INTRODUCTION
1. Background
Five books that are found together in the third division of the Hebrew Bible (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther) collectively are called the five Megilloth (“Scrolls”). The book of Esther is generally the last of the five, probably because it is read during Purim, the last festival of the Jewish year. In our English Bibles it is found after Ezra and Nehemiah, probably because of the role of Persia in the three books.
The book of Esther has continued to be controversial. Reactions range from ecstatic delight for the victory of the Jews over their enemies to violent dislike and rejection because of what appears to be indefensible moral conduct and because of the absence of any reference to God.
Esther is one of two OT books named for a woman, the other being Ruth, and one of several not quoted in the NT. Like Song of Songs, it does not mention God; like Exodus, it deals specifically with persecution of the Hebrew people.
Esther contains the account of the origin of the Feast of Purim, one of two festivals adopted by the postexilic Jewish community that are not found in the Mosaic law; the other one is Hanukkah, a festival that began during the time of the Maccabees (i.e., between the OT and NT). The events of Esther are set in Susa during the reign of Xerxes, king of Persia (486–465 B.C.), whose empire reached from India to Ethiopia. Esther is the only OT book in which the entire narrative takes place in Persia.
Against a background of centuries of persecution, it is understandable why Purim has become such a favorite of the Jews. It recalls a time when they were able to turn the tables on those who wanted to destroy them. Purim is celebrated today amid a carnival-like atmosphere, with masquerade parties, noisemaking, and revelry. The story is reenacted in synagogues with the audience hissing Haman and cheering Mordecai.
This book is a profound statement about the heroic resistance necessary for survival in the face of violent anti-Semitism that continues to the present day.
2. Authorship and Date
The text of Esther nowhere names the author nor gives the date of its writing. Authorship of the book has often been attributed to Mordecai. However, it is unlikely that Mordecai would have penned the paean of praise about himself in 10:3. Augustine suggested Ezra as the author. But the most that can be said is that the identity of the author remains unknown.
Because of this, there can be no absolute certainty about the date of its composition. It cannot have been written earlier than the death of Xerxes (465 B.C.), as 10:2 suggests that his reign had ended, but that is the most that can be said for certain. Two principal periods have been proposed as the likely date: an early date (450–300 B.C.) and a late date (175–100 B.C.).
Arguments for the earlier date include the numerous Persian names and loanwords. It is unlikely that so many words of this type would have occurred in a composition written in the late Greek period without modification. Another argument for the early date is the author’s intimate knowledge of Persian customs and the topography of Susa and the Persian royal palaces. Such familiarity with Persian life argues for a date in the Persian period and perhaps not long after Xerxes’ reign, for this kind of knowledge would not likely have survived till the Maccabean period. If the earlier date is accepted, the author was probably a Persian Jew. If it was written in the second century, he was probably a Palestinian Jew.
3. Purpose
Many interpreters take the position that the major purpose of the book of Esther was to explain the origin of Purim, to justify its celebration (since it is not mentioned in the Torah), and to regulate its manner of observance. Some believe that the purpose of Esther was to record the remarkable deliverance of the Jewish people at a critical time in their history and to keep the memory of that deliverance alive through the annual observance of Purim, in order to kindle their nationalistic fervor. An immediate purpose served by the book was to assure the Jews who did not return to their homeland after the Exile that God still loved them and would protect them from unjust oppression.
Most commentaries overlook what may well be the actual intent of this book—to teach God’s providential care of his people (see Theological Values). This oversight is understandable because the doctrine of providence is presented so subtly in Esther; God’s name is not even mentioned. The possibility of another purpose is suggested under Special Problems—i.e., to show that God’s displeasure may be manifested by his silence.
4. Special Problems
Three problems are especially associated with the book of Esther: lack of a single mention of God’s name in the book; moral and ethical practices by Mordecai and Esther; and a number of what appear to be historical inaccuracies.
a. Absence of God’s name
The book of Esther’s failure to mention God is glaring. The explanation can best be seen in the providence of God and his hiddenness (see Theological Values). Many believe that there is an indirect reference to Esther’s faith when she spoke of fasting (4:16; cf. 4:3; 9:31). The statement “relief and deliverance . . . will arise from another place” (4:14) comes very close to being an acknowledgment of God and probably should be understood that way.
b. Moral and ethicalpractices
The nationalistic and vengeful spirit of the book of Esther caused many problems among early Jewish and Christian readers and continues to do so. The leading characters do not consistently exhibit noble qualities. Xerxes was cruel, sensual, and capricious. Esther was willing to hide her identity to become queen and did not appear reluctant to marry a Gentile. Mordecai advised her to conceal her identity in order to become queen. Esther showed no mercy when Haman pled for his life and even demanded that his sons be hanged. Not content with deliverance of her people, she and Mordecai with the king’s permission wrote a decree authorizing their people to slaughter and plunder their enemies. Mordecai insolently refused to bow to Haman.
The author never explicitly condemns any of the moral shortcomings of Esther or Mordecai but seems to describe their triumph with approval. Perhaps only someone who has experienced severe persecution can understand, without necessarily approving, the unrestrained exultation evoked by victory over one’s persecutors.
The best approach to the moral problems of Esther is neither blind defense nor blanket condemnation. If immoral practices among the Israelites are found in the preexilic period (idolatry, adultery, lying, etc.), why should anyone be surprised to find other expressions of ungodly conduct in the postexilic period?
There is an explanation that addresses both the omission of God’s name and the moral problems of the book (and that at the same time reveals a link between the two). The entire book should perhaps be seen as a subtle but powerful reminder that God’s people sometimes fail to consult him prior to acting, do things that are contrary to his will, and consequently experience his displeasure by his silence. The disturbing ethical practices of Esther and Mordecai resulted in the deliverance of the Jewish people from a terrible pogrom, but their success does not prove that the means used were pleasing to God. There are numerous examples in the Bible of great men and women of God committing immoral acts (e.g., Ge 12:10–20; 19:8, 30–38; 2Sa 11).
In these examples, there is no explicit rebuke by God—only his silence. However, the silence of God—the feeling that he is very distant—can express his disapproval just as powerfully as his open rebuke through the prophets. What is usually interpreted as the providence of God working silently but effectively on behalf of his people should be reexamined to see whether God’s silence should be interpreted as evidence that the people were working out their own affairs without consulting him. There is no evidence that the Jewish people entered into a period of blessing after the events of Esther, a blessing that might have been expected if God were guiding their actions. His clear promise, after all, was that if they obeyed him, they would be blessed (Dt 28). Mordecai’s elevation (10:3) may not have been God’s stamp of approval on his actions; it may instead show that if we use human means to achieve our purposes, we will receive human rewards (cf. Mt 6:5).
The real message of Esther may well be that God’s people are prone to use the same means as ungodly people for achieving their goals rather than taking a bold step of faith that God will work out his purposes without human initiative, least of all resorting to immoral acts in a crisis situation.
c. Alleged historical inaccuracies
Scholars have long debated the historicity of the events described in Esther. An unbiased examination of all the arguments, however, leads to the conclusion that there is no valid evidence for denying the historicity of any of the people or events found in the book. Admittedly, the lack of confirmation of Vashti or Esther is a difficult problem, but all the facts are still not in. There is nothing in Esther that could not have happened.
5. Theological Values
The omission of God’s name does not detract from the theological worth of Esther. It could be interpreted as his hiddenness as he works out his purposes. This hiddenness can sometimes be explained as evidence of his displeasure, which may be the key to the ethical problems of Esther that disturb many sincere Christian exegetes. In the OT God sometimes spoke out to show his displeasure toward his people’s sins (e.g., Isa 1:15; Jer 17:1; Am 6:8). Sometimes he expressed his displeasure by withdrawal and silence (e.g., Eze 11:23). The Jews in Esther’s time did not deserve God’s favor (no one ever does). Mordecai and Esther were not blameless.
Esther implicitly teaches God’s providential care of his people. Vashti’s deposition, Esther’s selection as her successor, and Mordecai’s discovery of the plot against the king and his subsequent reward are only a few of the many “chance” happenings that are better explained by God’s way of effecting the deliverance of his people from their persecutors. The book implies that even when God’s people are far from him and disobedient, they are still the object of his concern and love, and that he is working out his purposes through them (4:14). There is also a reminder that if one fails to carry out God’s tasks, he will work out his purposes through another. The sovereignty of God is implicit in the events of the story. The fast-moving events that seem to be under the control of men such as Xerxes and Haman prove in the end to have been directed by God for the benefit of his people. Even the law of the Medes and Persians, which should have brought about the slaughter of the Jews, was overruled.
The book of Esther teaches (1) the law of retribution for sin by the hanging of Haman on his own gallows, (2) the reward for faithfulness, and (3) the value of standing for one’s convictions even in the midst of a dangerous situation.
EXPOSITION
I. Esther Elevated to Queen of Persia (1:1–2:23)
A. The Great Banquets of Xerxes (1:1–9)
1 The story of Esther is said to have taken place during the reign of the Persian monarch Xerxes. The Hebrew word used throughout the book is transliterated as “Ahasuerus” (see NIV note on v.1), a variant of Xerxes’ name. As grandson of Cyrus the Great (550–530 B.C.) by Atossa, Cyrus’ daughter, Xerxes inherited an empire from his father, Darius I (520–486 B.C.), that stretched east to west from India (probably a reference to the northwestern part of the Indus River region) to Cush (“Ethiopia,” i.e., the Upper Nile region). Xerxes was the Persian monarch who made an ambitious but disastrous attempt to conquer Greece in 480–479 B.C. He divided much of his energy during the remaining years of his reign to an ambitious building project at Susa and Persepolis. He was murdered by his vizier Artabanus, who then placed Artaxerxes I (cf. Ezr 7:1; Ne 2:1) on the throne.
For purposes of governing, Xerxes’ empire was divided into 127 provinces and twenty satrapies (according to Herodotus) or as many as thirty-one (according to other sources). “Provinces” were political subdivisions of the “satrapies” (cf. 3:12).
2 “At the time King Xerxes reigned” suggests the beginning of his reign, but v.3 says it was in the third year. It may only mean that Xerxes took up his residence in Susa, the royal winter residence and capital of ancient Elam. In the summer Susa was unbearably hot. Susa was both the name of the city and the name of the royal fortress or citadel that occupied a separate part of the city. Fire destroyed the royal buildings during the reign of Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.), but they were rebuilt by Artaxerxes II (404–358). Susa’s location made it a center of traffic on the roads to Persepolis, Sardis, and Ecbatana.
3 In the third year of his reign, Xerxes gave a great banquet to display his wealth and glory. Its purpose may have been to make plans for his Greek campaign. All his nobles and the military and political leaders of Persia and Media were present. Historical sources confirm huge numbers of guests (as many as 69,574) at banquets put on by the Persian kings.
4 For 180 days (six months) Xerxes displayed his vast wealth and royal regalia to his guests. A question has been raised as to whether the guests could have exercised their administrative duties and also all have been present during the entire 180 days or whether they might have come by rotation until all had experienced the king’s hospitality. Possibly the king displayed his wealth for 180 days and then gave a feast that lasted seven days.
5 The context indicates that a seven-day banquet was given for all the men who were in the citadel of Susa, from the greatest to the least (i.e., both nobles and commoners were included). The banquet was held in the king’s garden. Persian palaces usually stood in a park, surrounded by a fortified wall.
6 With eyewitness accuracy the author described the white-and-blue linen hangings in the garden that were fastened with cords to silver rings on marble pillars. He described couches of gold and silver placed on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl, and other costly stones. Archaeologists have found the remains of Xerxes’ palace and have verified the accuracy of the opulence described in this verse.
7 Wine was served in golden goblets, no two alike. The king’s “liberality” assured an abundant supply of wine for all the guests.
8 The guests were served according to Persian law; the word for “command” (GK 2017) here may mean the special rule made for this feast. No one was compelled to drink; at the same time, no restrictions were placed on what a guest could consume. The king’s wine stewards had been instructed to serve each man whatever he wanted, however much or little.
9 At the same time the men were being entertained by the king, Queen Vashti gave a banquet for the women in the royal palace, though such separation of the sexes at banquets was not required by Persian custom. The queen’s name has raised a question about the historicity of the book of Esther, as the only known name of Xerxes’ queen was Amestris, a cruel and imperious woman. But Amestris is probably a Greek version of the name Vashti.
B. Vashti’s Dethronement (1:10–22)
1. Vashti’s refusal to obey the king (1:10– 12)
10–11 On the seventh and last day of the feast, when the king was in high spirits, he sent his seven eunuchs (seven was a sacred number to the Persians as well as to the Hebrews) to bring the queen before him, wearing the crown, so that he might display her beauty to the assembled guests. The name of the eunuchs are all Persian in origin. Eunuchs are usually associated with the king’s harem, but they also played important roles in many political and administrative affairs (cf. Jer 29:2; Da 1:7; Ac 8:27).
12 The queen refused to answer the king’s summons, and he became enraged. His male ego had suffered a public affront. Though the motive for her refusal is not stated, she probably did not choose to degrade herself before the king’s drunken guests.
2. The wise men’s advice (1:13–22)
13–14 Angered by Vashti’s disobedience, the king consulted his wise men, “who understood the times,” to determine what should be done to her. Like their Babylonian counterparts, these wise men were astrologers and magicians who gave counsel according to their reading of celestial phenomena. The king normally consulted experts in matters of law and justice and heard their opinions before he acted on any matter. There were seven wise men, all with Persian names, called “the seven nobles of Persia and Media” (cf. the Council of Seven in Ezr 7:14). Their high rank allowed them “special access” into the king’s presence.
15 The king wanted to know what could be done legally to the queen for disobeying his command. It seems strange that he would have to consult others before dealing with a rebellious wife, but apparently the law protected her from his caprice.
16 Memucan, one of the seven nobles and perhaps their spokesman after they had discussed the matter, advised the king that Vashti had not only done “wrong” to the king but also to all the nobles and all the people throughout all the provinces of the kingdom. Apparently there was no existing law to deal with the situation, hence the consultation between the king and his nobles.
17–18 More was involved than the queen’s affront to the king. With keen perception Memucan saw that if left unpunished, Vashti’s rebellious attitude toward her husband would influence other women in the kingdom to rebel against their husbands’ authority. The nobles anticipated there would be no end of disobedience, disrespect, and discord in their own homes.
19–20 Memucan advised immediate and drastic action to deal with the situation. He advised Xerxes to issue a “royal decree” to be included among the laws of the Persians and Medes that could never be repealed, forbidding Vashti from ever again entering the presence of the king; her position should be given to someone better than she. The advisors wanted to be sure that Vashti could never again be restored to the king’s favor, lest she take vengeance on them. Memucan further advised the king to proclaim the decree throughout the empire so that all women from the least to the greatest would respect their husbands.
21–22 Memucan’s advice pleased the king and the other nobles. Xerxes ordered dispatches sent to every part of the kingdom, to each people in their own language. He wanted to be sure that all his subjects understood the decree. The decree proclaimed that every man should be ruler over his own household.
C. Choosing a New Queen (2:1–23)
1. The search (2:1–4)
1 After Xerxes’ wrath “had subsided,” he remembered the deeds of Vashti and his decree that deposed her. It is uncertain whether he now regretted his rash action and wished to reinstate her but was prevented because his decree was irrevocable (cf. Da 6:14–15), or whether his thoughts now turned to a replacement for the queen. The king divorced Vashti in the third year of his reign (1:3) and did not marry Esther till the seventh year (2:16). Between the events of 1:3 and 2:16, Xerxes made his disastrous expedition to Greece. Returning from his naval defeat at Salamis in 480 and his humiliating rout at Plataea in 479, he turned his thoughts to remarriage, through which he hoped to find solace.
2 The king’s personal attendants proposed that the king choose another wife from among the beautiful young virgins. They may have seen and felt more than others the king’s unhappiness that the putting away of Vashti had caused him.
3–4 In all the provinces officials were to be appointed to locate all the beautiful young virgins and bring them to the harem in Susa. There they would be placed under the care of Hegai, the king’s eunuch. Beauty treatments of all kinds of ointments and cosmetics would be applied to each of the virgins for twelve months (cf. v.12) in preparation for her presentation to the king. The one who pleased the king would be made queen in the place of Vashti. The courtiers’ suggestion pleased the king; so he ordered that the search begin. Fathers apparently did not voluntarily present their daughters as evidenced by the king’s appointment of officials to search for the candidates.
2. Esther as a candidate (2:5–11)
5–6 At this juncture in the narrative, Mordecai is introduced for the first time. His name is the Hebraized form of the Babylonian god Marduk. Idolatrous names for devout Jews grew out of a practice during the Diaspora of giving both a Babylonian and a Hebrew name to the same person (cf. Da 1:6–7). He is called a “Jew” (GK 3374), a word derived from “Judah” that was used from the time of the Exile to refer to an Israelite. Possibly Mordecai was a eunuch because no wife or family is mentioned (v.7) and because he had access to the women’s quarters (v.1l). His ancestry is traced through his father and grandfather to his great-grandfather, Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Verse 6 begins “who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem . . . with Jehoiachin.” If the antecedent of “who” is, as seems likely, “Kish,” this man was carried away into captivity with King Jehoiachin in 597 B.C.
7 Mordecai “brought up” his cousin (other sources say Mordecai was Esther’s uncle), whose Hebrew name was Hadassah (“myrtle”). She is better known by her Persian name Esther, which is derived from the Persian word for “star,” or from the name of the Babylonian deity Ishtar (known in Hebrew as Ashtoreth). Her age at the time of the death of her parents is not given, but Mordecai took her as his own daughter; he probably adopted her. The author describes her as “lovely in form and features.”
8 After the king’s edict had been proclaimed, girls from all over the empire were brought to Susa, including Esther. They were placed in the care of Hegai, who was in charge of the harem.
9 Hegai must have discerned that Esther had the qualities that would please the king, for she “won his favor.” Immediately he began to provide her with beauty treatments and special food so that the required twelve months of preparation could be completed without delay. Esther apparently did not object to breaking the Jewish dietary laws. Hegai assigned seven maids from the king’s palace to take care of her and transferred Esther and her maids to the best quarters of the harem.
10 Mordecai forbade Esther to reveal her Jewish nationality, and she dutifully obeyed him. Obviously she would have stood little chance to be selected queen if she were not Persian, but why would Mordecai want her to marry a Gentile? Such a marriage was a violation of Jewish laws (cf. Ezr 9:1–4, 14, 10:3, 11, 18–44; Ne 10:30; 13:23–27). Also, there was no threat by Haman or known antipathy to the Jews at the time to warrant his secrecy. Mordecai has been accused of ambition for political advancement that could be realized if his cousin were queen. The author expresses no disapproval of the subterfuge.
11 Mordecai was careful to keep close check on Esther. Every day he walked near the courtyard of the harem to try to gain information about his cousin.
3. The traditional procedure (2:12–14)
12 Further information is given about each candidate’s beauty treatment. The treatment required twelve months before a candidate was allowed into the king’s presence. For six months oil of myrrh was applied to her and for six months, perfumes and cosmetics.
13 When each candidate was ready to be presented to the king, whatever she desired to take with her from the harem to his palace was given to her (i.e., jewels, clothing, etc.).
14 The maiden chosen would go into the king’s presence in the evening to spend the night with him. The next morning she would return to another part of the harem and be placed under the care of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the concubines. She never returned to the king again unless he was pleased with her and summoned her by name. Those rejected lived the rest of their lives like widows (cf. 2Sa 20:3).
4. Esther chosen as queen (2:15–18)
15 When Esther’s turn came to be taken to the king, she did not request any of the usual ornaments or cosmetics to enhance her beauty. She only took the things that Hegai, the king’s eunuch, had suggested. She trusted him to know what would please the king. Her modesty and humility impressed everyone who saw her. Her father’s name is given in this verse as Abihail. This name occurs in the OT twice as a woman’s name (1Ch 2:29; 2Ch 11:18).
16 It was the tenth month and the seventh year of Xerxes’ reign when Esther was taken to the king; it was four years after Vashti had been deposed (cf. 1:3; see comment on 2:1).
17 None of the previous candidates had attracted the king sufficiently for him to make her his wife; but he immediately loved Esther and placed the royal crown on her head, thereby making her queen in place of Vashti. After seeing Esther the king had no desire to continue the search for a queen.
18 A great wedding feast was given by the king for all his nobles and officials. As a generous gesture to mark the occasion, he proclaimed a holiday, i.e., a release from work, throughout the provinces. He distributed “gifts” liberally, as befitted such a monarch.
5. An attempt on the king’s life thwarted (2:19–23)
19–20 All the virgins were assembled again. At that time Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate. No reason is given for the assembly. Esther had been careful to keep her nationality secret, as Mordecai had instructed her. From the time she first came under his care, she had been obedient to his commands and continued to listen to him, even after being elevated to the position of queen. Her continued obedience to Mordecai becomes important to the plot. Mordecai’s position at the gate was not that of an “idler” but represented some kind of duty or official position he occupied. He may have been appointed to this position by Esther to give him easier access to the royal quarters. Men who “sat at the gate” were frequently elders and leading men, respected citizens who settled disputes that were brought to them.
21–22 During the time he was sitting at the king’s gate, Mordecai either overheard or was informed about a plot to kill Xerxes by two of the king’s officers, Bigthana and Teresh (cf. 6:2). They were eunuchs, guards of the door—i.e., men who protected the king’s private apartment—who had become angry with Xerxes. Mordecai got word to Esther about the plot; and she relayed the information to the king, giving credit to Mordecai, without mentioning their relationship. Plots against Persian monarchs were not uncommon. Xerxes was in fact assassinated in his bedroom in a similar situation in 465 B.C. in a conspiracy led by his chiliarch Artabanus.
23 When Mordecai’s report was investigated and found to be true, the two men were hanged on a “gallows” (lit., “tree”; GK 6770). The entire event was recorded in the “book of the annals” (i.e., official court records of memorable events). It is hard to understand why Xerxes forgot to reward Mordecai at that time.
II. The Feud Between Haman and Mordecai (3:1–8:17)
A. Haman’s Plot to Kill Mordecai (3:1–15)
1. Haman’s anger with Mordecai (3:1–6)
1 Sometime later the king elevated Haman by giving him a place of honor above all the other nobles of the empire. It was probably the same office that was later given to Mordecai (cf. 10:2). This is the first mention of Haman. The text identifies him as the son of Hammedatha the Agagite (otherwise unknown). Jewish tradition considers him to have been a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag, an enemy of Israel during Saul’s reign (cf. 1Sa 15:7–33). The Amalekites were ancient enemies of the Jews (cf. Ex 17:8–14; Nu 24:7; Dt 25:17–19). Saul failed to destroy the Amalekites completely as God had ordered him to do, and consequently the kingdom was taken from him (cf. 1Sa 15:23).
2–4 By command of the king, all the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman. Mordecai, however, refused to kneel before Haman or to honor him. In spite of repeated appeals by the royal officials, Mordecai refused to obey the king’s command. Apparently he had told them that as a Jew he could not bow before any human being. The officials informed Haman of Mordecai’s insolence to see whether it would be “tolerated.” There are many examples of God’s people prostrating themselves before a king or other superiors (cf. Ge 23:7; 27:29; 1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 14:4; 1Ki 1:16). It is unlikely that Mordecai could have been elevated next to the king if he had refused to kneel before Xerxes. The most probable reason was Mordecai’s pride; no self-respecting Benjamite would bow before a descendant of the ancient Amalekite enemy of the Jews.
5–6 On learning that Mordecai refused to kneel before him or to pay him honor, Haman was enraged. So great was his wrath and injured pride that he determined to destroy all the Jews in Xerxes’ kingdom. Haman was not satisfied with killing only Mordecai but was determined to succeed where Saul had failed (cf. 1Sa 15:9); Haman would destroy all his enemies.
2. A day of revenge chosen by lot (3:7–15)
7 In the twelfth year of Xerxes’ reign (474 B.C.), five years after Esther had become queen (2:16), “the pur (that is, the lot)” was cast in Haman’s presence to determine the day for the slaughter of the Jews. The purpose of the lot may have been only to determine an auspicious day for Haman to go before the king to make his request to kill the Jews. The non-Hebraic word pur anticipates the institution of Purim (i.e., “lots”) in ch. 9.
8 To gain the king’s support for his plan, Haman described the Jews, who were scattered in all the provinces of Persia, as a people who kept themselves aloof, who had different customs, and who would not obey the king’s laws. Haman reasoned that it was not in the king’s best interest to “tolerate them.” Haman did not mention Mordecai as the special object of his wrath.
9 To obtain the king’s permission to destroy the Jews, Haman appealed to the monarch’s greed, offering to put ten thousand talents of silver of his own private fortune into the royal treasury to pay the men who would carry out the pogrom. The value of the silver was a fabulous sum, estimated to weigh approximately 375 tons. It has also been estimated to represent the equivalent of two-thirds of the annual income of the Persian Empire. Perhaps Haman planned to acquire such a large sum by confiscating the Jews’ property.
10–11 The proposal apparently was immediately acceptable to the king. He removed the signet ring from his finger and gave it to Haman with instructions to keep the money and to do whatever he pleased with the Jews. The signet ring was a symbol of royal authority and in ancient times was used instead of a written signature to seal official documents. Thus Haman was given unlimited authority to carry out his plan. The king was unaware that by giving blanket authority to Haman to execute the Jews, he had also placed his own wife under a death sentence. The king’s rejection of Haman’s silver may have been only an example of Oriental politeness that did not actually mean he rejected the payment (cf. 4:7, where it seems that the bribe was paid).
12 On the thirteenth of the first month (Nisan), the royal secretaries were summoned to write out in the script of each province and in the language of each people Haman’s orders to the satraps, governors, and nobles. The orders were written in the king’s name and sealed with his ring. Three echelons of officials are named—’’satraps” (GK 346), who ruled over the twenty major divisions of the empire; “governors” (GK 7068), who ruled smaller subdivisions of the satrapies; and “nobles” (GK 8569), who served under the governors and were perhaps chiefs of the conquered peoples.
13 Dispatches were sent by “couriers” to all the provinces with orders to annihilate all the Jews, young and old, and to plunder their goods on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month (Adar). No reason is given for the lapse of almost a year from the time of the decree till its implementation. With so much advance notice, the Jews would have had time to escape. The piling up of verbs— “destroy, kill and annihilate” “expresses the idea of thoroughness.
14–15 The decree was to be made law in every province, and all were to know about it so they would be ready for the day. The couriers departed in haste for the provinces at the king’s command. The edict was also circulated in the citadel of Susa. Then the king and Haman sat down to drink, unconcerned about the tragedy soon to be inflicted on the Jews. The people of Susa were bewildered by what was happening. Apparently they did not share Haman’s passionate anti-Semitism.
B. Mordecai’s Plan to Save His People (4:1–17)
1. Reaction to the edict (4:1–3)
1 On learning what Haman was plotting, Mordecai expressed his grief and humiliation in typical Oriental fashion. He tore his clothing, put on sackcloth, and sprinkled ashes on himself. Then he walked about the city wailing loudly.
2–3 Mordecai went no farther than the king’s gate, as no one was permitted within the gate who was wearing sackcloth. Apparently a person in mourning was considered ceremonially unclean. Perhaps Mordecai hoped to attract Esther’s attention (cf.4:4). Not only was Mordecai in mourning, but in every province where the edict was announced, it was greeted by the Jews with fasting, weeping, and wailing. Many of them lay down on sackcloth and ashes.
2. Mordecai’s appeal to Esther (4:4–17)
4–5 Some of Esther’s maids and eunuchs must have seen Mordecai at the king’s gate; so they reported his behavior to Esther. No reason is given why they felt one Jew’s grief should be reported to their queen since they apparently did not know about her relationship to Mordecai, though they did know the two were acquainted (cf. 2:11, 22). Esther was distressed to learn of Mordecai’s sorrow. She sent clothes for him to wear in place of the sackcloth, probably so that he could enter the palace; but he refused to accept them. This may have indicated to Esther that his actions were not caused by personal sorrow but by a public calamity. Since Mordecai would not come to her, Esther sent Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs who had been assigned to attend her, to find out what was troubling Mordecai.
6–7 Hathach looked for Mordecai in the open square of the city in front of the king’s gate, probably the marketplace. There Mordecai told the eunuch what had happened that caused him to be in mourning. He told Hathach how much money Haman had agreed to pay into the royal treasury for the privilege of destroying the Jews (cf. 3:11). We are not told how Mordecai learned about the transaction between the king and Haman.
8 Mordecai had a copy of the edict for the Jews’ annihilation that was being circulated in Susa. He asked the eunuch to give it to Esther and to explain it to her. He told Hathach to urge Esther to go to the king to plead for mercy for the Jews. Mordecai’s request would require that the queen reveal her Jewish identity.
9–11 After Hathach told the queen what Mordecai had said, she instructed him to return to her cousin to remind him that no one could approach the king in the inner court without a royal summons, upon penalty of death. On occasion the king had been known to extend his golden scepter to an uninvited person as a gesture of mercy. According to historical sources, a person could send a letter to the king asking for an audience. Why this procedure did not occur to Esther can only be surmised. Since she had not been summoned by the king for a month, Esther did not know whether he would forgive her if she approached him without a royal summons. She may have concluded that she had lost the king’s favor. It appears that initially Esther was more concerned about her own welfare than about her people.
12–14 Mordecai responded by telling Esther that she would not escape Haman’s edict against the Jews because she was in the king’s house. If she remained silent, deliverance of the Jews would come from another source; but because of her cowardice, she and her father’s family would perish. Not even royal status could protect her from the king’s edict. Then Mordecai asked the question that has become the classic support of the doctrine of providence as a key to the understanding of the book of Esther: “Who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” Her exaltation as a queen may have been God’s way of obtaining a savior for his people. In the phrase “from another place,” “place” may be a veiled reference to God.
15–16 Esther sent a reply to Mordecai, affirming her willingness to risk her life in behalf of her people. She asked him to assemble all the Jews who were in Susa to fast for her for three days and nights. She and her maids would also participate in the fast. Afterward she would go to the king, even though to do so was contrary to the law. In a final expression of courage and willing submission, she said, “If I perish, I perish.” Prayer and fasting before God were customary concurrent practices in times of sorrow, anxiety, or penitence. The author makes no mention of God or prayers being made to him.
17 Mordecai departed from the open square in front of the king’s gate and carried out Esther’s instructions.
C. Esther’s First Banquet (5:1–8)
1 “On the third day,” i.e., when the fasting was completed (cf. 4:16), Esther dressed in her royal splendor and went to the inner court of the palace in front of the king’s hall. Xerxes was sitting on his throne in the hall, facing the entrance. From this position he could see Esther standing in the court. She had waited to see what he would do, as she had already violated the law by entering the inner court (cf. 4:11).
2 Esther’s beauty evidently pleased the king; so he did not rebuke her. Instead, he held out the golden scepter in his hand as a gesture of favor toward her. Esther approached the throne and touched the tip of the scepter.
3 The king wanted to know why she had come to him. He assured her that any request she might make, even up to half the kingdom, would be granted. He realized that only a pressing need could have caused Esther to risk coming to him unsummoned. The offer of half the kingdom was probably an example of Oriental courtesy that was not intended to be taken too literally (cf. Mk 6:23).
4 Instead of forthrightly pleading for her people, Esther invited the king and Haman to a banquet she had prepared that day. She undoubtedly realized that it was not a psychologically propitious moment to plead for her people. Perhaps Esther included Haman in the invitation so that he would be present when she made her accusations against him.
5–6 The king ordered Haman to be summoned at once. The two men then went to Esther’s banquet. While they were drinking wine, the king again asked to know the nature of Esther’s request.
7–8 For a second time Esther postponed giving a direct answer to the king. Instead she invited the king and Haman to a second banquet the following day. She indicated that she would present her petition to the king at that time.
D. Haman’s PlotAgainst Mordecai(5:9–14)
9–10 Haman left the banquet happy and in “high spirits” because of the honor that had been accorded him by the invitations to the queen’s private banquets. When he encountered Mordecai at the king’s gate, however, Haman was filled with rage against the Jew because Mordecai did not stand up or show fear in his presence (cf 3:2). But Haman controlled himself and went to his home and called his wife, Zeresh, and his friends together to tell them about the great honor accorded him by the king and the queen. Mordecai had apparently heard that Esther had been favorably received by the king and was encouraged by this turn of events; thus he had removed his sackcloth.
11–12 In an expansive mood Haman boasted about his wealth, his many sons, and the honor shown him by the king. He also exulted about the invitation to Esther’s private banquet to which only he and the king had been invited. Haman’s boasting only accentuated his later humiliation and fall from favor (cf. Pr 16:18). An early OT interpretation (in a Targum) records that Haman had 208 sons in addition to the ten who held government offices (cf. 9:10).
13 In spite of the things that should have brought him happiness, Haman had no satisfaction as long as he saw Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate. Haman’s wealth and honors could not satisfy him when he thought of one Jew who failed to show him the proper respect he felt he deserved!
14 Haman’s wife and friends suggested a plan that would remove the source of his irritation. She told Haman to have a gallows erected seventy-five feet in height and then to ask the king to have Mordecai hanged on it. With that business out of the way, Haman could go with the king to Esther’s banquet and be happy. His wife’s suggestion delighted Haman, and he had the gallows built, confident that the king would approve his request. The height of the gallows was exorbitant, but it is consistent with what we know of Haman’s vanity and obsessive desire for revenge.
E. Haman’s Humiliation (6:1–13)
1. Discovery of an unrewarded deed (6:1–5)
1 The same night of Esther’s first banquet, the king was unable to sleep; so he ordered the royal annals (see comment on 2:23) to be brought in and read to him. No doubt God was behind the king’s sleeplessness. This entire chapter shows how circumstances fit together to overrule the evil intentions of Haman.
2–3 In the course of reading the annals, the record of Mordecai’s exposure of the plot of Bigthana and Teresh against the king was found. On inquiring what “honor and recognition” had been bestowed on Mordecai, the king was told that nothing had been done to honor him. The oversight must have disturbed Xerxes, as it was a reflection on him for not rewarding one of his benefactors.
4–5 Though the hour was late, the king inquired if anyone was in the court. He intended to set the matter right without further delay. As if by chance, Haman had just entered the outer court to speak to the king about having Mordecai hanged on the gallows he had erected. The attendants advised the king of Haman’s presence; so the king ordered that he be brought to his bedchamber at once. It seems strange that Haman came in the middle of the night to make his petition, but perhaps he knew the sleeping habits of the monarch.
2. Mordecai honored (6:6–11)
6 The text suggests that abruptly and without an exchange of greetings the king asked Haman what should be done for a person whom the king delighted to honor. Haman assumed the king meant to honor him. It is one of the great ironies of the story that Haman was to decide how the man he desired to hang would be honored.
7–9 The vain Haman, not needing additional wealth, suggested that the one to be honored be given a royal robe that had been worn by the king, along with a horse the king had ridden, and that a royal crest be placed on its head. Horses wearing crowns or head ornaments are depicted on both Assyrian and Persian reliefs. Haman further suggested that one of the king’s most noble princes lead the “honoree,” garbed in the king’s robe, on the horse through the city streets. As he led horse and rider through the streets, the prince was to proclaim, “This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor!” Haman must have been ecstatic in anticipation of the high honor he thought was about to be accorded him before all the people of Susa.
10 The suggestion delighted the king. He ordered Haman to carry out the plan at once. Then for the first time the king named the man who was to be honored—Mordecai, Haman’s adversary! The king warned Haman not to “neglect” any of the honors he had proposed. It seems strange that the king would knowingly honor a Jew so soon after enacting an edict to destroy all the Jews in his kingdom.
11 Haman had no choice but to carry out the king’s orders. No writer, however gifted, could adequately describe the chagrin and mortification Haman must have experienced as he robed Mordecai and led him through the streets. One wonders what brought the greatest enjoyment to Mordecai—his being remembered by the king, the people’s adulation, or Haman’s humiliation!
3. Haman’s wife affirms his downfall (6:12–13)
12 Afterward Mordecai returned to the king’s gate, where he had been sitting before Haman had been forced to lead his foe through the streets of Susa mounted on the king’s horse. The honor had not changed Mordecai’s position before the king as a Jew awaiting the execution of Haman’s edict. Haman, however, rushed home with his head covered, an expression of his grief and wretchedness. Covering the head was a way of expressing mourning (cf. 2Sa 15:30; Jer 14:3–4). Haman must have hoped to find solace from his wife and friends.
13 Haman told his wife and friends all the details of his humiliating experience. If he expected comfort from them, he did not receive it. Instead they, seeing the handwriting on the wall, warned Haman that the Jew had been responsible for the beginning of his downfall. They were convinced that he could not stand against Mordecai; Haman’s ruin was already assured. They seem to have conveniently forgotten that his humiliation was largely the result of their suggestion (cf. 5:14).
F. Esther’s Second Banquet (6:14–7:10)
1. Haman summoned to the banquet (6:14)
14 The conversation between Haman and hi friends was interrupted by the appearance of eunuchs sent by the king to escort Haman to Esther’s banquet. The fact that they “hurried” to bring him suggests that as the result of his humiliating experience with Mordecai (cf. 6:11), Haman had either forgotten about the queen’s banquet or he did not want to attend it.
2. Haman exposed and executed (7:1–10)
1–2 The king and Haman went “to dine” with Esther at her invitation. At her second banquet, the king once again sought to discover the nature of Esther’s petition (v.2). Again he assured her that it would be granted, “even up to half the kingdom” (cf. 5:3, 6). He made his inquiry while they were drinking wine, which was customarily served after the meal.
3 The queen no longer withheld her request from the king. She began courteously by asking whether she had “found favor” with the king. She dared not presume on the goodwill of Xerxes. She unmasked Haman, but by doing so she revealed her own identity without knowing what the king’s reaction would be. The king must have looked at her in stunned silence when she asked for her life and also for the lives of her people. It probably took him some time to grasp the fact that she also was a Jew.
4 Without waiting for the king to speak, Esther hastened to explain that she and her people had been sold for destruction, slaughter, and annihilation. She added that if it had been a matter of selling them as slaves rather than killing them, she would not have troubled the king with such a petty problem. But their destruction would be an economic loss to the king.
5 The king’s reaction was immediate and wrathful. He demanded to know who had dared to do such a thing. He must have felt that the plot to kill the Jews that also encompassed his wife was a personal affront. Either he ignored his complicity in the affair, or he felt that he had been duped into agreeing to the Jews’ destruction. A careful reading of ch. 3 shows that Haman did not mention the Jews by name; so perhaps the king was unaware of the full contents of the decree he had signed.
6 Without hesitation Esther identified Haman as the enemy. Haman was struck with terror by the accusation, for he knew that his fate was automatically sealed by Esther’s words.
7 The enraged king arose abruptly and went into the palace garden. The situation created a dilemma for the king because he could hardly condemn Haman for carrying out orders that bore his royal seal. Xerxes probably needed some time to collect his thoughts before acting. Haman, knowing that the king had already decided his fate, remained to beg Esther for his life.
8 Haman’s timing could not have been worse. Just as he fell on the couch where Esther was reclining to plead for his life, the king walked in. Angrily he accused Haman of attempting to molest the queen even while she was with her husband. As soon as the words left the king’s mouth, servants or court officials covered Haman’s face. The king’s angry words were a sentence of death. Although there is no evidence that it was a Persian custom to cover the face of a condemned criminal before he was led away to execution, that was probably its meaning here. Esther looked on in silence as her enemy was led away.
9 One of the king’s eunuchs, Harbona, remembered the gallows that Haman had just erected for the execution of Mordecai and so informed the king. If the king had been considering mercy for Haman, the reminder that Haman had knowingly plotted the death of a man who had saved the king’s life was sufficient to seal his fate. The king’s immediate response was “Hang him on it!”
10 No mention is made of the time that elapsed between the pronouncement of the sentence and its execution, but Haman was probably carried away and hanged immediately. The king’s wrath “subsided.” As an act of poetic justice, Haman lost his life on the very gallows that he had anticipated would bring him such joy at Mordecai’s execution.
G. Mordecai’s Elevation (8:1–17)
1. Exaltation over the house of Haman (8:1–2)
1–2 On the same day that Haman was executed, King Xerxes gave Haman’s entire “estate” to Esther, probably as compensation for all she had suffered. Persian law gave the state the power to confiscate the property of those who had been condemned as criminals. The queen revealed her relationship to Mordecai, whereupon the king invited him into his presence. Xerxes removed from his finger the signet ring that he had “reclaimed” from Haman and gave it to Mordecai, thereby making him prime minister with power to act in the king’s name (cf. 3:10). Mordecai became one of the select group of courtiers who had the right of access into the king’s presence. Esther placed her kinsman in charge of Haman’s estate. Haman’s wealth, title, and power now belonged to his enemy Mordecai.
2. Reversal of Haman’s decree (8:3–14)
3 With a great show of emotion, Esther fell at the feet of the king and begged him to “put an end” to the evil plan Haman had devised against the Jews. Haman’s overthrow and Mordecai’s elevation could not give Esther comfort so long as Haman’s decree against the Jews remained unrevoked.
4 The king extended his scepter after her emotional plea. His gesture was intended to encourage her to rise from her prostrate position before continuing to speak.
5–6 With proper deference to the king and an expressed hope that she enjoyed the king’s favor, Esther petitioned him to issue an order “overruling” Haman’s dispatches. She reminded him that Haman’s orders had been sent with the explicit purpose of destroying the Jews in all the king’s provinces. Esther expressed her grief in face of the impending disaster about to fall on her kin, thus revealing her true character—that she was not merely self-serving. Esther was careful to place the blame on Haman for the wicked plot and not on the king.
7–8 The king responded by first reminding Esther and Mordecai that he had executed Haman and given his estate to her. The king then told them to write another decree in his name in behalf of the Jews. He gave them permission to word the decree as seemed best to them. He reminded them that he could not write the new decree himself, as no prior document written in his name and sealed with his ring could be “revoked,” even by the king himself. It could only be neutralized by another decree.
9 The royal secretaries were summoned “at once.” It was the twenty-third day of the third month, two months and ten days after Haman had issued his order. They wrote out Mordecai’s orders to the Jews and to the other government officials of the 127 provinces. The orders were written in every language spoken in the provinces. Therefore no one in the Persian Empire would be able to plead ignorance of Mordecai’s orders.
10 Because of the authority granted him by Xerxes, Mordecai wrote the orders in the king’s name and then sealed the dispatches with the king’s signet ring. They were then sent throughout the empire by “mounted couriers.” Fast horses were used to carry Mordecai’s message throughout the empire without undue delay.
11–12 Mordecai’s edict granted the Jews the right to “protect themselves” against anyone who might attack them, to slaughter women and children, and to plunder the property of their enemies. The day set apart for the Jews to take revenge on their enemies was the thirteenth day of the twelfth month (cf. 3:13). The decree was almost a paraphrase of Haman’s edict. It is difficult to understand why the Persian ruler would allow a Jewish minority to massacre his subjects at will. Yet we have already observed Xerxes’ indifference to the value of human life (cf. 3:11), and it was the only way to neutralize the preceding edict.
13 Mordecai’s edict was to be issued as law in every province of the empire and made known to all the subjects, regardless of their nationality. Everyone would realize that the Jews would be ready on the designated day to take vengeance on their enemies.
14 Riding the royal horses, the couriers hastened to deliver the edict to all parts of the kingdom, knowing it was a royal decree. The decree was also circulated in the citadel of Susa.
3. Popular reaction (8:15–17)
15 Mordecai left the king’s presence wearing royal garments of blue and white that befitted his new position. He also wore a large crown of gold and a purple robe of fine linen. The verse closes with the statement that the city of Susa had a “joyous celebration.” As it is difficult to understand why the Persian residents of Susa would rejoice at a decree that could be used against them, the statement probably refers to the joy of the Jewish residents of Susa.
16–17 When the edict became known throughout the provinces, there was great joy among the Jewish people, accompanied by feasting and other celebrations. “People of other nationalities” became Jews out of fear of what the Jews might do to them. The statement that they “became Jews” may mean that they pretended to be Jews or took the side of the Jews. The tables had turned so completely that it was now dangerous not to be a Jew.
III. The Jews’ Day of Vengeance (9:1–19)
A. A Great Slaughter (9:1–10)
1 The thirteenth day of the month Adar arrived for the carrying out of both edicts. The nine months that elapsed since the second decree was signed are passed over in silence. The Jews now had “the upper hand” over those who hated them. This chapter assumes a universal hatred of the Jews (cf. vv.2, 5, 16) that was not expressed previously.
2 The Jews gathered in their cities throughout the provinces to “attack” anyone who tried to destroy them. Fear seized the people of other nationalities; no one was able to stand against the Jews.
3–4 The nobles and other political leaders “helped” the Jews because of their fear of Mordecai and the influence he had with the king. Mordecai was not only prominent in the palace, but “his reputation spread” throughout the empire. He had become increasingly powerful during his brief months as prime minister.
5 The Jews showed no mercy to their enemies. They massacred those who hated them; there were no restraints imposed on them by the king. The Jews did not limit themselves to self-defense. They hunted out and destroyed those who might harm them. Their fury can only be understood by those who have experienced a long history of persecution.
6–10 In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed five hundred men and also killed the ten sons of Haman, who shared in their father’s guilt. The Jews did not, however, take any plunder in Susa, though the edict granted them this right (cf. 8:11); their restraint shows their motive was not personal enrichment.
B. Vengeance in Susa (9:11–15)
11–12 The king was informed of the slaughter taking place in the citadel of Susa. He reported the figures to Esther and asked whether she knew what the Jews were doing elsewhere in the provinces. He also encouraged her to make any other request of him that she desired, and it would be granted. Xerxes’ only desire was to please his queen; he showed no concern for his subjects who were being killed.
13 Esther asked for a second day for the Jews in Susa to continue killing their enemies. She also asked that Haman’s ten murdered sons be hanged on gallows as an additional act of degradation on Haman’s house. She may have hoped the deed would serve as a deterrent against further Jewish persecution.
14–15 The king granted Esther’s request for a second day and issued an order to hang Haman’s ten sons. On the next day, the fourteenth of Adar, the Jews killed an additional three hundred of their enemies in Susa but did not take any plunder.
C. Celebration in the Provinces and in Susa (9:16–19)
16–17 Elsewhere in the Persian provinces, the Jews killed seventy-five thousand of their enemies on the thirteenth of Adar but took no plunder. On the fourteenth day they rested and celebrated their victory with feasting and rejoicing.
18–19 The author added these verses to explain why in his time Jews living in the city kept the Feast of Purim on the fifteenth of Adar whereas Jews living in the country observed it on the fourteenth. The Jews in Susa were permitted two days for killing their enemies and therefore celebrated their victory on the fifteenth. Jews elsewhere had only one day for slaughtering their enemies and therefore celebrated their victory on the fourteenth. In addition to feasting, they gave presents to one another.
IV. Institution of the Feast of Purim (9:20–10:3)
A. Mordecai’s Letter (9:20–28)
20–21 When Mordecai learned that the Jews were celebrating their victory on two different days, he recorded what had happened and then sent letters to all the Jews in all the provinces of the kingdom. In the letter he authorized them to celebrate their victory over their enemies thereafter on both the fourteenth and fifteenth days of Adar.
22–23 The two-day celebration would be observed as a memorial to the time when the Jews “got relief” from their enemies. Their sorrow and mourning had been transformed into joy and celebration by the turn of events. Mordecai instructed them to observe the days by feasting and by giving food to one another and gifts to the poor. The Jews agreed to observe their celebration every year in the same way as they did that first time and in accordance with the instructions given them by Mordecai.
24–25 The narrator now begins a summary of the events that led to the establishment of the Jewish festival of Purim. Haman, the Jews’ enemy, had cast the pur to determine on which day he would destroy the Jews (see comment on 3:7). When the plot was brought to the king’s attention, “he issued written orders” that Haman’s evil scheme should come back on his own head. He also ordered the death of Haman and his sons on the gallows (though not at the same time; cf. 7:10; 9:14).
26–27 In the first explicit reference to the Jewish festival of Purim, the author explains that the name finds its origin in the word pur (cf. 3:7; 9:24). As a result of the instructions given them in Mordecai’s letter, the Jews took it on themselves to observe the fourteenth and fifteenth days of Adar every year in the way prescribed and at the time appointed. The festival would be observed by their descendants and “all who join them” (i.e., proselytes to the Jewish faith). Thus Purim became the first Jewish festival for which there is no basis in the Torah, but it is considered just as binding as the other festivals.
28 The author makes a final exhortation for the Jews to remember the days of Purim in every generation by every family wherever they may live. The days of Purim should never cease to be celebrated by the Jews nor forgotten by their “descendants.”
B. Esther’s Confirmation (9:29–32)
29–30 Esther, together with Mordecai, wrote with the full authority of her position to confirm “this second letter concerning Purim.” This letter to all the Jews in the 127 Persian provinces is most likely the letter described in vv.29–31, which was intended to add authority to Mordecai’s first letter (vv.20–22).
31–32 The purpose of the letter was to establish the days of Purim at the times decreed by Mordecai and Esther (i.e., the fourteenth and fifteenth days of Adar). Esther’s decree confirmed the regulations about Purim. It was written down “in the records” to be available to future generations for verification.
C. The Greatness of Mordecai (10:1–3)
1 Even as it had begun, the book closes with a statement that reveals the imperial power and wealth of Xerxes. He was able to impose “tribute” (i.e., forced taxation or involunatry labor; cf. Ex 1:11; 1Ki 5:13; 9:21) to the most distant shores of his empire. It is unclear as to what the relevance of this verse is to the rest of the book. Perhaps Mordecai was a factor in augmenting the king’s power over the other nations under his control (cf. Joseph in Ge 41).
2 The reader is told that the mighty acts of Xerxes as well as a full account of the greatness of Mordecai were recorded in the book of the official annals of the kings of Media and Persia (cf. 6:1; 1Ki 11:41; 2Ch 25:26). Media is mentioned first here, whereas it follows the mention of Persia in 1:3, 14, 19.
3 The book closes with a paean of praise to Mordecai, who rose to be second in rank to King Xerxes and “preeminent” among the Jews. He was held in “high esteem” by his fellow Jews because he worked for their good “and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews” (cf. Ps 85:8; Zec 9:10).