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.
An indefinite lapse of time is thus indicated, perhaps of considerable duration. The events of this chapter fell in the year 474 B.C., the 12th year of Ahasuerus’ reign (see
v. 7).
Ahasuerus was introduced first (
ch. 1), then Mordecai and Esther (
ch. 2); now Haman appears on the scene, as grand vizier, or prime minister. According to Jewish tradition, Haman was a direct descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites (see
1 Sam. 15:8), in the 16th generation (
Targum Sheni; Josephus
Antiquities xi. 6. 5).
Esther 3:2 And all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.
These were the lesser officers of the court, of the rank to which Mordecai belonged.
That is, prostrated themselves before Haman in usual Oriental fashion. This act implied submission, loyalty, and obedience.
Perhaps Haman had been elevated from a low position. The special command required that all, even those who might previously have outranked Haman, should now fall prostrate before him.
In view of the fact that the Hebrew people prostrated themselves not only before kings (
1 Sam. 24:8) but before superiors in general, or those whom they wished to honor as such (
Gen. 23:7; 27:29; 33:3; etc.), Mordecai’s motive in refusing to bow to Haman is not entirely clear. Haman was, to be sure, a Gentile; but Abraham bowed to Gentiles (
Gen. 23:7). Mordecai did refuse Haman reverence that belongs only to God (5T 450; see PK 600).
Esther 3:4 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.
The persistent attempt made to secure Mordecai’s compliance with the edict to bow before Haman implies that his fellow officials esteemed him highly. They sought to give him a fair opportunity before reporting the matter. From their point of view it was a serious precedent—if one royal decree could thus be flouted, how about others?
Mordecai probably explained that his religion made it impossible to worship any man. Apparently, Mordecai’s race had not been suspected. In appearance and language he and Esther both seem to have passed as Persians.
Esther 3:5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.
Mordecai’s disrespect apparently came to Haman’s attention only through the “king’s servants.” Mordecai’s attitude and explanation meant that Jews everywhere stood opposed to Haman. Mordecai’s apparent defiance, boldly displayed at the very gate of the palace, could mean but one thing to Haman—conspiracy! At least, Haman was pleased to interpret it so. And if Mordecai justified his course on a religious basis, all who held that religion must therefore be involved also.
Esther 3:6 And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.
If Haman had simply informed Xerxes that one of the minor court officials was insulting him and thereby disobeying a royal edict, Ahasuerus would certainly have ordered Mordecai put to death. But Mordecai, as a Jew, had insulted him, and therefore the Jews as a nation should be punished. If the Jews and their religion stood in the way of Haman’s pride and security, both must be sacrificed.
Massacres on a large scale have been common in many non-Christian lands, where human life is generally considered to be of little value and the caprice of absolute monarchs often determines whether men shall live or die. Nearly half a century before this, upon the accession of Darius Hystaspes, the father of Xerxes, there had been a general massacre of the Magi, and a general massacre of the Scythians had occurred another half century before that.
Esther 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.
Among the Jews this name replaced Abib after the Captivity.
April 5, 474 B.C., to April 21, 473 B.C., according to Persian reckoning.
The superstitious casting of lots, as a means of determining favorable times for certain projects, has been common in the East since time immemorial. Lots were drawn by means of dice, by chips of wood, by strips of parchment, by white and black stones, and in other ways. The Jews supposed that a special dispensation of Providence supervised the casting of lots (
Prov. 16:33), and thought that matters decided in this way were according to God’s will. Haman appears to have cast lots, first to determine the day of the month, and then the month.
It cannot be discovered from the context whether Haman cast lots to determine a favorable date for proposing his scheme to the king or for the execution of the decree of extermination. Neither is it certain whether the process of casting of lots was extended over a period of several months or whether it was conducted at one time, to determine the supposedly auspicious time. The Hebrew reading of the text may possibly imply the former (see p. 460).
The lot apparently indicated the thirteenth day of Adar, the twelfth and last month of the year. Like Nisan, Adar is a Babylonian name. Adar corresponds to our month of March (see Vol. II, p. 108).
Esther 3:8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.
. A large proportion of the Jewish exiles had elected to remain in the lands to which they had been carried away captive. Josephus notes that the more well-to-do and influential Babylonian Jews were little inclined to leave their adopted home. By now, there was evidently a large Jewish colony at Shushan also (see
ch. 9:12-15).
A true charge, but a weak argument for their destruction, more especially since the Persians allowed all subject nations to retain their own religions, laws, and customs.
. This charge was not true with respect to laws in general. It was only when a royal edict required a Jew to violate his religious beliefs that such a situation could arise. But the laws of the Medes and Persians were in the main fair and just, and the Jews no doubt readily obeyed them. Had it been otherwise they would not have enjoyed the favor that was often shown them. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God strictly enjoined them to be law-abiding, peaceful subjects wherever they might be (
Jer. 29:7).
Esther 3:9 If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.
Even Ahasuerus could scarcely consider as a light matter such an act of genocide as Haman contemplated, but Haman immediately fortified his proposal with a bribe such as even a king could not view with indifference.
Based on the light Babylonian talent, this would be about 377 tons, or 343 metric tons (see Vol. I, pp. 168, 169). Herodotus says that Xerxes (Ahasuerus) once declined such an offer from one of his subjects. The recent Greek war had no doubt made a heavy drain on the royal treasury, but it would be beneath the king’s dignity, perhaps, to accept a bribe.
Esther 3:10 And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy.
Literally, “his signet.” This was probably a ring, for signet rings were known to the Persians, though some think it was a cylinder like that of his father Darius, now in the British Museum. In possession of the royal seal, Haman had power to issue whatever edicts he desired, for the royal seal would give them full authority. Haman’s word was thus equal to that of the king, who in effect gave Haman blanket permission to do what he desired.
Esther 3:11 And the king said unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.
Ahasuerus seems to have declined the bribe (see on
v. 9).
Esther 3:12 Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring.
Herodotus says that “scribes” were in attendance on Xerxes throughout the Grecian war. Such persons would also be at hand in the palace, ready to draw up royal edicts.
Heb., ’achashdarpenim, “satraps,” a Hebrew transliteration of the Persian khshatřapâvan, from which our “satrap” is derived. According to Herodotus, there were 20 satrapies in the time of Darius I. These were major divisions of the empire, each composed of several provinces.
That is, of the 127 provinces (see
ch. 1:1). Several
“governors” were responsible to each satrap.
Or,
“princes,” as in
ch. 1:3; etc. These would be the native rulers or the head men of conquered tribes, who enjoyed considerable local autonomy.
Esther 3:13 And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.
The Persian postal system was famous throughout the ancient world. Xenophon attributes the organization of the system to Cyrus. Xenophon described it as follows:
“Stables for horses are erected along the various lines of route, at such a distance one from another as a horse can accomplish in a day. All the stables are provided with a number of horses and grooms. There is a post-master to preside over each, who receives the dispatches along with the tired men and horses, and sends them on by fresh horses and fresh riders. Sometimes there is no stoppage in the conveyance even at night; since a night courier takes up the work of the day courier and continues it. It has been said that these posts outstrip the flight of birds, which is not altogether true; but beyond a doubt it is the most rapid conveyance by land.”
Here the writer of the book of Esther apparently quotes directly from the edict. Note the involved legal phraseology.
In ancient times, to take the father’s life and spare that of the child was thought to be folly. Wives and children of criminals were put to death with their husbands and fathers, as a matter of course. Even the Jews sometimes followed this practice (
Joshua 7:24, 25; 2 Kings 9:26).
The LXX, which contains an alleged copy of the decree, has
“the fourteenth day,” but agrees with the Hebrew text here by making the 14th the actual day of the struggle (
ch. 9:1). The 14th and 15th are the days now kept by the Jews (see
ch. 9:14-21).
At this point the LXX inserts a copy of what purports to be a letter written by Artaxerxes, as Ahasuerus is called in the LXX. Though the genuineness of this letter is unattested, it is nevertheless of interest in connection with the comparison drawn between the decree of Ahasuerus against the Jews and that eventually to be issued against God’s people (see PK 605):
“Now this is the copy of the letter: The great King Artaxerxes writes these things to the governors of 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia, and to the officials that are subject to them. After I became lord over many nations, and had dominion over the whole world, without being lifted up with presumption of my authority, but carrying myself always with equity and mildness, I purposed to settle my subjects continually in a quiet life; and, by making my kingdom peaceable, and open for passage to the utmost coasts, to renew peace, which is desired by all men.
“Now when I asked my counselors how this might be brought to pass, Haman, that excelled in wisdom among us, and was approved for his constant good will and steadfast fidelity, and had the honour of the second place in the kingdom, declared unto us, that in all nations throughout the world there was scattered a certain malignant people, that had laws contrary to all nations, and continually set aside the commandments of kings, so that the union honourably intended by us, cannot be established.
“Seeing then we understand that this nation is alone continually in opposition to all men, following by their laws an alien life, and evil-affected to our state, working all the mischief they can, that our kingdom may not be firmly established: therefore have we commanded, that they that are indicated in writing unto you by Haman, who is ordained over the affairs, and is a second father unto us, shall all, with their wives and children, be utterly destroyed by the sword of their enemies, without any mercy or pity, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month Adar of this present year: so that they who of old and now also are malicious, may in one day with violence go down to Hades, and so ever hereafter cause our affairs to be well settled, and without trouble.”
Esther 3:14 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day.
The RSV of
v. 14 reads:
“A copy of the document was to be issued as a decree in every province by proclamation to all the peoples to be ready for that day.”
Esther 3:15 The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan the palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed.
The most remote parts of the empire could be reached in a month, or at the most two months. Thus there was no need of haste. But Haman was impatient, fearing, perhaps, lest the king should change his mind and decline to publish the edict.
Insertion of this detail in the narrative seems intended to stress the hardness of heart of the king and of Haman. Having consigned a nation to destruction, they proceeded to enjoy themselves at a banquet of wine.
The bulk of the inhabitants were probably Persians and Elamites, but there may have been a widespread feeling among persons of other nationalities that the precedent now set was a dangerous one. Generally the people of the capital city approved whatever the great king did. Now they appear to doubt the prudence and justice of what he had done. It is possible, however, that the writer refers to the Jews resident in the capital city rather than to the entire population.