Estherchapter 3
15 verses · KJVEsther book hub →
Key verse
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.
It stands in scene A of the chapter, verses 1 to 6.
The chapter
Chapter summary
Haman the Agagite is promoted above all the princes, and all the king's servants bow to him: 'but Mordecai bowed not down, nor did him reverence.' Told that Mordecai is a Jew, Haman is filled with wrath and scorns to lay hands on him alone: he seeks to destroy every Jew in the kingdom. Pur, that is the lot, is cast month by month and falls on Adar. His pitch to the king is a masterpiece of insinuation ('There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples… and their laws are diverse from those of every people'), with ten thousand talents offered for the treasuries. The posts ride out, and 'the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed.'
Context
History · Mordecai · Esther overview
Where the chapter sits
Esther 3 falls in The queen and the plot (chapters 1–4). Vashti deposed; Esther chosen; Mordecai uncovers the assassination plot; Haman's rise and his genocidal edict; ‘for such a time as this.’
Haman's edict. The lot cast; the genocidal edict written in the king's name.
After it: The reversal, chapters 5–7.
The whole shape of Esther→The world behind this chapter
Esther 3The history
Haman is called an Agagite, and Mordecai is a Benjamite descended from Kish. Every Jewish hearer caught that instantly. Agag was the Amalekite king Saul son of Kish was ordered to destroy and spared, and the Amalekites were the people who attacked Israel's stragglers in the wilderness. This is not two officials clashing over protocol; it is the last round of a feud that started centuries earlier.
The rest of the history, and what it meant to them
Bowing to a superior was ordinary Persian courtesy, not worship, so refusing it was not a religious duty as such, which is why the text ties the refusal to Mordecai telling them he was a Jew. He was taking a stand on ancestry, and Haman answered in kind by going after the whole people rather than the one man.
The lot Haman casts is called by its Persian name, pur. It was a physical object, small cubes and pyramids of inscribed clay used to pick dates and duties. One from Assyria survives with the word for 'lot' written on it, and it names the year its owner's turn came round. Haman throws it in the first month and it falls on the twelfth, handing his enemies eleven months of warning; a superstitious man takes that as the gods' timing.
The offer of ten thousand talents of silver is staggering, and hearers who knew the empire would have felt it. Herodotus lists the yearly tribute of the whole Persian empire at under fifteen thousand talents, Haman is offering roughly two-thirds of imperial revenue, presumably to be recovered from the property of the dead. The decree then travels by the royal courier system to every province in its own script and language, which is exactly how Persian administration is known to have worked.
What it meant to them
For the first hearers this was not ancient history. Their people had lived under an execution order before, and would again. The chapter names the machinery precisely: a grudge, a bribe, a signet ring pressed into clay, and a whole nation scheduled for death by administrative routine while the king and his favourite sit down to drink.
The date is the sting. The killing is set for the thirteenth of Adar, and the lot that chose it gave the Jews almost a year. The book does not say who guided the die. It does not have to.
Sources cited
- Herodotus, The Histories
- John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament
- Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible
A. Mordecai will not bow, and Haman is full of wrath
1. (vv. 1-2)
a.Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite: Haman rises without explanation, promoted and advanced above every prince at court, and the narrator gives him one word that carries the chapter’s whole weight before it says anything else: the Agagite. Five times this name recurs in the book (3:1, 3:10, 8:3, 8:5, 9:24), the same title Samuel’s Agag carried at 1 Sam 15, and the servants at the gate bow to him as commanded while Mordecai alone does not. The house of Kish faces the house of Agag again, and the book has already told the reader who each man is.
Esther 3:1, 3 voicesWhat preachers and commentators have said about this verse, in their own words.
Esther 3:1
“The name, Haman, is probably the same as the Classical Omanes, and in ancient Persian, “Umana”, an exact equivalent of the Greek “Eumenes.” Hammedatha is perhaps the same as “Madata” or “Mahadata”, an old Persian name signifying “given by (or to) the moon.” The Agagite - The Jews generally understand by this expression “the descendant of Agag,” the Amalekite monarch of 1 Sam. 15. Haman, however, by his own name, and the names of his sons Est 9:7-9 and his father, would seem to have been a genuine Persian.”
Esther 3:1
“After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman . . . set his seat above all the princes--that is, raised him to the rank of vizier, or prime confidential minister, whose pre-eminence in office and power appeared in the elevated state chair appropriated to that supreme functionary. Such a distinction in seats was counted of vast importance in the formal court of Persia.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown· Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Esther 3:1
“Agagite - An Amalekite of the royal seed of that nation, whose kings were successively called Agag. All the princes - Gave him the first place and seat, which was next to the king.”
John Wesley· Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Esther 3:2, 3 voices
Esther 3:2
“The king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate - By servants here, certainly a higher class of officers are intended than porters; and Mordecai was one of those officers, and came to the gate with the others who were usually there in attendance to receive the commands of the king.”
Adam Clarke· Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Esther 3:2
“And that a Jew should deny this honour, is not strange, seeing the wise Grecians did positively refuse to give this honour to the kings of Persia themselves, even when they were to make their addresses to them: and one Timocrates was put to death by the Athenians for worshipping Darius in that manner.”
John Wesley· Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Esther 3:2
“I wonder what the king saw in Haman that was commendable or meritorious; it is plain that he was not a man of honour or justice, of any true courage or steady conduct, but proud, and passionate, and revengeful; yet was he promoted, and caressed, and there was none so great as he.”
Matthew Henry· Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
2. (vv. 3-4)
a.Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?: The king’s own servants press Mordecai daily, asking why he transgresses a commandment they themselves obey without question, until he tells them he is a Jew. The readings on his refusal are named without a verdict: many of the bench read a settled, inherited enmity with Amalek that a Benjamite of Saul’s line could not set aside, while others read a Jew’s ordinary refusal to give a man the reverence due to God alone. The servants report it to Haman out of curiosity rather than malice, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand, and the answer arrives in the next verse.
Esther 3:3, 1 voice
Esther 3:3
“Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate,.... Observing the behaviour of Mordecai towards Haman from time to time: said unto Mordecai, why transgressest thou the king's commandment? of giving reverence to Haman, which they knew he could not be ignorant of.”
Esther 3:4, 1 voice
Esther 3:4
“Whether Mordecai’s matters would stand - Rather, “whether Mordecai’s words would hold good” - whether, that is, his excuse, that he was a Jew, would be allowed as a valid reason for his refusal.”
3. (vv. 5-6)
Esther 3:5-7
a.then was Haman full of wrath: Haman’s wrath at one man’s refusal becomes a plan against a whole people, too small a target for him to lay hands on Mordecai alone once he learns Mordecai’s people. The lot, Pur, is cast before Haman in Nisan, the first month, and falls on the twelfth month, Adar, eleven months distant, an outcome the text records without comment on how or why the die fell so late. The commentators set Prov 16:33 beside the casting, the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD, and note that the eleven months the lot grants become the very room in which every later deliverance has time to happen.
Esther 3:5, 2 voices
Esther 3:5
“And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence,.... For, after the information given him, he observed and watched him, to see whether he bowed and did him reverence or not: then was Haman full of wrath; exceedingly displeased and angry; it was such a mortification to him he could not bear.”
Esther 3:5
“It is soon resolved that Mordecai must die. The head must come off that will not bow to Haman; if he cannot have his honours, he will have his blood. It is as penal in this court not to worship Haman as it was in Nebuchadnezzar's not to worship the golden image which he had set up.”
Matthew Henry· Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Esther 3:6, 2 voices
Esther 3:6
“To destroy all the Jews - In the East massacres of a people, a race, a class, have at all times been among the incidents of history, and would naturally present themselves to the mind of a statesman. The Magophonia, or the great massacre of the Magi at the accession of Darius Hystaspis, was an event not then fifty years old, and was commemorated annually. A massacre of the Scythians had occurred about a century previously.”
Esther 3:6
“Scorn - He thought that vengeance was unsuitable to his quality. Destroy - Which he attempted, from that implacable hatred which, as an Amalekite, he had against them; from his rage against Mordecai; and from Mordecai's reason of this contempt, because he was a Jew, which as he truly judged, extended itself to all the Jews, and would equally engage them all in the same neglect.”
John Wesley· Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
B. The lot is cast, and a people's life is priced at ten thousand talents
1. (v. 7)
Esther 3:7, 3 voices
Esther 3:7
“In the first month ... - i. e. in March or April of 474 B.C. “Pur” is supposed to be an old Persian word etymologically connected with the Latin “pars”, and signifying “part” or “lot.” The practice of casting lots to obtain a lucky day still obtains in the East, and is probably extremely ancient. A lot seems to have been cast, or a throw of some kind made, for each day of the month and each month of the year. The day and month which obtained the best throws were then selected.”
Esther 3:7
“Wherein appears likewise both his implacable malice, and unwearied diligence in seeking vengeance of them with so much trouble to himself; and God's singular providence in disposing the lot to that time, that the Jews might have space to get the decree reversed.”
John Wesley· Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Esther 3:7
“He that believeth the lot, much more that believeth the promise, will not make haste. But see how God's wisdom serves its own purposes by men's folly. Haman has appealed to the lot, and to the lot he shall go, which, by adjourning the execution, gives judgment against him and breaks the neck of the plot.”
Matthew Henry· Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
2. (vv. 8-9)
a.a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed: Haman’s case to the king is built on half-truths dressed as policy: a people scattered and dispersed, laws diverse from every other people, a refusal to keep the king’s laws, therefore no profit in letting them live. He never names the people, and the king never asks, agreeing to a destruction he has not troubled himself to identify. Ten thousand talents of silver is offered to the king’s treasuries, a sum the commentators reckon among the largest named in the ancient world, buying a decree with money that will, by the book’s own reversal, end in Mordecai’s hands instead.
Esther 3:8, 1 voice
Esther 3:8
“Their laws are diverse from all people - Such they certainly were; for they worshipped the true God according to his own laws; and this was not done by any other people then on the face of the earth.”
Adam Clarke· Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Esther 3:9, 2 voices
Esther 3:9
“Ten thousand talents of silver - According to Herodotus, the regular revenue of the Persian king consisted of 14,560 silver talents; so that, if the same talent is intended, Haman’s offer would have exceeded two-thirds of one year’s revenue (or two and one-half million British pound sterling). Another Persian subject, Pythius, once offered to present Xerxes with four millions of gold darics, or about four and one-half pounds.”
Esther 3:9
“This, he thought, would be a powerful inducement to the king to consent, and would obviate the strongest objection against him, which was that the government must needs sustain loss in its revenues by the destruction of so many of its subjects; so great a sum, he hoped, would be equivalent for that.”
Matthew Henry· Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
3. (vv. 10-11)
a.gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy: The king takes his ring from his own hand and gives it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy, the narrator’s own naming of him now fixed for the rest of the book. With the ring goes the silver and the people both, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee, an abdication of judgment as much as of jewelry. Wesley reads the king’s carelessness as the chapter’s real villain alongside Haman’s malice, a throne that will sign what it never reads.
Esther 3:10, 3 voices
Esther 3:10
“And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy. As a token of his affection for him, and a mark of honour to him; with the Persians (w) for a king to give a ring to anyone was a token and bond of the greatest love and friendship imaginable; and it may be this was given to Haman, to seal with it the letters that were or should be written, giving order for the destruction of the Jews.”
Esther 3:10
“The king took his ring - In this ring was no doubt included his privy seal, and he gave this to Haman, that when he had formed such a decree as he thought fit, he might seal it with this ring, which would give it its due force and influence among the rulers of the provinces. The privy seal of many of our sovereigns appears to have been inserted in their rings; and the seals of Eastern potentates were worn in rings upon their fingers.”
Adam Clarke· Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Esther 3:10
“Miserable is the kingdom that is at the disposal of such a head as this, which has one ear only, and a nose to be led by, but neither eyes nor brains, nor scarcely a tongue of its own.”
Matthew Henry· Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Esther 3:11, 2 voices
Esther 3:11
“And the king said unto Haman, the silver is given unto thee,.... The 10,000 talents of silver Haman proposed to pay into the treasury were returned to him, or the king out of his great munificence refused to take them: the people also, to do with them as seemeth good unto thee; that is, the people of the Jews; he gave him full power to do with them as he thought fit, and who breathing revenge upon them, would not spare them.”
Esther 3:11
“The silver is given to thee - Some understand this to mean that Xerxes refused the silver which Haman had offered to him; but the passage is better explained as a grant to him of all the property of such Jews as should be executed Est 3:13.”
C. The posts ride out while the king and Haman sit down to drink
1. (vv. 12-13)
a.the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month: The king’s scribes are called on the thirteenth day of the first month, Nisan, and write out Haman’s plan in every province’s own script and every people’s own language, sealed with the king’s ring rather than his own hand. The decree that follows is precise where Haman’s speech to the king was vague: to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, the thirteenth of Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey. Keil notes the decree’s date matches the lot’s own fall from 3:7, Haman’s chance selection now made state law.
Esther 3:12, 3 voices
Esther 3:12
“Unto the king’s lieutenants - אחשדרפני achashdarpeney. This is in all probability another Persian word, for there is nothing like it in the Hebrew language, nor can it be fairly deduced from any roots in that tongue. The Vulgate translates ad omnes satrapas regis, to all the satraps of the king.”
Adam Clarke· Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Esther 3:12
“Then were the king's scribes called . . . and there was written--The government secretaries were employed in making out the proclamation authorizing a universal massacre of the Jews on one day. It was translated into the dialects of all the people throughout the vast empire, and swift messengers were sent to carry it into all the provinces.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown· Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Esther 3:12
“No crime is laid to their charge; it is not pretended that they were obnoxious to the public justice, nor is any condition offered, upon performance of which they might have their lives spared; but die they must, without mercy.”
Matthew Henry· Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Esther 3:13, 1 voice
Esther 3:13
“Present, the Jews keep three days - the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th of Adar - as connected with “the Feast of Purim;” but they make the 13th a fast, commemorative of the fast of Esther Est 4:16, and keep the feast itself on the 14th and 15th of Adar.”
2. (vv. 14-15)
a.was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day: The copy of the writing goes out to every province, published for all people to be ready against the day of destruction, while posts ride hastened by the king’s own commandment. The chapter closes on a frame the narrator does not explain: the king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city Shushan was perplexed, two clauses set side by side without comment, a throne room’s calm against a city that already senses what its rulers have just signed away. The silence that will not name God through the whole book opens here with a silence about a city’s own grief, left to the reader to hear.
Esther 3:14, 1 voice
Esther 3:14
“The copy of the writing, for a commandment to be given in every province, was published unto all people,.... Not only letters were sent to the governors, but a copy, or the sum of the contents of them, was published by heralds, or stuck up as with us, in various places, that it might be publicly known by the common people everywhere: that they should be ready against that day; and fall upon the people of the Jews, and slay them, and seize on their goods as a prey.”
Esther 3:15, 2 voices
Esther 3:15
“Shushan was perplexed - Susa was now the capital of Persia, and the main residence of the Persians of high rank. These, being attached to the religion of Zoroaster, would naturally sympathize with the Jews, and be disturbed at their threatened destruction. Even apart from this bond of union, the decree was sufficiently strange and ominous to “perplex” thoughtful citizens.”
Esther 3:15
“This cursed method many take to drown their convictions, and harden their own hearts and the hearts of others in sin. The city was very sad upon it (and the other cities of the kingdom, no doubt, when they had notice of it): The city Shushan was perplexed, not only the Jews themselves, but all their neighbours that had any principles of justice and compassion.”
Matthew Henry· Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Threads running through this chapter
- The war with AmalekPattern, v. 1
The text of this chapter
This page carries no textual note on Esther 3. Where this site has examined a place the manuscripts differ, the examination is in the manuscripts room. Every place this site examines →
This page draws on 9 works. Open for the list.
This page draws on Adam Clarke; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments (1832-1869); Jamieson Fausset and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871); John Gill; John Wesley; Keil, The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; Matthew Henry and W. F. Adeney, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (Expositor's Bible).
Keep studying
On this page
Studies4
On this book