After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman. Esther 3:1-6 The prosperous wicked man W. Burrows, B. A. Matthew Henry says: "I wonder what the king saw in man that was commendable or meritorious? It is plain that he was not a man of honour or justice, of any true courage or steady conduct, but proud and passionate and revengeful; yet he was promoted and caressed, and there was none as great as he. Princes' darlings are not always worthies." I. THE WICKED MAN IN PROSPERITY. Haman is typical. He is the progenitor of a long line that by skilful plotting rise above the heads of superior men. In this world rewards are not rightly administered. Push and tact get the prize. II. THE PROSPEROUS WICKED MAN IS SURROUNDED BY FAWNING SYCOPHANTS. "The king had so commanded." A king's commandment is not required to secure outward homage towards those in high places. Clothe a man with the outward marks of royal favour, and many are at once prepared to become his blind adulators. Imperialism is glorified in political, literary, and ecclesiastical spheres. Power in arms, push in business, skill in politics, success in literature, and parade in religion are the articles of the creed in which modern society believes. III. THE PROSPEROUS WICKED MAN IS SURROUNDED BY MEDDLING SYCOPHANTS. Even admirers may be too officious. If Haman had known and seen all, he might have prayed, "Save me from my friends." The king's servants, in their selfish zeal, frustrated their own purposes of aggrandisement. How often in trying to grasp too much we lose all. IV. THE PROSPEROUS WICKED MAN FINDS THAT FALSE, GREATNESS BRINGS TROUBLE. That greatness is false which is not the outcome of goodness. The course of wicked prosperity cannot run smooth. Haman meets with the checking and detecting Mordecai. V. THE PROSPEROUS WICKED MAN MAY LEARN THAT AN UNRESTRAINED NATURE BRINGS TROUBLE. Haman was intoxicated with his greatness. He was full of wrath. Wrath is cruel both to the subject and the object. VI. THE PROSPEROUS WICKED MAN UNWITTINGLY PLOTS HIS OWN DOWNFALL. Haman's wrath led him to dangerous extremes. Poor Haman! Already we see thee treading on a volcano. Thy hands are digging the pit into which thou shalt fall. Thy minions are preparing the gallows on which thou thyself shalt be hung. Learn — 1. Prosperity has its drawbacks. 2. "Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the lowly than to divide the spoil with the proud." 3. That our greatest troubles often spring from our own depraved natures. ( W. Burrows, B. A. ) Mordecai and Haman G. T. Coster. I. THE INSECURITY OF EARTHLY GREATNESS. The king in this story was exposed to the plot of Bigthan and Teresh. From it he was saved by the intervention of Mordecai, though by and by to fall beneath the assassin's blow. Great are the perils of the great. Their lives often, behind all the splendour that takes the public eye, a sad story. II. THE DIVINE FORESIGHT OF AND PREPARATION FOR COMING EVIL. The plotters, Bigthan and Teresh, paid the penalty with their lives. But what had that plot to do with the great story of this book — Israel's deliverance from Haman? Much, for mark, the plot was detected by Mordecai. The news was conveyed to Esther, and by her to the king. Thus God's design for Israel's deliverance precedes Haman's design for Israel's destruction Oh! the Divine preparations! How God goes before us! Does Jacob look round upon famished Canaan? Lo! by the hand of long-lost Joseph, God has prepared for him a house in Egypt. Do we come into peril? Before we reach it God has been preparing for us a way of escape. His love is older than our sin — than all sin. III. THE DIGNITY OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS IN LITTLE THINGS. Mordecai would not bow to Haman. Not from disloyalty. He had stood by the king and saved him from the plotted death. Because — this is the reason he gave — because he was a Jew: and Haman, he knew, was the Jews' enemy. Others bowed — he could not. A little thing, do you say, to bow to Haman? but s little thing may have much effect on others, as this had on Haman — on ourselves; and, often repeated, is not little in its influence. He had conscience in this matter, and to defile it had not been a little harm. Conscience can appear in little things, but it deems nothing little that affects it, that expresses it. The early Christians would rather die than cast a few idolatrous grains of incense into the fire. Many an English martyr went to the prison and the stake rather than bow down to the wafer-god of Romanism. In little things, as some would deem them, we can take a stand for Christ. IV. THE WICKEDNESS OF REVENGE. Had Haman a just grudge against Mordecai? Let him have the matter out with Mordecai alone? No; that will not suit him. He would punish a whole nation. The proud became the revengeful. If a man is humble and has a lowly estimate of himself, he will bear in silence the contempt and unkindness of men. But pride is easily wounded — sees slights often where none were intended. On a great platform we see, in the case of Haman, to what sin wounded pride will hurry a man. And to what a doom! We need to beware. Are none of us ever tempted harshly to judge a whole family because of the conduct of one of its members? to say, in the spirit of Haman, he is bad — the whole lot is bad? "Hath any wronged thee?" says Quarles, "be bravely revenged; slight it, and the work is begun; forgive it, and the work is finished." V. THE PATIENCE OF FAITH. The king's life had been saved by Mordecai. But no honour had come to him for the service — no reward. And now an edict is out against him and his nation, dooming them all to death. And does he regret the stand that he has taken? Does he loudly complain of the king's ingratitude? He keeps silence. God will think on him for good. Oh, troubled one I oh, darkened life! oh, soul tempest-tossed, "only believe." The clouds will pass — will melt into the eternal blue! ( G. T. Coster. ) Haman and Mordecai A. Raleigh, D. D. 1. It shows in a lurid but striking manner the diabolical character of revenge. Pride is pride, and revenge is revenge in quality, although they only show themselves in words with little stings in them, and by insinuations that have no known ground of verity. If we do not make it our business to chastise our spirits and purify them from the seeds and shadows of these vices, in the forms in which they can assail us, can we be quite sure that if we were on the wider stage, and had the ampler opportunity, we should not be as this devilish Amalekite? 2. A lesson of personal independence. What meanness there is in this country in bowing down to rank! in letting some lordly title stand in the place of an argument! in seeking high patronage for good schemes, as men seek the shadow of broad trees on hot days! in running after royal carriages! in subservience to power, and adulation of wealth! Rise up, Mordecai, in thy Jewish grandeur, and shame us into manliness, and help us to stand a little more erect! 3. Finally, a lesson of patience and quietness to all the faithful. Obey conscience, honour the right, and then fear no evil. Is the storm brewing? It may break and carry much away, but it will not hurt you. A little reputation is not you. A little property is not you. Health even is not you, nor is life itself. The wildest storm that could blow would only cast you on the shores of eternal peace and safety. But more probably the storm may melt all away in a while and leave you in wonder at your own fears. ( A. Raleigh, D. D. ) But Mordecai bowed not. Esther 3:2 Decision for God T. McEwan. But why did Mordecai not obey the commandment of the king? It may have been because he had a personal dislike to Haman, but that would not have justified him in contradicting the will of the sovereign. Or it may have been that, being a Jew, he regarded himself as exempted from doing honour to one of a race which God had cursed. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." But so long as Mordecai was a captive in Persia he could hardly be excused, on this account, from resisting the law of the land. The ground of this righteous Jew's refusal must be sought for deeper than either of these things. There can be little doubt, we think, that the homage commanded to be paid to Haman amounted, in this Jew's estimate, to that which should be rendered to God only. The stand which he took had its foundation in religion — a foundation which the men of the world have ever failed to comprehend. ( T. McEwan. ) Mordecai refuses to bow down to Haman W. M. Taylor, D. D. But on what ground did Mordecai refuse to bow to Haman and do him reverence? The only answer which comes clearly out of the chapter to that question is, that the position which he took was one that was common to him with all his people, so that it was sufficiently accounted for to others when he said, "I am a Jew." It was a matter of religion with him. But, that being admitted, the question still arises, What was there in such a command as this of Xerxes to offend the conscience of a pious Jew? Some have answered that, as the Persian monarch was regarded as an incarnation of Ahura-Mazda, and therefore entitled to Divine honours, the act of prostration before him was understood to imply worship; and so homage paid to Haman as the king's representative would be a virtual giving of Divine honour to a human creature. This is confirmed even by heathen writers — for Herodotus tells us that certain Greeks, on being pressed to prostrate themselves before the king, when they were introduced into his presence at Susa, declared "that it was not their custom to worship a man, nor had they come for that purpose"; and Curtius has said, "The Persians, indeed, not only from motives of piety, but also from prudence, worship their kings among the gods." Now, if that explanation be adopted, the act of Mordecai takes its place beside the refusal of the early Christians to sacrifice to the Roman emperor, and puts him on the honour roll among those whose rule of life in all such cases was, "We ought to obey God rather than men." But while it would fully justify Mordecai, this explanation is in itself not without difficulty. For did not Joseph's brethren make similar obeisance to him? Would not Mordecai after his own elevation to Haman's place be required to bow before the king? and must we condemn Nehemiah for rendering to Artaxerxes the homage which Mordecai here refused to Haman, though Xerxes himself had commanded that it should be rendered? It is possible, of course, that Mordecai was right, and that all the rest were wrong; but it is not absolutely incontrovertible that the reverence here required was of the nature of religious worship. Others, therefore, have sought for the reason of Mordecai's disobedience to the royal mandate in the nationality of Haman. Taking Agagite as equivalent to Amalekite, they remind us that the Amalekites were the first to attack the Israelites after their escape from Egypt, and that after his victory over them on that occasion Moses said, "The Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." They recall to our remembrance, also, the fact that it was for sparing some of the Amalekites that Saul was first rejected by God from being king over Israel, and that the only time that Samuel wielded a sword was when he "hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord." Now if Haman was indeed an Amalekite, it would be easy to find in that a reason for Mordecai's conduct as well as for Haman's purpose of revenge; for these descending feuds between races in the East are both undying and enve nomed, especially when they are rooted in religious differences. But then we have no other case in Scripture where a royal title like Agag becomes a public patronymic, so as to be the name of a tribe; and it is hard to account for the appearance of one of the hated race of Amalek here, at this late date, in Susa. So there are difficulties connected with both solutions, and it is not easy to choose between them. Perhaps the first, all things considered, is the more satisfactory. ( W. M. Taylor, D. D. ) Strong conviction A. B. Davidson, D. D. The commandment of the king was very express, and Mordecai manifestly exposed himself to imminent danger by disregarding it. If, indeed, his objection to pay homage to Haman was founded upon a conviction that such homage amounted to something like idolatry, then we might regard his refusal as ranking him with the three illustrious youths who braved the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar rather than they would submit to worship the image which he had set up. But we can scarcely take this view of the matter, as it is not likely that Mordecai would have withheld from the king himself the outward reverence which the law and usage of the country required. But if it was because Haman was of the seed of Amalek, that the Jew would not bow to him nor do him reverence, then intense must have been the detestation of that race, when he would rather run the risk of incurring the displeasure of the king than pay respect to one of them who stood so high in the royal favour. Yet we conceive that he might feel himself fully vindicated in his own conscience for acting as he did. It was, after all, a high religious scruple by which he was influenced. By the law of Moses the Amalekites were condemned to perpetual infamy. No earthly rank or station could blot out or modify that sentence. In this view of the subject, Mordecai would have supposed himself an apostate from his religion had he done reverence to Haman, and therefore he refused to do it, whatever might be the consequence to himself. We cannot but respect such a feeling as this, generated as it was by regard for the Divine law. It could not be appreciated by the other servants of the king, who may have attributed Mordecai's conduct to a sullen and haughty temper; but, although the matter in itself was apparently unimportant, it was an evidence of real heroism of character in this man to obey the dictate of conscience at the hazard of personal suffering. True religion does not interfere with the discharge of the ordinary courtesies of life, nor does it forbid our rendering that honour to rank and station which is their due. But when vice and real infamy are shrouded under high rank, the Christian must beware of acting so as to make it supposed that the rank forms an apology for the vice and infamy, or renders them less hateful than they really are. ( A. B. Davidson, D. D. ) A little matter A. M. Symington, B. A. All was going well with this man. His rivals had been crushed, his seat had been set above the seats of all the noblemen at court, the king had made him his boon companion, and had issued orders that the palace servants should bow before him and do him reverence. He was as nearly happy as a man can be whose ruling passion is vanity; but such men hold their happiness by a very frail tenure. It does not look altogether well that Ahasuerus should have needed to give special orders about his servants bowing to Haman. Darius had not needed to do this in the case of Daniel. Had the favourite been respected and liked, men would have given him all seemly honour unbidden. "But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence." It does seem a very small matter; but when such a man as Mordecai attached importance to it we must pause and consider whether the matter was really so small as it seemed. For it is an unsafe way of reasoning to say about anything, "It is only one little act; why scruple over it? If it does no good it can do no harm"; and so forth. By such reasoning habits of untruth and intemperance have many a time been formed, and what was perhaps little in itself, if it had been possible to separate it from all else, has been found to be anything but little in its results. The truth is, we cannot separate any single action from the rest of our lives; so that the importance of an action depends not on its greatness or its littleness, but on many other circumstances, such as how often we do it; the effect it has on others, particularly its influence on our own con. sciences. In this case it so happened that what Mordecai did — rather what he determined not to do — proved to be of very great importance to the whole Jewish people and the whole Persian empire; but he could not know that. What he did know was that, if he had once bowed to Haman, his conscience would have been defiled, as surely as Daniel's would have been if he had eaten the king's meat; and polluted conscience is no trifle. A man has to carry it about with him all day, to go to sleep with it if he can, to encounter it again when he awakes, until God purges out the stain. But why should Mordecai have feared that, by bowing to Haman as the rest did, he would bring on himself this worst evil, a bad conscience? "We do not need to suppose that the homage enjoined was idolatrous; it may have been nearly so; but Mordecai knew the character of the prime minister, and he knew the fifteenth Psalm: in his eyes "a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord." In addition to the knowledge Mordecai could not but have of Haman's character, he knew him to be of the seed-royal of Amalek; and a man with the spirit of Moses and Samuel in him would not recognise the advancement of "the Jews' enemy." The point might be small in itself, but the principle involved in it was to Mordecai more important than life. The day was not far off when Ahasuerus and all Persia agreed with Mordecai in his estimate of Haman. But persons who act on high principle must be content to find that few on earth understand them at the time. Angels understand and smile on them, but the smiles of angels are not seen. Possibly some of Mordecai's Jewish brethren might hint to him that his conduct was rather extreme (that terrible word!) — savouring more of bigotry than of pious charity. ( A. M. Symington, B. A. ) The difference between right and wrong shown in little things W. M. Taylor, D. D. The difference between right and wrong may be shown in a little matter, but it is not therefore a little difference; and they who are determined to be thorough in their allegiance to God will make no distinction in their conduct between small things and great. Very noble, too, was Mordecai's firmness in resisting the entreaties of his fellow-servants, for he shut up the whole controversy with the simple confession, "I am a Jew." He will not needlessly publish his religion on the house-top, but neither will he be ashamed of it in the "king's gate." It might cost him much to make the confession, but he knew that sin would be still more costly, and so he did not shrink from saying, "I am a Jew." ( W. M. Taylor, D. D. ) Limits to the claims of official civility. W. A. Scott, D. D. In Mordecai's adherence to his religious principles we see that there are limits to the claims of social and official civility — bounds that duty does not allow us to pass in our respect for our superiors. The Word of God is the standard of respectability and manners as well as of faith, and it forbids all lying and deceit, all flattery and all mean compliances with the wishes of others, however exalted. It does not allow us to do anything that is contrary to good breeding and the chivalry of right. It does not allow us to neglect our duties, waste our time or injure our health, merely to please a friend or a potentate. Let it be remembered, to the honour of one of the Presidents of the United States, General Jackson, that he never allowed any visitors to keep him from the house of God on the Lord's day. ( W. A. Scott, D. D. ) Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment? Mordecai's companions W. A. Scott, D. D. But yonder come his fellow-servants of the palace; what have they to say? Why they Jay to him, "Why transgressest thou the king's commandment?" And verily, aged man, why? Is it that all eyes may be turned upon you? It is true, indeed, that he is the observed of all observers who does not go with the multitude, even though they go to do evil. Any one that dares to think and speak for himself is sure to be condemned by the many that he differs from; for his position and principles are a running commentary of condemnation upon them. It has ever been so, and perhaps it will always continue to be so, for it is not for the man that lives in the cellar to say what he sees who dwells on the house-top. Some men are before their times, and some men never catch up with the age in which they live; and some men have not moral courage enough to hear themselves breathe honestly and freely. We see this daily as to the press and the pulpit. Is not the daily bread of the printer put in jeopardy if his journal does not meet the popular taste? And have we not seen large bodies of business men combine to starve newspapers to death by withholding their patronage unless the said papers would defend their conduct? And is it not true that if one pulpit has the courage to utter an honest opinion, that does not happen to coincide with the rest of the pulpits, that then all the pulpits and papers that have neither capacity to understand nor the moral honesty to comprehend the poor dissenter open their batteries upon him? ( W. A. Scott, D. D. ) Principle seems impolitic W. A. Scott, D. D. And again his fellow-servants say, "Friend Mordecai, consider well what you are going to do. Remember, it is not Haman merely, but his master also, that you offend. Is it wise, then, for you to peril the forfeiture of your place and your life upon a question of mere etiquette or courtesy? It is extremely impolitic and dangerous for you not to do homage to so great a prince. And besides, if you will not bow with us, then you will have to suffer alone." "Yes, friends," says he, "I have considered all this; and I am content to meet the consequences. It is not a mere question of courtesy. I am a Jew. My religion is with me a glorious reality." ( W. A. Scott, D. D. ) Cowardice cannot understand courage W. A. Scott, D. D. Mordecai's fellow-servants were not capable of understanding his principles. Cowards never apprehend the true character of a brave man. Little minds cannot see up into the magnanimity of a great and noble soul. ( W. A. Scott, D. D. ) For he told them that he was a Jew Fidelity to principle W. M. Taylor, D. D. We have in the case of Mordecai an example of fidelity to principle which is worthy of all study and imitation. He felt that it was wrong to do homage to Haman. In resisting the entreaties of his fellow-servants, he shut up the whole controversy with the simple confession, "I am a Jew." Herein he gave an example which Christians might follow with advantage. Have the courage, young men, when you are asked to do what you know to be wrong, to reply simply, "I am a Christian." Add to your faith courage — the heroism not of the warrior but of the man who has learned to run the gauntlet of ridicule and scorn, and to follow the dictates of duty "uncaring consequences." To quote the words of the greatest wit of his age, — "Learn to inure your principles against ridicule. You can no more exercise your reason if you live in the constant dread of laughter than you can enjoy your life if you are in the constant terror of death. H you think it right to differ from the times, and to make a point of morals, do it, however rustic, however antiquated, however pedantic it may appear; do it as a man who wore a soul of his own and did not wait till it was breathed into him by the breath of fashion." ( W. M. Taylor, D. D. ) And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not ... then was Haman full of wrath. Esther 3:5, 6 Vanity and cruelty W. F. Adeney, M. A. Haman manifests by his behaviour the intimate connection there is between vanity and cruelty. 1. Vanity is a form of magnified egotism. When a vain man looks out on the world it is always through the medium of his own vastly magnified shadow. Like the Brocken Ghost, this shadow becomes a haunting presence standing out before him in huge proportions. He has no other standard of measurement. The good is what gives him pleasure; evil is what is noxious to him.(1) Egoism utilises the sufferings of others for its own ends. No doubt cruelty is often the result of sheer callousness. It is not so in Haman's case; he is irritated, and vents his annoyance in a vast explosion of malignity that must take account of the agony it produces, for in that agony its own thirst for vengeance is to be slaked.(2) Egoism promotes cruelty by destroying the sense of proportion. Self is not only regarded as the centre of the universe; like the sun surrounded by the planets, it is taken to be the greatest object, and everything else is insignificant when compared to it. What is the slaughter of a few thousand Jews to so great a man as Haman? It is no more than the destruction of as many flies in a forest fire that the settler has kindled to clear his ground. The same self-magnification is visibly presented by the Egyptian bas reliefs, on which the victorious Pharaohs appear as tremendous giants driving back hordes of enemies or dragging pigmy kings by their heads. It is but a step from this condition to insanity, which is the apotheosis of vanity. The chief characteristic of insanity is a diseased enlargement of self. 2. Vanity leads to cruelty through the entire dependence of the vain person on the good opinion of others. In this vanity differs from pride. A proud man is satisfied with himself, but the vain man is always looking outside himself with feverish eagerness to secure all the honours that the world can bestow upon him. While a proud man in an exalted position scarcely deigns to notice the "dim, common people," the vain man betrays his vulgarity by caring supremely for popular adulation. Therefore, while the haughty person can afford to pass over a slight with contempt, the vain creature who lives on the breath of applause is mortally offended by it and roused to avenge the insult with corresponding rage. ( W. F. Adeney, M. A. ) The misery of pride W. M. Taylor, D. D. : — A man of principle would have respected the conscientiousness of the act, even though he might have laughed at what he regarded the smallness of the scruple. A man of ordinary common sense would have treated the whole affair with indifference; but Haman valued his office just because it carried with it the right to such homage, and therefore what would have been a mole-hill, or hardly so much, to others, was a mountain to him. The proud man thus increases his own misery; and little slights, which other people would not so much as notice, are felt by him with great keenness. He whose arm has been recently vaccinated is very sensitive where the pustule is, so that a push which you would think nothing of is agony to him. Now, in precisely the same way the proud man is "touchy," as we say; the slightest infringement on his dignity wounds him to the quick, and when other people are laughing he is vowing revenge; for, as this story illustrates, the passions are all near of kin, and one prepares the way for another. Brooding over the refusal of Mordecai to do him reverence, it became so magnified in his estimation that he determined to punish it; there was revenge. That he might gratify that revenge, it became necessary to bring the peculiarities of the Jewish nation before the king, and he requested their destruction on the ground that they were not profitable to the monarch, whereas the sole reason why he suggested their extirpa tion was that Mordecai had slighted him; there was falsehood. Then, in planning their massacre, there was murder. Here, therefore, were four sins all in a line, each rising above the other in enormity — pride, revenge, falsehood, murder. People think, sometimes, that pride is no great sin; some almost speak of it as if it were half a virtue; but, as this and other histories make plain, it is the germ of other evils that are worse than itself, and therefore we ought to be on our guard against allowing ourselves to become its victims. And how shall we best counteract it? I reply, by cultivating a sense of responsibility. That which we have, whether it be ability, or wealth, or exalted position, we have received as a trust, and we are to use it, as stewards for God, in the service of our fellow-men. Let us keep pressing the questions, Who hath made me to differ from others? What have I that I have not received? For what purpose have I been entrusted with these things? And the more we ponder these, the less we shall be inclined to plume ourselves on our possessions, and the more we shall be stirred up to the service of our generation by the will of God. ( W. M. Taylor, D. D. ) Injured vanity "A man will forgive you anything," Professor Huxley said, "if you do not injure his vanity. Once do that, and he will never forgive you." Evil passion its own penalty A. B. Davidson, D. D. Now, it may be thought by some that the case of Haman allowing himself to be so chafed and perturbed by a trifle as to be made miserable in the midst of so many advantages, is to be regarded as altogether extreme and without parallel; but we believe that on examination it will be found that the wicked always receive part of their punishment in the violence of some unhallowed passion which blinds them to all the real benefits of their lot. Is there not a gnaw ing disease in the heart of the covetous man, for example, which prevents him from enjoying the good things which are placed within his reach, just because he has not yet acquired all that he wishes to possess? And still, as he gets more and more, is he not as far as ever from being satisfied, since he has not yet reached the point at which he aims? Or again, look to the man who is the slave of envy, and mark how miserable this base passion makes him. He has ample means of enjoyment, which he can call his own; but his neighbour has something which pleases him better, and just because that one thing is awanting to himself, he can find no satis faction in the varied blessings which a kind providence has showered upon him. His neighbour's good is to him what Mordecai at the king's gate was to Haman. In like manner, I might advert to the working of the more violent passions of anger and revenge as a cause of intense torment to those who cherish them, and as altogether preventing them from taking advantage of many sources of happiness which lie open to them on every side. I might also allude to the misery which wounded vanity and affronted pride often bring to those who have high notions of their own importance, as when a trifling word or action will discompose them for many days together, and deprive them of their relish for the things that formerly pleased them, and made them happy. But enough has been said to show how by a just retribution the ungodly, following their natural tendencies and passions, work out their own passion. How different is the picture presented to us, where grace reigns in the heart. Although corruption is not altogether eradicated from the spiritual man, yet its power is subdued; the fierce passions are tamed, love takes the place of envy, malignity, and wrath; and the believer, seeking and finding his chief enjoyment in God, remains comparatively unruffled by those incidents which breed so much vexation and disquietude in the breast of the ungodly. ( A. B. Davidson, D. D. ) Wounded pride T. McCrie, D. D. Wounded pride excites revenge, and this always burns hottest in the weakest minds. How insatiable is revenge, especially when it is associated with national and religious rancour! Haman learned that Mordecai was a Jew, a name that called up the bitterest recollections in the breast of an Amalekite, and he resolves at once on the total extermination of that people. ( T. McCrie, D. D. ) A favourite lust A. B. Davidson, D. D. And it has always been one of the devices of the enemy to drive men into criminal excesses to their own ruin, through the instrumentality of some favourite lust or appetite. It was the covetous spirit of Judas that opened a way to the tempter to hurry him on to betray the Saviour. ( A. B. Davidson, D. D. ) Then was Haman full of wrath The penalty of an evil passion G. Lawson. How dreadfully this wrath flamed in his bosom we learn from the method which he took to express it. We may observe, at present, what misery pride, by its own nature and inseparable consequences, brings upon men. No proud man ever received al

Benson Commentary Esther 3:1 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. Esther 3:1 . After these things — About five years after, as appears from Esther 3:7 . Did Ahasuerus promote Haman the Agagite — An Amalekite, of the seed-royal of that nation, whose kings were successively called Agag. And set his seat above all the princes — Gave him the first place and seat which was next the king. Esther 3:2 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. Esther 3:2 . For the king had so commanded concerning him — To bow the knee, and give reverence to all great persons, was a common respect due to them, and there needed not a particular command from the king requiring it to be shown by all his servants to Haman; since, no doubt, they paid it to all princes, and would much more pay it to him who took place of them all, and was his sovereign’s favourite. There was therefore, probably, more implied in the reverence commanded to be paid to him than what proceeded from a mere civil respect. The kings of Persia, we know, required a kind of divine adoration from all who approached them; and, as they arrogated this to themselves, so they sometimes imparted it to their chief friends and favourites, which seems to have been the case with regard to Haman at this time. And if so, we need not wonder that a righteous Jew should deny that honour, or the outward expressions of it, to any man; since the wise and sober Grecians positively refused to give it to their very kings themselves, the people of Athens once passing sentence of death on one Timocrates, a citizen of theirs, for prostrating himself before Darius, though he was then one of the greatest monarchs upon earth. The author of the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther seems to imply that this was the case of Mordecai, whom he introduces praying thus, chap. Est 13:12, &c. “Thou knowest, O Lord, that it is not in contempt, or pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman, for I would willingly kiss his feet for the salvation of Israel; but I did this, that I might not prefer the glory of man to the glory of God, nor adore any one but thee my Lord alone.” See Valer. Max., lib. 6, cap. 3. We may observe further here, that Mordecai should refuse to pay such obeisance, as all others paid to Haman at this time, will appear the less strange, if we consider that Haman being of that nation against which God pronounced a curse, ( Exodus 17:14 ,) Mordecai might think himself, on this account, not obliged to pay him the reverence which he expected; and if the rest of the Jews had the like notion of him, this might be a reason sufficient for his extending his resentment against the whole nation. See Dodd. Esther 3:3 Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment? Esther 3:4 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. Esther 3:4 . To see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand — Whether he would persist in his refusal, and what the event of it would be; for he had told them that he was a Jew — And therefore did not deny this reverence to Haman out of pride, or any personal grudge against him, much less from a rebellious mind, and contempt of the king’s authority and command, but merely out of conscience, being obliged, as a Jew, to give such honour to God only. Esther 3:5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. Esther 3:5 . Then was Haman full of rage — Josephus tells us, that Haman, taking notice of this singularity in Mordecai, asked him what countryman he was, and finding him to be a Jew, broke out into a violent exclamation at his insolence, and in his rage formed the desperate resolution, not only to be revenged on Mordecai, but to destroy the whole race of the Jews; well remembering that his ancestors, the Amalekites, had been formerly driven out of their country, and almost exterminated by the Jews. Esther 3:6 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. Esther 3:6 . And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone — He thought that particular vengeance was unsuitable to his quality, and to the greatness of the injury; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews — Which he attempted from that implacable hatred which, as an Amalekite, he had against them; from his rage against Mordecai; and from Mordecai’s reason of this contempt, because he was a Jew, which, as he truly judged, extended itself to all the Jews, and would equally engage them all in the same neglect. And doubtless Haman included, those who were returned to their own land; for that was now a province of his kingdom. Esther 3:7 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. Esther 3:7 . They cast Pur, that is, the lot — “Haman, being determined to destroy Mordecai and the Jews, called together his diviners, to find out what day would be most lucky for his putting this design into execution. The way of divination, then in use among the eastern people, was by casting lots; and therefore having tried in this manner, first each month, and then each day in every month, they came to a determination at last, that the thirteenth day of the twelfth month would be most fortunate for the bloody execution. It was in the first month of the year when Haman began to cast lots, and the time for the execution of the Jews was by these lots delayed till the last month of the year; which plainly shows, that though the lot be cast into the lap, yet the whole disposing thereof is from the Lord, Proverbs 16:33 . For hereby almost a whole year intervened between the design and its execution, which gave time for Mordecai to acquaint Queen Esther with it, and for her to intercede with the king for the revoking or suspending the decree, and thereby preventing the conspiracy. The reader will find this decree in Joseph. Antiq., lib. 11, cap. 6. Houbigant renders this verse, The lot, which is called Pur, was drawn before Haman from day to day, from month to month, for the twelfth month.” See Poole and Dodd. Esther 3:8 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. Esther 3:8 . And Haman said unto King Ahasuerus — After he had found which would be a lucky day for putting his design into execution; There is a certain people scattered abroad — Mean and contemptible, not worthy to be named; and dispersed among the people — Who therefore, if tolerated, may poison all thy subjects with their pernicious principles, and whom thou mayest easily crush, without any great noise or difficulty; in all the provinces of thy kingdom — For though many of their brethren were returned to their own land, yet great numbers of them stayed behind, either because they preferred their ease and worldly advantages before their spiritual profit, or they wanted conveniences or opportunity for removing; and their laws are diverse from all people — They have rites, and customs, and a religion peculiar to themselves; and therefore are justly offensive to all thy subjects, and may either infect them with their notions, or occasion great dissensions and distractions among them; neither keep they the king’s laws — As is manifest by Mordecai’s bold contempt of thy late edict concerning me, which contempt being shown by him as a Jew, the whole nation are involved in his crime, and are prepared to do the same when they have occasion; therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them — To wit, to live in this kingdom. I do not seek herein so much my own revenge as thy service. Esther 3:9 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. Esther 3:9 . Let it be written that they may be destroyed — Let a written edict from the king be published for that purpose; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver — Whether these were Hebrew, or Babylonish, or Grecian talents, we cannot certainly know. But whichsoever they were, it was a vast sum to be paid by a private person, being probably above three millions sterling, and shows how outrageously he was bent on the destruction of the Jews. But undoubtedly Haman expected to get that sum, and much more, by seizing on all their effects. To the hands of those that have the charge of the business — Not of those who should have the charge to kill them, but of those that received the king’s money, as appears by the next words, to bring it into the king’s treasuries. Esther 3:10 And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy. Esther 3:10 . And the king took his ring from his hand, &c. — Without any examination into the condition of the people, he consented to their destruction. So loath are men that love their pleasure to take any pains to distinguish between truth and falsehood. And gave it unto Haman — That he might keep it as a badge of his supreme authority under the king, and that he might use it for the sealing of this decree which was now made, or of any other that might be made hereafter. The Agagite, the Jews’ enemy — Such he was, both by inclination, as he was an Amalekite, and especially by this destructive design and resolution. Esther 3:11 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. Esther 3:11 . The silver is given to thee — Keep it for thy own use, I do not desire it. I accept thy offer for the deed. So that he gave him power to draw up what decree he pleased, and seal it with the king’s ring; but as for the money, he assured him he would have none of it. What inhumanity was this! to give so many people unheard to death to please a favourite! Esther 3:12 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. Esther 3:12-13 . Then were the king’s scribes called — This he did so speedily, though it was a year before the intended execution, lest the king should change his mind, either through his own clemency, or the persuasion of others. It was, however, not wisely judged to let his design be known so long before it was to take effect; for the Jews might find some way to deliver themselves, or might steal out of the kingdom: but undoubtedly this was so ordered by the overruling providence of God. And to take the spoil of them for a prey — Which was to induce the people to use the greater severity and readiness to execute this edict for their own advantage. Esther 3:13 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. Esther 3:14 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. Esther 3:14-15 . The copy of the writing to be given in every province — Copies of this original decree of the king were sent into every province, and there ordered to be published, requiring the people to be ready against the day appointed. The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment — Either by this decree made in the king’s name, or by some particular and succeeding command which Haman obtained from the king. And the king and Haman sat down to drink — Haman was afraid, probably, lest the king’s conscience should smite him for what he had done, and he should begin to wish it undone again; to prevent which he engrossed him to himself, and kept him drinking. This cursed method many take to drown their convictions, and harden their own hearts, and the hearts of others, in sin. But the city Shushan was perplexed — Not only the Jews, but a great number of the citizens, either because they were related to them, or engaged with them in worldly concerns; or out of humanity and compassion toward so vast a number of innocent people, appointed as sheep for the slaughter. They might apprehend likewise that, upon the execution of the decree, some sedition or tumult might ensue; that in so great a slaughter it was hard to tell who would escape without being killed or plundered, because those who were employed in this bloody work would be more mindful to enrich themselves than to observe their orders. They might also fear that a public judgment from God would come upon them all for so bloody a decree. We see in the exaltation of Haman, recorded in this chapter, and in his subsequent fall, that God sometimes permits wicked men to arrive at the highest degree of honour and power, but that he soon brings them low, and exposes them to shame and misery. And we learn by the sequel of this history, that he suffered things to proceed to extremities, only the more effectually to confound Haman; and convince the Jews, in a more surprising manner, of his care and protection. We see also the sin and folly of Ahasuerus, in giving credit too easily to Haman’s suggestion against the Jews, by which credulity he had well nigh occasioned many millions of innocent persons to perish. This shows how dangerous it is to listen to detracters, and that we ought never to credit evil reports till we have first inquired and ascertained the truth of them. Esther 3:15 The posts went out, being hastened by the king's commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan the palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Esther 3:1 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. HAMAN Esther 3:1-6 ; Esther 5:9-14 ; Esther 7:5-10 HAMAN is the Judas of Israel. Not that his conduct or his place in history would bring him into comparison with the traitor apostle, for he was an open foe and a foreigner. But he is treated by popular Judaism as the Arch-Enemy, just as Judas is treated by popular Christianity. Like Judas, he has assigned to him a solitary pre-eminence in wickedness, which is almost inhuman. As in the case of Judas, there is thought to be no call for charity or mercy in judging Haman. He shares with Judas the curse of Cain. Boundless execration is heaped on his head. Horror and hatred have almost transformed him into Satan. He is called "The Agagite," an obscure title which is best explained as a later Jewish nickname derived from a reference to the king of Amalek who was hewn in pieces before the Lord. In the Septuagint he is surnamed "The Macedonian," because when that version was made the enemies of Israel were the representatives of the empire of Alexander and his successors. During the dramatic reading of the Book of Esther in a Jewish synagogue at the Feast of Purim, the congregation may be found taking the part of a chorus and exclaiming at every mention of the name of Haman, "May his name be blotted out," "Let the name of the ungodly perish," while boys with mallets will pound stones and bits of wood on which the odious name is written. This frantic extravagance would be unaccountable but for the fact that the people whose "badge is sufferance" has summed up under the name of the Persian official the malignity of their enemies in all ages. Very often this name has served to veil a dangerous reference to some contemporary foe, or to heighten the rage felt against an exceptionally, odious person by its accumulation of traditional hatred, just as in England on the fifth of November the "Guy" may represent some unpopular person of the day. When we turn from this unamiable indulgence of spiteful passion to the story that lies behind it, we have enough that is odious without the conception of a sheer monster of wickedness, a very demon. Such a being would stand outside the range of human motives, and we could contemplate him with unconcern and detachment of mind, just as we contemplate the destructive forces of nature. There is a common temptation to clear ourselves of all semblance to the guilt of very bad people by making it out to be inhuman. It is more humiliating to discover that they act from quite human motives-nay, that those very motives may be detected, though with other bearings, even in our own conduct. For see what were the influences that stirred in the heart of Haman. He manifests by his behaviour the intimate connection between vanity and cruelty. The first trait in his character to reveal itself is vanity, a most inordinate vanity. Haman is introduced at the moment when he has been exalted to the highest position under the king of Persia; he has just been made grand vizier. The tremendous honour turns his brain. In the consciousness of it he swells out with vanity. As a necessary consequence he is bitterly chagrined when a porter does not do homage to him as to the king. His elation is equally extravagant when he discovers that he is to be the only subject invited to meet Ahasuerus at Esther’s banquet. When the king inquires how exceptional honour is to be shown to some one whose name is not yet revealed, this infatuated man jumps to the conclusion that it can be for nobody but himself. In all his behaviour we see that he is just possessed by an absorbing spirit of vanity. Then at the first check he suffers an annoyance proportionate to the boundlessness of his previous elation. He cannot endure the sight of indifference or independence in the meanest subject. The slender fault of Mordecai is magnified into a capital offence. This again is so huge that it must be laid to the charge of the whole race to which the offender belongs. The rage which it excites in Haman is so violent that it will be satisfied with nothing short of a wholesale massacre of men, women, and children. "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth"-when it is fanned by the breath of vanity. The cruelty of the vain man is as limitless as his vanity. Thus the story of Haman illustrates the close juxtaposition of these two vices, vanity and cruelty; it helps us to see by a series of lurid pictures how fearfully provocative the one is of the other. As we follow the incidents, we can discover the links of connection between the cause and its dire effects. In the first place, it is clear that vanity is a form of magnified egotism. The vain man thinks supremely of himself, not so much in the way of self-interest, but more especially for the sake of self-glorification. When he looks out on the world, it is always through the medium of his own vastly magnified shadow. Like the Brocken Ghost, this shadow becomes a haunting presence standing out before him in huge proportions. He has no other standard of measurement. Everything must be judged according, as it is related to himself. The good is what gives him pleasure; evil is what is noxious to him. This self-centred attitude, with the distortion of vision that it induces, has a double effect, as we may see in the case of Haman. Egotism utilises the sufferings of others for its own ends. No doubt cruelty is often a consequence of sheer callousness. The man who has no perception of the pain he is causing or no sympathy with the sufferers will trample them under foot on the least provocation. He feels supremely indifferent to their agonies when they are writhing beneath him, and therefore he will never consider it incumbent on him to adjust his conduct with the least reference to the pain he gives. That is an entirely irrelevant consideration. The least inconvenience to himself outweighs the greatest distress of other people, for the simple reason that that distress counts as nothing in his calculation of motives. In Haman’s case, however, we do not meet with this attitude of simple indifference. The grand vizier is irritated, and he vents his annoyance in a vast explosion of malignity that must take account of the agony it produces, for in that agony its own thirst for vengeance is to be slaked. But this only shows the predominant selfishness to be all the greater. It is so great that it reverses the engines that drive society along the line of mutual helpfulness, and thwarts and frustrates any amount of human life and happiness for the sole purpose of gratifying its own desires. Then the selfishness of vanity promotes cruelty still further by another of its effects. It destroys the sense of proportion. Self is not only regarded as the centre of the universe; like the sun surrounded by the planets, it is taken to be the greatest object, and everything else is insignificant when compared to it. What is the slaughter of a few thousand Jews to so great a man as Haman, grand vizier of Persia? It is no more than the destruction of as many flies in a forest fire that the settler has kindled to clear his ground. The same self-magnification is visibly presented by the Egyptian bas-reliefs, on which the victorious Pharaohs appear as tremendous giants driving back hordes of enemies or dragging pigmy kings by their heads. It is but a step from this condition to insanity, which is the apotheosis of vanity. The chief characteristic of insanity is a diseased enlargement of self. If he is elated the madman regards himself as a person of supreme importance-as a prince, as a king, even as God. If he is depressed he thinks that he is the victim of exceptional malignity. In that case he is beset by watchers of evil intent, the world is conspiring against him, everything that happens is part of a plot to do him harm. Hence his suspiciousness, hence his homicidal proclivities. He is not so mad in his inferences and conclusions. These may be rational and just, on the ground of his premisses. It is in the fixed ideas of these premisses that the root of his insanity may be detected. His awful fate is a warning to all who venture to indulge in the vice of excessive egotism. In the second place, vanity leads to cruelty through the entire dependence of the vain person on the good opinion of others, and this we may see clearly in the career of Haman. Vanity is differentiated from pride in one important particular-by its outward reference. The proud man is satisfied with himself, hut the vain man is always looking outside himself with feverish eagerness to secure all the honours that the world can bestow upon him. Thus Mordecai may have been proud in his refusal to bow before the upstart premier, if so his pride would not need to court admiration; it would be self-contained and self-sufficient. But Haman was possessed by an insatiable thirst for homage. If a single obscure individual refused him this honour, a shadow rested on everything. He could not enjoy the queen’s banquet for the slight offered him by the Jew at the palace gate, so that he exclaimed, "Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate." { Esther 5:13 } A selfish man in this condition can have no rest if anything in the world outside him fails to minister to his honour. While a proud man in an exalted position scarcely deigns to notice the "dim common people," the vain man betrays his vulgarity by caring supremely for popular adulation. Therefore, while the haughty person can afford to pass over a slight with contempt, the vain creature who lives on the breath of applause is mortally offended by it and roused to avenge the insult with corresponding rage. Selfishness and dependence on the external, these attributes of vanity inevitably develop into cruelty wherever the aims of vanity are opposed. And yet the vice that contains so much evil is rarely visited with a becoming severity of condemnation. Usually it is smiled at as a trivial frailty. In the case of Haman it threatened the extermination of a nation, and the reaction from its menace issued in a terrific slaughter of another section of society. History records war after war that has been fought on the ground of vanity. In military affairs this vice wears the name of glory, but its nature is unaltered. For what is the meaning of a war that is waged for "l a gloire " but one that is designed in order to minister to the vanity of the people who undertake it? A more fearful wickedness has never blackened the pages of history. The very frivolity of the occasion heightens the guilt of those who plunge nations into misery on such a paltry pretext. It is vanity that urges a savage warrior to collect skulls to adorn the walls of his hut with the ghastly trophies, it is vanity that impels a restless conqueror to march to his own triumph through a sea of blood, it is vanity that rouses a nation to fling itself on its neighbour in order to exalt its fame by a great victory. Ambition at its best is fired by the pride of power, but in its meaner forms ambition is nothing but an uprising of vanity clamouring for wider recognition. The famous invasion of Greece by Xerxes was evidently little better than a huge exhibition of regal vanity. The childish fatuity of the king could seek for no exalted ends. His assemblage of swarms of men of all races in an ill-disciplined army too big for practical warfare showed that the thirst for display occupied the principal place in his mind, to the neglect of the more sober aims of a really great conqueror. And if the vanity that lives on the world’s admiration is so fruitful in evil when it is allowed to deploy on a large scale, its essential character will not be improved by the limitation of its scope in humbler spheres of life. It is always mean and cruel. Two other features in the character of Haman may be noticed. First, he shows energy and determination. He bribes the king to obtain the royal consent to his deadly design, bribes with an enormous present equal to the revenue of a kingdom, though Ahasuerus permits him to recoup himself by seizing the property of the proscribed nation. Then the murderous mandate goes forth, it is translated into every language of the subject peoples, it is carried to the remotest parts of the kingdom by the posts, the excellent organisation of which, under the Persian government, has become famous. Thus far everything is on a large scale, betokening a mind of resource and daring. But now turn to the sequel. "And the king and Haman sat down to drink." { Esther 3:15 } It is a horrible picture-the king of Persia and his grand vizier at this crisis deliberately abandoning themselves to their national vice. The decree is out, it cannot be recalled-let it go and do its fell work. As for its authors they are drowning all thought of its effect on public opinion in the wine-cup; they are boozing together in a disgusting companionship of debauchery on the eve of a scene of wholesale bloodshed. This is what the glory of the Great King has come to. This is the anticlimax of his minister’s vanity at the moment of supreme success. After such an exhibition we need not be surprised at the abject humiliation, the terror of cowardice, the frantic effort to extort pity from a woman of the very race whose extermination he had plotted, manifested by Haman in the hour of his exposure at Esther’s banquet. Beneath all his braggart energy he is a weak man. In most cases self-indulgent, vain, and cruel people are essentially weak at heart. Looking at the story of Haman from another point of view, we see how well it illustrates the confounding of evil devices and the punishment of their author in the drama of history. It is one of the most striking instances of what is called "poetic justice," the justice depicted by the poets, but not always seen in prosaic lives, the justice that is itself a poem because it makes a harmony of events. Haman is the typical example of the schemer who "falls into his own pit," of the villain who is "hoist on his own petard." Three times the same process occurs, to impress its lesson with threefold emphasis. We have it first in the most moderate form when Haman is forced to assist in bestowing on Mordecai the honours he has been coveting for himself, by leading the horse of the hated Jew in his triumphant procession through the city. The same lesson is impressed with tragic force when the grand vizier is condemned to be impaled on the stake erected by him in readiness for the man whom he has been compelled to honour. Lastly, the design of murdering the whole race to which Mordecai belongs is frustrated by the slaughter of those who sympathise with Haman’s attitude towards Israel-the "Hamanites," as they have been called. We rarely meet with such a complete reversal of fate, such a climax of vengeance. In considering the course of events here set forth we must distinguish between the old Jewish view of it and the significance of the process itself. The Jews were taught to look on all this with fierce, vindictive glee, and to see in it the prophecy of the like fate that was treasured up for their enemies in later times. This rage of the oppressed against their oppressors, this almost fiendish delight in the complete overthrow of the enemies of Israel, this total extinction of any sentiment of pity even for the helpless and innocent sufferers who are to share the fate of their guilty relatives-in a word, this utterly un-Christlike spirit of revenge, must be odious in our eyes. We cannot understand how good men could stand by with folded arms while they saw women and children tossed into the seething cauldron of vengeance, still less how they could themselves perpetrate the dreadful deed. But then we cannot understand that tragedy of history, the oppression of the Jews, and its deteriorating influence on its victims, nor the hard, cruel spirit of blank indifference to the sufferings of others that prevailed almost everywhere before Christ came to teach the world pity. When we turn to the events themselves we must take another view of the situation. Here was a rough and sweeping, but still a complete and striking punishment of cruel wrong. The Jews expected this too frequently on earth. We have learnt that it is more often reserved for another world and a future state of existence. Yet sometimes we are startled to see how apt it can be even in this present life. The cruel man breeds foes by his very cruelty, he rouses his own executioners by the rage that he provokes in them. It is the same with respect to many other forms of evil. Thus vanity is punished by the humiliation it receives from those people who are irritated at its pretensions, it is the last failing that the world will readily forgive, partly perhaps because it offends the similar failing in other people. Then we see meanness chastised by the odium it excites, lying by the distrust it provokes, cowardice by the attacks it invites, coldness of heart by a corresponding indifference on the side of other people. The result is not always so neatly effected nor so visibly demonstrated as in the case of Haman, but the tendency is always present, because there is a Power that makes for righteousness presiding over society and inherent in the very constitution of nature. The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.