the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews, but they laid no hand on the plunder.
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 line of an old enemy
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.
Not one heir left
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."
Hands off the plunder
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.
A clean motive
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.
Not a picture of the church
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.
One man's refusal behind it all
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.
Summary
- 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.