Text -- Esther 3:1-6 (NET)

Haman Conspires to Destroy the Jews

3:1 Some time later King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, exalting him and setting his position above that of all the officials who were with him. 3:2 As a result, all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate were bowing and paying homage to Haman, for the king had so commanded. However, Mordecai did not bow, nor did he pay him homage. 3:3 Then the servants of the king who were at the king’s gate asked Mordecai, “Why are you violating the king’s commandment?” 3:4 And after they had spoken to him day after day without his paying any attention to them, they informed Haman to see whether this attitude on Mordecai’s part would be permitted. Furthermore, he had disclosed to them that he was a Jew. 3:5 When Haman saw that Mordecai was not bowing or paying homage to him, he was filled with rage. 3:6 But the thought of striking out against Mordecai alone was repugnant to him, for he had been informed of the identity of Mordecai’s people. So Haman sought to destroy all the Jews (that is, the people of Mordecai) who were in all the kingdom of Ahasuerus.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Est 3:1

An Amalekite of the royal seed of that nation, whose kings were successively called Agag.

Wesley: Est 3:1

Gave him the first place and seat, which was next to the king.

Wesley: Est 3:2

Probably the worship required was not only civil, but Divine: which as the kings of Persia arrogated to themselves, so they did sometimes impart this honour to some of their chief favourites, that they should be adored in like manner. And that it was so here, seems more than probable, because it was superfluous, to give an express command to all the kings servants, to pay a civil respect to so great a prince, which of course they used, and therefore a Divine honour must be here intended. And that a Jew should deny this honour, is not strange, seeing the wise Grecians did positively refuse to give this honour to the kings of Persia themselves, even when they were to make their addresses to them: and one Timocrates was put to death by the Athenians for worshipping Darius in that manner.

Wesley: Est 3:4

What the event of it would be.

Wesley: Est 3:4

And therefore did not deny this reverence out of pride, but merely out of conscience.

Wesley: Est 3:6

He thought that vengeance was unsuitable to his quality.

Wesley: Est 3:6

Which he attempted, from that implacable hatred which, as an Amalekite, he had against them; from his rage against Mordecai; and from Mordecai's reason of this contempt, because he was a Jew, which as he truly judged, extended itself to all the Jews, and would equally engage them all in the same neglect. And doubtless Haman included those who were returned to their own land: for that was now a province of his kingdom.

JFB: Est 3:1

That is, raised him to the rank of vizier, or prime confidential minister, whose pre-eminence in office and power appeared in the elevated state chair appropriated to that supreme functionary. Such a distinction in seats was counted of vast importance in the formal court of Persia.

JFB: Est 3:2

Large mansions in the East are entered by a spacious vestibule, or gateway, along the sides of which visitors sit, and are received by the master of the house; for none, except the nearest relatives or special friends, are admitted farther. There the officers of the ancient king of Persia waited till they were called, and did obeisance to the all-powerful minister of the day.

JFB: Est 3:2

The obsequious homage of prostration not entirely foreign to the manners of the East, had not been claimed by former viziers; but this minion required that all subordinate officers of the court should bow before him with their faces to the earth. But to Mordecai, it seemed that such an attitude of profound reverence was due only to God. Haman being an Amalekite, one of a doomed and accursed race, was, doubtless, another element in the refusal; and on learning that the recusant was a Jew, whose nonconformity was grounded on religious scruples, the magnitude of the affront appeared so much the greater, as the example of Mordecai would be imitated by all his compatriots. Had the homage been a simple token of civil respect, Mordecai would not have refused it; but the Persian kings demanded a sort of adoration, which, it is well known, even the Greeks reckoned it degradation to express. As Xerxes, in the height of his favoritism, had commanded the same honors to be given to the minister as to himself, this was the ground of Mordecai's refusal.

Clarke: Est 3:1

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

Clarke: Est 3:1

Set his seat above all the princes - Made him his prime minister, and put all the officers of state under his direction.

Clarke: Est 3:2

The king’ s servants, that were in the king’ s gate - By servants here, certainly a higher class of officers are intended than porters; and Mordecai was one of those officers, and came to the gate with the others who were usually there in attendance to receive the commands of the king

Clarke: Est 3:2

Mordecai bowed not - לאיכרע lo yichra . "He did not bow down;"nor did him reverence, ולא ישתחוה velo yishtachaveh , "nor did he prostrate himself."I think it most evident, from these two words, that it was not civil reverence merely that Haman expected and Mordecai refused; this sort of respect is found in the word כרע cara , to bow. This sort of reverence Mordecai could not refuse without being guilty of the most inexcusable obstinacy, nor did any part of the Jewish law forbid it. But Haman expected, what the Persian kings frequently received, a species of Divine adoration; and this is implied in the word שחה shachah , which signifies that kind of prostration which implies the highest degree of reverence that can be paid to God or man, lying down flat on the earth, with the hands and feet extended, and the mouth in the dust

The Targum, says that Haman set up a statue for himself, to which every one was obliged to bow, and to adore Haman himself. The Jews all think that Mordecai refused this prostration because it implied idolatrous adoration. Hence, in the Apocryphal additions to this book, Mordecai is represented praying thus: "Thou knowest that if I have not adored Haman, it was not through pride, nor contempt, nor secret desire of glory; for I felt disposed to kiss the footsteps of his feet (gladly) for the salvation of Israel: but I feared to give to a man that honor which I know belongs only to my God."

Defender: Est 3:1

It is possible that Haman was a descendant of Agag, who had been king of the Amalekites at the time of Saul (1Sa 15:8), and who had been spared by Saul when he destroyed the Amalekites (1Sa 15:20), then later slain by Samuel (1Sa 15:33). If so, this would help explain why Haman hated all the Jews, not Mordecai only. However, it is also known, from an Akkadian inscription, that there was a district in Media (later a part of the Medo-Persian empire) named Agag."

Defender: Est 3:2

In the Hebrew, "bow down" is the same as "worship." Mordecai, as a believing Jew, refused to worship Haman, knowing that God alone must be worshipped (Exo 20:5; Dan 3:18). Not even angels are to be worshipped (Rev 22:8, Rev 22:9)."

Defender: Est 3:6

Haman apparently had such delusions of grandeur that he craved worship as a divinity. He realized that not only Mordecai but also the Jews as a people would refuse him the worship he desired. Therefore he determined to stamp out the Jews and their monotheistic religion altogether."

TSK: Est 3:1

am 3551, bc 453

promote Haman : Est 7:6; Psa 12:8; Pro 29:2

Agagite : Num 24:7; 1Sa 15:8, 1Sa 15:33

above all the princes : Est 1:14; Gen 41:40, Gen 41:55; Ezr 7:14; Dan 6:2

TSK: Est 3:2

the king’ s servants : Dr. Shaw, speaking of the cities in the East, says, ""If we quit the streets, and enter into any of the principal houses, we shall first pass through a porch, or gate-way, with benches on each side, where the master of the family receives visits, and despatches business; few persons, not even the nearest relations, having admission any farther, except upon extraordinary occasions.""These servants were probably officers who here waited the king’ s call; and it is likely that Mordecai was one of them. Est 2:19, Est 2:21

bowed : Gen 41:43; Phi 2:10

bowed not : Yichra welo yishtachaweh , ""bowed not down, nor prostrated himself,""or worshipped him. Had this meant only civil reverence the king would not have needed to command it; nor would Mordecai have refused it; there was, therefore, some kind of divine honour intended, such as was paid to the Persian kings, and which even the Greeks refused, as express adoration. Est 3:1, Est 3:5; Exo 17:14, Exo 17:16; Deu 25:19; 1Sa 15:3; Psa 15:4

TSK: Est 3:3

Why : Est 3:2; Exo 1:17; Mat 15:2, Mat 15:3

TSK: Est 3:4

when they spake : Gen 39:10

that they told : Dan 3:8, Dan 3:9, Dan 6:13

he had told : Ezr 1:3; Dan 3:12, Dan 3:16-18, Dan 3:23-30, Dan 6:20-28; Jon 1:9

TSK: Est 3:5

that Mordecai : Est 3:2, Est 5:9

full of wrath : Est 1:12; Gen 4:5, Gen 4:6; Job 5:2; Pro 12:16, Pro 19:19, Pro 21:24, Pro 27:3, Pro 27:4; Dan 3:19

TSK: Est 3:6

sought : Psa 83:4; Rev 12:12

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Est 3:1

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.

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.

Barnes: Est 3:2

Mordecai probably refused the required prostration, usual though it was, on religious grounds. Hence, his opposition led on to his confession that he was a Jew Est 3:4.

Barnes: Est 3:4

Whether Mordecai’ s matters would stand - Rather, "whether Mordecai’ s words would hold good"- whether, that is, his excuse, that he was a Jew, would be allowed as a valid reason for his refusal.

Barnes: Est 3:6

To destroy all the Jews - In the East 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 the great massacre of the Magi at the accession of Darius Hystaspis, was an event not then fifty years old, and was commemorated annually. A massacre of the Scythians had occurred about a century previously.

Poole: Est 3:1

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 .

Poole: Est 3:2

The reason of which obstinate refusal was, either,

1. The quality of the person; that he was not only an infamously wicked man, and a heathen, but of that nation which God had obliged the Israelites to abhor and oppose from generation to generation; and therefore he durst not show outward respect to a man whom he did and ought inwardly to contemn. Or rather,

2. The nature of the thing; for the worship required was not only civil, but Divine; which as the kings of Persia did undoubtedly arrogate to themselves, and expect and receive from their subjects and others who came into their presence, as is affirmed by divers authors; so they did sometimes impart this honour to some of their chief favourites, that they should be adored in like manner. And that it was so here seems more than probable, because it was wholly superfluous, and almost ridiculous, to give an express and particular command to all the king’ s servants that were in the king’ s gate, as here it was, to pay a civil respect to so great a prince, which of course they used and were ever obliged to do; and therefore a Divine honour must be here intended. And that a Jew should deny this honour, or the outward expressions of it, to such a person, is not strange, seeing the wise and sober Grecians did positively refuse to give this honour to the kings of Persia themselves, even when they were to make their addresses to them; and one Timocrates was put to death by the Athenians for worshipping Darius in that manner.

Poole: Est 3:4

Whether Mordecai’ s matters would stand i.e. whether he would persist in his refusal, and what the event of it would be.

He had told them that he was a Jew and therefore did not deny this reverence to Haman out of pride, or any personal grudge against him, much less out of a rebellious mind and contempt of the king’ s authority and command; but merely out of conscience, because he was a Jew, who was obliged to give this honour to none but to God only.

Poole: Est 3:6

He thought scorn he thought that particular vengeance was unsuitable to his quality, and to the greatness of the injury.

Haman sought to destroy all the Jews which he attempted, partly, from that implacable hatred which, as an Amalekite, he had against them; partly, from his rage against Mordecai; and partly, from Mordecai’ s reason of this contempt, because he was a Jew, which, as he truly judged, extended itself to all the Jews, and would equally engage them all in the same neglect and hatred of his person,

Haydock: Est 3:1

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.)

Haydock: Est 3:2

Worship him, with divine honours, as he required, in imitation of the kings, Judith iii. 13. On certain solemn occasions, the latter at least exacted this respect from their subjects. But the pious Jews avoided appearing at such times, or the kings dispensed with them. The mere bending the knee, out of civil respect, would not have been objected to; and Mardochai says, he would not have refused to kiss the footsteps of Aman, chap. xiii. 12. (Calmet) (St. Thomas Aquinas, [Summa Theologiae] 2. 2. q. 84.) (Tirinus) ---

But he could not give such worship as was claimed by the minor gods. (Worthington)

Haydock: Est 3:4

Resolution. The did not mean to injure Mardochai, who had an employment at court, chap. xii. 5. (Calmet) ---

Jew, and of course hindered by his religion from giving divine worship to any man. (Menochius)

Haydock: Est 3:6

Counted. Septuagint, "consulted how to exterminate all the Jews in the kingdom." ---

Assuerus. Hebrew adds, "the people of Mardochai."

Gill: Est 3:1

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,

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 2Ki 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.

Gill: Est 3:2

And the king's servants that were in the king's gate,.... Or court, all his courtiers; for it cannot be thought they were all porters, or such only that

bowed and reverenced Haman; gave him divine honours, as to a deity; for such were given to the kings of Persia ^k, and might be given to their favourites, and seems to be the case; for, though Haman might not erect a statue of himself, or have images painted on his clothes, as the Targum and Aben Ezra, for the Persians did not allow of statues and images ^l; yet he might make himself a god, as Jarchi, and require divine worship, with leave of the king, which he had, yea, an order for it:

for the king had so commanded concerning him; which shows that it was not mere civil honour and respect, for that in course would have been given him as the king's favourite and prime minister by all his servants, without an express order for it; this, therefore, must be something uncommon and extraordinary:

but Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence; which is a further proof that it was not mere civil honour that was required and given; for that the Jews did not refuse to give, and that in the most humble and prostrate manner, and was admitted by them, 1Sa 24:8 1Ki 1:16, nor can it be thought that Mordecai would refuse to give it from pride and sullenness, and thereby risk the king's displeasure, the loss of his office, and the ruin of his nation; but it was such kind of reverence to a man, and worship of him, which was contrary to his conscience, and the law of his God.

Gill: Est 3:3

Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate,.... Observing the behaviour of Mordecai towards Haman from time to time:

said unto Mordecai, why transgressest thou the king's commandment? of giving reverence to Haman, which they knew he could not be ignorant of.

Gill: Est 3:4

Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him,.... Putting him in mind of his duty to obey the king's command, suggesting to him the danger he exposed himself to, pressing him to give the reasons of his conduct:

and he hearkened not unto them; regarded not what they said, and continued disobedient to the king's order, and disrespectful to Haman

that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand; they informed Haman that Mordecai refused to give him reverence as the king had ordered; this they did to try whether such a conduct would be suffered and bore with, and whether Mordecai would persevere in it when taken notice of:

for he had told them that he was a Jew; which was all the reason he gave why he would not reverence Haman; and a reason sufficient, because, by a fundamental law of his religion, he was not to worship mere man, but God only: and this confirms what has been before observed; for this would have been no reason for refusing civil respect and honour, but was a strong one for denying religious worship and reverence; and no wonder that the Jews should refuse it, when even the Grecians, though Heathens, refused to give the Persian kings the divine honours they required ^m; yea, the Athenians put Timagoras to death for prostrating himself in such a manner to Darius ⁿ; for the Persian kings were, as Aristotle says ^o, called Lord and God, and said to hear and see all things.

Gill: Est 3:5

And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence,.... For, after the information given him, he observed and watched him, to see whether he bowed and did him reverence or not:

then was Haman full of wrath; exceedingly displeased and angry; it was such a mortification to him he could not bear.

Gill: Est 3:6

And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone,.... That would not be a sufficient gratification of his revenge; he was too low and mean a person only to wreak his vengeance on; nothing short of his whole nation would satisfy him:

for they had showed him the people of Mordecai; that they were the Jews; for Mordecai had told the king's servants, that talked with him on the subject, that he was a Jew, and gave that as a reason why he could not and would not reverence Haman:

wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus; even the people of Mordecai; and that not merely to be revenged on Mordecai, but because he plainly saw, that both by his example, and upon the same principle with him; they would all to a man refuse to give him reverence; and therefore he was resolved to root them out of the whole empire, that he might not be mortified by them.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Est 3:1

¹ tn Heb “after these things” (so KJV, ASV); NAB, NASB, NIV “After these events.”

² tn Heb “made great”; NAB “raised…to high rank”; NIV “honored.”

sn The promotion of Haman in 3:1 for reasons unexplained contrasts noticeably with 2:19-23, where Mordecai’s contribution to saving the king’s life goes unnoticed. The irony is striking.

³ tn Heb “chair”; KJV, NRSV “seat”; NASB “established his authority.”

NET Notes: Est 3:2

¹ tn Heb “and” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV). Other modern English versions leave the conjunction untranslated here (NAB, NIV, NCV, NLT).

² sn Mordecai did not bow. The reason for Mordecai’s refusal to bow before Haman is not clearly stated here. Certainly the Jews did not refuse to bow as a matter of principle, as though such an action somehow violated the second command of the Decalogue. Many biblical texts bear witness to their practice of falling prostrate before people of power and influence (e.g., 1 Sam 24:8; 2 Sam 14:4; 1 Kgs 1:16). Perhaps the issue here was that Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites, a people who had attacked Israel in an earlier age (see Exod 17:8-16; 1 Sam 15:17-20; Deut 25:17-19).

NET Notes: Est 3:4

¹ sn Mordecai’s position in the service of the king brought him into regular contact with these royal officials. Because of this association the officials would have found ample opportunity to complain of Mordecai’s refusal to honor Haman by bowing down before him.

² tn Heb “Will the matters of Mordecai stand?”; NASB “to see whether Mordecai’s reason would stand.”

³ sn This disclosure of Jewish identity is a reversal of the practice mentioned in 1:10, 20.

NET Notes: Est 3:5

¹ tn Heb “Haman.” The pronoun (“he”) was used in the translation for stylistic reasons. Repeating the proper name here is redundant according to contemporary English style, although the name is repeated in NASB and NRSV.

NET Notes: Est 3:6

¹ tn Heb “to send a hand against”; KJV, NRSV “to lay hands on.”

² tn Heb “they had related to him.” For stylistic reasons this has been translated as a passive construction.

³ tc The entire first half of the verse is not included in the LXX.

⁴ tc This parenthetical phrase is not included in the LXX. Some scholars emend the MT reading עַם (’am, “people”) to עִם (’im, “with”), arguing that the phrase is awkwardly placed and syntactically inappropriate. While there is some truth to their complaint, the MT makes sufficient sense to be acceptable here, and is followed by most English versions.

Geneva Bible: Est 3:2

And all the king's servants, that [were] in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai ^{( a )} bowed not, nor did [him] reverence.

^{( a )} The Persians custom was to kneel down and reverence their kings, and such as he anointed in chief authority, which Mordecai would not do to this ambitious and proud man.

Geneva Bible: Est 3:4

Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they ^{( b )} told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand: for he had told them that he [was] a Jew.

^{( b )} Thus we see that there is no one so wicked but they have their flatterers to accuse the godly.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Est 3:1-15

1 Haman, advanced by the king, and despised by Mordecai, seeks revenge upon all the Jews.

7 He casts lots.

8 He obtains by calumniation a decree of the king to put the Jews to death.

Maclaren: Est 3:1-11

The Net Spread

After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedathna the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him. 2. And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. 3. Then the king's servants which were in the king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment? 4. Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew. 5. And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. 6. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had showed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai. 7. In the first mouth, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar. 8. And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people: neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for' the king's profit to suffer them. 9. If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king's treasuries. 10. And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy. 11. And the king said unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.'--Esther 3:1-11.

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 fiat 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 east 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 hood-winked 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.

MHCC: Est 3:1-6

Mordecai refused to reverence Haman. The religion of a Jew forbade him to give honours to any mortal man which savoured of idolatry, especially to so wicked a man as Haman. By nature all are idolaters; self is our favourite idol, we are pleased to be treated as if every thing were at our disposal. Though religion by no means destroys good manners, but teaches us to render honour to whom honour is due, yet by a citizen of Zion, not only in his heart, but in his eyes, such a vile person as Haman was, is contemned, Psa 15:4. The true believer cannot obey edicts, or conform to fashions, which break the law of God. He must obey God rather than man, and leave the consequences to him. Haman was full of wrath. His device was inspired by that wicked spirit, who has been a murderer from the beginning; whose enmity to Christ and his church, governs all his children.

Matthew Henry: Est 3:1-6

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 (2Ki 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.

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.

Keil-Delitzsch: Est 3:1-6

The elevation of Haman above all the princes of the kingdom issaid in a general manner to have taken place "after these things,"i.e., afterthe matters related in Est 2. גּדּל , to make great, to make any one agreat man; נשּׂא , elevated, is more precisely defined by thesentence following: he set his seat above all the princes that were withhim, i.e., above the seat of all the princes about the king; in fact, advancedhim to the highest post, made him his grand vizier. Haman is called the sonof Hammedatha האגגי , the Agagite, or of the Agagites. אגגי recalls אגג kings of the Amalekites, conquered and takenprisoner by Saul, and hewn in pieces by Samuel, 1Sa 15:8, 1Sa 15:33. HenceJewish and Christian expositors regard Haman as a descendant of theAmalekite king. This is certainly possible, though it can by no means beproved. The name Agag is not sufficient for the purpose, as manyindividuals might at different times have borne the name אגג , i.e., thefiery. In 1 Sam 15, too, Agag is not the nomen propr . of the conqueredking, but a general nomen dignitatis of the kings of Amalek, as Pharaoh andAbimelech were of the kings of Egypt and Gerar. See on Num 24:7. Weknow nothing of Haman and his father beyond what is said in this book,and all attempts to explain the names are uncertain and beside the mark.

Est 3:2

All the king's servants that were in the gate of the king, i.e., all thecourt officials, were to kneel before Haman and bow themselves to theearth. So had the king commanded concerning him. This mark of reverencewas refused by Mordochai.

Est 3:3-4

When the other officials of the court asked him from day today, why he transgressed the king's commandment, and he hearkened notunto them, i.e., gave no heed to their words, they told it to Haman, "to seewhether Mordochai's words would stand; for he had told them that he wasa Jew."It is obvious from this, that Mordochai had declared to those whoasked him the reason why he did not fall down before Haman, that hecould not do so because he was a Jew, - that as a Jew he could not show thathonour to man which was due to God alone. Now the custom of fallingdown to the earth before an exalted personage, and especially before aking, was customary among Israelites; comp. 2Sa 14:4; 2Sa 18:28; 1Ki 1:16. If, then, Mordochai refused to pay this honour to Haman, the reasonof such refusal must be sought in the notions which the Persians werewont to combine with the action, i.e., in the circumstance that theyregarded it as an act of homage performed to a king as a divine being, anincarnation of Oromasdes. This is testified by classical writers; comp. Plutarch, Themist . 27; Curtius, viii. 5. 5f., where the latter informs us thatAlexander the Great imitated this custom on his march to India, andremarks, §11: Persas quidem non pie solum, sed etiam prudenter regessuos inter Deos colere; majestatem enim imperii salutis esse tutelam . Hence also the Spartans refused, as Herod. 7.136 relates, to fall downbefore King Xerxes, because it was not the custom of Greeks to honourmortals after this fashion. This homage, then, which was regarded as an actof reverence and worship to a god, was by the command of the king to bepaid to Haman, as his representative, by the office-bearers of his court;and this Mordochai could not do without a denial of his religious faith.

Est 3:5-6

When, then, Haman, whose attention had been called to thefact, saw, when next he went in unto the king, that Mordochai did not falldown before him, he was full of wrath, and (Est 3:6) thought scorn, i.e., in hispride esteemed it too contemptible, to lay hands on Mordochai alone, i.e.,to execute him alone, for this opposition to the royal commands; for theyhad showed him the people of Mordochai, i.e., had told him that as a JewMordochai had refused this act of worship, and that the whole Jewishnation thought and acted accordingly. Therefore he sought to destroy allthe Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahashverosh, thepeople of Mordochai. The subject Haman is repeated before ויבקּשׁ for the sake of clearness, because it was not expressly named with ויּבן . מרדּכי עם is in apposition to כּל־היּהוּדים : all the Jews as the people of Mordochai, because they werethe people of Mordochai and shared his sentiments.

Constable: Est 2:21--3:7

A. Background Considerations 2:21-3:6

At this point in the narrative the writer introduced us to the villain, and we learn the reasons he hated the Jews.

Constable: Est 3:1-6

2. Haman's promotion 3:1-6

The events we read in chapter 3 took place four years after Esther became queen (cf. 2:16; 3:7).

Agag was the name of an area in Media that had become part of the Persian Empire.⁵⁴ However, Agag was also the name of the Amalekite king whom Saul failed to execute (1 Sam. 15:8; cf. Num. 24:7). By mentioning both Kish, Saul's father, and Agag, the Amalekite king, the writer may have been indicating that both men were heirs to a long-standing tradition of ethnic enmity and antagonism.⁵⁵

Mordecai's refusal to bow before Haman (v. 2) evidently did not spring from religious conviction (cf. 2 Sam. 14:4; 15:28; 1 Kings 1:6) but from ancient Jewish antagonism toward the Amalekites.⁵⁶ Mordecai did not have to worship Haman (cf. Dan. 3:17-18). Not even the Persian kings demanded worship of their people.⁵⁷ Nevertheless Ahasuerus had commanded the residents of Susa to honor Haman (v. 3). Probably people knew that Mordecai was a Jew long before his conflict with Haman arose (v. 4).

"While the fact that he was a Jew (4) would not preclude his bowing down, the faith of the exiles tended to encourage an independence of judgment and action which embarrassed their captors (Dn. 3; 6)."⁵⁸

Haman might have been successful in getting Mordecai executed. However when he decided to wipe out the race God chose to bless, he embarked on a course of action that would inevitably fail (cf. Gen. 12:3).

Guzik: Est 3:1-15

Esther 3 - Haman's Conspiracy

A. Haman determines to destroy the Jews.

1. (1) Haman's promotion.

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.

a. King Ahasuerus promoted Haman: Haman was an ungodly man, but God had a purpose in allowing him to be promoted.

b. Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite: Haman was a descendant of Agag, who was the king of the Amalekites, the people who were Israel's sworn enemy for generations (Exodus 17:14-16).

2. (2-3) Mordecai's refusal to bow before Haman or to pay him homage.

And all the king's servants who were within the king's gate bowed and paid homage to Haman, for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai would not bow or pay homage. Then the king's servants who were within the king's gate said to Mordecai, "Why do you transgress the king's command?"

a. Mordecai would not bow or pay homage: There does not seem to be a Biblical command against bowing or paying homage to a political leader as a sign of respect (Genesis 18:2; 23:7; 43:26; Exodus 18:7; 2 Samuel 16:4). Rather, Mordecai must know something about this man Haman, which persuades him that Haman is unworthy of such honor - perhaps simply his ancestry.

i. "No self-respecting Benjaminite would bow before a descendant of the ancient Amalekite enemy of the Jews." (Huey)

b. Why do you transgress the king's command? We do not read of a specific command from King Ahasuerus that all had to bow before Haman. Perhaps the command was implied in the promotion he received (Esther 3:1).

3. (4-6) The wounded pride of Haman drives him to seek retribution against not only Mordecai and his people - the Jews.

Now it happened, when they spoke to him daily and he would not listen to them, that they told it to Haman, to see whether Mordecai's words would stand; for Mordecai had told them that he was a Jew. When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow or pay him homage, Haman was filled with wrath. But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him of the people of Mordecai. Instead, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus; the people of Mordecai.

a. It happened, when they spoke to him daily and he would not listen to them, that they told it to Haman: Apparently, Haman did not first notice Haman's stubborn resistance. It had to be pointed out to him by his aides.

b. Haman was filled with wrath: Haman was an extremely proud and insecure man; he could only consider himself a success if everyone else thought he was a success.

c. Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom: Haman's anger led him to take out his wrath upon all the Jews in the kingdom. The problem with Haman exposed his basic hatred for all Jewish people.

4. (7) Haman determines the exact date he will strike out against the Jews.

In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur (that is, the lot), before Haman to determine the day and the month, until it fell on the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.

a. The cast Pur: This was the Persian word for the lot, something like dice, used to leave a decision to chance - or to the God who guides every chance.

b. Until it fell on the twelfth month: Since this took place in the first month, the casting of the lot determined that the Jews would not be attacked and massacred for at least 11 months.

i. This proves the truth of Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. The long delay between the first month and the month of massacre against the Jewish people was ordained by God.

B. Haman tells his plot to the king.

1. (8-9) Haman's proposal to king Ahasuerus.

Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, "There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from all other people's, and they do not keep the king's laws. Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain. If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king's treasuries."

a. Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus: Haman's charge was the most dangerous possible; it was a half-truth. Yes, the Jews were a certain people scattered and dispersed; and yes they had their own laws. But their own laws, to this point, did not prevent them from keeping the kings laws as loyal subjects.

i. In fact, Mordecai's refusal to bow before Haman was not based on the law of God, but on the principle of personal integrity. It seems that Haman was almost completely unfamiliar with this principle of personal integrity.

b. Let a decree be written that they be destroyed: Haman suggested organizing the mass murder of the Jewish people. Haman also neglected to tell king Ahasuerus how many of these certain people there were in his kingdom; Ahasuerus probably considered this a relatively small threat.

c. I will pay ten thousand talents of silver: This was essentially the promise of a bribe. This money would not come from Haman's own pocket; it would be obtained from the property of slaughtered Jews.

2. (10-11) The king agrees to the plan.

So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. And the king said to Haman, "The money and the people are given to you, to do with them as seems good to you."

a. The money and the people are given to you, to do with them as seems good to you: Again, king Ahasuerus probably had no idea what he agreed to; he probably believed that he merely agreed to the execution of a handful of dangerous revolutionaries in his kingdom.

3. (12-15) The decree is published.

Then the king's scribes were called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and a decree was written according to all that Haman commanded; to the king's satraps, to the governors who were over each province, to the officials of all people, to every province according to its script, and to every people in their language. In the name of King Ahasuerus it was written, and sealed with the king's signet ring. And the letters were sent by couriers into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their possessions. A copy of the document was to be issued as law in every province, being published for all people, that they should be ready for that day. The couriers went out, hastened by the king's command; and the decree was proclaimed in Shushan the citadel. So the king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Shushan was perplexed.

a. To destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day: With this, an empire-wide death sentence on the Jews was announced by the king. This was like other attacks against the Jewish people in history, except that it was announced well in advance.

b. So the king and Haman sat down to drink: When the king sat down to drink, he thought he had done well - but he did not really understand what he had done. Haman also sat down to drink, and thought he had done well - and he knew exactly what he intended to do. Despite this, the city of Shushan was perplexed.

i. The citizens of the empire knew Jewish people who lived among them, and they knew that they were good citizens who caused no trouble. Therefore, they were confused that such a decree came forth, declaring that these Jews were dangerous enemies.

ii. Again, all this came to pass because of the insecurity and wounded pride of one wicked man - Haman.

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Esther (Book Introduction)

ESTHER derives its name from the Jewess, who, having become wife of the king of Persia, employed her royal influence to effect a memorable deliverance for the persecuted Church of God. Various opinions are embraced and supported as to the authorship of this book, some ascribing it to Ezra, to Nehemiah, or to Mordecai. The preponderance of authorities is in favor of the last. The historical character of the book is undoubted, since, besides many internal evidences, its authenticity is proved by the strong testimony of the feast of Purim, the celebration of which can be traced up to the events which are described in this book. Its claim, however, to canonical authority has been questioned on the ground that the name of God does not once occur in it. But the uniform tradition both of the Jewish and the Christian Churches supports this claim, which nothing in the book tends to shake; while it is a record of the superintending care of divine providence over his chosen people, with which it is of the utmost importance the Church should be furnished. The name of God is strangely enough omitted, but the presence of God is felt throughout the history; and the whole tone and tendency of the book is so decidedly subservient to the honor of God and the cause of true religion that it has been generally received by the Church in all ages into the sacred canon.

JFB: Esther (Outline)

• AHASUERUS MAKES ROYAL FEASTS. (Est. 1:1-22)
• ESTHER CHOSEN TO BE QUEEN. (Est. 2:1-20)
• MORDECAI, DISCOVERING A TREASON, IS RECORDED IN THE CHRONICLES. (Est 2:21-23)
• HAMAN, ADVANCED BY THE KING, AND DESPISED BY MORDECAI, SEEKS REVENGE ON ALL THE JEWS. (Est 3:1-15)
• MORDECAI AND THE JEWS MOURN. (Est 4:1-14)
• ESTHER INVITES THE KING AND HAMAN TO A BANQUET. (Est 5:1-14)
• AHASUERUS REWARDS MORDECAI FOR FORMER SERVICE. (Est 6:1-14)
• ESTHER PLEADS FOR HER OWN LIFE AND THE LIFE OF HER PEOPLE. (Est 7:1-6)
• THE KING CAUSES HAMAN TO BE HANGED ON HIS OWN GALLOWS. (Est 7:7-10)
• MORDECAI ADVANCED. (Est 8:1-6)
• AHASUERUS GRANTS TO THE JEWS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. (Est 8:7-14)
• MORDECAI'S HONORS, AND THE JEWS' JOY. (Est 8:15-17)
• THE JEWS SLAY THEIR ENEMIES WITH THE TEN SONS OF HAMAN. (Est. 9:1-19)
• THE TWO DAYS OF PURIM MADE FESTIVAL. (Est 9:20-32)
• AHASUERUS' GREATNESS. MORDECAI'S ADVANCEMENT. (Est 10:1-3)

TSK: Esther (Book Introduction)

This Book, which derives its name from the person whose history it chiefly relates, is termed in Hebrew, מגלה [Strong’s 04039] אסתר [Strong’s 0635], megillath Esther , " the volume of Esther." Concerning its author there are various opinions: some attribute it to Ezra; some to Joachim, the son of Joshua the high priest; others to the men of the great synagogue; and others to Mordecai, which seems the most probable opinion. The events here related probably refer to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who, according to Prideaux, was the Ahasuerus of Esther, agreeably to Josephus (Ant. 1 xi. c. 6), the Septuagint version, and the apocryphal additions to this book. The history, therefore, comes in between the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezr 6:22, commencing about am 3540, and continuing through a period of twelve years. it relates the royal feast of Ahasuerus; the disgrace of Vashti (Esther 1); the elevation of Esther to the Persian throne; the essential service rendered to the king by Mordecai, in detecting a plot against his life (Esther 2); the promotion of Haman, and his purposed destruction of the Jews (Est 3:1-15); the consequent affliction of the Jews, and the measures pursued by them (Esther 4); the defeat of Haman’s plot, through the instrumentality of Esther, against Mordecai (Esther 5-7); and also the defeat of his general plot against the Jews (Esther 8, Est 9:1-15); the institution of the feast of Purim to commemorate this deliverance (Esther 9:16-32); and the advancement of Mordecai (Est 10:1-3); and though some Christians have hesitated to receive this book into the sacred canon, yet it has always been received by the Jews, not only as perfectly authentic, but also as one of the most excellent of their sacred books. That it is a genuine and faithful description of a real fact, the observation of the feast of Purim, to the present day, is a sufficient evidence; since it is impossible, and in fact inconceivable, that a nation should institute, and afterwards continue to celebrate without interruption, through every generation of that people, in a long succession of ages, in whatever places they may have sojourned, this solemn annual festival, merely because one of their nation had written an agreeable fable or romance. It has been remarked, as an objection to this book, that the name of God no where occurs in it: His superintending providence, however, is frequently illustrated. It is shewn, indeed, in every part of the work; disconcerting evil designs, and producing great events, by means seemingly inadequate. It also presents an interesting description of mortified pride, and of malice baffled to the destruction of its possessors; and exhibits a very lively representation of the vexations and troubles, the anxieties, treachery, and dissimulation of a corrupt court.

TSK: Esther 3 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Est 3:1, Haman, advanced by the king, and despised by Mordecai, seeks revenge upon all the Jews; Est 3:7, He casts lots; Est 3:8, He obtains by calumniation a decree of the king to put the Jews to death.

Poole: Esther 3 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 3

Haman is advanced by the king, Est 3:1,2 . Being despised by Mordecai, he seeketh to destroy all the Jews, Est 3:2-6 . He casteth lots, Est 2:7 ; and accusing the Jews to the king, obtaineth a decree to put them to death, Est 2:8-11 . Letters issued out to destroy all the Jews, Est 3:12-15 .

MHCC: Esther (Book Introduction)

We find in this book, that even those Jews who were scattered in the province of the heathen, were taken care of, and were wonderfully preserved, when threatened with destruction. Though the name of God be not in this book, the finger of God is shown by minute events for the bringing about his people's deliverance. This history comes in between Ezra chapters 6 and 7.

MHCC: Esther 3 (Chapter Introduction)

(Est 3:1-6) Haman seeks to destroy the Jews.

(Est 3:7-15) He obtains a decree against the Jews.

Matthew Henry: Esther (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of Esther

How the providence of God watched over the Jews that had returned out of captivity to their own land, and what great and kind things were done for them, we read in the two foregoing books; but there were many who staid behind, having not zeal enough for God's house, and the holy land and city, to carry them through the difficulties of a removal thither. These, one would think, should have been excluded the special protection of Providence, as unworthy the name of Israelites; but our God deals not with us according to our folly and weakness. We find in this book that even those Jews who were scattered in the provinces of the heathen were taken care of, as well as those who were gathered in the land of Judea, and were wonderfully preserved, when doomed to destruction and appointed as sheep for the slaughter. Who drew up this story is uncertain. Mordecai was as able as any man to relate, on his own knowledge, the several passages of it; quorum pars magna fuit - for he bore a conspicuous part in it; and that he wrote such an account of them as was necessary to inform his people of the grounds of their observing the feast of Purim we are told (Est 9:20, Mordecai wrote these things, and sent them enclosed in letters to all the Jews), and therefore we have reason to think he was the penman of the whole book. It is the narrative of a plot laid against the Jews to cut them all off, and which was wonderfully disappointed by a concurrence of providences. The most compendious exposition of it will be to read it deliberately all together at one time, for the latter events expound the former and show what providence intended in them. The name of God is not found in this book; but the apocryphal addition to it (which is not in the Hebrew, nor was ever received by the Jews into the can on), containing six chapters, begins thus, Then Mordecai said, God has done these things. But, though the name of God be not in it, the finger of God is, directing many minute events for the bringing about of his people's deliverance. The particulars are not only surprising and very entertaining, but edifying and very encouraging to the faith and hope of God's people in the most difficult and dangerous times. We cannot now expect such miracles to be wrought for us as were for Israel when they were brought out of Egypt, but we may expect that in such ways as God here took to defeat Haman's plot he will still protect his people. We are told, I. How Esther came to be queen and Mordecai to be great at court, who were to be the instruments of the intended deliverance, ch. 1, 2. II. Upon what provocation, and by what arts, Haman the Amalekite obtained an order for the destruction of all the Jews, Est 3:1-15. III. The great distress the Jews, and their patriots especially, were in thereupon, ch. 4. IV. The defeating of Haman's particular plot against Mordecai's life, ch. 5-7. V. The defeating of his general plot against the Jews, ch. 8. VI. The care that was taken to perpetuate the remembrance of this, ch. 9, Est 10:1-3. The whole story confirms the Psalmist's observation (Psa 37:12, Psa 37:13), The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him; he sees that his day is coming.

Matthew Henry: Esther 3 (Chapter Introduction)

A very black and mournful scene here opens, and which threatens the ruin of all the people of God. Were there not some such dark nights, the light of the morning would not be so welcome. I. Haman is made the king's favourite (Est 3:1). II. Mordecai refuses to give him the honour he demands (Est 3:2-4). III. Haman, for his sake, vows to be revenged upon all the Jews (Est 3:5, Est 3:6). IV. He, upon a malicious suggestion, obtains an order from the king to have the all massacred upon a certain day (Est 3:7-13). V. This order is dispersed through the kingdom (Est 3:14, Est 3:15).

Constable: Esther (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The title of this book comes from its principle character, Esther. In this it is similar to many other Old Testament books (e.g., Joshua, Ruth, Samuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, et al.).

Writer and Date

The writer did not identify himself in the text. References in the book show that he was familiar with Persian culture and literature (2:23; 10:2). The writer also wrote as though he was an eyewitness of the events he recorded. He was pro-Jewish and was probably a Jew. It is possible, though not certain, that Mordecai wrote the book.¹ The idea that the writer was Esther has not found support mainly because female writers were uncommon in ancient patriarchal societies such as Israel.

This book would have been a source of encouragement to the Jews who had returned to the Promised Land after the Exile. Consequently many scholars believe a Jew may have written it for this purpose. Perhaps he was a Jew who had returned to the land from Susa, the site of the events recorded in the book.

The writer could have written it any time after 473 B.C., the year the Jews defended themselves and instituted the Feast of Purim, the last historical events in the book (9:27-28). If a contemporary of these events composed it, he probably did so within a generation or two of this date. The first extra-biblical reference to the book is in 2 Maccabees 15:36, which dates from late in the second century B.C.

Genre

"From the literary point of view, the book ranks high as an outstanding example of narrative art."²

"The genre of the Book of Esther is historical narrative. As such, biblical narrative is characterized by the cooperation of three components: ideology (socioreligious perspective), historiography (use of historical persons and events in a narrative), and aesthetic appeal (its influence and persuasion of the reader).³ Each of these three elements can be readily seen in Esther. The ideology is the orthodox faith of ancient Israel. The book is theological in that its primary purpose is to teach about God and his continuing relationship with his people. It is historiographical in that it is an account of historical persons and historical events as they occurred. It is aesthetic because it is full of drama and suspense and draws its readers to anticipate happenings and events that often are the reverse of what the reader expects."⁴

Most scholars today regard the Book of Esther as a historical novel.⁵ However, bear in mind that most scholars are not conservative in their view of Scripture.

"I believe it would be true to say that a study of literary themes has done more to promote an understanding of the book than all the discussion about historicity, which so occupied scholars earlier this century."⁶

Scope

The events of the Book of Esther took place during the Persian period of ancient history (539-331 B.C.) and during the reign of King Ahasuerus in particular (486-464 B.C.).

Chronology of the Book of Esther
483	Ahasuerus' military planning session in Susa
482	The deposition of Vashti
481	The beginning of Ahasuerus' unsuccessful expedition against Greece
480	Esther's arrival in Susa
479	Ahasuerus' return to SusaEsther's coronation
478
477
476
475
474	The issuing of Ahasuerus' decrees affecting the Jews
473	The Jews' defense of themselvesThe establishment of the Feast of Purim

The first historical event to which the writer alluded seems to be Ahasuerus' military planning session at which he plotted the strategy for his ill-fated campaign against Greece (1:3-21). The king held this planning session in the winter of 483-482 B.C. The last recorded event in Esther is the institution of the Feast of Purim that took place in 473 B.C. Therefore the events recorded in the book spanned a period of about 10 years.⁷

By the time Esther opens many Jews had returned from the Exile to Palestine to reestablish the institutions of Judaism (Ezra 1-6). Most of the Jews in exile did not return even though their law (Deut. 28) and the prophets (Isa. 48:20; Jer. 50:8; 51:6) encouraged them to do so. They preferred the comfort and convenience of life as they had come to know it outside the Promised Land to the discomfort and privation involved in obeying God. Esther and Mordecai were among those who chose not to return.⁸

The events of Esther fit chronologically between chapters 6 and 7 of Ezra.

Purpose

There seem to be at least two purposes for the book. First, it demonstrates God's providential care of His people even when they were outside the Promised Land because of disobedience. Second, it explains the origin of the feast of Purim with a view to commending its observance to the Jews (9:24-28).⁹ Ancient histories, the Greek history of Herodotus being one, were often written "for public recitation at private gatherings or public festivals."¹⁰ Esther was evidently written for the same purpose. The Jews retold the story of Esther at Purim each year.

"The importance of the book for modern historians can be gauged by the fact that, whereas Josephus included the Esther story in his Antiquities of the Jews, Martin Noth in his History of Israel makes no mention of it, and Geo Widengren dismisses it in thirteen lines. It is without much historical value.'¹¹ John Bright mentions the book by name but that is all.¹² Whatever others say, in practice historians ignore the book of Esther. Whatever the reason for this neglect of the book may be, we are justified in assuming that present-day historians do not take seriously the threat it records to the very existence of the Jewish race."¹³

A third purpose may be to warn readers against anti-Semitism (cf. Gen. 12:1-3).

"Esther says to the Christian that anti-Jewish hostility is intolerable to God."¹⁴

"It is easy to see why the book is valued by Jews, who have suffered so much through the ages and have clung to the assurance implied by Purim that, however severe the threat upon their race, they have a future."¹⁵

Message¹⁶

The events of this book took place between those recorded in Ezra 6 and 7. They have nothing to do with the people who returned from exile in Babylon. They deal with those who remained behind. Remember the dates of the three returns: 537, 458, and 444. The events in Esther took place about 482-473 B.C.

Esther's Jewish name was Hadasseh, which means myrtle. The myrtle tree was native to Babylonia, but the returning exiles took the myrtle tree with them to Palestine. There this tree became a symbol of the nation of Israel transplanted from Babylon in Palestine. Zechariah used the myrtle tree as a symbol of Israel in Zechariah 1:7-11. Esther's parents probably named her for this beautiful tree. Most of the students of this book have recognized her as a symbol of the Jewish people living among Gentiles.

Esther's Persian name was Esther, which means star. Another view is that she was named in honor of Ishtar, a pagan goddess. The myrtle tree bears a beautiful star-like flower. Esther may have received her Persian name because she was the flower of the myrtle tree, full of beauty and grace. In life she became just that, the flower of Israel, its loveliest production. She was not just physically beautiful, but she became a great blessing to her people and a great blessing to the Gentiles as well. She became what God intended Israel to be.

This book is unique in the Old Testament in several respects. The writer did not mention God's name once in its pages. E. J. Young wrote in his Introduction to the Old Testament, "Since these Jews were no longer in the theocratic line, so to speak, the name of the covenant God is not associated with them."¹⁷ Matthew Henry wrote, "But, though the name be not in it, the finger of God is, directing many minute events for the bringing about of his people's deliverance."¹⁸ There are no references to the Law of Moses, the temple, or Jewish worship. There is one reference to a fast and one to a feast that are very general and show only that the Jews in exile maintained some religious habits. There is also no reference to Jerusalem, except the one in 2:6 that says Mordecai's great-grandfather went into exile from Jerusalem. Yet even without these familiar references it is impossible to read this book without being conscious of God. The great value of this book is its revelation of God acting in providence.

There are several other unique features of Esther. No New Testament writer quoted or referred to it. No church father wrote a commentary on it. It never mentions prayer. It mentions nothing explicitly supernatural. Martin Luther wrote that he wished it had never been written. It is the only Old Testament historical book that records a history of the Jews outside their land during the times of the Gentiles. The "times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24) began with Nebuchadnezzar's defeat of Jerusalem and will continue until Christ's second coming. It is the time when Israel's fortunes and fate are in the hands of Gentiles.

Like Ruth, the Book of Esther is an illustration. It records a slice of life out of the exilic period that illustrates a great revelation. Ruth illustrates redemption. Esther illustrates providence.

Let me clarify this term. This is a term that many Christians have abused and misunderstood. Providence means foresight. Our word comes from Latin (pro video) and means to see the affairs of life before they happen. The acquired meaning of providence, what it has come to mean through usage, is activity resulting from foresight. We can see at once that people can never exercise providence as God can. We have very limited powers of foresight. We do not know what a day will bring forth (Prov. 27:1). God, on the other hand, foresees all things and can act because of that foreknowledge.

The theological doctrine of providence is that God both possesses and exercises absolute power over all the works of His hands. Psalm 11 is a great passage that sets forth this revelation. The Book of Esther illustrates God's providence. The writer did not speak of God directly, but His acting as a result of His foresight is obvious in what he wrote. God hid Himself but was at work in Esther.

Esther reveals three things about divine providence.

First, it reveals the method of providence.

It shows that even though people do not acknowledge God's presence He is always at work. His control becomes especially clear at the end of the book (10:3). Events had turned around completely from the way they were at the beginning of the book. Instead of being in peril, the Jews were now at peace. God not only rules over the major issues in life, but He also uses the trivialities of life to accomplish His purposes. Some of these trivialities were: the king's decision to summon Vashti after he got drunk, Vashti's refusal, Haman's hatred for Mordecai, the king's insomnia, and the passage his servant read to him.

God's providence is all-inclusive. That is part of its method. No person or detail of life escapes God's control (Rom. 8:28). "All things" includes all individuals and all events.

Second, Esther reveals the principles of providence.

God proceeds on the basis of perfect knowledge: intimate, accurate, absolute knowledge (Ps. 11:4).

Another principle of His providence is His undeviating righteousness. God's providence works in harmony with man's freedom. It never coerces people. The king made his own decisions; God did not compel him to act as he did. Haman plotted his own intrigues, made his own arrangements, built his own gallows. The same was true of Mordecai and Esther. Yet the sphere in which they made their decisions was God's sovereignty (Acts 17:28a). Haman built his gallows, but God hanged him on it.

A third principle of God's providence is that of absolute power. God is great enough to give people genuine freedom and yet cause things to turn out the way He wants them to. God causes human freedom to contribute to His divine purpose. We cannot comprehend this truth completely. We cannot contain revelation within reason. That is why it is impossible to bring all of revelation into a comprehensive philosophy. Philosophy is what is reasonable, but revelation goes beyond reason. Not that it is irrational; it simply transcends reason.

Third, Esther reveals the results of providence.

On the human level there are two results. To those who recognize divine providence comes great confidence and courage. However to those who do not come panic and punishment. We can see this most clearly in the characters of Esther and Mordecai, and in Haman.

On the divine level the result of providence is that God progresses toward His ultimate goal. Throughout all of Scripture we see this identical mighty movement.

The message of this book is that God is, and God acts through history to accomplish His purposes regardless of whether humans acknowledge Him or not.

There are many arguments for the existence of God. The argument from providence is one of these, though apologists do not usually give it as much emphasis as some other arguments. The fact that human events are harmonizing with God's ultimate purposes as He has revealed these in Scripture testifies to God's existence. When people forget God, He still molds history and governs life in harmony with His purposes. We cannot escape God's hand; we only change our destiny. We become His friends or His foes by our attitude toward Him (Dan. 5:22-23).

The great application of the message of this book is take God into account. This is the essence of biblical wisdom, by the way. Trust Him and cooperate with Him or you will suffer destruction. God's providence may seem very impersonal and austere. However William Cowper has reminded us that, "Behind a frowning providence, He hides a smiling face."¹⁹ Romans 8:28 is perhaps the most concise word on the providence of God that the Scriptures contain. God will complete His plans. We determine our own destiny as we cooperate with His will or oppose it. Our choice affects our destiny, but it does not frustrate His plan. Consequently it is very important that we know God's plans and make them known to others. He has revealed His plans in His promises in Scripture. Therefore we should pay very careful attention to the promises of God. The biblical covenants are his comprehensive formal promises. Even though many people in the world today ignore God, His plans will become reality eventually. This fact should make us confident and optimistic in the present.

Constable: Esther (Outline)

Outline

I. God's preparations 1:1-2:20

A. Vashti deposed ch. 1

1. The king's feast 1:1-9

2. The queen's dismissal 1:10-22

B. Esther elevated 2:1-20

1. The plan to replace Vashti 2:1-4

2. Esther's selection 2:5-11

3. The choice of Esther as queen 2:12-20

II. Haman's plot 2:21-4:3

A. Background considerations 2:21-3:6

1. Mordecai's loyalty 2:21-23

2. Haman's promotion 3:1-6

B. Haman's proposal 3:7-15

1. The casting of lots 3:7

2. Haman's request 3:8-9

3. The king's permission 3:10-15

C. Mordecai's reaction 4:1-3

III. Esther's intervention 4:4-9:19

A. Mordecai's instruction 4:4-17

B. The plot exposed chs. 5-7

1. Esther's preparations ch. 5

2. Mordecai's exaltation ch. 6

3. Haman's fall ch. 7

C. The Jews' deliverance 8:1-9:19

1. The rewarding of Esther and Mordecai 8:1-2

2. Esther's request for her people 8:3-8

3. The royal decree 8:9-14

4. The joy of the Jews 8:15-17

5. The Jews' self-defense 9:1-19

IV. The Jews' rejoicing 9:20-32

V. Mordecai's greatness ch. 10

Constable: Esther

Esther

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1964; revised ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Armerding, Carl. Esther: For Such a Time as This. Chicago: Moody Press, 1955.

Baker, Carl A. "An Investigation of the Spirituality of Esther." M.Div. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1977.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Esther. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

_____. "The Message of Esther for Today." Evangel 5:3 (Autumn 1987):9.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1965.

Breneman, Mervin. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. The New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.

Bright, John A. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Bush, Frederic W. Ruth, Esther. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1996.

Clines, David J. A. The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story. JSOT Supplement 30. Sheffield, Eng.: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1984.

_____. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1984.

Cohan, A. The Five Megilloth. London: Soncino Press, 1946.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of the Bible Books--Old Testament." Paper submitted for course 685 Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1967.

Cowper, William. Olney Hymns, 35. In The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Fox, Michael V. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 1991.

_____. "The Religion of the Book of Esther." Judaism 39:2 (Spring 1990):135-47.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gordis, Robert. "Studies in the Esther Narrative." Journal of Biblical Literature 95:1 (March 1976):43-58.

Hallo, W. W. "The First Purim." Biblical Archaeologist 46:1 (1983):19-27.

Hayes, J. H., and J. M. Miller, eds. Israelite and Judean History. London: SCM, 1977.

Henry, Matthew. "An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of the Book of Esther." In Commentary on the Whole Bible. New One Volume Edition. Edited by Leslie F. Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Herodotus. 4 vols. With an English translation by A. D. Godley. The Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1963.

Horine, Steven. "Esther's Organizing Metaphor: The Feasting Motif." A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 15, 2000, Nashville, Tenn.

Horn, Siegfried H. "Mordecai, A Historical Problem." Biblical Research 9 (1964):14-25.

Huey, F. B., Jr. "Esther." In 1 Kings--Job. Vol. 4 of The Expositor's BibleCommentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard D. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1949 ed. S.v. "Esther, Book of," by John Urquhart.

Ironside, Harry A. Notes on the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah & Esther. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whitson. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keil, C. F. The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kitchen, K. A. The Bible in Its World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Knight, G. A. F. Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 4: Chronicles-Job, by Otto Zockler, Fr. W. Schultz, and Howard Crosby. Translated, enlarged, and edited by James G. Murphy, Charles A. Briggs, James Strong, and L. J. Evans.

Littman, Robert J. "The Religious Policy of Xerxes and the Book of Esther." Jewish Quarterly Review NS65:3 (January 1975):145-55.

Martin, John A. "Esther." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 699-713. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

McConville, J. G. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985.

McGee, J. Vernon. Exposition in the Book of Esther. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1951.

Merrill, Eugene H. "A Theology of Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 189-205. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Moore, Carey A. "Archaeology and the Book of Esther." Biblical Archaeologist 38:3&4 (September, December 1975):62-79.

_____. "Eight Questions Most Frequently Asked About the Book of Esther." Bible Review 3:1 (Spring 1987):16-31.

_____. Esther. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1971.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Magic and Sorcery, 2. Egyptian and Assyro-Babylonian," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.

Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948.

Parker, R. A., and W. H. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1956.

Paton, Lewis B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F. Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Rossow, Francis C. "Literary Artistry in the Book of Esther and Its Theological Significance." Concordia Journal 13:3 (July 1987):219-33.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Shea, William H. "Esther and History." Andrews University Seminary Studies14:1 (Spring 1976):227-46.

Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Streane, A. W. The Book of Esther. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1907.

Van Sickle, C. E. A Political and Cultural History of the Ancient World. 2 vols. N.C.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1947 & 1948.

Vos, Howard F. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Bible Study Commentary series.Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Lamplighter Books, 1987.

Wechsler, Michael G. "Shadow and Fulfillment in the Book of Esther." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):275-84.

Weiland, Forrest S. "Historicity, Genre, and Narrative Design in the Book of Esther." Bibliotheca Sacra 159:634 (April-June 2002):151-65.

Whitcomb, John C. "Esther." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 447-57. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. Esther: Triumph of God's Sovereignty. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Wright, J. Stafford. "The Historicity of Esther." In New Perspective on the Old Testament, pp. 37-47. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco: Word Books, 1970.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "The Achaemenid Capitals." Near East Archaeology Society Bulletin. NS8 (1976):5-81.

_____. "The Archaeological Background of Esther." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:546 (April-June 1980):99-117.

Young, Edward J. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 1949; revised ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Esther (Book Introduction)

THE BOOK OF ESTHER.

INTRODUCTION.

This Book takes its name from queen Esther; whose history is here recorded. The general opinion of almost all commentators on the Holy Scripture, make Mardochai the writer of it: which also may be collected below from chap. ix. 20. (Challoner) --- He and the queen were certainly authors of the letter, (Haydock) enjoining the celebration of the feast of Purim, or "lots," which is the ground-work (Calmet) of the present narration. (Du Hamel) --- The compiler has also had recourse to the archives of the kingdom of Persia: so that his work has all the authority that can be required of a profane historian; and being moreover inspired in all its parts, we cannot refuse to receive it with the utmost respect. Those additions which are not now in Hebrew, (Calmet) though they were perhaps formerly, (Worthington; Origen; Du Hamel) have been carefully preserved by St. Jerome, and were recognized by the ancient Vulgate, as they are at present by the Greek, without any distinction. Lysimachus, the Greek translator, was probably the author of them, chap. xi. 1. (Calmet) --- The objections of Capellus against this "Greek scribbler," as he is pleased to style him, despising the judgment of both Jews and Christians, are in general very unaccountably borrowed (Haydock) from the Latin version, and are easily refuted. (Houbigant) --- Those Jews, who have rejected this work entirely, with Melito, (Eusebius, Hist. iv. 26.; St. Gregory of Nazianzus, &c.) ought not to prevail against the consent of the majority, (Calmet) expressed in the Councils of Laodicea, Carthage, Trent, session 4, &c. To read this book according to the order of time, we should begin [with] chap. xi., ver. 2, &c., chap. i., ii., and xii., and iii., to ver. 14; then we find the distress of the Jews in the rest of that chapter, and in chap. xiii., to ver. 8, and their delivery in chap. iv. to ix., ver. 17, and chap. xiii. ver. 8, &c., and chap. xiv., xv., and xvi. The consequences of these events are recorded [in] chap. ix., ver. 17, &c., to chap. xi. 1., (Worthington) with which verse the book ends, in the Greek editions. (Haydock) --- They vary considerably, as did the copies of the ancient Vulgate, which called forth the complaints of St. Jerome, Preface. But the Church has distinguished what was spurious from the genuine word of God; so that the doubts of Lyran, Sixtus, (Bib. viii.) &c., respecting the fragments at the end of the book being not canonical, ought no longer to be indulged; much less can the boldness of many Lutherans, (Calmet) and particularly of Le Clerc, (Houbigant) be tolerated, who represent the whole work as a mere fiction. The Jews have a greater respect for it than for any of the prophets; whose works, they say, will perish at the coming of the Messias: whereas this will subsist with the books of Moses, and the feast of Purim will never be abolished, chap. ix. 28. (Maimonides) --- Ben. Gorion (ii. 2.) admits the additions. But Josephus is silent about them, as he probably did not find them in his copy. (Calmet) --- He recites, however, both the epistles of Assuerus. (Antiquities xi. 6.) (Du Hamel) --- It is not agreed whether these events happened before or after the captivity. But it is now most commonly supposed, that Esther was married to Darius Hystaspes, the year of the world 3489, about the time of the dedication of the temple, chap. xiv. 9. He had been on the throne six years, and reigned other thirty. See Herodotus vii. 4. (Calmet) --- Josephus thinks that Esther was the queen of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was a great friend of the Jews. (Du Hamel) --- The Thalmud attributes this work to the great Synagogue, consisting of Esdras, Mardochai, Joachim, &c., and, as various persons might write the same history, the Greek, with the additions, seems to be taken from one copy, and the Hebrew from another rather more concise, (Huet; Du Hamel) but equally inspired. (Haydock)

Gill: Esther (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ESTHER

This book has its name from the person who is the principal subject of it; it is by Clemens of Alexandria ^a called the Book of Mordecai also; it is commonly called, in the Hebrew copies, "Megillah Esther", the Volume of Esther; and sometimes in the Jewish writings only "Megillah", by way of eminency, "the Volume". It was written, according to the Talmudists ^b, by the men of the great synagogue, composed by Ezra; and some think it was written by Ezra himself ^c; but Aben Ezra is of opinion it was written by Mordecai, since he was concerned in, and had perfect knowledge of, all things related in it; which is rejected by Spinosa ^d, who conceits that this, and the books of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, were written by one and the same historian long after the times of Judas Maccabaeus: as to the canonical authority of it, it has been generally received by Jews and Christians; our wise men, says Maimonides ^e, openly and plainly affirm of the book of Esther, that it was dictated by the Holy Spirit; so Aben Ezra on Est 6:6, and he himself ^f affirms, that

"all the books of the prophets, and all the Hagiographa (or holy writings), shall cease in the days of the Messiah, except the volume of Esther; and, lo, that shall be as stable as the Pentateuch, and as the constitutions of the oral law, which shall never cease.''

Though the versions of other books of Scripture might not be read in the synagogues, versions of this book might to those who did not understand Hebrew ^g; and so Luther ^h says, the Jews more esteem the book of Esther than any of the prophets. Whence Mr. Baxter ⁱ had that notion, I can not devise, that the Jews used to cast to the ground the book of Esther before they read it, because the name of God was not in it: nor is that any objection to its authenticity, since the hand and providence of God may be most clearly seen in it; in raising Esther to such grandeur, and that for the deliverance of the people of the Jews, and in counter working and bringing to nought the plots of their enemies, and in saving them: nor that it is not quoted in the New Testament; it is sufficient there is no disagreement between them, yea, an entire agreement, particularly in the account of the captivity of Jeconiah, which is expressed almost in the same words in Est 2:6 as in Mat 1:11. It stands in Origen's catalogue ^k of the books of the Old Testament; nor is it any material objection that it appears not in the catalogue of Melito ^l, since in that list is comprehended under Ezra not Nehemiah only, but Esther also, which Jerom ^m mentions along with it. This book is not only of use to the Jews, as it shows the original and foundation of a feast of theirs, still kept up by them, the feast of Purim, and makes for the glory of their nation, and therefore it is no wonder it should be so highly esteemed by them; but serves to show the singular providence of God in taking care of his people in adversity, in humbling the proud, and exalting the lowly, and saving those that pray to him, and trust in him; it furnishes out various instructions in the conduct of the several persons herein mentioned; it is a history but of ten or eleven years at most, from the third of Ahasuerus, to the twelfth of his reign, Est 1:3.

Gill: Esther 3 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ESTHER 3

This chapter gives an account of the promotion of Haman, and of the mortification of him by Mordecai, who refused to bow to him, upon which he vowed revenge on him, and on all his people the Jews, Est 3:1, for which purpose, through a false representation of them, he obtained letters of the king, and sent to the deputies of all the provinces to destroy them all on a certain day fixed, Est 3:7.