It appears that Haman was given a promotion, Esther 3:1, although we’re not told why; maybe he stood out from everyone else. Haman was an Agagite, an Amalekite, Esther 3:1, and some believe that since his father is called Agagite, he may have been a direct descendant of King Agag, who was the king that King Saul was supposed to kill but didn’t, 1 Samuel 15:9.
One of the honours Haman received was that the people were to kneel to him and pay him honour, Esther 3:2. To the Persians, this was the same as paying honour to a god. Haman loved this because he loved feeling powerful and important, but notice, however, that Mordecai refused to bow down to him, Esther 3:2.
Although Haman didn’t notice, his servants noticed, and they confronted Mordecai about it daily, Esther 3:3-4. Mordecai listened to them and said, The reason he wouldn’t bow to Haman was that he was a Jew, Esther 3:4.
We must note that there’s nothing in the law of Moses that would keep him, a Jew, from paying respect to the authority of another, Genesis 18:2 / Genesis 23:7 / Genesis 43:26 / Exodus 18:7 / 2 Samuel 16:4, but to bow down to someone and pay honour to them as a god would be idolatry. It’s also important to remember that the Amalekites were the ancient enemies of the Jews, Exodus 17:14-16.
Clarke, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The Targum says that Haman set up a statue for himself, to which everyone was obliged to bow, and to adore Haman himself. The Jews all think that Mordecai refused this prostration because it implied idolatrous adoration. Hence, in the Apocryphal additions to this book, Mordecai is represented praying thus: ‘Thou knowest that if I have not adored Haman, it was not through pride, nor contempt, nor secret desire of glory, for I felt disposed to kiss the footsteps of his feet (gladly) for the salvation of Israel but I feared to give to a man that honour which I know belongs only to my God.’
After Haman had been told about Mordecai’s refusal to bow down, he started watching, and sure enough, he wasn’t bowing down, and this made Haman angry, Esther 3:5, but he wasn’t going to take out his vengeance on Mordecai alone.
He comes up with a devious plan to take out the entire Jewish population, Esther 3:6. Haman despised the Jews because he was a descendant of the King Agag, 1 Samuel 15:8 / 1 Samuel 15:33.
Because Israel had the mandate from God to destroy all the Amalekites because of their mistreatment of Israel immediately after the nation came out of Egyptian captivity, Exodus 17:8 / 1 Samuel 15:2-3. Haman came up with a plan to do the same for them.
In other words, his plan of revenge was for his forefathers. This shows us the real character of Haman; his pride caused him to hate Mordecai and all those like him, Proverbs 16:18.
The event recorded here happened around March and April, 474 B.C., Esther 3:7. The casting of lots, the pur, Esther 3:7, was common practice for the Persians to determine when to do certain things; here, they are used to determine the date to kill all the Jews.
The casting of the lots determined that the twelfth month would be the time of the massacre, Esther 3:7. This was eleven months from the time they cast the lots. The long delay between the first month and the month of massacre against the Jewish people was ordained by God, Proverbs 16:33.
Haman is obviously confident that he could persuade the king to sign this decree because he cast the lots for the Jews’ death before he went to the king. Notice that he carefully chooses his words and makes it appear that the Jews had their own laws that they followed and that they wouldn’t follow the king’s law, Esther 3:8.
This was a partial truth because the Jews had no problem following most of the king’s laws. The only part that they wouldn’t follow was the part which would force them to violate God’s law, such as bowing down to someone or something as a god.
Haman now proceeds to offer to pay ten thousand talents of silver, which would go into the king’s treasury to pay those who take care of this dirty deed, Esther 3:9, in order that it doesn’t drain the king’s money. This was almost two-thirds of the annual income of the Empire from taxes and tribute.
This tells us that Haman was a very wealthy man, or as some commentators suggest, he planned on raising this money from the Jews’ property after they were dead.
Barnes, in his commentary, says the following.
‘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 million gold darics, or about four and one-half pounds.’
The king thought this was a great idea, and so, he gave over his signet ring to Haman, Esther 3:10, which gave him the authority to carry out his fiendish scheme.
We might wonder why the king would agree with this plot, but when we remember the background to what has just happened to Xerxes, it would make sense.
He’s just back from a humiliating defeat by the Greeks. If there were any kind of threat of rebellion within his Empire, then he would want to squash it as quickly as possible.
Notice that the king refused the silver and allowed everything to be done by Haman, Esther 3:11. Although we’re not told why he didn’t take the money, it’s possible that the king wanted all this to fall on the shoulders of Haman. This, however, wouldn’t get the king off the hook because he would still be associated with the massacre of the Jews, since he allowed it to happen.
We read about how the killing of Jews was announced, the scribe wrote the decree, Esther 3:12, and it was sealed by the king’s ring, Esther 3:12. The signet ring was designed in a way that a stamp could be made on decrees, and the stamp made the decrees official.
In giving the ring to Haman, the king was surrendering the sovereignty of the Empire to Haman to carry out his plot. After this, they had the decree sent to all the provinces of the kingdom, Esther 3:13, over one hundred and twenty-seven of them, Esther 1:1.
The decrees say that not only were the Jewish men to be killed but women and children were to be killed as well, Esther 3:13 / Esther 4:16. Their property was to be plundered, Esther 3:13.
Clarke, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Thus, whoever killed a Jew had his property for his trouble! And thus the hand of every man was armed against these miserable people. Both in the Greek version and in the Latin the copy of this order is introduced at length, expressing ‘the king’s desire to have all his dominions in quiet and prosperity but that he is informed that this cannot be expected, while a certain detestable people are disseminated through all his provinces, who not only are not subject to the laws, but endeavour to change them and that nothing less than their utter extermination will secure the peace and prosperity of the empire and therefore he orders that they be all destroyed, both male and female, young and old.’
The property being plundered gives credibility to the idea that Haman would come with the ten thousand talents of silver from the Jews, Esther 3:9. The text doesn’t tell us if Haman suggested this in his discussions with the king, or if this was the king’s idea but we do know that the vast amount of silver the Jews possessed was going to be seized by Haman, ten thousand silver talents were going to be given to the state.
While Haman was happy with his plan, Esther 3:13-14, and sat down and enjoyed a drink with the king, the city of Susa, the capital of Persia was confused by this whole matter, Esther 3:15. Although the people were confused, we know that God wasn’t about to let this happen, especially when we think the Messiah would come from the Jews.
Barnes, in his commentary, says the following.
‘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 sympathise 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.’