subject: Purim: Haman's Treachery is exposed and Mordecai became the second-in-command [print this page] Purim: Haman's Treachery is exposed and Mordecai became the second-in-command
Forensic and Legal Investigation:
The King Discovered That Haman Changed His Order And That Mordecai Knew Everything
Esther reached the critical moment in her plan, when the king would be informed about a killing decree, in order to verify its validity. The king's response will clarify whether the king approved the killing order, or that Mordecai was right, and no such order was given to Haman. To confirm that the king understood that Haman modified his order, we must explain why the king departed the room in anger. Berlin explained that the king left because he was unable to contain his emotions;[1] but it is known that when the king was enraged at Vashti, he did not stand up and leave the room (1:12). Prof. David Clines claimed that the king left because he could not make up his mind what to do;[2] but it is well established that the king was fully capable of selecting Esther as his queen, transferring the signet to Mordecai, and adding another execution day in the capital Shusha, without delay or consultation.
In this chapter, we will observe a chain of events that were initiated by Mordecai, which caused the king to appoint him to the high position of second-in-command. These facts are conclusive evidence that the king certified that Mordecai knew all.
Esther Attacked The King For Selling His Reign
In the second banquet, the king questioned Esther again about her request. Esther asked the king to save her: "for we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish;" and she used the other homophonic meaning of the word LABED when she said, "But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my peace" (7:4). Esther was unaware of the tax plan, but her words hinted at it. She twice used the word "sold" to demonstrate to the king that he took bribes and sold his order, and that she was not just asking for a personal favor.
The King Was Surprised To Hear About A False Order Made In His Name
The king asked who was the person that "durst presume in his heart to do so?" The word "so" ("") indicates that the king understood that a decree was published in his royal name. From the king's response, we can see that the king apprehended the seriousness of the matter - usurpation of the king's power that was already completed in the past, by writing and publishing a killing decree. The king did not put emphasis on the future killing of the queen and her people. In his question, the king defined the anonymous person as someone who was outrageous and brazen, which made him very angry because he considered himself and his people as law abiders (1:13, 15; 2:23; 8:8). It is important to note that the king did not respond to the bribery charge, because he knew that his hands were clean.
The King Inquired About The Identity Of The Wrongdoer
The king asked the queen: "Who is he, and where is he?" (7:5). The king's questions indicated that he did not connect Esther's hints to the tax plan, and had no suspicion that it was Haman, who was sitting in front of him. Esther did not actually answer the king's question directly because she still was worried that it was the king himself who had ordered the decree. Esther pointed at Haman and declared that he was: an "adversary and an enemy, this wicked Haman" (7:6). Esther used the word "adversary" (""), which is superfluous to the word "enemy;" but, later she would use this word in its broadest form, to describe the action of the enemies of the Jews, to include even people who indulged in the slightest harassment or annoyance against her people (8:11).[3] Esther's declaration shocked Haman.[4] The writer of the Scroll indicated that Haman: "was terrified before the king and the queen" (7:6), and wasn't just retreating from the accusations of the queen. The writer used the word "terrified" (""), which in Hebrew indicates a very high degree of fear and terror.[5] Haman's response was above and beyond surprise, and acted as an admission of guilt to the king.
The King Escaped The Room In Anger To Bring His Guards
It is written that the king arose in anger (7:7). When the king's "very wroth, and his anger burned in him" (1:12), he did not rise or leave the room, but calmly called his historians and lawyers for a consultation in accordance with the law (1:12-15). Clines illuminates that the king did not worry about his queen and her people, but was concerned about his own safety.[6] The explanation that the king exited the room because Haman was ordered to kill his beloved queen is weak, since he left her alone with Haman. Thus, it is reasonable that the king understood that Haman usurped his power and published an execution decree without having the authority to do so. The king did not explain his departure and left Esther and Haman in doubt about his future intentions.
The king had heard and seen enough. His reign was shaken and he was in a room with an enemy, a wicked man. The king worried that Haman could kill him, capture the queen and, with the signet in hand, would be crowned immediately. In leaving the room, the king could be better described as escaping, which indicates the weakness of the king's position. If Harvna, the king's guard, had been in the room he would have given his statement in order to protect the king and have prevented this dangerous departure. If the king had his guards with him, he would have sentenced Haman without leaving. If the king would have left a few guards with Haman, Haman could have bribed them to revolt. If the absconding king took some guards with him, who just observed the situationthe traitors or opportunity seekers among themcould have killed him and been rewarded by Haman.[7] In summary, it is possible that Esther thought about all of these possibilities and thus arranged the banquet in her room without any guards at all, and the king had no choice but to depart and join his guards outside.
Haman Pleaded For His Life
The king left but returned immediately. Such a short absence indicates that the king already had determined what he would do about Haman, even before Haman recognized that pleading to the queen was useless and another solution should have been explored. The king had to personally gather his guards, and show them the defeated Haman. Esther understood that the king would return within a short time, so she calmly remained in her room. Prof. Daniel Polish pointed out the possibility that Esther encouraged Haman to stay and prevented him from escaping or attacking.[8] Esther wanted the king and his guards to see the degraded Haman, so that any guard who swore allegiance to Haman would not dare to assist him.
The King Accused Haman of A Crime
When the king returned with his guards, to their amazed surprise, they saw Haman on the queen's bed (7:8). Berlin explained that Haman had no intention of conquering the body, the heart or the head of Esther, and that there was no chance for Haman to organize a revolt. When the king saw Haman, he said: are you also forcing "the queen before me in the house?" (7:8), to indicate that, in addition to the prior crime, he was adding this onejust as God told Elijah, regarding Ahab: "Hast thou killed, and also taken possessions?" (1 Kings 21:19). The king only accused Haman of adultery, even though Esther was in the room, as well. The significance of such a crime was clear to everyone. The king realized that the accusation was not viable because he knew what Esther thought of Haman and that he was the one who left them alone in the room. But, to the guards, who were not present in the room previously, this accusation sounded reasonable and justified. Fox explained that the king was just looking for an excuse to eliminate the troublemaker;[9] he was well aware that the real crime was Haman's usurpation of the king's authority.
Harvona Accused Haman Of Committing Several Crimes
The king returned and added another crime to Haman's offenses. Without being asked, and in violation of decorum, Harvona stepped forward and gave an eighteen-word speech. Harvona prevented Haman from answering the king's question or instructing his loyalists to attack the king. Harvona demonstrated loyalty to the king and animosity toward Haman and, by doing so, he indicated his alliance to the king and issued a warning to the other guards. Harvona also started his speech with the word "also," to indicate that the following crimes are as offensive as trying to conquer the queen.[10] Harvona accused Haman of two things: (1) mounting an official hanging tree in his house, and (2) planning to hang Mordecai, "who spoke good to the king," (7:9) without the proper authority to do so. Harvona praised Mordecai, without explanation, and exposed himself as an ally of the king and Mordecai. Harvona avoided giving further details, such as when the tree was constructed, why Haman wanted to hang Mordecai, and that Haman approached the king about obtaining permission to hang Mordecai. Harvona's statement sounded like one that Mordecai would make. The king heard that Haman took sufficient steps to justify the attempted murder of Mordecai after the honorary parade for Mordecai; and that he established a new center of government in his house where he mounted the hanging tree. Harvona's accusations strengthened Esther's allegations; silently, he suggesting paying Haman back "measure for measure."
Haman's Execution
Herodotus taught us that even the king of Persia was not permitted to execute a person for a single crime.[11] The king knew that Haman had published a royal decree without authorization; but the king preferred to keep this crime concealed to maintain his pride and to ensure his safety. When the king returned with his guards, they saw Haman in the queen's room, which was the first crime that the guards witnessed. In accordance with Mordecai's instructions, Harvona added two other crimes to the complaint: usurping royal power and attempted murder of a loyal, high-ranked man to the king. As such, there were three violations credited to Haman, and the king was free to order: "hang him" (7:9).
The King Appointed Mordecai His Second-In-Command
In contrast, when Esther exposed Bigthan and Teresh, the king did not investigate how she obtained the information about the conspiracy. But now, the shaken king asked Esther, regarding Mordecai, "what he was unto her?" (8:1). Her answer is missing in the Scroll, but one can guess that she told him: Mordecai raised her as a daughter; helped her to be crowned; informed her about the murder attempt; and was the one who revealed Haman's usurpation of the royal power. Exposing Haman by itselfas with the disclosure of Bigthan and Tereshwould not justify more than another parade in the city in which the person being honored would wear the kings used cloths. Being a relative of a queen does not appear in the Bible to justify the promotion to the high rank of second-in-command to the king, or even to a lower position.[12] Mordecai's ability, demonstrated to the king that he was actually acting as second-in-command for a long time, for he did a good job protecting the king and keeping his interests in mind. When the king learned that Mordecai actually understood the approved tax plan and Haman's execution decreeand was able to handle themhe appointed Mordecai to the highly ranked position.
The king also granted Haman's house to Esther, including its contents. In this way, the king approved Esther's requests for the banquet: to save the life of her people, and the acceptance of her people's willingness to pay taxes. The king, without issuing direct instruction, intended for Mordecai and Esther to resolve the complex entanglement that Haman caused: enforcing the tax law, and circumventing the execution decree. In summary, this appointment demonstrated that the king approved of Mordecai's conduct and decisions.
The King Explained His Decision To Kill Haman
After the king's anger subsided (7:10), and the execution decree was explained to him (8:3), the king justified hanging Haman: "because he laid his hand upon the Jews" (8:7). This explanation eliminated the possibility that Haman was executed because he tried to conquer the queen. The claim that Haman raised his hand against the Jews was true; and, this was the reason his sons were killed for Haman's crime.[13] However, it was not the king's reason for hanging Haman. Fox agrees that the king's statement was untrue, but he explained that the king made it to placate his beloved queen whom he left alone with Haman.[14] This interpretation cannot be a valid, as both the queen and the king knew why he left her alone in the room; there was no need for him to apologize.
Esther never mentioned that she was Jewish in the banquet or previous to that event. Haman was hanged after the king was informed that: he wanted to kill Mordecai whom the king already knew was a Jew (6:10); and that Mordecai had maintained communication with Esther (2:22). But the king did not know that Esther was related to Mordecai until he asked her: "what he was unto her." Thus, from the first raging moment until hanging Haman, the king had no reason to connect the Jews to the execution decree, and there was no reason to accept the king's explanation as absolute truth. It was said that the king was angry when he heard that someone wrote a decree in his name; therefore, the king's statement should be read with this slight modification: "because he [ordered to lay] hand upon the Jews".
The King Approved Circumventing Haman's Killing Decree
The king did not approve the killing decree; but, although he did not order it, he did not find a need to avert it. The king was under the impression that by giving the signet to Mordecai, both Mordecai and Esther were already authorized to resolve the entanglement that Haman had created. Mordecai and Esther did not want to begin carrying out their duties by acting without clear authority; thus, Esther did what Mordecai commended her to do, long ago, and that which she had not done yet: to beg the king to spare her people (8:3; 4:8). Esther went to the king, kneeled and cried at his feet, and asked, with great respect, for him to void the killing decree. The king, who wanted to rid himself of the disgusting decree, without injuring the reputation of the king's signet, instructed Mordecai and Esther to write to the Jews, giving them permission to act in self-defense and to take care of themselves.
Summary and Conclusion
From all the evidence provided and the chain of events that occurred, we discovered the following:
Haman was promoted only above all the ministers that were with the king, and in his habitual desire for royal respect, he thought that the king was offering him a parade to announce his promotion as he expected.
Haman used the king's signet and king's name to modify the tax plan to an execution decree for his own benefit. The king's actions demonstrated that this was Haman's crime and that Mordecai was reasonable in his conclusions.
We are justified in deducing that Haman assumed that his promotion above all the ministers indicated that his rank was that of second-to-in-command to the king, and demanded prostration and kneeling from the king's dignitaries. Such decorum was unauthorized, and Mordecai decided to expose Haman and to obtain the newly created position for himself.
--------------
Bibliography
Berlin A., Esther, The JPS Bible Commentary, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 2001.
Clines D. J. A., The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story, Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 30, 1984.
Fox M. V., Character And Ideology In The Book Of Esther, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1991.
Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Translated by George Rawlinson.
Polish D. F., "Aspect of Esther: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Megillah of Esther and the Origins of Purim," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sept. 99, Issue 85, pp. 22, 85
Sendowski I., "Why were Haman's dead sons hanged?", [electronic version] Articles, 01/22/2011.
---------------
[1] Berlin, Esther, The JPS Bible Commentary, 69.
[2] Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story, 15.
[3] Brown, Hebrew and English Lexicon, "," 865.
[4] Fox, Character and Ideology in the book of Esther. Pg. 86
[5] Brown, Hebrew and English Lexicon, ","130.
[6] Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story, 15.
[7] The captains, Baanah and Rechab, murdered Ish-bosheth, grandson of King Saul (2 Sam. 4:1-10).
[8] Polish, "Aspect of Esther: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Megillah of Esther and the Origins of Purim," 88.
[9] Fox, Character and Ideology in the book of Esther. Pg. 87
[10] Brown, Hebrew and English Lexicon, ","169, emphasizing the following sentence.
[11] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus. Book I 137. It is hard to accept this opinion, as the safety of the king is involved; as it is said: "whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, there is one law for him, that he be put to death" (4:11), for one crime.
[12] A familial relationship to the queen was not sufficient to be promoted to a second-in-command to the king. The closet anyone got to this position was Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, who came for a short visit and gave a single, very important piece of advice (Exo. 18:1-27).
[13] Sendowski, "Why were Haman's dead sons hanged?"
[14] Fox, Character and Ideology in the book of Esther. Pg. 94
