Esther Chapter 3

Haman’s Conspiracy
A. Haman determines to destroy the Jews.

1. (Esther 3:1) Haman’s promotion.

“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.”

a. King Ahasuerus promoted Haman: The promotion of Haman immediately after the account of Mordecai’s unrecognized loyalty is striking. Mordecai had saved the king’s life, yet he received no reward at this time, while Haman, an ungodly and proud man, was elevated to the highest position beneath the king. This contrast highlights a recurring biblical principle, that God often allows wicked men to rise for a season in order to accomplish His greater purposes. Haman’s advancement was not an endorsement of his character, but a stage setting for the deliverance of God’s people and the exposure of human pride.

b. Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite: This description is theologically loaded and historically significant. Haman is identified as an Agagite, connecting him to Agag, king of the Amalekites. The Amalekites were Israel’s ancient and persistent enemies. “For he said, Because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” Exodus 17:16. The conflict between Israel and Amalek was not merely political, but covenantal. Saul, a Benjaminite like Mordecai, had failed to destroy Agag completely, an act of disobedience that cost him his kingdom. Haman’s lineage thus revives an ancient hostility, setting the stage for a renewed confrontation between Amalek and Israel, now embodied in Haman and Mordecai.

2. (Esther 3:2–3) Mordecai’s refusal to bow before Haman or to pay him homage.

“And all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman, for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?”

a. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence: Scripture elsewhere records instances where godly men bowed as a sign of respect or submission to authority without sin. “And Abraham ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground.” Genesis 18:2. “And Joseph’s brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth.” Genesis 43:26. Therefore, Mordecai’s refusal cannot be explained by a general prohibition against bowing to human authorities. Rather, Mordecai evidently discerned that honoring Haman in this way would compromise his conscience. Given Haman’s Agagite ancestry, Mordecai likely viewed such homage as honoring an enemy of God and of Israel, something a faithful Jew could not do.

i. A Benjaminite, whose tribe had once been commanded to destroy Amalek, would see Haman not merely as a Persian official, but as the embodiment of a long standing enemy of the covenant people. Mordecai’s refusal was therefore an act of faithfulness, not rebellion.

b. Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment: The text does not record a specific verbal decree requiring all to bow to Haman. It is likely that the command was implicit in Haman’s promotion and authority. In the Persian system, elevation to such rank carried expectations of reverence. Mordecai’s refusal therefore appeared as civil disobedience, though it was rooted in obedience to a higher moral and covenantal loyalty.

3. (Esther 3:4–6) The wounded pride of Haman drives him to seek retribution against Mordecai and all the Jews.

“Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand, for he had told them that he was a Jew. And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had shewed him the people of Mordecai, wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.”

a. When they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, they told Haman: Mordecai’s refusal was persistent, not momentary. Day after day he stood firm, unmoved by pressure from those around him. Only after repeated attempts to persuade him failed did the matter reach Haman. This reveals both Mordecai’s steadfastness and the test of whether his convictions would endure under scrutiny.

b. Then was Haman full of wrath: Haman’s reaction exposes the depth of his pride and insecurity. A truly secure man does not unravel because one person refuses him honor. Haman’s rage reveals that his sense of worth was entirely dependent upon universal admiration and submission. One dissenting Jew was enough to ignite murderous fury. Pride that demands constant validation inevitably turns violent when challenged.

c. He thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone: Haman’s response escalated beyond personal revenge. Learning that Mordecai was a Jew, Haman allowed his hatred to generalize. Rather than punishing one man, he resolved to annihilate an entire people. This is the logic of hatred when fueled by pride. Individual offense becomes collective guilt.

d. Haman sought to destroy all the Jews: This statement exposes the true nature of Haman’s heart. His anger against Mordecai uncovered a deep seated hostility toward the Jewish people as a whole. What began as wounded pride quickly revealed itself as genocidal hatred. This is not merely personal vengeance, but a satanic attempt to wipe out the covenant people through whom God had promised blessing to the world. The ancient conflict between Amalek and Israel resurfaces here in its most extreme form.

4. (Esther 3:7) Haman determines the exact date he will strike out against the Jews.

“In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar.”

a. They cast Pur: The word Pur is the Persian term for the lot. This practice was similar to casting dice and was commonly used in the ancient world to determine fate, timing, or divine will. From Haman’s pagan perspective, the outcome was left to chance or to the guidance of his gods. From the biblical perspective, the casting of lots never escapes the sovereign control of the one true God, who rules over every detail, even those that appear random to human eyes.

b. From day to day, and from month to month: The language suggests a careful, deliberate process, emphasizing how seriously Haman sought the most favorable date for his plan of destruction. Yet the result was not what Haman would have preferred. Though the lot was cast in the first month, the appointed time fell in the twelfth month, creating a long delay.

c. To the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar: This outcome meant that nearly eleven months would pass before the decree could be carried out. What appeared to be an arbitrary result was in fact an act of divine mercy. God sovereignly extended time, providing a window for events to unfold that would ultimately lead to the deliverance of His people.

i. This confirms the clear teaching of Scripture. “The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.” Proverbs 16:33. Though Haman believed he was securing destiny through pagan means, God was quietly governing the outcome. The delay was not accidental. It was ordained by God to accomplish His purposes.

B. Haman tells his plot to the king.

1. (Esther 3:8–9) Haman’s proposal to king Ahasuerus.

“And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom, and their laws are diverse from all people, neither keep they the king’s laws, therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them. If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.”

a. There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed: Haman deliberately avoided naming the Jews. By speaking vaguely, he reduced the likelihood that the king would scrutinize the proposal carefully. The statement itself was technically true, the Jews were scattered throughout the empire, yet it was framed to suggest danger and disloyalty where none existed.

i. This accusation was a calculated half truth, the most dangerous form of deception. The Jews did have distinct laws given by God, yet these laws did not make them rebels against Persian authority. To the contrary, Scripture repeatedly shows Jews serving faithfully in pagan governments. Mordecai himself had just demonstrated loyalty by saving the king’s life.

b. Neither keep they the king’s laws: This was a false charge. There is no evidence that the Jewish people as a whole were lawbreakers. Even Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman was not a violation of the law of God, but an act of personal integrity rooted in covenant loyalty. Haman’s inability to comprehend principled conviction reveals his own moral emptiness.

c. Therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them: Haman framed his hatred as concern for royal interest. This is a classic tactic of evil, presenting injustice as prudence and violence as necessity. By appealing to the king’s sense of order and profit, Haman disguised genocide as good governance.

d. Let it be written that they may be destroyed: With chilling simplicity, Haman proposed the total annihilation of an entire people. There is no hint of mercy, investigation, or proportional justice. This is bureaucratic murder, clothed in administrative language.

e. I will pay ten thousand talents of silver: This enormous sum amounted to a massive bribe. It was not generosity but theft in advance. The money would be obtained by plundering the property of the murdered Jews. Haman effectively offered to finance genocide through legalized robbery, knowing that the king would profit materially while remaining detached from the bloodshed.

This section reveals the full scope of Haman’s wickedness. What began as wounded pride matured into calculated extermination. Yet even here, God was not absent. The date was delayed, the plan would be exposed, and the very mechanism Haman trusted would become the instrument of his downfall.

2. (Esther 3:10–11) The king agrees to the plan.

“And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy. And the king said unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.”

a. The king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman: The signet ring represented the full authority of the Persian throne. By giving it to Haman, King Ahasuerus effectively delegated absolute power to him. Any decree sealed with this ring carried the same force as if the king himself had authored it. This act demonstrates the king’s carelessness and moral detachment. He entrusted irreversible authority to a man driven by pride and hatred without inquiry, investigation, or restraint.

b. The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee: This statement reveals the king’s astonishing indifference. He relinquished both the promised money and the fate of an entire people into Haman’s hands. It is likely that Ahasuerus did not grasp the full scope of what he authorized. He probably believed he was consenting to the removal of a small group of supposed agitators. His words show how easily power can be abused when rulers govern without moral clarity or concern for justice.

3. (Esther 3:12–15) The decree is published.

“Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring. And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey. The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day. The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given at Shushan the palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city Shushan was perplexed.”

a. Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month: The machinery of empire moved quickly. Once the signet ring was handed over, bureaucratic efficiency replaced moral consideration. The decree was translated into every language and distributed to every province, ensuring that no corner of the empire would be untouched by its command.

b. To destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day: The language of the decree is chilling in its thoroughness. No distinction was made between age, gender, or innocence. This was an empire wide authorization of genocide, scheduled for a single day. The specificity of the command underscores the calculated nature of the evil. It was not the result of chaos or war, but of deliberate administrative planning.

c. To take the spoil of them for a prey: The decree did not merely permit killing, it encouraged plunder. Greed was built into the command itself. By allowing the population to seize Jewish property, the decree incentivized participation and ensured widespread complicity. This reveals how quickly moral boundaries collapse when violence is rewarded materially.

d. The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment: The urgency with which the decree was delivered contrasts sharply with the indifference shown toward its consequences. Speed replaced wisdom. Authority replaced justice.

e. And the king and Haman sat down to drink: This detail exposes the moral blindness of both men. The king believed he had secured order and profit. Haman believed he had secured vengeance and power. Both celebrated while an entire people was marked for death.

f. But the city Shushan was perplexed: The reaction of the city stands in stark contrast to the indifference of its leaders. Ordinary citizens understood that the Jews living among them were not criminals or rebels. They were neighbors, merchants, and fellow residents. The confusion of Shushan reveals that even a pagan population recognized the injustice of the decree.

i. The people knew the Jews were peaceful and law abiding, which made the accusation of danger unbelievable.

ii. This catastrophe flowed from the wounded pride and insecurity of one man, Haman. Personal offense, when combined with unchecked authority, produced mass destruction.