Esther 3
3:1-6 This section is a critical part of the narrative that introduces the last protagonist in the story (Haman) and the conflict that now dominates the narrative (threat to the Jews). The initial incident that sparked the conflict was Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman. A Jewish person was not forbidden by Scripture or cultural custom to bow down to a person in authority, but Mordecai, who presumably bowed down to the king and to other officials, repeatedly (vv. 2-4) refused to bow down to Haman. One of the most plausible explanations for Mordecai’s refusal relates to Haman’s name: Haman . . . the Agagite. While Mordecai was possibly from the line of King Saul (see 2:5-7 and note there), Haman was a descendant of Agag (1Sm 15:8-33), the leader of the Amalekites. King Saul’s disobedience in sparing King Agag (1Sm 15:8-9) resulted in Samuel’s announcement that the Lord had taken the kingdom away from him and by extension his descendants (1Sm 15:27). Possibly this ancient enmity explains Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman the Agagite.
3:7 The Pur appears to derive from the Akkadian term puru meaning a “lot” or “fate.” Presumably Haman wanted his astrologers or diviners to pick the most propitious date to launch his vengeance against Mordecai and his people. The month that was identified by lot was the month of Adar (normally March-April).
3:8-9 Haman cleverly began his presentation to Ahasuerus by starting with the truth (There is one ethnic group, scattered throughout the peoples) and ending with a lie (they do not obey the king’s laws). His offer to give the crown 375 tons of silver to pay for an empire-wide extermination may have encouraged Ahasuerus, whose coffers had been depleted by the war with the Greeks. The magnitude of the gift is apparent if one uses Herodotus’s estimation of the income of the Persian king; such a gift from Haman would represent over half of the annual income of the Persian Empire. Yet it appears that the king may have refused the offer (v. 11), although both Mordecai and Esther assumed the king accepted it (4:7; 7:4).
3:10-11 Haman’s request was granted by Ahasuerus, who gave him his signet ring, used by the king to put his official wax seal on a state document. With that ring, Haman had the power to carry out his planned extermination. Ahasuerus’s almost casual endorsement was chilling in its consequences. King Ahasuerus never even bothered to ask the identity of the ethnic group that Haman planned to destroy. The money . . . given to you may indicate that the king refused Haman’s offer of “375 tons of silver” (v. 9).
3:12-15 The instructions were clear: all young and old, women and children were to be destroyed, killed, and annihilated (v. 13). The terrible decree was to be executed eleven months later, on the thirteenth day of Adar. Critics charge that such a decree that would be implemented almost a year later is ludicrous, since people would have had ample time to flee. But the Jews were dispossessed exiles whose lives depended on the king’s good pleasure. Had they picked up to flee, undoubtedly the genocide would have been triggered early, for their fleeing would have been seen as an attempt to evade the king’s decree.
The picture of Haman and the king drinking and congratulating themselves on their solution to the problem of the Jews contrasts with the disposition of the city. The impression is that the people in Susa were not in favor of the decree nor did they share Haman’s rabid anti-Semitism.
