Deeper Commentary

Esther 3:1 After these things- Between the seventh (Esther 2:16) and the twelfth (Esther 3:7) years of Xerxes’ reign.

King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him- The lifting up of Haman will end with his being lifted up on his own gallows. Time and again, the record pokes fun at the high and mighty of this world. Again we see the superficial nature of the king, to promote such a person to the greatest position of power. "Agagite" is a form of "Gog", and so he is set up as the representative of the latter day attempted persecutor of God's people. But Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews xi. 6. 5) and the Targum understand this to mean that Haman was descended from Agag, king of Amalek. But Mordecai was a descendant of Kish (Esther 2:5), and thus connected with Saul, who had conquered Agag. This would partly account for the natural personality clash between Haman and Mordecai. It would also mean that the people killed by the Jews towards the end of the story would likely have been Amalekites, and this would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (Ex. 17:16) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (Num. 24:7 "higher than Agag"). We note the Biblical repetition of the curse against Amalek (Ex. 17:8-16; Num. 24:7; Dt. 25:17-19; 1 Sam. 15; 1 Chron. 4:42). King Saul took the spoil of Agag but failed to kill him; the Jews effectively result in Haman the Agagite's death, but refuse to take the spoil.

Mordecai is a form of Marduk, and Esther a form of Ishtar. "Haman" is a form of the god Humban. But the irony is that in Persian mythology, Marduk and Ishtar overcome Humban; and Marduk becomes the greatest of the gods in the pantheon, just as Mordecai was highly exalted. Time and again we conclude, "You just can't make this stuff up". There was clearly a higher hand at work- that of the one and only true God.

And yet we may well ask at this point, Why was Haman exalted and not Mordecai? Had Esther spoken up for her Jewishness and stated her relationship with Mordecai, surely he would have been exalted at this time? Because the family of the queen were typically exalted, which was exactly why Mordecai wanted Esther to become queen. Her failure led to the exaltation of Haman, and yet that exaltation led to his pride and fall- and thereby the salvation and security of God's people. Again and again we marvel at how God works through human weakness. Thus some personality types thrive on opposition, and opposition to the spreading of the Gospel [from within or without God's people] often leads to the further spreading of it. The exaltation of Haman rather than Mordecai set Mordecai up to have the jealousy and personality complex against Haman which led to him refusing to bow to him. And this in turn led to the planned pogrom and then the salvation and exaltation of the Jews. It's truly amazing how God works.

Esther 3:2 All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage- Although I have painted Mordecai as spiritually weak, he remained devoted to his insistent belief in Yahweh as the only God. And yet we get the impression that he harnessed this religious belief to augment his side of a personality clash with Haman- as we see so often in church life. However, the exiles had been told to bow their neck under the yoke of their Babylonian captors (Jer. 27:8). Jeremiah had even made a yoke and made this an acted parable. The false prophet Hananiah had broken it and urged the Jews not to bow their neck beneath that yoke- and he was slain as a result. Mordecai presents as being on the side of Hananiah. As a first generation exile, Mordecai was well aware of this prophecy and command. It was pride and pig headedness, according to Jeremiah's prophecies, that made him refuse. Not fierce loyalty to Israel's God. There was no specific Mosaic command that forbad bowing before a Gentile official. And the Persian kings did not consider themselves divine, unlike the Roman Caesars. "Abraham rose up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth" (Gen. 23:7). Esther herself bowed to the king and "fell down at his feet" (Esther 8:3). So this was not a case of refusing to bow down to another god. In fact, Mordecai's refusal to bow is typical of observable reality in many Christian groups- those not famed for their spirituality, apparently not highly committed to the Lord, will suddenly rise up and make a huge issue [even to their own cost] over a matter of church tradition or external appearance. Like the timings of a church meeting, colour of the chairs, the type of wine to be used for communion etc. There was a personality clash between Mordecai and Haman, spurred by perhaps Mordecai not getting the exaltation which Haman did.

Esther 3:3 Then the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate said to Mordecai, Why do you disobey the king’s commandment?- This question may have been from inquisitive interest; they were surprised a Jew wouldn't bow down to a man. And yet there were many Jews in Shushan, as archeology also bears out; enough to kill hundreds of men as recorded later in Esther 9:15. They hadn't see any other Jew articulate their belief in this way- a tacit reflection upon the spiritual weakness of the Jews generally, highlighting all the more the sensitive conscience of Daniel. For it is so hard to uphold principles when our own brethren don't uphold them or consider them merely cosmetic issues. Not bowing down to men was however not specifically commanded in the Mosaic law, and there are accounts of Israelites bowing down to men (at least 12 occasions- Gen. 23:12; 27:29; 33:3; 37:7,8; 42:6; 43:26; Ruth 2:10; 1 Sam. 24:8; 1 Kings 1:16; 2 Sam. 14:4; 18:28 Bathsheba, Ahimaaz and the wise woman of Tekoa bowed to king David). It would be a reflection of a very sensitive conscience toward God to refuse to do so. Perhaps he reasoned that the Messianic king would be higher than Agag (Num. 24:7) or that Haman was setting himself as a divine figure. And yet Mordecai was clearly not such a high sensitized believer; the very fact he worked in the palace was evidence enough. For whenever Daniel was promoted to power, he seems to have slipped out of the job and is only later recalled. This confirms my suggestion on :2 that Mordecai was using religious issues as part of a personality struggle with Haman. And we must beware we don't do the same. See on Esther 6:10.

Esther 3:4 Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him and he didn’t listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s position would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew- Haman was apparently unaware Mordecai was a Jew; it was the servants who told him of this. Again we are left with the impression that Mordecai was not a particularly strong believer, and was using the issue of not bowing down to any apart from Yahweh as an excuse to legitimize his native despising of Haman. See on Esther 4:1. If he told Esther not to reveal her Jewishness, he likely had followed the same policy. Zeresh, Haman's wife, changes her position on Mordecai as soon as she realizes he is Jewish. It seems Mordecai said he was a Jew in a moment of frustration and anger... and this hot headed moment triggered the plans for the pogrom. Just as the king's drunken, hot headed demand that his wife appear naked before the drunk dinner guests led to him divorcing her and marrying Esther. Yet the hidden hand of God worked through these things. "They told Haman.... for he had told them that he was a Jew" uses the word "told" twice. The implication is surely that he told them he was a Jew, and they then immediately told Haman. All implying he had hidden his Jewishness from them all until this point.

Esther 3:5 When Haman saw that Mordecai didn’t bow down nor pay him homage, Haman was full of wrath- Circumstances repeat in human lives, both within the same life and between persons. This was just the response of the king when Vashti refused to expose herself. Like the king, Haman wanted to have the disrespectful person murdered. But there was no law in place, apparently, which allowed him to do this. It was just assumed that all bowed down to the first minister, just as it was assumed that wives must obey their husbands, especially if he was the divine king. See on Esther 1:13.

Esther 3:6 But he scorned the thought of laying hands on Mordecai alone, for they had made known to him Mordecai’s people. Therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even Mordecai’s people- Had Esther revealed her Jewishness, it's unlikely Haman would have thought up this massive pogrom. She kept her Jewishness secret, unlike Daniel who habitually prayed toward Jerusalem with his windows open. Again, her weakness in this was used by God, in order to set up all the anti-Jewish forces and destroy them. We have here an insight into the thought processes of Haman which only an inspired record could give. Haman thought for a moment of just destroying Haman, but scorned that thought, and instead went on to thinking of destroying all the Jews. Again we see how sin starts from within the human mind and not due to any possession by demons or a cosmic Satan figure. See on Esther 4:13.

Esther 3:7 In the first month, which 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, and chose the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- Some think that the idea is that every day they cast lots to see which month and day they should do it on, but the date given was about as far distant within the course of a year as possible. There was therefore going to be maximum time for the Jews to defend themselves, and for the king to change his mind. As Ahasuerus felt bound by his own law and couldn't kill Vashti as he wanted to, so was Haman. He obviously wanted to execute the massacre as soon as possible; but he was disallowed from doing this by his own structures of superstitions and laws.

However a more natural reading is that in one session, they cast lots for every day ["from day to day" NEV] to see which day would come out positive. And they got negative until the very end- the 13th day of the 12th month, a year's time. For they did this on the 13th day of the first month. This run of negatives was surely to warn Haman that luck, or the gods, were against him. It's like flipping a coin 364 times and it always lands on the same side, when you have agreed that that side means "no". And you keep doing it until eventually you get a "yes". And they likely had the idea that 13 was an unlucky number. In this incident we see a typical theme of the book- what seems total chance, and chance directed towards evil, is in fact overruled by God for good. If LXX is correct, "So Haman went to his gods to learn the day of their death", the gods are shown to be fools and totally manipulated by Yahweh's higher hand. For the Jews were given maximum time to prepare for the pogrom. The whole incident shouts out to be connected with Prov. 16:33: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord”. The Lord simply had to be in this, the "every decision" over the 364 days when the lot said "no", had to be "from the Lord"- although it is not specifically stated.

Esther 3:8 Haman said to King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from other people’s. They don’t keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not for the king’s profit to allow them to remain- There is the implication that the king was so dim witted or befuddled by alcohol that he didn't even ask for the "people" to be defined, and just gave his signet ring to Haman to do as he wished. It could well be that he made these decisions whilst drunk (see on :15; Esther 7:2), and his personality was such that he didn't worry about the past but just lived for the present, with no thought to the implications of what he had done or agreed in the past. For surely he knew that Mordecai was a Jew (Esther 6:10) and that the Jews were in positions of power throughout the empire.

The restoration prophecies speak of how “all nations” are to be gathered to Zion; they are those who scattered Judah amongst the nations; not every literal nation. And who “scattered” Israel? The Hebrew word is used in Jer. 50:17 to describe how Babylon scattered Judah amongst the nations. And most significantly, the same word occurs again in 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...”. It is quite wrong for us to imagine Judah sitting quietly by the rivers of Babylon, all huddled together. They were scattered throughout all the many provinces / colonies of the Babylonian empire. This was why Cyrus’ decree bidding the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem had to be published “throughout all his kingdom” (Ezra 1:1), and Jews living “in any place” of that kingdom were included in the invitation. It was Babylon who had “parted my land” by dividing it up amongst the various ‘Samaritan’ peoples who were transported there from other conquered territories. And their being in Babylon is paralleled with being scattered to the four corners of the world as it was known to them: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, says the LORD. Deliver yourself, O Zion, that dwells with the daughter of Babylon” (Zech. 2:6-7). And consider Zech. 7:14: “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them [i.e. this concerns the Babylonian invasion], that no man passed through nor returned”. Indeed, Zech. 8:7,8 speaks of the restoration as coming from both West and East of Israel, implying that the Babylonians had sold some of the Jews as slaves in Greece and north Africa. 

Esther 3:9 If it pleases the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who are in charge of the king’s business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (Esther 4:7). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn't return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God's Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God's kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming. Herodotus claimed that the total revenue of the Persian Empire under Darius had been 14,560 talents; so this offer suggests the enormous wealth of the Jews, attained so relatively quickly since arriving as exiles.

The word for "destroy" has a very wide meaning. It is used of expulsion or fleeing. The words for "enslave" and "destroy" have only one small letter different; quite possibly Haman gave the impression he spoke of enslaving, not destroying. The king agreed to this, but he may have understood it as no more than the expulsion / deportation of an ethnic group from his empire. Perhaps Esther alludes to this when she later comments: "if we had been sold for bondservants and bondmaids, I would have held my peace" (Esther 7:4). The actual decree is far harsher- to destroy, kill and spoil. We see how the king presents as forgetful, self absorbed, distant, disinterested and so easily manipulated. When he finally realizes Haman has done this, he is therefore the more angry- transferring his anger with himself onto Haman. And again this was all in God's good plan for His people. Of course, had the Jews returned as commanded- they wouldn't have been in Persia and the whole situation with Haman need never to have occurred. And with 12 months notice, they ought to have made a deal with the Persian authorities and returned to Judah. For the king was apparently good with the idea of them being deported. Instead they remain and God has to save them, although with the spiritual cost of their becoming wealthy and popular, and thus even less likely to heed the call to return and reestablish the Kingdom.

"When this became known..." (Esther 9:25) suggests that the king was ignorant of the intention to destroy the Jews, until Esther pointed it out to him. This may just be a simplified form of the story. But if these words are a true reflection of how things really were, we are again left with the impression of a king with limited awareness of reality, who never actually read the decree Haman issued in his name to destroy the Jews and only realized what it implied some time later. Being an alcoholic could explain this; but so could super narcissism and perhaps a total focus upon international political and military matters.

Esther 3:10 The king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy- To give Haman authority to act in his name was surely unwise. Especially when it would not surely have been hard to perceive that Haman had his personal agendas for wanting the Jews destroyed, and was a man obsessed. Again the king comes over as seriously lacking judgment, perhaps due to making these decisions when drunk (:15).

Esther 3:11 The king said to Haman, The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you- This may be a reference to the assumption that the "silver" or wealth of executed persons went to the state; rather than saying Haman could keep it all for himself; for the intention was still to pay the money to the king's treasuries (Esther 4:7). But again this sounds like the wild kind of promise made when drunk (see on :15).

Esther 3:12 Then the king’s scribes were called in on the first month, on the thirteenth day of the month; and all that Haman commanded was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, and it was sealed with the king’s ring-

The decree to kill the Jews was given on the 13th day of the first month, the night before Passover, when the Jews would have been reciting the narrative of their deliverance from Egypt. Again we see the hidden hand of God- for this ought to have reminded the Jews of their Passover deliverance. Just as we read nothing of "God" nor prayer in Esther [forgetting the LXX additions], so too the connection with Passover is not made explicit. Possibly the Jews weren't keeping it anyway; and effectively, they replaced it with Purim, a feast not commanded by God. And perhaps they consciously did this, because they kept Purim on the 14th day of the 12th month whereas Passover was on the 14th day of the first month. And they command that Purim is to be kept "for ever" (Esther 9:19), in the very language used of the Passover (Ex. 12: 24-27). We must read their instigation of Purim in the context of Zechariah and Haggai criticizing the returned exiles for establishing at least three other feasts, whilst not keeping God's commands properly if at all. It was a way to escape their obligations to their God, through creating their own set of legalistic traditions.

"The thirteenth having been found to be a lucky day for the massacre itself, Haman may have thought it advisable to choose the same day of the first month for entering upon the preparation for it". The word for "princes" is a technical terms referring to the chiefs of the various conquered peoples.

Esther 3:13 Letters were sent by couriers 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 on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions-

There are connections between characters within Biblical history, just as there are between our lives and theirs, and between the lives of believers. This is so clear in the Bible that we are to accept this as a Divine principle, and look for these connections with other believers. This is in reality the basis of fellowship between believers. We have a worked example here. The situation is very similar, and allusive to, Jezebel sending letters in the king's name, ordering Naboth's death: "She wrote letters in Ahab’s name and signed them with his seal, and sent the letters to the elders and to the nobles who were in his city" (1 Kings 21:8). The allusion presents the king as the weak and manipulated Ahab, despite all his power. He was weak and manipulated ultimately by God's hand, and the show of power with which the Esther story opens is thus subverted. Just as is all human show of strength. Just as Ahab returned home miserable because he couldn't have Naboth's vineyard, to be encouraged by his wife to destroy Naboth and grab his property, so the wife of Haman acts identically (Esther 5:14 cp. 1 Kings 21:7).

The LXX claims to report a copy of the letter: "And the message was sent by posts throughout the kingdom of Artaxerxes, to destroy utterly the race of the Jews on the first day of the twelfth month, which is Adar, and to plunder their goods. And the following is the copy of the letter; The great king Artaxerxes writes thus to the rulers and inferior governors of a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India even to Ethiopia, who hold authority under him. Ruling over many nations and having obtained dominion over the whole world, I was minded (not elated by the confidence of power, but ever conducting myself with great moderation and gentleness) to make the lives of my subjects continually tranquil, desiring both to maintain the kingdom quiet and orderly to its utmost limits, and to restore the peace desired by all men. But when I had enquired of my counsellors how this should be brought to pass. Aman, who excels in soundness of judgment among us, and has been manifestly well inclined without wavering and with unshaken fidelity, and had obtained the second post in the kingdom, informed us that a certain ill-disposed people is mixed up with all the tribes throughout the world, opposed in their law to every other nation, and continually neglecting the commands of the king, so that the united government blamelessly administered by us is not quietly established. Having then conceived that this nation alone of all others is continually set in opposition to every man, introducing as a change a foreign code of laws, and injuriously plotting to accomplish the worst of evils against our interests, and against the happy establishment of the monarchy; we signified to you in the letter written by Aman, who is set over the public affairs and is our second governor, to destroy them all utterly with their wives and children by the swords of the enemies, without pitying or sparing any, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, of the present year; that the people aforetime and now ill-disposed to us having been violently consigned to death in one day, may hereafter secure to us continually a well constituted and quiet state of affairs".

Esther 3:14 A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that they should be prepared against that day- LXX "all the nations", looking ahead to the day when "all nations" will be gathered against the Jews. The stress upon all provinces and languages (:12) is a reflection of how widely the Jews had been scattered in the previous 70 years.

Esther 3:15 The couriers went forth in haste by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given out in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed- The haste was no doubt ordered by Haman because he feared the king might change his mind. if the king was an alcoholic, this would explain his apparent memory loss and acting as if he was unaware of the consequences of his past actions and decisions.