And Esther spake yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews.
a jehudite (i.e., judaite or jew), or descendant of jehudah (i.e., judah)
Analysis & Commentary
And Esther spake yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews. Despite Haman's execution and Mordecai's elevation, the core crisis remained—the immutable decree. Esther returned to the king, this time prostrate and weeping, begging him to "put away" (haavir, הַעֲבִיר, "cause to pass away/remove") Haman's decree. The phrase "besought him with tears" emphasizes emotional intensity and desperate appeal. Her reference to "Haman the Agagite" connects his plot to ancient Amalekite enmity toward Israel (Exodus 17; 1 Samuel 15). Though Haman was dead, his "device" (machashavah, מַחֲשָׁבָה, "evil plan/scheme") survived in the irreversible decree. This scene demonstrates that removing the perpetrator doesn't automatically remove evil's effects—systemic injustice requires active dismantling.
Historical Context
Persian law's immutability (1:19; 8:8) meant Haman's decree couldn't simply be revoked, even after his execution. This created legal crisis requiring creative solution. Esther's tears and prostration demonstrate both genuine emotion and rhetorical strategy—appealing to the king's compassion and affection. Her specific mention of Jews as the targeted group revealed her identity's full implications: the king's authorization threatened his own queen's people. The reference to Haman as "Agagite" reminded the king that this was ancient ethnic enmity, not mere political conflict. Ancient sources describe similar situations where executed officials' policies remained legally binding, creating administrative and moral problems.
Questions for Reflection
How does the persistence of evil decree despite Haman's death illustrate that removing individual perpetrators doesn't automatically dismantle systemic injustice?
What does Esther's continued intercession teach about persistence in advocacy even after partial victories?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
And Esther spake yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews. Despite Haman's execution and Mordecai's elevation, the core crisis remained—the immutable decree. Esther returned to the king, this time prostrate and weeping, begging him to "put away" (haavir, הַעֲבִיר, "cause to pass away/remove") Haman's decree. The phrase "besought him with tears" emphasizes emotional intensity and desperate appeal. Her reference to "Haman the Agagite" connects his plot to ancient Amalekite enmity toward Israel (Exodus 17; 1 Samuel 15). Though Haman was dead, his "device" (machashavah, מַחֲשָׁבָה, "evil plan/scheme") survived in the irreversible decree. This scene demonstrates that removing the perpetrator doesn't automatically remove evil's effects—systemic injustice requires active dismantling.