And in Shushan the fortress the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha,
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
and Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,
Esther 9:8 sits in the middle of a list. Three names — Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha — stand among the ten sons of Haman who fell when the Jews defended themselves in the fortress of Susa. Why does a book that never names God stop to list ten dead men? And what does their fall say about the plot their father started?
The scene is the thirteenth day of Adar, the very day Haman had chosen for wiping out the Jews. In the citadel of Susa the count reached five hundred, and then the writer slows down to name Haman's family one by one.
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThe fateful day, the thirteenth day of Adar, came, and with it the punishment of the enemies of the Jews. On that day the Jews gathered to stand against all who would attack them. The princes, the governors, and all the king's other officials helped the Jews. They knew the powerful position Mordecai held, and that he grew greater and greater. Theirs was a great victory. In Susa itself the Jews killed 500, and 300 more in another part of the city. In the provinces they killed 75,000. They killed the ten sons of Haman too, and the record gives their Persian names.
Naming all ten sons is the writer's way of showing that nothing of Haman survived. What began with one man's wounded pride closed with his household gone.
C E StuartEsther told Ahasuerus about the plot. The result was Haman's execution, and the execution of his ten sons, which wiped out his family in the direct male line. It also lifted Mordecai to favour and power next to the king, and led to a second decree, this time in favour of the Jewish people.
The book calls Haman "the Agagite." That title reaches back centuries, and it explains both Mordecai's refusal to bow and why this whole family falls.
Morrish Bible DictionaryHaman was the son of Hammedatha the Agagite (Esther 3:1-10; Esther 8:3, 5; Esther 9:24). Fürst says that Josephus explains Haman's Gentile name by calling him an 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. Haman belonged to the race that Jehovah had sworn to fight for ever, and that Saul was told to destroy completely (Ex. 17:16; Deut. 25:19; 1 Sam. 15:3).
God told Saul to destroy Amalek. Generations later a man of that same race rose to power in Persia and plotted against the Jews.
The verses that name the sons also record that the victors took no plunder. That restraint follows older instructions about Israel's enemies.
H. L. RossierGod judges the oppressor of the Jews, and his race with him (vv. 6-10). In the same way the apostate race of the Antichrist will perish in a future day, for the hour of vengeance has struck. Only the people "did not lay their hands on the plunder" (vv. 10, 15, 16), in keeping with what had been prescribed concerning Amalek or the enemies of Israel. (1 Sam. 15:9; Joshua 6:19-20) It is only a matter of carrying out God's judgment, without any profit for those who carry it out.
Another writer draws the same conclusion from the untouched plunder: it shows the Jews "were not moved by lust for gain, a picture of the pure justice that will characterize the establishment of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus."
The executions in this chapter trouble many readers. Commentators answer that the scene belongs to a coming day of righteous rule, not to the present calling of believers.
William KellyThere are many that cannot understand this. And no wonder! They take Esther as the type of the Lord's dealings with the church. You can see at once what deep confusion that creates. It is not so. Here the Gentile is set aside and the Jew is called in. Righteousness will mark the reign of the kingdom in a coming day, but grace is what suits the church now. Carrying out righteous vengeance would be completely out of keeping with the calling of the Christian — with the church's place.
The chapter never names God as the one acting. One writer reads the whole book from that silence.
William KellyIn the book of Esther we have no more than the witness of God's secret providence in the face of the most extreme dangers. It looks onward to that grand public outcome. Meanwhile it leaves behind a striking and lasting ordinance from Him who delivers though unseen.
- Unseen. God's name never appears, yet His providence works in secret — He delivers though unseen.
- Unfinished. Haman the Agagite came from Amalek. God swore lasting war on that race, and it was still alive in Haman's day.
- Unspared. The record names all ten sons: Haman's line ended in the direct male line.
- Unprofitable. The victors touched no plunder — judgment carried out with no gain for those who carried it out.
- Unrepeatable. Commentators read this as a picture of a coming kingdom of righteousness. It is not a model for Christians, whose calling today is grace.
and Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vajezatha,
These four names close the list of Haman's ten sons, killed on the day that was meant to be the end of the Jews. A list of foreign names looks like a small detail, but commentators read it as the close of a long story that began generations earlier.
This verse sits inside the record of one day across the Persian empire. One writer gives the numbers from that day.
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThe fateful day, the thirteenth day of Adar, came and with it the retribution for the enemies of the Jews. On that day they gathered together to withstand all who would assault them... In Susa itself 500 were killed, and 300 more in another part of the city. In the provinces 75,000 were killed. The ten sons of Haman were killed too; the text gives their Persian names.
These men belong to Haman's household. Commentators trace that household back to Amalek, a people who fought Israel from the start.
H. L. RossierSo in Amalek we are dealing with the enemy of the people of God. Amalek was the first to oppose Israel's march forward, when they came out of Egypt (Ex. 17). Amalek chased Israel without mercy and wiped out the weak and those who fell behind, among a people worn out by crossing the wilderness. Amalek is, in a word, the Enemy — the image of Satan, the great Enemy. He opposes God's purposes of grace toward His people.
Haman had already been hanged. With these ten, nothing of him was left to carry the quarrel forward.
C E StuartEsther told Ahasuerus about the plot. The result was the execution of Haman, and of his ten sons with him. It put an end to his race in the direct male line.
One writer lines these deaths up with other pictures of God clearing evil away for good:
J. G. BellettThe children of Judas cut off (Ps. 109). The little ones of Edom dashed against the stones (Ps. 137). Haman's sons, all hanged after him. These pictures teach us the complete downfall and removal of everything that now offends. The broom of divine judgment sweeps it all away.
The list closes with the note that the Jews took no plunder. Commentators read that restraint in different ways. One sees it as obedience to what God had already laid down about Amalek:
H. L. RossierThe oppressor of the Jews is judged, and his family line with him (vv. 6-10). In the same way the Antichrist and his people, who have turned away from God, will perish in a day still to come, for the hour of vengeance has struck. But the people "laid no hand on the plunder" (vv. 10, 15, 16), in keeping with what God had laid down about Amalek and the enemies of Israel. It is only a matter of carrying out God's judgment, with no profit for those who carry it out.
Another writer offers a practical reason. The Jews likely left the goods alone to avoid false accusations, though the king's decree had allowed them to take the spoil (Gaebelein).
Does this scene set a pattern for Christians? One writer answers that such judgment belongs to the day when Christ reigns.
William KellyWhen the Lord Jesus leaves heaven for the earth — when He comes to reign — righteousness will be the character of His kingdom. Terrible things will be done in righteousness, according to Psalm 45. Once this is understood, the execution of the ten sons of Haman is not the smallest difficulty. The Lord will not only strike at the beginning. He will strike again: a thorough clearing out of the adversary, and of all who render only pretended obedience.
The same writer adds that Esther is not a picture of the church: "Carrying out righteous vengeance would be completely at odds with the calling of the Christian" (William Kelly).
The number ten has also drawn comment. Writers tie it to the shape of world power at the end of the age, as Daniel saw it.
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThe ten sons of Haman, so fully identified with their wicked father, are also not without meaning. God revealed to Daniel the final form of Gentile government at the close of the age. It consists of ten kingdoms, seen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream image and in Daniel's ten-horned beast, forming the Roman empire once more... The ten sons of Haman and their miserable end are another illustration of prophetic truth.
The list has kept a distinct place in Jewish practice.
Arno Clemens GaebeleinIn orthodox synagogues, Jews read the book of Esther aloud. They read the names of Haman's ten sons in one breath, as fast as they can. This shows that all of them were wiped out at one and the same moment.
- Enemy — commentators trace Haman's house to Amalek, the people who attacked Israel first, "the image of Satan"; these ten names are that enemy's household.
- Ending — Haman's death alone did not settle it. With his sons gone, his race ends "in the direct male line."
- Empty-handed — the victors touched no plunder: the work was God's judgment, "with no profit for those who carry it out."
- Era — this is righteousness, not grace. One writer ties it to Christ's coming reign, not to the Christian's calling now.
- Emblem — the number points ahead: ten sons, ten kingdoms, and a "thorough clearing out" of everything that offends.
the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the oppressor of the Jews, they slew; but they laid not their hands on the prey.
Haman's ten sons fall here, and the verse adds one striking detail: the victors took nothing that belonged to their enemies. Both halves matter — who these sons were, and why they walked away from plunder the king's own decree had allowed them.
The verse pins Haman to a family — son of Hammedatha, enemy of the Jews. Earlier the book gives him another title, "the Agagite," and one writer traces that name back to the kings of the Amalekites.
Arend RemmersAccording to Numbers 24:7 and 1 Samuel 15, Agag seems to have been the title of the kings of the Amalekites. Saul, the son of Kish, spared Agag, King of the Amalekites, and God rejected him for his disobedience (1 Sam. 15). Mordecai, who was a son of Kish as well (Esther 2:5), arranged the execution of Haman, the Agagite (Esther 3:1). By this he fulfilled the judgment of God and attained great honour.
What one son of Kish left half-done, another finished. The death of Haman's ten sons closes that account.
Haman's sons die with him, and his family line ends. One commentator sees in that a preview of a judgment still to come.
H. L. RossierThe oppressor of the Jews is judged, and his race with him (vv. 6-10). In the same way the apostate race of the Antichrist will perish in a future day, for the hour of vengeance has struck.
Arend Remmers is not the only writer to look at these names. Arno Clemens Gaebelein notes a custom that grew up around them. When Jews read the book aloud in the synagogue, they say the ten names quickly, in one breath, "to show that they all were destroyed at one and the same time."
The record repeats this restraint three times in the chapter. Rossier ties it to commands God had given long before:
H. L. RossierThe people, however, "laid no hand on the plunder" (vv. 10, 15, 16), in line with what God had commanded about Amalek or the enemies of Israel (1 Sam. 15:9; Joshua 6:19-20). This was only a matter of carrying out God's judgment, with no profit for those who carry it out.
Commentators differ on the reason. Gaebelein points out that the king's decree was on the Jews' side here, and suggests a plainer motive:
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThey did not touch the spoil — the goods and possessions of those killed — probably to avoid false accusations, though the decree gave them permission to plunder their enemies.
Whichever reason is right, nobody could say the Jews had fought for profit. One writer sees a larger pattern in that restraint.
Leslie M. GrantThe Jews did not take any plunder from their enemies (v. 10). This shows they were not moved by greed for gain. It is a picture of the pure justice that will mark the setting up of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus.
Does this chapter show Christians how to treat their enemies? One commentator answers no, and says the mistake starts with reading Esther as a picture of the church:
William KellyThey take Esther as a picture of the Lord's dealings with the church. You can see at once what deep confusion that makes. It is not so. The Gentile is set aside, and the Jew is called in; but righteousness will be the character of the reign of the kingdom in the coming day. Grace is what suits the church now. Carrying out righteous vengeance would be completely out of keeping with the calling of the Christian — with the church's place.
All of this traces back to a single stubborn act — Mordecai declining to bow to Haman.
C. H. MackintoshMany might have condemned what Mordecai did. It might have looked like strange stubbornness to refuse a simple mark of respect to the highest noble in the empire. But it was not so. It was plain obedience. It was decision for God, and it led to a most magnificent victory. His fellow Jews at the very ends of the earth gathered its spoils.
- Hands that plotted. The verse names Haman by his father and calls him the enemy of the Jews. Earlier the book calls him the Agagite, a title tied to the kings of Amalek — and here his ten sons fall with him.
- Hands that finished. Saul, son of Kish, spared Agag and lost his kingdom. Mordecai, also a son of Kish, saw the judgment carried out and gained great honour.
- Hands held back. Three times the record says the Jews touched no plunder, though the king's decree allowed it. Commentators differ on why — the old command about Amalek, or the wish to avoid false accusations — but both agree the motive was not gain.
- Hands for a coming day. This pure justice pictures the kingdom of the Lord Jesus. Grace is what suits the church now, so carrying out vengeance is not the Christian's calling.
- Hands that would not bow. The whole deliverance grows out of one man's refusal to bow. Its benefit reached his people at the very ends of the earth.