A verse by verse commentary on Esther 3 dealing with the plot of Haman to destroy the entire population of the Jews.

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