Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, “See, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and they have hanged him on the gallows, because he laid his hand on the Jews.
Parallel Translations
-
Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, “See, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and they have hanged him on the gallows, because he laid his hand on the Jews.
-
Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews.
-
Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew: 'Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews.
Cross-references (3)
Passages linked to Esther 8:7 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Esther 7:10–8:1 So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king’s wrath was pacified. On that day, King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, the Jews’ enemy, to Esther the queen. Mordecai came before the king; for Esther had told what he was to her.
- Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, but the wealth of the sinner is stored for the righteous.
- Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (13 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Or, went about to slay the Jews.
Or, went about to slay the Jews.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Est 8:7 Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther…
Est 8:7 Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews.
Ver. 7. Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther, &c.] Here Haman’s letters of Mark are reversed by Ahasuerus, whose answer to Esther is full of gentleness and sweetness; but yet such as discovereth a mind perplexed, and cast into straits, as princes eftsoons are by the subtilties and malice of wicked counsellors, Dan 6:15, so that they cannot do as they would, unless they will bring all into a combustion; though usually where the word of a king is there is power, Ecc 7:4; and the old lord treasurer, Burleigh, was wont to say, that he knew not what an act of parliament could not do in England; and King James, in his speech in the Star chamber, A.D. 1616, said as much.
Read full note →
Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman] i.e. I have done somewhat toward the performance of my promise made to Esther, Est 7:2, and more I am willing to do, only I must observe good order, and do things with discretion. Behold, I give you potestatem plenariam et omnimodam, all the power I have, that therewith you may help yourselves, only my former decree I cannot reverse, but I shall stir up great garboils in the kingdom. Josephus indeed telleth us, that Ahasuerus did retract the edict procured by Haman, and further, gave power to the Jews, that if any withstood the king’s will herein they should kill them, &c. But we are not bound to believe him in all things; as neither Herodotus, Livy, nor any of the historians (the sacred always excepted), for Vopiscus, who was one of them, confesseth, neminem historicorum non aliquid esse mentiturn, that there is none of them that hath not taken liberty to lie more or less (in Vita Aureliani), and it is manifest that Josephus’s manner is to recite what he thinks likely to have been done, and what is fit to be written of such a business. Baronius annales facit non scribit, saith one: think the same of Josephus, he rather maketh a history, sometimes, than writeth it. And therefore that is but a sorry excuse that the Papists make for their sacrilegious forbidding the people to read the Scriptures, when they refer them to Josephus, as having the history of the Bible more largely and plainly described.
Because he laid his hand upon the Jews] He did it because he designed it. Like as Balak also arose and fought with Israel, Jos 24:9, and yet the story saith nothing so. But that is in Scripture said to be done that is intended or attempted. And this the heathen also saw by the dim light of nature. Hence that of Seneca, Fecit quisque quantum voluit. He made anyone as great as he wished. And another saith,
Quae quia non licuit, non facit, illa facit.
Polybius attributeth the death of Antiochus to his sacrilege only in his purpose and will. This Josephus thinks could not be, sc. that a man having a purpose only to sin should be punished by God for it. Hence he derideth Polybius for the forecited censure; but he had no cause so to do, for the heathens herein exceeded the Pharisees, who held thought free, and Josephus was soured with their leaven.
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 You see how ready I have been to grant…
You see how ready I have been to grant your requests, and I do not repent of my favour to you, and am ready to grant your further desires, as far as the law will permit me to do.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Write ye also for the Jews as it liketh…
Write ye also for the Jews as it liketh you,.... Whatever may be thought fit and proper for their safety and security:
in the king's name, and seal it with the king's ring; as the former letters were:
Read full note →
for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse; which is a reason both for the writing and sealing of the present letters in this manner, and why the former could not be reversed; nor does it appear that they were, but that, in virtue of them, the people had power to rise and kill the Jews on the day appointed, if they dared, or were so disposed; and these empowered the Jews to rise in their own defence, and kill all that made any attempts upon them, for which they had the royal authority; and these letters coming after the other, though they did not formally reverse them, which might not be done, yet rendered them ineffectual.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Est 8:7. Him they have hanged, because he laid…
Est 8:7. Him they have hanged, because he laid his hand upon the Jews — That is, intended to destroy them all. By what the king had done to show his resentment against Haman, they might easily believe he would deny them nothing for their preservation: as if he had said, You see how ready I have been to grant your requests, and I do not repent of my favour to you, and am ready to grant your further desires, as far as the law will permit.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Durst. Hebrew, "laid." He had sufficiently manifested his intention…
Durst. Hebrew, "laid." He had sufficiently manifested his intention to destroy them, though he had not been able to injure any one. (Haydock)
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).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 7. Behold, I have given — The king, first…
7. Behold, I have given — The king, first of all, assures Esther and Mordecai of his kindly feeling towards the Jews, and points to the proofs of it. He felt, no doubt, that he was to blame for consenting to such a cruel edict, and now would convince Esther and her cousin that it sprang from no personal feelings of his own against the Jews.
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 7, 8. Ahasuerus says in effect, ‘I cannot reverse…
7, 8. Ahasuerus says in effect, ‘I cannot reverse the decree. It is not, as you suggest, merely Haman’s. It has been promulgated with my authority, and hence immutability attaches to it. But think of some means by which it may be neutralised.’
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.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Vers. 7, 8. Then the king said unto Esther…
Vers. 7, 8. Then the king said unto Esther the queen and unto Mordecai. The king, it would seem, took time to give his answer; and when he gave it, addressed himself to Mordecai, his minister, rather than to Esther, his wife. See now," he said, "I have done what I could I have given Esther Haman"s house; I have had Haman himself executed because he put forth his hand against the Jews. What yet remains? I am asked to save your countrymen by revoking my late edict. That may not be. The writing which is written in the king"s name, and sealed with the king"s seal, may no man reverse. But, short of this, I give you full liberty of action. Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh you, in the king"s name, and seal it with the king"s ring. Surely you can devise something which will save your people without calling on me to retract my own words, and at the same time break a great principle of Persian law.
Vers. 7-14.
Read full note →
Self-defence.
The permission of Ahasuerus appears to us singular almost to madness. Indeed, it could only have been such a character as we know Xerxes to have been that could have coolly contemplated plunging every province and every city of his empire into the horrors of civil war. However, it seemed better to him to grant permission to the Jews to arm and to defend themselves than to reverse formally the decree he bad already issued for their destruction. So first the despot commands the enemies to arm against the Jews, and then commands the Jews to arm themselves against their enemies.
I SELF-DEFENCE IS, WITHIN LIMITS, A NATURAL RIGHT. What is the alternative? In the case of an individual it may be a violent death; in the case of a nation it may be either subjection or annihilation. Thus, civilisation may be replaced by barbarism, and Christianity by idolatry or fetishism.
II SELF-DEFENCE IS A LEGAL RIGHT. Here the Jews were expressly directed to defend and deliver themselves. And there are cases where the law justifies the putting forth of force in defence of life and property, and he who smites his assailant is held guiltless. Great defenders of their country are enshrined in a nation"s memory.
III SELF-DEFENCE IS SOMETIMES PUT FORWARD AS A HYPOCRITICAL PRETENCE. It has often happened that an aggressive, ambitious nation has endeavoured to persuade itself, to impose upon its neighbours, to believe that its action is merely defensive in mustering armaments, enlisting warriors, and making war. All the while designs of empire, of spoliation, of subjugation may be before the nation"s mind.
IV SELF-DEFENCE IS A SPIRITUAL LAW. If we are anxious to defend ourselves, our property, our families from violence and theft, how anxious should we be to secure ourselves against the assaults of the devil. Every Church should be a confederation for common protection against the inroads of error and of sin.
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 Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen.
Est_8:7-14
Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen.
Read full note →
A monarchs imbecility
Always distrust the man who is the victim of circumstances. Great men make their circumstances and little men are made by them. Ahasuerus here pleads his circumstances, and rather than acknowledge an error, plunges the whole empire in danger of civil war. He throws upon Mordecai the duty of contriving a remedy against his own mistakes.
I. A weak mans self-defence. I have given Esther the house of Haman, etc. He had given what cost him nothing. With a maudlin tenderness, like that of a drunken man, while Esther is inspired with an almost Divine passion of patriotism, he pleads his affection for her person. A small propitiation for a great wickedness. As if the hero of one hundred swindles flung a copper to a beggar; as if a cowardly murderer gave a crust to his victims orphan; as if a life-long sinner offered to God the compensation of a Sunday prayer; so Ahasuerus hopes that Hamans death will make Esther unmindful of the wickedness devised against her kindred.
II. A weak mans non-possumus.
III. A weak mans refusal of responsibility. (W. Burrows, B. A.)
May no man reverse.
The repealable and unrepealable in human conduct
1. There is something in all human action unrepealable. But the only way of making quite sure that we shall obviate or nullify the consequences of an evil action or an evil course of conduct (if one may express the thing in a strong solecism) is--not to do the action; not to follow the course of conduct. Few things are more melancholy and affecting than the deep concern and trouble of aroused consciences in view of things deeply regretted, but seen to be beyond recall, and, in a large degree, intractable to modification and management. It is easy to touch a spring in a piece of complex machinery where there is force of water or steam pent up and ready to play; but if you dont know all the consequences, you had better not touch the spring. We must not take a morbid view, and afflict ourselves with imaginary fears, and think of this great machine we call providence as if it were full of lurking mischiefs ready to break out at the slightest touch. We are responsible chiefly, almost exclusively, for this--the action in itself, the course of conduct in itself. We cannot control the consequences, and we shall not be accountable for them except in so fax as they are the direct and proper fruit of the action. If we do what is right, and wise, and for good reasons, we have nothing to fear. If we do wilfully or carelessly what we know to be wrong, we have every reason to look for the evil consequences, and every reason to judge that we are responsible for them as far as personal responsibility goes in such a case.
2. This narrative may teach us farther that in the darkest and most unpromising circumstances there is nearly always some way of relief and improvement. How seldom are things so in human life that literally nothing can be done! There is something unrepealable in all important human action. But there is also much that may be practically repealed. I think we may say that never, at any one time, in the history of a nation, never in the life of an individual, are things so dark and bad that nothing can be done to amend and lighten them. If this were not so, the world would soon be full of the most pitiable spectacles that could be conceived; communities and individuals sitting hopelessly amid the gloom of their own failures. But who knows not, also, that calamities and misfortunes are retrieved, that injuries are redressed, that mistakes are rectified? As Esther set her single will against the deadly edict, and drew from it, as far as her people were concerned, its deadliness, so a single will is often set against a whole system of evil, and by vigorous and persevering assaults it is brought to an end. (A. Raleigh, D. D.)
The irreversible in human life
The word ones spoken cannot be recalled. The deed once done cannot be undone. The book once issued begins to exercise an influence which cannot be bottled up again, but which must go on operative for evermore. The man who in youth sowed wild oats cannot stop the production of the harvest which has sprung from his folly. The hasty-tempered one, whose words sank into the heart of a friend and stabbed him with something keener than a poniard, cannot undo the mischief he has wrought. The author of a vile book may see his folly and lament it, but he cannot catch and confine the influence it exerted, even supposing every copy were to be recalled. You cannot stop the ball after it has left the gun. If you shake the dewdrop from a flower you cannot put it back again. Dont write there, sir, said a newsboy to a young dandy in the waiting-room of an English railway station, when he saw him take off his ring and begin with the diamond in it to scratch some words upon the surface of the mirror. Dont write there, sir. Why not? Because you cant rub it out. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
And to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay.--
War against evil
There is not an evil passion or lust against which we are not called upon to do battle, not a temptation which we are not commanded to resist, not a spiritual adversary which we are not required to put forth all our energies to overcome. In our evil day we are summoned by our King to stand for our lives, and be prepared to war against our enemies as though the victory lay with ourselves. God helping us, we will do it. (T. McEwan.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Est_8:7.] The answer of Ahasuerus is a refusal, but…
CRITICAL NOTES.]
Est_8:7.] The answer of Ahasuerus is a refusal, but one softened as much as possible. He first dwells on the proofs he bad just given of his friendly feeling towards the Jews; he then suggests that something may be done to help them without revoking the decree. Finally, he excuses himself by appealing to the well-known immutability of Persian law.—Rawlinson. Sheltering his imbecility behind the immutability of the law, the king commits the work of saving the Jews to the wit of Mordecai; but reminds him that his device shall stand. Thus Ahasuerus prepares the way for a most fearful conflict of laws. “The suggestion of Ahasuerus quickened the inventive powers of Esther and Mordecai. The scribes were at once summoned, and a decree issued, not revoking the former one, but allowing the Jews to stand on their defence, and to kill all who attacked them. It has been pronounced incredible that any king would thus have sanctioned civil war in all the great cities of his empire; but some even of the more sceptical critics have pronounced that Xerxes might not improbably have done so.”—De Wette. Besides, there would be no slaughter at all if their enemies did not first attack the Jews. The probability was, that, when the Jews were permitted to arm themselves and stand on the defensive, there would be no conflict at all. But the result showed, that, in many parts of the empire, the heathen attempted to destroy the Jews in spite of the edict—Whedon.
Read full note →
Est_8:8. Snow and the king’s edict. Here, a second time in the history of Artaxerxes, we have a proof of the felt inconvenience of that law, which despotism itself could not set aside. Gladly would the king be a party to the practical defeating of the object of it; but in its literal acceptation it must stand.
It is said that something like the principle of the unchangeableness of the purposes of the kings of Persia has been preserved in that country even till recent times. And a circumstance may be here alluded to in illustration of this, which although somewhat strange and almost ludicrous, yet does bear some resemblance to the difficulty in which Artaxerxes felt himself place I between the unalterable law, and the willingness which he displayed at the same time to get quit of the obligation to observe it literally. A Persian king, who reigned not very many years ago (Aga Mahmed Khan), having set out upon a military expedition, and encamped in a place convenient for his purpose, gave forth his edict that the encampment should not be removed until the snow had disappeared from the neighbouring mountains. The season was severe. The snow clung to the mountains longer than usual, and in the mean time the army became straitened for supplies. Here was an unexpected difficulty. The king’s appointment must stand, but the result was likely to be ruinous. To avert the difficulty, then, a vast multitude of labourers were despatched to clear away as far as they could the snow that was visible from the camp; and with their aid, and the help of a few days of sunshine, the snow disappeared, and then immediately the army was put in motion.—Davidson.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH. Est_8:7-8
A MONARCH’S IMBECILITY
Weak men usually trust to cunning. The lion leaps straight upon its enemy, but the fox has recourse to trick; and so the strong man, who knows his own purpose, boldly faces obstacles; while the weak employ indirect courses. Even an open lie may betray less feebleness of character than the mean evasions to which some men have resort. The one bespeaks a bold bad man, the other reveals a cowardly bad man. As a known enemy is always preferable to a treacherous ally; so the strong but wicked man is to be preferred to the weakling. The great qualities which the former will be likely to possess may win admiration; but the latter will be only despised. The fact is, that the weaker man is at heart as false as the other, but has not the courage to sin boldly. He therefore tries to cheat both God and the devil. The weakness of a weak man is never seen so clearly as after he has committed some palpable error. He does not manfully confess his mistake, but twists and shuffles till he persuades himself that his error was, at worst, a matter of necessity. Always distrust the man who is the victim of circumstances. Great men make their circumstances, and little men are made by them. Not unfrequently the path to heaven seems to lead only to a choice of difficulties. Our corrupt hearts and emasculated wills declare that virtue is impossible, and that the only path open to us is one that leads through transgression. When the tradesman smooths over a palpable dishonesty by speaking of the necessities of trade; or when, in times of persecution, the timid confessor throws the incense upon the impious altars of idolatry; they are always ready to excuse the enormity of their sin by the force of the temptation: that is, they say they are tempted of God. But no circumstances can make the good man sin, or the really strong man bend. If, then, we have done evil, let us take our own share of the blame, and not cast it upon our circumstances. Yet circumstances usually make a second sin easier than the first. In that downward path each step is accompanied by an increasing impetus; and thus sins of an enormity to shock the inexperienced become easily possible when other sins have prepared the way. As an army that is once beaten becomes by that very fact more likely to be defeated again, so a man who has once been mastered by temptation will be all the more likely to yield when next be is assailed. Thus Ahasuerus finds that his wicked compliance with Haman has enwrapped him in difficulty. A good man could never have fallen so low; a wise man could never have been so foolish; and a strong man could never have descended to such a monstrous device. He was unable to resist the pleading of Esther; and therefore his course was boldly to disavow his infallibility. Let him convene an assembly of notables, manfully confess his error, and henceforth declare that the laws of Persia could be altered. But this was too brave a course. To confess an error would shake the national respect for authority. He therefore pleads his circumstances, and rather than acknowledge an error, plunges the whole empire in danger of civil war. Even this responsibility he does not fully assume. The weakling throws upon Mordecai the duty of contriving a remedy against his own mistakes.
I. A weak man’s self-defence. “I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hands upon the Jews.” Even if the whole race of the Hebrews perish, the king had proved his affection for Esther by endowing her with the wealth, and sacrificing to her the life, of her enemy. Wonderful devotion! He had given what cost him nothing; he had hanged a man of an alien race! Surely these Oriental monarchs prove that “lust dwells hard by hate.” His love for Esther was simply a passion which had not yet spent its novel force; and her beauty was rewarded by the life of her foe. Ahasuerus was unworthy of his queenly wife. She is inspired with profound tenderness for her people; and he appeases her patriotism by the execution of a foe. Yet what would the wealth of Haman benefit Esther when her heart was broken for her murdered kinsmen? There are griefs which wealth cannot solace, and which vengeance cannot forget. Better a thousand Hamans alive than one Jew murdered. Yet, clearly, the monarch fancies that Esther will pardon the edict which he has signed because of the punishment which he has meted out. He sees that he has exposed himself to the hatred and contempt of his fair wife by yielding to the devices of Haman, and therefore he offers her the life of her enemy as a proof of his devotion. How much nobler had he said, “Oh, queen, I have weakly allowed myself to be led to the verge of a great wickedness; now that my eyes are open to my folly, I must in some way reverse the decree.” But he was too weak. With a maudlin tenderness, like that of a drunken man, while she is inspired with an almost Divine passion of patriotism, he pleads his affection for her person. Surely Esther despised him in her heart. As if it was so easy to forget that he had agreed to murder all her race. Thus we have a great wickedness and a small propitiation. As if the hero of one hundred swindles flung a copper to a beggar; as if a cowardly murderer gave a crust to his victim’s orphan; as if a life-long sinner offered to God the compensation of a Sunday prayer; so Ahasuerus hopes that Haman’s death will make Esther unmindful of the wickedness devised against her kindred.
II. A weak man’s “non possumus.” “That which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s seal, may no man reverse.” What I have written I have written. Rulers too often say, “Thus I order; let my will stand instead of a reason.” Weakness and folly usually turn to obstinacy. He who is easily imposed upon at last takes a determined stand, and usually takes it in the wrong place. The determination of the wise is no way to be feared, for they will yield to right reason; but it requires a surgical operation to make an argument penetrate to the brain of a fool: hence the fool is obstinate, because he cannot understand. States also which take an immoveable stand upon the “wisdom of our ancestors” are in a fair way to ruin. Time is the great innovator, and therefore lapse of time brings vast changes into the body politic; and hence “he that will not apply new remedies, must expect new diseases.” So science continually takes new departures; and he who rested in the discoveries of a previous generation, would be the laughing-stock of his own. There is but one unchanging truth,—the revelation of Jesus Christ,—and even that assumes varying aspects. As the sun now draws near and now departs, now is glorious in mid-day, and yet soon leaves-us in darkness, while still himself unchanged and, as far as our earth is concerned, unmoved, so our holy religion is compelled to vary with the varying aspects of the times. Only the fool never learns wisdom. So Ahasuerus says, “Take it not amiss that I do not reverse the decree of Haman, for the king’s writing stands unaltered for ever.”
III. A weak man’s refusal of responsibility. “Write ye also for the Jews as it liketh you in the king’s name.” Having done the mischief, he commits to Mordecai the work of undoing it. Ahasuerus had already had proof of the folly of committing his power to the hands of his minister; but even experience will not make fools wise; he now trusts equal power to Mordecai. Doubtless the king was right in thus committing himself to the skill and loyalty of the new minister; doubtless, also, this minister did the best possible for him to do in the circumstances; but if the king had bestirred himself in a true kingly manner, as already suggested, it would not have been necessary to deluge the land with blood. Few evils are more ruinous to a State than the dread of responsibility. It leads speedily to anarchy. A monarch who never decides, a general who fears to take prompt and vigorous action, a statesman who dares not step beyond the line of musty precedent, are greater curses to a land than even open wickedness. In this world folly and weakness are often punished more severely than sin.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Est_8:7-8
Est_8:7. Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews. The king could not grant to Esther everything that she requested. But he assures her, that it was not for want of good will either to herself or to her people that he did not in direct terms reverse the decree procured by Haman. His love to Esther appeared in the rich present of the confiscated estate of Haman. His good wishes to her people appeared in the ignominious death of their capital enemy. But kings cannot do everything. The most noble and potent prince in the world had not the power of rescinding his own decrees, however desirous he might be of undoing foolish things done by himself.
Est_8:8. Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh you, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s ring: for the writing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring, may no man reverse. The king himself could not reverse it; and therefore we find that Darius the Mede laboured in vain till the going down of the sun to save Daniel from the lions’ den, and passed a miserable sleepless night in the anguish of a fruitless repentance for passing a mischievous law, which he could not abolish. The Persians thought their kings highly honoured in that their decrees were inviolable. But this honour, like some others enjoyed by absolute princes, was a burden too heavy to be borne by mortals. It precluded them from the comforts of repentance, too often necessary for vain men, who, though they would be wise, are born like the wild ass’s colt.
The king, therefore, could not give Esther and Mordecai a warrant to pass an act rescissory of his own decrees against the Jews. But he allows them to frame a decree in his name, and to seal it with his ring, for counteracting its effects. As the first decree retained its force, the king could not legally punish those wicked enemies of the Jews, who might take the advantage of it to gratify their malice. Their murders were already legalized by a decree that could not be altered. But a law for the protection of the Jews, which did not rescind the former, might possibly be devised by the wisdom of Mordecai; and to establish such a law the king gave him his ring. He had been too ready on the former occasion to lend his authority; but now he commits it to a safe hand, and under necessary restrictions. He gave his ring to Haman to seal a bloody decree; he now gives it to Mordecai to seal a just and necessary decree for the preservation of many precious lives. The inviolability of the king’s decrees, which gave him so much trouble by guarding the wicked laws procured by Haman, would guard the intended decree from violation.—Lawson.
It was a fundamental article in the constitution of Persia, that a law once enacted was irrevocable. A most preposterous provision! and worse than preposterous—irrational and unrighteous. Of all the absurdities into which nations have fallen in their systems of legislation, especially where the power is entrusted to the arbitrary will and caprice of a single individual, this is the most absurd—giving perpetuity and effect to every species of injustice and oppression and cruelty, proceeding on the presumptuous assumption of infallibility, and arrogating the right which belongs exclusively to the Supreme Being, who cannot do wrong, all whose enactments are necessarily founded in truth and rectitude, and “the righteousness of whose testimonies is everlasting.” This arrogance of the Persian despots has never been equalled, except by the claim to infallibility set up by “the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” No human authority, civil or sacred, whether exercised singly or collectively, is free from error, and consequently its decisions and enactments must always be subject to review and reversal. Some laws may be morally unalterable, in consequence of their being founded on the eternal principles of rectitude and justice, so that the repeal of them would be unjust and morally wrong; but this does not belong to them simply as human laws, with respect to all of which the maxim of our law holds good—the legislature which enacts can annul.—McCrie.
The absurdity of the Persian law, that a decree once passed was unrepealable, has been often commented upon. It has been said that it was the assumption of a prerogative which was to be exercised by God only, and that it rests with him alone to say what can never be altered. But whilst this is true on the side of the Divine infallibility, we have instances in which God provides for the reversal of his threatening and solemn affirmation, when the people, against whom these are made, change in their relation and conduct towards himself. Nineveh was to be destroyed in forty days from the time that the prophet uttered the proclamation in its streets; but when the inhabitants bowed themselves to the earth in deep penitence and humility, the time was allowed to expire without the judgment having been inflicted. But the law of Persia would not have permitted even of this suspended action. It took no account of altered circumstances. By his own act the king rendered himself helpless to defend those who might, as in the case of the Jews, have been hastily and rashly condemned to death. No allowance was made for mistakes in judgment, inadvertence, or what might turn out to be bad legislation. Besides the presumption involved in such a law, as though the king could do no wrong, it must often have led to great injustice and cruelty. What, for example, was Artaxerxes now to do? He would gladly have yielded to Esther’s pleading. He clearly apprehended the unrighteousness of the decree which had been issued, and could not fail to look with dismay on the consequences which would result from its being carried into effect. Nevertheless, all that he could do in the face of this pretentious and foolish law was to leave the matter in the hands of Mordecai and Esther to make another edict “as it liketh you,” which might not cancel the former one, however much it should have this design, and which, when passed, would be equally irreversible.—McEwen.
For ill to man’s nature, as it stands perverted, hath a natural motion strongest in continuance; but good, as a forced motion strongest at first. Surely every medicine is an innovation, and he that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator; and if time of course alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel do not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?—Bacon.
The greatest tyranny that ever was invented in the world is the pretence of infallibility, for Dionysius and Phalaris did leave the mind free, pretending only to dispose of body and goods according to their will; but the Pope, not content to make us do and say what he pleaseth, will have us also to think so, denouncing his imprecations and spiritual menaces if we do not.—Isaac Barrow.
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Decree of Ahasuerus and its Effect
The Decree of Ahasuerus and its Effect
v. 7. Then the King Ahasuerus said unto Esther, the queen, and to Mordecai, the Jew, in granting the request of Esther, Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows because he laid his hand upon the Jews.
Read full note →
v. 8. Write ye also for the Jews as it liketh you, as they thought best in the circumstances, in the king’s name and seal it with the king’s ring, which had a seal on it; for the writing which is written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s ring may no man reverse. It seems, then, that the king could not directly reverse or recall the decree which had been issued; but he could have a second decree issued, which would have the effect of annulling the provisions of that sent out at Haman’s suggestion.
v. 9. Then were the king’s scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof, fully two months after Haman’s edict of extermination; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India, on the eastern boundary of the great Persian empire, unto Ethiopia, in Northeastern Africa, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, for the larger satrapies were divided into smaller sections, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language. Cf Est 1:22; Est 3:12.
v. 10. And he, Mordecai, wrote in the King Ahasuerus’ name, and sealed it with the king’s ring, as he had been empowered to do, and sent letters by posts on horseback, and riders on mules, camels, and young dromedaries, for the post-system of the empire was both extensive and effective,
v. 11. wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, such an act not being accounted a disturbance of the peace, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, whose enmity would cause them to make use of the provisions of Haman’s decree, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,
v. 12. upon one day in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, the very day which had been named for the destruction of the Jews in the original decree.
v. 13. The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, made known to them by means of the copies posted throughout the empire, and that the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies, not merely in self-defense, but with the right to attack any hostile party.
v. 14. So the posts, the king’s messengers, that rode upon mules and camels went out, being hastened and pressed on by the king’s commandment. And the decree was given at Shushan, the palace, being sent forth from this residence of the king.
v. 15. And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, these being the royal colors of Persia, and with a great crown of gold, a golden band, or coronet, and with a garment of fine linen and purple, his state robes as first minister of the court. And the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad, the sympathy of the inhabitants evidently being on the side of Esther.
v. 16. The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor, in contrast to the darkness of the pall which had but recently hung above them.
v. 17. And in every province and in every city whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day, for the threatening peril had been averted, which was reason enough for a holiday. And many of the people of the land became Jews, became proselytes to the Jewish faith; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them, they saw in all these events the ruling hand of God and therefore acknowledged Him who was so evidently on the side of the Jews. In the time of the New Testament also there are special times of grace, when God does great things for His Church, and therefore many hearts are turned to Him in true faith.
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 the house of Haman
the house of Haman
This represents all that Haman had owned. AT: "all that had belonged to Haman" or "all of Haman's property" (See: Synecdoche)
Read full note →
gallows
See how you translated this in Esther 6:4
Write ... in the name of the king
Writing something in the king's name represents writing it with his authority, or writing it as his representative. (See: Metonymy)
For the decree ... ring cannot be revoked
This can be stated in active form. AT: "For no one can revoke the decree ... ring" or "For no one can cancel the decree ... ring" (See: Active or Passive)
For the decree ... ring cannot be revoked
The information given between the words "decree" and "cannot" is the reason that the king cannot revoke Haman's decree. It can be shown clearly that it was the reason with the word "because." AT: "For I cannot revoke the decree that has already been written, because it was written in the king's name and sealed with the king's ring" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
decree that has already been written in the king's name
Writing something in the king's name represents writing it with his authority, or writing it as his representative. (See: Metonymy)
translationWords
decree
seal
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.