Esther 8:11: Approval of Slaughter?

Some object to this part of the Esther story, stating that no ruler would issue such an arbitrary decree sanctioning the slaughter of vast numbers of his subjects, including many unoffending citizens. But surely this appeal is not based on history; these objectors have not read much about the extent or excesses of despotic power.

The real point is not the apparent injustice the Jews called for. Rather, it was the enormous unfairness of the king's original agreement with Haman to annihilate a total race of people. Therefore, if blame must be laid at someone's feet, it must be at those of King Xerxes'.

Some have attempted to build a case for the fact that Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites whom Saul had been instructed to annihilate under the divine decree of the "ban." No certain evidence exists to certify this connection, however.

Whatever his motivation, Haman weaseled out of the king this foolish decree: "Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the king's provinces with the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews--young and old, women and little children--on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods" (Esther 3:13). Apparently, according to the laws of the Medes and the Persians, once a royal decree had been signed and issued it could not be retracted.

The only recourse that Xerxes had left was to countermand his previous decree with one extending the same privilege to the Jews. In fact, most have noted that Esther 8:11 is almost an exact duplicate of the original decree in Esther 3:13.

The posture of the Jews was one of self-defense. Their enemies attacked them with a vengeance, as can be seen in the death of five hundred in the citadel of Susa alone. While this is not an incredibly large number if the population of Susa was about half a million, it surely speaks of the danger the Jews faced as a result of the hatred Haman had fanned into existence. Had self-defense been denied the Jews, they would have been in deep trouble indeed.

The text consistently shows the Jews as morally superior to their oppressors. It records three times that the Jews did not take advantage of the royal provision to plunder (Esther 9:10, 15-16). Presumably, they also were allowed to put to death women and little children as well as the armed forces that came against them (Esther 3:13). This the Jews refused to do, in accordance with God's law. Instead, the text expressly says that they put to death only men (Esther 9:6, 12, 15). As defenders, the Jews did not attack nonmilitary targets. They themselves were the subjects of the attack.

In all the provinces, with an estimated population of one hundred million, seventy-five thousand of the enemy were slain. No mention is made of even one Jew being killed. (The Greek version of this same text puts the number at fifteen thousand slain.)

If some object that Esther was bloodthirsty in asking the king for a second day of such atrocities and killings (Es- ther 9:13), the response is found in Esther 9:12, where Xerxes himself was concerned that the Jews needed to do more to protect themselves from oppression.

True, Esther is made of stern stuff, but her character is not one easily described as vindictive. Her request was only for an added day of self-defense, not additional days to carry the battle to their enemy's doorstep.