Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Esther 7:5
Then the king Ahasuerus answered and said unto Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so?
Verse 5. Who is he, and where is he] There is a wonderful abruptness and confusion in the original words, highly expressive of the state of mind in which the king then was:
mi hu zeh veey zeh hu asher melao libbo laasoth ken.
“Who? He? This one? And where? This one? He? Who hath filled his heart to do thus?”
He was at once struck with the horrible nature of a conspiracy so cruel and diabolic.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Who is he? and
where is he? The expressions are short and doubled, as proceeding from a discomposed and enraged mind.
To do so, i.e. to circumvent me, and by subtlety to procure an irrevocable decree, whereby not only my estate should be so much impaired, and so many of my innocent subjects be destroyed without mercy, but my queen also should be involved in the same danger and destruction.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then the King Ahasuerus answered and said unto Esther the queen,…. The words in the original text lie thus, “and the King Ahasuerus said, and he said to Esther the queen”; which doubling of the word does not signify, as Jarchi suggests, that before he spoke to her by a messenger, or middle person, but, now he knew she was of a royal family, he spoke to her himself; but it is expressive of the ruffle of his mind, and the wrath and fury he was in, that he said it again and again, with a stern countenance and great vehemence of speech:
who is he? and where is he? who is the man? and where does he live?
that durst presume in his heart to do so; that has boldness, impudence, and courage enough to perpetrate so vile an action: or “that has filled his heart” i; the devil no doubt filled his heart to do it, see Ac 5:3, but the king had either forgot the decree he had granted, and the countenance he had given him to execute it; or, if he remembered it, he was now enraged that he should be drawn in to such an action by him; and perhaps till now was ignorant of Esther’s descent, and knew not that she would be involved in the decree.
i “qui replevit cor suum”, Drusius; “implevit”, De Dieu.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
CRITICAL NOTES.]
Est. 7:5. Who is he] Ahasuerus could not really have doubted; but he affects to doubt, that he may express his anger at the act, apart from all personal considerations.Rawlinson. Who is he that durst presume] Lit., as the margin, whose heart has filled him to do this. The evil and ambitious man is filled with foul thoughts and purposes from the corrupt fountain of his own wicked heart.
Est. 7:6.] Esther replies, The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman. Then was Haman afraid before the king and the queen.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est. 7:5-6
THE DOINGS OF A WICKED HEART
Ahasuerus was yet in the dark. He had signed the decree for the extermination of the Jews at the instigation of Haman, he had seen Hamans great ambition, he had heard Esthers piteous appeal, but still he is not sharp enough to fix upon Haman as the offender. Perhaps it is that he does know, but waits to have a clear declaration from Esthers own lips, but waits to see the case plainly settled that Haman was the guilty one.
I. A wicked heart induces foolhardiness. There is wisdom apparent in the renderings given by the translators of the Bible. They speak, for the most part, as if inspired by the Holy Ghost. Very suggestive is their rendering of the question uttered by Ahasuerus. Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so? The daring presumption of those impelled by wicked hearts is indeed appalling. A wicked heart is both deceitful and deceiving. Hamans wicked heart must have deceived him as to the daring nature of the course he had been pursuing. He only thought of gratifying an evil nature, and did not calmly consider the possible and very probable bitter consequences. This is characteristic of wicked hearts through all time. The foolhardiness of the wicked is astonishing. They appear as if bereft of their senses. When we see how clumsily they proceed to work, we ask, How could they hope to escape detection? What induced them to take the fatal step? How is it that they actually permit themselves to be caught in their own toils?
II. A wicked heart, sooner or later, meets with open condemnation. And Esther said, The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman. It may be true that the wicked heart does not always meet with a righteous and indignant Esther come to judgment. Yet it cannot escape either here or hereafter. It will either discover itself or be discovered. The wicked heart will discover itself by its wicked fruits. For a long time it may work in secret, but ultimately all will be revealed. He that doeth evil may avoid the light, but he cannot always escape its detecting rays. There is only one way of escape, but there is one way, and it is all-sufficient. That one way is repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. If the light shines upon the wicked heart, and the man sees with holy remorse the evil of his nature, then there may be, and is, a way of escape. If we say the wicked heart must meet with open condemnation, we mean if that wicked heart will not condemn itself, but continues obdurate and impenitent.
III. A wicked heart leads to fearfulness. Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen. The wicked flee when no man pursueth. If a man has not his sensibilities all deadened, then he must be afraid in the midst of his wickedness. All the annals of crime tell us that fearfulness surprises the wicked. They live in constant terrors. Haman, however, had now outward reason for fear. How greatly was he troubled at this crisis! He had fears within. There were fightings against him without. Easy it is for us to say that Haman was a coward. Who would not have been a coward under the trying circumstances? A virtuous soul may be calm and brave in the face of outward terrors; but strange would it be if a vicious soul did not give way to fear. Hardened sinners may pass through the terrors of time with apparently unmoved natures; but in the great day of Divine wrath they will say to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est. 7:5-6
Now Queen Esther musters up her inward forces, and, with an undaunted courage, fixing her angry eyes upon the hated Agagite, she says, The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman. The word was loath to come forth, but it strikes home at the last. Never till now did Haman hear his true title; before, some had styled him noble, others great, others magnificent, and some, perhaps, virtuous; only Esther gave him his own, Wicked Haman. Ill-deserving greatness doth in vain promise to itself a perpetuity of applause. If our ways be foul, the time shall come when, after all vain flattery, after all our momentary glory, our sins shall be ripped up, and our iniquities laid before us, to our utter confusion. With what consternation did Haman now stand! How do we think he looked to hear himself thus enstyled, thus accused, yea, thus condemned? Certainly death was in his face, and horror in every one of his joints. No sense, no limb knows his office. Fain would he speak; but his tongue falters, and his lips tremble. Fain would he make apologies upon his knees; but his heart fails him, and tells him the evidence is too great. Only guiltiness and fear look through his eyes upon the enraged countenance of his master, which now bodes nothing to him but revenge and death.Bishop Hall.
Est. 7:5. Then the king Ahasuerus answered and said unto Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so?
What! to compass the death of the queen, and, as if that were too small a wickedness, the destruction of all her people also! Was a man so wicked to be found in any of the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the kings dominions? If there were such a daring criminal to be found, no death was too terrible for him.
What, then, will our Lord do when he rises up to revenge the wrongs done to himself in the persons of his brethren; of those who are espoused to him in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies? Will he not account the wrongs done to them to have been done to himself? When he maketh inquisition for blood, woe to them that are stained with bloody crimes against his people. The wrath of Ahasuerus against the enemies of the Jews was a fruit of Gods wrath against them. He forgot not his promise to Abraham, I will bless him that blesseth thee, and I will curse him that curseth thee.
What and where is he that durst do this thing?What if Ahasuerus himself is the man, although it would have been unwise in the queen to tell him that he was. He was certainly, though unconscious of it, a partner in this wickedness; and yet he was filled with horror at hearing that any person could dare to load himself with such guilt. Thus David was filled with anger against a man who was only the emblem of himself.* Consider what abhorrence you have of the sins of other men, and consider how like your own sins are to theirs, and let your souls be humbled within you. Take care how you speak of the sins of other men, lest your tongues condemn yourselves. Your sins are probably much liker to theirs than you imagine, till you have well considered the matter. Perhaps they are a great deal worse, when every circumstance is considered.
Est. 7:6. And Esther said, The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman. Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen.
Haman now finds for what reason he was invited by the queen to her banquet. It was, to be accused to his face of the blackest crime. He had an opportunity of saying what could be said (if anything could be said) in his own vindication, or in mitigation of his offence. But if he had nothing to say, it was to be expected that the confusion of his face would be a witness against him.
This was actually the case. Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen. He had too good reason to tremble for his life. The queen had brought a dreadful accusation against him, and his guilt was too apparent to be denied or to be extenuated. It was, besides, of a nature fitted to excite the kings fiercest indignation and bitterest rage.Lawson.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
5. Who is he If the king now suspected, as probably he did, who the guilty person was, he would naturally, first, express his emotion and surprise as here represented. “He affects to doubt,” says Rawlinson, “that he may express his anger at the act apart from all personal considerations.”
Probably both Haman and the king now first learned, and were surprised to find, that Esther was a Jewess.
Who is he that durst presume Literally, as the margin, whose heart has filled him to do thus. The evil and ambitious man is filled with foul thoughts and purposes from the corrupt fountain of his own wicked heart. Comp. Mat 15:19.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
(5) Then the king Ahasuerus answered and said unto Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so?
No doubt the king must have been greatly surprised at the nature of this request. But, Reader! our petitions are all known, and all answered before they are delivered. He that hears prayer, is the Awakener of prayer, as well as the Rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Est 7:5 Then the king Ahasuerus answered and said unto Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so?
Ver. 5. Then the king Ahasuerus answered, &c. ] It seems he did not yet, by all that Esther had said, understand whom she meant; so high an opinion he had of Haman his minion, the only ornament and bulwark of the empire, the greatest publicola, and most esteemed patriot. The king, therefore, as not thinking him so near at hand, hastily asketh, He said and said (so the Heb. hath it) to the queen.
Who is he, and where is he
That durst presume in his heart to do so?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
answered and said. Note the idiom = threatened and said. See note on Deu 1:41.
WHO IS HE, AND WHERE IS HE . . . ? This is the fifth Acrostic, which gives (not Jehovah but) the Divine Name “I AM” of Exo 3:14. See App-60.
HE. Note the emphatic repetition of this pronoun.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Est 7:5-7
Est 7:5-7
THE KING’S REQUEST FOR THE ADVERSARY’S IDENTITY
“Then spake the king Ahasuerus and said unto Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so? And Esther said, An adversary and an enemy, even this wicked Haman. Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen. And the king arose in his wrath from the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden: and Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king.”
At this juncture, the king began to get the whole picture. Indeed it had been Haman who had concocted that evil story about the Jews, had advised their destruction, and with the king’s ring had himself mailed out the decree calling for their slaughter. In his anger, the king arose and left the banquet; and Haman was astute enough to know that his goose was indeed cooked. Naturally, Haman pleaded with Esther to spare his life; and when it became apparent that she would not help him, he fell at her feet imploring her. “He was still prostrate before the reclining queen, probably clasping her feet as a suppliant, when the furious king returned from his walk in the garden.” “Like the Greeks and Romans, the Persians reclined at their meals on sofas or couches.”
We have no agreement with, “Some commentators (who) have criticized Esther for not interceding for Haman.” However, such writers forget that as long as Haman lived, he was a deadly threat to the Jewish people. Esther was wise enough to see that although Haman was at the moment defeated; if he had survived, he might have found a way to achieve his purpose.
E.M. Zerr:
Est 7:5. The reply and questions of the king showed that he was entirely in the dark about what was going on. His words where is he especially indicated that he was wholly unsuspecting as to the guilty party.
Est 7:6. This verse is brief but very weighty. It is the climax to all of the things that Esther and Mordecai had been doing, beginning with the 4th chapter. She wanted to be sure of her ground before springing the surprise upon the king. In order to that end she drew him on with her social program, and in the progress of that she could observe the complete willingness manifested to grant her any request she might make. Thus, after he had thrice offered her anything up to half of the kingdom, she concluded “the iron was hot” and ready to be struck. So there, at that second banquet, with the king still lost in his rapturous admiration for his lovely queen, and in the immediate presence of Haman, she told the king the answer. She used three words to describe Haman; adversary, enemy and wicked. Haman was afraid which means he trembled in the presence of the king and queen. The memory of the march through the streets of the city would come surging into his mind. Now that the queen had dared to accuse him at the inquiry of the king, and with an accusation that he knew to be true, the full extent of possibilities threw him into a panic of fear.
Est 7:7. Esther displayed much wisdom by not stating the full details of her case in Est 7:3-4. She told enough to give the king a shock, and start his mind working toward the desired conclusion. With that much of the situation arrayed before him, his nerves would be in a tension of concern for the welfare of his beloved wife. To think that anyone would dare wish to harm the idol of his heart was almost more than he could stand. The person who could be so unreasonably rash must undoubtedly be skulking somewhere like a cowardly spy. Imagine, then, his state of mind when the awful truth was stated to add its weight to his already outraged temper. No wonder that he arose unceremoniously from the banquet and left the room, as if shrinking from the vile presence of the man on whom so much honor had been heaped, but undeservedly. Haman was able to see the grave danger confronting him. The king had gone out, so his only means of contact to make a plea for mercy was through the queen.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Who is he: Gen 27:33, Job 9:24
that durst: etc. Heb. whose heart hath filled him, Act 5:3
Reciprocal: Est 9:25 – when Esther came Job 18:8 – he is cast Pro 14:17 – a man Joh 13:25 – who
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Est 7:5. Then the king said, Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so? What! contrive the murder of the queen and all her friends? Is there such a man, or such a monster, rather, in nature? The expressions are short and doubled, as proceeding from a discomposed and enraged mind. The Hebrew is, Whose heart has filled him, as in the margin; or, Who hath filled his heart, to do so? He wonders that any one should be so wicked as to conceive such a thing, or that any one should be so bold as to attempt to effect it; that is, to circumvent him, and procure a decree, whereby not only his revenue should be so much injured, and so many of his innocent subjects destroyed, but his queen also involved in the same destruction. We sometimes startle at that evil which we ourselves are chargeable with. Ahasuerus is amazed at that wickedness which he himself was guilty of: for he had consented to the bloody edict; so that Esther might have said, Thou art the man!
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the 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.