Esther 3
MORDECAI, BY WANT
OF RESPECT, OFFENDS HAMAN,
AHASUERUS’ CHIEF
MINISTER. HAMAN, IN REVENGE,
RESOLVES TO
DESTROY THE ENTIRE NATION OF THE JEWS
(vs.1-6). A break, probably of some years, separates chapter
2. from
chapter 3. In the interval a new and important event has
occurred a new
character has made appearance upon the scene. Haman, the
son of
Hammedatha, an Agagite (whatever that may mean), has risen
high in the
favor of Ahasuerus, and been assigned by him the second
place in the
kingdom. It has been granted him to sit upon a throne; and
his throne has
been set above those of all the other “princes” (v. 1). He has
in fact
become “grand vizier,” or chief minister. In the East men
are so servile that
a new favorite commonly receives the profoundest homage and
reverence
from all classes, and royal orders to bow down to such an
one are
superfluous. But on the occasion of Haman’s elevation, for
some reason
that is not stated, a special command to bow down before
him was issued
by Ahasuerus (v. 2). All obeyed as a matter of course,
excepting one
man. This was Mordecai the Jew. Whether there was anything
extreme and
unusual in the degree of honor required to be paid to the
new favorite,
or whether Mordecai regarded the usual Oriental prostration
as unlawful,
we cannot say for certain; but at any rate he would not do
as his fellows
did, not even when they remonstrated with him and taxed him
with
disobedience to the royal order (v. 3). In the course of
their
remonstrances — probably in order to account for his
reluctance —
Mordecai stated himself to be a Jew (v. 4). It would seem
to have been
after this that Haman’s attention was first called by the
other porters to
Mordecai’s want of respect — these persons being desirous
of knowing
whether his excuse would be allowed and the obeisance in
his case
dispensed with. Haman was violently enraged (v. 5); but
instead of taking
proceedings against the individual, he resolved to go to
the root of the
matter, and, if Mordecai would not bow down to him because
he was a
Jew, then there should be no more Jews — he would have them
exterminated (v. 6). It did not occur to him that this
would be a matter of
much difficulty, so confident was he of his own influence
over Ahasuerus,
and so certain that he would feel no insuperable repugnance
to the
measure. The event justified his calculations, as appears
from the latter part
of the chapter (vs. 10-15).
1 “After these things did king Ahasuerus promote
Haman the son of
Hammedatha the
Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the
princes that were
with him.” After these things. Probably some years after —
about B.C. 476 or 475. Haman, the son of Hammedatha. “Haman” is perhaps
Umanish, the Persian
equivalent of the Greek Eumenes. “Hammedatha”
has been explained as “given by the moon” (Mahadata),
the initial h being
regarded as the Hebrew article. But this mixture of
languages is not
probable. The Agagite. The
Septuagint has Βουγαῖον
– Bougaion
-, “the Bugaean.”
Both terms are equally inexplicable, with our present
knowledge; but most
probably the term used was a local one, marking the place
of Haman’s
birth or bringing up. A reference to descent from the
Amalekite king Agag
(Joseph., ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 11:6, § 5) is scarcely possible.
The Wicked Exalted (v. 1)
The temporary favorite of Ahasuerus was unworthy of the
position to
which he was raised, and the power with which he was
entrusted. History
has preserved the record of no meaner, baser character than
Haman. He
was a man servile and cruel, who used his power for
disgraceful purposes.
His conduct towards all with whom he was connected was
alike
dispicable. His history and fate may be taken by the
moralist as a type of
the exaltation and fall of the wicked.
takes the guise and garb of loyalty. Flattery is the surest road to a
monarch’s favor. Corruption, unscrupulousness, desertion of friends,
betrayal of
associates, slander of rivals, these
are the means by which many
have risen to share the favor of
a king, to preside over the movements of
a court, to control the affairs
of a nation. Here observe the too common
weakness of kings and those born
to greatness.
Once in favor and in power, the
world seems at their feet. They have
influence with the sovereign;
they are encompassed with the adulation of
courtiers; they exercise power,
even arbitrary and unjust, over fellow
subjects; they are lifted up with pride.
before a
fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)
From how great an elevation, and into what
an abyss of misery and
ruin, did Haman fall! The greater the height, the more
calamitous and awful the
headlong plunge. Sin rages and beats upon the shore.
But above its hoarse
roaring rises the voice of the All-wise and
Almighty
Disposer of
events — “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no
further, and here
shall thy proud
waves be stayed!” (Job 38:11)
Practical lessons:
1. Be not envious at
the prosperity of the wicked. The Psalmist seems to
have been tempted to this childish and ignoble failing. He
saw the wicked
in great power, spreading himself like the
into the sanctuary of God, then understood he his end. (Psalm 37:1-40)
2. Be not dismayed at
the spectacle of power in wicked hands. It cannot be
for long. A righteous
naught. The greatest man
is not invincible. “The Lord reigneth.” (Psalm 97:1)
He bringeth down the lofty from their seat, and exalteth
those of low degree!
(Luke 1:52)
2 “And all the king’s servants, that were in the
king’s gate, bowed,
and reverenced
Haman: for the king had so commanded
concerning him. But
Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.”
All the king’s
servants. Literally, “the
king’s slaves” — the
lower officers of the court, porters and others, of about
the same rank as
Mordecai. Bowed
and reverenced Haman. i.e.
prostrated themselves
before him in the usual Oriental fashion. For the king had so
commanded. No reason is assigned for this order, which was certainly
unusual, since the prostration of an inferior before a
superior was a general
rule (Herod., 1:134). Perhaps Haman had been elevated from
a very low
position, and the king therefore thought a special order
requisite.
Mordecai bowed not. Greeks occasionally refused to prostrate themselves
before the Great King himself, saying that it was not their
custom to
worship men (Herod., 7:136; Plut., ‘Vit. Artax.,’ § 22;
Arrian., ‘Exp.
Alex.,’ 4:10-12, etc.). Mordecai seems to have had the same
feeling.
Prostration was, he thought, an act of worship, and it was
not proper to
worship any one excepting God (see Revelation 22:9).
3 “Then the king’s servants, which were in the
king’s gate, said unto
Mordecai, Why
transgressest thou the king’s commandment?
4 Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto
him, and he
hearkened not unto
them, that they told Haman, to see whether
Mordecai’s matters
would stand: for he had told them that he was a
Jew.” The king’s servants, which were
in the gate with
Mordecai, were the first to observe his disrespect, and at
once took up the
matter. Why were they to bow down, and Mordecai not? Was he
any
better or any grander than they? What right had he to transgress the
king’s
commandment? When they urged him on the point day after day,
Mordecai seems at last to have explained to them what his
objection was,
and to have said that, as a Jew, he was precluded
from prostrating himself
before a man. Having heard this, they told Haman,
being curious to see
whether Mordecai’s
matters (or, rather, “words”) would stand, i.e.
whether his excuse would be allowed, as was that of the
Spartan
ambassadors who declined to bow down before Artaxerxes
Longimanus
(Herod., 1. s. c.).
5 “And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor
did him
reverence, then was
Haman full of wrath.” When Haman saw. Apparently
Mordecai’s disrespect had not been
observed by Haman until the “king’s servants”
called his attention to it. Then,
naturally enough, he was greatly offended, and felt
exceedingly angry at
what seemed to him a gross impertinence. Mordecai’s excuse
did not pacify him — perhaps seemed to him
to make the matter worse, since,
if allowed, it would justify all the Jews in the empire in
withholding from
him the respect that he considered his due.
6 “And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai
alone; for they had
shewed him the
people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to
destroy all the
Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of
Ahasuerus, even the
people of Mordecai.” He thought scorn to lay hands
on Mordecai alone. If
Haman had simply said to Ahasuerus, “There is one of
your menials who persistently
disobeys a royal edict, and at the same time
insults me,” Ahasuerus would, as a matter of course, have told him to
put the
menial to death. But
the revengeful temper of the man was such that this seemed
to him insufficient. Mordecai had insulted
him as a Jew, and the Jews should
pay the penalty. Mordecai should be punished not only in
person, but in his
kindred, if he had any, and in his nation. The nation
itself was
contumacious and troublesome (v. 8); it would be well to
get rid of it.
And it would be a grand thing to wipe out an insult offered
by an individual
in the blood of a whole people. Haman therefore sought to destroy all the
Jews that were
throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.
Massacres on a large scale — not unknown in the West,
witness St.
Bartholomew’s — are of frequent occurrence in the East,
where human life
is not held in much regard, and the caprices of absolute
monarchs
determine the course of history. There had been a general
massacre of the
Magi upon the accession of Darius Hystaspis, the father of
Xerxes (Herod.,
3:79), and one of Scythians about a century before (ibid.
1.106). These
were examples which might occur to Haman. A later one is
the Roman
massacre
of Mithridates in B.C. 88.
Foolish Pride and Wild Resentment (vs. 1-6)
The lesson of this portion of the narrative is one
concerning human sin. In
some places Scripture seems to depict the character and the
conduct of
sinners in such a way as to impress the mind of the reader
with what is
called “the exceeding sinfulness of sin.” (Romans 7:13)
And what more
natural and appropriate than such representations of human
iniquity in a book
which brings to us the
remedy for the disease, and the liberation from the
bondage, which afflict mankind? In the temper and conduct of Haman we
recognise the fruits of man’s sinful nature.
king, and from his position in
the state, and was no doubt encouraged by
the homage that was paid him by
the courtiers and the people. His pride
was hurt and mortified at the
refusal of Mordecai to render him the honor
he was accustomed to receive
from all around. And the hurt was
aggravated by the fact that the
servants of the king observed the Jew’s
conduct, and reported to Haman
his marked discourtesy and insult. What
made the matter worse was the
obscure position and despised nationality
of the single person who did him
no reverence.
anger; his anger stirred up purposes of revenge; his
revenge took a wild
inhuman form. Mordecai had
transgressed the king’s command) and his
conduct had been noticed by the
king’s servants. And it was this which
gave a colorable pretext for the
favorite’s wrathful counsels and plans of
destruction.
OFFENCE AND HAMAN’S PROPOSED REVENGE. A trivial slight
was so laid to heart that it
aroused a ferocious spirit, for the satisfaction of
which no shedding of blood, no desolation
of cities, could suffice. The
great lesson to be learned from
this frightful picture of human depravity is
the extent to which sin WILL LEAD THE VICTIM!
Sin will take you farther than you want to go,
keep you longer than you want to stay, and
cost you more than you want to pay.
(Unknown)
If so hateful a vice as pride be encouraged, if
so mean a purpose as one
of revenge be fostered, to what frightful
crimes may the wretched sinner
be led! There is one preventive and pro
servative: “Let that mind be in you
which was also in Christ Jesus!” (Philippians 2:5)
The Intemperateness of Contempt (v. 6)
“And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone.” The projected
deed of Haman, if it had been carried to completion, would
not have been
entirely without precedent and parallels more or less
nearly resembling it.
Herodotus, in the first book of his history, tells us of a
massacre of the
Scythians, actually carried into execution, and which
preceded by about a
hundred years that now proposed by Haman. When Darius
Hystaspis
ascended the throne, some forty years before the present
date, a cruel
slaughter of the Magi was ordered, and that slaughter was
for a long
period commemorated once a year. Five centuries onward
bring us to that
most memorable date of all, when, in one of the most
heartless of
massacres, Herod, king of
career of the King of all the world, and to stifle in the
thought the work of
the Saviour of all men! And one can scarcely fail to
associate with the
present purpose of Haman the transactions of Black Bartholomew
day
(August 24, 1572), when, through the widespread and fair
provinces of
France, thousands upon thousands of Protestants were
slaughtered!
Deterrent though the subject of analysis is, let us
consider that which is
offered us in this passage.
probably a place for almost
every kind, for almost every degree, of anger.
“A fool’s wrath is
presently known” (Proverbs 12:16), and
a good man’s wrath
should be presently known. Anger and sin often go together, but by no means
always; the criterion this —
whether the anger is fed, has the poisonous force of
rankling thought, of gloomy
brooding in it; whether the sun is permitted to
go down upon it (Ephesians 4:26), or it bidden
to go down upon the down-going
of the sun. If we stop here, our
analysis conducts us no way, and is not sufficient
to determine anything of value
for us.
is a natural and valuable
principle. Analogies come in and conspire to speak
in its defense and praise.
Physically it is sometimes equivalent to a vital
principle. But the physical
value of it is the merest shadow of the amount
and value of its spiritual use.
With all the fullest force of which it is capable
it may advantageously come, and
welcome — in order to fling off some
kind of assault, some sorts of
arrows, some species of tempting. It is the
prime glory of resentment in
matters spiritual to be as like as possible to
the red-hot iron when the drop
of water falls upon it.
once over the border line. We
are no longer on safe ground, nor even on
debateable ground. We are trespassing on the property of One who gives
us here no right of ownership, but who is as liberal as He is powerful, as
wise as He is wealthy, as
considerate as He is just. It is He who, if He ever
spoke with an impressive
emphasis in His tone, has so uttered this one
sentence: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,
saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19)
Punishment, indeed, is not
revenge; but how often does the most undisguised
revenge dare to take the name
and try to wear the look of the most impartial,
temperate, judicial punishment!
Perhaps Haman would scarcely feel it
necessary to attempt to put this
face on it, or to defend himself from an
imputation to which he would
attach neither guilt nor shame, provided that
danger was not in the way. Yet it is manifest that Haman did put a
very
false face on what was the
simple outcome of his own revengeful spirit
when he was seeking the
requisite powers from King Ahasuerus (ch. 4:8).
OF ANNOYANCE CALLED AFFRONT. No appreciable harm had been
done to the person, or to the
business, or to the place, or to the prospects
of Haman. Nor had he been
injured in the least degree in the person of his
wife, or of his family, or of
any one clear to him. But affront had been
offered him, or he supposed such
was intended. That is, harm, though light
and fanciful as any butterfly,
had alighted upon the finery of his dignity, his
vanity, his pride. The abrasion
of the polish of self was indeed so slight, so
marvelously inconspicuous, that
he himself did not at all know it till those
envious mischief makers, the “king’s
servants,” told him, (v.4), in order,
forsooth, “to see whether
Mordecai’s account of the reason of this
infinitesimal deduction from the
incense due to Haman (to whom indeed he
owed none at all) would hold him
absolved. An angry man, a revengeful
man, a madman, a
“bear robbed of her whelps.” (Proverbs 17:12), “the
lion out of the
forest” (Jeremiah 5:6), are surely all
safe company to
meet compared with the vain man
affronted. And this was the lot of
Mordecai now.
CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF SINFUL ELEMENTS IN A
CHARACTER. There is no bottom to pride, there is no height
to
haughtiness, there is no
measure to swelling vanity, there is no
temperateness to
contempt, there is not “the bit or
rein” that can be
reckoned safe to hold in the
uncertain, nettled temper of scorn and disdain.
Approach any one of these with
but the appearance of affront, though the
reality may be your own principle and religion unfeigned, and there
is no
longer room for either
explanation or even expiation. Revenge alone can
meet the case. We have need to fear the first symptoms of such
dispositions. They belong to the godless heart. They spread pestilence.
They make the lives that own to
them resemble volcanoes, which ever and
anon throw up and spread all
around the torrents of their destroying lava.
Those who answer to this type so
mournfully exhibited by Haman,
miserable and uncertain
themselves, are they who make misery all around.
They “think scorn” to be patient; they “think scorn” to give to others the
liberty they demand for
themselves; they “think scorn” to ask
or accept an
explanation; they “think scorn” to credit any man’s
religion and conscience,
except their own travesty of
the genuine and true; they “think scorn”
to
show any kindness, or to make
only a little misery. The heart of goodness,
of justice, of mercy, nay, even
the heart of reason, is cankered from within
them. They must destroy all who
in the slightest degree, real or
apprehended, stand in their
light, if only they can see their way to do it
without present injury to
themselves. And among all the worst foes a man
can have, none can exceed this
disposition, if it dwell in his heart.
Revenge (v. 6)
natural that prompts to
retaliation. All human history is blurred by its
activity. A Haman could not be offended without seeking to do the
offender hurt. In the light
of Christian truth it is mean and contemptible,
but it is natural, and
therefore almost universal.
not measure the evil it
contemplates by the injury that has excited it; its
fierce tide flows over, and
drowns every thought of balanced equity; it
throws away the scales, and only wields the sword.
Every feeling of pity is
quenched in its fire. Its savage aim
is to cause what
suffering it
can. The extermination of a whole
people could only satisfy the
vengeful lust of Haman.
FINDS FUEL TO FEED IT.
While blind to all considerations that should
moderate or slay it, it is
sharp-sighted with respect to everything that is
fitted to stimulate it. It was
bad enough that Mordecai refused to do
homage to Haman; but when the
favorite learned the real ground of his
refusal, then a fiercer fire
entered into his soul. All the antipathies
of race
were stirred into
flame. (Something that all Americans
should ponder in
this 21st century – CY – 2014). Henceforth “he thought scorn to lay hands
on Mordecai
alone;” Mordecai’s people shall suffer
with himself.
POSSESSION OF POWER. A
conscious inability to give it exercise has
often a sobering effect; but the
power to gratify it only increases its
resolution in evil minds.
Haman’s pride was inflated by the favor of the
king. He could brook no slight.
The might of the empire was in his hand,
and that might should be exerted
to its fullest extent to avenge the affront
of the audacious Jew. His sense
of power quickened his desire, and
enlarged his project of revenge.
PERIODS, AND IN ALL GRADES OF SOCIETY. Appalling as Haman’s
plan of vengeance was, it is not
solitary. Under some of the Roman
Caesars the Christians were
treated as Haman intended to treat the Jews.
Later on, and under a so-called
Christian authority, whole communities
were sacrificed to a vengeance
which could not tolerate any sign of
independent belief or action,
such as the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and
the Protestants in
illustrate the lengths to which
an uncontrolled passion for revenge is willing
to go. Yet the widest field on
which this spirit produces suffering and
misery is not public. Many families
live on, in unknown but utter
wretchedness, under the stupid fury of revengeful feeling excited by real or
imaginary wrongs. Even in circles where everything like passion is avoided,
men and women often cherish
supposed slights and fancied insults.
Reputations are often very
calmly destroyed. The influence of good people
is often neutralized, if not
turned into evil, by the quiet maliciousness of
enemies in the guise of friends.
The spirit of revenge works in a myriad
ways, and on every existing field
of human life.
DEMONIACAL. Wherever
seen, or however clothed, it is hateful to God,
hateful to Christ, hateful to
every true man. It is our part not to “return evil
for evil,” but to “overcome evil with good” (Romans
12:21). The
prerogative of judging and
punishing belongs not to us, but TO GOD!
“Vengeance is
mine, I will repay, saith the Lord”
(Romans 12:19-20).
The Christian law is not “hate,”
but “love your enemies” (Matthew
5:44-48). This law was Divinely
illustrated when Jesus on the cross prayed
for the forgiveness of those who
had in their mad fury of revenge inflicted
on him such shame and pain: “Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do” (Luke 23:34).
HAMAN CASTS LOTS
TO OBTAIN A LUCKY DAY FOR HIS
LAST MONTH OF THE
YEAR (v.7). Having determined on a
general massacre of the Jews on a given day, as the best
mode of ridding
the empire of them, Haman thought it of supreme importance,
to select for
the massacre a propitious and fortunate day. Lucky and
unlucky days are
recognized generally throughout the East; and it is a
wide-spread practice,
when any affair of consequence is taken in hand, to obtain
a determination
of the time for commencing it, or carrying it into effect,
by calling in the
arbitrement of Chance. Haman had recourse to “the lot,” and
by means of
it obtained, as the fight day for his purpose, the 13th of
Adar, which was
more than ten months distant. The long delay was no doubt unpalateable,
but he thought himself bound to submit to it, and took his
further measures
accordingly.
7 “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 from
day to day, and
from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is,
the month Adar.” In the first month, the month
Nisan. See the comment on
Nehemiah 2:1. This name was first given to the month by the
Jews after
the return from the captivity. It was the Babylonian name
of the first month
of the year, and superseded the old Jewish name, Abib. The twelfth year
of… Ahasuerus — B.C. 474, if
Ahasuerus be Xerxes. They cast Pur,
that
is, the lot. The superstitious use of lots has always been prevalent in
the
East, and continues to the present day. Lots were drawn, or
thrown, m
various ways: sometimes by means of dice, sometimes by
slips of wood, or
strips of parchment or paper, and also in other manners.
Even the Jews
supposed a special
(Proverbs 16:33), and thought that matters decided in this
way were
decided by God. Haman appears to have cast lots, first, as
to the day of the
month which he should fix for the massacre, and secondly as
to the month
in which it should take place. Apparently the lot fell out
for the thirteenth
day (v. 13), and for the twelfth month, the last month in
the year. The
word “Pur” is not
Hebrew it is supposed to be Old Persian, and to be
connected with Mod. Pers. pareh, Lat. pars, Greek
μίρος - miros -
μοῖρα –
moira - lot. To the twelfth
month, that is, the month Adar. Adar is, like Nisan,
a Babylonian word, perhaps connected with edder, “splendor.”
The month
so named corresponded nearly with March, when the sun
begins to have great
power in
Consulting Omens (v. 7)
“They
cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day.” “Pur”
is an
old Persian word said to signify “part” or “lot.” Haman
resorted to the
practice of casting a lot to find out what he believed
would be a lucky day
for his design. He had a blind faith in the unseen, and in
the overruling of
supernatural powers. He inquired of his idols, and acted
according to
received superstitions. His object was an evil one, but he
supposed that his
god would be on his side.
ofttimes inconsistent in our
acts. We profess to believe that God will
overrule all for the best (Romans 8:28), and then we
become doubtful
and fretful
because things turn not out as we expected.
He must have found it wearying
work to inquire so frequently, casting lots
for one day after another, and
having no favorable reply. The lot was cast
for all the days of eleven
months ere he had a period fixed which promised
to be fortunate for him. He
that believeth shall not make haste. (Isaiah
28:16)
OPPORTUNITIES OF SERVICE. There are many foolish ideas as to
periods, as those among sailors
about Friday, and sailing on that day.
PLOTTER MAY BE THE WORST. The delay had given Mordecai and
Esther time to act. God’s hand
was in this. “The lot was cast
into the lap, but
the whole disposal was of the Lord”
(Proverbs 16:33).
Haman was misled by his
inquiries, but God’s people saved by Haman’s
delay through his superstition.
the best issues.
HAMAN PERSUADES
AHASUERUS TO PUBLISH A DECREE
COMMANDING THE
DESTRUCTION OF ALL THE JEWS IN HIS
KINGDOM ON THE
ENSUING THIRTEENTH DAY OF ADAR (vs. 8-15)
Having formed his own resolve, it remained for Haman to bring his proposal before
Ahasuerus in such a shape as should secure his acquiescence in it. For this purpose he
thought it best, first, to raise a prejudice against the Jews by representing them as bad
subjects, causing
trouble through the peculiarity of their own laws, and still more
through their unwillingness to render obedience to the
Persian laws (v .8). In support
of this last statement he would no doubt, if questioned,
have adduced the conduct
of Mordecai, who persisted in “transgressing the king’s commandment,” and gave
as his only reason that he was a Jew, and therefore could not obey it (v. 4). As,
however, he doubted the effect of this reasoning on his royal master, he held in
reserve an argument of
another kind, an appeal to the king’s cupidity, which
constituted his main reliance. If the king gave his consent to
the destruction of
the Jewish nation,
Haman undertook to pay into the royal treasuries, out of his
private means, a
sum which cannot be estimated at much less than two millions
and a quarter of pounds sterling, and which may have
amounted to a much
higher figure (v. 9). The effect of this argument upon
Ahasuerus was
decisive; he at once took
his signet-ring from his finger, and made it over
to his minister
(v. 10), thus enabling him to promulgate any decree that
he pleased, and he openly declared that he gave over the
Jewish nation,
their lives and properties, into Haman’s hands (v. 11).
Haman “struck
while the iron was hot.” The king’s scribes were put in
requisition — a
decree was composed, numerous copies of it made, the royal
seal affixed to
each (v. 12), and a copy dispatched forthwith to each
governor of a
province by the royal post, ordering the complete
destruction of the Jews
within his province, young and old, men, women, and
children, on the
thirteenth day of the month Adar, and the confiscation of
their property
(v. 13). The posts started off with all speed, “being
hastened by the
king’s commandment’’ (v. 15); and the two men who had plotted a
nation’s extermination, as if they had done a good day’s
work, and
deserved refreshment, “sat down to drink.” But the
Persians generally were
less satisfied with the decree than their monarch and his
minister; it
surprised and startled them; “the city Shushan was perplexed.”
8 “And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a
certain people
scattered abroad
and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of
thy kingdom; and
their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they
the king’s laws:
therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.”
There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed. It
is not always borne in mind how large a part of the Jewish
nation remained
in the lands to which they had been carried away captive,
after the
permission had been given to return. Josephus notes that the richer and
more influential of the Babylonian Jews were very little
inclined to quit
scarcely to be distinguished from Jews, were settled in Rhages
and
dispersion of the Jewish people. Their laws are diverse.
A true charge,
but a weak argument for their destruction, more especially
as the Persians
allowed all the conquered nations to retain their own laws
and usages.
Neither keep they
the king’s laws. Important, if true.
But it was not true
in any broad and general sense. There might be an
occasional royal edict
which a Jew could not obey; but the laws of the Medes and
Persians were
in the main righteous laws, and the Jews readily observed
them. They were
faithful and loyal subjects of the Achaemenian monarchs
from first to last
from Cyrus to Darius Codomannus. For the king’s profit.
Rather, as in
the margin, “meet” or “fitting for the king.” To suffer them. Or, “to let
them alone.”
A People Scattered and Apart (v. 8)
This very remarkable language shows us that the Jews have
been one and
the same people for thousands of years. This description of
the Jews is from
the lips of an enemy; still, except in the last clause, it
is just and true. In their
captivity in the East, in their dispersion, in their
present condition throughout
Christendom, the Jews are a people by themselves, scattered
and apart.
like no other people, and
wherever their lot is cast, they do not intermingle
with the population.
Ø
They are distinguished
by their peculiar physiognomy.
Ø
By their homelessness
and dispersion.
Ø
By the national
customs and observances practiced among them.
OCCASION.
Ø
They have been looked
upon as opposed to the interests and welfare
of states. How often have
ministers of state and prelates of the
Church aroused the hatred
of princes against the Hebrew race.
“It is not for the king’s profit to suffer them!”
Ø
They have consequently
met with scorn, oppression, and persecution.
What a disgraceful history is
that of the Jews scattered throughout
Christendom! That the nation has
survived such persecutions is a
proof of the inherent vitality
of the race, and a proof of the
superintending providence
of the God of all the nations of the
earth.
ISOLATION. It is an
evidence of a special purpose of God. It is a
fulfillment of prophecy. It is a
witness to the truth of Christianity.
Ø
We should regard the
Jewish people with deep interest.
Ø
We should use all
feasible means to bring the Jews to the Messiah.
He that
scattereth will gather them.
The
Infant lips sometimes utter greatest truths. Shallowest
brain sometimes
originates most politic scheming. Swine root out and tread
underfoot
pearls of unpriced value. Bad men often preach good
doctrine, Now “the
Jews’ enemy” (v. 10)
volunteers the highest description, the most
complimentary characterization, of the Jew. And this
passage proffers for
notice a contrast not only full as remarkable in the depth
of it as any of
these, but far more remarkable when its subject matter is
also taken into
account. It might be stated thus: A PEOPLE’S RELIGION RIGHTLY
DESCRIBED, AND WRONGLY
CONSTRUED, by one who was none of
them, and
who had none of it. The case is that of a man
bearing witness
against a people and their religion; he is at the same time
a willing and an
unwilling witness; his words are true; the meaning he
wishes to be drawn
out of them is untrue. His indictment is verbally correct;
the charge he
launches out by means of it has no foundation of fact. His
description is
good for what it says, bad for what it means. And by chance
it happens to
be so good for what it says that it tempts the
thoughtful reader to pause, to
ask whether he cannot learn a lesson of value from it.
Haman dares a
description of the nominal people of God; is he not in
truth unconsciously
throwing off a telling description of the real people of
God, of God’s real
Church in the world? For this plain, brief description of
the people to
whom Mordecai belonged, which Haman now offers to the credulity
of
Ahasuerus, happens to seize three leading facts distinctive
of the Church of
God. Nor is it altogether to be assigned to the realm of
chance. The fact
was that, shaded though their race was now, dimmed though
their glorious
history, the people of Mordecai were the separate
people of God, and that
Haman had noticed and scrutinized their essential
peculiarities. These
peculiarities, false as is the gloss he puts upon them, he
has in some degree
correctly caught. These are the shadows of answering realities
in the
economy of the Church, the
For whatever may be its exact
position at any given hour of the world’s
clock:
Ø
Its genius is towards generalization.
“There
is a certain, people…
in all, the provinces
of thy kingdom.”
Ø
Its genius is towards
being “scattered abroad,” “dispersed,”
intermingled “among
the people.” Once for a short time, and
for the special need of preparatory
education, it is true that God’s
elect people were locally
as well as morally separate from others,
i.e. when they sojourned in the wilderness. But this was only a
phase,
and a transient one, of
their national existence. Again, for a longer
time, and with fonder
prospect, they dwelt in comparative seclusion
in their own land. But this
also was quite as transient a phase of
their national life, taking
into consideration the settlement there.
What a business it was! And
the true place of the people
of God is not merely to find a
settlement and found a colony
everywhere, but to mix among men, and to seek health of every
sort in work and
fidelity, rather
than in retirement and the enfolding
of self. And this actual contact with all the varieties of human
character, position, life, is in
order to
two ends:
o
first, for the proof and
the growth of individual goodness;
o
secondly, for the gradual leavening with a little leaven of the
whole lump.
Ø
Its genius is
towards working its way among men, day and night, and
growing into
their affection and confidence, rather than summoning
them to capitulate
either to fear or to admiration.
Their special laws are, and are
to be, “diverse from all people” who are not
of themselves. And when these clash with any other, they are not to “keep
the king’s laws,” but to keep their own distinguishing and esoteric laws
(Acts 4:19; 5:29). To know well,
to do well, these “diverse laws” is
the
sustained aspiration of the
variety, and there is, and is to
be, on the part of the
close union of all its own
members, by one common fellowship, by
obedience to one
common code of laws, by acknowledgment of one
standard Bible
authority, amid all their intermixture, in every conceivable
relationship, with all the rest of the world and “the kingdoms of the world.”
The genuine, hearty, living
obedience of a thousand, of a hundred persons
to “laws diverse from all people” is an
enormously strong link of
connection among themselves,
and an
enormously significant testimony to
the outside
world of SOMETHING SPECIAL AT WORK! If we as
Christian people rose to this
conception, to the eager veneration of it, to the
hearty practice of it, what a
witness ours would be! Meantime Haman’s
allegation
against the certain people scattered abroad that while their own
laws were
diverse from all people, they did not keep the king’s laws — was
untrue. Mordecai had indeed withheld obedience to the law which “the
king had commanded” (v. 2), that “all the king’s servants in the king’s
gate should bow and reverence Haman,” and his non-obedience was no
doubt covered, by his fealty to
the “diverse
laws;” but this was by no means
enough to cover a charge
against all the Jews, or even against Mordecai in
his general conduct and life.
The
the lead and command of “laws
diverse from all people,” to claim the
ultimate appeal as lying
always to these; and in any conceivable case of
option to decide in one moment for obedience to God rather than to men.
apprehension was perhaps not
very genuine, and any way was premature,
but his instinct in the real matter
at issue was only too unerring and correct.
The
people,” with their diverse laws, and their first heed given to them
—
beyond a doubt has its
eye on all other kingdoms, is not what those other
kingdoms would now think “for their profit,” is destined to absorb them,
gives evidence of that destiny
as a very intention in those same
manifestations of its genius,
and in its appeal to the unseen, and in its first
obedience thereto. Oh for the time when the chorus shall indeed open,
“The kingdoms of
this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of
His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)
9 “If it please the king, let it be written that
they may be destroyed:
and I will pay ten
thousand talents of silver to the hands of those
that have the
charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s
treasuries.” This startling
proposition, to which the
king might well have demurred, for even Xerxes could
scarcely have
regarded such a massacre as a light matter, is followed
immediately, and
before the king has time to reflect, by the tempting offer
of such a bribe as
even a king could not view with indifference. Xerxes had
once, if we may
trust Herodotus, declined to accept from a subject a gift
of money equal to
about four and a half million of pounds sterling (Herod.,
7:28); but this was
early in his reign, when his treasury was full, and he had
not exhausted his
resources by the Greek war. Now, in his comparative poverty,
a gift of
from two to three millions had attractions for him which
proved irresistible.
To the hands of
those that have the charge of the business. Not
the
business of the slaughter, but the business of receiving
money for the king,
i.e. the royal treasurers.
To bring it. i.e. “for them to bring
it,” or pay it,
“into the royal treasuries.” On the multiplicity of the
royal treasuries see
the comment on Ezra 7:20.
10 “ And the king took his ring from his hand, and
gave it unto Haman
the son of
Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy.”
The king took his
ring from his hand. Rather, “took his
signet from his hand.”
This may have been a ring, for signet-rings were
known to the Persians, but is perhaps more likely to have
been a cylinder,
like that of Darius, his father, which is now in the
(‘Ancient Monarchies,’ vol. 4. p. 182). And gave it unto Haman. Thus
giving him the power of making whatsoever edicts he
pleased, since
nothing was requisite to give authority to an edict but the
impression of the
royal seal (see Herod., 3:128). For similar acts of
confidence see ch.8:2;
Genesis 41:42. The
Jews’ enemy. Rather, “persecutor.”
11 “And the king said unto Haman, The silver is
given to thee, the
people also, to do
with them as it seemeth good to thee.”
The silver is
given thee, the people also. Not “the silver
which thou hast given me is given back to thee,” for the
10,000 talents had
not been given, but only offered. Rather, “the silver of
the people is given
thee, together with the people themselves, to do with both
as it pleases
thee.” Confiscation always accompanies execution in the
East, and the
goods of those who are put to death naturally escheat to
the crown, which
either seizes them or makes a grant of them. Compare ch.
8:11, where the
property of those of the Jews’ enemies who should suffer
death is granted
to those who should slay them.
12 “Then were the king’s scribes called on the
thirteenth day of the
first month, and
there was written according to all that Haman had
commanded unto the
king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that
were over every
province, and to the rulers of every people of
every province
according to the writing thereof, and to every
people after their
language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it
written, and sealed
with the king’s ring.” Then were the king’s scribes called.
“Scribes” (in the plural) are spoken of as attending on Xerxes throughout the
Grecian expedition
(Herod., 7:100; 8:90). Such persons were always near at hand
in the palace, ready to draw up edicts. On the thirteenth day of the first
month. It is conjectured that Haman cast his lots on the first
day of the
year (Berthcau), as an auspicious time for taking anything
in hand, and
having obtained a thirteenth day for the massacre,
adopted the same
number as probably auspicious for the necessary appeal to
the king. Having
gained the king s consent, he sent at once for the scribes.
The king’s
lieutenants. Literally, “the king’s satraps.” The actual Persian
word is
used, slightly Hebraised. And to the governors.
The word used has been
compared with pasha (Stanley), and again with beg or
bey, but is probably
distinct from either. It designates a provincial governor
of the second rank - one
who would have been called by the Greeks ὑπροσατρἀπης – huposatrapaes.
The number of these subordinate officials was probably much
greater than that
of the satraps. And
to the rulers of every people.
i.e. the native
authorities — the head men of the conquered peoples, to
whom the Persian
system allowed a considerable share of power. In the name of king
Ahasuerus was it
written. All edicts were in
the king’s name, even when
a subject had been allowed to issue them. See the story of
Bagseus in
Herodotus (iii. 128), where the edicts, of which he alone
was the author,
have the form of orders from the king. And sealed with the king’s ring.
Or “signet” (see note on v. 10).
In vs. 8-12, consider that the thoughtless and
self-indulgent become an easy
prey to the suggestions of the wicked. The king of
trap of Haman. He accepted his report without
investigation, and delivered over
to his will the Jews and their possessions. His
proclamation, ordering the
destruction of all the men, women, and children belonging
to the Jewish race,
was soon on its way to the authorities of every province in
the empire. Ponder
that thoughtlessness, or a foolish confidence, does not
relieve men of
responsibility for the consequences of their actions. There is, perhaps, more
misery caused in the world by want of thought than by evil
intention. We
are bound to consider the quality and issues of our
conduct, and to
examine carefully the counsel of others before committing
ourselves to it.
It will not diminish our responsibility to say that we acted
without thought,
or from an inconsiderate trust in designing men. The royal
seal
appropriated to the king the terrible iniquity of
Haman. (I recommend
Isaiah 1 – Spurgeon Sermon – To the Thoughtless – this website – CY – 2014)
13 “And the letters were sent by posts into all the
king’s provinces, to
destroy, to kill,
and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and
old, little
children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth
day of the twelfth
month, which is the month Adar, and to take the
spoil of them for a
prey.” And the letters
were sent by posts. The Persian
system of posts is
thus described by Xenophon, who attributes its introduction
to Cyrus: — “Stables for horses are erected
along the various lines of route,
at such a distance one from another as a horse can
accomplish in a day. All
the stables are provided with a number of horses and
grooms. There is a
post-master to preside over each, who receives the dispatches
along with
the tired men and horses, and sends them on by fresh horses
and fresh
riders. Sometimes there is no stoppage in the conveyance
even at night;
since a night courier takes up the work of the day courier,
and continues it.
It has been said that these posts outstrip the flight of
birds, which is not
altogether true; but beyond a doubt it is the most rapid of
all methods of
conveyance by land” (‘Cyrop.,’ 8:6, § 17). To destroy, to kill, and to
cause to perish. The writer quotes from the edict, which appears to have
had as many surplus words as a modern English law paper. Young and
old, little
children and women. “To take the
father’s life and spare the
child’s” was thought to be an act of folly in ancient
times. Wives and
children of criminals were, as a matter of course, put to
death with them.
This was anciently even the Jewish practice (Joshua 7:24-25;
II Kings 9:26;
14:6), and was quite an established usage in
The thirteenth day. The Septuagint has “the fourteenth day” in its
professed copy of the decree, but confirms the Hebrew text
here by making
the thirteenth the actual day of the struggle (ch.9:1). The
fourteenth and fifteenth are the days now kept by the Jews;
but it is
suspected that an alteration has been made in order to
assimilate the Purim
to the passover feast, which began on the 14th of Nisan.
14 “The copy of the writing for a commandment to be
given in every
province was
published unto all people, that they should be ready
against that day.” The exact
import of this verse is uncertain. Some suppose it
to be a mere heading to a copy of the
decree, which was originally inserted in
the text between vs. 14 and 15. In this case the
translation should be:
“A copy of the writing for giving commandment to every
province,
published to all peoples, that they should be ready against
that day.”
15 “The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s
commandment,
and the decree was
given in Shushan the palace. And the king and
Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed.”
The posts went
out, being hastened. Though there was
ample time, since the remotest part of the empire could be
reached in a
month, or two at the most, yet the posts were “hastened,” Haman
being
impatient, lest
the king should change his mind, and decline to publish the
edict. The king may himself also have wished to have the
matter settled
past recall. The
king sat down with Haman to drink. This touch seems
intended to mark their hardness of heart. As Nero “fiddled
while
burning,” so these two, having assigned a nation to
destruction, proceeded
to enjoy themselves at “a banquet of wine.” But the city of
perplexed. The Jews had enemies in
bulk of the inhabitants being Persians, and so
Zoroastrians, would be likely
to sympathise with them. There might also be a widespread
feeling among
persons of other nationalities that the precedent now set
was a dangerous
one. Generally the people of the capital approved and
applauded what.
ever the great king did. Now they misdoubted the justice,
and perhaps even
the prudence, of what was resolved upon. The decree threw
them into
perplexity.
Life Contrasts (v. 15)
“And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city
Shushan was
perplexed.” Here
is indeed a pair of pictures to look at — the subjects very
different. They are not a pair of pastoral scenes, nor of
family groups
related, nor are they of sympathetic historical sort. But a
pair they certainly
are; as such they are hung, and they bear out the position,
for one strictly
and directly rises out of the other. The one shows two
figures, as of men,
sitting in a palace drinking. If we are to judge anything
from their attitude
and their occupation, their minds are perfectly at ease,
and they are happy.
The figures are life-size, and lifelike. The countenances,
however; scarcely
improve by dwelling upon. Very quickly the too
plainly-marked impress of
the Eastern aristocrat’s effeminacy,
and excessive luxuriousness, and
unrecking pride of heart dispel the faintest suggestion that their apparent
ease and happiness have any of the higher elements in them.
We recognize
in the men types of self-indulgence, even if it should
prove nothing worse.
The other picture shows a city in miniature, in broken,
disconnected
sections, interiors and exteriors together. The eye that is
sweeping it turns
it into a moving panorama. Whatever it is that is seen, an
oppressive,
ominous stillness seems to brood over it. An unnatural
stoppage of
ordinary business is apparent. The market, the bazaars, the
exchange, the
heathen temple, the Jews’ meeting-place) and in fact every
place where
men do congregate, seems in a certain manner stricken with
consternation.
The faces and the gestures of the people agree therewith.
These, at all
events, betoken anything but peace and content and
happiness. They give
the impression of a
“perplexity” rapidly inducing stupor,
and a stupor
ominous of paralysis itself. One malignant thought of Haman
was
answerable for all this. He had of late been obeying with
completest self-
surrender his worse genius; that was about the only self-surrender
he
practised or knew. His one malignant thought, the thought
of “scorn,”
had
rapidly ripened into determination, shaped into place and
method, been
clothed in the dress of consummate policy, and sealed with
the signet of
royal ring (v. 10). That thought, so wrought up, was now
sent forth,
“hastened by the king’s commandment,” to a thousand cities and corners of
the whole realm. Its publication made in Shushan the
palace, and to the
same hour “the king and Haman sat down to drink; but
the city Shushan
was perplexed.” We
have here:
Ø
A leading instance of
the glaring disproportions of human fortune and
circumstance. In closest
juxtaposition are found, on the one hand, two
men, sated with ease and all
they can ask. On the other, a city, a whole
city, throbbing with all the
most various life, but — condensed into this
brief description — “perplexed.”
These are, as matter of fact, the two
experiences of human life found
in the same place on the same day, at the
same hour; and they are the
result of what we should be generally content
to call human fortune. Is it
such contrarieties as these, that can subsist side
by side; and is it not the
irresistible conclusion that either human life is the
sport of the arbitrary and the
mockery of the malign; or that human fortune
is but an earthly phrase for a
with which all is to be
trustfully left, for that it will ere long give account
and require account? Once
satisfied of this, a heathen poet has taught us
the words, Permitte coetera
Deo.
2. A leading instance
of the disproportion of human rights and powers.
One might almost be tempted to call it a violent instance
of an intolerable
anomaly. But in various ways, in more subdued form, by
removes far more
numerous, and the contrasts accordingly far less striking,
we can see this
violent case to be but a plain case of what
permeates the structure of
human society. Yet ponder the facts here. There are
thousands upon
thousands whose life, humanly speaking, is not in their own
hands; and
there are two in whose hands those lives are! This disproportion
must
dwarf every other. Compared with it, that of possession, of
education) of
brain, of opportunity, of genius, of position and birth
must seem small
matters. For life holds all the rest. Like a vessel, for
the time it contains all
The aggregate of humanity is the history to a tremendous
extent of an
aggregate of vicariousness. The tangle human fingers cannot
undo. Out of
the labyrinth human wisdom cannot guide itself. One hand
alone holds the
thread, one eye alone commands the bird’s-eye position and
view. But in
all we must remember these two conclusions: first,
that the vicariousness
counts sometimes for unmeasured help, and advantage, and
love; secondly)
that it were better far to be of the “perplexed city” and
the jeopardised
Jews than to be either of those two men “who sat down to
drink” after
what they had done. Who would buy their position to pay the
price of their
responsibility? Who would accept all their possessions at
the risk of using
them as they did?
1. A leading instance
of the attitude in which a bad conscience will suffer a
man to place himself; the exact opposite of that for which
conscience was
given, the exact opposite of that which a good conscience
would tolerate.
The very function of conscience may be impaired, may he a
while ruined.
See its glory departed now. Haman now is a leading instance
of the
satisfaction which a bad conscience shall have become able
to yield, of the
content a bad
conscience will in the possibility of things provide. He has
actually filled up the measure of his iniquities (as
appears very plainly), and,
worse by far than Judas, whose conscience sent him to hang
himself, he
“sits down to drink” with his king!
2. A leading instance
of the destruction of the tenderest relic of perfect
human nature. For in the last analysis we must read here, the
extinction of
sympathy! It is true
there may have been left with the man who could do
what Haman did sympathy with evil, and yet rather with the
evil; sympathy
with the gratuitous causing of woe and the causers of woe.
But this is not
what we dignify with the name sympathy. This sweet word,
standing for a
sweeter thing, has not two faces. Its face is one, and is
aye turned to the
light, to love, to the good. ‘Tis a damning fact indeed
among the
possibilities and the crises of human nature, and of the
“deceitful and
desperately wicked” human heart, when sympathy haunts it no
more, has
forsaken it as its habitat, hovers over it no
longer, fans the air for it with its
beneficent pinion for the last, last time! Oh for the
Stygian murkiness, the
sepulchral hollowness, the pestilent contagion that
succeeds, and is
thenceforward the lot of that heart! The point of supreme
selfishness is
reached when all sympathy has died away. For those whose
terrible woe
himself had caused, it is Haman who has less than the least
pity, and no
fellow-feeling with them whatever! The lowest point of loss
which our
nature can touch here is surely when it has lost the calm
energy of
sympathy — to show it or to feel it. The proportion in
which any one
consciously, and as the highest achievement of his base
skill and prostituted
opportunity, either causes unnecessary woe or leaves it
unpitied, unhelped,
measures too faithfully the wounds and cruel injuries he
has already
inflicted on the tenderest of presences within him, the
best friend to himself
as well as to others. The wounds of sympathy are at any
time of the deadly
kind, and it only needs that they be one too many, when at
last she will
breathe out her long-suffering, stricken spirit! For him
who is so forsaken it
may well be that “he sits down to drink.” For the knell is
already heard, and
“to-morrow
he dies.”
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.