Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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.
Chap. Est 3:1-6. Haman offended by Mordecai’s refusal to make obeisance
1. After these things ] i.e. between the seventh (Est 2:16) and the twelfth ( Est 3:7) years of Xerxes’ reign.
Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite ] Haman’s name has been held to be another form of Humman or Humban, an Elamite deity, and that of his father to be connected with the Persian mh and data, thus signifying given by the moon. The description of Haman as an ‘Agagite’ is perplexing. The following views have been held.
( a) Josephus ( Ant. xi. 6. 5) and the Targum understand the statement literally to mean that Haman was descended from Agag, king of Amalek, the latter availing itself of the opportunity of giving a complete genealogy through Amalek to Esau (see Gen 36:12). If we accept this explanation of the word, we can see the significance which it bears for the narrator. He desires to place Mordecai and Haman before the reader in the guise of hereditary enemies, the one the descendant of Kish, and thus connected with the first king of Israel, the other the descendant of Agag, Saul’s conquered foe. As then, so now, it is a case of a contest between the Jew and his adversary.
( b) The title ‘Agagite’ may be an allegorical nickname, and intended to indicate a spiritual rather than a natural descent, one whose attitude to the chosen nation was that of the Amalekite king of earlier days.
( c) It may, however, denote a place or family otherwise unknown.
For ‘Agagite’ the LXX. here and in (Est 9:10 and) Esther 12:6 have Bugaean ( ), and in Est 9:24 and Esther 16:10 the Macedonian ( ). The former has been explained as originating in a mistake in reading the first letter in the Heb., or as arising from confusion with Bagoas, a favourite of Alexander the Great (Curtius vi. 5. 23). Either of two other explanations, however, is decidedly to be preferred, viz. ( a) that it means bully, braggart, as it occurs twice in this sense in Homer ( Il. xiii. 824, Od. xviii. 79), many of whose words were revived by writers of Alexandrian Greek, or ( b) that it is a word denoting eunuch, and afterwards any court official. See Schleusner, Lexicon Vet. Test. s.v. The latter title ‘Macedonian’ either ( a) points to the time when the Greek power, rendered dominant in the East by Alexander of Macedon (died b.c. 323), had become through Antiochus Epiphanes (died b.c. 164), who inherited Alexander’s conquests in Syria, the type of hostility to the nation of the Jews, or ( b) is meant to indicate Haman as a traitor to the Persian power.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 Hamans advancement; but their notices of the reign of Xerxes after 479 B.C. are exceedingly scanty.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Est 3:1-6
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 kings commandment is not required to secure outward homage towards those in high places. Clothe a man with the outward marks of royal favour, and 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 kings 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. Hamans 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 assassins 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–Israels 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 Gods design for Israels deliverance precedes Hamans design for Israels 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, 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 kings 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 kings 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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER III
Ahasuerus exalts Haman the Agagite, and commands all his
officers to do him reverence, which Mordecai refuses, 1-3.
Haman, informed of Mordecai’s refusal, plots his destruction,
and that of the Jews, 4-6.
Lots are cast to find out the proper time, 7.
Haman accuses the Jews to Ahasuerus, counsels him to destroy
them, and offers ten thousand talents of silver for the damage
which the revenue might sustain by their destruction, 8, 9.
The king refuses the money, but gives Haman full authority to
destroy them, 10, 11.
Letters are written to this effect, and sent to the king’s
lieutenants throughout the empire, and the thirteenth day of
the month Adar is appointed for the massacre, 12-15.
NOTES ON CHAP. III
Verse 1. 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Agagite, i. e. an Amalekite of the royal seed of that nation, whose kings were commonly and successively called Agag, as hath been observed before. It is true, he is called a Macedonian in the apocryphal additions to this book; and so he might be by his birth or habitation in that place, though by his original he was of another people.
Set his seat above all the princes that were with him; gave him the first place and seat, which was next to the king. Compare 2Ki 25:28.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. After these things did kingAhasuerus promote Haman . . . set his seat above all the princesthatis, raised him to the rank of vizier, or prime confidential minister,whose pre-eminence in office and power appeared in the elevated statechair appropriated to that supreme functionary. Such a distinction inseats was counted of vast importance in the formal court of Persia.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 Es 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 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 Es 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.
g Ut supra, (Antiqu. l. 11. c. 6.) sect. 5. h Hist. Sacr. l. 2. p. 78. i Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 41.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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. , to make great, to make any one a great man; , 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 , the Agagite, or of the Agagites. recalls kings of the Amalekites, conquered and 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 , 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.
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.
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 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.
Est 3:5-6 When, then, Haman, whose attention had been called to the fact, saw, when next he went in unto the king, that Mordochai did not fall down before him, he was full of wrath, and (Est 3:6) thought scorn, i.e., in his pride esteemed it too contemptible, to lay hands on Mordochai alone, i.e., to execute him alone, for this opposition to the royal commands; for they had showed him the people of Mordochai, i.e., had told him that as a Jew Mordochai had refused this act of worship, and that the whole Jewish nation thought and acted accordingly. Therefore he sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahashverosh, the people of Mordochai. The subject Haman is repeated before for the sake of clearness, because it was not expressly named with . is in apposition to : all the Jews as the people of Mordochai, because they were the people of Mordochai and shared his sentiments.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Haman’s Malignant Proposal. | B. C. 510. |
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. 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. 3 Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment? 4 Now 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. 5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. 6 And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had showed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.
Here we have,
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. xxiv. 7. Some think that he was by birth a prince, as Jehoiakim was, whose seat was set above the rest of the captive kings (2 Kings xxv. 28), as Haman’s here was, v. 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 (v. 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.
II. 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, v. 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, v. 3. They spoke daily to him (v. 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. xiii. 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 (Exod. xvii. 16) and concerning which he had given that solemn charge (Deut. xxv. 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, Ps. xv. 4. Let those who are governed by principles of conscience be steady and resolute, however censured or threatened, as Mordecai was.
III. Haman meditating revenge. Some that hoped thereby to curry favour with Haman took notice to him of Mordecai’s rudeness, waiting to see whether he would bend or break, v. 4. Haman then observed it himself, and was full of wrath, v. 5. A meek and humble man would have slighted the affront, and have said, “Let him have his humour; what am I the worse for it?” But it makes Haman’s proud spirit rage, and fret, and boil, within him, so that he becomes uneasy to himself and all about him. It is soon resolved that Mordecai must die. The head must come off that will not bow to Haman; if he cannot have his honours, he will have his blood. It is as penal in this court not to worship Haman as it was in Nebuchadnezzar’s not to worship the golden image which he had set up. Mordecai is a person of quality, in a post of honour, and own cousin to the queen; and yet Haman thinks his life nothing towards a satisfaction for the affront: thousands of innocent and valuable lives must be sacrificed to his indignation; and therefore he vows the destruction of all the people of Mordecai, for his sake, because his being a Jew was the reason he gave why he did not reverence Haman. Herein appear Haman’s intolerable pride, insatiable cruelty, and the ancient antipathy of an Amalekite to the Israel of God. Saul the son of Kish, a Benjamite, spared Agag, but Mordecai the son of Kish, a Benjamite (ch. ii. 5), shall find no mercy with this Agagite, whose design is to destroy all the Jews throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus (v. 6), which, I suppose, would include those that had returned to their own land, for that was now a province of his kingdom. Come and let us cut them off from being a nation, Ps. lxxxiii. 4. Nero’s barbarous wish is his, that they had all but one neck.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Esther – Chapter 3
Haman Insulted, Verses 1-7
Here is introduced the last of the major characters in the Book of Esther. Haman is called the son of Hammedatha the Agagite. Commentators are generally willing to accept the explanation given by Josephus, the Jewish historian, that the name is synonymous with Amalekite. The Amalekites were ancient enemies, in fact the very first, of the Israelites (see Exo 17:8-16). The Lord swore perpetual enmity against them. They sought God’s blessing, water from the rock, without accepting the God of the Rock. Thus they continue to be represented in those who refuse to come to God by faith and trust, but set up their own way.
God sent King Saul to exterminate the Amalekites (1 Samuel Chapter 15). But Saul failed, saving the best of the flock, returning the king as a prize of war. The king was Agag, from whom the people, who obviously escaped absolute extermination, came to be called Agagites. Israel was now about to suffer long range consequences for Saul’s and her own early disobedience.
Ahasuerus made Haman the chief of his counselors. This was a proud, vain man with dangerous ambitions. He must have occupied an office comparable to that today of prime minister in the king’s government. Haman was exalted and given homage rights from ordinary people. They were to bow and revere him when he appeared in their presence. Thus when he passed through the palace gates, citizens hastily bowed before him, except for Mordecai, who refused.
The failure of Mordecai to do homage to Haman did not escape the observation of the people around him. It does seem to have eluded the gaze of Haman, whose proud nose was too high in the air to see him. His companions queried Mordecai as to his reasons for not bowing. As this continued day after day they persisted in their questions about his grounds for disobeying the king’s orders. He explained to them that he was a Jew. To him obeisance was a form of worship, and such worship of any but God was contrary to the law of Moses (Exo 20:2-6). Jesus re-issued and emphasized this law for the Christian era (Mat 23:8-12).
Perhaps even the Persians were galled at the necessity to bow be fore the haughty Haman, and resented Mordecai’s escaping the requirement. So they decided to inform Haman of Mordecai’s negligence, to see if he would be allowed to get by with it. So Haman lowered his nose enough to see for himself that Mordecai remained erect when he passed in his presence. He became very angry and filled with scorn and contempt. Finding he belonged to the Jews, ancient enemies of his people, he concocted a scheme to exterminate the Jews throughout the empire.
Besides being very vain and proud Haman was also very superstitious and a practitioner of the cultic. He planned to cast the Pur every day for a year to settle on the ideal, most opportune date on which to carry out his nefarious plan against the Jews. Pur was a name for casting lots. Haman cast lots every day for twelve months before deciding when he should undertake his murderous scheme. Perhaps the words of Pro 16:33 might have applied to Haman’s lot casting, “The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.]
Est. 3:1. After these things] After the events related in the former chapter. The twelfth year of the reign of Ahasuerus, five years after Est. 2:16, but here somewhat sooner. 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 Mahedata (Madates of Q. Curtius), an old Persian name signifying given by (or to) the moon.Rawlinson. The term Agag means the fiery, and may have been applied to persons without any reference to nationality. It was employed as a general name of dignity by the kings of Amalek. Impossible to determine Hamans nationality. We may perhaps conclude that the epithet Agagite is here used symbolically of a heathen enemy of the Jews.
Est. 3:2. Bowed] A simple inclination of the body as to an equal in courtesy; but reverenced] a complete prostration in Oriental style of homage to a superior. A kind of religious homage. Mordecais confession that he was a Jew appears to imply that the rules of his religion would not allow him to offer the semblance of Divine honours to a mortal. Mordecai is represented in the apocryphal Esther as praying: Thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride that I did not bow 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.
Est. 3:4. Whether Mordecais matters would stand] Whether the religious scruples of a Jew would be tolerated in opposition to Persian laws and customs.
Est. 3:6. He thought scorn] Literally, it was contemptible in his eyes.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 3:1; Est. 3:6
THE PROSPEROUS WICKED MAN
MATTHEW HENRY says, 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.
I. The wicked man in great prosperity. History, both of nations and of individuals, repeats itself. Both in ancient and in modern times we may see the wicked in great prosperity. Haman is typical. The race is prolific. Haman is the progenitor of a long line that by skilful plotting rise above the heads of superior men. If earthly greatness be a reward, the good are not always rewarded in time. In this world rewards are not rightly administered. Push and tact get the prize. Modest talent may be commended in the song or in the oration, but may be thankful if it does not find itself compelled to enter the workhouse. Goodness in purple and fine linen is commended; but goodness personified in a certain beggar named Lazarus is not an article of modern creeds. We are still too prone to believe that Virtue fares sumptuously every day, and that only Vice is fed with crumbs and has its sores licked by the dogs.
II. The prosperous wicked man is surrounded by fawning sycophants. All the kings servants, that were in the kings gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But a kings commandment is not required to secure outward homage towards those in high places. There is always a sycophantic crew ready to worship earthly greatness. Clothe a man with the outward marks of royal favour, and many are at once prepared to become his blind adulators. Christian England has not improved very much on heathenish Persia. Outward show attracts more admirers than inward worth. Imperialism is glorified in political, literary, and ecclesiastical spheres. Greatness, not goodness, is still a leading virtue in ethical systems. Prowess in arms, push in business, skill in politics, success in literature, and parade in religion are the articles of the creed in which modern society devoutly believes. The wicked Haman so long as he is prime minister must be reverenced.
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 kings servants told Haman that there was a Jew who would not reverence enthroned and bedazzled wickedness. No, they would have told him this had they told him the truth; they might have told him this had they seen Mordecais nobility. However, their selfish zeal carried them too far. They were undermining Hamans grand position, and frustrating their own purposes of aggrandisement. How often it is that 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. Ahab is troubled by Elijah. Nathan said unto David, Thou art the man. Herod beheads John the Baptist, but still he is not free from a reproving spirit. When Mordecai refuses to bow let Haman tremble. We do not attempt to prosecute the difficult inquiry what it was which led Mordecai to refuse to bow to Haman. Much has been said and written, but no satisfactory conclusion has been reached. All that we can say is, that there must have been a strong religious motive working in the mind of Mordecai which induced him to pursue a course which exposed him to the wrath of an Eastern despot. The nobility, the heroism of Mordecai must be admired as he thus braved death itself, and refused to follow the multitude in doing evil. Oh, for more Mordecais; for those who shall dare to be singular; for those who will stand by their convictions. Let great men watch how men of strong convictions deport themselves. There is more wholesome teaching in the silent mood of the strong-minded than in the honeyed words of shallow sycophants.
V. The prosperous wicked man may learn that an unrestrained nature brings trouble. Haman was intoxicated with his greatness, and could not brook it that one poor Jew refused an outward act of homage. Haman was full of wrath, and consequently was full of trouble. Wrath is cruel, both to the subject and the object. A dark cloud gathers on Hamans countenance, for wrath drives away the cheering sunlight, and brings darkness over the whole man. One whispered hiss reaching the great mans ear is sufficient to drown the hosannas of the multitude.
VI. The prosperous wicked man unwittingly plots his own downfall. Hamans wrath led him to dangerous extremes. He vainly fancied that nothing could withstand his greatness; so he determines to take signal vengeance on Mordecai by making his whole nation suffer. It was not sufficient for this great man to touch Mordecai only. He would not demean himself by laying hands on that one dog of a Jew. He must have wholesale slaughter. Wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. Poor Haman! Already we see thee treading on a volcano. Thy hands are digging the pit into which thou shalt fall. Thy minions are already preparing the gallows on which thou thyself shalt be hung.
(a) Prosperity has its drawbacks. This is true of all prosperity, but more especially of the prosperity of the wicked. The triumphing of the wicked shall be short. Greatness purchased by the sacrifice of goodness must bring trouble, to its possessor sooner or later. (b) Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud. Haman and his flatterers were dividing the spoil, but they were not happy. Mordecai was of a humble spirit, and enjoyed peace of mind. (c) That our greatest troubles often spring from our own depraved natures. Hamans depravity worked him misery and ruin in the end.
Heaven is most just, and of our pleasant vices
Makes instruments to scourge us.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 3:1; Est. 3:6
We have the picture given us, and are called to study it, of a thoroughly bad man, one of his seed who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.* The greater number of bad men have some redeeming feature in their characters to which we are glad to turn for relief; but you look in vain for any redeeming feature in Haman. He was vain, false, selfish, and not merely cruel in the thoughtless way that all selfish persons are cruel, but vindictive and black-hearted. All was going well with this man. His rivals had been crushed, his seat had been set above the seats of all the noblemen at court, the king had made him his boon companion, and had issued orders that the palace servants should bow before him and do him reverence. He was as nearly happy as a man can be whose ruling passion is vanity; but such men hold their happiness by a very frail tenure. It does not look altogether well that Ahasuerus should have needed to give special orders about his servants bowing to Haman. Darius had not needed to do this in the case of Daniel. Had the favourite been respected and liked, men would have given him all seemly honour unbidden. But this was a very different case. Daniel carried that within himself which secured his peace, even when suddenly flung down from lofty station to the lions den; but this little-great man was made miserable by discovering that there was a single porter who did not prostrate himself before him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. It does seem a very small matter, but when such a man as Mordecai attached importance to it, we must pause and consider whether the matter was really so small as it seemed. For it is an unsafe way of reasoning to say about anything, It is only one little act; why scruple over it? If it does no good, it can do no harm; and so forth. By such reasoning habits of untruth and intemperance have many a time been formed, and what was perhaps little in itself, if it had been possible to separate it from all else, has been found to be anything but little in its results. The truth is, we cannot separate any single action from the rest of our lives, so that the importance of an action depends not on its greatness or its littleness, but on many other circumstances, such as, how often we do it, the effect it has on others, particularly its influence on our own consciences. In this case it so happened that what Mordecai didrather what he determined not to doproved to be of very great importance to the whole Persian empire; but he could not know that. What he did know was, that if he had once bowed to Haman his conscience would have been defiled, as surely as Daniels would have been if he had eaten the kings meat; and a polluted conscience is no trifle. A man has to carry it about with him all day, to go to sleep with it if he can, to encounter it again when he awakes, until God purges out the stain.A. M. Symington, B.A.
True religion does not interfere with the ordinary courtesies of life, nor does it forbid our rendering that honour to rank and station which is their due. But when vice and real infamy are shrouded under high rank, the Christian must beware of acting so as to make it supposed that the rank forms an apology for the vice and infamy, or renders them less hateful than they really are.
It is to be regarded as a kind of retribution, in the case of ungodly and wicked men, that the very irregularity and violence of their passions contains in itself what is sufficient to embitter the whole cup of their enjoyment. This is matter of universal experience. In the instance before us, it is very plain that Mordecais unbending and contemptuous attitude rendered Haman altogether indifferent to the homage which was rendered to him by others. Formerly he had retired from his attendance upon the king, through the crowd of obsequious and prostrate slaves, with the highest desires of his heart gratified. His greatness was acknowledged. His will was law. There was no man in the kingdom, next to the sovereign himself, to whom such incense was offered by all. He had reached a higher elevation than the greatest nobles of the kingdom occupied. Unbounded power and wealth were within his grasp, and what more could he wish for? But now one incident, in itself so trifling that we wonder it could have even occasioned him pain for a moment, strips his grandeur and power of all their charms. Mordecai will not bow to him, nor do him reverence. The slavish homage of thousands ceases to gratify him because this one mana Jewwill not recognize his greatness, nor honour him. His feeling is brought out afterwards very graphically in the history when, after recounting to his family and friends all the dignities and advantages which, through the favour of the king, he enjoyed, he says, All this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the kings gate.
The wicked always receive part of their punishment in the violence of some unhallowed passion which blinds them to all the real benefits of their lot. Is there not a gnawing disease in the heart of the covetous man, for example, which prevents him from enjoying the good things which are placed within his reach, just because he has not yet acquired all that he wishes to possess? And still, as he gets more and more, is he not as far as ever from being satisfied, since he has not yet reached the point at which he aims? Or, again, look to the man who is the slave of envy, and mark how miserable this base passion makes him. He has ample means of enjoyment which he can call his own, but his neighbour has something which pleases him better, and just because that one thing is awanting to himself, he can find no satisfaction in the varied blessings which a kind Providence has showered upon him. His neighbours good is to him what Mordecai at the kings gate was to Haman. In like manner, I might advert to the working of the more violent passions of anger and revenge, as a cause of intense torment to those who cherish them, and as altogether preventing them from taking advantage of many sources of happiness which lie open to them on every side. I might also allude to the misery which wounded vanity and affronted pride often bring to those who have high notions of their own importance, as when a trifling word or action will discompose them for many days together, and deprive them of their relish for the things that formerly pleased and made them happy. But enough has been said to show how by a just retribution the ungodly; following out their natural tendencies and passions, work out their own punishment. How different is the picture presented to us where grace reigns in the heart. Although corruption is not altogether eradicated from the spiritual man, yet its power is subdued; the fierce passions are tamed; love takes the place of envy, malignity, and wrath; and the believer, seeking and finding his chief enjoyment in God, remains comparatively unruffled by those incidents which breed so much vexation and disquietude in the breast of the ungodly. The wise man says that he who is of a merry heart hath a continual feast; and emphatically it may be said that the heart in which the Spirit of God dwells is a peaceful sanctuarythe seat of pure enjoyment.
Satan is always ready to take advantage of the season when the mind is perturbed by any strong passion, in order to hurry his victims onward to some act of violence from which in other circumstances they would have shrunk. Haman at this time was precisely in such a mood as made him an easy prey to the enemy. His self-importance, his worldly grandeur, the kings favour, all set at nought by Mordecai, aggravated his deadly resentment, and made him seek the destruction of the whole Jewish race. It could not have been but by Satanic influence that a scheme of such vast and daring atrocity was devised. There is nothing said in the history to show that the disposition of Haman was habitually cruel, that he was one who would have taken pleasure in inflicting pain for no reason but to gratify a propensity of his nature. From the brief glances we obtain of his domestic life, he seems to have enjoyed the confidence and affection of his family, as far as was compatible with the usages of the age and country; a circumstance which certainly seems to warrant the conclusion that he was not of a temper unmixedly cruel and tyrannical. But when the master passion of revenge took possession of him, then by working upon it Satan transformed him into a very fiend. And it has always been one of the devices of the enemy to drive men into criminal excesses to their own ruin through the instrumentality of some favourite lust or appetite. It was the covetous spirit of Judas that opened a way to the tempter to hurry him to betray the Saviour. It was an unmanly fear on the part of Pilate, lest he should be misrepresented to the Roman emperor, that the tempter took occasion of to lead him, in opposition to all his convictions, to deliver up Jesus to be crucified. All need to be upon their guard, then, against the wiles of the crafty adversary, and to strive to have their desires and feelings so kept under the control of the Divine law that he may not through their own sinful inadvertence obtain the mastery over them, and lead them captive at his will.Davidson.
How insatiable is revenge, especially when it is associated with national and religious rancour! Haman learned that Mordecai was a Jew, and he resolves at once on the total extermination of that people. Nero wished that the Romans had but one neck, that he might despatch them at once; Haman resolves by one decree to sweep off all the Jews which were in all the kingdom of Ahasuerus. That the quarrel was not merely personal, but was inflamed by national hatred, is evident from the designation, the Jews enemy, repeatedly given to Haman in this book. The discovery that Mordecai was of Jewish extraction, while it gave a keenness to his insult, added a sweetness to Hamans meditated revenge.McCrie.
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 Nebuchadnezzars subjects did; to turn the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man, of four-footed beasts or creeping things, they would have done it. Most people are of King Henrys religion, as the proverb is, resolving to do as the most do, though thereby they be undone for ever.
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.He did not, he durst not, though pressed 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 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 by their law were forbidden to do. It was not, therefore, pride or self-willedness that made Mordecai so stiff in the hams 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.
That they told Haman.Purposely to pick a thank and curry favour. And although it was truth they told Haman, yet because they did it not for any love to the truth, nor for respect to justice, nor for the bettering of either party, but only to undo the one and to incense the other, they were no better than slanderers.
And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai.He thought it a small matter, saith Josephus, a thing below him, too little for his revenge, which, like fire, burneth all it can lay hold upon, especially when, as here, it ariseth from ambition. Haman thought scorn to foul his fingers with Mordecai alone; the whole nation must perish, and all the children of God that were scattered abroad.Trapp.
Why transgressest thou the kings commands? The servants of the king said to Mordecai, Why wilt thou refuse to bow before Haman, transgressing thus the wishes of the king? Do we not bow before him? Ye are foolish, answered Mordecai; ay, wanting in reason. Listen to me. Shall a mortal who must return to the dust be glorified? Shall I bow down before one born of woman, whose days are short? When he is small he cries and weeps as a child; when he grows older sorrow and sighing are his portion; his days are full of wrath and anger, and at the end he returns to dust. Shall I bow to one like him? No, I prostrate myself before the eternal God, who lives for ever. He who dwells in heaven and bears the world in the hollow of his hand. His word changes sunlight to darkness, his command illumines the deepest gloom. His wisdom made the world; He placed the boundaries of the mighty sea. The waters are his, the sweet and the salt. To the struggling waves he says, Be still; thus far shalt thou come, no further, that the earth may remain dry for my people. To him, the great Creator and Ruler of the universe, and to no other, will I bow. Haman was wroth against Mordecai, and said to him, Why art thou so stiff-necked? Did not thy forefather bow down to mine? How? replied Mordecai; which of my ancestors bowed before forefather of thine? Then Haman answered, Jacob thy forefather bowed down to Esau, his brother, who was my forefather. Not so, answered Mordecai, for I am descended from Benjamin, and when Jacob bowed to Esau, Benjamin was not yet born. Benjamin never bowed until his descendants prostrated themselves in the holy temple, when the divinity of God rested within its sacred portals, and all Israel united with him. I will not bow before the wicked Haman.Talmud.
He hearkened not unto them.He would not be persuaded from his purpose to remain true to the principles of his religion. His course was dictated not by obstinacy, but by firmness of religious principle. Herodotus relates the case of certain Spartans who visited Shushan in the time of Xerxes, and, when ushered into the royal presence, refused to prostrate themselves and worship before the king, on the ground that it was contrary to their customs to worship a man.
They told Haman.Until they told him, Haman seems not to have noticed that Mordecai did not bow down to him.American Commentary.
Haman strove to destroy all the Jews in the whole realm of Ahasuerus, as being of the same mind with Mordecai. In the West such an idea as this would never have occurred to a revengeful man; but in the East it is different. The massacres of a people, a race, a class, have at all times been among the incidents of history, and would naturally present themselves to the mind of a statesman. The Magophonia, or a great massacre of the Magi at the accession of Darius Hystaspis, was an event not fifty years old in the twelfth year of Xerxes, and was commemorated annually. A massacre of the Scythians had occurred about a century previously.Rawlinson.
God is so great, so sovereign, that if thou pleasest him not he accounts thee an enemy; if thou beest not subject to him thou art a rebel. As kings, yea, favourites, thinking themselves so great, that if any be not wholly theirs, if any man veils not, stoops not, their spirits rise against them as enemies, as Hamans did against Mordecai; and so, in like manner, Art thou not king? says Jezebel to Ahab; and therefore judged it an affront to him to be denied anything. In like manner, Am I not God? says the Lord. If there be any perverseness of spirit shown to kings, it is interpreted enmity, because their greatness expects all should serve and be subject to them. Now the greatness of God is such as it necessarily and justly draws this on with it. Hence the carnal mind is said to be enmity against God.Goodwin.
The persons with whom Mordecai had to do at the kings gate were, as has been said, probably more curious than malicious in the first instance; but a man is none the better liked for taking up higher ground than that occupied by those about him. The busy-bodies wished to see whether Mordecais matters would stand, whether the supreme power would recognize a Jews conscience, and, if not, what a Jew would then do with his conscience; so they informed Haman. And they did see, plentifully. The first effect was to reveal the paltriness of Haman. He was full of rage where a man of any greatness of soul would have been only amused. Who would be angry with a Quaker for not taking off his hat when he comes into a room? But Haman was one of those whom if you strip, seeking to find the greatness beneath their fine clothes, lo! there is nothing! That is, nothing great or good. For there is something bad and uglyblack revenge. Justice is said to blindfold herself that she may hold the scales evenly, not knowing what has been put into each; but revenge shuts both eyes that it may see no scales at all. What monstrous disproportion between the offence and the penalty, to avenge a small personal affront received from one Jew by causing to perish in one day all Jews, old and young. To account for this we must keep in mind the ancient national feud already explained; and we shall do well to remember that instances are not wanting of the same deadly hatred against the seed of the woman. To say nothing of Nero or Domitian, nor of Radama in Madagascar quite recently, let us recall the well-known case of the massacre of fifty-six thousand Protestants on the eve of St. Bartholomews day in France.A. M. Symington, B.A.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 3
Est. 3:1. Look to the end. Thus oft empty vessels swim aloft; rotten posts are gilt with adulterate gold; the worst weeds spring up bravest; and when the twins strive in Rebekahs womb, profane Esau comes forth first, and hath the primogeniture. But whiles 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 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. Princes favourites should consider with themselves that honour is but a blast, a magnum nihil, a glorious fancy, a rattle to still mens ambition; and that as the passenger looketh no longer upon the dial than the sun shineth upon it, so it is here.Trapp.
Est. 3:1. The sympathetic traveller. Here is something that happened on a railway train somewhere in New England last summer. A woman clad in deep mourning entered the cars at a railway station. She took a seat just in front of an inquisitive-looking, sharp-faced female. The woman in black had not been seated long before she felt a slight tap on the shoulder, and heard her neighbour ask, in a low, sympathetic tone, Lost anybody? A silent nod was the response. A slight pause, and then a second question: Child? A low shake of the head in the negative. Parent? A similar reply. Husband? This time the slight nod again. Life insured? A nod. Experienced religion? A nod. Then: Well, well, cheer up! Life insured and experienced religion; youre all right, and sos he! Hamans life was not insured, as the sequel of the history shows. He did not experience the saving power of religion, and therefore a small matter disturbs his happiness. Mordecais life was insured in the best sense. No weapon formed against the Lords anointed can prosper until the Lords time. Those are safely kept who are kept by God.
Est. 3:2. Good principles. A young man was in a position where his employers required him to make a false statement, by which several hundred pounds would come into their hands which did not belong to them. All depended upon this clerks serving their purpose. To their great vexation, he utterly refused to do so. He could not be induced to sell his conscience for any ones favour. As the result, he was discharged from the place. Not long after, he applied for a vacant situation, and the gentleman, being pleased with his address, asked him for any good reference he might have. The young man felt that his character was unsullied, and so fearlessly referred him to his last employer. I have just been dismissed from his employ, and you can inquire of him about me. It was a new fashion of getting a young mans recommendation; but the gentleman called on the firm, and found that he was too conscientious about trifles. The gentleman had not been troubled by too conscientious employees, and preferred that those intrusted with his money should have a fine sense of truth and honesty, so he engaged the young man, who rose fast in favour, and became at length a partner. A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches. Even unscrupulous men know the worth of good principles that cannot be moved. The Emperor Constantius, father to Constantine the Great, once commanded all his Christian servants to offer sacrifices to the gods of Rome. If they refused to obey his command they were to be dismissed from his service. Many of them obeyed; others did not, and accordingly were dismissed. But in a day or two he turned out all those who complied with his orders, and recalled all those whom he had expelled, saying that those would be most faithful to their prince who were most faithful to their God, and that he would not trust men who were false to their religion. Mordecai was conscientious about trifles, and true to his religion. This he was whether he found favour with man or not. He looked for the favour of God. This must be the inspiring motive, for conscientious men do not always succeed, as the world reckons success. The advice of Mr. Cartera Puritan preacherto one of his congregation, You must work hard, and fare hard, and pray hard, was good: but we cannot feel sure about his conclusionAnd then you will be sure to thrive. In these modern times we have certainly known some who have worked hard, and fared hard, and prayed hard all their lives, and at their death have not been able to bequeath a shilling.
Est. 3:5. Trouble in every house. Talmage says, I passed down a street of a city with a merchant. He knew all the finest houses on the street. He said, There is something the matter in all these houses. In that one it is conjugal infelicity. In that one, a dissipated son. In that, a dissolute father. In that, an idiot child. In that, the prospect of bankruptcy. In Hamans house there was trouble. Mordecai troubled Haman. The good must ever be troublers to the wicked.
Est. 3:5. Revenge. The Highland chief lay a-dying in his mountain home, and in his dying heart were hard revengeful thoughts towards an opposing clan. A minister waited at his bedside, and exhorted him to forgive, assuring him of the fact that God will not forgive if we do not. And, said the chief, I will forgive them; but in almost the same breath he said to his son, that he left him a fathers curse if he forgave them. Louis XII. said that nothing smells so sweet as the dead body of an enemy. The Christians code is one of forgivenessthat nothing smells so sweet as the rescued body of an enemy. Well would it have been for Hamanwell both temporally and spirituallyhad he really forgiven the supposed slight of Mordecai.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
III. Perverseness of Haman, Chapter 3
A. Scorn of Mordecai
TEXT: Est. 3:1-6
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.
2
And all the kings servants, that were in the kings 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.
3
Then the kings servants, that were in the kings gate said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the kings commandment?
4
Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecais matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.
5
And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not down, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.
6
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 Ahasureus, even the people of Mordecai.
Todays English Version, Est. 3:1-6
Some time later King Xerxes promoted a man named Haman to the position of prime minister. Haman was the son of Hammedatha, a descendant of Agag. The king ordered all the officials in his service to show their respect for Haman by kneeling and bowing to him. They all did so, except for Mordecai, who refused to do it. The other officials in the royal service asked him why he was disobeying the kings command; day after day they urged him to give in, but he would not listen to them. I am a Jew, he explained, and I cannot bow to Haman. So they told Haman about this, wondering if he would tolerate Mordecais conduct. Haman was furious when he realized that Mordecai was not going to kneel and bow to him, and when he learned that Mordecai was a Jew, he decided to do more than punish Mordecai alone. He made plans to kill every Jew in the whole Persian Empire.
COMMENTS
Est. 3:1-4 Insubordination of Mordecai: Xerxes decided to promote a man named Haman. The name Haman in Hebrew means violent one, or, riotous one. Some think the name is strictly Persian and is an exact equivalent of the Greek Eumenes, which means well disposed. The Hebrew text has Hamans father, Hammedatha, as an Agagite. Some Jewish tradition would have Haman descended from the Amalekites (of king Sauls day) whose king was Agag. But the scriptures indicate that when Agag fell, he was the last of his house (1Sa. 15:33). The Assyrian King Sargon, father of Sennacherib, left an inscription (at Khorsabad) indicating that Agag was a territory adjacent to that of Media. The Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek language, written about 300 B.C.) calls Hammedatha, the Bugaean. The Bug River flows into the northern edge of the Black Sea. This could be the territory from which Hamans ancestors came. It is conjectured by some scholars that Hammedatha may be the same as the old Persian Mahadata which means given by the moon. Others have thought the term Agagite was a title such as Pharaoh. In light of all the foregoing information it would seem more accurate to assume that Haman was truly Persian and definitely not related to any Canaanites such as the Amalekites. Haman certainly gave his sons Persian names (cf. Est. 9:7-9).
Haman was promoted above all hassarim (Hebrew for princes). In the language of ancient Turkey he would be called a grand vizier (prime minister), a prince of princes. Haman actually became second ruler in the kingdom of Persia.
It has been suggested that Haman was of lowly origin and not from one of the first families of Persia. This may account for the emphasis placed on an apparent need of Haman to have everyone do obeisance toward him. In ancient times emperors and noblemen ruled as absolute despots and common men were so servile that a man appointed second ruler in an empire would receive the profoundest homage and reverence from all. The very fact that the king (emperor) had commanded all who were in the palace gates to do obeisance to Haman indicates that some might deliberately refuse to do so. Indeed, there was one who did not bow down and pay reverence to HamanMordecai.
Why did Mordecai disobey the orders of the emperor to do honor to Haman? We are not told, unless Mordecais bold revelation that he was a Jew had something to do with his reason for disobedience. There is a Jewish tradition (Midrash) that Haman wore an image of an idol on his clothing, and Mordecai disobeyed considering such obeisance tantamount to idolatry. It is possible that promotion to second in the kingdom would bring with it the office of high-priest to the pagan religion of Persia. It has also been suggested that advancement to the second highest position in the empire may have caused Haman to claim divine honors for himself. We know that men in high positions of other empires did claim deity and demand worship from their subjects. Daniels three Hebrew companions were thrown into Nebuhadnezzars fiery furnace for refusing to worship the emperors image.
All the other gate-keepers of the kings palace were obeying the kings commandment. The word for commandment is mitzevath in Hebrew and not the word dath (law) which we had in chapter one. Mordecais contemporaries seem very anxious to protect Hamans honor. Their concern was very plainly prompted by jealousy. At first they probably said to themselves, How does Mordecai get by without humbling himself before Haman, the low-born upstart, when we have to bow down and demonstrate servility every time Haman passes by this gate? They thought Mordecai esteemed himself better than they. These gate-keepers kept badgering Mordecai for some explanation as to why he did not show reverence to Haman until Mordecai told them he was a Jew. That was his excuse. Perhaps Mordecai added more than is recorded; perhaps he told them of his religious scruples. Whatever the case, the gate-keepers made it a point to inform Haman of Mordecais disobedience to the royal edict. The text says they wanted to see whether Mordecais matters would stand. The word translated matters is davar in Hebrew and means fundamentally, speech, word. Davar may also mean business, occupation, reason or cause. Apparently, these contemporaries were anxious to see if Mordecais reason (Jewishness) was sufficient to keep Haman from taking his position of gate-keeper away from him.
Est. 3:5-6 Indignation of Haman: Apparently Haman was not aware of Mordecais irreverence until told by the other gatekeepers. When Haman saw it for himself he was infuriated. The Hebrew word chemah is translated wrath and means literally, on fire, inflamed, burning with anger. It is the same word used to describe Nebuchadnezzars anger (Dan. 3:13; Dan. 3:19) when the Hebrews would not bow down and worship his image. The LXX (Septuagint) describes Hamans wrath with the Greek word sphodra which means vehement, exceedingly. Haman dismissed the idea of taking out his rage on just one Jew. He wanted every Jew in the empire of Persia to die because Mordecai refused to show him honor.
Mordecais insult was based on his ethnic originhe would not do obeisance because he was a Jew. Perhaps if Mordecai had offered some other excuse Haman might have demanded only the life of Mordecai. Jewish commentators see anti-Semitism as Hamans basic motive rather than wounded pride. It is very evident that Hamans first reaction was from wounded pride. And if one Jew refused to honor Hamans position, they all would, reasoned Haman, therefore they shall all be slain.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
III.
(1) Haman . . . the Agagite.Nothing 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 (Num. 24:7; 1Sa. 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 Est. 9:24) Haman is called a Macedonian.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
HAMAN’S PROMOTION, AND THE EDICT AGAINST THE JEWS, Est 3:1-15.
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. 1Sa 15:9; 1Sa 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 Nebuchadnezzar and Darius honoured Daniel, who was also a foreigner.
Dan 2:48; Dan 6:1-3.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Est 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.
Est 3:1
1Sa 9:1, “Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of power.”
Est 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.”
The Easton says Haman is called an Agaite because he was probably a descendent of a royal family of the Amalekites. Smith believes that Agag was a common name of the Amalekite kings (1Sa 15:8). This would help explain why Haman had such hatred towards the Jews.
1Sa 15:8, “And he took Agag the king of the Amalekit es alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.”
Amalek was the grandson of Esau.
Gen 36:12, “And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek : these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.”
The Amalekites were the first hostile foes that Israel faced in the wilderness. Moses then chose Joshua to lead Israel in battle against them (Exo 17:8-16). God later instructed Saul to destroy them through the prophet Samuel (1Sa 15:1-35). Because Saul did not utterly destroy this anti-Semitic race of people as God commanded him, the Jews were almost again because of one of them during the time of Esther.
Est 3:7 In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar.
Est 3:7
Comments – They cast lots for each day of the year and each month of the year until it was decided that the twelfth month was the correct time to destroy the Jews. They did this lot casting in one day, not daily until the twelfth month, because on the thirteenth day of the first month (Est 3:12), the degree was signed.
Matthew Henry says, “ Haman inquires, according to his own superstitions, how to find a lucky day for the designed massacre!” [15]
[15] Matthew Henry, Esther, in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Esther 3:7.
Est 3:8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.
Est 3:8
Est 3:9 If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.
Est 3:9
Est 4:7, “And Mordecai told him of all that had happened unto him, and of the sum of the money that Haman had promised to pay to the king’s treasuries for the Jews, to destroy them .”
Brenton reads, “ If it seem good to the king, let him make a decree to destroy them: and I will remit into the king’s treasury ten thousand talents of silver.” (Est 3:9)
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Haman Plans Revenge Against Mordecai
v. 1. After these things, v. 2. And all the king’s servants that were in the king’s gate, v. 3. Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, v. 4. Now, 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, v. 5. And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath, v. 6. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone, v. 7. In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day and from month to month,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
MORDECAI, BY WANT OF RESPECT, OFFENDS HAMAN, AHASUERUS‘ CHIEF MINISTER. HAMAN, IN REVENGE, RESOLVES TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE NATION OF THE JEWS (Est 3:1-6). A break, probably of some years, separates Est 2:1-23. from Est 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” (Est 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 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 (Est 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 (Est 3:3). In the course of their remonstrancesprobably in order to account for his reluctanceMordecai stated himself to be a Jew (Est 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 respectthese persons being desirous of knowing whether his excuse would be allowed and the obeisance in his case dispensed with. Haman was violently enraged (Est 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 Jewshe would have them exterminated (Est 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 (Est 3:10-15).
Est 3:1
After these things. Probably some years afterabout 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 , “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.
Est 3:2
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. No 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 Rev 22:9).
Est 3:3, Est 3:4
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.).
Est 3:5
When Haman saw. Apparently Mordecai’s disrespect had not been observed by Haman until the “king’s servants” called his attention to it. Then, naturally enough, he was greatly offended, and felt exceedingly angry at what seemed to him a gross impertinence. Mordecai’s excuse did not pacify himperhaps seemed to him to make the matter worse, since, if allowed, it would justify all the Jews in the empire in withholding from him the respect that he considered his due.
Est 3:6
He thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone. If Haman had simply said to Ahasuerus, “There is one of your menials who persistently disobeys a royal edict, and at the same time insults me,” Ahasuerus would, as a matter of course, have told him to put the menial to death. But the revengeful temper of the man was such that this seemed to him insufficient. Mordecai had insulted him as a Jew, and the Jews should pay the penalty. Mordecai should be punished not only in person, but in his kindred, if he had any, and in his nation. The nation itself was contumacious and troublesome (Est 3:8); it would be well to get rid of it. And it would be a grand thing to wipe out an insult offered by an individual in the blood of a whole people. Haman therefore sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. Massacres on a large scalenot unknown in the West, witness St. Bartholomew’sare of frequent occurrence in the East, where human life is not held in much regard, and the caprices of absolute monarchs determine the course of history. There had been a general massacre of the Magi upon the accession of Darius Hystaspis, the father of Xerxes (Herod; 3.79), and one of Scythians about a century before (ibid. 1.106). These were examples which might occur to Haman. A later one is the Roman massacre of Mithridates in b.c. 88.
HOMILETICS
Est 3:1
The wicked exalted.
The temporary favourite of Ahasuerus was unworthy of the position to which he was raised, and the power with which he was intrusted. History has preserved the record of no meaner, baser character than Haman. He was a man servile and cruel, who used his power for disgraceful purposes. His conduct towards all with whom he was connected was alike despicable. His history and fate may be taken by the moralist as a type of the exaltation and fall of the wicked.
I. THE ARTS BY WHICH THE WICKED RISE. The basest selfishness takes the guise and garb of loyalty. Flattery is the surest road to a monarch’s favour. Corruption, unscrupulousness, desertion of friends, betrayal of associates, slander of rivals, these are the means by which many have risen to share the favour of a king, to preside over the movements of a court, to control the affairs of a nation. Here observe the too common weakness of kings and those born to greatness.
II. THE TEMPORARY PROSPERITY WHICH THE WICKED ENJOY. Once in favour and in power, the world seems at their feet. They have influence with the sovereign; they are encompassed with the adulation of courtiers; they exercise power, even arbitrary and unjust, over fellow-subjects; they are lifted up with pride.
III. THE CERTAINTY OF THE FALL OF THE WICKED. From how great an elevation, and into what an abyss of misery and ruin, did Haman fall! The greater the height, the more calamitous and awful the headlong plunge. Sin rages and beats upon the shore. But above its hoarse roaring rises the voice of the All-wise and Almighty Disposer of events”Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed!”
Practical lessons:
1. Be not envious at the prosperity of the wicked. The Psalmist seems to have been tempted to this childish and ignoble failing. He saw the wicked in great power, spreading himself like the green bay tree; but when he went into the sanctuary of God, then understood he his end.
2. Be not dismayed at the spectacle of power in wicked hands. It cannot be for long. A righteous Providence will bring the devices of the wicked to nought. The .greatest man is not omnipotent. “The Lord reigneth.” He bringeth down the lofty from their seat, and exalteth those of low degree!
Est 3:1-6
Foolish pride and wild resentment.
The lesson of this portion of the narrative is one concerning human sin. In some places Scripture seems to depict the character and the conduct of sinners in such a way as to impress the mind of the reader with what is called “the exceeding sinfulness of sin.” And what more natural and appropriate than such representations of human iniquity in a book which brings to us the remedy for the disease, and the liberation from the bondage, which afflict mankind? In the temper and conduct of Haman we recognise the fruits of man’s sinful nature.
I. Remark Haman’s SINFUL PRIDE. It arose from his favour with the king, and from his position in the state, and was no doubt encouraged by the homage that was paid him by the courtiers and the people. His pride was hurt and mortified at the refusal of Mordecai to render him the honour he was accustomed to receive from all around. And the hurt was aggravated by the fact that the servants of the king observed the Jew’s conduct, and reported to Haman his marked discourtesy and insult. What made the matter worse was the obscure position and despised nationality of the single person who did him no reverence.
II. Remark Haman’s RESENTMENT. His pride was the occasion of his anger; his anger stirred up purposes of revenge; his revenge took a wild inhuman form. Mordecai had transgressed the king’s command) and his conduct had been noticed by the king’s servants. And it was this which gave a colourable pretext for the favourite’s wrathful counsels and plans of destruction.
III. Remark the UTTER DISPROPORTION BETWEEN MORDECAI‘S OFFENCE AND HAMAN‘S PROPOSED REVENGE. A trivial slight was so laid to heart that it aroused a ferocious spirit, for the satisfaction of which no shedding of blood, no desolation of cities, could suffice. The great lesson to be learned from this frightful picture of human depravity is the extent to which sin will lead the victim. If so hateful a vice as pride be encouraged, if so mean a purpose as one of revenge be fostered, to what frightful crimes may the wretched sinner be led! There is one preventive and pro servative: “Let that mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus!”
HOMILIES BY W. DINWIDDLE
Est 3:1, Est 3:2
Danger of quick success.
I. A SUDDEN ADVANCEMENT. In a short time Haman was placed above all the princes. The officials of the court were commanded to give him reverence and worship. There seemed to be nothing which the infatuated king was able to refuse him. A quick rise to power, and one that would be envied by many! In most hearts there is a strong craving for rapid success. But it is a mistake to suppose that sudden or easy success is a benefit. For observe
1. Prosperity is better borne and enjoyed when it is the result of long and steady effort. It is a sweeter and more honourable possession when it comes as the reward of conscientious toil.
2. The self-denying labour which, as a rule, is necessary to prosperity is itself an incalculable benefit. It brings into healthy exercise the physical and mental endowments. It develops many manly qualities.
II. AN INORDINATE CRAVING FOR QUICK ADVANCEMENT HAS A BAD EFFECT ON THE HEART. Some who never realise their desire continue to cherish it even against hope until the end. This is a cruel thirst, which dries up all the springs of happiness and kindly good in the soul. It is an idolatry which hardens, withers, embitters, and which robs life of all that would make it noble and good and happy. Haste not to be rich. Haste not after any of the world’s prizes. We should strive to preserve a worthy independence of mind and heart in connection with whatever end we may be working to achieve.
III. SUDDEN PROSPERITIES ARE OFTEN BADLY OR DOUBTFULLY GAINED. The rise of Haman was not the result of admirable personal qualities, or of important services rendered to the state. From what is recorded of him we are entitled to infer that the arts by which he won the king’s favour were degrading both to himself and to the king. An atmosphere of suspicion gathers round all sudden and abnormal successes. They are not the rule amongst men who follow legitimate courses. It is a terrible folly to stake our all on anything the world can give. No wealth, or rank) or fame can compare with the treasure of God’s friendship and love (Isa 33:6; Mat 6:19-21).D.
Est 3:2-5
Contrasts.
Haman was not allowed to enjoy his high and ill-gotten position without trouble. Almost at the outset it brought him an annoyance which led to tragical results. In connection with this check to the triumph of his course, notice
I. THAT A REAL AND MARKED CONTRAST EXISTS BETWEEN THOSE WHO “FEAR GOD” AND THOSE WHO “LOVE THE PRAISE OF MEN.” The servants who “sat in the king’s gate” readily obeyed the command that they should do homage to the favouriteall except one. Mordecai stood erect) with no fear or reverence in his look or attitude, when Haman passed in and out of the palace. It was a sight worth seeing) that of this man, too noble to bend to the world’s idol, before which all others stooped in slavish adulation. Between Mordecai and his companions in office there was an evident gulf.
II. THAT CONDUCT WHICH CONTRASTS WITH THEIR OWN OFTEN EXCITES AN INQUIRING CURIOSITY IN THE WORLDLY. His fellow-servants at once noticed Mordecai’s singularity. They daily questioned and expostulated with him, but “he hearkened not unto them.” In silence he listened, and still disobeyed the king’s command. Sincere inquiry is to be encouraged, and kindly met; but a prying curiosity into the affairs of others is unmanly, and to be reprobated. “Busy-bodies” in the Church were duly noted by Sts. Paul and Peter (2Th 3:11; 1Pe 4:15).
III. THAT CONTRASTS OF BEHAVIOUR WHICH SEEM TO REBUKE EASILY AROUSE THE SPIRIT OF MALEVOLENCE. Overcome by the importunity of his companions, or perceiving that his continued silence was regarded by them as an indication of his being afraid to speak out, Mordecai at length declared that he was a Jew, and gave that as a reason why he could not abase himself, as they did, before Haman. This announcement awakened in their minds a deeper and more evil curiosity. Their pride was wounded by the Jew’s implied claim of superiority. How would it go with him if Haman were told of his obstinacy and its reason? So they told Haman. It was mean and wicked; but they were hurt, and they no doubt expected that the all-powerful favourite would soon compel the Jew to a behaviour in harmony with their own. Small minds, that bend before every breeze of authority or fashion, readily become ungenerous, and conceive malice towards those who are stronger than themselves in principle or self-respect (1Pe 2:1-3).
IV. THAT IT TAKES LITTLE TO MAR THE ENJOYMENT OF A FALSE GREATNESS. The sight of Mordecai standing upright amongst the prostrate attendants of the palace filled Haman with a fierce and vindictive wrath. True greatness is magnanimous. It is above resenting little affronts, or jealously exacting the signs of outward respect. It does not rest on the humiliation of others. But Haman’s glory was tarnished, and his happiness soured, by the stubbornness of one man who occupied a lowly position compared with that of the favourite. Mordecai was the fly in the ointment of his pride.
V. THAT A FALSE GREATNESS CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF THE CAUSES OF TROUBLE AND DANGER. It is necessarily suspicious and exacting. Doubt and fear are ever springing up in its path. It imagines affronts when none are intended, and magnifies small annoyances into hostile designs. It is thus often driven into passions and crimes which endanger its existence. All evil ambitions possess in the heart of them the seeds of their own punishment. God vindicates himself in the natural working of human vanities.
Lessons:
1. Hate every false way, however alluring. Beware of its deceitful promises.
2. Cultivate a generous spirit. Show respect to rights of others. Avoid humiliating those who are dependent on you, or below you in social rank.
3. Make God your law-giver and guide, and Jesus your example and trust.D.
Est 3:4, Est 3:5
A loyal disobedience.
Mordecai’s conduct was indeed striking. All the circumstances added to its impressiveness. The influences that ruled him must have been powerful. Why did he refuse to give homage to Haman? Why was he willing to disobey the king’s command?
I. WAS HIS DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ROYAL WILL THE RESULT OF A DISLOYAL SPIRIT? That could not be; for he had recently given a most signal proof of his loyalty in discovering the plot of the conspirators against the king’s life. He was true to the king even when he disobeyed him.
II. WAS HIS DISOBEDIENCE THE RESULT OF A VIRTUOUS DISLIKE OF THE WICKED FAVOURITE? Any amount of aversion for so worthless a creature would have been justified. But such an antipathy would hardly account for his disregard of the king’s command. Here duty would have stepped in and saved at once his conscience and his self-respect. It must be remembered that he braved the king as well as Haman.
III. WAS HIS DISOBEDIENCE TO THE KING A RESULT AND EXPRESSION OF HIS OBEDIENCE TO THE KING OF KINGS? We now get near to the springs of his singular conduct. Nothing but this loyalty to the God of Israel will account for his calm and persistent daring. The unworthy character and the false eminence of Haman would no doubt have their effect on his mind. But it is only by considering the religious faith and principle of Mordecai that we can reach the true motive that actuated him. And here let us learn some things from the example of the heroic Jew.
1. A wise concession. So long as we can work honourably with those who differ from us in faith and opinion we should gladly co-operate with them. Religious differences should not interfere with civil duties ornational obligations. It is laid on both Jews and Gentiles to be loyal to the throne or government under which they live. A wise conduct is especially required in the followers of God whose lot is cast in heathen lands. While true to their faith in all things, they should avoid an inconsiderate and irritating obtrusiveness. Their aim should be to win by a holy guile, i.e. by “the meekness of wisdom” (Jas 3:13), rather than to repel by a crude and unsympathetic assumption of superior light. There are such things as casting pearls before swine, and swine turning and rending the foolish spendthrift.
2. A good confession. Whenever a time comes when silence as to our faith would be a sin, we should speak, and speak plainly. There should be no hesitation in naming God, or in witnessing for Christ, when occasion demands a clear testimony. When Mordecai saw that his silence was misinterpreted he declared his Jewish origin and faith. He was an Israelite and a worshipper of the Jehovah of Israel, and as such he could not give worship to any creature of God, even though it should be a Haman. There is a time to be silent, and there is a time to speak.
3. An enduring steadfastness. It is often easier to begin than to continue a faithful witnessing for God. Some who readily acknowledge the truth begin to waver and lose steadfastness in presence of difficulty or danger. They cannot endure. But Mordecai, having once taken his stand on religious principle, remained firm against all temptations. He reminds us of the words of Luther in presence of Charles V.: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise; God help me. Amen” (Mat 24:13; Jas 1:12).
4. A noble courage. It was not without sober calculation that Mordecai refused homage to Haman. He knew how much he risked. He had “the courage of his convictions.” He was
(1) willing to stand alone amongst his companions in service. He could bear their sneers and threats. A hard thing in any position! He
(2) faced the probable anger of the king, to whom he had proved himself loyal. He
(3) braved the malignant wrath of the favourite, from whom he could expect no mercy. He
(4) put in peril the happiness and future guidance of his beloved Esther. He
(5) laid his own life on the altar of righteousness. He
(6) sacrificed every earthly interest to his allegiance to God. We think of Paul’s heroism of faith (Php 3:8). Then we think of the words of Paul’s Master (Mat 19:29).D.
HOMILIES BY D. ROWLANDS
Est 3:4
Profession and practice.
The favourites of fortune are generally remarkable for their pride. Especially is this the case with those whom despots delight to honour. Forgetting the worthlessness of the preference to which they owe their promotionbeing sometimes nothing more than a passing whimthey rashly lay claim to universal homage. Haman is therefore the representative of a numerous class, which is not likely soon to become extinct. Mordecai in this instance resolves upon a manly course. He will not join the multitude in feeding the vanity of an inflated upstart. Neither threatening nor persuasion is able to overcome his steadfastness. What could have been Mordecai’s reason for his present conduct? We may well imagine that he had more reasons than one, and that the combined force of several had influenced his decision.
1. Haman possessed a despicable character. Mordecai could not have bowed to him without doing violence to his own nature. He knew the manhis insolent bearing, his mean spirit, his cruel dispositionand he recoiled from him with unconquerable loathing. And he was right. There are men whom to admire is a degradation, whom to serve involves the ruin of our manhood. They may possess brilliant parts, they may occupy high positions, they may enjoy popular favour; but in a moral point of view they are the pests of society.
2. Haman claimed Divine honours. The court officials prostrated themselves in the dust at his feet, and he regarded such obeisance as his due. How could Mordecai, a worshipper of the Most High, unite in such an extravagant demonstration of servility, even though the object of it had been the worthiest instead of the basest of mankind? To him it was a matter of conscience, and he calmly awaited the consequences. We have here a striking exemplification of PROFESSION AND PRACTICE in perfect harmony. Mordecai declared himself to be a Jew, and conducted himself as a Jew might be expected to do. Note
I. MORDECAI‘S BOLD PROFESSION. “For he had told them that he was a Jew.” This was a brave thing to do; for the Jews were a conquered race. But it was the right thing to do; for to deny his people would have been the height of cowardice. What does profession involve at the present day? Is it simply a tacit avowal that we are Christians? Surely most people will go that length. It must, therefore, imply something more than that, if it is to serve as a distinction amongst us. It means, in fact, an open confession of our attachment to Christ, by identifying ourselves, in some way or other, with his Church. To the true Christian profession is a necessity.
1. -It is a duty which he owes to himself. Secret discipleship may be possible under very exceptional circumstances; but it must be most disadvantageous for the development of spiritual power. A plant may grow in the dark, but it cannot attain its full proportions, or put on its robe of beauty, without the light of day. The surest way to overcome temptation is to declare your principles. By the very act you will add to your own strength and weaken the power of the tempter. It was the attempt to disguise himself that led Peter to his fall.
2. It is a duty which he owes to the world. He has found peace himself, and will he hide its source from the troubled hearts among whom he lives? The Divine light has been kindled within him, and will he place himself under a bushel? The misery, the darkness, the sinfulness of the world constitute the world’s claim upon his services, nor can he render the highest services except as a professed servant of Christ.
3. It is a duty which he owes to God. God requires it. No shame, or suffering, or loss should, therefore, make us hesitate in reference to this matter. Our Lord declared that whosoever was ashamed of him in his humiliation he would be ashamed to own when he came in his glory.
II. MORDECAI‘S CONSISTENT CONDUCT. The king’s servants endeavoured to persuade him to change his attitude, but he would not. “He hearkened not unto them.” He was a witness-bearer, a martyr, and possessed a martyr’s courage. Having professed himself to be a Jew, he would make good his profession by adhering to the right. Profession alone is worse than worthless. It injures the professor himself, and the cause with which he claims connection. “Faith without works is dead.”
1. To act is admittedly more difficult than to profess. Had Mordecai merely professed himself a Jew, while he behaved like a Gentile, he would probably have experienced no difficulty. Haman would have been satisfied with his homage, and his comrades would have commended his prudence. To say, “Lord, Lord,” is one thing; but to do “the will of the Father” is another. There is no grandeur in magnificent words, except when they are backed up by noble deeds. Heroism consists not so much in declaring war as in fighting the enemy.
2. Men learn more easily by example than by precept. Hence the immense importance of consistent conduct, when we consider its influence upon others. If Christianity had never succeeded to produce Christiansif it had set up a high ideal which no one ever attempted to approachit would have remained to this day a dead form; and no amount of learning, or reasoningi or eloquence could have persuaded the world to accept it. Men may argue against creeds, but the holy lives which those creeds help to fashion are unassailable.R.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Est 3:2
The perfection of steadfastness.
“But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.” This book of Esther abounds in revelation of human nature. It has been much remarked upon as not containing the name of God. Furthermore, it has nothing of strict doctrine in its technical and theological sense. Neither does it lay itself out to exhibit the great spiritual facts which arrest the attention of the Bible reader in other portions of it. It does not refer with any explicitness to the unseen, to the great future, to the “that day” of the epistles. On the other hand, it is wonderful in the various exposition it offers of human nature. To history, indeed, its matter is confined. But that history seems to pursue its object with undeviating exactitude of aim. Through impartiality of selection and fidelity of description it advances, awarding its present verdicts to those on the left hand, or to those on the right. We have already considered the illustration it offers of a noble refusal on the part of a woman, on an occasion when to refuse was both undoubtedly right and undoubtedly the cause of much suffering and loss. We have here an illustration of the noble refusal of a man, right against the enormous force of the current of the whole world around him. Consistently with his race, his education, his religion, it is not merely, as in the case just alluded to, in the dictates of nature, but in the whispered monitions of religion as well, in the principle of “enduring as seeing the invisible,” that the basis of the refusal in question is found and justified. Notice this refusal in some of the more prominent features it presents
I. IT IS A REFUSAL WHICH COMES FROM THE DEEPER RECESSES OF OUR NATURE. It comes down from its higher haunts, from its more sacred retreats. To refuse at the price of suffering, loss, possibly death, because of the blush that would mantle in the cheek if you did not refuse, is to obey worthily God-given nature. All honour to Vashti that she did so! But to refuse at the imminent price of martyrdom for self, and for the all you hold dearest to the heart, and for your people scattered over a hundred lands, just because of a recovered snatch of Sinai’s second commandment, is the achievement of a much higher reach. Obedience to the dictate of what We generally call nature is not to be disparaged. It reflects the intention of the Creator, and “repeats his praise.” But So far as we are concerned, it may be considered to have something more of instinct about it. Mere physical temperament will in part account for it. But when the obedience is attributable to the new-learnt lessons of the word of God, then, though it is not a nobler parentage that accounts for it, it owns to a directer descent from the one Parent of all good, and this sheds fresh lustre upon it. Innocent nature in Eden, the broken snatches of Divine communication to our first parents in Eden, the patriarchal gains in similar methods of Divine revelation, then the ten commandments, the prophets, the beatitudes, the new commandment, all in developing order, challenge our lower life to regulate and improve itself by higher principles. “Thou hast magnified thy word,” said the Psalmist, “above all thy name” (Psa 138:2). The word of God unfolds duty, opportunity, responsibility in an ever-increasing ratio, and on an ever-ascending scale. And it ascertains the law which distinguishes the praise of the obedience, amid possibly great sacrifice, of nature, from the obedience paid, often amid the greatest possible sacrifice, to the inner, living Word. Mordecai was a worthy successor, by some fifty years, of Daniel and his three companions with their food (Dan 1:8-17); of those same three companions in the matter of the golden image at Dura (Dan 3:8-28); and again, in particular, of Daniel and his prayers (Dan 6:4-24). “These all obtained their good report through faith”the faith that saw, heard, obeyed, what was a blank to mere nature, inaudible and invisible to mere sense.
II. IT WAS A REFUSAL INTENSIFIED IN EFFORT BY ANXIETY AS TO WHAT IT MIGHT ENTAIL UPON ESTHER. It risked the premature betrayal of the nationality of Esther as well as of Mordecai himself, and thereby the spoiling of what it is probable Mordecai already had in his mind, viz; that Esther might prove a great benefactor of her people generally.
III. IT WAS A REFUSAL FAITHFULLY ADHERED TO WHEN DANGERS GREW THICKER. Mordecai did not yield and cringe to Haman when the original inner reason of his refusing to do so had now become immensely added to by Haman’s enormous revenge. Outer policy might have advocated yielding at that very moment. The dictate of that policy would have been felt a temptation, resisted by few indeed. Very painful thoughts might also have attacked the steadfastness of Mordecai, as to what the recriminations of his people might bethat by his one display of feeling against Haman so many were involved in a common destruction. They might have said, “Why should he endanger the welfare of his people?” All the more would they have said this if at all envious because of the relation in which he stood to the new-made queen, Esther. But “none of these things moved him.” He was inflexible at the right time.
IV. IT WAS A REFUSAL WHICH OPENED A PERIOD OF DREADFUL SUSPENSE. There are many sacrifices, great in themselves, but easier to make because a moment will make the resolution, another moment will execute the resolution, and a third moment will be quite sufficient to acquaint one with the result of it. The discipline of suspense, however, with many natures is nothing less than torture. And now Mordecai’s refusal inaugurated the strain of days, weeks, and months of anguished conflict of feeling, of strenuous planning, and alternative purposings, the end of which he could not foresee, but the likeliest end for himself “hanging on a tree” (Est 2:23); for his nation, destruction.
V. IT WAS A REFUSAL WHICH THREW DOWN ITS ROOTS DEEP INTO THE SOIL OF TRUST AND FAITH. Mordecai descried one possible way out of his own and his people’s fearful peril. It was a narrow, uncertain, and dimly-lighted track. It was enough. He strove for it. He prayed for it. Faith and hope appropriated it. He will not relax an effort, nor will he permit Esther to be remiss. This was the best thing about Mordecai’s refusal, that it was willing to abide by the alternatives, the worst conceivable extremities, or God’s own deliverance. He had trust, and his trust was rewarded. The position then shows one man, deserted of earthly help, standing immovable in the same place, in the same posture, against a fierce current, midway in which he stood, for conscience’ and honour’s sake. And the issue shown was this, that to himself and to thousands upon thousands with him were brought salvation and great honour.B.
HOMILIES BY W. DINWIDDLE
Est 3:6
The intemperateness of contempt.
“And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone.” The projected deed of Haman, if it had been carried to completion, would not have been entirely without precedent and parallels more or less nearly resembling it. Herodotus, in the first book of his history, tells us of a massacre of the Scythians, actually carried into execution, and which preceded by about a hundred years that now proposed by Haman. When Darius Hystaspis ascended the throne, some forty years before the present date, a cruel slaughter of the Magi was ordered, and that slaughter was for a long period commemorated once a year. Five centuries onward bring us to that most memorable date of all, when, in one of the most heartless of massacres, Herod, king of Judaea, schemed to nip in the tender bud the career of the King of all the world, and to stifle in the thought the work of the Saviour of all men! And one can scarcely fail to associate with the present purpose of Haman the transactions of Black Bartholomew day, when, through the widespread and fair provinces of France, thousands upon thousands of Protestants were slaughtered! Deterrent though the subject of analysis is, let us consider that which is offered us in this passage.
I. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED CASE OF A MAN ANGRY. But there is probably a place for almost every kind, for almost every degree, of anger. “A fool’s wrath is presently known,” and a good man’s wrath should be presently known. Anger and sin often go together, but by no means always; the criterion thiswhether the anger is fed, has the poisonous force of rankling thought, of gloomy brooding in it; whether the sun is permitted to go down upon it, or it bidden to go down upon the down-going of the sun. If we stop here, our analysis conducts us no way, and is not sufficient to determine anything of value for us.
II. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED CASE OF RESENTMENT. But resentment is a natural and valuable principle. Analogies come in and conspire to speak in its defence and praise. Physically it is sometimes equivalent to a vital principle. But the physical value of it is the merest shadow of the amount and value of its spiritual use. With all the fullest force of which it is capable it may advantageously come, and welcomein order to fling off some kind of assault, some sorts of arrows, some species of temptings. It is the prime glory of resentment in matters spiritual to be as like as possible to the red-hot iron when the drop of water falls upon it.
III. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED CASE OF REVENGE. This passes us at once over the border line. We are no longer on safe ground, nor even on debateable ground. We are trespassing on the property of One who gives us here no right of ownership, but who is as liberal as he is powerful, as wise as he is wealthy, as considerate as he is just. It is he who, if he ever spoke with an impressive emphasis in his tone, has so uttered this one sentence: “Vengeance is mine,! will repay, saith the Lord.” Punishment, indeed, is not revenge; but how often does the most undisguised revenge dare to take the name and try to wear the look of the most impartial, temperate, judicial punishment! Perhaps Haman would scarcely feel it necessary to attempt to put this face on it, or to defend himself from an imputation to which he would attach neither guilt nor shame, provided that danger was not in the way. Yet it is manifest that Haman did put a very false face on what was the simple outcome of his own revengeful spirit when he was seeking the requisite powers from King Ahasuerus (Est 4:8).
IV. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED CASE OF THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF ANNOYANCE CALLED AFFRONT. No appreciable harm had been done to the person, or to the business, or to the place, or to the prospects of Haman. Nor had he been injured in the least degree in the person of his wife, or of his family, or of any one clear to him. But affront had been offered him, or he supposed such was intended. That is, harm, though light and fanciful as any butterfly, had alighted upon the finery of his dignity, his vanity, his pride. The abrasion of the polish of self was indeed so slight, so marvellously inconspicuous, that he himself did not at all know it till those envious mischiefmakers, the “king’s servants,” told him,,(ch, Est 3:4), in order, forsooth, “to see whether Mordecai’s account of the reason of this infinitesimal deduction from the incense due to Haman (to whom indeed he owed none at all) would hold him absolved. An angry man, a revengeful man, a madman, a “bear robbed of her whelps.” (Pro 17:12), “the lion out of the forest” (Jer 5:6), are surely all safe company to meet compared with the vain man affronted. And this was the lot of Mordecai now.
V. IT IS AN INDISPUTABLE CASE OF THE INSATIABLENESS OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF SINFUL ELEMENTS IN A CHARACTER. There is no bottom to pride, there is no height to haughtiness, there is no measure to swelling vanity, there is no temperateness to contempt, there is not “the bit or rein” that can be reckoned safe to hold in the uncertain, nettled temper of scorn and disdain. Approach any one of these with but the appearance of affront, though the reality may be your own principle and religion unfeigned, and there is no longer room for either explanation or even expiation. Revenge alone can meet the case. We have need to fear the first symptoms of such dispositions. They belong to the godless heart. They spread pestilence. They make the lives that own to them resemble volcanoes, which ever and anon throw up and spread all around the torrents of their destroying lava. Those who answer to this type so mournfully exhibited by Haman, miserable and uncertain themselves, are they who make misery all around. They “think scorn” to be patient; they “think scorn” to give to others the liberty they demand for themselves; they “think scorn” to ask or accept an explanation; they “think scorn” to credit any man’s religion and conscience, except their own travesty of the genuine and true; they “think scorn” to show any kindness, or to make only a little misery. The heart of goodness, of justice, of mercy, nay, even the heart of reason, is cankered from within them. They must destroy all who in the slightest degree, real or apprehended, stand in their light, if only they can see their way to do it without present injury to themselves. And among all the worst foes a man can have, none can exceed this disposition, if it dwell in his heart.B.
Est 3:6
Revenge. I. THE WRATH OF THE WICKED IS REVENGEFUL. The feeling is natural that prompts to retaliation. All human history is blurred by its activity. A Haman could not be offended without seeking to do the offender hurt. In the light of Christian truth it is mean and contemptible, but it is natural, and therefore almost universal.
II. THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE IS NECESSARILY UNJUST. It does not measure the evil it contemplates by the injury that has excited it; its fierce tide flows over, and drowns every thought of balanced equity; it throws away the scales, and only wields the sword.
III. THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE IS NECESSARILY UNMERCIFUL. Every feeling of pity is quenched in its fire. Its savage aim is to cause what suffering it can. The extermination of a whole people could only satisfy the vengeful lust of Haman.
IV. THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE, WHEN ONCE KINDLED, EASILY FINDS FUEL TO FEED IT. While blind to all considerations that should moderate or slay it, it is sharp-sighted with respect to everything that is fitted to stimulate it. It was bad enough that Mordecai refused to do homage to Haman; but when the favourite learned the real ground of his refusal, then a fiercer fire entered into his soul. All the antipathies of race were stirred into flame. Henceforth “he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone;” Mordecai’s people shall suffer with himself.
V. THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE IS ENCOURAGED BY THE POSSESSION OF POWER. A conscious inability to give it exercise has often a sobering effect; but the power to gratify it only increases its resolution in evil minds. Haman’s pride was inflated by the favour of the king. He could brook no slight. The might of the empire was in his hand, and that might should be exerted to its fullest extent to avenge the affront of the audacious Jew. His sense of power quickened his desire, and enlarged his project of revenge.
VI. THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE EXHIBITS ITSELF IN ALL PERIODS, AND IN ALL GRADES OF SOCIETY. Appalling as Haman’s plan of vengeance was, it is not solitary. Under some of the Roman Caesars the Christians were treated as Haman intended to treat the Jews. Later on, and under a so-called Christian authority, whole communities were sacrificed to a vengeance which could not tolerate any sign of independent belief or action, such as the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the Protestants in France. Our criminal records in the present day also illustrate the lengths to which an uncontrolled passion for revenge is willing to go. Yet the widest field on which this spirit produces suffering and misery is not public. Many families live on, in unknown but utter wretchedness, under the stupid fury of revengeful feeling excited by real or imaginary wrongs. Even in circles where everything like passion is avoided, men and women often cherish supposed slights and fancied insults. Reputations are often very calmly destroyed. The influence of good people is often neutralised, if not turned into evil, by the quiet maliciousness of enemies in the guise of friends. The spirit of revenge works in a myriad ways, and on every existing field of human life.
VII. THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE IN MAN IS NOT GODLY, BUT DEMONIACAL. Wherever seen, or however clothed, it is hateful to God, hateful to Christ, hateful to every true man. It is our part not to “return evil for evil,” but to “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). The prerogative of judging and punishing belongs not to us, but to God. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom 12:19, Rom 12:20). The Christian law is not “hate,” but “love your enemies” (Mat 5:44-48). This law was Divinely illustrated when Jesus on the cross prayed for the forgiveness of those who had in their mad fury of revenge inflicted on him such shame and pain: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luk 23:34).D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Est 3:1. Hamanthe Agagite This man was descended in a direct line from Agag, whom Samuel hewed in pieces in Gilgal. Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
B.HAMAN ATTAINS TO POWER AND DISTINCTION. HE DETERMINES UPON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWS
Est 3:1-15
1. Hamans elevation. His resolve with reference to the Jews. Est 3:1-7
1After these things [words] did [the] king Ahasuerus promote [elevated] Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced [make great] him, and set [put] his seat above all the princes that were with him. 2And all the kings servants, that were in the kings gate, bowed [were bending] and reverenced [bowing themselves to]1 Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning [enjoined for] him: but [and] Mordecai bowed not [would not bend] nor did him reverence [and 3would not bow himself]1. Then [And] the kings servants, which were in the kings gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou2 the kings commandment? 4Now [And] it came to pass [was], when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that [and] they told [it to] Haman, to see whether Mordecais matters [words] would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew. 5And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then [and] was Haman full of wrath.3 6And he thought scorn [despised in his eyes] to lay hands [hand] on Mordecai alone; for they had showed [told] him the people of Mordecai; wherefore [and] Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout [in] the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai. 7In the first month, (that is the month Nisan,) in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast4 Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman, from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is the month Adar.
2. With the permission of Ahasuerus Haman issues the decree to exterminate the Jews. Est 3:8-15
8And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There Isaiah 5 a certain [one] people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people [peoples] in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all [every] people, neither keep they6 the kings laws, therefore [and] it is not for the kings profit [fit for the king] to suffer 9them [let them rest]. If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed [to cause them to perish]; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge [the doers] of the business [work], to bring it into the kings treasuries. 10And the king took his ring [signet] from [off] his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha [the Medatha] the Agagite, the Jews enemy. 11And the king said unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also [and the people], to do with them [it] as it seemeth good to thee [in 12thy eyes]. Then [And] were the kings scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month [in the first month in the thirteenth day in it], and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded, unto the kings lieutenants [satraps], and to the governors [pashas] that were over every [each] province, and to the, rulers [princes] of every [each] people of every [each] province7 according to the writing thereof, and to every [each] people after their [its] language; in the name of [the] king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the kings ring [signet]. 13And the letters [books] were sent by posts [the hand of the runners] into all the kings provinces, to destroy, to kill [smite], and to cause to perish all Jews, both young and old [from lad even to old man], little children8 and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to 14take the spoil of them for a prey. The copy of the writing, for a commandment [law] to be given in every province,9 was published unto all people [the peoples], 15that they should be [to be] ready against [for] that day. The posts [runners] went out, being hastened by the kings commandment [word]; and the decree [law] was given in Shushan the palace [citadel]. And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
1 [Est 3:2. The different degrees of deference are well expressed by these two terms, of which the first, , denotes a simple inclination of the body as to an equal in courtesy, and the latter, a complete prostration in Oriental style of homage to a superior.Tr.]
2 [Est 3:3. The pronoun is emphatic, being expressed.Tr.]
3 [Est 3:5. , a more intense feeling than the ordinary .Tr.]
4 [Est 3:7. is impersonal, one caused to fall.Tr.]
5 [Est 3:8. the is epenthetic for euphony between the verbal noun and its suffix .Tr.]
6 [Est 3:8. The original is emphatic, And there is none of them doing.Tr.]
7 [Est 3:12. The true construction is In province by [lit. and] province was it written, etc.Tr.]
8 [Est 3:13. , a collective term for girls and boys.Tr.]
9 [Est 3:14. The original is emphatic, In every province, and province, i.e., severally.Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Est 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.
Est 3:1. After these things did king Ahasuerusin Est 3:7 we are in the twelfth year of the reign of Ahasuerus, five years after Est 2:16, but here somewhat soonerpromote Haman the son of Hammedatha. usually used in bringing up children, here means to make him a great manand 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 somn, 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, p. 199). Nowhere else do we find it Hammedatha, but rather Madathas (in Xenophon) or Madathes (in Curt. v. 3, 6). This form according to Pott (Zeitschr. der D. M. G., 1859, p. 424) has the same signification; and probably the 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.10 The epithet 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 Sauls time (1Sa 15:8; 1Sa 15:33). But we have evidence more nearly at hand, since Esther and Mordecai in Est 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.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. Exo 17:8 sqq. and my Comment. on Deu 25:17), and against whom the Lord also declared an eternal war (Exo 18:15; Num 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 Est 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 in Psa 7:1 offers only a doubtful analogy; but on the other hand in Jdg 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.
Est 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 (, as with and similar verbs, comp. e. g.Gen 20:13). It was a custom among the Persians to bow before the king, fall prostrate, and kiss the ground (Herodot. iii. 86; vii. 36; viii. 118; Xenophon, Cyrop. 5:3, 18; Est 8:3; Est 8:14), so also before the high officials and other distinguished men (Herodot. iii. 134). Mordecai, however, refused to do reverence to Haman. He did this not from stubbornness or personal enmity. It is clear from Est 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. viii. 136), 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.Gen 23:12; Gen 42:6; Gen 48:12; 2Sa 14:4; 2Sa 18:28; 1Ki 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. In schylus, Pers., 644 sqq., it is said: Darius was called their Divine Counsellor, he was full of divine wisdom, so well did he, Persias Shu-shan-born god, lead the army. Curtius says (Est 8:5; Est 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 likeness. But this law in itself would hardly have restrained him therefrom. Against this speaks, not only. Est 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 Nehemiah, 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 (Exo 17:5 and 1 Samuel 15), 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 Mordecais arbitrary will which regarded Haman as one rejected by God. Hamans 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. But it at all events amounts to this, that Gods 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.
Est 3:3-4. The other officers daily questioned Mordecai because of his refusal, and finally reported him to Haman to see whether Mordecais 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.
Est 3:5-6. Haman, when he had convinced himself of the conduct of Mordecai, regarded it lightly, and did not deem it sufficient to punish him alone; for the people to whom Mordecai belonged, had been told him, hence Haman knew that he belonged to the despised people of the Jews. But he rather strove to destroy all the Jews in the whole realm of Ahasuerus as being of the same mind with Mordecai.12
Est 3:7. Haman reasoned that for such a difficult and great undertaking he must select an especially appropriate day, and for this purpose he caused lots to be cast day after day throughout the whole year, and stopped at every day to see whether it was the one most proper for the undertaking. It was in the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, when this was done. Since he found a suitable day only in the twelfth month, namely, the thirteenth day of the month, according to Est 3:13, it is clear that he manifested much persistency and endurance. Possibly, what in itself is not of great moment, namely, the time in which he examined every single day, is here given, in order to give due prominence to the greatness of his zeal. Possibly another reason may have obtained in this designation of time. If the day of extermination was determined on already in the month of Nisan, and proclaimed on the thirteenth of that month (comp. Est 3:12) then it is clear that the Jews were for a whole year harassed in their mind regarding their fate in view of the edict which was now no longer a secret to them. Especially, if those living in and around Shushan had already heard on the 14th or 15th Nisan what was determined relative to them, then the most sacred joy which came to them in the Paschal festival was turned into utter sorrow. That it was the Paschal month in which their destruction was determined on, is by our author not so clearly expressed, since he seems to omit what might be understood as self-evident, but deserves consideration here. It seemed as if the old Paschal celebration, which indicated the ancient redemption out of the slavery from the world, was now to be abolished; as if Israel was now again to be handed over into the despotism and cruelty of foreign rulers. Instead of partaking of a feast it was enjoined on Mordecai, Esther and her friends to fast, as is shown in the old Targums (comp. chap.Est 4:1; Est 4:16). But the more the ancient deliverance from Egypt seemed to be divested of its import, the more the new deliverance from Persia must have risen in significance; the more doubtful the joy of the Paschal-feast became, the more was the rejoicing of the feast of Purim enhanced. The feast of Purim as the second celebration of deliverance was hence co-ordinate with the Paschal festival as being the first deliverance, but in such a manner that the former became a vital support to the latter.
We do not regard Haman as the subject (Bertheau) to be supplied with , as is generally assumed according to Est 3:6, but an indefinite he, some one, i.e., they. The author seems to presume that casting of lots in such cases as the one in hand was not infrequent, and that some one had the office of casting the lots, so that the subject of , may be implied as impersonal. If Haman himself had been the subject, then the words following would be remarkable, instead of which one would expect to find it . Bertheau connects this sentence with the explanatory phrase , as if the use of the foreign word by the Jews did not mean every lot, but only that cast before Haman. But then the author would have expressed it more easily and shorter: This is the lot of Haman and not the lot before Haman. That in the Old-Persian signified lot may not be doubted. Even in Modern-Persian it is behr and behre, appointment, fate, portio, pars; so that a ground meaning, such as lot, is not improbable (comp. Zenker, Turkisch-arab.-pers. Handwrterbuch, p. 229). It lies still more natural to compare it with, para or pare= piece, morceau, pice, originally perhaps also portio (ib. p. 162).13 The casting of lots in ancient times was very common (comp. Van Dale, Orac. ethn. c. 14; Potters Archol. I. 730) and is especially mentioned of the Persians (comp. Herod. III. 128). The opinion, so closely connected with Astrology, that one day was favorable and another unfavorable for a certain undertaking, is met with also among other ancient peoples, and very extensively among the Persians. Indeed it obtains in those regions even to-day (comp. Rosenmller, Morgenland, III., p. 302).14
The words: from day to day, and from month to month, are not to be understood as if the casting of lots had been continued from one day to another, etc., and thus repeated over and over, but, as is clear from Est 3:13, the meaning is that, in the first month every day of the year one after the other was brought into question.15 It is noticeable that, in addition to the words: from month to month, the number of the chosen month is added, the twelfth. One would expect such a sentence as this to follow: And the month was chosen, and then the number. At least after the phrase, from month to month, it would have been added up to the twelfth month. Hence Bertheau concludes that the Sept. has given the words here: And the lot fell upon the fourteenth day of the month, which is Adar, because they found them in the text, and that the eye of the copyist slipped all between the first to the second, after which latter follow the designation of the day and its number. But since the Sept. also adds: In order to destroy the people of Mordecai in one day, it is plain that it supplemented our verse with the thirteenth verse ; and since it was not the fourteenth day, but the thirteenth (according to Est 3:13; Est 9:18-19) that was designated, it is clear that the Sept. assumed to make changes arbitrarily. Probably the author in his customary short style spoke just as we read it. The use of the cardinal number instead of the ordinal made such a contraction possible; and the statement as to which day had been decided by the lot, might readily be wanting here.
Est 3:8-11. In order to gain the king also over to his own murderous plan, and to obtain of him a legal edict, Haman said to the king: There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom.16 has the Nun inserted before the suffix as in 1Sa 14:39; 1Sa 23:23; Deu 29:14 (Ewalds Lehrb., p. 262 e). is a numeral. He means: Only one of the many peoples has dared to disobey the laws of the king. This one, however, is so generally scattered and dispersed among the others that the evil example is of no small moment. It seems as if Haman here gave expression to a presentiment, whose fulfilment is declared by Seneca when he (De superstit. 3, p. 427) says: Such power have the customs of this detestable people already gained that they are introduced into all lands; they the conquered have given laws to their conquerors. Their laws (are) diverse from all (other) people, especially from the laws of this realm (comp. in Est 3:1, above all the princes).17Therefore it (is) not for the kings profit to suffer them., as in Est 3:8; Est 5:13, while in Est 7:4 it has a somewhat different sense. , to leave them in peace.
Est 3:9. If it please the king let it be written = let it be commanded by a public announcement, which is as irrevocable as a formal edict of the empire (comp. Est 1:19), that they may be destroyed. And I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business.Such a great sum (according to the Mosaic Shekel twenty-five million, and according to the common shekel, twelve and a half million thaiers; vide Zckler on 1Ch 22:14) does he hope to bring in by the confiscation of the property of the Jews.18 Those that have charge of the business, in 2Ki 12:11, designated builders (masons, etc.); but here and in Est 9:3 are meant the officers of the treasury [the collectors of the revenue. Rawlinson].
Est 3:10. The proposal of Haman seems to have pleased the king so much that he gave him his seal ring, and thus empowered him not only to cause the before-mentioned public proclamation to be made, but also to issue other suitable decrees, and by imprinting the royal signet to give them the authority of irrevocable commands (comp. Est 8:8-9). In private relations the present of a ring was the token of the most intimate friendship. Princes, however, thereby designated the one who held it as their empowered representative, (comp. Est 8:2; Gen 41:42; 1Ma 6:5; Curt., X. 5, 4; Aristoph., Eq. 947; Schulz, Leitungen, etc., iv. 218 sq.; Tournefort, R., II. 383)19 Sometimes successors to the crown were also thus appointed (comp. Josephus, Ant.XX. 2, 3). The significant designation of Haman as the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews enemy, points out how eventful this bestowal of authority upon Haman became to the Jews.
Est 3:11. The prospect of the great treasure thus to be acquired must have had considerable weight with Ahasuerus, who needed much money. Still it must not assume the appearance as if covetousness had anything to do with it. Hence he left the money to be gained to Haman, for thus he would also be the more sure of him in possible and coming events. The silver (is) (let it be) given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.The participle is a short mode of expression appropriate to the king. The sense is: It is, or: Let it be given. So also , let it be, or: It must be done.20
Est 3:12-15. Haman at once caused the necessary proclamations to be prepared, and had them sent into all the provinces of the kingdom. Est 3:12. [Then were the kings scribes called.The scribes of Xerxes are mentioned more than once by Herodotus (7:100; 8:90). They appear to have been in constant attendance on the monarch, ready to indite his edicts, or to note down any occurrences which he desired to have recorded.Rawlinson]. In the very same month in which he had the lot cast, and on the thirteenth day of the same (, in it, the said month). Perhaps it appeared that the thirteenth day of the first month was favorably indicated together with the thirteenth of the twelfth month.21And there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the kings lieutenants, and to the governors that (were) over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province. and are here, as in Ezr 8:36, placed together, the satraps of the larger provinces and the rulers among the separate peoples of the provinces. The are the native so-called born princes of the different peoples. Before the following , and likewise before further on, it should really be repeated: to the satraps, etc. The sense is: For the governors of each province according to their mode of writing (style), and to those of every people according to its language. In the addition: In the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the kings ring, the perfect tense only is fitting, and not the participle. And though may have a Kamets, to give it greater distinctiveness, still this is not true of , though so given in several editions.
Est 3:13. And the letters were sent by posts,etc.,, infin. abs. Niph., instead of the finite verb in vivid description (comp. Est 6:9; Est 9:6; Est 9:12). Letters, without the article, for the thought is: Letters whose contents are that…..should be destroyed. By the runners, by whom they were sent, are meant the posts, the angari or pressmen, who were posted on the main roads of the empire at definite distances from each other, from four to seven parasangs, and who rapidly expedited the royal (mail) letters or commands (comp. Herodot. V. 14; VIII. 98; Brisson, De reg. Pers. princ. I. c. 238 sq.). To destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews,etc.The crowding of verbs impresses the murderous import. And to take the spoil of themi.e., to thus obtain their property as spoils. Haman, of course, did not desire to come short in that which fell to him; but by giving the people the privilege of plundering, he desired to awaken their zeal the more. Thus they would either give him a share of the spoils, or else he hoped to obtain the sum before mentioned by the help of his servants or his coadjutors.22
Est 3:14. The copy (contents) of the writing,etc.The statements respecting the contents in Est 3:13 are too indefinite. It was not yet ordered that the officers only should fall upon the Jews, but that the people themselves should do this. This is expressly made to appear here. With reference to , see Ezr 4:11. The substance does not there follow verbatim, but is indicated by the infinitive. For a commandment to be given in every province.But the decree itself reads: Let it be published unto all people that they should be ready against that day.What was to be published is also indicated, but briefly. Thus in the style of expression the details are noted as is common in edicts, with abbreviation of points referred to. Since is feminine, as is seen, for example, in Est 3:8; Est 3:15, we cannot render: That they should publicly proclaim the edictmake it manifest to all. Still less are we to understand it, as does Keil: A copy of the writing of the substance that a law be given, and be declared to all peoples. Instead of this verb would then have to be in the perfect tense, and does not mean, as Keil interprets, open or unsealed in its transmission; neither does it mean opened, revealed, made known. is rather in the optative, the same as is in Est 3:11 (so also Bertheau).
Est 3:15.The posts went out, being hastened,etc., went speedily, in haste; in 2Ch 26:20 is the Niph. . The additional clause: and the decree was given in Shushan the palace means to assert from whence they went out. But the remark: And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed reveals the terrible contrast between the gluttony of these men and the distress into which they plunged the land. It also indicates by what means Haman sought to draw the king away from the business of government. primarily does not mean that it was distressed by terror or sorrow, but that it was perplexed, did not know what to think of such a terrible command (comp. Joe 1:18); in an external sense means to have erred (Exo 15:3).23
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
On Est 3:1 to Est 7:1. Mordecais meritorious act, though recorded, had not yet been rewarded. One would naturally think that at this period he would obtain the deserved honor. But instead it is expected of him on his part to do honor to a man such as Haman, who was the sworn enemy of his people and a bitter opponent of the Jewish law; who finally, as an Agagite, was under the curse of God. Esther, who no doubt was true to Judaism, although she had not yet openly professed it, was seated on the throne as the chosen queen. And now one would be led to expectcertainly the Jews hopedthat she would bring the people relief from oppression, and restore for them liberty which would secure them from injuries such as they had hitherto experienced, or at least had been threatened with. Instead of this, Haman, empowered with full authority, resolves to wholly exterminate the people; indeed he is in haste, although this exterminating process was to begin only after eleven months, to make the people acquainted with their fate long before the event comes to pass. Now it happens that Haman thereby utterly ruins their holiest joy, and the season of Paschal rejoicing is converted into a time of distress and grief. It seems by such notice as if the people could no more place any reliance in their God as their Saviour; as if their Lord, who had at one time chosen them as His peculiar people, and who, if He would, could even now deliver them from the distress of exile, was no more to be the source of their joy. But, however unexpectedly these turns in their affairs may seem to some, and however the question might be raised, which is so often mooted, why it must thus transpire, seemingly against all hope; still that which came to pass was not so very surprising, but quite natural. One would very naturally expect of a prince who, like Ahasuerus, did not live to perform his duties, but to indulge in sensual gratification, who sought, not the welfare of his subjects, but their wealth, would leave the power and government in the hands of men who knew how to flatter his weaknesses and to gratify his desires.
But above all, we cannot but notice the sharp contrast between the heathen state, as such, and the people of God. It looks very much like a merely casual human command, when Ahasuerus decreed that every one should bow the knee to such a man as Haman, and as if this single instance called forth a conflict. But in reality there is expressed the unconditional subordination which the state, especially the heathen one, must insist upon in reference to its laws and regulations. So long as the latter have proceeded not from the Spirit of God, but from the unregenerate heathen heart, so long will they contain demands to which the people of God cannot subject themselves. So long as the State is not entirely irreligious, it will be even inclined to operate within the religious domain, and thus the conflict takes its rise immediately between it and the people of God. We may also expect that the state will avail itself of such instruments to carry out its orders as of themselves are little disposed to be friendly to Gods people; instruments who, because of that peoples peculiarities, look upon them as a disturbing element, and are little disposed to exercise forbearance and toleration towards them. The people of God, on the other hand, have their obligation to obey all authorities under whose dominion they may be placed, even to the extent that they must endure condemnation to death, and suffer execution (Rom 13:1 sqq.). But they are equally obligated to give honor to God and not to man. They can only give honor to man in so far as God has so ordered it. They must refuse honor to those who are opposed to God, at the risk of provoking the most powerful and dangerous men of authority in the government. There is in short a great contrast between those who know nothing higher than the law of the state and state religion and those who look above and beyond these to the true and living God, and who supremely reverence His law. This contrast in later times gave rise to the wars of the Maccabees, and still later, though differently in form, to the war against the Romans; and it was this, too, which more especially brought on the persecutions of the Christians. In short, it is the contrast which in the history of mankind has asserted its power even at the cost of conflict for life or death. It is so irreconcilable and so powerful that it could not and can not be removed by any compromise whatever, but only unconditional subjection on the one partnamely, of the kingdom of the worldand by victory on the othernamely, of the kingdom of God. This contrast has always revived anew where the powers of the world have thrown off from themselves the bands of the Lord and His anointed.
Berlenburg Bible: That believers obey not the laws of the king has always been the chief complaint among the anti-Christian rabble, of which Haman furnishes a copy. The children of God, in their eyes, must ever be insurrectionists, disturbers of the peace, persons subject to no law or order, and by whom the public weal is endangered. Thus we have expressed the view in which Christ and His apostles were regarded (Luk 23:2; Luk 23:5). But this is the greatest of all falsehoods.
2. It is not only offended ambition that incites Haman against Mordecai; it is also hate against Judaism. It offends him that it has privileges and laws so different from those of the other peoples in the empire (comp. Est 3:8). Hence he is not content to lay hands on Mordecai alone, but he resolves also to exterminate all Jews. As his offended ambition strengthens his hate against Judaism, his hate receives fresh occasion from the offence to his ambitious designs on the part of Mordecai. The contrast between him and Mordecai has therefore a more general and deeper reason. Even Mordecais religion is endangered thereby. Haman demands the bowing of the knee, because according to the Persian notion, Deity is thereby honored in him. This is to him a religious rite. This is especially clear from the fact that he does not himself arbitrarily determine the day in which he will carry out his designs respecting the Jews, but he is rather dependent on the voice of Deity, as it is revealed to him by means of the casting of the lot. Nevertheless he gives religion a subordinate position in his thoughts, tendencies, desires and purposes,so that the former really becomes merely a means to the latter. It is just the opposite with Mordecai. Had it lain in his power to determine, he would doubtless cheerfully have obeyed the kings order to bow the knee before Haman. He no doubt comprehended the greatness of the danger that threatened him in case of refusal. He would perhaps the more easily have given in, since no doubt a voice often whispered in his ear that it might be very questionable whether or not he should view Haman as an Agagite, as one rejected of God. But the facts were too plain, and Gods Word required Mordecai to abominate instead of honoring Haman. This he must perform not only when it was most agreeable to his disposition, but also in the most opposite case. Viewed in this light Haman and Mordecai clearly indicate to us that the emphatic difference between heathen and Jew is true piety. The former serves when the worship of deity is only worship of self; in the lower plane it is only worship of nature and of the flesh; in the higher grades it has its basis in worship of human ideals. True piety, however, is a surrender to another will, to the will of the Holy God. Hence the former perfectly corresponds to the selfish manner of men, as they live at present, because of sin; the other opposes this in sharp contrast. But while the first is a flatterer, who, if any man will give heed, will deceive, the latter is a trusty friend who will lead upon a right way and toward salvation.
Brenz: Satan, as Christ says, is a liar and a murderer. Hence he is ever busy in persecuting the church with his lying and murderous designs. You have heard before his lie: The people are using new laws and ceremonies, and they despise the edicts of the king. Now hear his murderous words: If it pleases thee, decree that this people be destroyed. Feuardent: The sorrowful condition of the Jews becomes very apparent and plain as here revealed; likewise the just judgment of God is here fulfilled. He says: They would not obey God in their own land, where they enjoyed such great freedom, but now they groan under the severe service that presses upon them, and they are brought into the risk of life itself. They refused to assemble in the sanctuaries of Jerusalem under their own kings, they ran after the golden calves, the sacred groves, and idols and superstitions of the heathen. Now they are placed and scattered under the most tyrannical form of government. They neither can nor dare congregate to offer a service of praise to God. Starke: A man resigned to the will of God will disregard the laws of men, whenever these stand opposed to the will and laws of God, however much he may suffer thereby (Act 5:19; Dan 6:10 sq.). Although we should hold in honor those whom the higher authorities command to be honored, still such homage must not conflict with that due to God. When men disobey the laws of man and violate them, it is very soon taken notice of (Dan 6:11-13); but if they violate the law of God, then no one seems to observe the fact. We should not make man our idol, nor make flesh our arm (Jer 17:5). Immoderate ambition generally breaks out into cruelty. The anger of great men is fierce (Pro 16:14); hence one should have a care not to arouse the same against ones self.
On Est 3:2-7. The people of God, in the conflict with their enemies, may rely on the protection of God, if they are morally in the right. Thus also the enemies of such people will be their own destroyers by virtue of their machinations. Such is the tenor of this whole book. But a more difficult question arises here, whether Mordecai, in refusing to bow the knee to Haman, and thereby bringing on the conflict, was really in the right. This question is the more grave, inasmuch as Haman could not properly be termed either an Agagite or an Amalekite; and all turned upon a form of homage proper and permissible in itself. The question would be more simple if Haman, as opposed to Mordecai, had been only a private individual. That in that case the latters conduct would have been right and proper, cannot be doubted. As the Lord sanctioned enmity against all that are like-minded to Amalek in the command: Remember what Amalek did unto thee (Deu 25:17), David justifies himself before God in hating those that hate God, and is grieved at those who raise themselves against Him; indeed he hates them with perfect hatred (Psa 139:21-22). When he would recount the chief characteristics of a truly pious person in the church, he makes this trait prominent (Psa 15:4). This, according to Luther, means that the just man is no respecter of persons; nor does he care how holy, learned, or powerful one be. If virtue be reflected from any one, the just man will honor him, though he were even a beggar. But if virtue be not found in him, then he will be esteemed as bad, and as nothing; the righteous man will tell him of it, and censure him. He will tell him, Thou dost despise the Word of God, thou dost slander thy neighbor; therefore I desire no connection with thee. The Christian must in like manner perform this duty. He must do it for the sake of mercy, if no other means will avail; or for the sake of truth, which pronounces evil to be evil, and censures it. He must hold up to reproof him who by a persistent immoral life brings disgrace upon the name of Jesus Christ, or even by his conduct manifests enmity against the same. This the Christian should do often, not only as respects the particular person, but also as respects his acts or disposition. In regard to this, Harless says very justly: It were a gross error to think that the Christian should content himself with reproving simply the offence and its tendency, but that thereafter he could nevertheless maintain personal and external relations with such a person. On the contrary, the blessings of the Spirit of Christ given to His church, will materially depend upon the principle that in the selection of personal companionship the consciousness and true unity which should unite the church must be maintained by external separation. The Christian, in so far as it depends on his own selection and is consistent with his calling, should avoid the society of those whose disposition he has found to be reprobate. We cannot term it other than a lack of Christian consistency when such Christians call it Christian love to seek out society from all the world in an indiscriminate manner, and cultivate it, and that according to ones own choice (comp. 1Co 15:33, etc.) (Christliche Ethik, 47, p. 456, 7th ed.). But all this has reference primarily only to the relation of the common intercourse of neighbors. Haman was to Mordecai an official magisterial person. Besides, it was expressly commanded by the king that he should be thus honored by bowing the knee before him. Hence the command: Honor thy father and mother, and also the other that, one should not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people (Exo 22:27), demanded respect. Neither was the precept to be forgotten: My son, fear thou the Lord and the king (Pro 24:21). In the New Testament the two chief apostles exhort us to submission under authority: Paul in Rom 13:1 sqq.; Peter in 1Pe 2:13 sqq. Peter closes the paragraph cited with the words: Fear God. Honor the king. If by the word honor we are to understand merely the rendering of obedience, as seems to be implied in verse 13, then it would not be doubtful as to its proper limits. The word of the apostle: We ought to obey God rather than man (Act 5:29) is very conclusive and direct, and needs no further confirmation. The church-fathers of the first centuries, in treating of this point, strongly assert that we should honor the authorities in, and not as opposed to God. Comp. J. Gerhard, in De magistrate politico, 474. Then when the stability of order within an organized community is attacked and overthrown in defiance of right,and such was the situation in Persia when Haman in an inimical manner attacked the Jews, who up to this time had had the undisputed right to live according to their law and faith; when he became to them an Agagite and an Amalekite,then resistance, and individual participation therein, is justified and commanded. This, of course, holds within the limits of the existing order of a people and of the individual calling. Stahl [Die Partheien in Staat u. Kirche, p. 288), as also Harless (Christl. Ethik, 54), is very clear on this point that, the doctrine of the blamableness of any active resistance, and the unconditioned obligation of passive obedience is opposed to the Christians sacred maintenance of right. So also is the assumption false that obedience must be rendered to authority because it is authority, even though it deny and disregard all right and law in the enforcement of its own claims to authorityan authority which it has not received for its own sake, but because of the right whose guardian and executor it is its calling to be (Harless, as above, p. 541). Hoffmann (Schriftbeweiss, II., 2, p. 409) speaks from the same conviction: It is certainly not morally permissible that one people rise against the righteous order in the existing government of another people, or of a foreign ruler. But it is a moral duty that it should not submit to be despoiled by a foreign power of that element, which, in Gods order, is essential to its existence and to its substantial peculiarity. Experience has ever proved that resistance grounded upon a good conscience, and supported by so high and noble an enthusiasm, is indeed countenanced by God in so decided a manner, that no force, however great, can accomplish anything against it. It is worthy of notice that the command to honor the king and secular authority demands more than obedience, it embraces also regard and homage. Hence arises the question, whether or not we ought to meet certain persons with esteem and homage, to whom we must refuse obedience, indeed against whomin contrast with Mordecai we are compelled to offer resistance. There are doubtless many cases where these conditions obtain. Such a case would especially occur where the authorities think that right is on their side. When they proceed from a different view or conviction with reference to the case, they are by no means to be disregarded. The admonition in 1Pe 2:18 is in place here: Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. Now if the authorities, as says Harless, really assume to disregard and deny right and law, in its claim of jurisdiction, which it can only have as the guardian and executor of justice, then practically it ceases to be authority. If it sanction oppression and pillage; if it touch the existing right, religion, and conscience, then it becomes a chief enemy of those who will not submit to the spoiling of these possessionsfor so did Haman, nor otherwise could he justly be called an Agagite.
Hence homage can only be denied to the magisterial office where the bearer of the name is regarded as unworthy of the position he occupies. An external homage, in connection with which one must manifest hostility, would then become hypocrisy, and the more so since instead of giving the honor due from a sincere heart, we can only despise and execrate. To refuse it is only to act honestly, though it often requires courage. This is the more necessary since the opposition is grounded upon and confined to what is permitted according to right and calling. As was the case with Mordecai, we should take an early opportunity to manifest our determination to refuse homage to authority, since its false ways cannot be too severely condemned.
On Est 3:8-15. 1. So long as Israel possessed a political independence the chief support of its religion had been the State. The State had jurisdiction over its own laws and those of religion. Now, however, the State takes an opposite stand to its religion. The complaint of Human was, that this people had different laws from those of the other peoples of the kingdom, and hence did not obey those of the king (which was correct as regarded the laws that were opposed to its own). For this reason also, Ahasuerus permitted the decree for the extermination of Israel. The State, even at this period, could not avoid demanding decided submission; and where it encountered insuperable obstinacy it adopted extreme measures, even banishment and extermination. But it would have been better had it been tolerant to the last degree. All the means of might were at its command, by which to carry out its will. All the offices and organizations which the State had established for the weal of its subjects, as is indicated in Est 3:12; Est 3:15, could have been employed in their subjection. One might feel inclined to ask whether, in view of all these things, there remained any hope for Mordecai; whether his opposition did not, at the very beginning, promise to be futile. Doubtless his hope was in Him for whose honor he was jealous; namely, in the living God. That Being now desires to make manifest for all ages by a striking example, that He can sustain His people, not only without the aid of any civil power, but also in opposition to a foreign State. Indeed He can preserve it even amid the heathen, in spite of all distracting elements. Hence the church need not fear, be the relation of the State what it may. The Lord knows how to make even the most unfavorable circumstances serviceable and useful to the church.
2. If now we inquire upon what natural basis Mordecai could establish his hope, then we observe that truth was on his side. That which is rejected of God, instead of being honored, is to be abhorred. Hence for him who believed in the true God, no doubt existed but that this truth would eventually obtain a more general recognition. But in order to this, a still longer development was needed. Heathendom must first become conscious of itself, i.e., of its own weakness and impotence, which were a part of its existence in spite of all external power; then only can it learn to know the true God. For the present, it was the weakness and failing, which attached to the leaders of heathenism, that offered resting-places for the helping hand of God. Whether these were already well known to Mordecai is doubtful; but to our eyes they are already manifest in this chapter. Haman would not venture to come before Ahasuerus and exhibit his wounded vanity and spirit of revenge; and Ahasuerus does not desire to reveal the fact that he is anxious to possess the money of the Jews. However, with the former vanity, and with the latter an inordinate desire for money, plays the chief part. They would have it appear as if their acts were done under the impulse of right and duty. They would kill off the people of God with proper decency. They dissemble; but they thereby gain only a self-condemnation of their own evil motives. An official who is guilty of dissembling, is in danger of being unmasked; and a prince who is so weak as to be led by a motive of which he must needs be ashamed, especially in such a grave and extraordinary occurrence, easily exposes also other weaknesses. Hence it would not be difficult for others likewise to gain the ascendency over him, who could easily dissuade him from a purpose, even after the same had become an irrevocable edict. The remark at the close of the chapter is also very significant and characteristic. A prince and an officer who at the time when the inhabitants of their chief city are in the greatest consternation, when above all an entire people is thrown into mortal fear of their life, can sit down to eat and drink, manifest either an inhumanity, which would easily arouse a general revolt, or an evil conscience which already foretells the failure of their plans. If we ask respecting the natural foundations upon which the expectation of an eventual victory of Christianity is based, in the face of all the assaults and dangers to which it is exposed, then the power of truth, as it breaks its way and compels universal recognition, would emphatically answer the question, and be the main point of reliance. The experience of centuries teaches one fact definitely and variously, that there is salvation in no other, and that no other name is given to men whereby they may be saved, than the name of Jesus Christ. But the weaknesses of those who deem themselves strong will over be a matter of observation. Christians should be better informed than they often are, of the impotency and nothingness of those in opposition to them. They have a clear right to the question: What can men do to us? Even their opponents must acknowledge, if they are not too much blinded, that in those nations among which the pure faith reigns supreme, there is a different type of fidelity, conscientiousness, devotion, and readiness to make sacrifices than among those who have been dried up by the sun of false enlightenment. The course of events will soon compel them to see their mistake.
Brenz: This is plainly what Christ afterwards said to His little church; that is, His disciples: Verily, verily I say unto you, ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. For as in the passion of Christ the chief priests triumphed, and the soldiers mocked, but Christ hung on the cross and was afflicted with exceeding misery, so the joy of the wicked will be at its highest over the sorrow of the godly. But that is most true which we read: The triumphing of the wicked (is) short, and the joy of the hypocrite (but) for a moment. Though his excellency mount up to the heavens and his head reach unto the clouds; (yet) he shall perish for ever like his own dang: they which have seen him shall say, Where (is) he? Feuardent: Observe now how active everything is in this matter, and how all conspires for the extermination of the people of God. The terrible sentence is defined and described in as many languages and modes as there are peoples in the empire…..But while the godly are in great distress, as they anticipate the fatal day of the cruel execution, the king and Haman indulge in drunkenness and lust and joy. So perisheth the righteous, and no man layeth it to heart (Isa 57:1). So the servants of God are oppressed by the agents of the Devil. So cruelty triumphs…..But it is well. There is a God in the heavens. Starke: When wicked men cannot otherwise persecute the pious, then his religion and laws must furnish them with a cause and a covering for their evil intentions (Act 16:21-22). In important matters it is not good to render a hasty judgment, it is better to reflect (Isa 28:7). God permits the wicked to have success beyond their own expectation at times, but afterward destruction will come all the more unexpectedly. (Psa 37:35-36; Job 10:45.)
Footnotes:
[1][Est 3:2. The different degrees of deference are well expressed by these two terms, of which the first, , denotes a simple inclination of the body as to an equal in courtesy, and the latter, a complete prostration in Oriental style of homage to a superior.Tr.]
[2][Est 3:3. The pronoun is emphatic, being expressed.Tr.]
[3][Est 3:5. , a more intense feeling than the ordinary .Tr.]
[4][Est 3:7. is impersonal, one caused to fall.Tr.]
[5][Est 3:8. the is epenthetic for euphony between the verbal noun and its suffix .Tr.]
[6][Est 3:8. The original is emphatic, And there is none of them doing.Tr.]
[7][Est 3:12. The true construction is In province by [lit. and] province was it written, etc.Tr.]
[8][Est 3:13. , a collective term for girls and boys.Tr.]
[9][Est 3:14. The original is emphatic, In every province, and province, i.e., severally.Tr.]
[10][The name Haman is probably the same which is found in the classical writers under the form of Omanes, and which in ancient Persian would have been Umana or Umanish, an exact equivalent of the Greek Eumenes. Hammedatha is perhaps the same as Madata or Mahadata (Madatos of Q. Curtius), an old Persian name signifying given by (or to) the moon. Rawlinson.Tr.]
[11][It is certainly difficult to assign any other meaning to the word; but on the other hand it seems unlikely that Agags children, if he had any, would have been spared at the time of the great destruction of Amalek, without some distinct notice being taken of it. Haman, moreover, by his own name, and the names of his sons (Est 9:7-9), and of his father, would seem to have been a genuine Persian. Rawlinson.We may therefore conclude that the epithet Agagite is here used symbolically of a heathen enemy of the Jews.Tr.]
[12][In the West such an idea as this would never have occurred to a revengeful man; but in the East it is different. The massacres of a people, a race, a class, have at all times been among the incidents of history, and would naturally present themselves to the mind of a statesman. The Magophonia, or a great massacre of the Magi at the accession of Darius Hystaspis, was an event not fifty years old in the twelfth year of Xerxes, and was commemorated annually. A massacre of the Scythians had occurred about a century previously. Raw linson.TR.]
[13][Pur is supposed to be an Old-Persian word etymologically connected with the Latin pars, and signifying part or lot. In modern Persian pareh has that meaning. The recovered fragments of the old language have not, however, yielded any similar root. Rawlinson.Tr.]
[14][The practice of casting lots to obtain a lucky day continues still in the East, and is probably extremely ancient. Assyrian calendars note lucky and unlucky days as early as the eighth century B. C. Lots were in use both among the Oriental and the classical nations from a remote antiquity. Rawlinson.Tr.]
[15][A lot seems to have been cast, or a throw of some kind made, for each day of the month and each month of the year. The day and month which obtained the best throws were then selected. Rawlinson.Tr.]
[16][Although a part of the Jewish nation had returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel, the greater portion was still despised among the provinces, in Babylonia, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere (see Ezr 7:6; Ezr 8:17 ; Neh 1:1-2, etc.). Rawlinson.Tr.]
[17][Compare the charges made against the Jews by Rehum and Shimshai (Ezr 4:13-16). Rawlinson.Tr.]
[18][According to Herodotus (III. 95), the regular revenue of the Persian king consisted of 14,560 silver talents, so that if the same talent is intended, Hamans offer would have exceeded two-thirds of a years revenue (or two and a half millions sterling). With respect to the ability of Persian subjects to make presents to this amount, it is enough to quote the offer of Pythius (Herod. VII. 28) to present this same monarch with four millions of gold darics, or about four and a half millions of our money, and the further statement of the same writer (Herod. I. 192), that a certain satrap of Babylon had a revenue of nearly two bushels of silver daily. Rawlinson.Tr.]
[19][The signets of Persian monarchs were sometimes rings, sometimes cylinders, the latter probably suspended by a string round the wrist. The expression here used might apply to either kind of signet. Rawlinson.TR]
[20][Some understand this to mean that Xerxes refused the silver which Haman had offered to him; but the passage is better explained as a grant to him of all the property of such Jews as should be executed. In the East confiscation follows necessarily upon public execution, the goods of criminals escheating to the crown, which does with them as it chooses (comp. Est 3:13 ad fin., and Est 8:1; Est 8:11 ad fin.). Rawlinson. Tr.]
[21][Haman had apparently (comp. Est 3:7 with Est 3:13) obtained by his use of the lot the 13th day of Adar as the lucky day for destroying the Jews. This may have caused him to fix on the 13th of another month for the commencement of his enterprise. Rawlinson.Tr.]
[22][By the issue of the decree at this time (the first month) the Jews throughout the empire had from nine to eleven months warning of the peril which threatened them. So long a notice is thought to be incredible (Davidson), and the question is asked, Why did they not then quit the kingdom? In reply we may say(1) that many of them may have quitted the kingdom ; and (2) that those who remained may have believed, with Mordecai (Est 4:14), that enlargement and deliverance would arise from some quarter or other. As to its being improbable that Haman should give such long notice, we may remark that Haman only wished to be quit of Mordecai, and that the flight of the Jews would have served his purpose quite as well as their massacre. Rawlinson.Tr.]
[23][The remark that Shushan was perplexed has been attributed to Jewish conceit, but without reason. Susa was now the capital of Persia, and the main residence of the Persians of high rank. These, being attached to the religion of Zoroaster, would naturally sympathize with the Jews, and be disturbed at their threatened destruction. Nay even apart from this bond of union, the decree was sufficiently strange and ominous to perplex thoughtful citizens. Rawlinson.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We have here the church of GOD brought into great danger, and threatened with total destruction. Haman the Agagite is advanced by the king to great honors; being slighted by Mordecai he determineth revenge upon the whole nation of Israel.
Est 3:1
(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.
The Reader should recollect, for the better apprehension of this history, that at this time the kingdom of Persia, as the Roman in after ages, and the Babylonian in former times, swayed the sceptre of the then known world. This Haman therefore, it is probable, had been brought under the government of Persia, and being at court had gained the favor of Ahasuerus.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Solitariness of Principle
Est 3:8
In this story of the Persian Empire it is related how Haman, the king’s chief favourite, felt insulted because Mordecai the Jew neglected to give him sufficient honour. His wounded dignity demanded revenge, but could not be satisfied with merely inflicting punishment on the man who had offended him. Because Mordecai was a Jew he would have the indignity wiped out by the extermination of the whole tribe. So Haman, by a little judicious flattery of the king, by misrepresenting the character of the Jewish exiles who lived within the bounds of the great Persian Empire, got a decree against them. ‘There is a certain people dispersed among the provinces of thy kingdom, and their laws are diverse from those of every people.’ It was a false charge as Haman put it, implying a Jewish conspiracy against the Empire. But in another sense it was true. The Jews were a separate people even in the midst of the Persian Empire, with rites and ceremonies, and religious beliefs, and practices of their own. The same sort of charge was made against the Christian Faith in the Roman Empire, with the same falseness and evil purpose, and with the same inherent truth. Christians were persecuted and harried because of their singularity, because they were in Rome and yet did not do as the Romans did.
I. Progress is ever got by dissent. There must be points of departure, lines of cleavage, difference; or else there is stagnation and ultimate death. It is from singularity that the race has hope for the future. Great movements of thought have ever sprung from dissent. Our Christian religion lays greater stress than ever on the solitariness of principle, making it even an individual thing instead of a racial difference, as with the Jews. The Church is set in the world as a model for the world, a great object-lesson to induce it upward to a higher level of thought and action. And what is the Church but a certain people whose laws are diverse from those of all other peoples. But the Christian faith, with its doctrine of the special illumination of the Holy Spirit to the receptive soul, goes even further, and puts the emphasis on the individual, making the soul responsible to God alone. It enforces the imperative of principle, calling a man out, if need be, to stand alone, making him, it may be, diverse from all people for conscience sake. A great soul is alone. From the very nature of the case greatness in anything isolates. A great man is always, to begin with, in a minority. Commonplace men on the whole prefer the commonplace.
II. But this singularity must be the fruit of principle to be worth anything; it must be for conscience sake. The diverseness from all other people must be in obedience to laws, which make their irresistible appeal to conscience. If it is due to desire for notoriety, or through eccentricity, it is beneath contempt. But the cure for such is simple. This weak craving for notice will be curbed by the thought that all singularity carries with it a corresponding responsibility. It tunes the life to a high pitch; and failure is all the more pitiful. It demands stern adherence to principle. It fixes a more inflexible standard. The only excuse for laws diverse from all people is that they should be higher laws and be obeyed with wholehearted loyalty, and the very moral necessity laid upon a man’s conscience to be singular. The unflinching advocacy of an unpopular cause for conscience sake gives to the character strength and solidity.
Hugh Black, University Sermons, p. 77.
References. III. 8. A. P. Stanley, Sermons on Special Occasions, p. 98. III. 12-15. A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 128. III. A. Raleigh, The Book of Esther, p. 69. IV. 1-9. A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther, p. 128.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Est 3
1. After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman [of whom nothing is known beyond what is in this book] the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.
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 [did not prostrate himself], nor did him reverence. [Mordecai’s objection was religious, not personal or ceremonial.]
3. Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?
4. Now 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 [words] would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.
5. And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.
6. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had showed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.
7. In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year [474 b.c.] of king Ahasuerus, they cast pur [a Persian word for lot], that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar [the lunar month ending at the new moon in March].
8. And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws [a favourite weapon in the hands of persecutors]; therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.
9. If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver [two and a half millions sterling, the whole annual revenue of the empire] to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.
10. And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jew’s enemy.
11. And the king said [with characteristic indifference] unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.
12. Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day [the eve of the passover, on the same date, five hundred years after, Christ was betrayed!] of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s lieutenants [satraps], and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring.
13. And the letters were sent by posts [the runners] into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.
14. The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day.
15. The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan the palace. And the king and Hainan sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed [evidently preferring the Jews to Haman].
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Est 4
1. When Mordecai perceived all that was done, Mordecai rent his clothes [a common sign of Oriental sorrow], and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and bitter cry;
2. And came even before the king’s gate: for none might enter into the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth.
3. And in every province, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes.
4. So Esther’s maids and her chamberlains came and told it her. Then was the queen exceedingly grieved; and she sent raiment to clothe Mordecai, and to take away his sackcloth from him; but he received it not.
5. Then called Esther for Hatach, one of the king’s chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her, and gave him a commandment to Mordecai, to know what it was, and why it was.
6. So Hatach went forth to Mordecai unto the street [the square, or wide open place] of the city, which was before the king’s gate.
7. And Mordecai told him of all that had happened unto him, and of the sum of the money that Haman had promised to pay to the king’s treasuries for the Jews, to destroy them.
8. Also he gave him the [a] copy of the writing of the decree that was given at Shushan to destroy them, to shew it unto Esther, and to declare it unto her, and to charge her that she should go in unto the king, to make supplication unto him, and to make request before him for her people.
9. And Hatach came and told Esther the words of Mordecai.
10. Again [ and is better] Esther spake unto Hatach, and gave him commandment unto Mordecai;
11. All the king’s servants [court], and the people of the king’s provinces, do know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, there is one law of his [one unvarying rule] to put him to death, except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden sceptre [a custom referred to by this writer only], that he may live: but I have not been called to come in unto the king these thirty days.
12. And they told to Mordecai Esther’s words.
13. Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself [imagine not in thy mind] that thou shalt escape in the king’s house [occupation of the palace will be no protection to thee], more than all the Jews.
14. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement [a breathing space] and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place [heavenly interposition]; but thou and thy father’s house [Esther was not Abihail’s only child] shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
15. Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer,
16. Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day [probably thirty-six hours]: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.
17. So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.
Progress
IN course of time Esther succeeded Vashti as queen. Some have blamed Mordecai 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 so, 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 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 is, 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. No 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” ( Est 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 a sentimental act, 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” ( Est 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 man, 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” ( Est 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” ( Est 3:10-11 ).
This is the effect of self-indulgence on the human will. We have seen how the king 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.
“When Mordecai perceived all that was done, Mordecai rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and a bitter cry” ( Est 4:1 ).
That is all we can do sometimes. Speech is useless, words are a mockery; the soul is filled with woe. It is not unmanly, it is not weakness; it is indeed an aspect of human greatness; it is man seeking after the ineffable, the eternal, the infinite, crying where he cannot speak, for a cry is more eloquent than a sentence. All who have known the bitterness of life have been in this very condition in some degree. When poverty has been in every room in the house, when affliction is a familiar guest, when disappointment comes like a crown of thorns upon the head of every day, what if even strong solid men express themselves in a loud and bitter cry? Mordecai had, however, something left; he said, I must work through my relative; Esther the queen must come to my deliverance now, and through me to the deliverance of the whole people in this foreign land. So he began communications with the queen; the queen explained and hesitated, pointed out the difficulties, but Mordecai would hear nothing of difficulty. He made a grand appeal to her:
“Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king’s house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed” ( Est 4:13-14 ).
We have anticipated the speech. How nobly it is argued; how pathetically it is uttered! The man was shut up to one course. There are times when we are dependent upon one life: if this fail, God fails. Who does not know something of this experience, when ingenuity is baffled, when invention can go no farther, and yet there is just one thing that may be tried, that must be tried? These are the circumstances which test character; these are the circumstances, too, which test our friends. We only know our friends when we are in extremity. This is Christ’s own test of character. He said, “I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat”; in other words, I was in extremity, and my extremity was your opportunity. This is precisely the reasoning of Mordecai. The Jews were an hungered, and they pined for the meat the bread, the water, of fraternal sympathy. There are times when we must risk everything upon a last effort. Are there not some of us who have risked nothing? In crises we know what men are. Mordecai’s religious confidence triumphed. He was a Jew of the right type; he said enlargement and deliverance should arise from another quarter: God would not forsake his people; he has himself punished them, but in all God’s correction there is measure: it is impossible that Hainan’s murderous policy can succeed. There are times when men leap in their inspiration; they become majestic through moral conviction, they feel that things are not handed over to a wicked hand. Though the night be dark, and the wind be loud and cold, and friends there may seem to be none, yet through that very darkness deliverance will come, and the world will be wrested from the clutches of the devil.
Then came the sublime personal appeal
“And who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” ( Est 4:14 ).
Now we may have explanation. “We wondered why thou shouldest have been chosen to be queen in place of Vashti; others appeared to be more beautiful than thou, but by some means, not then explicable, thou wast brought to the kingdom: now the explanation is at hand.” God discovers himself by surprises. For a long time all things proceed monotonously, even wearisomely, and quite suddenly we begin to put things together, and to shape them, until they become pillars, arches, houses, sanctuaries; then we say, This was the meaning of it all: the darkness is gone, the light shineth, and behold God, even invisibleness, is at hand, so that we can lay our hand upon him, fall down before him, and bless his all-sufficient and reverent name. This hope nerves the weakest; this hope reveals the depths of the human constitution. Are there not crises in which we are all placed? What have you your wealth for? What a trial is prosperity! Why was it given to you? That you might make every good cause prosper; that you might make every way easy along which the kingdom of heaven was passing; that there might be no crying in your streets. Your wealth was given to satisfy the cry of need, to bless the cause of honesty. How dare you go to bed with all that gold in the coffer? For what was your power given? not to gratify your ambition, not to make you a name amongst men; but that you might threaten the enemy, undo heavy burdens, smite the tyrant, and speak comfortably to every brave man who is working under arduous and trying circumstances. Who dare bear his power simply as a decoration? For what was your education given to you? That you might be a light in darkness, a teacher of the ignorant, a friend to those who have had no such advantages as you have enjoyed. You were not educated that you might chatter in polysyllables, astound human ignorance by an information which it could never test; you were educated in the providence of God that you might help every man to learn the alphabet, to spell the name of God, to make out the gospel of Christ. “Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” If men had understanding of the times, saw their opportunities, rose to the occasion, in the spirit of Christ, in the spirit of the cross of Christ, they would make the world feel how true are Christ’s words: “Ye are the salt of the earth…. Ye are the light of the world…. Ye are a city set on a hill.” Christ Jesus the Son of God always calls men to help others, to deliver the oppressed, to undo heavy burdens that are too grievous to be borne. In going forward to such work as that we are obeying Christ’s command when he said “Follow me.”
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXV
THE STORY OF ESTHER
Esther
Our subject for this discussion is “The Story of Esther.” First, a few words by way of general introduction to the book. The book of Esther belongs to what is called The Haggiographa, that is, the writings. The books of the Old Testament are divided into three groups: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings. This book belongs to the third group. The time of this book is during the sixty years of silence between the dedication of the Temple and Ezra’s return. It should be located right between the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra) perhaps about thirty-eight or thirty-nine years after the dedication, or 478 B.C.
The author is unknown, but unquestionably he was a Jew, possibly Ezra or Mordecai, but probably neither of them. The style is against Ezra as author, while the high praise of Mordecai is against Mordecai as author and, besides there are no first personal pronouns in the book referring to the author. It was evidently written by a Jew contemporary with Mordecai. Some say Joakim, the high priest, wrote it, but this is hardly probable, since he does not seem to have had a knowledge of the Persian court sufficient for such a task. The date is about 450 B.C.
There is a great deal of difference in the way the book of Esther is regarded by scholars and others. Many Gentiles have but little use for it, because it is such a Jewish book. Ewald, a great German critic, says that it is like coming down from heaven to earth to read Esther. Luther said he wished the book had never been written it is so Judaizing. So you see this book is variously estimated. The Jews value it highly. They maintain that the book of Esther will last when the prophets have perished. They always read it with great joy and say its place in the canon of the Holy Scriptures is unquestioned. But in many editions of the Bible it was not included; it was not considered worthy of a place. But by a large majority of the scholars it is included in the canon, as rightfully belonging to the Holy Scriptures.
The book was undoubtedly written to give a historical basis or ground for the Feast of Purim. This feast was observed for centuries before Christ in the month of March. The book was written by a Jewish patriot to give the occasion of this feast. This book has some peculiarities. The name of God is not once mentioned. There is no mention of prayer in it. There is not even a reference to Jerusalem nor the Temple. But it must be remembered that it is a national book; written for national purposes and from a national motive. It is intensely Jewish, referring to a tragic incident in their history, recounting the marvelous way in which they escaped from a great crisis. There are two allusions in the book to facts in previous Jewish history, viz: Mordecai’s captivity (Est 2:6 ) and the dispersion of the Jews in all the provinces (Est 3:8 ).
The book is real history. The arguments against the historicity of book are as follows:
1. According to the history of Herodotus, and that is our chief authority for the history of this period, especially Persian history, the queen of Ahasuerus at this time was Amastris, whom he married many years before the events found in the book of Esther could have happened, and she never was put away, but maintained a great influence over him and largely shaped the course of his life. She was a Persian woman of very bad personal traits: unscrupulous and crafty, controlling the king in many matters. She was entirely different from what Esther is pictured as being. Our reply to that argument will come up in a later reply to it.
2. The law of the land compelled the Persian monarchy to marry in the families of his own relatives, or five of the noblest Persian favorites. Thus it would have been impossible for a Jewish woman to have been made the queen.
3. Esther is regarded as the queen in this book. But she could only have been the chief favorite in the royal harem. This is probably the only position in which we can place her and be in harmony with the facts.
4. It is argued that the book clearly indicates that Haman knew the race of Mordecai, but not that of Esther. How could he be ignorant of the race?
5. The appalling massacre of their enemies by the Jews, seventy-five thousand at one time, seems incredible. It looks like the fancy picture of a novelist. The reasonable thing is to deny that seventy-five thousand citizens of the Persian Empire could be killed or butchered in such a way.
6. It is highly improbable that the massacre should have been deferred for eleven months after it was decreed. Lots were cast, and according to the lot Haman fixed the date of the decree which he had secured from the king. It is neither improbable nor by any means impossible, but perfectly true.
7. The story is so well knit together as to resemble a fairy tale. But cannot God arrange his providences as well as a writer could arrange them? Is God’s mind inferior to a novelist’s?
8. The religious element is in the background, and scarcely referred to either directly or indirectly. It is true that God is not directly referred to, nor is prayer mentioned, but God is implied, and there may be a reason for the silence in the matter of religion. The writer may have found it better to conceal the element of the Jewish religion than to reveal the power behind the throne.
9. Its moral tone is unworthy of Scripture. The best characters in the book are represented as ruthlessly demanding this massacre and then demanding its repetition, not satisfied with the butchery of five hundred people in one city alone, only satisfied when three hundred more were put to death. Such is at variance with the Scripture, and seems to be unworthy of a place in the canon, they say.
Now the arguments in favor of the historicity of the book are as follows:
1. It is true to the Persian manners and customs, even down to the minutest details. It is true to the life, times, and customs of the Persian people. No man could have written this book unless he was familiar with the Persian life in all of its details. So at once it is evident that it cannot be fiction.
2. The character of Xerxes, or Ahasuerus, is correctly pictured. Point by point this king can be matched with the picture and record of Herodotus, the great historian. The man who wrote this book must have known this king, or he never could have written the book as we have it.
3. The existence of the Feast of Purim itself must have some historical occasion and is a mighty argument for the historicity of the book. Critics have tried to account for this feast which has existed now for twenty-three or twenty-four hundred years in other ways, but have utterly failed. The only way to account for the feast is to accept the feast as actual history.
4. The great council in the third year in the reign of Ahasuerus mentioned in the first of the book of Esther, that is, the feast actually occurred and was called together to plan an expedition against Greece. That expedition he carried out as secular history plainly records. Then were fought the battles of Thermopylae and Marathon on the land, and the sea contest at Salamis, when the hosts of Persia were scattered like chaff before the Greek patriots. It is a historic fact that this great assembly came together in the third year of the reign of Ahasuerus.
5. There is no historical discrepancy in the book. The most critical of the German critics has failed to point out a single incident which contradicts history.
6. It makes its appeals to the chronicles of the kings of Persia, as found in the last chapter. The writer would not have dared to do that writing as he did in the land of Persia, if his record had not been true and he had not authority for what he wrote.
7. It tacitly, though not openly, recognizes a providence in history, and was written to record the divine providence in relation to God’s chosen people. Much scripture is written for the very purpose of recording God’s dealings with his people in their preservation, and the incidents of their natural existence. Why should not one book then be written with this great event as its real background?
8. The ruthless demand of Mordecai and Esther for the massacre of their enemies must be studied in the light of their age and the circumstances that had been forced upon them.
9. God’s providences may produce as good and as well knit a story as the imagination of a novelist. To deny that is really to deny the workings of divine providence, or to deny that God is as great as man.
The classic name of Ahasuerus is Xerxes, the boundaries of whose empire were India and Ethiopia. The places of the scenes of the book are Shushan, the palace of the Persian king, and the provinces.
We may now pursue our study of the book itself by taking up the story chapter by chapter as follows:
Chapter 1 : In the palace of Artaxerxes there is a great feast, lasting 180 days; his magnificence is displayed. A second great feast is made for the people of Shushan. There are revelling and drinking till the men are all drunken. The king is intoxicated. He commands to bring his wife, Vashti, for his drunken lords to look at, that he might display her beauty. The refusal of the queen to come and be insulted, the anger of the king, the advice of one of his counsellors, the issuing of the decree that all women, throughout the Persian Empire should ever after obey their husbands about as foolish a decree as any man ever made.
Chapter 2 : A new queen is sought. A bevy of beautiful girls is brought one by one before the king. Among them is Esther, a Jewess, brought up by Mordecai. She succeeds in pleasing the king and becomes queen. A great feast is made in honor of her. About that time a plot is discovered by Mordecai in which two of the king’s chamberlains plan to assassinate the king. Mordecai reveals the plot.
Chapter 3 : The promotion of Haman, the Agagite, to be prime minister. Mordecai, the Jew, refuses to bow down to him. Haman is angered and mortified. He will not be content with putting to death one Jew, but asks the king on promise of payment of a large sum of money for permission to put to death the entire Jewish nation, on the condition that he replace his loss out of the money of those he killed. The decree is granted. The lot is cast to decide the day. The edict goes forth that on that day eleven months hence all the Jews are to be put to death.
Chapter 4 : The grief of the Jews. Mordecai commands Esther to intercede on their behalf before the king. She asks him to fast three days on her behalf. The answer to Mordecai, “Do not think that thou thyself shall escape their massacre?”
Chapter 5 : Esther appears before the king, taking her life in her own hands, for it might mean death to appear before the king unbidden. She is accepted. This incident is to Esther like the experience of Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of this same king. Everything seemed to depend upon the whim of this childish king. She invites him to a banquet. She knows how to get on the best side of him. She asks Haman to be with them also. Haman hears the news that he is to banquet with the king and his queen, and he is very much elated. He tells his wife about it, then complains about this man, Mordecai, who will not bow the knee to him. His wife says, “Get ready a gallows fifty cubits high and hang Mordecai on it.” He follows his wife’s advice and prepares the gallows.
Chapter 6 : Incidents leading up to the honoring of Mordecai. The state records are read. The story is told how the king’s life had been spared by a man named Mordecai. He asks the question, “Has this man been honored? He saved my life.” Answer, “No.” While he is thinking about this, Haman comes in. The king asks him, “What shall I do to the one I desire to highly honor?” Haman, thinking it is himself that the king desires to honor, gives this suggestion: “Put the king’s robe on him and a chain about his neck, and have the chief man in the kingdom lead his beast through the streets of the city.” He said that, thinking that he was to be thus honored himself. “All right,” said the king, “You go and do that to Mordecai,” and he had to do it. There was no escape from the king’s command. Then he went home like a sulky boy because he had been whipped. As soon as he reaches home, word comes that he is to go to the banquet.
Chapter 7 : The banquet passed off without incident. Persians were very fond of drinking and banquets. The king wanted to know what Esther demanded. She wanted time to get him in a good humor, so she asked that he come to another banquet. At this the king declared that he was ready to grant her request even to half of the kingdom. Now the time had come. She began to beg for her life and for the life of her people. We may imagine how the king felt when he learned that his favorite queen was to be killed. See how she works him up. Yes, she was to be killed, for the decree did not exclude even her. “Who is going to kill my very idol, my favorite queen?” “Why, this wicked Haman is going to do it.” This is another psychological moment. Haman begins to beg and to plead with Esther for his life; he even climbed up on the couch where she is reclining. The king thinks that he is even trying to add insult to injury, and so his rage knows no bounds. The servants say that he has made a gallows fifty cubits high on which to hang Mordecai. The king commands them to take the wretch and hang him on it.
Chapter 8 : Mordecai is promoted to Haman’s place and becomes chief minister. Esther begs that the decree against the Jews be revoked, but the law of the Medes and Persians changes not. The only thing that can be done is to issue another decree, so the king asks her what she will have. She and Mordecai have talked it over and she is ready for that request. She asks that the Jews have the privilege of slaying their enemies. There was no other way out of it. This shows Mordecai’s shrewdness and ability. There was great rejoicing among the Jews at this turn of affairs.
Chapter 9 : The day arrives. The Jews are prepared. The nobles help the Jews because a Jew is prime minister. The nobles knew on which side their bread was buttered. So they help the Jews and altogether, seventy-five thousand of the people are slain; five hundred in Shushan the palace alone. Esther and Mordecai make another request. Esther wants the massacre repeated. She wanted another day of butchery. I do not know why. The king grants it. There is great rejoicing among the Jews. This occurred on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar, or our month of March. Mordecai and Esther fix this day in which all the Jews shall celebrate this great event. She has the edict issued under the seal of Mordecai the prime minister, and so the feast is established. That is how this feast originated. Every year on the fifteenth of March, all the Jews celebrate it. They do not celebrate it in a very religious fashion now. Still they regard it as a great day.
Chapter 10 : This chapter speaks of the greatness of Mordecai, as the prime minister of the Persian king.
Now let us look at the chief characters of the book, as follows:
1. Ahasuerus : There is no question but that this Ahasuerus is the Xerxes of history, and is an exemplification of despotism. He was an absolute monarch, a despot. In him we see the outworkings of despotism. Caligula of the Roman Empire was a despot, and his despotism drove him mad. It is despotism that made this king, Xerxes, ridiculous in the eyes of the world. He was the slave of his ministers and servants. He knew nothing but what they told him. He was absolutely dependent upon them, for all of his information. He was like a child in his silly notions. His servants and nobles deceived and tricked him, and he was so suspicious of them that he was a very slave to his slaves. He was afraid of them, and they knew that if he suspicioned them, he would kill them, and so he was afraid of them, and they were afraid of him. He was the slave also of his passions. He spent his time drinking, eating, banqueting and satisfying his gluttony and lust. He was not much above the beast. Because the Hellespont wrecked his ships, he ordered it to be flogged. He was the slave of his whims and fancies, the slave of his temper and his feelings. He knew no control but his own will, the tool and the plaything of the favorite of his harem, willing to ruthlessly murder thousands of his own subject to satisfy his favorite queen. We must, however, say for him that he recognized the services of Mordecai in saving his life, and honored him. But he did this because it was called to his attention, and not because he sought it out or remembered it.
2. Vashti : She has been honored above many women in history. She is recognized as one who would forfeit her position and crown rather than to sacrifice her honor and her pride. She refused to obey the king at the risk of her own life. But she maintained her dignity and self-respect. She was valorous and womanly. She was having a feast with the women, and it is thought by some that she may have refused to do the king’s bidding because she had taken a little too much wine, hence was not much disposed to be ordered, but I rather think this is not true. She was a rare gem in the midst of that corrupt Persian Court.
3. Haman : This man’s name is a synonym for vanity and fulsome pride, ruthlessness and savagery, deceit, cruelty, and all that is ignoble. He is the incarnation of insane conceit. Honors made a fool of him. Now pride in itself is not such a bad thing. A man may have pride of the right sort and really be helped by it. But a man with this kind of pride wants everything in the universe to be his slave. Even preachers may have this disease. They sometimes think that everybody and everything ought to bow down to them. Because Mordecai would not bow his knee to Haman his vanity was hurt. When a man thus allows his vanity to rule him, he sees everything out of proportion. Haman could not be satisfied with the murder of Mordecai, but he must do the big thing and kill the nation. Vanity is insatiable, and often causes wars. It was this man’s vanity that led to his downfall.
4. Mordecai : He is one of the great characters of the book. He was a Jew and a poor one, but he was loyal to the king, under whose government he lived. The Jews have become citizens of nearly every nation in the world. Here we have a Jew the prime minister of the empire. One of the greatest prime ministers that Great Britain ever had was a Jew. Mordecai was faithful to his king. He was elevated to be prime minister, but it did not give him the “big head.” When he was led through the streets he did not feel puffed up. He had sense enough to know that that sort of thing would not last long. Here is a man who waited and worked. We do well to learn that lesson working and waiting and doing your best will bring its reward, in due time. God always has a place ready for the man who works and waits and does his best.
5. Esther : She was brought up in the family of Mordecai and trained by him. She was trained well beyond any doubt. She was beautiful but not spoiled by her beauty. She was able to use her beauty in the right way. Though she was the favorite of the king and was successful with him, it did not spoil her. She remained loyal to her uncle and did not forget him. Neither did she lose her religion when she became a queen in the most wicked court of her times. There is no mention that there was prayer connected with the three days fast, but doubtless there was. She takes her life in her own hands for her people. She knew how to manage the king. She outwitted the cunning Haman. She was severe. She was one of the greatest heroines of history, and she has been called by many the saviour of her people. She was beautiful, talented, brave, shrewd, and a womanly woman, yea, one of the greatest of women.
QUESTIONS
1. At what point in the history of Israel does the book of Esther come in?
2. Who wrote the book and when?
3. What of the canonicity of the book?
4. What was the purpose of the book?
5. What are the peculiarities of the book?
6. What two allusions in the book to facts in previous Jewish history?
7. Is the book real history and what arguments prove and confirm?
8. What was the classic name of the Persian king who married Esther and what were the boundaries of his empire.
9. What was the place of the scenes of the book?
10. Give the story of the book, chapter by chapter.
11. Give a character sketch of Ahasuerus, Vashti, Haman, Mordecai, and Esther, respectively.
12. What great lessons of the book and at what points in the story is God’s hand most plainly seen?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Est 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, Dan 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, Psa 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, Gen 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
And advanced him
And set his seat above all the princes
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Esther Chapter 3
In the third chapter we have a very different scene. “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.”
It is only a type – only a shadow, and not the very image. In the millennial day there will be no Haman. Till that day come, whatever may be the vivid picture of coming blessing, there is always a dark shadow. There is an enemy; there is one that tries to frustrate all the plans of God: and, of all the races of the earth, there was one that was particularly hostile to God’s people of old – the Amalekites, – so much so that Jehovah swore and called upon His people to carry on perpetual war against that race. He would blot them out from under heaven. The Amalekites were the peculiar object of God’s most righteous judgment, because of their hatred of His people. Now this Haman belonged not only to Amalek, but even to the royal family of Amalek. He was a descendant of Hammedatha the Agagite, as it is said, and Ahasuerus advances this noble to the very highest place. But in the midst of all his thick honours there was one thorn! Mordecai bowed not. The consequence was that Mordecai became an object of reproach. The king’s servants asked him, “Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?” And after this went on for a time Haman hears of it. “He told them that he was a Jew.”
There was the secret. God does not appear. There is no intimation in the history that God had spoken about Haman! Yet here was the secret reason; but the only public reason that appears is that Mordecai was a Jew. “And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had showed him the people of Mordecai; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai” (Est 3:5 , Est 3:6 ); and Haman accomplishes it in this manner. He reports to the king, as being the principal noble in favour, that there was “a certain people scattered abroad among the peoples in all the provinces . . . 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 treasures” (vers. 8, 9).
The king, according to the character I have already described, made very small difficulty of this tremendous request of Haman. He took his ring from his hand, he gave it to Haman, and told him to keep his silver. He sent out the scribes to carry out this request, so that the posts went throughout all the king’s provinces. The Persians, you know, were the first originators of the postal system that we have continued to this day. “Letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month.” The king and his minister sat down to drink, but the city of Shushan was perplexed.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Esther
THE NET SPREAD
Est 3:1 – Est 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 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. No 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!
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.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Est 3:1-6
1After these events King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and established his authority over all the princes who were with him. 2All the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and paid homage to Haman; for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage. 3Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, Why are you transgressing the king’s command? 4Now it was when they had spoken daily to him and he would not listen to them, that they told Haman to see whether Mordecai’s reason would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew. 5When Haman saw that Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage to him, Haman was filled with rage. 6But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him who the people of Mordecai were; therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.
Est 3:1 After these events The UBS Handbook on the Book of Esther, p. 88, says that this phrase is a regular literary device used by the author of Esther to signal the beginning of the next part of the story (e.g., Est 2:1).
promoted This VERB (BDB 152, KB 178, Peel PERFECT) is also used in Est 5:11. It means to make great or powerful. The reason for Haman’s promotion is not stated.
There is a parallel relationship between this VERB and
1. advanced him (BDB 669, KB 724, Peel IMPERFECT)
2. established his authority over all the princes (BDB 962, KB 1321, Qal IMPERFECT)
This was a major political promotion into the second most powerful position of authority at the palace, if not the realm. The irony is that Mordecai’s efforts in saving the king’s life went unnoticed (cf. Est 2:19-23).
Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite The exact etymology of the term Agagite (BDB 8, KB 10, violent or angry) has caused much discussion. It is either an unknown geographical location (cf. NJB, from an inscription of Sargon, a district of Persia-Agag) or a family name, or it may be related to Agag (cf. TEV), the king of the Amalekites (Talmud, Targums, and Josephus’ Antiq. 11.209), the traditional enemy of the Jews (cf. Exo 17:8-16; Num 24:20; Deu 25:17-19; Jdg 6:3; Jdg 6:33; 1Sa 15:8; 1Ch 4:42-43). This third option is more plausible when Mordecai’s Benjamite ancestry is contrasted to Haman’s (literary foil).
The Jewish Study Bible mentions that Jewish tradition (the Targums) takes the rivalry between Israel and the Amalekites back to the rivalry between Jacob and Esau (cf. Gen 36:12).
Est 3:2 bowed down and paid homage to Haman; for so the king had commanded concerning him This was simply polite court etiquette (cf. Herodotus 1.134; BDB 502, KB 499, Qal ACTIVE PARTICIPLE and BDB 1005, KB 295, Hithpael PARTICIPLE. Both mean bow down, but the second implies prostration). Some have assumed that since the king commanded (BDB 845, KB 1010, Piel PERFECT) it that Haman was a non-Persian. For whatever the reason, Mordecai would not bow down and pay homage to Haman. There have been many theories concerning his refusal:
1. bowing down involved worship and he refused because he was a Jew (cf. Daniel 3 and Est 3:4)
2. older Jewish commentators assert that Haman wore an idol (winged disk symbolic of Ahura Masda) around his neck and Mordecai would not bow down to the idol
3. others assume that Haman was a descendant of Agag (the Agagite or Amalekite), the enemy of Israel who was attacked by King Saul (cf. 1 Samuel 15), and Mordecai would not bow down to an enemy
Est 3:3-4 From these two verses it is obvious that Mordecai’s continuing refusal to pay homage to Haman was connected to his being a Jew (cf. Est 3:4; Est 3:6). By wilfully disobeying a royal command, he was putting his job and his life in jeopardy. By angering Haman he was putting every Jew in the empire at risk!
Est 3:5 Haman was filled with rage The plot develops around this man’s being filled (filled [BDB 569, KB 583, Niphal IMPERFECT] with rage [BDB 404, KB 326]) at this one Jew from which he extrapolates an irrational hatred for all Jews (as Saul had attempted to kill all Amalekites, Josephus, Antiq. 11.211). An element of anti-Semitism is obvious (cf. Est 3:8). This is the first of several mood swings. Haman is depicted as rapidly moving from elation to fury!
The term rage (BDB 404, KB 326) is used several times in Esther:
1. of the king, Est 1:12; Est 2:1; Est 7:7; Est 7:10
2. of Haman, Est 3:5; Est 5:9
Haman’s anger develops into the king’s anger.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
After these things. Hainan was not made Grand Vizier till five years later. See Est 3:7.
Ahasuerus. See note on Est 1:1.
Agagite. A descendant of Amalekite kings (Num 24:7. 1Sa 15:8, 1Sa 15:32). Called an Amalekite by Josephus (Antiquities xi. 6, 5).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 3
And as we get into Chapter 3,
After these things the king Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him. And the king’s servants, that were with the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why do you transgress the king’s commandment? Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matter would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew. And so when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, and did not give him reverence, he was full of wrath. And thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had shown him the people of Mordecai: and he sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai. So in the first month, that is, the month of Nisan [or April], in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and month to month, to the twelfth month, and that is the month Adar ( Est 3:1-7 ).
In other words, he was wanting to set a day for the extermination of the Jews (this was in the first month), and they began to cast month by month the lot to see what month they should exterminate them, sort of following a superstition, and the lot fell on the twelfth month, which would be the month of March, because they started with the month of April. So it brought them around to the month of March that the lot finally fell on that month, the month for the extermination of the Jews.
Now, before we go any further, I want to point out something that to me is fascinating. This fellow Haman, notice it says of him that he was an Agagite. Now, Agag was of the nation of the Amaleks. The Amalekites were always a type of the flesh in the Old Testament. Now you remember when Samuel came to King Saul, he said, “God wants you to go down and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all of these people. Don’t leave anyone alive of the women of the children, and don’t take any prey or any loot, not even their cattle or sheep. Don’t take anything; utterly destroy everything.” And so Saul went down against the Amalekites and God gave to him a victory over the Amalekites. However, he did not obey the voice of the Lord. But he saved the lives of the best cattle and the best sheep, and he save the life of Agag the king, and no doubt others of the king’s family. So as Saul was coming back from the battle, Samuel went out to meet him. And Saul greeted Samuel saying, “As the Lord liveth I have done all that God has told me to do.” And the prophet Samuel said, “If you did all that God told you to do, how come I hear the cattle, and how come I hear the sheep?” He said, “Oh, well, you see, they were so nice. Fat, good animals. We decided that we would bring them back and sacrifice them unto our God.” And Samuel said, “To obey is better than to sacrifice, and to hearken more than the fat of lambs.” And he said, “You have done foolishly, and because you have rejected God from ruling over you, so God now has rejected you from ruling over His people, and the kingdom is going to be taken away from you.” Because of his disobedience, not utterly destroying Amalek, saving Agag alive.
Now here, interestingly enough, this fellow Haman who several years later, some six hundred years or so later, Haman now is seeking to exterminate the Jews.
Now why would God make, first of all, such a horrible kind of a command to utterly destroy them all? Looking at the picture in Samuel, it seems like maybe God is very cruel in his demand, yet because God can look down the road and see what lies in the future. He realized that if He didn’t destroy them all there would arise one day one of the descendants that would seek to destroy all of God’s people. Had Saul been obedient to God, Haman would have never existed, and his edict and his attempt to destroy God’s people would have never been. God could see that far in advance. But when you get into the type it becomes even more obvious, because Amalek is a type of our flesh, the flesh life, living after the flesh. God has ordered that our flesh be put to death. “If ye by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh then ye shall live” ( Rom 8:13 ). “Know ye not that your old man was crucified with Christ?” ( Rom 6:6 ) God does not have any program of reform for your flesh.
Paul said, “I know in me (that is, in my flesh,) there dwelleth no good thing” ( Rom 7:18 ). And God has ordered the complete extermination of the flesh; not to live after the flesh; not to walk after the flesh; but to reckon that old man, the old nature, to be dead and to give no place to the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof. And God has provided that through the cross of Jesus Christ I might be able to reckon my old man to be dead with Christ. As Paul wrote, “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life that I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” ( Gal 2:20 ).
The truth is this: God has ordered your flesh to be put to death, crucified, reckon it to be dead, give no place for it. If you, as Saul, fail to obey the command of God and you continue to make provisions for your flesh, that is, you continue to live after the flesh or you allow an area, “Well, it’s just a little area that I’m indulging my flesh,” you can be sure that your incomplete obedience to God’s command of the destruction of the flesh will come back someday to destroy you, and to destroy your spiritual walk in life. We are to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its desires, its lust. We’re to walk after the Spirit; we’re to live after the Spirit, making no provisions for the flesh.
So here Saul’s disobedience, allowing the flesh to still remain, is now coming back to haunt his descendants years later, as Haman the Agagite was placed in this position of prominence by Ahasuerus, and the command given that whenever he walks by everybody should bow and give him obeisance. But this Mordecai refused to do it.
Now, the Jews took very literally the law of God that you’re not to bow down and do reverence to any graven image or any likeness. And Mordecai was carrying that one step further; he wasn’t going to bow to any man. He would only bow to God, only bow his knee before God. He would only show that kind of reverence to God. And so, those that were standing around said, “Hey, man. How come you are not bowing? It’s the law.” And he just would say, “I’m a Jew. We don’t bow to anybody. We only bow to God.” And so someone called Haman’s attention to it, because they wanted to have a test case to see if the law would stand. And so they called Haman’s attention to the fact that this Jew wouldn’t bow. And so Haman then took notice of it and he became extremely angry, and there is where he plotted to put to death all of the Jews. Not just Mordecai, he was going to kill them all. And so, seeking then the guidance of the spirits, they cast lots to see what would be the most appropriate month to carry out this edict. And so they cast Pur; it fell on the twelfth month, which is in the Jewish calendar the month of March.
And Haman said unto the king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people that are scattered abroad and dispersed among the people of all the provinces of your kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people, and neither do they keep the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to allow them to remain. [And he said,] If it pleases 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 kings treasury ( Est 3:8-9 ).
Actually, he was offering here a bribe of about nineteen million dollars. Now, what he was planning to do was kill the Jews and confiscate all their goods, and so he was going to pay it with that. He was just going to rip them all off after he killed them.
So the king took off his ring [that had the signet], and he gave it to Haman. [And he said, Make the proclamation and sign it.] And let the post of the messengers go out throughout all the provinces ( Est 3:10-11 , Est 3:13 ),
Now Darius is the Persian king who set up an excellent postal system throughout the Persian Empire. And so, “Go ahead and proclaim it throughout the empire that these people are to be put to death on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month.”
And so the letters were sent by the post throughout all the king’s provinces, to destroy, and to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children, women, in one day, even the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of March, to take the spoil of them for a prey ( Est 3:13 ).
So go ahead and kill them and you can have whatever they have.
The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all the people, that they should be ready against that day. And the post went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan the palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed ( Est 3:14-15 ). “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Est 3:1-6
Est 3:1-6
HAMAN’S PLOT TO KILL THE ENTIRE JEWISH RACE;
ASHAMED TO KILL JUST ONE MAN; HAMAN DECIDED TO EXTERMINATE 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? Now 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” (Est 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 to get the king’s permission to do so.
“Haman the Agagite” (Est 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.” 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.”
E.M. Zerr:
Est 3:1. After these things means after the events at the close of the preceding chapter. We have no information as to why Haman was given the promotion mentioned. However, since it was a part of the plan being used for the fulfillment of a great prediction, we may justly conclude that the Lord had a hand in it. The fact that is the most significant is that he was an Agagite. This is from AGAGIY which Strong defines, “an Agagite or descendant (subject) of Agag.” Next, “Agag” is defined by Strong, “flame, a title of Amalekitish kings.” Now read 1Sa 15:1-9, then Exo 17:8-16 and you will begin to see “daylight” in connection with one of the most interesting and important dramas in history. The hand of God will be seen throughout.
Est 3:2. Bowed and reverenced are practically the same. The first refers specifically to the act of bending the knees, the second is a comment on the first, meaning that in bending the knees they meant to reverence him. The king had commanded the servants to show this attitude toward Haman in recognition of his recent promotion. Mordecai refused to pay the required homage. It was not from the motive of disobedience to the king, for he had already shown much regard for him. Neither could we think of it as being from jealousy, for all of his conduct before and after this event showed him to have been a very humble man. The explanation will appear in the following verses.
Est 3:3-4. The servants naturally observed the actions of Mordecai. The only point that impressed them was the fact that the king had been disobeyed. They asked him why he had disobeyed the commandment of the king, and his answer was what aroused their curiosity as to the outcome. The last phrase begins with for and ends with Jew. Now we know why he refused to bow to Haman; it was because he (Mordecai) was a Jew. In connection with that we must remember that Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites who were confirmed enemies of the Jews. There was even a standing declaration of war between the Jews and the Amalekites since Exo 17:14-16, and Mordecai evidently knew about it. To bow to Haman would be like a citizen of one country paying homage to one of another country that was in a state of hostility.
Est 3:5. Disappointed pride is one of the most active motives for evil. It goaded Haman into plotting two terrible schemes for revenge.
Est 3:6. When Haman’s attention was called to the attitude of Mordecai, he inquired about him and learned of his nationality. He then recognized him as one of some people scattered all through the provinces of the empire. His feeling of importance was so great that he thought he should have an extraordinary revenge to satisfy his wounded dignity. But it would not amount to much if only this one lone man were put down. He therefore conceived the horrible plot to have all the Jews slain.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
In this section we have a picture of the procedure of government in the court of the king. Haman was promoted to supreme authority, and the portrait of the man is naturally and vividly presented to us-haughty and imperious, proud and cruel. Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to him and do him reverence may in all probability be accounted for by the simple fact that he was a Jew, or perhaps it may be that Mordecai was familiar with facts concerning Haman which made it impossible for him to do him any honor. Be that as it may, the malice of the man was stirred, not merely against Mordecai, but against all his people, and he made use of his influence with the king to obtain authority practically to exterminate them. In the acts of evil men strange and inexplicable factors arise which can be accounted for satisfactorily only by belief in the government of God. The delay of months in carrying out his cruel intention was, in all likelihood, prompted by his desire to make the work of extermination thorough. Yet how wonderfully it gave time for all the events which ended in the deliverance of the people of God.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Race Prejudice Breeds Hatred
Est 3:1-15
Josephus says that Agagite means a descendant of Agag, the common name for the kings of the Amalekites, Num 24:7. It is probably that something of the nature of religious homage to Haman was demanded, and this Mordecai could not tolerate for a moment. It would have been as bad as the falling down to worship the golden image of Dura. He, therefore, sturdily refused. What diabolical cruelty was here, to meditate the destruction of a nation to satisfy a personal grudge! The resolve was taken in the first month, when Esther had been queen for five years; but the lot indicated the twelfth month for its execution, so that Esther had twelve months in which to oppose the plan. The disposing of the lot was evidently Gods, Pro 16:33. The bribe of four millions sterling, which Haman hoped to get from the spoils of the slaughtered Jews, without doubt helped to pave his way, and make the king favorable to his request. The matter was soon settled, and the posts were carrying the edict of slaughter to the furthest limits of the realm. It reminds us of the decree for the massacre of the Huguenots. But God was over all. The strongest assaults are vain against Him, Psa 2:4. He will not let high-handed wrong proceed beyond a certain point, 2Ki 19:28. Let us shelter behind Him and be at peace, Isa 54:14.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Chapter 3
The Wrath Of The Amalekite, And The Decree Of Doom
Haman is now brought upon the scene, who occupies a large place in the book, and who is execrated by all Hebrews to this day: Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews enemy, is his significant title. When his name is mentioned even now, orthodox Jews spit and curse him, so hateful is his memory.
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). Agag was the name given to the kings of Amalek, the people against whom the Lord, hath indignation forever. Haman, then, is a royal Amalekite-the last of his proud house to occupy a position of influence and power; for with his death, and that of his ten sons, the name of Amalek, according to Jehovahs word, is blotted out from under heaven.
In order to understand the reason for Morde- cais unyielding attitude in regard to Haman, it will be necessary to look into the history of this warlike and impious people.
In Gen 36:12 we find the origin of Amalek, the progenitor of the tribe afterwards bearing his name. And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esaus son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek. See also 1Ch 1:36.
Amalek, then, sprang from Esau, which is Edom. Esau is ever a type of the flesh. Even ere the birth of the twins Esau and Jacob, they struggled together-picture of the flesh lusting against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh. Esau is the first-born, and then Jacob; for that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual (1Co 15:46).
This is again and again set forth in Scripture, the first-born being set aside to make room for one who might stand for or set forth the Second Man. Cain is set aside, and Abel, revived in Seth, is given the pre-eminent place. Ishmael must be cast out that Isaac be honored. Manasseh, too, gives way to Ephraim, as Joseph had been given the place of the first-born in preference to Reuben.
The author of the notes in the Numerical Bible has pointed out the close similarity in sound and meaning between Adam and Edom. Edom is but old Adam revived, and from him Amalek springs.
What, then, comes from the flesh? Only ungodly lusts and passions. Of these Amalek is the type. Among whom we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others (Eph 2:3).
In Gen 14:7 we find the Amalekites, who had developed into a considerable tribe and inhabiting the valleys of southern Palestine, involved in the great conflicts of the Elamite ascendancy. But it is when next mentioned that we see their true character. In the seventeenth of Exodus they appear as the first of Israels foes, and they proved a most persistent enemy ever after. God had but recently delivered His people from the cruel Egyptian oppressor. Sheltered by blood, they had eaten the passover with holy confidence while the Lord judged the gods of Egypt and smote the first-born of those who despised His word. Redeemed by power, they had been led in triumph through the Red Sea, and on the eastern shore they sang their song of gladness as they beheld the power of the enemy broken, and knew that they were Jehovahs purchased people. He took them under His own care, and made Himself responsible for all their needs. The waters of Marah He sweetened, and refreshed them beneath Elims shade. He gave them bread from heaven, and quails when they asked for flesh.
But they failed to realize who it was with whom they had to do. When they pitched in Rephidim, there was no water for the people to drink. They murmured against Moses, and charged him with having brought them out to slay them with thirst. But God, ever acting in pure grace, until, in their self-confidence, they put themselves under law, said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thy hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exo 17:5, 6).
A lovely picture, surely, and easily understood in the light of two New Testament Scriptures. That Rock was Christ (1Co 10:4). Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drinkBut this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified (Joh 7:37, 39). The cross had to come in ere He could be glorified as man. That blessed Rock had to be smitten with the rod of judgment before the Holy Spirit could come to satisfy and fill all who would drink. Of this it is that mystic scene at Horeb speaks. Israel in type are drinking of the living waters. Surely their troubles are over now forever! Ah, it should have been; but, alas, it was not so. It is at this moment we read, Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And so the lusts of the flesh would ever hinder the believers enjoyment of the refreshing influences of the Holy Spirit. The Christian is beset by a tireless and hateful foe who makes it his business to defraud him, if possible, of the blessing that is rightfully his.
It is to this the word in Gal 5:16, 17 refers: This I say, then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye might not (literal rendering) do the things that ye would.
How will the saint thus beset find deliverance and victory? Only by mortifying his members that are upon the earth. But this he cannot do in his own power. And so Moses says to Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, and fight with Amalek: to-morrow I will stand on the top of the hill, with the rod of God in my hand. Beautiful picture, surely, of our great Intercessor above, who ever liveth to make intercession for us. Aaron and Hur had to hold up the hands of Moses, but our blessed Lord needs none to thus assist Him. His advocacy is ever going on. His intercessions for His saints are unfailing, and He is thus able to save evermore all who come unto God by Him. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith (1Jn 5:4).
It was on this first occasion of Amaleks hatred and attack against His people that the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi: for he said, Because of the hand upon the throne of Jah, Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation (Exo 17:14-16-marginal reading). This was Amaleks awful sin. He would, if possible, tear Jehovah from His throne, and usurp His authority. So would the fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, dethrone the Holy One and reign in His stead.
In Num 14:44, 45 Israel disobeyed the word of the Lord, and presumed to go up unto the hill-top in their own strength to meet their foes. Then the Amalekites came down and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. The moment a saint gets out of Gods order he exposes himself to the power of the flesh. There is no safety save in obedience to the Word.
Balaam foretells the doom of this haughty foe in Num 24:20. When he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish forever. Moses too, in his last charge to the people, says, Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; how he met the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee (it is ever such who are a prey to the lusts of the flesh), when thou wast weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it (Deu 25:17-19).
We will not refer at any length to the woes brought upon Israel by Amalek in the days of the Judges, only bidding the reader notice that whenever the people rose up in the energy of faith and the lowliness of self-judgment, all Amaleks power was broken. It will be a profitable exercise to read at leisure and carefully study Judges 5, 6 and 10 on this subject.
In connection with the commission given to king Saul at the mouth of Samuel, in 1 Sam. 15, we get the inspired account of Gods command and Sauls failure to carry it out. It is most instructive, as well as of special interest, in connection with our study of the book of Esther. Saul was commanded to go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not.
But, alas, though the young king gained a wonderful victory, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword, he spared Agag; and Haman is witness that he likewise failed to exterminate the rest of the royal family. Had Saul been true to God, and yielded implicit obedience to His Word, Haman could never have appeared on the scene. Sauls unfaithfulness made the plot of the Jews enemy possible, and exposed the chosen nation to destruction. What a triumph for Satan it would have been if, in place of Amaleks utter destruction, Israel had been rooted out from among the nations!
There is a solemn lesson here. Sin unjudged, evil propensities unmortified, will result in grave trouble later. Is the reader conscious of indulging some fleshly desire-something, perhaps, that it seems hard to put to death, so dear is it to him, and, withal, so insignificant? Rest as- sured, it will be the cause of serious disaster if unjudged. It may go on unnoticed for years, but the day will come when it, like Haman, will rise in its power; and well it shall be then if it be not the cause of moral and spiritual shipwreck. Is it a young believer who sees these lines? Remember the word of the Holy Spirit to Timothy, Flee also youthful lusts. Any unholy desire tolerated in the soul must work eventually to the undoing of your discipleship, to the breaking-down of your testimony.
Samuel showed Agag no mercy; but some of his children-perhaps only one, and that one, mayhap, a weak and puny infant-escaped him; and behold, nearly six hundred years later, a royal Amalekite and a descendant of the house of Kish, the father of king Saul, confront each other!
Haman is advanced before all the princes, for well the flesh knows how to work its way to the front. All fall down before him and own his authority, save one unyielding old man, insignificant in stature and unknown among the great. And all the kings servants, that were in the kings gate, bowed and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence (ver. 2).
Never was Mordecais moral elevation higher than at this moment. He is no longer the crafty, politic man of chapter two. He shines forth as a man who takes his stand upon the word of the Eternal, let the consequences be what they may. There is no longer a tendency to hide his people and his kindred. He lets all know he is a Jew. As such he cannot bow to the blatant enemy of Jehovah. The Lord hath indignation against Amalek. So also, in substance, says Mordecai. He sides with God. From now on he is a character delightful to contemplate.
Then the kings servants, which were in the kings gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the kings commandment? (ver. 3). To them it seems the essence of foolhardiness and stubbornness. We read not of any other, even of his own nation, so unyielding as he. Why not, at least, incline his head? Why not go with the crowd? Why make himself so unpleasantly conspicuous by his peculiar obstinacy? Better men than he, perhaps, bowed to Haman, the kings prime minister. Why should he be too narrow-minded to do so? To all this Mordecai might have replied, God has spoken. He declares He will have indignation against Amalek forever. I side with Him. It matters not what others do, I have to go by what I find written in the book.
Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he harkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecais matters would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew (ver. 4). There is no evasion now: all is out at last. The judge in the kings gate is one of the despised captives, and he will risk the loss of name and station, yea, of life itself, rather than be unfaithful to the truth of God.
The kings servants desire to see if Mordecais matters will stand. Of course they will stand, for does not he stand with and for God, who is able to make him stand? None ever falls who acts for God. His power is over all. He may permit testing and trial, but whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. He is in the right who sides with God.
When Haman hears of the slight thus put upon him, he is full of wrath. He must have his revenge on the impudent Jew who thus refuses to acknowledge his prestige: but he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had showed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai (vers. 5, 6). What a mess had the obstinate little Jew made of it all now! If he must have such strong convictions, why could he not keep them to himself, and, by getting out of Hamans way, refrain from making himself and all his people obnoxious to him? Could not he conform to the customs of the times? Did he not know that things were different now from what they were in the days of Moses, of the judges, and of Samuel? Is not this the way men reason today? And, doubtless, many so reasoned in the times of Mordecai: but to all he could have given the triumphant answer, It is my place to obey God, and to honor His Word. I leave all consequences with Him.
This is what characterizes ever the man of God in all dispensations. It was this spirit that sustained Noah in testimony against a corrupt, sin-loving world as he built his great ship on dry land. In this energy of faith Moses forsook Egypt; Caleb cried, We are well able to overcome; Gideon went forth to war with lamps and pitchers; David fought an armored giant with a shepherds sling and stones; Jehoshaphat set singers in the van of his army where others would have set mounted troops; Daniel opened his windows to pray to the God of heaven; and Paul lived his life of devotion to the crucified, exalted Lord, and refused to conform to the demands of the men of his day and age. In this spirit, too, of subjection to revealed truth, Athanasius suffered banishment rather than bow to the Arianism of the times;. Savonarola defied the licentious, gold-hoarding officials of church and state; Luther uttered his mighty No! in the presence of the emperor, the bishops and grandees of the empire; Farel tossed venerated images into the river in the midst of furious priests and populace; Knox caused a queen to tremble; and the Covenanters chose rather to be hunted as the beasts of the field than own the spiritual authority of degenerate kings and bishops; and a mighty host, of whom the world was not worthy, refused to bow the knee or bend the neck to unscriptural, superstitious, and human legislation, making of none effect the word of God.
Men of this stamp are certain to be dubbed by the time-serving trucklers to the present age as schismatics, separatists, and what not. But let such be content to know that God is pleased, and they fear not the frown, and court not the approval, of flesh and blood.
Hamans colossal scheme for the annihilation of the Jewish race is worthy of its great instigator, that old serpent, which is the devil and Satan. The proud Agagite was but a mere puppet in his hands. Haman desired to obtain revenge for the slight put upon his dignity: the devil sought to make void the promises of God. The awful foe of God and man knew well that Jehovah had declared that from Davids house should arise the One who was to bruise his head-One who is to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage. That nation destroyed-the promised Deliverer could not appear, and the word of God would be rendered null and void. Again and again had he sought to accomplish this. When the hand of Saul threw the javelin at the youthful David, it was Satan who inspired it, but God who protected the minstrel from the blow, that he might live to be the conservator of the promise. When the wicked queen Athalia sought to destroy all the seed royal, it was the devil who put the awful thought in her mind, but God who nourished the infant Joash in the temple courts.
And so it was the same foul spirit now who would sacrifice a nation to prevent the Redeemers advent; as in the day when that long-predicted event had actually occurred, he sought, through Herod, to destroy Him in His infancy by slaying the babes of Bethlehem, only to be outwitted once more; for God directed His Son to a distant land.
Some idea of Hamans wealth and influence can be gained from the intimacy manifested be- twixt him and the king in verses 8 to 11, as also the immense amount of silver he offered for the accomplishment of his cherished plans: ten thousand talents in that age having about the value of twenty millions of dollars now.
His superstition too is evidenced in verse 7. Like many a tyrant before, and since, he was a great believer in lucky and unlucky days; so he had the wise men-the traffickers in the credulity of ambitious courtiers-to cast lots, called in Hebrew Pur, to determine a suited day when all signs would be propitious for the carrying out of his colossal massacre. Armed with what he considered to be the favor of the gods (for it is unlikely that he, like the Persians, was a monotheist), he entered the kings presence, and, affecting concern for the interests of the state, he says, 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 kings laws: therefore it is not for the kings profit to suffer them. And, as though in a burst of magnanimity, he offers to pay ten thousand talents of silver to rid the king of subjects so objectionable. Carelessly, without so much as inquiring the name of the race referred to, Ahasuerus, with that disregard of human life so common in Xerxes, took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews enemy, saying, as he did so, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee (vers. 8-11).
Acting on this, Haman loses no time, but immediately summons the kings scribes, and issues a proclamation, sealed with the kings ring, to be sent by posts into all the kings provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar (the date determined by the lot), and to take the spoil of the people for a prey (ver. 13). Thus had the entire nation been devoted to destruction, and under the unalterable laws of the Medes and Persians-the same laws that left Yashti still a lonely widow, and which would brook of no reversal.
To every people the news went forth, urging them to be ready against that day. And the king and Haman, as though the massacre of millions had not just been planned and sealed, sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed (ver. 15).
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
HAMAN AND HIS WICKED PLOT
CHAPTER 3
1. The promotion of Haman and Mordecais faithfulness (Est 3:1-6)
2. Hamans proposal and the Kings assent (Est 3:7-11)
3. The proclamation of death (Est 3:12-15)
Est 3:1-6. How long after these things the history of this chapter came to pass is not definitely stated. It probably happened after a short interval. We are now introduced to Haman, the Son of Hammedatha the Agagite. Him the king promoted and set his seat above all the princes. The tracing of this mans name is of interest. Its meaning is A magnificent one. Philologists derive it from the Persian god Haoma or Hom, who was thought to be a spirit, possessing life-giving power. There can be no doubt that his name has a religious sentiment connected with it and his activity shows zeal in religious things. What interests us the most is that he was a descendant of Agag, the king of Amalek (1Sa 15:8) who descended from Esau, Jacobs brother and enemy. Amalek is always the bitter enemy of Israel. His final overthrow will come with the second coming of Christ. Thus Balaam announced in his prophetic utterance. When the sceptre at last rises out of Israel to smite the nations, then Amalek will find his end. And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable and said, Amalek was the first of the nations, but his latter end shall be that he perish forever (Num 24:17-20). This Haman, the Amalekite, is later called the Jews enemy (verse 10). He foreshadows that final enemy, who arises to trouble Israel and attempts their extermination before the King of Israel appears. The dispensational and typical applications at the close of this chapter deal more fully with this interesting character.
And all the kings servants bowed down and did him reverence. They paid to him the honor of a god. Nearly all these Oriental rulers claimed divinity. Artaban is saying to Themistodes, according to Plutarch The important thing with us Persians is that a king is worshipped and looked upon as the very image of God. As the kings representative this worship was extended to Haman. But Mordecai did not bow down because such reverence involved the recognition of a false god and was against the commandment of God. Mordecai may have remembered Isaiahs great prediction, To Me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear. According to Jewish tradition Haman wore on his coat the image of an idol and that this was the reason why Mordecai refused. The kings servants warned Mordecai and when this was not heeded they told Haman. What a noble figure! In the midst of the worshipping servants bowing deep before Haman stands erect Mordecai, the Jew. He manifested faith in God. He trusted in Him who had delivered Daniels companions out of the fiery furnace, when they refused to worship the image set up by Nebuchadnezzar. He trusted the same God who had stopped the lions mouths when Daniel would not pay divine honors to Darius, the Persian king.
And when Haman discovers that Mordecai was a Jew and that his refusal was not wilful disobedience but inspired by faith in God, in obedience to His law, the Amalekite hate is stirred up in his wicked heart, and he became full of wrath. An unseen being, he who is the murderer from the beginning, told him to make this occasion for destroying all the Jews in the Persian Empire.
Est 3:7-11. And now Haman waits on his unseen master, the devil. They cast the lot before Haman, from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. He wanted to find out the month which would be best suited for the execution of his wicked plot. Soothsaying, familiar spirits, asking the dead, divining by the flight of birds or by the liver of a slain animal, prognostigators and astrologers, flourished among the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians and all other pagan nations. Behind it all is the Devil and his fallen angels. And these things are still practised, not alone in China and India, but in the very midst of professing Christendom. Spiritism, the worst form of demonism, is ever on the increase. Astrology, asking the dead, consulting the demons, casting the lot, getting messages through the so-called ouija board (in use in China, the land of demon possessions, for over 2000 years) is made use of today by countless thousands among the supposedly Christian nations. We see what kind of progress the world has made. The same superstitions, the same evils morally and in religious matters, the same demon powers whose fellowship the greater part of the race invites, as 3000 and more years ago.
Through the lot he imagines that the twelfth month, the Jewish month Adar, is the month to execute the plot. Jewish tradition explains this in the following way: When he came to make observations in the month Adar, which comes under the zodiacal sign of the fish, Haman exclaimed, Now they will be caught by me like the fish of the sea. But he did not notice that the children of Joseph are compared in the Scripture to the fish of the sea, as it is written: And let them multiply as the fish in the midst of the earth (Gen 48:16; marginal reading).
And now he approacheth the king who was ignorant of Hamans dark counsel. He tells the king of a certain people which inhabit his kingdom. He avoids mentioning their names, if he had the plot would not have succeeded for Xerxes must have been well acquainted with the illustrious history of the Jews and he knew that ever since Cyrus the policy of the Persian Empire had been the protection of the Jews. Hamans accusation is twofold. First: Their laws are diverse from those of every people. Second: Neither keep they the kings laws. And then the verdict: It is not for the kings profit to suffer them. They were a separate people, following their God-given law. It was this religious side which stirred up the hatred of Satan and through Haman he urges now the wholesale murder of the race. And Haman Like his dark master, Satan, was cunning enough to anticipate an objection from the side of the king. Would not his kingdom suffer financially if a whole people is wiped out? To remove this financial consideration he offers to pay 10,000 talents of silver for the desired slaughter of the Jews (about 20 million dollars). With it he tempted the avarice of the king and at the same time tickled his pride by implying that it must be a trifle to him to lose a whole people who were only worth the price of 10,000 talents. And Haman probably speculated that this great sum he offered, the greater the sum was the more flattering it would appear to the fancy of the king to waive it. Oriental monarchs were known for doing such things in a boastful spirit. This Haman knew well.
Then the king gave him his ring. It was a ring to seal a document. Every ring had a seal. The transfer of the royal ring with the royal seal and denoted the transfer of kingly authority and power to the recipient. Haman was therefore invested with royal authority. The haughtiness of the king appears now. Not alone does he turn over his signet-ring but he also makes Haman a present of the enormous sum he had offered to the king. In cold blood Xerxes gives over to him the unknown people into the hands of this wicked enemy.
Est 3:12-15. A great activity is here described. An Empire-wide proclamation, a veritable proclamation of death was issued. The kings scribes were called on the 13th day of the month. Research has established the fact that the 13th day of the month was called by the Persians Tir (the meaning of which is lot). All the kings satraps, the governors of every province, the princes of every people who had become identified with the Persian empire were notified in different languages of what should take place on the 13th day of the month Adar. The proclamation was written in the name of the king and sealed with his ring in Hamans possession. And letters were sent by posts into all the kings provinces, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey. And this horrible decree was sent in haste throughout the land. The king and Haman sat down to a banquet, while the capital, Shushan, was perplexed and deeply stirred.
Typical Application
Haman illustrates the coming man of sin, the beast of Revelation 13. As remarked in the introduction, his title Haman the wicked (7:6) represents in the numerical value of the Hebrew letters which compose this title the number 666. (See Rev 13:18.) This future coming one will be like Haman the enemy of the Jews and one of Satans masterpieces. Haman was to be worshipped and revered. And the man of sin will demand divine worship and with the help of the first beast, the little horn of Daniel 7, he seeks to exterminate the Jews. He will manifest greater cunning than Haman and use the political power to accomplish his purpose. Mordecai in his refusal is a type of the godly Jewish remnant to worship the man of sin.
The proclamation of death pronounced upon a whole race of people, everyone doomed to death, none exempted, typifies the condition in which the whole race is spiritually. The law on account of sin is such a proclamation. The soul that sinneth shall die. The wages of sin is death. The helpless condition in which the death doomed Jews found themselves is a picture of the helpless condition of man as a sinner. Nothing the Jews did could save them; no weeping nor pleading could change things. All this may be enlarged upon and helpfully applied to mans condition as a sinner.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 3551, bc 453
promote Haman: Est 7:6, Psa 12:8, Pro 29:2
Agagite: Num 24:7, 1Sa 15:8, 1Sa 15:33
above all the princes: Est 1:14, Gen 41:40, Gen 41:55, Ezr 7:14, Dan 6:2
Reciprocal: Num 24:20 – his latter end Deu 25:19 – thou shalt Est 3:2 – bowed not Est 5:11 – and how he had Est 9:10 – enemy Psa 49:16 – Be not Psa 73:6 – Therefore Pro 26:1 – so Ecc 10:6 – Folly Dan 5:7 – the third
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Est 3:1. After these things About five years after, as appears from Est 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Est 3:1. Hamanthe Agagite. All the kings of Amalek received the name of Agag. This man is thought, by most critics, to have been of the seed- royal of that devoted nation, who bitterly hated the Jews. Others think that Agag was some town in Persia, where he was born. Vide Sulp. Hist. Sacr. lib. 51.
Est 3:2. Mordecai bowed not, because, as the Jews say, there was a mixture of divine as well as human homage, paid here to the kings minister.
Est 3:7. They cast Pur, a Persian word for lot. A lot respecting the scape- goat was proper, that being a case of perfect indifference; but here the design was to throw the blame of massacring an afflicted nation upon fate.
Est 3:9. I will pay ten thousand talents of silver: 3,415,000, almost three millions and a half of our money. He would part with all his wealth to be avenged of the Jews! It is mysterious to us how an individual could possess so much wealth. He would soothe his conscience by the recollection of what Saul had done to Amalek six hundred and forty years before. 1 Samuel 15.
Est 3:10. The king took his ring from his hand. This gave Haman a power to seal with the kings seal, whatever letters he pleased against the Jews: and from the offer which Haman made of ten thousand talents, it is obvious the king had scrupled for awhile to destroy the Jews, on the ground of political damage to his kingdom.
REFLECTIONS.
Haman, a man of talents, or of consummate address, had by some means gained the kings favour, and procured a promotion to be the first minister of state. But his pride exceeded his talents, and his ambition was more than his preferment. So in all wicked men there is one ruling passion, which not unfrequently proves injurious to the public, and destructive to themselves.
When men, flattered by circumstances, have suffered their pride and arrogance to grow to a boundless excess, the smallest object is capable of exciting their worst passions, and of making their revolting hearts completely miserable. This man shared the honours of his master: greater preferment he could not have. The court and city bowed the knee, and paid him homage more than human; for the Persian kings had the place of titular divinities; and it was not a civil, but an idolatrous reverence which Mordecai withheld. Surrounded with all these honours, and loaded with wealth, there was but this obscure man, and he of a captive race, without either rank or title, who refused to bow. The moment Haman was told of Mordecais singularity, the harmony of his soul was all untuned. The mortification he felt from this little circumstance was too deep to betray immediate resentment. His sullen anguish sought relief in the infliction of some greater punishment than the moment could suggest. Sooner than overlook this imaginary affront, or relax the homage of the empire, he resolved to destroy the whole nation of the Jews, being aware that Mordecais scruples were common to all his people. What meanness is often connected with greatness; and what crimes are often consequent on talents misapplied. How incapable then are the riches and honours of this world to make men happy, while the depravity of the heart is suffered to reign. Unhumbled before their God, they can bear no humiliation before men. Every object which does not flatter their passions, disturbs and agitates their soul. The life of a vassal, trembling at their feet, is hardly safe for a moment. Well then has revelation apprized the world, that the happiness of man consists not in the gratification, but in the suppression of every bad propensity. Well then has our Lord said, Except ye be converted, and become as a little child, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
We see a farther trait of Gods gracious care over his people in causing the lot to fall on the twelfth month; for the heathens believing in lucky and unlucky days, did frequently decide the days of enterprize by lot. This circumstance gave the people time for recollection and repentance; and providence early in the year defeated the whole plot. Could we but see that eye from the clouds watching over our safety, and that divine hand extended for our defence, distrust and complaining would be banished from our streets.
In the recourse of Haman to wine, after obtaining an order to massacre the Jews, we have proof that nothing can make a wicked man happy. He was appalled and confounded by his success. The voice of conscience was deafened by the noise and tumult of passion. He felt, as when a man aiming a deadly blow at his enemy in the dark, unhappily wounds himself. Having by false pleas of sedition, seduced his master to the horrid compliance, he sought for his master the same opiates and reprieve from anguish. So he affected to rejoice, while all Shushan was perplexed; while all good men wept for the Jews, and grieved to see their country in the hand of a man who was incapable of governing himself.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Esther 3. Haman, to Avenge a Slight Put on Him by Mordecai, Persuades the King to Order a Massacre of the Jews.The Grand Vizier Haman, Heb. calls a descendant of that mysterious people, the Amalekites, and even of their king Agag (1 Samuel 15). To suppose that the word Agag really means Gog, and to gather that we have here a sting for the memory of the Scythians, is a rather helpless device. The Heb. writer seems to have wished to avoid saying that Haman was a Macedonian, i.e. a Syrian. In ch. 8 LXX says he was so. Perhaps that was dangerous politics: those were the nations of the bloodthirsty Alexander and Antiochus. Haman, in his jealousy of Mordecai, would murder every Jewish man, woman, and child. Here is horrible blood-thirst, but it is Gentile blood-thirst. It is not Jewish, and it passes comprehension why this ferocious character of Haman has been so often attributed to the Jews. In history we find that Antiochus (175164 B.C.) did order just such murders for all Jews who would not bow down to Zeus (p. 607), as Mordecai would not bow before Haman. Mordecais brave refusal becomes known to the court officials, and all are amazed that a man should so calmly defy the Grand Vizier, which Haman now is. Haman is enraged, and approaches the king to sue for a decree to kill all Jews, whom he denounces as a pestilent element in the land. He offers a bribe of enormous amount, the figures of which are, no doubt, exaggerated; although in those days Onias and Menelaus (p. 581) did pay to Syrian kings immense sums to secure for themselves the High-Priesthood with all its perquisites. The weak Gentile king Ahasuerus is easily persuaded: he decrees the massacre and also a confiscation of all Jewish property. The whole of this property is to be handed over as booty to the slayers.
In Est 3:7 we find that Haman is superstitious, like many cruel persons; and he casts lots for a lucky day for his awful deed. At last Adar 13th is chosen, the very month and day on which, as we have seen, Nicanor made his last terrible attack on Judah, when he was defeated by the Maccabees. A strange word pur is translated by our word lot: LXX makes it phrour. But no such word with such meaning is found in Heb. or in any language that the Jews then spoke. Now the fast posts carry the decree of death to all peoples in the empire. The LXX gives a supposed decree: not so Heb.; yet Heb. does quote it (Est 3:13) as saying, Destroy, slay, cause to perish all Jews, young and old, little children and women, in one day! The decree in LXX is no doubt unreal, yet the story of it is founded on fact, for Alexander and Antiochus did similarly. The blood-bath is prepared. Shushans citizens are in consternation, but king and vizier sit down to a reckless drinking-feast. Mordecai wanders in the city, lamenting. He dare not lift his cry in or near the palace, for a king must never hear the sound of grief. Yet many citizens go about in sackcloth and bestrewed with ashes. In some way the awful tidings penetrate to the queens palace, and she sends words of comfort to Mordecai. But he cannot be silent.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
HAMAN’S ADVANCEMENT AND CONSPIRACY
(vv. 1-15)
After this (though we are not told how long after) King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, an Agagite, to a position above all the princes (v. 1).Agag had been the king of the Amalekites(1Sa 15:8), who were bitter enemies of Israel from the time Israel came out of Egypt(Exo 17:8-16) concerning whom God said He would utterly blot out the remembrance of them from under heaven (Exo 17:8-14). King Saul had later spared Agag when destroying the Amalekites, but “Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord” (1Sa 15:32-33).We may wonder how this man Haman came into the favor of a Persian king, but this is not explained.
Ahasuerus gave command that all the servants who were in the gate should bow in allegiance to Haman, but Mordecai would not bow to him.The king’s servants saw this and asked why he disobeyed the king’s commandment (v. 3). He told them he was a Jew, no doubt inferring that it would be wrong for him to bow to Haman. Eventually the servants brought the matter to Haman’s attention, including the fact that Mordecai was a Jew. Of course Haman, every time he passed the gate, would particularly observe Mordecai and his not bowing to Haman, so that the man was filled with anger (vv. 4-5). Haman was a shrewd man who bitterly hated all Jews, so that he conceived a plan of not only getting rid of Mordecai, but all the Jews in the realm of King Ahasuerus (vv. 5-6). But Haman was a religious man of the superstitious sort.He with others (perhaps his relatives) cast lots to determine the best day on which to approach the king with the project of getting rid of the Jews (v. 7). His confidence was really in Satan, and just as is often the case at first, this cunning approach worked.
In petitioning the king, Haman did not even mention that he was speaking of the Jews, but told Ahasuerus that there was “a certain people scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of our kingdom:their laws are different from all other people”s, and they do not keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain” (v. 8).He asked therefore that a decree should be written that these people should be destroyed; but he immediately added that he himself would pay 10,000 talents of silver “into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king’s treasury” (v. 9).
Surely the king ought to have realized that Haman had a personal axe to grind since he would personally pay this great amount to have this people destroyed. But the king evidently had a great deal of confidence in this conniving Amalakite who had far more concern for his own reputation than he had for the Persian kingdom.The king therefore agreed, and gave Haman liberty to do just as he desired (vv. 10-11). It seems strange that the king would consult with the princes as to what to do about Vashti (ch. 1:13-15), but in this far more serious case that he would act as though he were a dictator!
The king’s scribes were then called to write a decree “according to all that Haman commanded,” addressed to all the officials of the kingdom in every province, sealed with the king’s signet (v. 12).These letters were then sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces, with instructions to the people to kill and annihilate all the Jews, young and old, women and children on one appropriate day, and to take all their possessions as plunder. Haman had taken fullest advantage of the king’s permission, having copies of the document sent everywhere (v. 14), declaring this slaughter as law, which law could not be changed, for the Medes and Persians prided themselves on having unchangeable laws (Dan 6:8).
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
2. Haman’s promotion 3:1-6
The events we read in chapter 3 took place four years after Esther became queen (cf. Est 2:16; Est 3:7).
Agag was the name of an area in Media that had become part of the Persian Empire. [Note: Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 421.] However, Agag was also the name of the Amalekite king whom Saul failed to execute (1Sa 15:8; cf. Num 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. [Note: Bush, p. 384. Cf. Baldwin, pp. 71-72; and Longman and Dillard, pp. 221-22.] King Saul, a Benjamite, failed to destroy King Agag, an Amalekite; but Mordecai, also a Benjamite (Est 2:5), destroyed Haman, an Amalekite. This story pictures Haman as having all seven of the characteristics that the writer of Pro 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. [Note: Wiersbe, pp. 716-17.]
Mordecai’s refusal to bow before Haman (Est 3:2) evidently did not spring from religious conviction (cf. 2Sa 14:4; 2Sa 18:28; 1Ki 1:16) but from ancient Jewish antagonism toward the Amalekites. [Note: Bush, p. 385; Wiersbe, p. 718.] Mordecai did not have to worship Haman (cf. Dan 3:17-18). Not even the Persian kings demanded worship of their people. [Note: Paton, p. 196.] Nevertheless, Ahasuerus had commanded the residents of Susa to honor Haman (Est 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 (Est 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)." [Note: Baldwin, pp. 72-73.]
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. Gen 12:3).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
HAMAN
Est 3:1-6; Est 5:9-14; Est 7:5-10
HAMAN is the Judas of Israel. Not 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 November 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 Esthers 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 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. No 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 Hamans 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, 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 queens 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 kings gate.” {Est 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. 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 worlds 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.” {Est 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 ministers 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 Esthers 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 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 Hamans 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.