Bible Commentaries

Haman's Elevation and His Designagainst the Jews - Esther 3:1-15

King Ahashverosh promoted Haman the Agagite above all the princesabout him, and commanded all his servants to fall down before him. Thismark of reverence was refused by Mordochai the Jew from religiousscruples. When intelligence of this was brought to Haman, he sought toobtain the extermination of the Jews throughout the kingdom (Esther 3:1-6). Thetwelfth month was appointed by the casting of lots for this purpose; andHaman, by exciting the suspicion of the king against the Jews as anexclusive and law-opposing people, obtained from him an edict to thiseffect (Esther 3:7-11), and sent it, by letters sealed with the king's seal, by the handof messengers into all the provinces of the kingdom in the first month, thatthey might be ready to carry it into execution in the twelfth month;whereat the city of Susa was much perplexed (Esther 3:12-15).

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, 1 Samuel 15:8, 1 Samuel 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 Numbers 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.

Esther 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.

Esther 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. 2 Samuel 14:4; 2 Samuel 18:28; 1 Kings 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.

Esther 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 (Esther 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 withויּבן. 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.

To ensure the success of this great undertaking, viz., the extermination ofall the Jews in the kingdom, Haman had recourse to the lot, that he mightthus fix on a propitious day for the execution of his project. Astrologyplays an important part among all ancient nations, nothing of anymagnitude being undertaken without first consulting its professorsconcerning a favourable time and opportunity; comp. rem. on Ezekiel 21:26.

Esther 3:7

“In the first month, i.e., Nisan, in the twelfth year of KingAhashverosh, they cast Pur, i.e., the lot, before Haman from day to day,and from month to the twelfth month, i.e., the month Adar.” The subjectof הפּיל is left indefinite, because it is self-evident that this wasdone by some astrologer or magician who was versed in such matters. Bertheau tries unnaturally to make Haman the subject, and to combine thesubsequent המן לפני with הגּורל:”Haman cast Pur, i.e., the lot, before Haman,” which makes Pur signify:the lot before Haman. המן לפני means in thepresence of Haman, so that he also might see how the lot fell. פּוּר is an Old-Persian word meaning lot ((sors)); in modern Persian, (bâra) signifiestime, case ((fois), (cas)), (pâra) or (pâre), piece (morceau, pièce), and (behr), (behre),and (behre), lot, share, fate; comp. Zenker, Turco-Arabic and Persian Lexicon, pp. 162 and 229. The words”from day to day, from month to the twelfth month,” must not beunderstood to say, that lots were cast day by day and month by month tillthe twelfth; but that in the first month lots were at once cast, one after theother, for all the days and months of the year, that a favourable day mightbe obtained. We do not know the manner in which this was done, “theway of casting lots being unknown to us.” The words: from month to thetwelfth month, are remarkable; we should expect from month to month tillthe twelfth month. Bertheau supposes that the words לחדשׁ ויּ פּל הגּורל על יום שׁלשׁה עשׂר were omitted after וּמחדשׁ through the eye of the transcriber passing on from the firstלחדשׁ to the second. The text of the lxx actually containssuch words, and the possibility of such an oversight on the part of atranscriber must certainly be admitted. In the book of Esther, however, thelxx translation is no critical authority, and it is just as possible that theauthor of the Hebrew book here expresses himself briefly andindefinitively, because he was now only concerned to state the monthdetermined by lot for the undertaking, and intended to mention the daysubsequently.

Esther 3:8-9