Okay, welcome back to our series of studies through the book of Esther. Tonight, we're still in chapter 3. We'll be studying verses 8 through 11. But before we get started, I do want to do just a quick review of what we studied together last time. In that last study, we covered verses five, six, and seven. And we learned a little bit more about, about Haman. We learned that he shares certain character traits or really character flaws with the king. Haman is what we would call a narcissist. That is, he is extremely, he's just totally self-absorbed. All he can see, all he can think about is himself. He was a man who literally had it all. I mean, he had been promoted. to the most powerful position in all of Persia, second only to the king himself. He had riches, family, friends, position, respect from everyone in the king's court, except, that is, for one man. One man, Mordecai. Mordecai refused to bow down and pay homage to Haman. Now, for most people, I think for most of us, all that Haman had would have been enough, would have been more than enough. But for Haman, his perspective was it was all worthless as long as Mordecai refused to bow down to him. He was just angry about it, and that burning anger over Mordecai led him to seek revenge on Mordecai by seeking to destroy Mordecai's people, by seeking to destroy every Jew throughout all of Persia. We left Haman. having devised his plot to annihilate the Jews. And he thinks at this point that he is cleverly orchestrating all of the details to a foolproof plan. But little does he know that the Lord is the one who is actually at work in unfolding all of these events, all of the details, all according to his own purpose and plan to save his people from Haman's evil plot. Now, in tonight's study of verses 8 through 11, we will see Haman very cleverly convince the king to give him all of the resources needed to carry out this plot. We'll see him manipulate the king, and he'll manipulate the king in and interestingly and in an alarmingly similar way to the way the king's wise men, the princes of Persia, manipulated the king back in chapter one. What they did is they convinced the king at that time that Vashti had not only acted against the king, but against all the officials and all of the people throughout the empire and that her actions would actually cause all of the wives throughout the empire to look at their own husbands with contempt. So, let's dig in, let's read this passage together, Esther 3, verses 8-11, and then we will look at it verse by verse. So, Esther 3, beginning in verse 8, says, Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every other people and they do not keep the king's laws so that it is not to the king's profit to tolerate them. If it pleased the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed. and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries." So the king took his signet ring from his hand and he gave it to Haman, the Agagite, the son of Hamadathah, the enemy of the Jews. And the king said to Haman, The money is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you. Okay, now going into verse 8 here, at this point Haman has completely formulated in his own mind the devious and evil plan of annihilating the Jews throughout Persia. He's done everything within his power, including seeking what he believes to be direction from the gods by casting lots to determine the exact day to execute this plan of his. Now, as second in command, Haman holds a lot of power and authority within Persia. He really does, but not quite enough power and authority to wipe out the existence of an entire people from the empire. He must have determined in his own mind that what he really needs here to ensure his success is a decree to destroy the Jews to be issued by the king or in the king's name. So with all of his ducks in a row, there's but one thing left to do now, and that is to convince the king. Now he knew that to convince the king of this, his wording, Haman's wording would be critical. It would have to be strategic and would have to be purposeful. He presumably, I presume that he knew that the king was fairly easy to manipulate, but as we're going to see tonight, by his choice of words and how he builds his case, shows us that he really knew how to manipulate the king. Now, back in chapter one, verses 16 through 19, when Mamucan so eloquently and successfully convinced the king to issue a decree regarding Vashti, Haman's name was not specified in the text there, but he might have been, and quite possibly was, present in the king's court and heard or maybe overheard Mamucan's words. Even though the king is characteristically easy to manipulate, Haman must have known that it would take the same or maybe even a greater level of finesse to convince the king to allow him to annihilate an entire demographic of people from the empire. Now the similarity of wording leads me to believe that Heyman was present and that he plagiarized or, or at very least was greatly influenced by Mimoukin's words. But by what, by whatever means Heyman actually used, he seemed to have known just the right words to steer and manipulate the king to allow and even cooperate with such a horrible crime. He begins his speech before the king by identifying the Jews without actually identifying them. He refers to them as a certain people. Now the word translated here to certain, it's a Hebrew word that literally means unified one. Okay, it's a word that specifically means a group of individuals who are connected or bound together by a common interest or commitment. What this indicates is, or what it indicates to the king is that Haman is not just referencing a large number of people, but he's referencing a large group of people. A group of people from a conquered nation who have not assimilated into the Persian culture and way of life. They've remained faithful to and focused on their own culture, and their own way of life. They're unified. They're one. They're like-minded. They're connected. They are loyal to one another and loyal to their own national identity. This is the picture that he's painting to the king. He then goes on to say that this unified group of people are scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples throughout the empire. He's characterizing them as being everywhere throughout Persia, but at the same time, not clearly visible as a unified group. that they're living among the other peoples in Persia, but in certain ways, in many ways, they're isolated. They are separated or they're divided from the rest of the conquered nations throughout the empire of Persia. that they're not mixing well in the grand scheme of Persian society. Again, this is what Haman is convincing the king of. Then he adds to his description that their laws are different from those of every other people. Now, Every nation and people that Persia conquered and assimilated did have their own culture. They had their own laws. And they were, of course, they were all in one way or another, in certain ways, they were different from one another and different from Persia to some degree. But the point that Haman is making here to the king is that Persia and all of the other nations throughout the empire, except this, these certain people that he's describing, everyone else, they have a, they have a commonality that makes it possible for them to coexist with one another in a way that's not dangerous or detrimental to the empire. They can live together. They can follow their own laws, their own rules, but also live together. And it's not a problem. But these people, this certain or particular group of people is different. They're different. I mean, everybody's different, but they are different in a different way. They are different in ways that will keep them different. Therefore, they will remain different. And what Haman is convincing the king of is that this makes them dangerous, dangerous to the empire. You see, they're not mixing well with the rest of the empire. They're kind of like oil and water. They just don't mix. They are in Persia, but they're not of Persia. Now, Haman's intent as he's presenting to this, this to the king, his intent is purely evil in drawing this to the king's attention. He didn't realize it and he certainly didn't intend it, but Haman was actually here speaking true words of great significance. You see, Israel's laws were different from every other people. And that's because they were the laws revealed to them by God himself. They were God's laws. They weren't arbitrary laws that the nation had come up with. They were God's own laws that had been revealed to them by God himself. And by God's intention in giving His law to the Israelites, adherence and faithfulness to those laws, to God's laws, would set His people apart from the rest of the world. This is a true principle. It's a principle that the Apostle Paul would write to the Corinthian church many, many years later. Paul wrote, do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said, I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Therefore, go out from their midst and be separate from them, says the Lord and touch no unclean thing. Then I will welcome you and I will be a father to you and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty. You see, our morality and character are intended by God to be different from the rest of the world. And that difference will at times, serve God's purpose by irritating, by frustrating, and even by angering those around us who live by the world's standards. You see, this is exactly what Haman was experiencing. Now, up to this point in his speech to the king, Haman had not been entirely untruthful. Not entirely. He has carefully and intentionally crafted his verbiage that would lead the king in a particular direction. And he did so without raising any suspicion by the king, without creating any doubt in the king's mind, or leaving any room for legitimate arguments or counterpoints from the king. And the way he's done this, he's done it by use of exaggeration. by use of implication and by use of double entendre, which is simply a word or expression that's capable of two interpretations, but leans towards one. In other words, what he's done is he's verbally manipulated the king. but he hasn't out and out lied about the Jewish people up to this point. But now he crosses that line and he tells the King something that's simply untrue. He says, they do not keep the King's laws. Now, The Jews living in Persia at the time, they did observe their own distinctive practices, but they also observed and practiced Persian rules and standards. As long as those rules and standards didn't in any way negatively impact the core principles of their faith. Okay. And this had been going on for a while and it didn't interfere with or harm the Persian empire in any way. Haman blatantly lied when he said that they, all of the Jews, that they do not keep the king's laws, all of the king's laws. This is, this is an example of making a universal statement or accusation based upon one particular circumstance. In this case, Mordecai, it's the same form of lie that Mamucan told the king regarding Vashti, right? He said to the king Vashti had not only acted against the king, but against all the officials and all the people throughout the empire and that her actions would cause all wives to look at their own husbands with contempt. Haman's doing the same thing here. He grossly exaggerated the fact that one man, Mordecai, had disobeyed one of the king's laws. He did that by stating that all the Jews disobeyed all of the king's laws. Just a blatant lie. But by the time Haman injected or began injecting lies into his speech, He had already coerced the King's thinking to his own perspective or his own way of thinking. So the result was the King believed the lies without question. Then he makes a closing statement to his argument by drawing the only possible logical conclusion for the King and wording it in such a way that it would be very difficult for the king to argue or to disagree. He says, it is not to the king's profit to tolerate them. So this presents Haman's argument and his forthcoming solution as being in the king's best interest. This is in your best interest. He comes across to the king here as only being interested in what's best for the king and what's best for his kingdom. Now, of course, he never mentions the fact that it's a personal vendetta that's at the root of his concern and his plan. Doesn't say anything at all about that to the king. He purposefully excludes that what drove his desire to annihilate the Jews was that Mordecai, one man, refused to bow down and pay proper homage to him. And there's a bit of irony hidden in this closing statement of Haman's. He enlists the king's support to annihilate a group of people that includes the very man who recently saved the king's life and the woman who the king chose to be his wife. This irony will ultimately come out and lead to Haman's failure and his own demise. Let's look at verse nine. He says, if it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver. into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries." Now, here Haman doubles down on his effort to manipulate the king by making him think that his sole motivation here, is what's good for the king. The only thing I'm interested in is what's good for you, king. It's this phrase, if it please the king. Once again, he's using the same tactic that Mamucan used back in chapter one, verse 19. This is Mamucan speaking to the king. If it please the king, the same exact phrase here, if it please the king, let a royal order go out from him and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be repealed, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus and let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she. This is an age old tactic. It's used by those attempting to manipulate the one who is in power. Hey, make him think it's his idea or at very least that he is in full control of approving or disproving the idea that's being presented. So at this point, the King is convinced and confident that Haman is a loyal and faithful servant, wanting only what is best for King and country. And he feels, the King feels that he is still in complete control. It's perfect manipulation. Now, What Haman is seeking here is not merely permission from the king. What he wants is a decree from the king that this deed would be carried out. Now, the significance of this comes into the light later on in the story. But for now, remember that once the king issues a written decree, No one can rescind it. No one can repeal it, not even the king himself. And Haman thinks that will seal the deal. If I can get the decree, it's a done deal. And now what many have referred to as Haman's coup de grace, That comes at the very end of his speech before the king. Haman offers to pay the king into his treasury, 10,000 talents of silver. You see, not only can the king rid his empire of these menacing people, but he can add to the royal treasury at the same time. Heyman clearly knows how to manipulate the king. Now, this was a staggering bribe to the king. 10,000 talents of silver. Don't hold me to my math here. I might be a little off, but by my calculation, 10,000 talents of silver represents approximately in today's economy, $374 million. It's a lot of money, a lot of money. Now, this amount of money would have certainly more than paid for Heyman's entire scheme. And we don't know exactly what a payment like this would have meant to Heyman's personal bank account. But what's clear is that Haman was not taking any chances. He is doing everything in his power to ensure that this plan of his would succeed. And what he's done to the best of his ability is effectively remove any and all possible objections that the King could have for issuing this decree that Haman desires. Well, as we move into verse 10, we'll see that his plotting, his planning, and devious scheming pays off. Verse 10 says, The king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman the Agagite, the son of Hamadathah, the enemy of the Jews." So as I've said, the king is completely convinced at this point by Haman's speech, just as he was in chapter one by Mamucan's speech. Interesting thing, though, There's no actual questioning by the king of Haman regarding the certain people he plans to annihilate. There's no questions, no cross-examination of any type. The king doesn't ask for any witnesses. Is there anyone else that I can speak to that could verify this? There's no fact-checking of any type. The king clearly does not adhere to trust, but verify. Clearly he trusts Haman, but there's no verification here at all about what Haman is claiming. I mean, the Jewish threat to Persia of which Haman has convinced the king, it doesn't even exist. It's just not there. It's just a lie. The king doesn't even consider the fact that he has never seen, he's never even heard of anything about this empire level threat until now. And it's only by the words of Haman. Notice, the king doesn't even inquire as to who these people are. He doesn't even ask, who are these people that you are about to completely annihilate? Nope, all he does is he grants Haman permission to utterly destroy them. And we see in the passage, this is much more than just granting permission or granting his request. He gives Haman his signet ring. This is very significant. It's a very significant act on the king's part. A royal signet ring was a ring that had an intricate and unique molding or carving on its face. The image on the ring was unique to the king and it represented the king and his full authority. It was used as what we call or as what we know as a wax seal stamp. Okay, so what they would do is to authenticate a document, a decree, a letter, any type of communication, to authenticate it that it was directly from the king, that it was the king's own words. When the document was completed, they would melt wax onto the document, and then the king himself would take his signet ring and press the face of it into the molten wax. until it hardened, and then he'd remove it, and what was left in the wax was the exact imprint of the king's signet ring, and that's on the document. So, any document that carried the king's seal from his signet ring carried the full weight and force of the king's authority. So, when the king gave Haman his signet ring, He gave him the power to act on his behalf with his full authority. So basically, whatever Haman wrote, the king wrote. Now, this was the exact same action that Pharaoh took when he gave Joseph his signet ring. And Joseph did for years. He enacted law throughout all of Egypt. And during that time, every citizen of Egypt was bound by that law under the full weight of Pharaoh's own authority. Now I bring that up because there's a significant juxtaposition here in that Joseph used Pharaoh's authority to save God's people where Haman Haman intends to use the king's authority to annihilate God's people. The significance here is that in both cases, it was God at work, behind the scenes, directing the use of His authority to accomplish His will, His way, and according to His timing. And then the ending words of this verse identifies Haman as the enemy of not only Mordecai, but all Jews. Mordecai's people, God's people. Now, let's look at verse 11. And the king said to Haman, the money is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you." So the king gives Haman his final words regarding his request to annihilate the Jews. Now, different translators and commentators have interpreted this phrase, the money is given to you, differently. Some see this as the king turning down or refusing Haman's offer to pay him the 10,000 talents of silver, essentially saying to him, I'm giving you the money you offered. I'm giving it back to you. It's yours. Keep it. I don't want it. I don't need it. That's one view. Others see it as the king has already accepted Haman's money. And at this point, he's telling him to use out of the royal treasury, whatever finances are needed to get rid of the problematic people throughout the empire. Now, either of these interpretations are allowed by the wording of the original text and they each fit the context of the story and the character of King Ahasuerus. Personally, I lean toward, I hold the latter view. But I think the point here that we're meant to see in this verse is that the king has completely abdicated his responsibility to the people of his kingdom. What is part of a king's responsibility to the people of his kingdom? It's to protect them. The king has just completely abdicated this, completely. He's given over the very existence of one entire group to the whim of one man. Now, to accomplish Haman's plan, it will presumably be an expensive venture. So the king has given Haman essentially a blank check regarding the finances. He's told Heyman that he's not concerned over the cost. Whatever it costs, just do it. He's given him free reign over how much money he can spend and how he can spend it. There's no indication here of any level of accountability whatsoever. But what's even more alarming and tragic is that the king has given this same power and authority to Haman over the Jews. He's given to Haman freedom to do to the Jews whatever seems good in his eyes, in Haman's eyes. He doesn't ask for, you know, like a plan of action to look at and consider and then approve or not approve. He doesn't make sure, he doesn't even ask if Haman is or has taken any measure or utilizing or utilize the vast resources that the king has just given him to attempt to bring these certain people into conformity. You know, is there anything in between where we are now and completely annihilating them? The king doesn't even ask about that. Now, we know, we know the whole story. We know that there really is no issue of non-conformity here. That there's no problem of the Jews not obeying the king's laws. These are all just evil, malicious lies that Haman has told the king to get his way. But the king doesn't know this. As far as the king knows, this is a reality. There really is a problem. And he's just, he's not concerned at all about how the problem is dealt with. He just simply wants it gone. So he says to Haman, do whatever seems good to you. I just want to remind us of a profound statement that the prophet Isaiah made. in Isaiah 5 verse 21. And it seems to me to fit this situation just perfectly. It says, woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and shrewd in their own sight. I'm confident that Haman was shrewd in his own sight and thought himself to be very wise. Well, Haman would have done well to consider this principle and consider the woe that awaited him. Now, it's true that at this point, Haman didn't know just how wrong his plan was going to go towards himself. And he had probably never read these words written by Isaiah. But I believe that this is a fundamental principle that the Lord has written on every person's heart. Okay, so how do we take what we've talked about here tonight, how do we apply it in our own lives? What does it mean to us? Well, we may not live in a country which has one man that has the power and authority over us that King Ahasuerus had in Persia. And we might not have a political structure that allows one man the power to manipulate the flow and tone of the political climate the way Hayman did. This is true. The same evil that resided in King Ahasuerus and in Haman, that same evil does exist in our political system. Now, it might not permeate every fiber of our political system, but it is there. And there are many people within that political system. We do have people like senators, representatives, legislators, lobbyists, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, who work endlessly and, and tirelessly to manipulate and influence our system for evil the same way Haman did. They carefully and intentionally craft their verbiage and their writing to lead the voters in particular directions without raising suspicion, creating doubt, or leaving much, if any room for legitimate arguments or counterpoints. They, just as, as Hayman did, they use exaggeration. They use implication and double entendre to manipulate the outcome of ballots, of measures, and even at times of elections. And at times when they feel that they have indoctrinated and convinced their constituents that they are loyal and faithful civil servants wanting only what is best for our country and that their causes are for the greater good of all who are involved, they do blatantly lie. to get their ways. The circumstances for us are different than they were in Persia, but the principle at work is essentially the same. The voters and many of the politicians who actually do have integrity, and there are some, right? They're all too often led astray by the cunning words of those who mean to do us harm. I wanted to give some examples of this, so I came up with just two of literally countless examples of this principle at work within our system. Okay, so I think this first one, I think that most of us here have heard these phrases before. the Freedom of Choice Act, or the Right to Choose, or Pro-Choice. Have you all heard these phrases? Okay. What these are, these are carefully worded marketing slogans designed to make murder sound like it's something good. They're intentionally worded to make anyone who opposes the agenda to sound evil. The Freedom of Choice Act, if you oppose that, what, you want to take away my freedom of choice? Who would want to take away our freedom of choice, right? You want to remove my right to choose for myself? Come on. You are anti-choice. You see, these are all designed to present evil as good and to present good as evil. Then my other example is this. It's called the Women's Health Protection Act. Have you heard of this? Okay, this is a slightly different angle on the same exact lie. I mean, come on, who can argue against protecting women's health without coming across as a bad guy, right? How can you possibly oppose the Women's Health Protection Act? Well, here's the thing. In reality, this act has nothing at all to do with women's health. Nothing. It is simply a decree that prohibits the government from protecting the unborn. But it, it's presented as the Women's Health Protection Act. So just two examples. I mean, like I said, there are, it's just example after example, after example of this principle being used within our own system. No, the Bible teaches us much, so much about those who call evil good and those who call good evil. I want to close our study tonight with just this one verse that should anchor our hearts where they need to be anchored. This is from Isaiah 5, verse 20. It says, woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those. Fortunately, we, like all of the Jews who lived in Persia at the time of Esther, we're not at the mercy of the evil and corrupt individuals and systems who think they are in control. Sometimes it might feel like we are, but the reality is this. We serve the one true and living God. the one true and living God who is always there, always paying attention, always at work behind the scenes to work all things for the good of his people and for the good of his kingdom. Praise God. Let's pray. Father, thank you for teaching us in your Word the difference between good and evil, the difference between right and wrong, the difference between light and dark. Thank you for always protecting us from the agents of evil throughout the world who seek to harm and to destroy us. Thank you for that. Please, Father, I pray that you will give us grace, that you'll give us wisdom, that you'll give us discernment to always recognize evil as evil and to always recognize good as good. And to always see you, Father, working in our lives behind the scenes. Thank you so very much, Father. Amen. Can I have the outline?