After these things king Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.
Haman arrives at the Persian court with no introduction and no recorded service, yet the king seats him above every noble in the empire. Two small details carry the weight of the verse: the title "the Agagite," and the timing, "after these things."
The verse ties Haman's rise to what has just happened. One writer shows why that order matters.
Ahasuerus promoted Haman, the Agagite (or, the Amalekite) "after these things" (Esther 3:1). So the sworn enemy of the Jew gained a high position with huge potential for harm. But he did not gain it until the groundwork for defeating his evil plans was already laid.
The title is not a family name but a royal one. It ties Haman to the kings of Amalek and to Esau's line.
Now let us take account of Haman's origin and character. He was the son of Hammedatha the Agagite (v. 1). Agag was the title of the kings of Amalek, probably a general title, like the title Pharaoh for the king of Egypt. So Haman came from this royal race. Amalek, Haman's people, descended from Esau, through Eliphaz.
That detail makes the promotion startling. The man now seated above all the princes belongs to the one nation God had promised to blot out.
What makes Haman's rise to the highest place next to the throne so surprising is that we have had no trace of him at all before. The record has already named many royal advisers and palace officials. But now a stranger to the ruling races steps forward — no Mede, no Persian — into a seat above all the princes who were with the king... But the man in the highest and most influential position is not just an Amalekite. He is "the Agagite," the man Mordecai refused to honour. The king had commanded it for him; but Mordecai did not bow. Had not Jehovah put it in writing that He would completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens?
Kings promote men for a reason. This book gives none.
The Jew's enemy is brought into high and honourable position, and seated in the very place that lets him satisfy all his hatred. An Amalekite sits next in dignity and rule to the king. Above all the princes of the nation, Haman the Agagite is preferred; why, we are not told. No public virtue or service of his is recorded. Apparently it is simply the royal pleasure that has done it.
Behind the court promotion lies a much older fight. One writer follows Amalek's war on God's people down to Haman's day.
Amalek is, in a word, the Enemy — the image of Satan, the great Enemy. He opposes God's purposes of grace toward His people. When the people had taken possession of the land, he tried to destroy them little by little. David finally conquered him, yet he still did not consider the struggle finished. Now the people are captives, brought by their unfaithfulness to the lowest humiliation. So he stirs up Haman the Agagite to wipe out the weak remnant of this people. And let us not forget his hidden aim: to take Israel away from Christ, the king according to the purposes and promises of God.
One writer reads Haman as a picture as well as a person. He traces the man's name and family, then looks past him to an enemy still to come.
This man's name is worth tracing: it means "A magnificent one." What interests us most is that he was a descendant of Agag, the king of Amalek (1 Sam. 15:8), who descended from Esau, Jacob's brother and enemy. Amalek is always the bitter enemy of Israel. His final overthrow will come with the second coming of Christ... This Haman, the Amalekite, is later called "the Jews' enemy" (verse 10). He foreshadows that final enemy who rises to trouble Israel and tries to exterminate them before the King of Israel appears.
One writer sees a purpose in letting such honour grow.
Haman's greatness was allowed to flourish and ripen, so that he might fall in the hour of his highest pride and daring.
- Timing. The king promotes the enemy "after these things" — his power comes only once the groundwork for defeating him is laid.
- Title. "Agagite" is a royal title of the kings of Amalek, so Haman comes from the royal line of the people descended from Esau.
- Enmity. Amalek's hatred is old and persistent, and its hidden aim is to take Israel away from Christ.
- Mystery. The book records no virtue and no service to explain the rise; it looks like simply the king's pleasure.
- Fall. His greatness ripens so that he may drop from the very height of his pride — and the enemy he pictures meets his end when Christ appears.
And all the king's servants that were in the king's gate bowed and did Haman reverence, for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did [him] reverence.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Then the king's servants, who were in the king's gate, said to Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment?
The king has just raised Haman to the highest place next to the throne, and everyone at the palace gate bows as he passes — except one man. Here the other officials turn on him and demand an explanation: was this stubbornness, or obedience?
The officials treat the bow as simple loyalty to the king. But at the Persian court that bow carried more:
All the king's servants bowed down and paid him honour. They gave him the honour due to a god. Nearly all these Eastern rulers claimed divinity... As the king's representative, Haman received this same worship. But Mordecai did not bow down, because such reverence involved recognising a false god and went against the commandment of God.
The verse does not give Mordecai's reason. It hides in Haman's title, "the Agagite," which carries a long history:
Haman was the son of Hammedatha the Agagite... That is, Haman was an Amalekite. This explains why Mordecai refused to bow down before Haman. He was of that race with which the Lord had sworn to have war for ever, and which Saul was directed to completely destroy. Ex. 17:16; Deut. 25:19; 1 Sam. 15:3.
The officials charge Mordecai with defying the king. One writer answers that charge, and sets his stand beside Daniel's:
He will not bow down before the Agagite any more than Daniel would bow down before Darius. The only difference is that Daniel was forbidden to bow down before God, while Mordecai was ordered to bow down and honour Haman... This attitude is in no way pride in Mordecai. He fully recognises the rights of the ruler of the nations over him and over his people. God ordained those rights as chastening. But he does not recognise the rights of Amalek at all.
People could put a much uglier name on his refusal:
People might charge him with arrogance, blind stubbornness, stupid bigotry, and contemptible narrow-mindedness. But none of that concerned him at all. It might look like senseless folly to refuse the usual mark of respect to the highest noble in the kingdom. But that noble was an Amalekite, and that was enough for Mordecai. The apparent folly was simple obedience.
The pressure did not let up. The same writer puts the arguments into words — they sound reasonable, and cheap:
Someone might argue: "What good is it to hold up the standard when everything has fallen apart? You are only making your humiliation more obvious by your stubborn refusal to bow your head. Would it not be better to give just one nod? That will settle the matter. Haman will be satisfied, and you and your people will be safe."
The answer given for him refuses to weigh the outcome:
"I have nothing to do with consequences. They are in the hand of God. Obedience is my path, the results are with Him. It is better to die with a good conscience than to live with a bad one."
Mordecai does not argue his case. He names who he is:
Mordecai was ready to give a reason for the hope that was in him; and his simple answer was, I am a Jew! God had not forgotten His oath of old (Ex. 17), even if Israel were reaping the fruit of their sins under the Eastern kings... Mordecai refuses to give up this basic truth in the calling of Israel.
One writer weighs what such loyalty is worth when nobody else keeps it:
To be faithful when everyone else was unfaithful is a great thing in God's eyes. "You have not denied my name" is high commendation when everyone else was doing so... To stand firmly for Him in an evil day of temptation is to do great things!
One writer reads the scene as pointing forward, to a mountain and an offer of all the kingdoms:
Israel is enslaved, defenceless and rejected. All alone, the descendant of a rejected royal family resists the Agagite... Haman hates the whole people, but he aims his anger at their head — the only man who refuses to bow down before him and honour him. Here is a dim picture of Him who, at a time still future, would refuse to acknowledge Satan, when Satan showed Him the kingdoms of the earth from the mountain top.
- Command. The king ordered the bow, but it gave Haman honour that belongs to God alone. So a loyal subject could still refuse it.
- Conscience. Mordecai did not act on mood. God had sworn lasting war with Amalek, and Haman the Agagite came from that line.
- Cost. One nod would have ended the pressure. Mordecai left the consequences to God and obeyed.
- Confession. His whole defence was who he was: "I am a Jew." He would not trade that away for safety.
- Christ. One man stands while a whole court bows. He is a picture of the One who refused Satan's offer of the world's kingdoms.
And it came to pass as they spoke daily to him, and he hearkened not to them, that they informed Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew.
Mordecai's refusal was not one dramatic moment. Day after day the king's own officials asked him why he broke the royal order. He told them he was a Jew, so they took the matter to Haman to see whether such a stand could survive.
Mordecai's whole defence fits into a few words. Those words reach back to an oath God swore long before about the people Haman came from.
Mordecai was ready to give a reason for the hope that was in him, and his simple answer was, I am a Jew! God had not forgotten His oath of old (Ex. 17), even if Israel were reaping the fruit of their sins under the Eastern kings. He had said, "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary… and he did not fear God… You shall not forget it." (Deut. 25.) So the Lord had sworn that He would have war with Amalek from generation to generation. Mordecai refuses to give up this basic truth in Israel's calling.
Commentators differ on what made the bow impossible. Some point to Haman's Amalekite descent. Others point to what the bow itself meant in that court.
They paid Haman the honour of a god. Nearly all these Eastern rulers claimed to be divine… Because Haman represented the king, people gave him that same worship. But Mordecai did not bow down, because such reverence involved the recognition of a false god and was against the commandment of God… What a noble figure! Mordecai the Jew stands upright among the servants bowing low before Haman. He showed faith in God.
The officials pressed him day after day. One writer imagines what that pressure sounded like.
The heart might plead a thousand excuses and urge a thousand reasons. It might look for an easy path, saying the Jewish system was in ruins and the Amalekite in power… "What use can it be to hold up the standard when everything has fallen apart? Your stubborn refusal to bow your head only makes your humiliation more obvious. Would it not be better to give just one nod? That will settle the matter. Haman will be satisfied, and you and your people will be safe. Do not be obstinate."
He would not listen to them. One writer imagines his reply, and it keeps two things apart: what is right, and what will follow.
"God has spoken. This is enough for me. True, we are a scattered people; but the word of the Lord is not scattered. He has not reversed His word about Amalek, nor made a peace treaty with him."… "Well then," someone might press this devoted Jew, "you will all be destroyed. You must either bow or perish." The answer is still very simple: "I have nothing to do with consequences. They are in the hand of God. Obedience is my path, the results are with Him."
To onlookers his stand looked like arrogance and bad manners. One writer meets that verdict head-on.
People might call it arrogance, blind stubbornness, stupid bigotry, and contemptible narrow-mindedness; but that was not his concern. It might look like complete folly to refuse the usual mark of respect to the highest noble in the kingdom. But that noble was an Amalekite, and that was enough for Mordecai. The apparent folly was simple obedience.
Once the officials named him as a Jew, the quarrel stopped being personal. They handed Haman not just one man but a whole people.
Of course Haman, every time he passed the gate, would notice Mordecai and his refusal to bow, and it filled him with anger. Haman was a shrewd man with a bitter hatred of all Jews, so he formed a plan to get rid of not only Mordecai, but all the Jews in the realm of King Ahasuerus.
One writer links Mordecai's refusal to a later refusal to worship.
But why did Haman hate Mordecai in the first place? The reason was that Mordecai refused to bow to him. Satan sought, but failed, to make the Son of God worship him.
- Reason. Asked why he disobeyed, Mordecai gave one answer: he was a Jew. Behind it stood God's sworn word about Amalek, which he refused to treat as out of date.
- Pressure. The test came daily, not once. The case for one small nod sounded sensible: the nation lay in ruins, Haman held power, and a bow would have kept everyone safe.
- Obedience. He separated duty from outcome. His path was obedience; the consequences he left in God's hand.
- Cost. To everyone watching, faithfulness looked like bigotry and folly. It also turned Haman's private rage into a plot against a whole people.
- Pattern. One man stands upright in a crowd of worshippers. He points on to the One who would not bow to Satan.
And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, Haman was full of fury.
Everyone in the courtyard bends. One man stays upright. The moment Haman notices, a private insult turns into a plan to kill a whole nation. Why would a court official risk his life over a bow? And why did that refusal enrage the second most powerful man in the empire?
Haman's title, "the Agagite", carries an old history. It ties him to a people God had already marked out:
Haman was the son of Hammedatha the Agagite... That means Haman was an Amalekite. This explains why Mordecai refused to bow down before Haman. He belonged to the race that Jehovah had sworn to fight for ever, and that Saul was told to wipe out completely. Ex. 17:16; Deut. 25:19; 1 Sam. 15:3.
That history changes how his refusal looks:
Here then was Mordecai's authority for refusing a single nod of his head to the Agagite. How could a faithful member of the house of Israel bow to a member of a house with which Jehovah was at war? Impossible... People might accuse him of arrogance, blind stubbornness, stupid bigotry, and contemptible narrow-mindedness. But that was not his concern at all... The apparent folly was simple obedience.
The honour asked of the king's servants was more than politeness in that court:
All the king's servants bowed down and paid him homage. They gave him the honour due to a god. Almost all these Eastern rulers claimed to be divine... Haman received this worship as the king's representative. But Mordecai did not bow down. Such homage meant recognising a false god, and it went against the commandment of God... All around him the servants bow low in worship before Haman, while Mordecai the Jew stands upright.
Haman had everything the empire could give. One man's straight back spoiled it all:
Ahasuerus advances this noble to the very highest place. But among all his piled-up honours there was one thorn! Mordecai did not bow. As a result, Mordecai became a target of blame.
One writer sets Haman's anger beside other outbursts in Scripture and names their shared root:
...seen in the wicked Haman, and leading to the attempted destruction of an entire people. The same cause, PRIDE, filled Nebuchadnezzar with rage and fury. His face changed (like Cain's). It led to INTENSE CRUELTY against his victims — cruelty that God overruled by a miracle.
The book of Esther never mentions God, and the deepest cause of this quarrel is never stated aloud either:
There was the secret. God does not appear. There is no hint in the history that God had spoken about Haman! Yet here was the secret reason; but the only public reason that appears is that Mordecai was a Jew.
One death was not enough for Haman. One writer compares his fury to that of a later enemy:
Haman's fury against a man who despises him and refuses his yoke knows no limits. It is like the fury of the Antichrist against those who will not acknowledge his power and authority, and who refuse to wear his mark on their forehead and hands. But he would have scorned to put Mordecai alone to death. He must strike him down together with all his people.
Another writer points to a greater refusal of the same kind:
Mordecai, however, refuses to bow before Haman (verse 2). The Lord refused to bow before Satan when He was tempted. The faithful remnant will refuse to bow before the triad of evil too, and many will pay for this with their lives.
The last word here is not Haman's rage but the worth of one person's faithfulness:
Does this not strongly encourage us to stand for the truth of God, whatever it costs? Just look at the wonderful results that came from the actions of one man! Many might have condemned Mordecai's conduct. Refusing a simple mark of respect to the highest noble in the empire might have looked like senseless stubbornness. But it was not so. It was simple obedience.
- Refusal — Mordecai's straight back was obedience, not rudeness. The honour Haman demanded belonged to God. And Haman came from a house God had sworn to fight.
- Rage — Wounded pride filled Haman. The same root produced Nebuchadnezzar's fury and Cain's changed face, and it drove Haman to cruelty against a whole people.
- Reason — In public, the reason was that Mordecai was a Jew. The real reason is never stated, just as God Himself is never named in the book.
- Reach — Killing one man was beneath Haman, so he aimed at the nation; writers see here the pattern of a later fury against all who refuse the Antichrist's mark.
- Result — One man's plain obedience looked like folly at the time. Yet great results followed from it, and it still calls us to stand for the truth of God whatever it costs.
But he scorned to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had made known to him the people of Mordecai; therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were in all the kingdom of Ahasuerus -- the people of Mordecai.
Mordecai would not bow to Haman, and Haman would not settle for punishing one man. So this verse asks two questions: why did one man's pride reach so far, and what older quarrel lay underneath it?
The story gives one reason on the surface: Mordecai was a Jew. A commentator points out that the deeper reason is never said out loud.
There was the secret. God does not appear. Nothing in the story hints that God had spoken about Haman! Yet here was the secret reason; but the only public reason that appears is that Mordecai was a Jew.
That hidden reason sits in Haman's family name: the Agagite. It explains why Mordecai would not bow.
Haman was the son of Hammedatha the Agagite. Fürst says that Josephus explains Haman's national name as meaning Amalekite by race, and Jewish tradition says the same. That is, Haman was an Amalekite. This explains why Mordecai refused to bow down before Haman. He belonged to the race with which Jehovah had sworn to have war forever, the race Saul had orders to destroy completely. Ex. 17:16; Deut. 25:19; 1 Sam. 15:3.
The verse says Haman "disdained" to touch Mordecai alone. One writer traces that scorn back to how well life had gone for him.
He came from the true seed of Amalek. The Lord had a quarrel with Amalek forever. Long ago, in the earliest days of Israel's history, Amalek defied God's glory just as it began to shine out in the bleak desert. (Ex. 17) He had prospered in a remarkable way. He had the ear, the hand, and the ring of his master, the Persian (the greatest monarch on earth) at his command. Because of all this, his pride could not take a refusal. If the servant of God will not worship, then the whole nation of God's people must pay the penalty.
One writer looks past Haman to the enemy using him, and to what that enemy was after.
The people are captive now. Their unfaithfulness has brought them to the lowest point of humiliation. So Satan stirs up Haman the Agagite to wipe out the weak remnant of this people. And let us not forget his hidden purpose: to take Israel away from Christ, their king according to the counsels and promises of God. Could there be a deceitful plan more satanic than that? Satan is frustrated in his efforts, as this book teaches us, but he does not consider himself beaten. He attacks the very Leader of Israel, Christ. At His birth, he attempts to put Him to death, by means of a new Agag, in the massacre at Bethlehem.
Haman went after a whole people, not one man. One commentator says that kind of hatred outlives Persia.
God's people, just because they are His, are always an offence to the rest of mankind — above all to the proud and boastful. This stays true even when their unfaithfulness costs them His open favour, as it had in fact done here.
Haman's rage did not stop at feeling. One writer follows it into law, and then to what undid it.
Haman is furious and decides to persecute not Mordecai only, but his entire people (v. 5-6). He accuses the Jewish people before the king, and stands exposed as "the Jews' enemy" (v. 10; cf. 8:1; 9:10, 24) – all of which matters in relation to Satan and his agents (cf. Rev. 12:4, 10). The king then ratifies his plan by a royal decree: all Jews must die (v. 12-15). This pictures a divine death sentence on the Jewish nation. How good to know that the king later passes a second decree which overturns the first. The sentence of death turns into life and peace.
Commentators differ in emphasis. Some read Haman as the proud man ruined by his own pride. Others read him as a picture of the enemy of God's people in every age.
- One man. Mordecai stayed on his feet, and that is the only cause the book states. The older reason, Israel's ancient war with Amalek, is never said out loud.
- One grudge. All Haman held from the empire counted for nothing while one servant of God refused to worship him. So he made the whole nation pay.
- One war. Behind the Agagite stands an old hatred. It began in the desert and aimed, in the end, at taking Israel away from Christ.
- One offence. God's people offend the world because they are His. That stays true even when they have lost His open favour.
- One reversal. The decree of death is not the last word. A second decree turns the sentence into life and peace.
In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman for each day and for each month, to the twelfth [month], that is, the month Adar.
Haman wanted a whole nation dead, not just the one man who would not bow to him. He needed a date first — and the lots thrown before him landed on the last month of the year, eleven months away.
The verse dates the scene in the first month of the Jewish year. That month carried two names, and it marked Israel's rescue out of slavery.
The rescue out of slavery makes a new beginning. The past is left behind and blotted out. This is a picture of the new birth of a person. The month which marks this new beginning is Abib, the "green ear" month, because the grain was then in the ear. After the captivity it was called Nisan (Nehemiah 2:1; Esther 3:7). It is our April.
Throwing lots was not a game here. Day by day and month by month, it was Haman's way of asking a power outside himself to name the best month for murder.
And now Haman waits on his unseen master, the devil. He wanted to find out the month which would be best suited for the execution of his wicked plot. Fortune-telling, contacting spirits and asking the dead flourished among the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians and every other pagan nation. So did reading the future from the flight of birds or from the liver of a killed animal. So did forecasters and astrologers. Behind it all is the Devil and his fallen angels. And these things are still practised... right among people who call themselves Christians.
Of the twelve months the lot could have chosen, it chose the last one. One writer asks why.
Vashti had rebelled in the third year of Ahasuerus' reign. Esther became the king's wife in the seventh year. The lot is cast at the beginning of the twelfth year of his reign, and it points to the twelfth month for the massacre of the Jews. Why not the third or the fourth month, to take away any chance of escape from the oppressed people? Is it not once again hidden Providence which directs everything as always? What can the "oppressor of the Jews" do in the face of the secret counsels of Providence? He must obey the lot he has consulted, and right there his rapid course to death and judgment begins.
The lot only fixed a date. What Haman wanted went far past one man.
He must have the blood of all the Jews. The life of the one man who refused to bow to him will not satisfy his heart. He must have the lives of the whole nation... The Amalekite and his company cast the lot, the Pur, only to fix the day for carrying out this act of extermination. But, as we know, the lot may be "cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33). And so it was here. Eleven long months are given: from the day the lot was cast to the day the lot fixed for the slaughter of the nation. They are given so that God would ripen His purposes towards both His people and their adversaries.
No one could change or cancel a Persian decree. The only answer was a second decree, and that needed time — which the lot had just handed over.
So the enemy turned to casting lots for a day that suited his murderous plan. In the end, divine providence saw to it that the day was put off for a long time. Since no change or cancelling of the decree was possible, that delay left room for a fresh decree, letting the Jews stand in self-defence and destroy their enemies. At first no outcome looked more unlikely. In the end Satan defeated himself, as he always does.
The word left behind in this verse became the name of a yearly celebration.
A feast, meaning 'lot or lots.' Haman cast lots to find a favourable day for the destruction of the Jews. When that danger was turned aside, a yearly feast marked their deliverance. Esther 3:7; Esther 9:24-32. It fell on the 14th and 15th of Adar... The Jews still keep the feast. They read the Book of Esther, they curse Haman and his wife, and they bless Mordecai and Harbonah.
- Pur. The word means "lot." Haman threw lots to pick a favourable day, and that pagan word ends up naming Israel's feast of rescue.
- Fate. Haman went to the lot the way others go to a spirit. Writers see the devil behind such practices, and they warn that these things go on today.
- Delay. The lot named the twelfth month, not the third. That left eleven months for God to ripen His purposes toward both His people and their enemies.
- Reversal. No one could revoke a Persian decree. Only that long gap left room for a second one, so the enemy's own ritual set the trap he fell into.
- Feast. Haman meant to set the date of a massacre. He set the date of a celebration instead — the lot fell where the LORD decided.
And Haman said to king Ahasuerus, There is a people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from [those of] every people, and they keep not the king's laws; and it is not for the king's profit to suffer them.
Haman has the king's ear, and he uses it to ask the king to destroy a whole people — without ever saying who they are. He makes three claims: they are scattered everywhere, their laws differ from everyone else's, and the crown gains nothing by keeping them.
The reason Haman gave the king was not the reason Haman had. Notice what the story tells us openly, and what it keeps in the dark.
There was the secret. God does not appear. There is no intimation in the history that God had spoken about Haman! Yet here was the secret reason; but the only public reason that appears is that Mordecai was a Jew.
Haman chose his words with care. He builds the charge in stages, and he leaves out the name of the people. (The commentator below calls Ahasuerus by his other name, Xerxes.)
He tells the king about a certain people who live in his kingdom. He avoids mentioning their name. If he had named them, the plot would not have succeeded. Xerxes must have known the famous history of the Jews well. He also knew that ever since Cyrus, the policy of the Persian Empire had been to protect the Jews. Haman's accusation is twofold. First: their laws are different from those of every people. Second: they do not keep the king's laws. And then the verdict: it is not for the king's profit to tolerate them. They were a separate people, following their God-given law. It was this religious side that stirred up Satan's hatred. Through Haman he now urges the murder of the whole race.
Part of Haman's charge was true. The Jews were scattered through the provinces, and they did live by a different law. But one writer looks past the charge to why such a people draw hatred at all, and to how the plot ended.
At the start, everything pointed the other way; in the end Satan defeated himself, as he always does. Haman's plea to the king was plausible. God's people are always an offence to the rest of mankind, simply because they are His. The proud and boastful feel it most. This stays true even when their own unfaithfulness costs them His open favour, and that is exactly what had happened.
Haman pointed at the Jews as a people scattered among the provinces. Scripture uses that same description of Israel, and it reaches into the New Testament.
The term is applied to the nation of Israel, now scattered throughout the world (Esther 3:8). The letters of James and 1 Peter were written especially to believers among them.
Haman's complaint has a shape: these people live by different customs, so they are a danger to the state. One writer ties it to the charge later brought against Paul and Silas at Philippi.
He tells the king that a people is scattered through his realm, and that it is not to his profit to let them live, because their customs are different from all other people. That was the secret of the world's hatred then, and it still is (see Acts 16:20-21).
Acts records the wording: "These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice" (Acts 16:20-21, ESV).
The book of Esther never names God, and Haman never names the Jews. But behind the minister stood something more than personal spite.
The enemy always watched for any circumstance that might serve his ends. He used men as his instruments to defeat God's purpose of salvation. Ahasuerus was the tool of Haman. Haman was the tool of Satan. And God allowed it all, so that He might triumph in delivering His people. What a scene to consider! Man shows blindness and spite. The enemy shows malice and craft. God shows fixed purpose and grace. All this comes out to us in the book of Esther.
- Name hidden. Haman never says "the Jews." He left the name out on purpose. The king knew their history, and Persia had protected them since Cyrus.
- Motive hidden. The king heard one reason: this people keeps its own laws. Haman's real reason stayed secret, and the record never states it.
- Half true. Part of the charge was accurate. They were scattered, and their law was different. But God's people offend the world because they are His. That stays true even when their own unfaithfulness has cost them His open favour.
- Charge repeated. "Their customs are different" was the secret of the world's hatred then, and it still is. The same charge met Paul and Silas at Philippi.
- God hidden. Ahasuerus was Haman's tool. Haman was Satan's. God allowed it all, so that He might triumph in delivering His people. His name never appears in the book; His hand does.
If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those that have charge of the affairs, to bring [it] into the king's treasuries.
Haman has just asked the king to wipe out a whole people, and now he names his price in silver. Why would a man who already had the king's ear offer to pay at all?
Haman knew what a king would ask first. Killing a whole people costs the treasury money. His silver answered that, and did more besides.
Haman, like his dark master, Satan, was cunning enough to anticipate an objection from the king's side. Would the kingdom not lose money if a whole people were wiped out? To remove this financial concern he offers to pay 10,000 talents of silver (about 20 million dollars) for the slaughter of the Jews he wants. With it he tempted the greed of the king. At the same time he flattered the king's pride. He implied that it must be a small thing for him to lose a whole people worth only 10,000 talents. And Haman probably calculated this too: the bigger the sum he offered, the more flattering it would feel to the king to wave it away.
Why would such a plea work at all? The offence was not what these people had done. It was whose they were.
Haman's plea to the king was plausible. God's people, just because they are His, are always an offence to the rest of mankind, and especially to the proud and boastful. This stays true even when their own unfaithfulness costs them His open favour, as was in fact the case… So Haman proposes their destruction, offering a round sum for the treasury in return.
A man willing to pay out of his own pocket has a private motive. The king missed that evidence, though he had taken advice over a much smaller matter.
Surely the king ought to have realised that Haman had a personal axe to grind. Haman would pay this great amount himself to have this people destroyed. But the king had great confidence in this scheming Amalekite. Haman cared far more for his own reputation than for the Persian kingdom… Strangely, the king had consulted his princes about what to do with Queen Vashti (ch. 1:13-15). In this far more serious case he acted like a dictator!
Grant calls Haman an Amalekite. That name goes back to an old feud.
He was called "the Agagite," which linked him with the Amalekites, a people who had attacked Israel out of pure malice. God had pronounced unending war against them. That is why Mordecai refused to honour Haman. The refusal so wounded Haman's pride and stirred his anger that he plotted to destroy not only Mordecai but every Jew in the king's lands.
The king never took the money. He waved it away and handed over the people instead.
Haman proposes to enrich the king through this destruction… Ahasuerus refuses the silver. He hands the people over to Haman, "to do with them as seems good to him." What indifference, what a hardened heart we find in this king! The name of Israel has no meaning for him. One of his favourites, a wicked man, matters more to him than the life of a whole nation — and a ruler ought to care for his people!
Haman had bought his decree. He had not counted on the God who was watching.
His offer of the immense sum of 10,000 talents of silver ought to have shown the king that he had some sinister end in view… But God was watching over all. On that very night He caused the king to remember what Mordecai had done for him… So God watched over His people in their captivity and made the scheme of their enemy fall on his own head.
Haman is not the first man of his kind.
The Agagite now stands out as the representative of the great enemy, the proud rebel who stands against God, His people and His purposes. There has been such a man in every age… Pharaoh, in Egypt; Amalek, in the wilderness; Haman, here in the day of the dispersion; and Herod, in the New Testament. Self-exaltation, godless pride, and defiance of the fear of God, along with deep-rooted hatred of His people, are some or all of the marks on each of them.
- Bought. Haman offers 10,000 talents to buy a written decree — money aimed at the king's greed and his pride at once.
- Plausible. A separate people always offends the proud. The payment made the murder look like profit.
- Exposed. A man paying his own silver for state policy has a private grudge. It went back to an old feud, and the king should have seen it.
- Waived. The king refused the silver and handed over the people instead. He valued neither.
- Overruled. The scheme fell on the buyer's own head. God was watching all along.
And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy.
The king's signet ring changes hands here, and with it the power to turn one man's hatred into law. Scripture pauses to give the man who receives it a title: the enemy of the Jews. Behind that title lies a feud far older than the Persian court.
A ring in that court was not jewellery. It was a working tool of government, and the king hands it to Haman.
Then the king gave him his ring. It was a ring to seal a document. Every ring had a seal. Handing over the king's ring with its seal handed over royal authority and power to the man who received it. So Haman now held royal authority. The haughtiness of the king appears now. Not only does he turn over his signet ring, but he also makes Haman a present of the enormous sum he had offered to the king. In cold blood Xerxes gives over this unknown people into the hands of this wicked enemy.
The verse names Haman's family, and that name carries a history. Agag was the royal line of Amalek, a nation under a standing sentence from God.
Haman was the son of Hammedatha the Agagite. Josephus explains his foreign name by calling him an Amalekite by race, and Jewish tradition says the same. So Haman was an Amalekite. This explains why Mordecai refused to bow down before Haman. He belonged to the race the Lord had sworn to fight for ever, and which He told Saul to destroy completely. Ex. 17:16; Deut. 25:19; 1 Sam. 15:3.
One writer sees a long campaign behind Amalek. It runs from the desert years to Haman, and on to Bethlehem, with the same hidden aim throughout.
Without Moses' prayer on the mountain and without Joshua, he would have destroyed the people. David defeated him at last, yet even then he did not treat the fight as finished. Now the people are captive. Their unfaithfulness has brought them to the lowest point of humiliation. So Satan stirs up Haman the Agagite to wipe out the weak remnant of this people. And let us not forget his hidden purpose: to take Israel away from Christ, the king God had planned and promised. Could there be a more deceitful plan, a more satanic one, than that? This book teaches us that Satan is frustrated in his efforts, yet he does not consider himself beaten. He attacks Israel's very Leader, Christ. At His birth he tries to kill Him through a new Agag, in the massacre at Bethlehem.
The king hands over the ring without one question about the people he is condemning. He also misses what his adviser stood to gain.
The king ought to have realised that Haman had a personal axe to grind. Haman was ready to pay this huge sum out of his own pocket to have this people destroyed. But the king placed great confidence in this scheming Amalekite. Haman cared far more for his own reputation than for the Persian kingdom. The king therefore agreed, and gave Haman liberty to do just as he desired (vv. 10-11). It seems strange that the king consulted his princes about what to do with Queen Vashti (ch. 1:13-15). Yet in this far more serious case he acted like a dictator!
Why did this hatred settle on this people? One writer names the reason underneath it, and the way such plots end.
Haman's plea to the king sounded plausible. God's people, just because they are His, are always an offence to the rest of mankind, and most of all to the proud and boastful. This stays true even when their own unfaithfulness has cost them His open favour, as it had here… At first, that ending looked the least likely of all; in the end Satan, as always, defeated himself.
The title given to Haman here follows him through the rest of the book. But the decree he seals with this ring does not get the last word.
Haman accuses the Jewish people before the king, and this verse names him "the enemy of the Jews" (v. 10; cf. 8:1; 9:10, 24). All of it matters for what we learn about Satan and his agents (cf. Rev. 12:4, 10). A royal decree then makes his plan law: every Jew must die (v. 12-15)… How good to know that the king later passes a second decree which overturns the first. That second decree turns a sentence of death into life and peace.
- The ring — the signet stamped documents and made them law. Giving it away gave away royal authority, and Haman now acts with the king's own power.
- The hand that takes it — Haman is an Agagite, from Amalek's royal line. God had sworn lasting war on that nation, and the old feud is why Mordecai would not bow.
- The hand that gives it — a king who asked nothing and checked nothing, and made a gift of the silver too. He took advice about his queen, but not about the life of a whole nation.
- The hatred underneath — God's people offend the proud just because they are His. That stays true even when their unfaithfulness has cost them His open favour.
- The reversal — the king later issues a second decree that overturns the first. The sentence of death becomes life and peace.