After these things 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.
Parallel Translations
-
After these things 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.
-
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.
-
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.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (1)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (14)
Passages linked to Esther 3:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Numbers 24:7 Water shall flow from his buckets. His seed shall be in many waters. His king shall be higher than Agag. His kingdom shall be exalted.
- Esther 5:11 Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, the multitude of his children, all the things in which the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king.
- Daniel 6:2 and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one; that these local governors might give account to them, and that the king should suffer no loss.
- 1 Samuel 15:33 Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be childless among women!” Then Samuel cut Agag in pieces before Yahweh in Gilgal.
- 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.
- Genesis 41:40 You shall be over my house. All my people will be ruled according to your word. Only in the throne I will be greater than you.”
- 1 Samuel 15:8 He took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
- Genesis 41:55 When all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread, and Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph. What he says to you, do.”
- Ezra 7:14 Because you are sent by the king and his seven counselors, to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of your God which is in your hand,
- Esther 1:14 and the next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom),
- Esther 7:6 Esther said, “An adversary and an enemy, even this wicked Haman!” Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen.
- Esther 8:3 Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and begged him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his plan that he had planned against the Jews.
- Psalms 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when what is vile is exalted among the sons of men.
- Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (23 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Est 3:1 After these things did king Ahasuerus promote…
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.
Read full note →
The son of Hammedatha the Ayagite] i.e. The Amalekite, of the stock royal; so that Haman was the natural enemy of the Jews, like as Hannibal was of the Romans. An old grudge there was, an inveterate hatred; Amalek was Esau’s grandchild, and the enmity between these two peoples was, as we say of runnet, the older the stronger.
And advanced him] Set him aloft upon the pinnacle of highest preferment; as Tiberius did Sejanus; as Louis XI of France did his barber; as our Henry VIII did Wolsey; and our recent kings, Buckingham. But princes’ favourites should consider with themselves that honour is but a blast, a magnum nihil, a glorious fancy, a rattle to still men’s ambition; and that as the passenger looketh no longer upon the dial than the sun shineth upon it, so it is here.
And set his seat above all the princes] This cup of honour his weak head could not bear; this blast so blew up the bubble that it burst again. Sejanus-like, he now began to sacrifice to himself, little thinking of that utter ruin to which he was hasting. Physicians used to say, that ultimus sanitatis gradus est morbo vicinus. Sure it is, that when the wicked are near unto misery, they have greatest preferment and prosperity. When Tiberius was desirous to rid his hands of Sejanus, he made him his colleague in the consulship, and set him above all his courtiers. Ahasuerus intended not any harm to Haman when he raised him to this pitch of preferment; but it puffed him up, and proved his bane. None are in so great danger as those that walk upon pinnacles; even height itself makes men’s brains to swim. Every man is not a Joseph, or a Daniel. They were set above all the princes, and could not only bear it, but improve it for the glory of God, and the good of his people. Sed o quam hoc non est omnium! High seats are not only uneasy, but dangerous, and how few are there that do not (as Isis’ ass) think themselves worshipful for the burden they bear! ( Hones onus) .
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain The Agagite, i. e. an Amalekite of the royal…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Here we have,
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 24:7. Some think that he was by birth a prince, as Jehoiakim was, whose seat was set above the rest of the captive kings (Kg2 25:28), as Haman's here was, Est 3:1. The king took a fancy to him (princes are not bound to give reasons for their favours), made him his favourite, his confidant, his prime-minister of state. Such a commanding influence the court then had that (contrary to the proverb) those whom it blessed the country blessed too; for all men adored this rising sun, and the king's servants were particularly commanded to bow before him and to do him reverence (Est 3:2), and they did so. I wonder what the king saw in Haman that was commendable or meritorious; it is plain that he was not a man of honour or justice, of any true courage or steady conduct, but proud, and passionate, and revengeful; yet was he promoted, and caressed, and there was none so great as he. Princes' darlings are not always worthies.
Read full note →
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, Est 3:2. He was urged to it by his friends, who reminded him of the king's commandment, and consequently of the danger he incurred if he refused to comply with it; it was as much as his life was worth, especially considering Haman's insolence, Est 3:3. They spoke daily to him (Est 3:4), to persuade him to conform, but all in vain: he hearkened not to them, but told them plainly that he was a Jew, and could not in conscience do it. Doubtless his refusal, when it came to be taken notice of and made the subject of discourse, was commonly attributed to pride and envy, that he would not pay respect to Haman because, on the score of his alliance to Esther, he was not himself as much promoted, or to a factious seditious spirit and a disaffection to the king and his government; those that would make the best of it looked upon it as his weakness, or his want of breeding, called it a humour, and a piece of affected singularity. It does not appear that any one scrupled at conforming to it except Mordecai; and yet his refusal was pious, conscientious, and pleasing to God, for the religion of a Jew forbade him, 1. To give such extravagant honours as were required to any mortal man, especially so wicked a man as Haman was. In the apocryphal chapters of this book (ch. 13:12-14) Mordecai is brought in thus appealing to God in this matter: Thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman, for I could have been content with good will, for the salvation of Israel, to kiss the soles of his feet; but I did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God, neither will I worship any but thee. 2. He especially thought it a piece of injustice to his nation to give such honour to an Amalekite, one of that devoted nation with which God had sworn that he would have perpetual war (Exo 17:16) and concerning which he had given that solemn charge (Deu 25:17), Remember what Amalek did. Though religion does by no means destroy good manners, but teaches us to render honour to whom honour is due, yet it is the character of a citizen of Zion that not only in his heart, but in his eyes, such a vile person as Haman was is contemned, Psa 15:4. Let those who are governed by principles of conscience be steady and resolute, however censured or threatened, as Mordecai was.
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, Est 3:4. Haman then observed it himself, and was full of wrath, Est 3:5. 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 (Est 2:5), shall find no mercy with this Agagite, whose design is to destroy all the Jews throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus (Est 3:6), 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, Psa 83:4. Nero's barbarous wish is his, that they had all but one neck.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain After these things,.... After the marriage of Esther, and…
After these things,.... After the marriage of Esther, and the discovery of the conspiracy to take away the king's life, five years after, as Aben Ezra observe, at least more than four years, for so it appears from Est 3:7
did King Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite; whom both the Targums make to descend from Amalek, and to be of the stock or family of Agag, the common name of the kings of Amalek; and so Josephus (g); but this is not clear and certain; in the apocryphal Esther he is said to be a Macedonian; and Sulpitius the historian says (h) he was a Persian, which is not improbable; and Agag might be the name of a family or city in Persia, of which he was; and Aben Ezra observes, that some say he is the same with Memucan, see Est 1:14,
Read full note →
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 Kg2 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Haman offended at Mordecai, resolves to destroy all the…
Haman offended at Mordecai, resolves to destroy all the Jews, ver. 1-6. He obtains an order from the king, to have them all slain on one day, ver. 7-11. This order is sent throughout the kingdom, ver. 12-15.
Agagite - An Amalekite of the royal seed of that nation, whose kings were successively called Agag. All the princes - Gave him the first place and seat, which was next to the king.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Ahasuerus exalts Haman the Agagite, and commands all his
CHAPTER III
Ahasuerus exalts Haman the Agagite, and commands all his
Read full note →
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Est 3:1. After these things — About five years…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain The name, Haman, is probably the same as the…
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.
Read full note →
The Classical writers make no mention of Haman’s advancement; but their notices of the reign of Xerxes after 479 B.C. are exceedingly scanty.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Aman means, "a disturber." (Haydock) --- Who. Septuagint add,…
Aman means, "a disturber." (Haydock) --- Who. Septuagint add, "Bougaios, or Gogaios." Gog designates Scythia, where Aman might have been born. Pliny ([Natural History?] iv. 12.) places there the lake and river Ruges. But the Bugean, in Greek, may mean, "greatly puffed up:" or it may stand for Bagoas, "an eunuch," (Judith xii. 11.) like Putiphar. --- Agag, the king of Amalec, 1 Kings xv. This title, like that of Macedonian, (chap. xvi. 10.) is probably used out of contempt, as the Jews fequently styled their enemies, "race of Chanaan," Ezechiel xvi. 3., and Daniel xiii. 56. (Calmet) --- Sulpitius takes Aman to have been a Persian. His Amalecite ancestors may have fled before Saul into Macedonia, though he himself resided in Persia, so as to belong to all those nations. (Tirinus) (Menochius) --- Throne. Thus were Joseph and Joakim exalted, Genesis xli. 40., and 4 Kings xxv. 28. (Calmet) --- The Persians gave places according to merit, (Haydock) or as a reward. (Brisson.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain 1. Haman’s elevation. His resolve with reference to the…
B.—HAMAN ATTAINS TO POWER AND DISTINCTION. HE DETERMINES UPON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWS
Est_3:1-15
Read full note →
1. Haman’s 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 king’s servants, that were in the king’s 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 king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou2 the king’s 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 Mordecai’s 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 king’s laws, therefore [and] it is not for the king’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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 king’s ring [signet]. 13And the letters [books] were sent by posts [the hand of the runners] into all the king’s 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 king’s 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, כָּרַע, denotes a simple inclination of the body as to an equal in courtesy, and the latter, שָׁחָה 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. חֵמָה, a more intense feeling than the ordinary אַף.—Tr.]
4 [Est_3:7. הִפִיל is impersonal, one caused to fall.—Tr.]
5 [Est_3:8. יֶשְׁנוֹ the נ is epenthetic for euphony between the verbal noun יֵשׁ and its suffix וֹ.—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. טַף, 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 Ahasuerus—in Est_3:7 we are in the twelfth year of the reign of Ahasuerus, five years after Est_2:16, but here somewhat sooner—promote Haman the son of Hammedatha.—גִּרֵּל usually used in bringing up children, here means to make him a great man—and set his seat above all the princes that (were) with him,i.e. above all those princes who were in his immediate presence, above his chief officers. He made him, so to speak, his Grand Vizier. Haman from humajun=magnus, augustus, or according to Sanscrit somán, meaning a worshipper of Somar, was a son of Hammedatha, whose name is formed from haomo, soma, and signifies one given by the moon (Benfey, Monatsnamen, 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 ה is placed at the beginning on the ground that it may readily have fallen away, and thus is regarded as the article and so pointed. It is quite possible that the author knew the meaning of these names, and found them significant in what follows. Haman would accordingly be noted as a representative of heathendom.10 The epithet הָאֲגָגֽי leads us to this conclusion. One tiring is certain, that this designation with Jewish interpreters, as Josephus and the Targums, had in it a reminder of the Amalekitish king Agag in Saul’s time (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 כּוּשׁ 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 (לְ, as with אָמַר 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 Æschylus, Pers., 644 sqq., it is said: “Darius was called their Divine Counsellor, he was full of divine wisdom, so well did he, Persia’s 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 Mordecai’s arbitrary will which regarded Haman as one rejected by God. Haman’s inimical disposition against the Jews would not in itself have given a valid ground to the enmity of Mordecai. On the contrary it would still have been his duty to honor him because of his office. But this objection rests upon a stand-point such as we cannot assign either to Mordecai nor yet to the author of our book. It would have been different had it only had reference to a common personal enmity of Haman against Mordecai. But as the enemy of the Jews, who hates and persecutes them in toto because of their laws and religion, every one thought it proper to count him among those transgressors for whose extermination nearly all the Psalmists had prayed, over whom they had already seen the curse of God suspended, before whom one was not to manifest reverence, but rather abhorrence. It is well to bear in mind that Haman is not an enemy of the Jews, such as were so many heathen kings and rulers before him, but that in him the hate specially against the Jewish law was perfected, whereas other heathen magnates had usually manifested great indifference towards it. Mordecai had certainly abundant opportunity to become informed as to the kind of enmity thus exhibited. The author has not given this point great prominence because in his usual manner he thought he had done enough if he designated him as the Agagite. If this assumption be correct, then the import of our book is somewhat more general than is usually held; it does not in that case signify that the people of God can as such refuse to pay homage to men in certain definite ways and modes, but rather that to certain persons, as those who are rejected of God, all honorable distinctions may be denied. But it at all events amounts to this, that God’s people may not lessen the reverence due to Him by doing reverence to others; for homage shown to those rejected of God would be against the honor of God, would be idolatry. In so far as Haman is an enemy of the Jews, who will not allow the observance of their law and religion, the final question would after all be whether the people of God, together with its law and religion, can be suppressed by heathendom, or whether it will have the victory. Comp. also Seiler on this chapter.
Est_3:3-4. The other officers daily questioned Mordecai because of his refusal, and finally reported him to Haman to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand (would withstand, succeed): for he had told them that he was a Jew.—By “his words,” we can only understand an assertion that, as a Jew, he was prevented from participating in the ceremony of doing homage to Haman.
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 הִפִּיל פּוּר, 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 הִפִּיל, may be implied as impersonal. If Haman himself had been the subject, then the words לִפְּנֵי הָמָן following הוּא הַגּוֹרָל would be remarkable, instead of which one would expect to find it לֶפָּנָיו. Bertheau connects this sentence with the explanatory phrase הוּא הַגּוֹרָל, as if the use of the foreign word פּוּר 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 פּוּר 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. Handwörterbuch, p. 229). It lies still more natural to compare it with, para or pare= “piece,” morceau, pièce, 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; Potter’s Archæol. 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. Rosenmüller, 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 לְחֹדֶשׁ 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—יֶשְׁנוֹ has the Nun inserted before the suffix as in 1Sa_14:39; 1Sa_23:23; Deu_29:14 (Ewald’s Lehrb., p. 262 e). אֶחָד 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 king’s profit to suffer them.—שֹׁוֶה, as in Est_3:8; Est_5:13, while in Est_7:4 it has a somewhat different sense. לְהַנִּיחָם, 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 Zöckler 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 נָתוּן is a short mode of expression appropriate to the king. The sense is: “It is,” or: “Let it be given.” So also לַעֲשׂות, “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 king’s 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 (בּוֹ, 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 king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that (were) over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province.—אֲהַשְׁדַּדְפָּנִים and פָּהוֹת 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 שָׂרִים are the native so-called born princes of the different peoples. Before the following מְדִינָה, and likewise before עם 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 king’s ring,” the perfect tense only is fitting, and not the participle. And though נִכְתָּב may have a Kamets, to give it greater distinctiveness, still this is not true of נֶחְתַּם, though so given in several editions.
Est_3:13. And the letters were sent by posts,etc.—,נִשְׁלוֹחַ, 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 them—i.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 פַּתְשֶׁגֶן, 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 דָּת is feminine, as is seen, for example, in Est_3:8; Est_3:15, we cannot render: “That they should publicly proclaim the edict—make 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 גָּלוּי this verb would then have to be in the perfect tense, and נִגְלָה does not mean, as Keil interprets, open or unsealed in its transmission; neither does it mean opened, revealed, made known. גָּלוּי is rather in the optative, the same as is גָּתוּן in Est_3:11 (so also Bertheau).
Est_3:15.The posts went out, being hastened,etc.—דָּחוּף, went speedily, in haste; in 2Ch_26:20 is the Niph. נִדְחַף. 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. נָבוֹכָה 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 נָבוֹךְ means to have erred (Exo_15:3).23
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
On Est_3:1 to Est_7:1. Mordecai’s 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 expect—certainly the Jews hoped—that 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 God’s people; instruments who, because of that people’s 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 part—namely, of the kingdom of the world—and by victory on the other—namely, 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 Mordecai’s 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 king’s 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 God’s 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 one’s 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 latter’s 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 one’s 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 Christian’s 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 authority—an 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 God’s 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 whom—in 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 possessions—for 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, כָּרַע, denotes a simple inclination of the body as to an equal in courtesy, and the latter, שָׁחָה 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. חֵמָה, a more intense feeling than the ordinary אַף.—Tr.]
[4][Est_3:7. הִפִיל is impersonal, one caused to fall.—Tr.]
[5][Est_3:8. יֶשְׁנוֹ the נ is epenthetic for euphony between the verbal noun יֵשׁ and its suffix וֹ.—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. טַף, 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 Agag’s 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, Haman’s offer would have exceeded two-thirds of a year’s 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.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain HAMAN’S PROMOTION, AND THE EDICT AGAINST THE JEWS, Est_3:1-15.
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.
Read full note →
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Chap. Est_3:1-6. Haman offended by Mordecai’s refusal to make…
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.
Read full note →
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 mâh 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 (Βουγαῖος), and in Est_9:24 and Esther 16:10 the Macedonian (ὁ Μακεδών). 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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) Haman . . . the Agagite.—Nothing appears to…
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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain MORDECAI, BY WANT OF RESPECT, OFFENDS HAMAN, AHASUERUS" CHIEF…
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 ch. 2. from ch. 3. 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 (whatever that may mean), 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" (ver. 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 a 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 3). In the course of their remonstrances probably in order to account for his reluctance Mordecai stated himself to be a Jew (ver. 4). It would seem to have been after this that Haman"s attention was first called by the other porters to Mordecai"s want of respect these persons being desirous of knowing whether his excuse would be allowed and the obeisance in his case dispensed with. Haman was violently enraged (ver. 5); but instead of taking proceedings against the individual, he resolved to go to the root of the matter, and, if Mordecai would not bow down to him because he was a Jew, then there should be no more Jews he would have them exterminated (ver. 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 (vers. 10-15).
After these things. Probably some years after about B.C. 476 or 475. Haman, the son of Hammedatha. "Haman" is perhaps Umanish, the Persian equivalent of the Greek Eumenes. "Hammedatha" has been explained as given by the moon" (Mahadata), the initial h being regarded as the Hebrew article. But this mixture of languages is not probable. The Agagite. The Septuagint has Bougaiov, "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, is scarcely possible.
Read full note →
Ver. 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 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 tohave 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 befor 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!
Vers. 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
Vers. 1, 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 andsteady 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 isitself 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. D. (Isa_33:6; Mat_6:19-21)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman.
Est_3:1-6
After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain Est_3:1-6; Est_5:9-14; Est_7:5-10
HAMAN
Est_3:1-6; Est_5:9-14; Est_7:5-10
Read full note →
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.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Est_3:1. After these things] After the events related in…
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 Haman’s nationality. We may perhaps conclude that the epithet “Agagite” is here used symbolically of a heathen enemy of the Jews.
Read full note →
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. Mordecai’s 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 Mordecai’s 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 king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him.” But a king’s 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 king’s 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 Mordecai’s nobility. However, their selfish zeal carried them too far. They were undermining Haman’s 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 Haman’s countenance, for wrath drives away the cheering sunlight, and brings darkness over the whole man. One whispered hiss reaching the great man’s ear is sufficient to drown the hosannas of the multitude.
VI. The prosperous wicked man unwittingly plots his own downfall. Haman’s 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. Haman’s 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 did—rather what he determined not to do—proved 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 Daniel’s would have been if he had eaten the king’s 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 Mordecai’s 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 man—a Jew—will 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 king’s 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 neighbour’s good is to him what Mordecai at the king’s 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 sanctuary—the 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 king’s 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 Haman’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Henry’s 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 king’s 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 Haman’s 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 king’s 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 Mordecai’s matters would stand,” whether the supreme power would recognize a Jew’s 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 ugly—black 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. Bartholomew’s 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 Rebekah’s 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 men’s 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; you’re all right, and so’s he!” Haman’s 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. Mordecai’s life was insured in the best sense. No weapon formed against the Lord’s anointed can prosper until the Lord’s 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 clerk’s serving their purpose. To their great vexation, he utterly refused to do so. He could not be induced to sell his conscience for any one’s 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 man’s 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. Carter—a Puritan preacher—to one of his congregation, “You must work hard, and fare hard, and pray hard,” was good: but we cannot feel sure about his conclusion—“And 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 Haman’s 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 father’s curse if he forgave them. Louis XII. said that nothing smells so sweet as the dead body of an enemy. The Christian’s code is one of forgiveness—that nothing smells so sweet as the rescued body of an enemy. Well would it have been for Haman—well both temporally and spiritually—had he really forgiven the supposed slight of Mordecai.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain Est 3:1 - Est 3:11.
Esther
THE NET SPREAD
Read full note →
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.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain Haman's Revengeful Design Against the Jews
Haman's Revengeful Design Against the Jews
1. The Agagite] It has been suggested that the name is an epithet meant to recall the Amalekite Agag hewn in pieces by Samuel (1Sa_15:33), and intended to indicate contempt and abhorrence.
Read full note →
2. Mordecai bowed not, etc.] In the apocryphal 'Rest of Esther' Mordecai explains in a prayer to the Almighty that he refused to bow down to Haman, 'that he might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God.' Amongst many heathen peoples divine honours were paid to human beings.
7. Nisan] i.e. March-April. The twelfth year of Xerxes would be 474 b.c. They cast Pur, etc.] i.e. early in the first month they cast lots for every day of the year to find out which day would be the most favourable for the success of Haman's design. In the Assyrian calendars there are lucky and unlucky days; and the Persians doubtless entertained a like belief. To the twelfth month] The Heb. is probably defective, and the LXX gives a completer sense by adding, 'and the lot fell on the fourteenth '(an error for the 'thirteenth,' Est_3:13) 'day of the month, which is Adar.' Adar corresponded to February-March.
9. Ten thousand talents] The Persian talent weighed 66 lb. That have the charge of the business] i.e. those whose business it is to receive money paid into the king's treasury.
10. Took his ring] For the significance of this see Est_8:8.
11. The silver] The money which Haman had pledged himself to pay into the treasury the king confers upon him for his services in pointing out a serious danger to the kingdom (Est_3:8).
12. The thirteenth day of the first month] Eleven months were thus to elapse between the issue of the decree and its execution.
Lieutenants] lit. 'satraps,' of whom, according to Herodotus, there were twenty.
13. Posts] Horsemen (cp. Est_8:10) were posted at regular intervals of a day's journey along the main roads to transmit in succession the messages they received until they reached their destination.
15. Was perplexed] i.e. at the magnitude and arbitrary character of the contemplated massacre.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 1. The promotion of Haman and Mordecai’s faithfulness (Est…
HAMAN AND HIS WICKED PLOT
CHAPTER 3
Read full note →
1. The promotion of Haman and Mordecai’s faithfulness (Est 3:1-6)
2. Haman’s proposal and the King’s 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 man’s 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, Jacob’s 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 Jew’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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 Isaiah’s 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 king’s 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 Daniel’s 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 lion’s 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 Haman’s 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. Haman’s accusation is twofold. First: Their laws are diverse from those of every people. Second: Neither keep they the king’s laws. And then the verdict: It is not for the king’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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 Haman’s possession. “And letters were sent by posts into all the king’s 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 Satan’s 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 man’s condition as a sinner.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Haman Plans Revenge Against Mordecai
Haman Plans Revenge Against Mordecai
v. 1. After these things, some four years after the elevation of Esther to the position of queen, did King Ahasuerus promote Haman, the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, making him a great man in the empire, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him, by raising him to the rank of grind vizier, his chief confidential minister.
Read full note →
v. 2. And all the king’s servants that were in the king’s gate, the lower officers of the court, bowed and reverenced Haman, giving him kingly and therefore divine honor, after the Persian custom; for the king had so commanded concerning him. Ahasuerus claimed divine honor and reverence for himself, and he now commanded that his prime minister be regarded in the same way. But Mordecai bowed not nor did him reverence, since he, as a Jew, refused to give divine honors to any one but the Lord Himself.
v. 3. Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, the fellow-officers of Mordecai,said unto Mordecal, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment? It displeased them that Mordecai refused to give Haman the homage which they had to show.
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, whether he would succeed in upholding the principle which he alleged in explanation of his action; for he had told them that he was a Jew, wherefore he could not give divine homage to Haman, especially since the latter was an Amalekite, a race accursed and condemned by God, Exo 17:15; 1 Samuel 15.
v. 5. And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath, regarding this refusal, according to Persian ideas, as the greatest insult which could have been offered him.
v. 6. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone, revenge on this one man alone seemed too insignificant a matter to him; for they had showed him the people of Mordecai, the despised race of the Jews; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai. By exterminating the entire race of the Jews, a proceeding by no means without a precedent in the history of the cruel and revengeful Orientals, he not only wanted to express his contempt of the Jews in an adequate manner, but he also intended to prevent any further display of contempt on their part.
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, the court astrologers and magicians being entrusted with this work of determining which day and month would be the most auspicious for carrying out Haman’s murderous design, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar, for Haman, with a zeal and persistence worthy of a better cause, determined that all signs must be favorable for the execution of his plan. The text is evidently to be understood in such a way that Haman, in the first month of the Jewish year, caused the lot to be cast, first for the month of the coming year in which he intended to have his revenge, and then for the day of the month which would be auspicious for his scheme. The fact that the last month of the Jewish year was chosen by lot gave him ample time to prepare his plans. Thus the enemies of the Church, Satan and the world, are always busy with schemes of destruction, which God, however, can easily frustrate at His own time.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 After these things
After these things
This introduces a new event in the story. (See: Introduction of a New Event)
Read full note →
Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite
This is the name and description of Haman, one of the king's officials. (See: How to Translate Names)
placed his seat of authority above all the officials who were with him
Here "seat of authority" represents his position or status in the government. AT: "promoted him above the other officials" or "gave him more authority than all the other officials" (See: Idiom)
knelt ... prostrated
These acts represent submission to the authority of Haman. (See: Symbolic Action)
prostrated themselves to Haman
"humbled themselves and lay flat on the ground before Haman"
translationWords
king
Ahasuerus
authority
servant
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 3:1-15 Haman’s hatred for Mordecai develops into a plot…
3:1-15 Haman’s hatred for Mordecai develops into a plot to kill all the Jewish people.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.