Ester 3: 1 – 15
It’s Not Nice To Confuse The Saints
1 After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and set his seat above all the princes who were with him. 2 And all the king’s servants who were within the king’s gate bowed and paid homage to Haman, for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai would not bow or pay homage. 3 Then the king’s servants who were within the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you transgress the king’s command?” 4 Now it happened, when they spoke to him daily and he would not listen to them, that they told it to Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s words would stand; for Mordecai had told them that he was a Jew. 5 When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow or pay him homage, Haman was filled with wrath. 6 But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him of the people of Mordecai. Instead, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus—the people of Mordecai. 7 In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur (that is, the lot), before Haman to determine the day and the month,fn until it fell on the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar. 8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from all other people’s, and they do not keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain. 9 If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.” 10 So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. 11 And the king said to Haman, “The money and the people are given to you, to do with them as seems good to you.” 12 Then the king’s scribes were called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and a decree was written according to all that Haman commanded—to the king’s satraps, to the governors who were over each province, to the officials of all people, to every province according to its script, and to every people in their language. In the name of King Ahasuerus it was written, and sealed with the king’s signet ring. 13 And the letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their possessions. 14 A copy of the document was to be issued as law in every province, being published for all people, that they should be ready for that day. 15 The couriers went out, hastened by the king’s command; and the decree was proclaimed in Shushan the citadel. So the king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Shushan was perplexed.
To start off today’s study I want to highlight two verses. They are as follows;
1 Thessalonians 2: 4, “But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts.”
2 Timothy 2: 15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Now before I mention my reasons for starting out with these verses, I want to ask you to consider this question – Have you ever played the game of passing on a statement to a group of people? It is called ‘Chinese whispers’.
Chinese whispers (or telephone in the United States[1]) is a game played around the world,[2] in which one person whispers a message to another, which is passed through a line of people until the last player announces the message to the entire group. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly, and often amusingly, from the one uttered by the first. Reasons for changes include anxiousness or impatience, erroneous corrections, and that some players may deliberately alter what is being said to guarantee a changed message by the end of the line.
The game is often played by children as a party game or in the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumors or gossip spread,[1] or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection or even oral traditions.
As the scriptures reveal in which I have quoted there is a great responsibility to those entrusted to teach God’s Holy Word. I see a new thing going on which I believe is not right. Pastor’s are taking other preacher’s tapes and written sermons then just delivering them as if they put together the teaching themselves.
As a pastor I am happy to let anyone take my sermons and use them for whatever messages they want to teach others. However, I do think that they should also make sure that everything is correct in the teachings that they are using.
Like the example of Chinese Whispers I have witnessed someone take another person’s teaching then give the message out which have some theological inaccuracies. The incorrect message then gets into circulation and then many others just copy the incorrect information. Still confused?
Well, in today’s teaching I am sure if you have ever heard a teaching on the book of Ester then you may have heard an inaccurate teaching which has been promulgated by numerous teachers many of which are well known and respected.
3.1 ‘After these things king Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him.’
It was quite normal for ancient kings to have favorites, and to appoint them to positions of supreme authority. And that is what Ahasuerus (Xerxes) did to Haman. As we have seen he came from the region around Media and would therefore be approved of by the Medo-Persian aristocracy. It has been suggested that his name was derived from the Elamite god Hum(b)jan. Elam was in the same general area as Agagi. His father’s name, Hammedatha, possibly means ‘given by the moon’. (Neither connects with Amalek). We should not be surprised at the connection of names with gods (or build theories on it), for such was commonplace. Compare how Daniel and his three friends were given names connected with gods.
So Haman was advanced and given an exalted position above all the aristocracy of Medo-Persia. He was made second only to the king, and a decree had been put forth by the king that he should be ‘worshipped’. That this meant more than simple obeisance comes out in that it had to be established by decree. In general, obeisance before the Grand Vizier would be automatically assumed. But here something extra was being asked for that went beyond normal submission. Mordecai probably considered that, whilst not necessarily claiming to be a god, Haman was seeking godlike honors.
In the book of 1 Samuel chapter we see this bible reference which is inaccurate in its analogy. The teaching is as follows:
1 Samuel also said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”4 So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed. 10 Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night. 12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal.” 13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed are you of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD.” 14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” 15 And Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Be quiet! And I will tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” And he said to him, “Speak on.” 17 So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel? 18 Now the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.” 22 So Samuel said: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.” 24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD. 26 But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.” Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.
Ministers use this bible reference because of the name Agag. They have heard other teachings that say because Saul was not obedient in killing Agag, that his descendent now will attempt to wipe out the Israelites. Have you ever heard of this reference in someone else’s teaching?
Why is Haman called ‘the Agagite’? There is in fact no good reason for connecting this idea that he was an Agagite with the Amalekite king Agag (Numbers 24.7; 1 Samuel 15.8 ff). That king’s descendants, if there were any, would not have been called Agagites. They would rather have been called Amalekites. And besides Agag was probably a throne name like Pharaoh and Abimelech, not a family name. Furthermore the description Agagite is not found in Scripture prior to this. And it is equally significant that LXX did not see it in that way for they found the term difficult, either omitting it or translating it as bougaios (in 3.1; 9.10 - meaning unknown, but possibly ‘bully, braggart’ or ‘court official’) or ‘the Macedonian’ (ho Makedon - 9.24). They therefore also clearly did not connect it with Agag. They connected it with a part of the Macedonian empire. The supposed connection with Agag came much later with Josephus (over 400 years later), with the Targums and with later Jewish tradition, at a time when history had become the plaything of the exegetes.
Rather then we should probably connect Haman with Agagi, which was the name of an area associated with Media, and which had become part of the Persian Empire. Agagi (Agazi) was previously mentioned in an Assyrian inscription of Sargon II. We note that Haman’s sons had typically Persian names. The rather glib assumption that Haman was an Amalekite should be seen as what it is, an attempt to build up something from a coincidence. It has no real evidence to support it. It has rather been used so as to suggest that Esther is nothing but a good story, partly based on the ancient rivalry between Saul and Amalek.
It is true that Mordecai’s great grandfather was called Kish, as was Saul’s father, and that it was Saul who led Israel against the Amalekites whose king had the throne name of Agag. It is vaguely possible that the author had this in mind, and saw it as an interesting coincidence. But if so he does nothing to draw out a lesson from it. That was left to the later theorists. Kish was in fact a popular Benjamite name. This is just one of a number of coincidences in the book. What the contrast between Mordecai the Jew, and Haman the representative of the Persian Empire, brings out is the age long contest between the people of God and the world in its pride.
I want to say one last thing for you to think about. If you go on your computers and look up the time line for king Saul you will find that it was around 1019 BC when Saul and Agag interacted. Now take a look at the time Ester was made Queen of Persia and you will find that is was around 473 BC. The Amalekites were already wiped out as a nation. So, there would not have been any king Agag during Ester’s lifetime.
3.2 ‘And all the king’s servants, who were in the king’s gate, bowed down, and did reverence to Haman, for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down, nor do him reverence.’
These were the high ups of the empire who in service to the king would be ‘in the king’s gate’, available for his summons. Seemingly they would gather each day within the huge gateway of the palace so as to be ready for the king’s pleasure. They were to be always available. The huge gateway would provide a place of shade from the hot sun, and no doubt their needs were catered for by servants. Even these great men did reverence to Haman when he passed through, prostrating themselves before him in full homage at the king’s command. But this went beyond what Mordecai was prepared to do. He was presumably perfectly prepared to humble and prostrate himself in the normal way. He would certainly have had to do so before the king, and probably before the seven nobles. But what he was not prepared to do was offer what he saw as the equivalent of worship. Thus while he no doubt acknowledged Haman’s high position by giving him due honor, (otherwise Haman would have noticed him earlier), what he would not do was give him the equivalent of worship. He may well have had in mind the noble three who had refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image of gold (Daniel 3).
3.3 ‘Then the king’s servants, who were in the king’s gate, said to Mordecai, “Why do you transgress the king’s commandment?”
The difference between his obeisance and that of the other king’s servants was noticeable enough for attention to be drawn to it. So as responsible officials the ‘king’s servants, challenged Mordecai as to why he was disobeying the kings direct decree. The fact that once they had done this they did not immediately have him arrested and impaled suggests that Mordecai must have been a man of sufficient authority to require careful handling. A commoner would have received short shrift. They were seemingly prepared to consider his feelings, and to recognize that he may well have had special permission for his behavior. They were wary about what they did to one of the ‘king’s servants’.
It is unfortunate that we do not know what his defense was. Quite possibly he pointed out that what was being required went beyond what was what should be offered to a mere man, and that it therefore went beyond what a Jew could offer on the grounds of his religion.
3..4 ‘And it came about, when they spoke daily to him, and he did not listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand, for he had told them that he was a Jew.’
It is apparent that the ‘king’s servants’ (high officials) went to a great deal of trouble over the matter. They reasoned with him daily seeking to persuade him to fulfill the requirements of the kings decree, rather than summarily bringing him to justice. This would again seem to indicate that he held a very important position. But he countered by explaining to them that he was a Jew, presumably arguing that as such he could not disobey the second commandment of the Jew’s covenant with God as listed in the book of Exodus 20.4-6, a central feature of his religion which says, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
In view of the fact that cringing submission was a regular feature of life in those days, this may signify that Jews had been given special concessions, as they would be later by the Romans, and that Mordecai was depending on those concessions. (This would help to explain Haman’s reaction as he revealed his vindictiveness, not only against Mordecai, but against the whole Jewish race. And it would explain why he so disliked their laws - verse 8). Or alternatively it might indicate the extreme nature of Haman’s requirements. Thus his behavior was not without parallel. If this is so, it once again introduces into the story in veiled form the very essence of Yahwism, the seeing of Him as the only true God.
3.5 ‘And when Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down, nor do him reverence, then was Haman full of fury.’
It would appear that Haman was unaware of Mordecai’s attitude until the matter was brought to his attention by the high level officials. This would suggest that Mordecai did fulfill what he saw as the proper courtesies, and that this was sufficient to make his behavior not appear to be too outlandish, otherwise he would have been spotted immediately. What he refused to do was participate in the excesses. That this was so comes out in that he lived where he did. Had he refused all submission he would simply not have survived. He would have been executed long before. They were not tolerant days.
On learning that Mordecai refused the full submission that he required Haman was ‘furious’. Furthermore when Mordecai’s explanation was made known to Haman, that Jews did not worship men, that fury became aimed at the Jews as a whole. He saw their attitude as a personal insult to himself.
3.6 ‘But he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had made known to him the people of Mordecai, for which reason Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.’
This possibly caused Haman to make enquiries about the Jews and what he learned clearly incensed him. What was known of them was made known to him. Here were a people who as a whole would not be willing to submit to his whims because of their strange religious laws, a people who in their captivity would nevertheless not fully bow down to their conquerors because they worshipped the living God. We know from later that he was pretty well a megalomaniac, for he sought royal honors for himself with a view to his own exaltation (6.1 ff). So this attitude would have appeared to him as beyond reason. How dared they hold this view? It was clear to his eyes that such people had to be exterminated. He was a good example of extreme megalomania. How he would go about destroying them will now be described.
He may well, of course, not have known just how many Jews there were in the empire, nor of their resettlement in Palestine. What he was out to remove were a people whose foolish ideas meant that they would not pay to him the obeisance that he required. That was why they had to be exterminated. Note the emphasis on ‘the people of Mordecai’. They were associated with Mordecai’s attitude.
While his attitude might appear extreme it was not without precedent in the Medo-Persian Empire. Forty years earlier at the accession of Darius, there had been a deliberate attempt to annihilate the Magi as a race, whilst prior to that Cyaxares and the Medes had invited the Scythians, whose depredations had proved troublesome, to a great feast, and there massacred them all after they were drunk. Wholesale massacre does not appear to have caused the Medo-Persians any problems. Life was cheap. We can also compare how
Haman, obsessed with his idea, casts sacred lots to determine when the annihilation of the Jews would take place, possibly prior even to approaching the king. He had no doubts that he would be able to persuade the king. And the lot fell on a date in the last moon period of the year. This gave almost a whole year before the plot could be carried out. But like all the people of his day, he felt totally bound by the will of the gods, and would not therefore have dared to carry out his plan sooner. In their view to have done so would have been to court disaster. It should be noted here that no indication is given by the author, of the religious sentiment that caused this approach. He excludes all reference to religion, whether Jewish or Persian. But the whole of society in those days was controlled by religious ideas, and any reader would assume them.
Haman then set about persuading the king of the rebellious nature of the Jews. This was not difficult in view of their past history and the way in which they insisted on carrying out the Torah and associated traditions in the face of their neighbors, including the observance of the Sabbath. It could be represented as setting them at odds with the empire and its gods. And to the king this would appear heinous. He was constantly aware of peoples who fermented revolution against his empire. He had just had to crush the Egyptians. So the thought of seething rebellion among a group spread throughout the empire would have been too much. And he relied on his advisers. It is apparent, however, that he had ceased to enquire carefully into such situations (in contrast with 1.13-15). H had ceased to rule on his own initiative. He too was probably not aware of quite how large a number of people would be involved. Nor would he probably have cared. But once he had made the decree there was no going back on it.
3.7 ‘In the first moon period, which is the moon period Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from moon period to moon period, to the twelfth (moon period), which is the moon period Adar.’
Haman probably chose the New Year as being the propitious time at which to determine a date for the massacre of the Jews. It was the time at which, at least according to the Babylonian religion, the gods also come together to fix the fate of men. And it left the whole of the coming year available for the selection of a propitious date. Accordingly in that initial moon period he summoned before him the wise men skilled in determining portents and called on them to determine the date fixed on by the gods. This was done by the casting of ‘pur’, that is, of dice or lots, and it appears that in doing this they worked through the year day by day and moon period by moon period until they came to the twelfth moon period, which is the moon period Adar. It was only in this last that the lot gave a propitious date satisfying to the gods, the thirteenth day of the moon period Adar (verse 13). To us it might appear absurd to wait that length of time once the decree had been issued, but to the ancient oriental mind to go against the determinations of the gods would have been even more absurd. Fate (the gods) had determined the date, and to act against it would be to court disaster. Outwardly the Jews are seen as in the hands of Fate, but that is a major point of the book, that in fact they were watched over by One Who controlled ‘fate’. Pur was overruled by the God of Purim.
A year in ancient times was made up of twelve moon periods (28-29 days in length) with a thirteenth added every few years in order to bring the seasons into line. Israel’s year initially began with the moon period of Abib (Exodus 13.4), but during the exile, after a period in which moon periods had been distinguished numerically (‘the first moon period’, e.g. Ezra 6.19), they altered the name of the first moon period to Nisan (Babylonian Nissanu) in accordance with the Babylonian pattern (Nehemiah 2.1).
Our Precious Holy Spirit lists this statement, ‘In the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus.’ This is four to five years after Esther had become queen (2.16).
‘They cast ‘pur’, that is, the lot.’ The remarkable discovery of a kind of cube shaped dice from Assyria actually inscribed ‘puru’ has helped to vindicate the writer in this regard. It is true that this particular dice came from the time of Shalmaneser III of Assyria, but the use of such means to determine ‘the will of the gods’ was commonplace in the ancient Near East, as indeed with Israel. Thus ‘pur’ would appear to have been derived from ‘puru’ meaning ‘a lot’. Discoveries at Shushan have to some extent confirmed this, for on that site a cube shaped dice was found on which were engraved the numbers one, two, five and six, presumably for use in divination. Such means were regularly used to discover the most propitious date on which to engage in certain activities, and were the equivalent of the Jewish method of ‘casting lots’. A possible good example of this latter was the Urim and Thummim in the High Priest’s breastpouch. Indeed archaeological research has demonstrated that as early as the 19th century BC the word puru’um occurred in Assyrian texts in the sense of a ‘lot’ or ‘die’, and was regularly found in association with the word ‘to throw’
3.8 ‘And Haman said to king Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered abroad (or ‘separated’) and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of every people; nor do they keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not to the king’s advantage to put up with them.”
Having determined on the destruction of the people whom he recognized would be unwilling to offer him the obeisance that he required (and thus possibly encourage others to do the same), Haman now had to persuade the king. And he set about this by playing on the king’s constant fear of rebellion in the empire. It is noteworthy that he did not mention the identity of the people whom he was aiming to destroy, rather hoping that the king would not ask too many questions. At the same time he portrayed the Jews as an incipiently rebellious people. Their history had shown this to be so, while Jewish continuing insistence on obedience to the Torah and what were seen as their resulting strange ways, regularly aroused people’s opposition to them, and no doubt the anger of local authorities. Haman cleverly played on their known peculiarities. It was not difficult to build up from this a conspiracy theory depicting an unnamed people (the Jews), who kept themselves separate from others, and had infiltrated the empire, as a people plotting against the empire.
Note how he underlines the fact that they could be found everywhere throughout the empire (‘in all the provinces’) engaged in their seditious activity. And how they had their own laws which superseded those of the king, so that they were already disobedient to the king’s laws, and thus already latently in rebellion. It was clearly not to the king’s advantage to allow such behavior to continue. These were, of course, exaggerations, but there was enough truth in them to make them feasible. Being constantly dependent on his advisers, and inherently antagonistic towards insurgents, there would be no difficulty in persuading the king that the quicker the matter was dealt with the better. But even the king should not have allowed these words to pass without enquiry.
3.9 “If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have the charge of the king’s business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.”
Haman added to his argument the financial benefits that would accrue to the empire. He guaranteed spoils of at least ten thousand talents of silver, a huge sum in modern terms, which would accrue to the king’s treasury, as a consequence of the destruction of this unnamed people. That the sum was to come from the spoils, and not from Haman’s own resources, is confirmed by the fact that in verse 11 the king speaks of the silver as to be ‘given to Haman’.
3.10 ‘And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy.’
It is noteworthy that the king responded to Haman without seeking to his advisers for guidance. In chapter 1, in the case of Vashti, he had sought counsel from his wise men on the basis of the past and the will of the gods in accordance with custom (1.13). In chapter 2 he had sought counsel from his personal attendants (2.2, 4). Now he acted without enquiry on the basis of the vague information given to him by Haman. There is a clear diminution in his sense of responsibility. He has become a tool in the hands of Haman. Thus without any examination into the matter he accepted the vague assurances of Haman and gave Haman the ring from his finger with which to seal the decree which would be issued by Haman. It was a complete abdication of responsibility. Note the description of Haman as ‘the Jew’s enemy’. The king is seen as neutral. It is Haman who is their enemy. But Haman could not have achieved his aim had Ahasuerus been more vigilant. For as 1.13 makes clear, ‘it was the king’s custom to consult with experts in matters of law and judgment’. And in this case this is what he failed to do.
‘‘And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite.’ The solemn and official nature of this act is brought out by Haman being given his full title. No other would have the right to use it except the one defined.
3.11 ‘And the king said to Haman, “The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you.”
The king revealed his total apathy by putting everything into Haman’s hands. Haman must do as seemed good to him. The king was not thereby handing over the money to Haman, but simply leaving him to deal with it honestly (4.7 indicates that most of it would go into the king’s treasury). Had Haman kept all the money he would soon have experienced the king’s anger. Ahasuerus’ point was that he was trusting Haman to do the right thing, both with the errant people and with the spoils. But by this he was failing in his duty towards his people. Ahasuerus is clearly seen to be at fault.
3.12 ‘Then the king’s scribes were called in the first moon period, on the thirteenth day of it, and there was written in accordance with all that Haman commanded to the king’s satraps, and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according to their script, and to every people in accordance with their language. In the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and it was sealed with the king’s ring.’
As a consequence of the authority given to him Haman called together the king’s scribes together with a view to the writing of an edict against the Jews. This was accomplished on the thirteenth day of the first moon period, the moon period of Nisan. And in that edict was written all that Haman purposed to do against the Jews, ‘to destroy, to slay and to cause to perish all Jews’, whether men, women or children. The edict was sent as a command to the king’s ‘satraps’ (derived from a Persian word), who presided over the satrapies, and to the governors over each of the provinces, and to all the chiefs of the peoples, and to all the people, copies of it being translated into their own language.
Please take note of ‘In the first moon period, on the thirteenth day of it.’ No Jew could fail to recognize that at the deliverance from Egypt this was the day before the night of deliverance on the 14th of Nisan. Haman possibly chose the date because it was on the thirteenth day of the twelfth moon period that the edict would be carried out. God chose it because it was a reminder to His people of approaching deliverance.
3.13 ‘And letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth (day) of the twelfth moon period, which is the moon period Adar, and to take their spoil from them for a prey.’
Letters were sent by relays of fast horsemen to all the king’s provinces. Their content was unequivocal. No Jew was to be spared. Men, both young and old, little children, and all Jewish women were to be annihilated. Notice the threefold description indicating intensity and certainty. They were to be ‘destroyed -- slain -- and caused to perish’. The work was to be done thoroughly, and their goods were to be taken as spoil on behalf of the king. The words reflect the intensity of Haman’s hatred. And this was to be done on the day chosen by lot, the thirteenth day of the twelfth moon period.
It should be noted how difficult was the position of the Jews. No doubt they would seek to defend themselves. But even by doing so they would be committing treason, thereby demonstrating the accuracy of Haman’s depiction of them and heaping even greater wrath on them. They would be accountable for every man they killed, especially those carrying out official duties. They could, of course, flee the empire. Haman might not have minded that, for then they would provide no opposition or insult to him. But they would have had to leave most of their wealth behind, and would forever have been fugitives. Their prospects were gloomy indeed.
3.14 A copy of the writing, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that they should be ready against that day.’
The letters sent out indicated that the king’s decree for the annihilation of the Jews should be given out in every provinces to ‘all the peoples’ so that preparations might be made for its fulfillment in each province on the propitious day. All were to be in readiness to carry out the king’s decree on that day. ‘
3.15a ‘The posts went forth with speed by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given out in Shushan the palace.’
The king’s postal messengers sped on their fast horses in every direction, at the king’s command, carrying the king’s decree, just as they had previously done in the case of the disgracing of Vashti (1.22). And as would be expected the decree was given out in the palace area itself.
3.15b ‘And the king and Haman sat down to drink. But the city of Shushan was perplexed.’
The king and Haman were totally undisturbed by what they had done. They ‘sat down to drink’. They were sublimely unconcerned. (This was necessarily put in such a way that the write could not be accused of actually criticizing the king). But the people of the city were not undisturbed. They were disturbed and perplexed. They could not understand why this terrible thing was going to be done. At least in the capital the feelings were not anti-Jewish.
Take a look at what our Great God Almighty thinks about man’s plans as revealed in Psalm 33: 10, “The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect”
In closing I want to share with you from the book of Proverbs chapter 6 some truths which I know you can see happening in our study of the book of Ester;
12 A worthless person, a wicked man, walks with a perverse mouth; 13 He winks with his eyes, he shuffles his feet, he points with his fingers; 14 Perversity is in his heart, he devises evil continually, he sows discord. 15 Therefore his calamity shall come suddenly; Suddenly he shall be broken without remedy. 16 These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.
