Bible Commentaries
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Esther 7
Haman's Downfall and Ruin - Esther 7:1-10
At this second banquet the king again inquired of the queen what was herpetition, when she entreated that her life and that of her people might bespared, for that she and her people were sold to destruction (Esther 7:1-4). Theking, evidently shocked at such a petition, asked who was the originator ofso evil a deed, and Esther named the wicked Haman as the enemy (Esther 7:5; Esther 7:6). Full of indignation at such a crime, the king rose from the banquet andwent into the garden; Haman then fell down before the queen to entreat forhis life. When the king returned to the house, he saw Haman lying on thecouch on which Esther was sitting, and thinking that he was offeringviolence to the queen, he passed sentence of death upon him, and causedhim to be hanged on the tree he had erected for Mordochai (Esther 7:7-10).
The king and Haman came to drink (לשׁתּות), i.e., topartake of the משׁתּה, in the queen's apartment.
Esther 7:2-4
At this banquet of wine the king asked again on the second day,as he had done on the first (Esther 5:6): What is thy petition, Queen Esther,etc.? Esther then took courage to express her petition. After the usualintroductory phrases (Esther 7:3 like Esther 5:8), she replied: “Let my life be given meat my petition, and my people at my request.” For, she adds as ajustification and reason for such a petition, “we are sold, I and my people,to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. And if we had been sold forbondmen and bondwomen, I had been silent, for the enemy is not worththe king's damage.” In this request עמּי is a short expression for:the life of my people, and the preposition ב, the so-called בּ pretii. Therequest is conceived of as the price which she offers or presents for her lifeand that of her people. The expression נמכּרנוּ, we are sold, isused by Esther with reference to the offer of Haman to pay a large suminto the royal treasury for the extermination of the Jews, Esther 3:9; Esther 4:7. אלּוּ, contracted after Aramaean usage from לוּ אם, andoccurring also Ecclesiastes 6:6, supposes a case, the realization of which isdesired, but not to be expected, the matter being represented as alreadydecided by the use of the perfect. The last clause, וגו הצּר אין כּי, is by mostexpositors understood as a reference, on the part of Esther, to the financialloss which the king would incur by the extermination of the Jews. ThusRambach, e.g., following R. Sal. ben Melech, understands the meaningexpressed to be: hostis nullo modo aequare, compensare, resarcire potestpecunia sua damnum, quod rex ex nostro excidio patitur. So also Cler. andothers. The confirmatory clause would in this case refer not toהחרשׁתּי, but to a negative notion needing completion: but Idare not be silent; and such completion is itself open to objection. To thismust be added, that שׁוה in Kal constructed with בּ does notsignify compensare, to equalize, to make equal, but to be equal;consequently the Piel should be found here to justify the explanationproposed. שׁוה in Kal constructed with בּ signifies to be ofequal worth with something, to equal another thing in value. Hence Gesenius translates: the enemy does not equal the damage of theking, i.e., is not in a condition to compensate the damage. But neither whenthus viewed does the sentence give any reason for Esther's statement, thatshe would have been silent, if the Jews had been sold for salves. Hence weare constrained, with Bertheau, to take a different view of the words, andto give up the reference to financial loss. נזק, in the Targums,means not merely financial, but also bodily, personal damage; e.g., Psalm 91:7; Genesis 26:11, to do harm, 1 Chronicles 16:22. Hence the phrase may beunderstood thus: For the enemy is not equal to, is not worth, the damageof the king, i.e., not worthy that I should annoy the king with my petition. Thus Esther says, Esther 7:4: The enemy has determined upon the totaldestruction of my people. If he only intended to bring upon them grievousoppression, even that most grievous oppression of slavery, I would havebeen silent, for the enemy is not worthy that I should vex or annoy theking by my accusation.
Esther 7:5
The king, whose indignation was excited by what he had justheard, asks with an agitation, shown by the repetition of the ויּאמר: “Who is he, and where is he, whose heart hath filled him (whomhis heart hath filled) to do so?” Evil thoughts proceed from the heart, andfill the man, and impel him to evil deeds: Isaiah 44:20; Ecclesiastes 8:11; Matthew 15:19.
Esther 7:6
Esther replies: “The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman.”Then was Haman afraid before the king and the queen. נבעת as in1 Chronicles 21:30; Daniel 8:17.
The king in his wrath arose from the banquet of wine, and went into thegarden of the house (קם is here a pregnant expression, and is alsocombined with אל־גּנּת); but Haman remained standing to beg for his lifeto Queen Esther (על בּקּשׁ as in Esther 4:8), “for he saw thatthere was evil determined against him by the king” (כּלה,completed, i.e., determined; comp. 1 Samuel 20:7, 1 Samuel 20:9; 1 Samuel 25:17, and elsewhere);and hence that he had no mercy to expect from him, unless the queenshould intercede for him.
Esther 7:8
The king returned to the house, and found Haman falling (נפל as in Joshua 8:10; Deuteronomy 21:1, and elsewhere) at or on the couch onwhich Esther was (sitting), i.e., falling as a suppliant at her feet; andcrediting Haman in the heat of his anger with the worst designs, he criedout: “Shall also violence be done to the queen before me in the house?” Theinfin. לכבּושׁ after the interrogatory particle signifies: Is violenceto be done, i.e., shall violence be done? as in 1 Chronicles 15:2 and elsewhere;comp. Ewald, §237, c. כּבשׁ, to tread under foot, to subdue, usedhere in the more general sense, to offer violence. Without waiting for anexplanation, the king, still more infuriated, passes sentence of death uponHaman. This is not given in so many words by the historian, but we aretold immediately that: “as the word went out of the king's mouth, theycovered Haman's face.” הדּבר is not the speech of the king justreported, but the judicial sentence, the death warrant, i.e., the word topunish Haman with death. This is unmistakeably shown by the furtherstatement: they covered Haman's face. The subject is indefinite: theattendants present. To cover the face was indeed to begin to carry thesentence of death into execution. With respect to this custom, expositorsappeal to Curtius, vi. 8. 22: Philetam - capite velato in regiam adducunt; andCicero, pro C. Rabirio iv. 13: I lictor, colliga manus, caput obnubito, arboriinfelici suspendito.
Esther 7:9-10
Then said Harbonah (already mentioned Esther 1:10), one of theeunuchs before the king, i.e., who held office before the king: “Behold alsothe tree which Haman made (comp. Esther 5:14) stands in the house of Haman.”גּם points to the fact that the other eunuchs had already broughtforward various particulars concerning Haman's crime. Mordochai, whohad spoken good for the king, viz., when he gave information of theconspiracy, Esther 2:22; Esther 6:2. On this tree the king ordered that Haman should behanged, and this sentence was executed without delay. - “And the king'swrath was pacified.” With this remark the narrative of this occurrence isclosed, and the history pursues its further course as follows.
Add Comment
Comments