while in Esther 7:4 it has a somewhat different sense. ‫ָם‬‫ח‬‫ִי‬‫נּ‬ַ‫ה‬ְ‫ל‬, to leave them in peace.
SIMEO , "HAMA ’S MURDEROUS PROPOSAL
Esther 3:8-9. And Haman said unto King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people
scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy
kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s
laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them. If it please the king, let it
be written that they may be destroyed.
REVE GE is cruel: but never more cruel than when it has its foundation in
mortified pride. In the passage before us, it is carried to an almost incredible extent.
Haman occupied the highest post of honour, next to the royal family, in the Assyrian
empire. All the subjects in the kingdom bowed down to him. But there was a poor
man, one Mordecai, who sat at the king’s gate, and consequently was often passed
by Haman, who refused to pay him this homage. At this neglect, Haman was
grievously offended. He deemed it an insufferable insult, which could be expiated
only by the death of the offender. On inquiring into Mordecai’s habits and
connexions, Haman found that he was a Jew: and, conceiving probably that this
contemptuous spirit pervaded that whole nation, and accounting it a small matter to
sacrifice the life of one single individual, he determined, if possible, to destroy the
whole nation at once; and, accordingly, he made this proposal to King Ahasuerus,
engaging from his own resources to make up to the king’s treasury whatever loss
might arise to the revenue from the proposed measure.
ow this proposal appearing, at first sight, so very extraordinary, I will endeavour
to set before you,
I. The commonness of it—
In every age of the world have God’s people been hated, for the very reasons that
are here assigned—
[“Their laws are diverse from those of all other people, neither keep they the laws of

59. the kingdoms where they dwell.” This is true in part. They worship the one true and
living God; and obey his laws, which are unknown to the rest of the world, or, at all
events, unheeded by them. Of course, whatever laws are inconsistent with the laws
of God, they disobey; because they owe to Jehovah a paramount duty of allegiance,
and are bound to “obey God rather than men.” On this account they are hated,
reviled, persecuted: and, on many occasions, if man could have prevailed, they
would have been utterly extirpated. David tells us of confederacies formed for this
very purpose by all the nations around Jerusalem, each saying to the others, “Come,
let us cut off the Jews from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more
in remembrance [ ote: Psalms 83:3-8.].” So, in the early ages of Christianity, there
were not less than ten strenuous efforts made to attain this object. And at different
periods since that time has persecution raged to the utmost extent, to destroy, if
possible, all real piety from the face of the earth. How “drunk the Roman Church
has been with the blood of the saints,” has been often seen, and would be seen again,
if she could regain the power which she once possessed [ ote: Revelation 17:6.]. She
cannot endure that God should be served in opposition to her, and that his laws
should be regarded as of superior authority to hers.]
But we need not go back to former ages for an elucidation of this truth—
[Behold any person at this time cordially embracing the faith of Christ, and
conforming in all things to his revealed will; and it will soon be found that the same
enmity still reigns in the hearts of men against the people of God, as at any former
age. True, the cruelties of martyrdom are stayed: but private animosity is indulged
as far as the laws of the land wherein we live will admit; and every person who
thoroughly devotes himself to God, is made to feel its baneful influence. St. Paul,
speaking of Ishmael and Isaac, says, in reference to his own time, “As he that was
born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now
[ ote: Galatians 4:29.]:” thus also must I say at this time. Our blessed Lord told us,
that “he came not to send peace on earth, but a sword; for that he came to set the
nearest and dearest relatives at variance with each other [ ote: Matthew 10:34-
36.].” ( ot that this was the intent, though unhappily it is the effect, of his Gospel.)
And thus it is, wherever the Gospel is preached with power. There is immediately “a
division among the people;” and those who are “obedient to the faith” become
objects of hatred and persecution to those who “rebel against the light:” so true is
that saying of the Apostle, “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution [ ote: 2 Timothy 3:12.].”]
Passing over the inhumanity of this proposal, as being too obvious to be insisted on,
I proceed to notice,
II. The impiety of it—
The very accusation brought against the Jews by Haman shews what is the real
ground of enmity against the Lord’s people: it is, that they serve God, whilst the rest
of the world bow down to idols; and that, in this determination of theirs, they
inflexibly adhere to the dictates of their own conscience. This is universal amongst

60. all the people of the Lord—
[The man that turns aside from the path of duty, through fear of man’s displeasure,
has no title whatever to be numbered amongst the children of God. If we fear man,
the fear of God is not in us [ ote: Luke 12:4-5.]. We must be willing to lay down our
life for the Lord, or else we can never be acknowledged as his disciples [ ote:
Matthew 10:37-39.] — — — And this inflexibility we must carry into every part of
our duty — — —]
But this preference of God to man is the very thing which gives the offence—
[Where man’s laws and customs are contrary to those of God, man expects and
demands submission to his will, rather than to the oracles of God: and if we will not
comply with his requisitions, he will use all possible means to compel us. But what is
this, but a direct rebellion against God, and an usurpation of his authority? It is, in
fact, a contest with God, whether He shall govern the universe, or they. Look at all
the Prophets and Apostles, and see what was the ground of the world’s opposition to
them. They were ambassadors from God to men; and they were living examples of
all that they proclaimed. Hence they were regarded as “the troublers of Israel,” and
were represented as enemies to the governments under which they lived [ ote:
Compare Ezra 4:13. with Acts 16:20-21; Acts 17:6-7; Acts 24:5; Acts 28:22.]. It was
this adherence to God’s laws that involved the Hebrew youths and Daniel in the
calamities inflicted on them; and that subjected all the Apostles, with one only
exception, to the pains and penalties of martyrdom. Hence, when Saul breathed out
threatenings and slaughter against the disciples, our Lord addressed him, “Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me?” And hence he has declared, in reference to all his
persecuted people throughout the world, “He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and
he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me [ ote: Luke 10:16.].”]
And this leads me to shew,
III. The folly of it—
Can it be thought that such feeble worms as we shall be able to prevail against
Almighty God?
[Hear how God derides the vain attempt: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people
imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take
counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed; saying, Let us break
their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the
heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto
them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon
my holy hill of Zion [ ote: Psalms 2:1-6.].” So said our blessed Lord to Saul also; “It
is hard for thee to kick against the pricks [ ote: Acts 9:5.].” The truth is, that “the
Lord Jesus holds all his stars in his right hand [ ote: Revelation 2:1.];” and it is
impossible for any man to pluck them thence [ ote: John 10:28-29.]. “Their life is
hid with Christ in God [ ote: Colossians 3:3.]:” who, then, shall get access to it, to

61. destroy it? Haman, with all his power, could not prevail against the Jews, who yet,
in appearance, were altogether in his hands. The whole power of the Roman empire,
by whomsoever wielded, could not root out the disciples of the Christian Church:
“nor shall the gates of hell ever prevail” against the weakest of God’s faithful people
[ ote: Matthew 16:18.]; for “HE will keep them even as the apple of his eye [ ote:
Deuteronomy 32:10.],” and “perfect in every one of them the work he has begun
[ ote: Philippians 1:6.],” and “keep them by his own power through faith unto
everlasting salvation [ ote: 1 Peter 1:5.].” However “they may be sifted, not one
grain from amongst them shall ever fall upon the earth [ ote: Amos 9:9.].”
Hypocrites may turn apostates: but of “those who were really given him of the
Father, our blessed Lord never has lost, nor ever will, so much as one [ ote: John
17:12.]” — — —]
Address,
1. Those who are the objects of the world’s hatred—
[Realize the promises which God has given [ ote: Isaiah 33:16; Isaiah 33:20-22;
Isaiah 41:11-16.]” — — — and then say, “Shall I be afraid of a man that shall die,
and of the son of man that shall be as grass, and forget the Lord my Maker [ ote:
Isaiah 51:12-13.]?” Dear Brethren, know that “He that is in you is greater than he
that is in the world;” and that, if you confide in Him, “no weapon that is formed
against you shall prosper.”
We have said, that it is on account of your peculiarities that you are hated. But let
not those peculiarities be carried into matters of mere indifference. If to love and
serve God, as Elijah did, render you peculiar, then must you, like Elijah, dare to be
singular in the midst of an ungodly world. You are not to leave “the narrow path
that leadeth unto life, and to go into the broad road that leadeth to destruction,” to
compliment or please any man under heaven. In matters that are indifferent I am
far from recommending an undue stiffness or singularity: but in relation to every
thing substantial, such as living a life of faith on the Lord Jesus, and confessing him
openly before men, and devoting yourselves altogether to his service, I say, “Be
steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye
know that your labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.”]
2. Those who are unhappily prejudiced against the Lord’s people—
[If you cannot see with their eyes, do not endeavour to make them see with yours,
unless in a way of sober argumentation, and of candid reference to the word of God.
To have recourse to derision or persecution of any kind will only involve your own
souls in yet deeper guilt than you already lie under for rejecting the Gospel of
Christ: and our blessed Lord warns you, that “it were better for you to have a
millstone hanged about your neck, and be cast into the sea, than that you should
offend one of his little ones.” This is the advice I would give you: Search the
Scriptures, to see what were the principles by which all the Prophets and Apostles
were actuated, and what was the course of their lives: and then compare with them

62. the principle and practice of God’s people now: and if you find, as you will, a
general agreement amongst them, though, alas! with a sad disparity in point of
actual attainment amongst those of the present day, beware how you imitate the
unbelievers of former ages, in opposing the work of God in others: for, if you do not
succeed, you only fight against God for nought; and if you do succeed, you will
perish under the accumulated guilt of destroying the souls of others; for assuredly
“their blood will be required at your hands.”]
BI, "And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus.
Listening to scandal
If we blame Ahasuerus for too readily listening to the invective of Haman, and
condemning the Jews untried and unheard, we should be on our guard against
committing the same sin, by giving heed to scandal in regard to others, without careful
personal inquiry and observation, lest we should be only crediting the creations of the
worst passions and distempers of our fallen nature. (T. McEwan.)
Half the truth dangerous
There is no notice taken of Mordecai. Not a syllable about his own injured pride. No
reference made to the enmity of the Amalekites to the Jews. The real merits of the
proposal are all kept back, and only those things are mentioned which were fitted to
arouse the indignation of the king against the Jewish people. They were “a certain
people”—a nondescript race, scattered abroad, like so many rebels against the
government, and yet preserving their own unity; having their own laws, and despising
constituted authority; contemning the king’s laws, and setting the example of
insubordination; and sowing dissension and strife throughout all the provinces of the
empire. For these reasons it was clearly not expedient that they should be tolerated any
longer. How skilfully does the crafty conspirator conceal his malice and revenge under
cover of the king’s profit. He did not ask for the destruction of this disaffected people as
a favour to himself, but in making the proposal he artfully insinuated that he was doing
the king a service. (T. McEwan.)
There is a certain people scattered abroad.
The destruction of the Jews
He stood high in the favour of his prince, but did he not risk the total loss of that favour
by a proposal so evidently unjust and inhumane? Why did he not dread the wrath of the
king, which is as messengers of death? Might he not have heard such words as these in
answer to his proposal: “Audacious wretch! what hast thou seen in me that thou
shouldst hope to make me the murderer of my people? Man of blood! thou scruplest not
to seek the destruction, at one blow, of thousands of my subjects, upon a vague,
unsupported charge which thou bringest against them! Wilt thou not another day follow
the example of Bigthan and Teresh? Wilt thou be more afraid to lay thy hand upon one
man, though a king, than upon many thousands of my subjects who have done thee no
wrong?” (G. Lawson.)

63. Haman’s proposition
contained truth enough to make it plausible, and error enough to make it cruel, and
enough personally agreeable to the king to make it popular with him. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Cunning malice
But observe the cunning malice of his address to the king. He does not say, “There is an
old Jew that has offended me, and, through me, offered an affront to your sacred
majesty; therefore let me execute vengeance upon him.” No, not a word of this sort. He
feared to show his real character for rancour to the king, or courtiers. He professes to
have no personal motives, but to be moved altogether by a desire for the public good.
(W. A. Scott, D. D.)
True and false accusations
Having formed so thorough-going a purpose, Haman took steps to execute it. We need
not wonder at his lying about the character of the Jews; for it is often possible to use
nothing but the language of truth, and yet to utter only the greater falsehood. It was
quite true of God’s people, that their laws were “diverse from all people”: it is true of
them to-day, and was equally true then, that, being bought with a price, they cannot be
slaves of men; that, if any human law interferes with the will of their Saviour, they can
give only the one answer, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” But it was false to
say, “Neither keep they the king’s laws”; for, in respect of everything that man has a right
to command, God’s people are the best subjects. To the fathers of these exiles the God of
Israel had given this commandment: “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused
you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof
shall ye have peace”; and Haman could scarcely be ignorant that both the former empire
and this one had profited by the private virtue and public faithfulness of pious Jews. God
will answer Haman in His own way. But we ought to be fully prepared for the calumny,
seeing it arises from two causes which remain always in force. The world cannot
understand what it is that we owe to the love of God and to the blood of Christ, and how
He must, therefore, reign supreme in the believing heart; and the world extremely
dislikes to hear a claim advanced for liberty of conscience which reminds it of a power
higher than its own. (A. M. Symington, B. A.)
Therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.—
Profit
Worldly hearts are not led by good or evil, but by profit and loss; neither have they grace
to know that nothing is profitable but what is honest; they must needs offend by rule,
that measure all things by profit and measure profit by their imagination. How easy it is
to suggest strange untruths when there is nobody to make answer! False Haman, how is
it not for the king’s profit to suffer the Jews? If thou construe this profit for honour, the
king’s honour is in the multitude of his subjects; and what people more numerous than
they? If for gain, the king’s profit is in the largeness of his tributes; and what people are
more deep in their payments? If for service, what people are more officious? No name

64. under heaven hath made so many fools, so many villains, as this of profit. (Bp. Hall.)
No true profit in sin
It is, then, a question of profit or loss, not of right and justice. Never was there a scheme
of villainy that was not gilded over with the plausible pretence of public utility. Nothing
under heaven has made so many fools and so many heartless villains as supposed profit.
The greatest good to the greatest number is indeed desirable, but such an object was
never yet reached by a disregard of justice and right. Expediency is a fallacy. It is never
allowed us to try the experiment of doing evil that good may come. How did it turn out
in the case before us? The king is to get ten thousand talents for this execution. But
instead of that his only profit was the blood and mangled bodies of thousands of his
faithful subjects. Ah, cruel Haman! Are these the tender mercies of the wicked? Are
these the profits of sin? What “if thou couldst have swum in a whole sea of Jewish blood,
if thou couldst have raised mountains of their carcasses? What if thou couldst have made
all Persia thy shambles, who would have given thee one farthing for all those piles of
flesh, for all those streams of blood?”—Hall. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Haman’s murderous proposal
I. The commonness of it. In every age God’s people have been hated for the very reasons
that are here assigned. They worship the one true and living God. David tells of
confederacies formed to “cut off the Jews from being a nation.” The ten persecutions in
the early ages of Christianity. At the present day private animosity is indulged as far as
the laws of the land will allow. “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution.”
II. The impiety of it.
III. The folly of it. Haman with all his power could not prevail against the Jews, who yet
in appearance were altogether in his hands. (C. Simeon.)
9 If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to
destroy them, and I will give ten thousand talents
[b] of silver to the king’s administrators for the
royal treasury.”
BAR ES, "Ten thousand talents of silver - According to Herodotus, the regular

65. revenue of the Persian king consisted of 14,560 silver talents; so that, if the same talent
is intended, Haman’s offer would have exceeded two-thirds of one year’s revenue (or two
and one-half million British pound sterling). Another Persian subject, Pythius, once
offered to present Xerxes with four millions of gold darics, or about four and one-half
pounds.
CLARKE, "Let it be written that they may be destroyed - Let it be enacted that
they may all be put to death. By this he would throw all the odium off himself, and put it
on the king and his counsellors; for he wished the thing to pass into a law, in which he
could have but a small share of the blame.
I will pay ten thousand talents of silver - He had said before that it was not for
the king’s profit to suffer them; but here he is obliged to acknowledge that there will be a
loss to the revenue, but that loss he is willing to make up out of his own property.
Ten thousand talents of silver is an immense sum indeed; which, counted by the
Babylonish talent, amounts to two millions one hundred and nineteen thousand pounds
sterling; but, reckoned by the Jewish talent, it makes more than double that sum.
Those who cavil at the Scriptures would doubtless call this one of the many absurdities
which, they say, are so plenteously found in them, supposing it almost impossible for an
individual to possess so much wealth. But though they do not believe the Bible, they do
not scruple to credit Herodotus, who, lib. vii., says that when Xerxes went into Greece,
Pythius the Lydian had two thousand talents of silver, and four millions of gold darics,
which sums united make near five millions and a half sterling.
Plutarch tells us, in his life of Crassus, that after this Roman general had dedicated the
tenth of all he had to Hercules, he entertained the Roman people at ten thousand tables,
and distributed to every citizen as much corn as was sufficient for three months; and
after all these expenses, he had seven thousand one hundred Roman talents remaining,
which is more than a million and a half of English money.
In those days silver and gold were more plentiful than at present, as we may see in the
yearly revenue of Solomon, who had of gold from Ophir, at one voyage, four hundred
and fifty talents, which make three millions two hundred and forty thousand pounds
sterling; and his annual income was six hundred and sixty-six talents of silver, which
make four millions seven hundred and ninety-five thousand two hundred pounds
English money.
In addition to the above I cannot help subjoining the following particulars: -
Crassus, who was mentioned before, had a landed estate valued at one million six
hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-six pounds thirteen shillings and
four pence.
C. Coecilius Ridorus, after having lost much in the civil war, left by will effects
amounting to one million forty-seven thousand one hundred and sixty pounds.
Lentullus, the augur, is said to have possessed no less than three millions three
hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings
and eight pence.
Apicius was worth more than nine hundred and sixteen thousand six hundred and
seventy-one pounds thirteen shillings and four pence; who, after having spent in his
kitchen eight hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds
six shillings and eight pence, and finding that he had no more left than eighty-three
thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings and eight pence,

66. considered it so little for his support, that he judged it best to put an end to his life by
poison!
The superfluous furniture of M. Scaurus, which was burnt at Tusculum, was valued at
no less than eight hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-two
pounds thirteen shillings and four pence.
Anthony owed, at the ides or March, the sum of three hundred and thirty-three
thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings and six pence, which he
paid before the calends of April.
None of these men were in trade, to account for the circulation of such immense sums
through their hands. See Dickson’s Husband. of the Anc.
GIL, "If it please the king, let it be written, that they may be destroyed,....
That is, a law made, signed and sealed, for their destruction, and letters written and sent
everywhere, ordering it to be put in execution:
and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those who have
the charge of the business, to bring it into the king's treasury; this he
proposed, to prevent any objection that might be made from the loss of tribute paid by
this people to the king; and this was a very large sum for him to pay out of his own
estate, it being near four millions of our money; it is computed by Brerewood (x) at
3,750,000 pounds; for as to what is suggested by some, that he intended to repay
himself out of the spoil of the Jews, it may be observed, that, according to the king's
letter, they that were employed in destroying the Jews were to have the spoil for a prey
or booty to themselves, Est_3:13. Now this sum of money he proposed not to put into
the hands of them that should slay the Jews, but into the hands of the king's receivers of
the dues, that they might lay it up in the king's treasury or exchequer.
HE RY, " He bids high for leave to destroy them all, Est_3:9. He knew there were
many that hated the Jews, and would willingly fall upon them if they might but have a
commission: Let it be written therefore that they may be destroyed. Give but orders for
a general massacre of all the Jews, and Haman will undertake it shall be easily done. If
the king will gratify him in this matter, he will make him a present of ten thousand
talents, which shall be paid into the king's treasuries. This, he thought, would be a
powerful inducement to the king to consent, and would obviate the strongest objection
against him, which was that the government must needs sustain loss in its revenues by
the destruction of so many of its subjects; so great a sum, he hoped, would be equivalent
for that. Proud and malicious men will not stick at the expenses of their revenge, nor
spare any cost to gratify it. Yet no doubt Haman knew how to re-imburse himself out of
the spoil of the Jews, which his janizaries were to seize for him (Est_3:13), and so to
make them bear the charges of their own ruin; while he himself hoped to be not only a
saver but a gainer by the bargain.
JAMISO , "I will pay ten thousand talents of silver ... into the king’s
treasuries — This sum, reckoning by the Babylonish talent, will be about $10,000,000;
but estimated according to the Jewish talent, it will considerably exceed $15,000,000,
an immense contribution to be made out of a private fortune. But classic history makes
mention of several persons whose resources seem almost incredible.

67. BE SO , "Esther 3:9. Let it be written that they may be destroyed — Let a written
edict from the king be published for that purpose; and I will pay ten thousand
talents of silver — Whether these were Hebrew, or Babylonish, or Grecian talents,
we cannot certainly know. But whichsoever they were, it was a vast sum to be paid
by a private person, being probably above three millions sterling, and shows how
outrageously he was bent on the destruction of the Jews. But undoubtedly Haman
expected to get that sum, and much more, by seizing on all their effects. To the
hands of those that have the charge of the business — ot of those who should have
the charge to kill them, but of those that received the king’s money, as appears by
the next words, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.
COKE, "Esther 3:9. And I will pay ten thousand talents of silver— The sum which
Haman here offers the king in lieu of the damage that his revenues might sustain by
the destruction of so many of his subjects, is prodigious for any private man, and
shows how outrageously he was bent against the Jews. We read, however, of several
private persons in history, who in ancient times were possessors of much greater
sums. Pithius the Lydian, for instance, when Xerxes passed into Greece, was
possessed of two thousand talents of silver, and four millions of daricks in gold,
which together amounted to near five millions and a half of our sterling money.
Though this may seem strange to us at present, our wonder will cease, if we
consider, that from the time of David and Solomon, and for one thousand five
hundred years afterwards, the riches of this kind were in much greater plenty than
they are now. The prodigious quantities of gold and silver that Alexander found in
the treasuries of Darius; the vast loads of them which were often carried before the
Roman generals when they returned from conquered provinces; and the excessive
sums which certain of their emperors expended in donatives, feasts, shows, and
other instances of luxury and prodigality, are sufficient instances of this. But at
length the mines of the ancient Ophir, which furnished all this plenty, being
exhausted, and by the burning of cities and devastation of countries upon the
irruption of barbarous nations both of the west and east, a great part of the gold
and silver wherewith the world then abounded, being wasted and destroyed, the
great scarcity of both which afterwards ensued was thus occasioned; nor have the
mines of Mexico and Peru been as yet able fully to repair it.
ELLICOTT, "(9) Ten thousand talents of silver.—This would be about two and a
half millions sterling, being indeed more than two-thirds of the whole annual
revenue of the Empire (Herod. iii. 95). Haman may have been a man of excessive
wealth (like the Pythius who offered Xerxes four millions of gold darics (Herod. vii.
28), or he probably may have hoped to draw the money from the spoils of the Jews.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:9 If it please the king, let it be written that they may be
destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that
have the charge of the business, to bring [it] into the king’s treasuries.
Ver. 9. If it please the king] Here he showeth himself a smooth courtier, and
speaketh silken words, the sooner to insinuate. But if Solomon had been by he

68. would have said, "When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven
abominations in his heart," Proverbs 26:25.
Let it be written that they may be destroyed] As Mithridates, king of Pontus, by
writing one bloody letter only, destroyed eighty thousand citizens of Rome,
dispersed up and down Asia for traffic’s sake (Val. Max.). That was bad, but this
was worse that Haman motioned, and well near effected. And surely never did the
old red dragon, saith Rupertus, lift up his head so fiercely and furiously against the
woman, that is, against the Church of God, as in this place. Therefore is Haman to
be reckoned among those cruel enemies, who said, Come, and let us destroy them
from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more remembered, Psalms
83:4. But let them rage and kill up the saints as much as they can, the sheep will still
be more in number than the wolves, the doves than the hawks. Plures efficimur
quoties metimur, saith Tertullian, the more you crop us the faster we grow.
And I shall pay ten thousand talents of silver] A vast sum, three thousand seven
hundred fifty thousand pounds sterling. At so great charge would this butcher be, to
satisfy his lust, and to have his pennyworths upon God’s poor people. So, in the
gunpowder treason (besides their pains, digging like moles in their vault of villany),
Digby offered to bring in fifteen hundred pounds, Tresham two thousand, Piercy
four thousand, out of the earl of orthumberland’s rents; besides ten swift horses to
steed them when the blow was past. But where should Haman have all this money,
may some say? I answer, First, if he were of the seed royal of Amalek, as it is
thought, he might have much left him by his ancestors. Secondly, being so great a
favourite to the king of Persia, he had, doubtless, many profitable offices, and so
might lay up gold as dust, and silver as the stones of the brooks, Job 22:24. Did not
Wolsey so here in Henry VIII’s time? Thirdly, he had already devoured in his hopes
the goods and spoils of all the slain Jews, which he doubted not but the king would
bestow upon him for his good service. Like as Henry II of France gave his mistress,
Diana Valentina, all the confiscations of goods made in the kingdom for cause of
heresy. Hereupon many good men were burned for religion, as it was said, but,
indeed, it was to satiate her covetousness (Hist. of Counc. of Trent, 387).
To the hands of those, &c.] Vulg. Arcariis gazae tuae.
To bring it into the king’s treasuries] That he might not be damnified in the tributes
formerly paid by the Jews for their liberty of conscience. Kings use to take care that
their incomes and revenues be not impaired or diminished. It is said of Soliman, the
Great Turk, that, seeing a company of many thousands of his Christian subjects fall
down before him, and hold up the forefinger, as their manner of conversion to the
Turkish religion is, he asked what moved them to turn? they replied, it was to be
eased of their heavy taxations. He, not willing to lose in tribute for an unsound
accession in religion, rejected their conversion, and doubled their taxations.

69. LA GE, "Esther 3:9. If it please the king let it be written = let it be commanded by
a public announcement, which is as irrevocable as a formal edict of the empire
(comp. Esther 1:19), that they may be destroyed. And I will pay ten thousand talents
of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business.—Such a great
sum (according to the Mosaic Shekel twenty-five million, and according to the
common shekel, twelve and a half million thaiers; vide Z‫צ‬ckler on 1 Chronicles
22:14) does he hope to bring in by the confiscation of the property of the Jews.
[F 18] “Those that have charge of the business,” in 2 Kings 12:11, designated
builders (masons, etc.); but here and in Esther 9:3 are meant the officers of the
treasury [“the collectors of the revenue.” Rawlinson].
BI, "I will pay ten thousand talents of silver.
Haman’s wealth: ancient millionaires
Crassus owned a landed estate valued at more than one million and a half pounds
sterling, and Ridorus, after having lost a good deal in the civil war, left an estate worth
one million forty-seven hundred pounds. And Lentulus, the augur, died worth three
millions, three hundred and thirty-three thousand, three hundred and thirty-three
pounds sterling. Apicius was possessed of above nine hundred and sixteen thousand, six
hundred and seventy-one pounds. His wealth, however, was by no means satisfactory or
sufficient for him. For after having spent vast sums in his kitchen, he was so miserable
that he put an end to his own life by poison. These rich old Romans were not bankers or
mere merchants and traders. These amounts did not merely pass through their hands in
the way of trade. They were worth so much in hard money. Nor were all the millionaires
of ancient times Romans. Herodotus says that Xerxes, in going to Greece, the father of
Ahasuerus—or as some say, Ahasuerus himself—found Pythius, the Lydian, possessed of
two thousand talents of silver and four millions of gold darics; that is, about twenty-
seven and a half millions of dollars (Lib. 7.). And Plutarch informs us, that after Crassus,
the Roman general, had given the tenth of all he had to Hercules, he entertained ten
thousand people at his tables, and gave to every citizen as much corn as would support
him three months; and then had seven thousand one hundred Roman talents remaining;
that is, about twenty-eight millions of dollars. Surely, then, there is nothing incredible in
our history because it speaks of ten thousand talents of silver. The wealth and luxury of
the old world, in many particulars, surpassed our own times. The enormous debts
contracted in the days of Alexander and of the Caesars prove that the wealth of those
times was great, although this is a way to prove one’s wealth by that is not at all to my
mind, especially for a Church. Anthony owed, we are told, at the ides of March, £333,333
13s. 4d., which, however, it is said he paid before the calends of April, every penny of it.
(W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Costly revenge
His revenge was so dear to him, that he would not only hazard the king’s favour by the
horrid proposal of murdering a whole nation, but expose himself to a severe loss in his
fortune, rather than suffer the hated race to live. What liberal sacrifices will men make to
their passions! They will give a great part of the substance of their house to the
gratification of their hatred or their lust. Why then should we think it a hard matter to
give a part of our substance to God? If our desires are as eager for the advancement of
virtue and purity, if we are as earnest in our wishes to have the wants of the poor

70. supplied, and the afflictions of the unfortunate relieved, as revengeful men, like Haman,
are to gratify their ill-nature, it will give us pleasure to honour the Lord with our
substance, and to minister to the needs of our fellow-men. (G. Lawson.)
10 So the king took his signet ring from his finger
and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha, the
Agagite, the enemy of the Jews.
CLARKE, "The king took his ring - In this ring was no doubt included his privy
seal, and he gave this to Haman, that when he had formed such a decree as he thought
fit, he might seal it with this ring, which would give it its due force and influence among
the rulers of the provinces. The privy seal of many of our sovereigns appears to have
been inserted in their rings; and the seals of Eastern potentates were worn in rings upon
their fingers. One such seal, once the property of the late Tippoo Sultan, lies before me;
the inscription is deeply cut in silver, which is set in a massy carriage of gold. This, as
fitted to the finger, he probably kept always on his hand, to be ready to seal despatches,
etc., or it might be carried by a confidential officer for the same purpose, as it seems to
refer to one of the chief cutcheries, or military officers.
GIL, "And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman, the
son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy. As a token of his affection for
him, and a mark of honour to him; with the Persians (w) for a king to give a ring to
anyone was a token and bond of the greatest love and friendship imaginable; and it may
be this was given to Haman, to seal with it the letters that were or should be written,
giving order for the destruction of the Jews. It seems as if as yet Esther had not
acquainted the king who her kindred and people were; or it can hardly be thought he
would have so easily come into such a scheme, or so highly favoured an enemy of her
people.
HE RY, " He obtains what he desired, a full commission to do what he would with
the Jews, Est_3:10, Est_3:11. The king was so inattentive to business, and so bewitched
with Haman, that he took no time to examine the truth of his allegations, but was as
willing as Haman could wish to believe the worst concerning the Jews, and therefore he
gave them up into his hands, as lambs to the lion: The people are thine, do with them as
it seemeth good unto thee. He does not say, “Kill them, slay them” (hoping Haman's own
cooler thoughts would abate the rigour of that sentence and induce him to sell them for
slaves); but “Do what thou wilt with them.” And so little did he consider how much he

71. should lose in his tribute, and how much Haman would gain in the spoil, that he gave
him withal the ten thousand talents: The silver is thine. Such an implicit confidence
likewise he had in Haman, and so perfectly had he abandoned all care of his kingdom,
that he gave Haman his ring, his privy-seal, or sign-manual, wherewith to confirm
whatever edict he pleased to draw up for this purpose. Miserable is the kingdom that is
at the disposal of such a head as this, which has one ear only, and a nose to be led by, but
neither eyes nor brains, nor scarcely a tongue of its own.
IV. He then consults with his soothsayers to find out a lucky day for the designed
massacre, Est_3:7. The resolve was taken up in the first month, in the twelfth year of the
king, when Esther had been his wife about five years. Some day or other in that year
must be pitched upon; and, as if he doubted not but that Heaven would favour his design
and further it, he refers it to the lot, that is, to the divine Providence, to choose the day
for him; but that, in the decision, proved a better friend to the Jews than to him, for the
lot fell upon the twelfth month, so that Mordecai and Esther had eleven months to turn
themselves in for the defeating of the design, or, if they could not defeat it, space would
be left for the Jews to make their escape and shift for their safety. Haman, though eager
to have the Jews cut off, yet will submit to the laws of his superstition, and not anticipate
the supposed fortunate day, no, not to gratify his impatient revenge. Probably he was in
some fear lest the Jews should prove too hard for their enemies, and therefore durst not
venture on such a hazardous enterprise but under the smiles of a good omen. This may
shame us, who often acquiesce not in the directions and disposals of Providence when
they cross our desires and intentions. He that believeth the lot, much more that
believeth the promise, will not make haste. But see how God's wisdom serves its own
purposes by men's folly. Haman has appealed to the lot, and to the lot he shall go, which,
by adjourning the execution, gives judgment against him and breaks the neck of the plot.
JAMISO , "the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman
— There was a seal or signet in the ring. The bestowment of the ring, with the king’s
name and that of his kingdom engraven on it, was given with much ceremony, and it was
equivalent to putting the sign manual to a royal edict.
K&D, "Est_3:10
The king agreed to this proposal. He drew his signet ring from his hand, and delivered
it to Haman, that he might prepare the edict in the king's name, and give it by the
impression of the royal seal the authority of an irrevocable decree; see rem. on Est_8:8.
“To the enemy of the Jews” is added emphatically.
BE SO , "Esther 3:10. And the king took his ring from his hand, &c. — Without
any examination into the condition of the people, he consented to their destruction.
So loath are men that love their pleasure to take any pains to distinguish between
truth and falsehood. And gave it unto Haman — That he might keep it as a badge of
his supreme authority under the king, and that he might use it for the sealing of this
decree which was now made, or of any other that might be made hereafter. The
Agagite, the Jews’ enemy — Such he was, both by inclination, as he was an
Amalekite, and especially by this destructive design and resolution.
CO STABLE, "3. The king"s permission3:10-15

72. The imprint of an official"s signet ring ( Esther 3:10) was the equivalent of his
signature in ancient times (cf. Genesis 41:42; Esther 8:2; Esther 8:8; Esther 8:10).
Ahasuerus gave permission to Haman to confiscate the Jews" wealth and to put
them to death ( Esther 3:11; cf. Proverbs 18:13). Merrill suggested that Ahasuerus
viewed the Jews as a scapegoat to blame for his humiliating losses to the Greeks.
[ ote: Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p502.] The words "to destroy, to kill,
and to annihilate" ( Esther 3:13) probably translate the legal formula used in the
decree that would have been as specific as possible. Probably the government
officials and army were those who were to seize the Jews" property ( Esther 3:13)
and then send some of it up the line to Haman.
"There is a skillful use of contrast in the last sentence of the chapter. While the
collaborators celebrate, the city of Susa is aghast. The author is sensitive to popular
reactions and notes that the ordinary citizen asked himself what lay behind such a
drastic scene." [ ote: Baldwin, p76.]
TRAPP, "Esther 3:10 And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto
Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy.
Ver. 10. And the king took his ring from his hand] And thereby gave him power to
do what he pleased, Genesis 41:42, 1 Kings 21:8, En regis huius inertiam et
impcritiam. How weak (weak as water, Genesis 49:4) was the heart of this brutish
barbarian, skilful to destroy! Ezekiel 21:31, seeing he did all these things, the work
of an imperious whorish woman, Ezekiel 16:30, rather than of an able man, such as
every magistrate should be, Exodus 18:21, just, and ruling in the fear of God, 2
Samuel 23:3. In the case of Vashti he could refer the matter to the consideration of a
council. In the case of the two eunuchs that had conspired against his life he made
inquisition of the matter, and did all things deliberately. In the case of Haman after
this, though deeply displeased, yet he did nothing rashly, till he had gone into the
palace garden, and considered with himself what was best to be done. But here upon
the very first motion (without hearing them speak for themselves, or admonishing
them to do their duty better, &c.) he gives order for the slaying of so many thousand
innocents, never considering that every drop of their blood had a voice in it to cry
for vengeance against him and his, Genesis 4:10, Matthew 22:7. And when the king
heard it; for blood cries aloud to God; 2 Kings 9:26, "Surely I have seen yesterday
the blood of aboth." Murder ever bleeds fresh in the eye of Almighty God. To him
many years, yea, that eternity that is past, is but yesterday. He will give such blood
again to drink, for they are worthy, Revelation 16:6. Dealt he not so by Herod,
Julian, Attilas, Felix of Wurtemburg, Farnesius, Minerius, Charles IX, king of
France, who died by exceeding bleeding at sundry parts of his body, soon after the
Parisian Massacre, whereof he was the author, giving as large and as bloody a
commission to the duke of Guise to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all the
French Protestants, as Ahasuerus did here to Haman? either was he slack to
execute it with greatest inhumanity, crying out to those of his party (after that he
had slain the admiral), Courage, my fellows, fall on, the king commands it, it is his
express pleasure, he commands it (The Hist. of French Mass., by Mr Clark). But

73. what followed shortly after?
Quem sitiit vivens scelerata mente cruorem,
Perfidus hunc moriens Carolus ore vomit.
Ergo Dei tandem verbo subscribite, Reges;
e rapiant Stygiae vos Acherontis aquae.
And gave it unto Haman] Who now being his favourite, might have anything of him,
like as it is said of Sejanus, that in all his designs he found in Tiberius the emperor
so great facility and affection to his desire, that he needed only to ask and give
thanks. He never denied him anything, and ofttimes anticipated his request, and
avowed that he deserved much more. It was not, therefore, without cause that the
primitive Christians prayed so hard for the emperor, that God would send him good
counsellors, and deliver him from flatterers and slanderers, those pests of the court
(Tertull. Apol.).
The Jews’ enemy] That was his style, or rather his brand and mark of ignominy,
worse than that of Cain, Genesis 4:15, that of Dathan, umbers 26:9, of Ahaz, 2
Chronicles 28:22. It may be he affected this title, and gloried in it; as we read of
John Oneal, father to the earl of Tyrone, that rebel 1598, that he inscribed himself
in all places, I, great John Oneal, cousin to Christ, friend to the queen of England,
and foe to all the world besides (Camden).
WHEDO , "10. Took his ring… and gave it unto Haman — This was done for the
purpose of sealing with irrevocable authority the letters which Haman designed (see
Esther 3:12) to send to all the rulers of the provinces; “for the writing which is
written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring may no man reverse.”
Esther 8:8. Many ancient signet rings have been discovered, some made of gold,
others of various kinds of stone. Those made of stone are usually cylindrical. The
signet cylinder of Darius Hystaspes bears a trilingual inscription which reads,
“Darius the Great King,” and also a picture of the king hunting lions in a palm
grove.
LA GE, "Esther 3:10. The proposal of Haman seems to have pleased the king so
much that he gave him his seal ring, and thus empowered him not only to cause the
before-mentioned public proclamation to be made, but also to issue other suitable
decrees, and by imprinting the royal signet to give them the authority of irrevocable
commands (comp. Esther 8:8-9). In private relations the present of a ring was the
token of the most intimate friendship. Princes, however, thereby designated the one
who held it as their empowered representative, (comp. Esther 8:2; Genesis 41:42; 1
Maccabees 6:5; Curt, X:5, 4; Aristoph, Eq. 947; Schulz, Leitungen, etc., iv218 sq.;
Tournefort, R, II:383)[F 19] Sometimes successors to the crown were also thus

74. appointed (comp. Josephus, Ant.XX:2, 3). The significant designation of Haman as
“the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy,” points out how eventful
this bestowal of authority upon Haman became to the Jews.
11 “Keep the money,” the king said to Haman,
“and do with the people as you please.”
BAR ES, "The silver is given to thee - Some understand this to mean that
Xerxes refused the silver which Haman had offered to him; but the passage is better
explained as a grant to him of all the property of such Jews as should be executed Est_
3:13.
GIL, "And the king said unto Haman, the silver is given unto thee,.... The
10,000 talents of silver Haman proposed to pay into the treasury were returned to him,
or the king out of his great munificence refused to take them:
the people also, to do with them as seemeth good unto thee; that is, the people
of the Jews; he gave him full power to do with them as he thought fit, and who breathing
revenge upon them, would not spare them.
K&D, "Est_3:11
Lest it should appear as though the king had been induced by the prospect held out of
obtaining a sum of money, he awards this to Haman. “The silver be given to thee, and
the people to do to them (let it be done to them) as seemeth good to thee.” ‫ם‬ ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫ה‬ַ‫ו‬ precedes
absolutely: as for the people of the Jews, etc.
BE SO , "Esther 3:11. The silver is given to thee — Keep it for thy own use, I do
not desire it. I accept thy offer for the deed. So that he gave him power to draw up
what decree he pleased, and seal it with the king’s ring; but as for the money, he
assured him he would have none of it. What inhumanity was this! to give so many
people unheard to death to please a favourite!
ELLICOTT, "(11) And the king said . . .—With indifference which seems
incredible, but which is quite in accordance with what we otherwise know of Xerxes,
the king simply hands over to his minister the whole nation and their possessions to
do with as he will. The king perhaps was glad to throw the cares of government on
his minister, and, too indolent to form an opinion for himself, was content to believe

75. that the Jews were a worthless, disloyal people.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:11 And the king said unto Haman, The silver [is] given to thee,
the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.
Ver. 11. And the king said unto Haman] Whom he looked upon as an honest,
prudent, public spirited man, and therefore so easily empowered him to do what he
would.
O vanas hominum mentes! O pectora caeca!
The silver is given unto thee] i.e. The ten thousand talents that thou hast proffered,
and which Haman likely purposed to raise out of the spoil of the Jews; all this is
remitted, and returned to Haman as a gift again. Sic ex alieno corie gigantes isti
latissimas corrigias secant, saith an interpreter here, Such large thongs cut these
giants out of other men’s hides. But what meant they thus to sell the hide before
they had taken the beast? He that sat in heaven (and had otherwise determined it)
laughed at them, the Lord had them in derision, Psalms 2:4. "With him" (alone) "is
strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his. He leadeth counsellors
away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools. He leadeth princes away spoiled, and
overthroweth the mighty," Job 12:16-17; Job 12:19.
The people also, to do with them] Here Haman was made, here he had more than
heart could wish, as Psalms 73:7, and holdeth himself, therefore, no doubt, the
happiest man under heaven. But nihil sane infelicius est felicitate peccantium, saith
Jerome, There cannot befall a man a greater misery than to prosper in sin: for such
a one is ripening for ruin, as fatting cattle are fitting for the butcher. They prosper
and live at ease, saith God, yet I am extremely displeased with them, Zechariah 1:15.
As they say of the metal they make glass of, it is nearest melting when it shineth
brightest; so are the wicked nearest destruction when at greatest lustre. Meanwhile
see here what, many times, is the condition of God’s dearest children, viz. to fall into
the power and paws of lions, leopards, boars, bears, tigers; of men more savage than
any of these, whose tender mercies are mere cruelties. Poor blind men they are that
offer violence to the saints, as Samson laid bands upon the pillars, to pluck the
house upon their own heads.
To do with them as it seemeth good to thee] Oh bloody sentence! Such words as
these Leniter volant, sed non leniter violant. So Dioclesian gave leave to people to
kill up Christians, without more ado, wherever they met them; the like was done by
authority in the French Massacre; but though tyrants restrain not their agents, yet
God will, Psalms 76:10. And though they bandy together and bend all their forces to
root out true religion; yet are they bounded by him, and shall not do what
themselves please, but what he hath appointed. My times are in thine hand, saith
David; and Pilate had no more power to crucify Christ than what was given him

76. from above, John 19:11.
LA GE, "Esther 3:11. The prospect of the great treasure thus to be acquired must
have had considerable weight with Ahasuerus, who needed much money. Still it
must not assume the appearance as if covetousness had anything to do with it.
Hence he left the money to be gained to Haman, for thus he would also be the more
sure of him in possible and coming events. The silver (is) (let it be) given to thee, the
people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.—The participle ‫ָתוּן‬‫נ‬ is a
short mode of expression appropriate to the king. The sense is: “It Isaiah,” or: “Let
it be given.” So also ‫ֲשׂות‬‫ע‬ַ‫ל‬, “let it be,” or: “It must be done.”[F 20]
12 Then on the thirteenth day of the first month
the royal secretaries were summoned. They wrote
out in the script of each province and in the
language of each people all Haman’s orders to the
king’s satraps, the governors of the various
provinces and the nobles of the various peoples.
These were written in the name of King Xerxes
himself and sealed with his own ring.
BAR ES, "On the thirteenth day - Haman had, apparently (compare Est_3:7
with Est_3:13), obtained by his use of the lot the 13th day of Adar as the lucky day for
destroying the Jews. This may have caused him to fix on the 13th day of another month
for the commencement of his enterprise. So, the Jews throughout the empire had from 9
to 11 months of warning of the peril which threatened them.
CLARKE, "Unto the king’s lieutenants - ‫אחשדרפני‬ achashdarpeney. This is in all
probability another Persian word, for there is nothing like it in the Hebrew language, nor
can it be fairly deduced from any roots in that tongue. The Vulgate translates ad omnes
satrapas regis, to all the satraps of the king. It is very likely that this is the true sense of
the word, and that the ‫אחשדרפני‬ achsadrapani, as it may be pronounced, is the Chaldee or

77. Hebrew corruption of the Persian word satraban, the plural of satrab, a Persian peer,
though the word is now nearly obsolete in the Persian language; for since the conquest of
Persia by Mohammedanism, the names of officers are materially changed, as something
of Islamism is generally connected with the titles of officers both civil and military, as
well as religious.
GIL, "Then were the king's scribes called, on the thirteenth day of the first
month,.... The month Nisan, Est_3:7, after Haman had leave and power from the king
to destroy the Jews, and his ring given him in token of it; the king's scribes or secretaries
of state were called together on that day, to write the letters for that purpose:
and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded;
whatever he would have done; he had an unlimited power to do what he pleased, and he
made use of it, and directed the scribes what they should write:
unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every
province; the deputy governors of the one hundred and twenty seven provinces, Est_
1:1
and to the rulers of every people of every province; it seems there were different
people in every province, which had their rulers; and these were sent to:
according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language;
and letters were written in the language, and character of the language, each people
spoke, that they might be understood by them:
in the name of King Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king's
ring. All this Haman took care to have done so early as the thirteenth of Nisan, though
the execution was not to be until the thirteenth of Adar, eleven months after; partly that
there might be time enough to send the letters everywhere, even to the most distant
parts; and chiefly lest Ahasuerus should change his mind, and be prevailed upon to
revoke his grant; and, it may be, either to keep the Jews in continual dread, or cause
them to flee.
HE RY, "The bloody edict is hereupon drawn up, signed, and published, giving
orders to the militia of every province to be ready against the thirteenth day of the
twelfth month, and, on that day, to murder all the Jews, men, women, and children, and
seize their effects, Est_3:12-14. Had the decree been to banish all the Jews and expel
them out of the king's dominions, it would have been severe enough; but surely never
any act of cruelty appeared so barefaced as this, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to
perish, all the Jews, appointing them as sheep for the slaughter without showing any
cause for so doing. No crime is laid to their charge; it is not pretended that they were
obnoxious to the public justice, nor is any condition offered, upon performance of which
they might have their lives spared; but die they must, without mercy. Thus have the
church's enemies thirsted after blood, the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus,
and drunk of it till they have been perfectly intoxicated (Rev_17:6); yet still, like the
horse-leech, they cry, Give, give. This cruel offer is ratified with the king's seal, directed
to the king's lieutenants, and drawn up in the king's name, and yet the king knows not
what he does. Posts are sent out, with all expedition, to carry copies of the decree to the

78. respective provinces, Est_3:15. See how restless the malice of the church's enemies is: it
will spare no pains; it will lose no time.
JAMISO , "Then were the king’s scribes called ... and there was written —
The government secretaries were employed in making out the proclamation authorizing
a universal massacre of the Jews on one day. It was translated into the dialects of all the
people throughout the vast empire, and swift messengers were sent to carry it into all the
provinces. On the day appointed, all Jews were to be put to death and their property
confiscated; doubtless, the means by which Haman hoped to pay his stipulated tribute
into the royal treasury. To us it appears unaccountable how any sane monarch could
have given his consent to the extirpation of a numerous class of his subjects. But such
acts of frenzied barbarity have, alas! been not rarely authorized by careless and
voluptuous despots, who have allowed their ears to be engrossed and their policy
directed by haughty and selfish minions, who had their own passions to gratify, their
own ends to serve.
K&D, "Haman, without delay, causes the necessary writings to be prepared, and sent
into all the provinces of the kingdom. Est_3:12. “Then were called the king's scribes in
the first month, on the thirteenth day of it (‫ּו‬ , in it, in the said month); and there was
written according to all that Haman commanded, to the satraps of the king, and to the
governors who (were placed) over every province, and to the rulers of every people, to
each several province according to its writing, and to each different people according to
their language (comp. rem. on Est_1:22); in the name of King Ahashverosh was it
written, and sealed with the king's seal.” ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ָ ְ‫ר‬ ַ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ח‬ ֲ‫א‬ and ‫ּות‬‫ח‬ ַ placed in juxtaposition, as in
Ezr_8:36, are the imperial officials. Beside these are also named the ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ of every
people, the native princes of the different races. The writing was finished on the
thirteenth day of the month, because this day of the month had been fixed upon as
propitious by the lot.
BE SO ,"Esther 3:12-13. Then were the king’s scribes called — This he did so
speedily, though it was a year before the intended execution, lest the king should
change his mind, either through his own clemency, or the persuasion of others. It
was, however, not wisely judged to let his design be known so long before it was to
take effect; for the Jews might find some way to deliver themselves, or might steal
out of the kingdom: but undoubtedly this was so ordered by the overruling
providence of God. And to take the spoil of them for a prey — Which was to induce
the people to use the greater severity and readiness to execute this edict for their
own advantage.
COFFMA , "Verse 12
THE DAY WAS SET;
THE DECREE WAS SIG ED;
THE MASSACRE WAS A OU CED

79. "Then were the king's scribes called, in the first month, on the thirteenth day of the
month; and there was written according to all that Haman commanded unto the
king's satraps, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the
princes of every people, to every province according to the writing thereof, and to
every people after their language, in the name of king Ahashuerus was it written,
and it was sealed with the king's ring. And the letters were sent by posts, into all the
king's provinces, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and
old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the
twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey. A
copy of the writing, that the decree should be given out in every province, was
published unto all the peoples, that they should be ready against that day. The posts
went forth in haste by the king's commandment, and the decree was given out in
Shushan the palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of
Shushan was perplexed."
God's people never faced a more terribile threat than this one. The egomaniac
Haman had engineered that which might easily have destroyed the entire race of the
chosen people; but there was no way that God would have allowed such a thing to
happen; because all of the glorious promises of Messiah to redeem men from their
sins were contingent upon the preservation of the Israel of God until that Messiah
was born in Bethlehem. God had foreseen this threat. He had foreseen it when king
Saul was ordered to destroy the Amalekites. Saul failed to do so; but God did not
abandon his people.
God used the drunken request of Xerxes to degrade Vashti the queen; he elevated
an orphan Jewish girl to take her place; he planted the name of Mordecai in the
chronicles of the king; and he would remind Xerxes of that fact at precisely the
proper instant. Oh yes, for all of his power and hatred, Haman had undertaken to
do that which was impossible.
"And the king and Haman sat down to drink" (Esther 3:15). A little later in this
narrative, we shall read of the execution of Haman by what amounted to his
crucifixion; but, sad as a thing like that surely is, it should be remembered that
Haman was the kind of man who could condemn unnumbered thousands, perhaps
even as many as a million people, to murder by wholesale massacre, and then sit
down to drink liquor and enjoy himself. The fate encountered by this servant of the
devil was fully deserved.
ELLICOTT, "(12) On the thirteenth day of the first month.—From the next verse
we see that the thirteenth of Adar was to be the lucky day for Haman’s purpose,
which may have suggested the thirteenth of isan as a suitable day for this
preliminary step. Bishop Wordsworth reminds us that this day was the eve of the
Passover, so that Haman’s plot against the Jews strangely coincides in time with one
five hundred years later, when the Jews themselves, aided by heathen hands and the
powers of darkness, sought to vanquish the Saviour; and as the trembling Jews of
Persia were delivered by God’s goodness, so too by His goodness Satan himself was
overthrown and the Lamb that was slain did triumph.

80. Lieutenants.—Literally, satraps. The Hebrew word here (akhashdarpan) is simply
an attempt to transliterate the Persian khahatrapa, Whence the Greek satrapes, and
so the English word. The word occurs several times in this book and in Ezra and
Daniel.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:12 Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of
the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded
unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that [were] over every province,
and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof,
and [to] every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it
written, and sealed with the king’s ring.
Ver. 12. Then were the king’s scribes called] Then, presently upon it, so soon as the
word was out of the king’s mouth, licet quod libet, the scribes were called, and all
things despatched with all possible haste, art, and industry. So Judas, what he did,
did quickly; he was up and at it, when Peter and the rest of the apostles were found
asleep. The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of
light; for why? they have the devil to help them, and to prick them on; and hence
their restlessness.
On the thirteenth day of the first month] Soon after they had begun to cast lots,
Esther 3:7.
And there was written according to all that Haman had commanded] Right or
wrong, that was never once questioned by these overly officious officers. If the king
commanded it, and Haman will have it so, the secretaries and rulers (those servile
souls) are ready to say, as Tiberius once did to Justinus, Si tu volueris, ego sum; si tu
non vis, ego non sum. If you are willing, so am I, if you are not willing, so am I. Or
as he in Lucan did to Caesar,
Iussa sequi, tam velle mihi, quam posse, necesse.
We are wholly at your devotion and dispose. We are only your clay and wax, &c. It
is not for us to take upon us as counsellors, but only to write what is dictated unto
us, &c. But this was no sufficient excuse for them before God; as neither was it for
Doeg, that he was commanded to slay all the Lord’s priests, which Abner and others
of Saul’s servants rightly and stoutly refused to do, 1 Samuel 22:18. A warrant once
came down under seal for Lady Elizabeth’s execution, while she was prisoner at
Woodstock; Stephen Gardiner, like another Haman, being the chief engineer. But
Mr. Bridges, her keeper, mistrusting false play, presently made haste to the queen,
who renounced and reversed it. So might Ahasuerus haply have done this bloody
edict, had his officers showed him the iniquity of it. But they took not this to be any
part of their business; or if any one of them should be more conscientious, yet he

81. might be surprised by a sudden onset, as the Lord Cromwell, when, by the
instigation of Gardiner, he was commanded by King Henry VIII to read the
sentence of death against Lambert the martyr, whereof he repented afterwards,
sending for Lambert, and asking him forgiveness, as Mr Fox relateth.
And to every people after their language] See Esther 1:22.
In the name of the king Ahasuerus] For more authority’ sake, and that Haman’s
malice and cruelty might lie hid under the king’s cloak. So Jezebel wrote letters in
Ahab’s name against aboth; so the Egyptians oppressed the Israelites in the name
of their king; the Jews pretended to be all for Caesar, when they sought and sucked
our Saviour’s blood. The Popish persecutors here did all in Queen Mary’s name,
when as it might be said to her, as Josephus doth of Queen Alexandra among the
Jews, Ipsa solum nomen regium ferebat, &c., She had the name only of queen, but
the Pharisees ruled the kingdom; so did the bishops in those days; and some of them
would have done the like in ours, and that was their downfall; after that, as rotten
teeth, they had put the king and kingdom to a great deal of misery.
And sealed with the king’s ring] Lest it should by any means be reversed, Daniel
6:8; Daniel 6:12-13. Of the right antiquity, use, and matter of rings let them that
will, read Plin. lib. 33, cap. 1; 37, 1; Macrob. lib. 1; Saturn. cap. 13; Alexand. ab
Alex. lib. 2. genial dier.; Rhodig. lib. 6, cap. 12.
WHEDO , "12. The king’s scribes — See note on 2 Samuel 8:17.
The thirteenth day — Having fixed on the thirteenth of Adar (Esther 3:13) for the
execution of his bloody design, he seems to have purposely selected the
corresponding day of the first month for the beginning of his work.
Lieutenants — Satraps. See note on Ezra 8:36.
Governors — Or prefects. On this word, which is rendered deputies in Esther 8:9;
Esther 9:3, see notes, Ezra 5:3 and 2 Kings 18:24.
Rulers — Or princes.
The writing… their language — See note on chap. Esther 1:22.
LA GE, "Esther 3:12-15. Haman at once caused the necessary proclamations to be
prepared, and had them sent into all the provinces of the kingdom. Esther 3:12.
[Then were the king’s scribes called.—“The ‘scribes’ of Xerxes are mentioned more
than once by Herodotus (7:100; 8:90). They appear to have been in constant
attendance on the monarch, ready to indite his edicts, or to note down any
occurrences which he desired to have recorded.”—Rawlinson]. In the very same
month in which he had the lot cast, and on the thirteenth day of the same (‫,בּוֹ‬ in it,

82. the said month). Perhaps it appeared that the thirteenth day of the first month was
favorably indicated together with the thirteenth of the twelfth month.[F 21]And
there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s
lieutenants, and to the governors that (were) over every province, and to the rulers
of every people of every province.—‫ִים‬‫נ‬ָ‫פּ‬ְ‫ד‬ַ‫דּ‬ְ‫ַשׁ‬‫ה‬ֲ‫א‬ and ‫ָהוֹת‬‫פּ‬ are here, as in Ezra 8:36,
placed together, the satraps of the larger provinces and the rulers among the
separate peoples of the provinces. The ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ָ‫שׂ‬ are the native Song of Solomon -called
born princes of the different peoples. Before the following ‫ָה‬‫נ‬‫י‬ִ‫ְד‬‫מ‬, and likewise before
‫עם‬ further on, it should really be repeated: to the satraps, etc. The sense is: “For the
governors of each province according to their mode of writing (style), and to those
of every people according to its language.” In the addition: “In the name of king
Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring,” the perfect tense only is
fitting, and not the participle. And though ‫ב‬ָ‫ְתּ‬‫כ‬ִ‫נ‬ may have a Kamets, to give it greater
distinctiveness, still this is not true of ‫ם‬ַ‫ְתּ‬‫ח‬ֶ‫נ‬, though so given in several editions.
BI 12-15, "Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day.
Fruitless preparations
I. Here is unseemly haste.
II. Here are inconsistent precursory measures. Wickedness renders a man inconsistent.
Revenge impelled to action, but conscience still spoke in reproving tones. All must be
done according to law. Obedience to the eternal law of right is the only method by which
human lives can be rendered consistent and harmonious.
III. Here is a low estimate of human life, shown—
1. In the unmethodical nature of the slaughter designed.
2. In the indiscriminate nature of the slaughter designed.
3. In the rapacity after property. Life versus property. This decree is one of the
unwritten decrees of modern civilisation.
IV. Here is wickedness bolstered up by human authority. Learn—
1. Great men should try to get a true idea of the importance of human life.
2. Statesmen should remember that the true wealth of a community is its men.
3. All ought to remember that life is ignoble when passion is allowed to rule. (W.
Burrows, B. A.)
Persian postal facilities
The postal service for that age was exceedingly good, but only the king could take
advantage of it. Indeed, it was one of the means used by him for the government of the
empire, and was very largely, according to Herodotus, the device of this same Xerxes.
Along the chief lines of travel he established, at intervals of fourteen miles, post-houses,
at each of which relays of horses and couriers were always in readiness. One of these
messengers, receiving an official document, rode with it at his utmost speed to the next
post-house, where it was taken onward by another courier with another horse, and in
this way a proclamation like that here described would reach the farthest limits of the

83. empire in five or six weeks. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
13 Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the
king’s provinces with the order to destroy, kill
and annihilate all the Jews—young and old,
women and children—on a single day, the
thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of
Adar, and to plunder their goods.
BAR ES, "Present, the Jews keep three days - the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th of
Adar - as connected with “the Feast of Purim;” but they make the 13th a fast,
commemorative of the fast of Esther Est_4:16, and keep the feast itself on the 14th and
15th of Adar.
CLARKE, "To destroy, so kill, and to cause to perish - To put the whole of
them to death in any manner, or by every way and means.
Take the spoil of them for a prey - Thus, whoever killed a Jew had his property
for his trouble! And thus the hand of every man was armed against this miserable
people. Both in the Greek version and in the Latin the copy of this order is introduced at
length, expressing “the king’s desire to have all his dominions in quiet and prosperity;
but that he is informed that this cannot be expected, while a certain detestable people
are disseminated through all his provinces, who not only are not subject to the laws, but
endeavor to change them; and that nothing less than their utter extermination will
secure the peace and prosperity of the empire; and therefore he orders that they be all
destroyed, both male and female, young and old,” etc.
GIL, "And the letters were sent by post into all the king's provinces,.... Or by
the runners (x); by which it seems as if these letters were carried by running footmen,
men swift of foot; or rather they were running horses, on which men rode post with
letters, and which the Persians called Angari; a scheme invented by Cyrus, for the quick
dispatch of letters from place to place, by fixing horses and men to ride them at a proper

84. distance, to receive letters one from another, and who rode night and day (y), as our mail
men do now; and nothing could be swifter, or done with greater speed; neither snow,
nor rain, nor heat, nor night, could stop their course, we are told (z): the purport of these
letters was:
to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little
children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth
month, which is the month Adar; see Est_3:7. The orders were to destroy, by any
means whatsoever, all the Jews, of every age and sex, all in one day, in all the provinces
which are here named, that they might be cut off with one blow: and to take the spoil of
them for a prey; to be their own booty; which was proposed to engage them in this
barbarous work, to encourage them in it to use the greater severity and dispatch.
COKE, "Esther 3:13. Letters were sent by posts— The first institution of posts is
generally ascribed to the Persians; for the kings of Persia, as Diodorus Siculus
observes, lib. 19: in order that they might have intelligence of what passed in all the
provinces of their vast dominions, placed centinels on eminences, at convenient
distances, where towers were built; and these centinels gave notice of public
occurrences to each other, with a very loud and shrill voice; by which method news
was transmitted from one extremity of the kingdom to the other with great
expedition. But, as this could be practised only in the case of general news, which
might be communicated to the whole nation, Cyrus, as Xenophon relates, Cyropaed.
lib. 8: set up couriers, places for post-horses on all high roads, and officers where
they might deliver their pacquets to each other. The like is said by Herodotus, lib.
8:; and he acquaints us further, that Xerxes, in his famous expedition against
Greece, planted posts from the AEgean sea to Shushan, at certain distances as far as
a horse could ride with speed; that thereby he might send notice to his capital city of
whatever should happen in his army. The Greeks borrowed the use of posts from
the Persians: and, in imitation of them, called them ‫.בדדבסןי‬ Among the Romans,
Augustus was the person that set up public posts, who at first were running
footmen, but were afterwards changed for post-chariots and horses. For the greater
expedition, Adrian improved upon this; and, having reduced the posts to great
regularity, discharged the people from the obligation they were under before of
furnishing horses and chariots. With the empire the use of posts declined. About the
year 807, Charlemagne endeavoured to restore them, but his design was not
prosecuted by his successors. In France, Lewis XI. set up posts at two leagues
distance through the kingdom. In Germany, Count Taxis set them up, and had for
his recompence, in 1616, a grant of the office of postmaster-general to himself and
his heirs for ever. About eight hundred years ago couriers were set up in the
Ottoman empire; and at this time there are some among the Chinese; but their
appointment is only to carry orders from the king and the governors of provinces,
and, in a word, for public affairs, and those of the greatest consequence.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:13 And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s
provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old,
little children and women, in one day, [even] upon the thirteenth [day] of the twelfth
month, which is the month Adar, and [to take] the spoil of them for a prey.

85. Ver. 13. And the letters were sent by posts] These the Persians called Angari, or (as
Ruffin writeth it) Aggari. But why was this done in such post haste, so long before
the day of execution? was it not to hold them all that while on the rack, and so to kill
them piecemeal (as Tiberius used to do by his enemies), while, through fear of death,
and expectation of that doleful day, they were all their lifetime subject to bondage?
Hebrews 2:15.
To destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish] Words written not with black, but with
blood; and therefore multiplied in this sort, to show that it mattered not how, so
they were made away by any means, and the world well rid of them. Read the
history of the French Massacre; and hear reverend Merlin (who narrowly, and
indeed miraculously, escaped those bloody villains, as being chaplain to the admiral,
and praying with him in his chamber a little before he was murdered), hear him, I
say, commenting upon this text; Sic nostro saeculo, si scribenda fuerint edicta
adversus religionem, non potuerunt sibi scribae satisfacere in excogitandis verbis
significantibus, quibus atrociora et magis sanguinaria redderentur, &c.; that is, in
our age also if any edicts are to be written against religion, the secretaries cannot
satisfy themselves in devising significant words, whereby those edicts may be
rendered the more cruel and sanguinary.
All Jews, both young and old, little children and women] All ages, sizes, and sexes.
What could the devil himself have added to this abhorred cruelty, if it had gone on?
Such a slaughter made Doeg at ob; the Sicilians at their bloody vespers; the king
of France with the Templars throughout his kingdom; Minerius, the pope’s
champion, with the Protestants of Merindol and Chabriers (besides that of the
Parisian Massacre before mentioned, and by Merlin upon this verse graphically
described, like as that of Babylon is by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 51:34). What a woeful
slaughter had here been made had Fawkes but fired the powder! What an
Aceldama had this whole land been turned into in a few days’ time! ecdum interiit
saevus Hamani animus. either yet is Haman dead, but reviveth daily in his bloody
and blasphemous successors. That like as Bucholcer saith of Cain, the devil’s
patriarch, there are not a few that still carry about, adore, and worship as a sacred
thing, Cain’s club red with the blood of Abel; so it is here.
Even upon the thirteenth day] That it was to be no sooner done was by a special
providence of God, that ere that time came it might be happily prevented, as was
before noted. See Esther 3:7. Haman’s folly also was not a little seen in deferring the
execution so long; for how knew he what a day might bring forth? it was indeed
mirabile simulque miserabile dictu, as one saith, a wonderful and in addition a
miserable thing, that none should be found among the Persians, Medes, and
Chaldees to pity this poor people, and to intercede for them. To have spoken to
Haman for them might likely have been as bootless as once it was to Minerius in the
behalf of the Merindolians. Of whom when a few had escaped his all-devouring

86. sword, and he was entreated to give them quarter for their lives, he sternly
answered, I know what I have to do, not one of them shall escape my hands; I will
send them to dwell in hell among the devils. But if Haman resolved no better, yet
what knew he, but that in time the king might relent and repent of that rash and
wretched edict, as he did.
am faciles motus mens generosa capit (Ovid).
We read in our Chronicles, that when King Henry III had given commandment for
the apprehending of Hubert de Burgo, earl of Kent, he fled into a church in Essex.
They to whom the business was committed, finding him upon his knees before the
high altar, with the sacrament in one hand and a cross in the other, carried him
away nevertheless unto the Tower of London. The bishop taking this to be a great
violence and wrong to the Church, would never leave the king until he had caused
the earl to be carried to the place whence he was fetched. This was done; and
although order was taken he should not escape thence, yet it gave the king’s wrath a
time to cool, and himself leisure to make proof of his innocence; by reason whereof
he was afterwards restored to the king’s favour and former places of honour. And
the like befell these Jews, ere the thirteenth of Adar; but Haman, blinded with pride
and superstition, could not foresee it.
And to take the spoil of them for a prey] To be sure that none should escape, the
goods of the slain are proposed for a reward to them that should slay them, and how
far that would prevail with many covetous wretches who knoweth not?
Covetousness is daring and desperate ( D‫נבםפןכלןע‬ ‫ךבי‬ ‫,ויםןע‬ Isid.), how much more
when it is encouraged, as here, by a permission, nay, a precept, from the king and
his chief favourite! where we may be sure, the wealthier any man was the sooner he
should have been sent out of the world, as a tree with thick and large boughs is most
likely to be lopped. Trithemius telleth us, that the Templars mentioned above were
massacred by Philip the Fair, king of France, upon pretext of heresy; but indeed
because they were rich, and Philip sore longed after their possessions. The Cyprians
for their great wealth became a spoil to the Romans.
- Quid non mortalia pectora cogis,
Auri sacra fames?
WHEDO , "13. Sent by posts — See note on Esther 1:22 for the Persian system of
letter carrying.
To destroy… in one day — Some have thought that eleven months’ previous notice
of such a decree would have frustrated Ha-man’s design, since it would have
afforded the Jews opportunity to escape from the dominions of Xerxes. But the
procedure was by no means incredible. We know too little of the exact
circumstances of the dispersed Jews of that time, and the extent of country through

87. which they were dispersed, to form a positive judgment in the case. Multitudes may
have been in such a state of bondage as to make it impossible for any great number
of them to escape; and as for others, it may have been expected and desired that
some of them would leave the kingdom. But such as Mordecai, whom Haman
especially wished to destroy, could not leave the kingdom any more than ehemiah
(compare ehemiah 2:6; ehemiah 13:6) without permission from the king. It was
also in keeping with Haman’s character to cause all the anguish and horror possible
to the Jews in anticipation of the dreadful day of slaughter. Then we must
remember, as observed above on Esther 3:7, that a wise Providence so overruled
this whole procedure as to bring to naught the plans of the Jews’ enemy, and make
his malignant hatred of the Jews the occasion of his ruin.
LA GE, "Esther 3:13. And the letters were sent by posts,etc.—,ַ‫ח‬‫לוֹ‬ ְ‫ִשׁ‬‫נ‬, infin. abs.
iph, instead of the finite verb in vivid description (comp. Esther 6:9; Esther 9:6;
Esther 9:12). Letters, without the article, for the thought is: “Letters whose contents
are that.....should be destroyed.” By the runners, by whom they were sent, are
meant the posts, the angari or pressmen, who were posted on the main roads of the
empire at definite distances from each other, from four to seven parasangs, and who
rapidly expedited the royal (mail) letters or commands (comp. Herodot. V:14;
VIII:98; Brisson, De reg. Pers. princ. I. c238 sq.). To destroy, to kill, and to cause to
perish, all Jews,etc.—The crowding of verbs impresses the murderous import. And
to take the spoil of them—i.e., to thus obtain their property as spoils. Haman, of
course, did not desire to come short in that which fell to him; but by giving the
people the privilege of plundering, he desired to awaken their zeal the more. Thus
they would either give him a share of the spoils, or else he hoped to obtain the sum
before mentioned by the help of his servants or his coadjutors.[F 22]
14 A copy of the text of the edict was to be issued
as law in every province and made known to the
people of every nationality so they would be ready
for that day.
GIL, "The copy of the writing, for a commandment to be given in every
province, was published unto all people,.... Not only letters were sent to the

88. governors, but a copy, or the sum of the contents of them, was published by heralds, or
stuck up as with us, in various places, that it might be publicly known by the common
people everywhere:
that they should be ready against that day; and fall upon the people of the Jews,
and slay them, and seize on their goods as a prey.
K&D, "Est_3:14
The copy of the writing, that the law might be given in every province, was opened to
all people, that they might be ready by this day. This verse does not announce a copy of
the royal decree that had been prepared and sent by the posts, which would in that case
be replaced by a mere allusion to its contents (Bertheau). The words contain no trace of
an announcement such as we find in Ezr_4:11; Ezr_7:11, but the historical notice, that
the copy of the writing which was sent as a law into the provinces was ‫לוּי‬ָ, opened, i.e.,
sent unclosed or unsealed to all people. ‫לוּי‬ָ is the predicate to the subject ‫וגו‬ ‫ן‬ֶ‫ג‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ת‬ ַ (comp.
on this word the note to Ezr_4:14), and between the subject and predicate is inserted the
infinitive clause ‫וגו‬ ‫ת‬ ָ ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ת‬ָ ִ‫ה‬ ְ‫ל‬ for the purpose of once more briefly mentioning the contents
and destination of the ‫ב‬ ָ‫ת‬ ְⅴ: that a law might be given in every province. To attain this
object the more certainly, the copy of the decree, which was brought into every province
by the posts, was open or unsealed, that all people might read its contents, and keep
themselves in readiness for the execution of what was therein commanded on the
appointed day. ‫ה‬ֶ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ּום‬ ַ‫ל‬ is the thirteenth day of the twelfth month named in the letter.
BE SO ,"Esther 3:14-15. The copy of the writing to be given in every province —
Copies of this original decree of the king were sent into every province, and there
ordered to be published, requiring the people to be ready against the day appointed.
The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment — Either by this
decree made in the king’s name, or by some particular and succeeding command
which Haman obtained from the king. And the king and Haman sat down to drink
— Haman was afraid, probably, lest the king’s conscience should smite him for
what he had done, and he should begin to wish it undone again; to prevent which he
engrossed him to himself, and kept him drinking. This cursed method many take to
drown their convictions, and harden their own hearts, and the hearts of others, in
sin. But the city Shushan was perplexed — ot only the Jews, but a great number of
the citizens, either because they were related to them, or engaged with them in
worldly concerns; or out of humanity and compassion toward so vast a number of
innocent people, appointed as sheep for the slaughter. They might apprehend
likewise that, upon the execution of the decree, some sedition or tumult might ensue;
that in so great a slaughter it was hard to tell who would escape without being killed
or plundered, because those who were employed in this bloody work would be more
mindful to enrich themselves than to observe their orders. They might also fear that
a public judgment from God would come upon them all for so bloody a decree.
We see in the exaltation of Haman, recorded in this chapter, and in his subsequent
fall, that God sometimes permits wicked men to arrive at the highest degree of

89. honour and power, but that he soon brings them low, and exposes them to shame
and misery. And we learn by the sequel of this history, that he suffered things to
proceed to extremities, only the more effectually to confound Haman; and convince
the Jews, in a more surprising manner, of his care and protection. We see also the
sin and folly of Ahasuerus, in giving credit too easily to Haman’s suggestion against
the Jews, by which credulity he had well nigh occasioned many millions of innocent
persons to perish. This shows how dangerous it is to listen to detracters, and that we
ought never to credit evil reports till we have first inquired and ascertained the
truth of them.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:14 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in
every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that
day.
Ver. 14. The copy of the writing … was published] Phathsegin, a Syriac word, saith
R. David, and not found but in the books about the captivity. The Vulgate rendereth
it Summa, highest, R. athan ‫,פץנןע‬ to the same sense. Transcripts of the original
were sent to all places, that none might be ignorant or negligent in doing execution.
But why did not the Jews upon such notice save themselves by flight, may some say?
Alas, whither should the poor souls flee with their families? being compassed about
with so many deadly enemies, having none that durst own them in that distress? It
was a just wonder, and a special work of God, that their enemies forbore to fall
upon them before the black day came, if but for the sake of spoil. We read, Esther
9:1; Esther 9:5-11 that notwithstanding the known favour of the king, the patronage
of Mordecai, and the hanging up of Haman, &c., the thirteenth of Adar is still
meant to be a bloody day. Haman’s abettors join together to perform that sentence,
whereof the author repented, &c. But God was seen in the mount; he loveth to help
those that are forsaken from their hopes, as he did these poor prisoners then, when
it might seem that there was neither left unto them hope of better or place of worse.
Who would not therefore trust in God? Deo confisi nunquam confusi? Trust in God
will surely triumph.
That they should be ready against that day] That long looked for day by Haman
and his party, wherein they meant to roll themselves, and wallow in the blood of
those Jews, and to say, as Hannibal did, when he saw a ditch filled with man’s
blood, O iucundum spectaculum! O pleasant sight! Or as Valesus, when he had slain
three hundred, O rem regiam! O kingly act! Or as that queen, who, when she saw
some of her Protestant subjects lying dead and stripped upon the earth, cried out,
the godliest tapestry that ever she beheld! Are not such blood suckers of the
vulturine kind spoken of in Job, whose young ones glut-glut blood (the original
word seemeth made from the sound), "and where the slain are there is she," Job
39:30.
LA GE, "Esther 3:14. The copy (contents) of the writing,etc.—The statements
respecting the contents in Esther 3:13 are too indefinite. It was not yet ordered that
the officers only should fall upon the Jews, but that the people themselves should do

90. this. This is expressly made to appear here. With reference to ‫ֶן‬‫ג‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ְ‫ַת‬‫פּ‬, see Ezra 4:11.
The substance does not there follow verbatim, but is indicated by the infinitive. For
a commandment to be given in every province.—But the decree itself reads: Let it
be published unto all people that they should be ready against that day.—What was
to be published is also indicated, but briefly. Thus in the style of expression the
details are noted as is common in edicts, with abbreviation of points referred to.
Since ‫ת‬ָ‫דּ‬ is feminine, as is seen, for example, in Esther 3:8; Esther 3:15, we cannot
render: “That they should publicly proclaim the edict—make it manifest to all.”
Still less are we to understand it, as does Keil: “A copy of the writing of the
substance that a law be given, and be declared to all peoples.” Instead of ‫ָלוּי‬‫גּ‬ this
verb would then have to be in the perfect tense, and ‫ָה‬‫ל‬ְ‫ג‬ִ‫נ‬ does not mean, as Keil
interprets, open or unsealed in its transmission; neither does it mean opened,
revealed, made known. ‫ָלוּי‬‫גּ‬ is rather in the optative, the same as is ‫ָתוּן‬‫גּ‬ in Esther
3:11 (so also Bertheau).
15 The couriers went out, spurred on by the
king’s command, and the edict was issued in the
citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to
drink, but the city of Susa was bewildered.
BAR ES, "Shushan was perplexed - Susa was now the capital of Persia, and the
main residence of the Persians of high rank. These, being attached to the religion of
Zoroaster, would naturally sympathize with the Jews, and be disturbed at their
threatened destruction. Even apart from this bond of union, the decree was sufficiently
strange and ominous to “perplex” thoughtful citizens.
CLARKE, "The posts - Literally, the couriers, the hircarrahs, those who carried the
public despatches; a species of public functionaries, who have been in use in all nations
of the world from the remotest antiquity.
The decree was given at Shushan - It was dated from the royal Susa, where the
king then was.
The city Shushan was perplexed - They saw that in a short time, by this wicked
measure the whole city would be thrown into confusion; for, although the Jews were the
only objects of this decree, yet, as it armed the populace against them, even the Persians
could not hope to escape without being spoiled, when a desperate mob had begun to
taste of human blood, and enrich themselves with the property of the murdered.

91. Besides, many Persian families had, no doubt, become united by intermarriages with
Jewish families, and in such a massacre they would necessarily share the same fate with
the Jews. A more impolitic, disgraceful, and cruel measure was never formed by any
government; and one would suppose that the king who ordered it must have been an
idiot, and the counsellors who advised it must have been madmen. But a despotic
government is ever capable of extravagance and cruelty; for as it is the bane of popular
freedom and happiness, so is it the disgrace of political wisdom and of all civil
institutions. Despotism and tyranny in the state are the most direct curses which
insulted justice can well inflict upon a sinful nation.
GIL, "The post went out, being hastened by the king's command,.... Both to set
out and make as much dispatch as possible:
and the decree was given in Shushan the palace; by the king, and with the advice
of his courtiers:
and the king and Haman sat down to drink; at a banquet which perhaps Haman
had prepared, in gratitude to the king for what he had granted him, both being highly
delighted with what had been done:
but the city Shushan was perplexed; the court was agreed, but the city was divided,
as the former Targum says, with the joy of strange nations, and the weeping of the
people of Israel, there being many Jews in the city; with whom no doubt there were
many in connection, through affinity or friendship, or commerce, that were concerned
for them; or, however, were shocked at such a barbarous scheme; and which they knew
not where it would end, and how far they themselves might be involved in it, when once
a mob had such a power
HE RY, " The different temper of the court and city hereupon. 1. The court was very
merry upon it: The king and Haman sat down to drink, perhaps to drink “Confusion to
all the Jews.” Haman was afraid lest the king's conscience should smite him for what he
had done and he should begin to wish it undone again, to prevent which he engrossed
him to himself, and kept him drinking. This cursed method many take to drown their
convictions, and harden their own hearts and the hearts of others in sin. 2. The city was
very sad upon it (and the other cities of the kingdom, no doubt, when they had notice of
it): The city Shushan was perplexed, not only the Jews themselves, but all their
neighbours that had any principles of justice and compassion. It grieved them to see
their king so abused, to see wickedness in the place of judgment (Ecc_3:16), to see men
that lived peaceably treated so barbarously; and what would be the consequences of it to
themselves they knew not. But the king and Haman cared for none of these things. Note,
It is an absurd and impious thing to indulge ourselves in mirth and pleasure when the
church is in distress and the public are perplexed.
JAMISO , "the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan
was perplexed — The completeness of the word-painting in this verse is exquisite. The
historian, by a simple stroke, has drawn a graphic picture of an Oriental despot,
wallowing with his favorite in sensual enjoyments, while his tyrannical cruelties were
rending the hearts and homes of thousands of his subjects.

92. K&D, "Est_3:15
The posts went forth hastening (‫ף‬ ַ‫ח‬ ָ like 2Ch_26:20) at the king's commandment, and
the decree was given (promulgated) in the citadel of Susa, - an explanatory clause; and
the king and Haman sat down to drink while the messengers went forth with the decree,
but the city of Susa, in which it was first published, was in perplexity (on ‫ה‬ ָ‫ּוכ‬‫ב‬ָ‫נ‬ comp.
Exo_14:3; Joe_1:18). The cruel measure could not but fill all peace-loving citizens with
horror and anxiety. - Here the question is forced upon us, why the decree should have
been so prematurely published. The scribes were summoned to prepare it on the
thirteenth day of the first month. For this purpose, even though many copies had to be
made in different languages, no very long time would be required in a well-appointed
government office. As soon as the scribes had finished their work, the decree was sent
out by the posts into all quarters of the realm, and would arrive in even the most distant
provinces in three weeks at furthest. This would place almost eleven, and in the remotest
parts about ten months between the publication and execution of the decree. What then
was the motive for such an interval? Certainly so long a time could not be required for
preparing to carry it out, nor is this hinted at in the text, as Bertheau supposes. Nor
could it be intended that the Jews should suffer a long period of anxiety. On the
contrary, the motive seems to have been, as Clericus and others have already
conjectured, to cause many Jews to leave their property and escape to other lands, for
the sake of preserving their lives. Thus Haman would attain his object. He would be
relieved of the presence of the Jews, and be able to enrich himself by the appropriation
of their possessions. On the other hand, the providence of God overruling the event in
the interest of the Jews, is unmistakeably evident both in Haman's haste to satisfy his
desire for vengeance, and in the falling of the lot upon so distant a day. It was only
because there was so long an interval between the publication of the decree and the day
appointed by lot for its execution, that it was possible for the Jews to take means for
averting the destruction with which they were threatened, as the further development of
the history will show.
ELLICOTT, "(15) Perplexed.—The inhabitants of the capital were puzzled and
alarmed, as well they might be, at so marvellously reckless an order. Their
sympathies, too, were clearly with the Jews and against Haman. (See Esther 8:15.)
COKE, "Esther 3:15. But the city Shushan was perplexed— ot only the Jews, but
a great many others in Shushan, might be concerned at this horrid decree, either
because they were engaged with them in worldly concerns, or perhaps out of mere
humanity and compassion to such a number of innocent people, now appointed as
sheep to the slaughter. They might apprehend likewise, that, upon the execution of
the decree, some sedition or tumult might ensue; that in so great a slaughter it was
hard to tell who would escape being killed or plundered, became those who were
employed in this bloody work would be more mindful to enrich themselves than to
observe their orders. See Patrick and Le Clerc.

93. REFLECTIO S.—The people of God must not long expect the sunshine of
prosperity. Though they had a queen on the throne, and a friend at court, a storm
arises which threatens to swallow them up with universal destruction.
1. Haman the Agagite, an hereditary enemy of the Jews, is advanced to the first post
of honour, becomes the king's favourite, and receives, at his command, such
adoration and reverence as approached idolatry.
2. The rising sun is universally worshipped by the fawning courtiers; and, as
preferment could be hoped for only through the favourite's interest, all men bowed
down before him. Mordecai alone could not conform to the extravagant honours
paid him; not envious of his advancement, nor proudly disrespectful, but
conscientiously withheld from such impious adoration. In vain his fellow-servants
advise compliance, or remonstrate on the danger of refusal: he chooses rather to lose
his office, or life itself, than wound his conscience. ote; o consideration must
sway or influence us to comply with what is evil. Better incur the wrath of princes,
than offend the King of kings; better hazard life, than lose body and soul in hell.
3. Haman was soon informed of this obstinate disrespect, and that this Jew pleaded
religion as the reason for refusing this adoration to a mortal man. His pride fired at
the intelligence, and he resolved to wreak his vengeance, not only on him, but on all
his nation. ote; (1.) The resentment of favourites has been often fatal to the
worthiest subjects; but, in the end, they are generally made to drink of the cup
which they had mixed for others. (2.) Insolent pride begets unrelenting cruelty.
TRAPP, "Esther 3:15 The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s
commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan the palace. And the king and
Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed.
Ver. 15. The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment] As if the
enemy had been at the gates, and his crown had hanged on the one side of his head;
he could not have been more earnest and diligent in such a case than he now is. So
much set upon it are God’s enemies, to bring their evil purposes to pass that till then
neither themselves nor others can be suffered to rest for them. Quicquid volunt,
valde volunt, bearing down with crest and breast whatsoever stands in the way of
their sinful lusts. What a shame is it, then, for saints not to be zealous of good
works, valiant for the truth, and violent for the kingdom.
And the decree was given in Shushan the palace] Pependit, saith the Vulgate, it
hung up upon the posts to be read by all, the king not shaming to have his privities
seen (as the phrase is, Ezra 4:14), to traduce himself (as it were) in a public theatre,
for a foolish and oppressive prince; neither caring what might be the evil
consequents thereof, so that he may satisfy his own lust, and gratity his minion.
And the king and Haman sat down to drink] So to drown the noise of conscience (if

94. not altogether dead and dedolent), and so to nourish their hearts as in a day of
slaughter. Thus Joseph’s brethren, when they had cast him into the pit, sat down to
eat bread, Genesis 37:25, when it had been better for them to have wept for their
wickedness. So did the Israelites when they had made them a golden calf, Exodus
32:6. Herod feasteth when he had cast the Baptist into prison, Matthew 14:6. The
antichristian rout, revel, and riot, when they had slain the two witnesses, Revelation
11:10. The pope proclaimed a jubilee upon the Parisian Massacre. The king of
France swore that he never smelled anything more sweet than the admiral’s carcase,
when it stank with long lying. As for his head, he sent it for a present to the queen
mother. And she, embalming it, sent it to her holy father the pope for an assurance
of the death of his most capital enemy. Thuanus writeth that the pope caused that
massacre to be painted in his palace. Had the gunpowder plot succeeded it should
have been portrayed, surely, in his chapel or oratory. Fawkes was to get into the
fields to see the sport; for they made no other reckoning, but that all was their own.
o more did the king and Haman here, and hence their jollity, but it proved
somewhat otherwise. God oft suffereth his enemies to have the ball on the foot till
they come to the very goal, and yet then to make them to miss the game. He loveth to
make fools of them, to let them go to the utmost of their tedder, and then to pull
them back with shame to their task.
But the city Shushan was perplexed] That is, the Jews that dwelt there; together
with the rest that loved them, and wished well to them. These wept, saith the
Vulgate Latin; were in heaviness, say others; they were intricated, ensnared, at their
wit’s end, so that they knew not what to do (as the word here signifieth), only their
eyes were toward the hills, from whence should come their help. Their comfort was
to consider, that melior est tristitia iniqua patientis, quam laetitia iniqua facientis
(August.). Better is the perplexity of him that suffereth evil than the jollity of him
that doth evil. Deliverance would come, they believed, Esther 4:14, but whence they
knew not. Hard things may be mollified, crooked things straightened. on omnium
dierum sol occidit, While there is a sun to set I will not despair of a good issue, as
Queen Elizabeth said when she was most perplexed, as being to be sent prisoner to
the Tower, than the which never went anything nearer to her heart.
WHEDO , "15. The king and Haman sat down to drink — Like the most cool and
bloodthirsty tyrants.
Shushan was perplexed — There were many Jews in Shushan, as we may infer from
Esther 9:12, and these would at once be filled with horror and dismay. And with
this feeling every thoughtful citizen would naturally sympathize, and wonder what
would be the end of such a system of wholesale slaughter. o such massacre could
be carried out without incalculable danger to many others besides the Jews.
LA GE, "Esther 3:15.The posts went out, being hastened,etc.—‫חוּף‬ָ‫,דּ‬ went speedily,
in haste; in 2 Chronicles 26:20 is the iph. ‫ַף‬‫ח‬ְ‫ִד‬‫נ‬. The additional clause: and the
decree was given in Shushan the palace means to assert from whence they went out.
But the remark: And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of

95. Shushan was perplexed reveals the terrible contrast between the gluttony of these
men and the distress into which they plunged the land. It also indicates by what
means Haman sought to draw the king away from the business of government. ‫ָה‬‫כ‬‫ָבוֹ‬‫נ‬
primarily does not mean that it was distressed by terror or sorrow, but that it was
perplexed, did not know what to think of such a terrible command (comp. Joel
1:18); in an external sense ‫ָבוְֹך‬‫נ‬ means to have erred ( Exodus 15:3).[F 23]
BI, "And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed.
Society broken into sections
Alas! how society is broken up into sections—one part caring little for another that is
closest to it, and at the very moment pressing upon it for sympathy and succour. Stone
walls were all that separated these two men from an agonising population, and yet they
were as insensible to the sufferings which were without as though they had been
hundreds of miles removed from that scene of perplexity and dismay. How many are in
suffering in every great city! How many tears are being shed, groans of distress uttered,
pangs of anguish, and remorse endured! But the world takes no notice of them—enjoys
its ease, and dulls all sensibility to the pain of others by sensual delights. “What is that to
us? see thou to that,” is still the reply of the world to those who have been its slaves.
Happy shall be the time when the gospel shall have rectified this state of things; when
each shall regard himself, like the Saviour, as a minister to others; when the wide
breaches of fashion and caste shall be bridged over and healed; when priest and Levite
shall disappear in the compassionate Samaritan; when every man shall look not upon his
own things, but also on the things of others, and when society, from the highest to the
lowest, shall be a holy, sympathising, loving brotherhood, possessed of the spirit and
imitating the example of our Lord Jesus Christ! It was not the Jews only who were
distressed and alarmed, but the whole community—some, because in the destruction of
the Jews they would themselves suffer in friendship or outward estate—others from
feelings of humanity at the prospective slaughter of good citizens and unoffending
women and children—some through fear that a deed so cruel and horrible might lead to
an insurrection in the provinces, and an indiscriminate plundering and murdering
among the inhabitants—and others lest such an unrighteous decree might provoke the
judgment of the Almighty. The city was panic-stricken. If the king was to act thus
arbitrarily and unreasonably in one instance, might he not do so in many ways? (T.
McEwan.)
Self-indulgence
How self-indulgence renders men callous to the distresses and sufferings of their fellow-
men. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)
The irregularities of human conditions
I. The inequalities of human conditions.
1. The most striking instance of inequality is that which is illustrated between the
condition of the oppressor and the oppressed.
2. This is further illustrated by the contrast between the jollity of the palace and the

96. perplexity of the city.
3. The indifference of one class of the community towards another and seemingly
less favoured class is brought to view in this passage.
4. This indifference has its root in and is the outcome of selfishness.
II. The mysteries of human conditions. Haman feasting with the king, Mordecai
mourning at the king’s gate.
III. The compensating forces of human conditions. The pleasure of Ahasuerus was not a
permanent stream. The glory of Haman was soon tarnished. The sorrow of Mordecai was
turned into laughter.
IV. The sympathetic element in human conditions. Sorrow draws men and women more
closely together than joy. When one part of a city suffers, the whole of the city should be
perplexed.
V. The harmonising principle for human conditions. What principle is there that is to
adjust in fit proportions the various parts and members of human society? The gospel
rightly understood, broadly interpreted, and fully received. The gospel dethrones
selfishness, and teaches the true brotherhood of humanity.
VI. The true sustaining power for all human conditions: “Even our faith.” The true help
in life’s difficulties is to go into the sanctuary of God. By faith and prayer the world’s true
heroes have ever conquered. Here learn—
1. To keep away from sensuality, which hardens the nature.
2. To cultivate sympathy, which ennobles the nature.
3. To foster firm faith in an overruling power, which brightens life.
4. To have respect unto the harmonies of heaven amid the discords of earth. (W.
Burrows, B. A.).
LA GE, "DOCTRI AL A D ETHICAL
On Esther 3:1 to Esther 7:1. Mordecai’s meritorious Acts, though recorded, had not
yet been rewarded. One would naturally think that at this period he would obtain
the deserved honor. But instead it is expected of him on his part to do honor to a
man such as Haman, who was the sworn enemy of his people and a bitter opponent
of the Jewish law; who finally, as an Agagite, was under the curse of God. Esther,

97. who no doubt was true to Judaism, although she had not yet openly professed it,
was seated on the throne as the chosen queen. And now one would be led to expect—
certainly the Jews hoped—that she would bring the people relief from oppression,
and restore for them liberty which would secure them from injuries such as they
had hitherto experienced, or at least had been threatened with. Instead of this,
Haman, empowered with full authority, resolves to wholly exterminate the people;
indeed he is in haste, although this exterminating process was to begin only after
eleven months, to make the people acquainted with their fate long before the event
comes to pass. ow it happens that Haman thereby utterly ruins their holiest joy,
and the season of Paschal rejoicing is converted into a time of distress and grief. It
seems by such notice as if the people could no more place any reliance in their God
as their Saviour; as if their Lord, who had at one time chosen them as His peculiar
people, and who, if He would, could even now deliver them from the distress of exile,
was no more to be the source of their joy. But, however unexpectedly these turns in
their affairs may seem to some, and however the question might be raised, which is
so often mooted, why it must thus transpire, seemingly against all hope; still that
which came to pass was not so very surprising, but quite natural. One would very
naturally expect of a prince who, like Ahasuerus, did not live to perform his duties,
but to indulge in sensual gratification,— who sought, not the welfare of his subjects,
but their wealth, would leave the power and government in the hands of men who
knew how to flatter his weaknesses and to gratify his desires.
But above all, we cannot but notice the sharp contrast between the heathen state, as
such, and the people of God. It looks very much like a merely casual human
command, when Ahasuerus decreed that every one should bow the knee to such a
man as Haman, and as if this single instance called forth a conflict. But in reality
there is expressed the unconditional subordination which the state, especially the
heathen one, must insist upon in reference to its laws and regulations. So long as the
latter have proceeded not from the Spirit of God, but from the unregenerate
heathen heart, so long will they contain demands to which the people of God cannot
subject themselves. So long as the State is not entirely irreligious, it will be even
inclined to operate within the religious domain, and thus the conflict takes its rise
immediately between it and the people of God. We may also expect that the state
will avail itself of such instruments to carry out its orders as of themselves are little
disposed to be friendly to God’s people; instruments who, because of that people’s
peculiarities, look upon them as a disturbing element, and are little disposed to
exercise forbearance and toleration towards them. The people of God, on the other
hand, have their obligation to obey all authorities under whose dominion they may
be placed, even to the extent that they must endure condemnation to death, and
suffer execution ( Romans 13:1 sqq.). But they are equally obligated to give honor to
God and not to man. They can only give honor to man in so far as God has so
ordered it. They must refuse honor to those who are opposed to God, at the risk of
provoking the most powerful and dangerous men of authority in the government.
There is in short a great contrast between those who know nothing higher than the
law of the state and state religion and those who look above and beyond these to the
true and living God, and who supremely reverence His law. This contrast in later
times gave rise to the wars of the Maccabees, and still later, though differently in

98. form, to the war against the Romans; and it was this, too, which more especially
brought on the persecutions of the Christians. In short, it is the contrast which in
the history of mankind has asserted its power even at the cost of conflict for life or
death. It is so irreconcilable and so powerful that it could not and can not be
removed by any compromise whatever, but only unconditional subjection on the one
part—namely, of the kingdom of the world—and by victory on the other—namely,
of the kingdom of God. This contrast has always revived anew where the powers of
the world have thrown off from themselves the bands of the Lord and His anointed.
Berlenburg Bible: “That believers obey not the laws of the king has always been the
chief complaint among the anti-Christian rabble, of which Haman furnishes a copy.
The children of God, in their eyes, must ever be insurrectionists, disturbers of the
peace, persons subject to no law or order, and by whom the public weal is
endangered.” Thus we have expressed the view in which Christ and His apostles
were regarded ( Luke 23:2; Luke 23:5). But this is the greatest of all falsehoods.”
2. It is not only offended ambition that incites Haman against Mordecai; it is also
hate against Judaism. It offends him that it has privileges and laws so different from
those of the other peoples in the empire (comp. Esther 3:8). Hence he is not content
to lay hands on Mordecai alone, but he resolves also to exterminate all Jews. As his
offended ambition strengthens his hate against Judaism, his hate receives fresh
occasion from the offence to his ambitious designs on the part of Mordecai. The
contrast between him and Mordecai has therefore a more general and deeper
reason. Even Mordecai’s religion is endangered thereby. Haman demands the
bowing of the knee, because according to the Persian notion, Deity is thereby
honored in him. This is to him a religious rite. This is especially clear from the fact
that he does not himself arbitrarily determine the day in which he will carry out his
designs respecting the Jews, but he is rather dependent on the voice of Deity, as it is
revealed to him by means of the casting of the lot. evertheless he gives religion a
subordinate position in his thoughts, tendencies, desires and purposes,—so that the
former really becomes merely a means to the latter. It is just the opposite with
Mordecai. Had it lain in his power to determine, he would doubtless cheerfully have
obeyed the king’s order to bow the knee before Haman. He no doubt comprehended
the greatness of the danger that threatened him in case of refusal. He would perhaps
the more easily have given in, since no doubt a voice often whispered in his ear that
it might be very questionable whether or not he should view Haman as an Agagite,
as one rejected of God. But the facts were too plain, and God’s Word required
Mordecai to abominate instead of honoring Haman. This he must perform not only
when it was most agreeable to his disposition, but also in the most opposite case.
Viewed in this light Haman and Mordecai clearly indicate to us that the emphatic
difference between heathen and Jew is true piety. The former serves when the
worship of deity is only worship of self; in the lower plane it is only worship of
nature and of the flesh; in the higher grades it has its basis in worship of human
ideals. True piety, however, is a surrender to another will, to the will of the Holy
God. Hence the former perfectly corresponds to the selfish manner of men, as they
live at present, because of sin; the other opposes this in sharp contrast. But while the
first is a flatterer, who, if any man will give heed, will deceive, the latter is a trusty

99. friend who will lead upon a right way and toward salvation.
Brenz: “Satan, as Christ says, is a liar and a murderer. Hence he is ever busy in
persecuting the church with his lying and murderous designs. You have heard
before his lie: ‘The people are using new laws and ceremonies, and they despise the
edicts of the king.’ ow hear his murderous words: ‘If it pleases thee, decree that
this people be destroyed.’ ” Feuardent: “The sorrowful condition of the Jews
becomes very apparent and plain as here revealed; likewise the just judgment of
God is here fulfilled. He says: ‘They would not obey God in their own land, where
they enjoyed such great freedom, but now they groan under the severe service that
presses upon them, and they are brought into the risk of life itself. They refused to
assemble in the sanctuaries of Jerusalem under their own kings, they ran after the
golden calves, the sacred groves, and idols and superstitions of the heathen. ow
they are placed and scattered under the most tyrannical form of government. They
neither can nor dare congregate to offer a service of praise to God.” Starke: “A man
resigned to the will of God will disregard the laws of men, whenever these stand
opposed to the will and laws of God, however much he may suffer thereby ( Acts
5:19; Daniel 6:10 sq.). Although we should hold in honor those whom the higher
authorities command to be honored, still such homage must not conflict with that
due to God. When men disobey the laws of man and violate them, it is very soon
taken notice of ( Daniel 6:11-13); but if they violate the law of God, then no one
seems to observe the fact. We should not make man our idol, nor make flesh our
arm ( Jeremiah 17:5). Immoderate ambition generally breaks out into cruelty. The
anger of great men is fierce ( Proverbs 16:14); hence one should have a care not to
arouse the same against one’s self.”
On Esther 3:2-7. The people of God, in the conflict with their enemies, may rely on
the protection of God, if they are morally in the right. Thus also the enemies of such
people will be their own destroyers by virtue of their machinations. Such is the tenor
of this whole book. But a more difficult question arises here, whether Mordecai, in
refusing to bow the knee to Haman, and thereby bringing on the conflict, was really
in the right. This question is the more grave, inasmuch as Haman could not properly
be termed either an Agagite or an Amalekite; and all turned upon a form of homage
proper and permissible in itself. The question would be more simple if Haman, as
opposed to Mordecai, had been only a private individual. That in that case the
latter’s conduct would have been right and proper, cannot be doubted. As the Lord
sanctioned enmity against all that are like-minded to Amalek in the command:
“Remember what Amalek did unto thee” ( Deuteronomy 25:17), David justifies
himself before God in hating those that hate God, and is grieved at those who raise
themselves against Him; indeed he hates them with perfect hatred ( Psalm 139:21-
22). When he would recount the chief characteristics of a truly pious person in the
church, he makes this trait prominent ( Psalm 15:4). This, according to Luther,
means that the just man is no respecter of persons; nor does he care how holy,
learned, or powerful one be. If virtue be reflected from any one, the just man will
honor him, though he were even a beggar. But if virtue be not found in him, then he
will be esteemed as bad, and as nothing; the righteous man will tell him of it, and
censure him. He will tell him, “Thou dost despise the Word of God, thou dost

100. slander thy neighbor; therefore I desire no connection with thee.” The Christian
must in like manner perform this duty. He must do it for the sake of mercy, if no
other means will avail; or for the sake of truth, which pronounces evil to be evil, and
censures it. He must hold up to reproof him who by a persistent immoral life brings
disgrace upon the name of Jesus Christ, or even by his conduct manifests enmity
against the same. This the Christian should do often, not only as respects the
particular person, but also as respects his acts or disposition. In regard to this,
Harless says very justly: “It were a gross error to think that the Christian should
content himself with reproving simply the offence and its tendency, but that
thereafter he could nevertheless maintain personal and external relations with such
a person. On the contrary, the blessings of the Spirit of Christ given to His church,
will materially depend upon the principle that in the selection of personal
companionship the consciousness and true unity which should unite the church
must be maintained by external separation. The Christian, in so far as it depends on
his own selection and is consistent with his calling, should avoid the society of those
whose disposition he has found to be reprobate. We cannot term it other than a lack
of Christian consistency when such Christians call it Christian love to seek out
society from all the world in an indiscriminate manner, and cultivate it, and that
according to one’s own choice (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:33, etc.)” (Christliche Ethik,
§ 47, p456, 7th ed.). But all this has reference primarily only to the relation of the
common intercourse of neighbors. Haman was to Mordecai an official magisterial
person. Besides, it was expressly commanded by the king that he should be thus
honored by bowing the knee before him. Hence the command: “Honor thy father
and mother,” and also the other that, “one should not revile the gods, nor curse the
ruler of thy people” ( Exodus 22:27), demanded respect. either was the precept to
be forgotten: “My Song of Solomon, fear thou the Lord and the king” ( Proverbs
24:21). In the ew Testament the two chief apostles exhort us to submission under
authority: Paul in Romans 13:1 sqq.; Peter in 1 Peter 2:13 sqq. Peter closes the
paragraph cited with the words: “Fear God. Honor the king.” If by the word honor
we are to understand merely the rendering of obedience, as seems to be implied in
verse13, then it would not be doubtful as to its proper limits. The word of the
apostle: “We ought to obey God rather than man” ( Acts 5:29) is very conclusive
and direct, and needs no further confirmation. The church-fathers of the first
centuries, in treating of this point, strongly assert that we should honor the
authorities in, and not as opposed to God. Comp. J. Gerhard, in De magistrate
politico, § 474. Then when the stability of order within an organized community is
attacked and overthrown in defiance of right,—and such was the situation in Persia
when Haman in an inimical manner attacked the Jews, who up to this time had had
the undisputed right to live according to their law and faith; when he became to
them an Agagite and an Amalekite,—then resistance, and individual participation
therein, is justified and commanded. This, of course, holds within the limits of the
existing order of a people and of the individual calling. Stahl [Die Partheien in Staat
u. Kirche, p288), as also Harless (Christl. Ethik, § 54), is very clear on this point
that, “the doctrine of the blamableness of any active resistance, and the
unconditioned obligation of passive obedience is opposed to the Christian’s sacred
maintenance of right. So also is the assumption false that obedience must be
rendered to authority because it is authority, even though it deny and disregard all

101. right and law in the enforcement of its own claims to authority—an authority which
it has not received for its own sake, but because of the right whose guardian and
executor it is its calling to be” (Harless, as above, p541). Hoffmann (Schriftbeweiss,
II, 2, p409) speaks from the same conviction: “It is certainly not morally permissible
that one people rise against the righteous order in the existing government of
another people, or of a foreign ruler. But it is a moral duty that it should not submit
to be despoiled by a foreign power of that element, which, in God’s order, is
essential to its existence and to its substantial peculiarity.” Experience has ever
proved that resistance grounded upon a good conscience, and supported by so high
and noble an enthusiasm, is indeed countenanced by God in so decided a manner,
that no force, however great, can accomplish anything against it. It is worthy of
notice that the command to honor the king and secular authority demands more
than obedience, it embraces also regard and homage. Hence arises the question,
whether or not we ought to meet certain persons with esteem and homage, to whom
we must refuse obedience, indeed against whom—in contrast with Mordecai— we
are compelled to offer resistance. There are doubtless many cases where these
conditions obtain. Such a case would especially occur where the authorities think
that right is on their side. When they proceed from a different view or conviction
with reference to the case, they are by no means to be disregarded. The admonition
in 1 Peter 2:18 is in place here: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear;
not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” ow if the authorities, as
says Harless, really assume to disregard and deny right and law, in its claim of
jurisdiction, which it can only have as the guardian and executor of justice, then
practically it ceases to be authority. If it sanction oppression and pillage; if it touch
the existing right, religion, and conscience, then it becomes a chief enemy of those
who will not submit to the spoiling of these possessions—for so did Haman, nor
otherwise could he justly be called an Agagite.
Hence homage can only be denied to the magisterial office where the bearer of the
name is regarded as unworthy of the position he occupies. An external homage, in
connection with which one must manifest hostility, would then become hypocrisy,
and the more so since instead of giving the honor due from a sincere heart, we can
only despise and execrate. To refuse it is only to act honestly, though it often
requires courage. This is the more necessary since the opposition is grounded upon
and confined to what is permitted according to right and calling. As was the case
with Mordecai, we should take an early opportunity to manifest our determination
to refuse homage to authority, since its false ways cannot be too severely
condemned.
On Esther 3:8-15. 1. So long as Israel possessed a political independence the chief
support of its religion had been the State. The State had jurisdiction over its own
laws and those of religion. ow, however, the State takes an opposite stand to its
religion. The complaint of Human was, that this people had different laws from
those of the other peoples of the kingdom, and hence did not obey those of the king
(which was correct as regarded the laws that were opposed to its own). For this
reason also, Ahasuerus permitted the decree for the extermination of Israel. The
State, even at this period, could not avoid demanding decided submission; and

102. where it encountered insuperable obstinacy it adopted extreme measures, even
banishment and extermination. But it would have been better had it been tolerant to
the last degree. All the means of might were at its command, by which to carry out
its will. All the offices and organizations which the State had established for the
weal of its subjects, as is indicated in Esther 3:12; Esther 3:15, could have been
employed in their subjection. One might feel inclined to ask whether, in view of all
these things, there remained any hope for Mordecai; whether his opposition did not,
at the very beginning, promise to be futile. Doubtless his hope was in Him for whose
honor he was jealous; namely, in the living God. That Being now desires to make
manifest for all ages by a striking example, that He can sustain His people, not only
without the aid of any civil power, but also in opposition to a foreign State. Indeed
He can preserve it even amid the heathen, in spite of all distracting elements. Hence
the church need not fear, be the relation of the State what it may. The Lord knows
how to make even the most unfavorable circumstances serviceable and useful to the
church.
2. If now we inquire upon what natural basis Mordecai could establish his hope,
then we observe that truth was on his side. That which is rejected of God, instead of
being honored, is to be abhorred. Hence for him who believed in the true God, no
doubt existed but that this truth would eventually obtain a more general
recognition. But in order to this, a still longer development was needed.
Heathendom must first become conscious of itself, i.e., of its own weakness and
impotence, which were a part of its existence in spite of all external power; then only
can it learn to know the true God. For the present, it was the weakness and failing,
which attached to the leaders of heathenism, that offered resting-places for the
helping hand of God. Whether these were already well known to Mordecai is
doubtful; but to our eyes they are already manifest in this chapter. Haman would
not venture to come before Ahasuerus and exhibit his wounded vanity and spirit of
revenge; and Ahasuerus does not desire to reveal the fact that he is anxious to
possess the money of the Jews. However, with the former vanity, and with the latter
an inordinate desire for money, plays the chief part. They would have it appear as if
their acts were done under the impulse of right and duty. They would kill off the
people of God with proper decency. They dissemble; but they thereby gain only a
self-condemnation of their own evil motives. An official who is guilty of dissembling,
is in danger of being unmasked; and a prince who is so weak as to be led by a
motive of which he must needs be ashamed, especially in such a grave and
extraordinary occurrence, easily exposes also other weaknesses. Hence it would not
be difficult for others likewise to gain the ascendency over him, who could easily
dissuade him from a purpose, even after the same had become an irrevocable edict.
The remark at the close of the chapter is also very significant and characteristic. A
prince and an officer who at the time when the inhabitants of their chief city are in
the greatest consternation, when above all an entire people is thrown into mortal
fear of their life, can sit down to eat and drink, manifest either an inhumanity,
which would easily arouse a general revolt, or an evil conscience which already
foretells the failure of their plans. If we ask respecting the natural foundations upon
which the expectation of an eventual victory of Christianity is based, in the face of
all the assaults and dangers to which it is exposed, then the power of truth, as it

103. breaks its way and compels universal recognition, would emphatically answer the
question, and be the main point of reliance. The experience of centuries teaches one
fact definitely and variously, that there is salvation in no other, and that no other
name is given to men whereby they may be saved, than the name of Jesus Christ.
But the weaknesses of those who deem themselves strong will over be a matter of
observation. Christians should be better informed than they often are, of the
impotency and nothingness of those in opposition to them. They have a clear right to
the question: What can men do to us? Even their opponents must acknowledge, if
they are not too much blinded, that in those nations among which the pure faith
reigns supreme, there is a different type of fidelity, conscientiousness, devotion, and
readiness to make sacrifices than among those who have been dried up by the sun of
false enlightenment. The course of events will soon compel them to see their mistake.
Brenz: “This is plainly what Christ afterwards said to His little church; that Isaiah,
His disciples: ‘Verily, verily I say unto you, ye shall weep and Lamentations, but the
world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into
joy.’ For as in the passion of Christ the chief priests triumphed, and the soldiers
mocked, but Christ hung on the cross and was afflicted with exceeding misery, so
the joy of the wicked will be at its highest over the sorrow of the godly.… But that is
most true which we read: ‘The triumphing of the wicked (is) short, and the joy of
the hypocrite (but) for a moment. Though his excellency mount up to the heavens
and his head reach unto the clouds; (yet) he shall perish for ever like his own dang:
they which have seen him shall say, Where (is) he?’ ” Feuardent: “Observe now how
active everything is in this matter, and how all conspires for the extermination of the
people of God. The terrible sentence is defined and described in as many languages
and modes as there are peoples in the empire.....But while the godly are in great
distress, as they anticipate the fatal day of the cruel execution, the king and Haman
indulge in drunkenness and lust and joy. So perisheth the righteous, and no man
layeth it to heart ( Isaiah 57:1). So the servants of God are oppressed by the agents
of the Devil. So cruelty triumphs.....But it is well. There is a God in the heavens.”
Starke: “When wicked men cannot otherwise persecute the pious, then his religion
and laws must furnish them with a cause and a covering for their evil intentions (
Acts 16:21-22). In important matters it is not good to render a hasty judgment, it is
better to reflect ( Isaiah 28:7). God permits the wicked to have success beyond their
own expectation at times, but afterward destruction will come all the more
unexpectedly. ( Psalm 37:35-36; Job 10:45.”)
Footnotes:
F #1 - Esther 3:2. The different degrees of deference are well expressed by these
two terms, of which the first, ‫ע‬ ַ‫ָר‬‫כּ‬, denotes a simple inclination of the body as to an
equal in courtesy, and the latter, ‫ָה‬‫ח‬ָ‫שׁ‬ a complete prostration in Oriental style of
homage to a superior.—Tr.]
F #2 - Esther 3:3. The pronoun is emphatic, being expressed.—Tr.]
F #3 - Esther 3:5. ‫ָה‬‫מ‬ֵ‫ח‬, a more intense feeling than the ordinary ‫—.אַף‬Tr.]

104. F #4 - Esther 3:7. ‫ִיל‬‫פ‬ִ‫ה‬ is impersonal, one caused to fall.—Tr.]
F #5 - Esther 3:8. ‫נוֹ‬ ְ‫ֶשׁ‬‫י‬ the ‫נ‬ is epenthetic for euphony between the verbal noun ‫ֵשׁ‬‫י‬
and its suffix ‫—.וֹ‬Tr.]
F #6 - Esther 3:8. The original is emphatic, “And there is none of them doing.”—
Tr.]
F #7 - Esther 3:12. The true construction is “In province by [lit. and] province was
it written,” etc.—Tr.]
F #8 - Esther 3:13. ‫ף‬ַ‫,ט‬ a collective term for girls and boys.—Tr.]
F #9 - Esther 3:14. The original is emphatic, “In every province, and province, i.e.,
severally.—Tr.]
F #10 - “The name Haman is probably the same which is found in the classical
writers under the form of Omanes, and which in ancient Persian would have been
Umana or Umanish, an exact equivalent of the Greek Eumenes. Hammedatha is
perhaps the same as Madata or Mahadata (‘Madatos’ of Q. Curtius), an old Persian
name signifying “given by (or to) the moon.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #11 - “It is certainly difficult to assign any other meaning to the word; but on the
other hand it seems unlikely that Agag’s children, if he had any, would have been
spared at the time of the great destruction of Amalek, without some distinct notice
being taken of it. Haman, moreover, by his own name, and the names of his sons (
Esther 9:7-9), and of his father, would seem to have been a genuine Persian.”
Rawlinson.—We may therefore conclude that the epithet “Agagite” is here used
symbolically of a heathen enemy of the Jews.—Tr.]
F #12 - “In the West such an idea as this would never have occurred to a revengeful
man; but in the East it is different. The massacres of a people, a race, a class, have at
all times been among the incidents of history, and would naturally present
themselves to the mind of a statesman. The Magophonia, or a great massacre of the
Magi at the accession of Darius Hystaspis, was an event not fifty years old in the
twelfth year of Xerxes, and was commemorated annually. A massacre of the
Scythians had occurred about a century previously.” Raw linson.—TR.]
F #13 - “Pur is supposed to be an Old-Persian word etymologically connected with
the Latin pars, and signifying “part or “lot.” In modern Persian pareh has that
meaning. The recovered fragments of the old language have not, however, yielded
any similar root.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #14 - “The practice of casting lots to obtain a lucky day continues still in the East,
and is probably extremely ancient. Assyrian calendars note lucky and unlucky days
as early as the eighth century B. C. Lots were in use both among the Oriental and

105. the classical nations from a remote antiquity.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #15 - “A lot seems to have been cast, or a throw of some kind made, for each day
of the month and each month of the year. The day and month which obtained the
best throws were then selected.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #16 - “Although a part of the Jewish nation had returned to Jerusalem with
Zerubbabel, the greater portion was still despised among the provinces, in
Babylonia, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere (see Ezra 7:6; Ezra 8:17; ehemiah 1:1-2,
etc.).” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #17 - “Compare the charges made against the Jews by Rehum and Shimshai (
Ezra 4:13-16).” Rawlinson.–Tr.]
F #18 - “According to Herodotus (III:95), the regular revenue of the Persian king
consisted of14,560 silver talents, so that if the same talent is intended, Haman’s offer
would have exceeded two-thirds of a year’s revenue (or two and a half millions
sterling). With respect to the ability of Persian subjects to make presents to this
amount, it is enough to quote the offer of Pythius (Herod. VII:28) to present this
same monarch with four millions of gold darics, or about four and a half millions of
our money, and the further statement of the same writer (Herod. I:192), that a
certain satrap of Babylon had a revenue of nearly two bushels of silver daily.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #19 - “The signets of Persian monarchs were sometimes rings, sometimes
cylinders, the latter probably suspended by a string round the wrist. The expression
here used might apply to either kind of signet.” Rawlinson.—TR]
F #20 - “Some understand this to mean that Xerxes refused the silver which
Haman had offered to him; but the passage is better explained as a grant to him of
all the property of such Jews as should be executed. In the East confiscation follows
necessarily upon public execution, the goods of criminals escheating to the crown,
which does with them as it chooses (comp. Esther 3:13 ad fin, and Esther 8:1; Esther
8:11 ad fin.). Rawlinson.— Tr.]
F #21 - “Haman had apparently (comp. Esther 3:7 with Esther 3:13) obtained by
his use of the lot the 13 th day of Adar as the lucky day for destroying the Jews. This
may have caused him to fix on the 13 th of another month for the commencement of
his enterprise.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #22 - “By the issue of the decree at this time (‘the first month’) the Jews
throughout the empire had from nine to eleven months’ warning of the peril which
threatened them. So long a notice is thought to be ‘incredible’ (Davidson), and the
question is asked, ‘Why did they not then quit the kingdom?’ In reply we may say—
(1) that many of them may have quitted the kingdom; and (2) that those who
remained may have believed, with Mordecai ( Esther 4:14), that enlargement and
deliverance would arise from some quarter or other. As to its being improbable that

106. Haman should give such long notice, we may remark that Haman only wished to be
quit of Mordecai, and that the flight of the Jews would have served his purpose
quite as well as their massacre.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #23 - “The remark that ‘Shushan was perplexed’ has been attributed to ‘Jewish
conceit,’ but without reason. Susa was now the capital of Persia, and the main
residence of the Persians of high rank. These, being attached to the religion of
Zoroaster, would naturally sympathize with the Jews, and be disturbed at their
threatened destruction. ay even apart from this bond of union, the decree was
sufficiently strange and ominous to ‘perplex’ thoughtful citizens.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]