Bible Commentaries
Esther 6

Verses 1-13

The Plot of Haman (3:1-6:13)

The stage having been set with the advancement of Esther to a position of privilege and importance, the story now moves to the central issue: the struggle between the would-be persecutors, typified in Haman, and the Jewish people, typified in Mordecai. It is probable that Haman’s typical and symbolic character is indicated by his identification as "the Agagite." The traditional understanding of this term, and the most likely, is that it refers to the Agag who was a king of the Amalekites, whom Saul was commanded to destroy (1 Samuel 15). The identification is fitting in view of the fact that Mordecai is a descendant of "Kish," the father of Saul (Esther 2:5). It should be noted also that the Amalekites were traditional enemies of the Israelites (see, for example, Numbers 24:20). The author of Esther thus exemplified in Haman the type of opposition which the Jews had had to face in the ages past and which they were again facing from some quarter at the time the Book of Esther was written.

This Haman, promoted to the position of premier, or vizier, a position in which he was to be accorded honor and respect from all, is informed that Mordecai, a Jew, refused to join in the universal signs of submission. The text suggests that Haman shared in the ancient, blind antagonism of the Amalekites, for his enmity was directed not only against the one man but against the entire Jewish people, whose destruction he plans.

The date for the execution of Haman’s plot is set by lot, and from the Persian word for "lot" the author of Esther derives the name of the Jewish festival of Purim. The phrase "month after month" probably means that those in charge of such procedure went through the months, one by one, until the lot fell on a particular one, and then the same procedure was followed for the days. Thus the twelfth month, Adar, was selected and "the thirteenth day" (Esther 3:13) for a general slaughter of the Jews, "a certain people" whose "laws are different." Haman’s offer of ten thousand talents is an outright bribe, but the amount is exaggerated, so much so that it is as though the author meant it to be understood as an exaggeration. The king’s remark in (Esther 3:11) does not mean that the money was returned to Haman; it is an indirect way of accepting the bribe. In (Esther 3:15) the author’s literary ability is evident as he contrasts the heartlessness of Haman and the indifference of the king with the concern of the people of Susa, where Jews and non-Jews alike are thrown into consternation by the decree.

Although direct references to God are lacking in the Book of Esther, and although there is throughout the book a seeming disregard for some of the ritual requirements of Judaism, it is yet apparent that a deep religious dimension is presupposed in the background. Thus, in chapter 4 Mordecai’s mourning and Esther’s request for a fast are to be understood as expressions of their religious faithfulness. Esther’s hesitance to assume the role Mordecai urged upon her is natural and also intensifies the drama, for the author thus makes it clear that the queen went into real danger in spite of her fears, rather than without fear (see also Esther 4:16). The anticipation of help "from another quarter" (Esther 4:14, literally "place") is often taken as an oblique reference to God. If this be true it is the single such reference in the book, although here as elsewhere the activity of God is presupposed. At any rate, the focus of the story is upon the heroine, the human agency through whom, by a combination of almost incredible circumstances, the Jews are to be saved. She is the one who had "come to the kingdom for such a time as this."

In the longer Greek version with its more obvious religious concern, prayers by Mordecai and Esther are inserted at this point. Although by this device the orthodoxy of the book and of its chief characters is indicated, it must be admitted that thereby the story loses in dramatic power.

The dramatic element is now developed by a series of incidents. Esther, who had succeeded in gaining an audience with the king, inexplicably postpones making her request, setting first one banquet and then another. Haman, meanwhile, is described — in terms which magnify his prosperity and power — as moving directly to the public execution of Mordecai. (The specification of a gallows fifty cubits high, that is, about seventy-five feet, is another example of deliberate exaggeration by the author.) The suspense finally is brought to a climax as the king belatedly and apparently accidentally comes to recognize Mordecai’s part in saving his life and the fact that the deed has gone unrewarded.

The story at this point begins to turn from tragedy to triumph. First Haman is forced to prescribe royal honors for the one he intends to kill, and Mordecai is given the tokens of royal favor. That this is the beginning of the end is indicated by the remark of Hainan’s advisers that if Mordecai is one of the Jews then Haman will fail in his purpose of destroying him (Esther 6:13). This reversal of their preceding advice (Esther 5:14) may be taken as the dramatic turning point of the book.

Verses 14-19

The Triumph of the Jews (6:14-9:19)

The climax having been passed, the story moves to its resolution with dispatch, the elements of suspense being now discarded. The last verse of chapter 6 introduces the denouement and does so appropriately by stressing the "haste" with which events begin to move. After the long postponement Esther’s request is made, in which she identifies herself with her stricken people. Although the meaning of (Esther 7:4) is not clear, it appears that Esther here plays on the idea of having been "sold" and the consequent loss or gain to the king. It may be that, as the last half of the verse indicates (understanding "would be" for "is"), she is boldly arguing that the destruction of the Jewish people would be not only a moral tragedy but actually a financial loss to the empire, far outweighing the bribe offered by Haman.

The extent of Haman’s involvement in inevitable punishment is emphasized by the next incident (Esther 7:7-8) where, as a result of another of the seeming coincidences which mark the story but which are obviously the working out of the divine purpose, Haman is caught in a compromising situation, his intent completely misunderstood, and his execution is ordered. (The phrase "they covered Haman’s face" may be a reference to a practice of so indicating a condemned man.) The final touch of ironic justice is, of course, the reminder of the immense gallows upon which the persecutor meets his deserved fate.

The reversal of the fortunes of the Jews is similarly exemplified in the story by the figure of Mordecai, who now takes Haman’s place as vizier and adviser to the king. When Esther again presents a petition to the king it is perhaps to be understood that Haman’s plot had not been completely thwarted. Consequently a new edict is prepared which provides that the Jews may "defend their lives" and as well "annihilate any armed force . . . that might attack them," and that the Jews may "plunder their goods" (Esther 8:11). As the decree is carried out by the usual Persian couriers there is recounted the exact reversal of the preceding mourning (Esther 8:15-17; see 3:15-4:3) and then the execution of the decree when, in a day of bloodshed, 500 inhabitants of Susa are slain (Esther 9:6). It appears that the author assumes that this massacre is in reaction either to lingering hostility of the kind typified by Haman or even to an outright attack by continuing enemies of the Jews. The account itself, however, does not emphasize the action of the Jews as self-defense but as legitimate retribution upon those whose intent it was to destroy the people of God.

The section closes (Esther 9:16-19) with a repeated account of the slaughter, extending it another day in the capital and including in it a tally of the total slain (the number is considerably smaller in the Greek version). This section probably was intended to explain the fact that observance of the Feast of Purim varied from the fourteenth of Adar to the fifteenth of Adar. Verse 19 identified the variation as presumably a matter of residence in rural or urban areas.