Esther 8:5 · Bible study
Esther 8:5 Commentary: Reversing Haman's Irrevocable Decree
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Esther's tactful request to reverse Haman's decree: her wisdom, Persian irrevocability, king's response.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Esther petitions the king to authorise a written reversal of Haman’s genocidal decree, carefully attributing the plot to Haman alone.
- Key words: kashar (H3787, “to be proper”), chen (H2580, “favor”), yikkatev (H3789, Niphal “let it be written”), machashevet (H4284, “plot, device”).
- Main debate: How can an irrevocable Persian decree be reversed? The king neither revokes the old text nor contradicts it; he issues a new decree that authorises self-defence, effectively neutralizing the threat.
- Theological theme: God’s hidden providence, He works through human wisdom, legal systems, and a queen’s courage to preserve His covenant people.
- Best use: Preaching or teaching on intercessory prayer, navigating impossible situations with humility and directness, and trusting God’s sovereignty in a world of human laws.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
“If it pleases the king,” she said, “and if I have found favor in his sight, and the matter seems proper to the king, and I am pleasing in his sight, may an order be written to revoke the letters that the scheming Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, wrote to destroy the Jews in all the king’s provinces.
WEB World English Bible 2000
She said, “If it pleases the king, and if I have found favor in his sight, and the thing seems right to the king, and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces.
KJV King James Version 1769
And said, If it please the king, and if I have found favour in his sight, and the thing seem right before the king, and I be pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews which are in all the king’s provinces:
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And she said, If it please the king, and if I have found favor in his sight, and the thing seem right before the king, and I be pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews that are in all the king’s provinces:
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and saith, `If to the king it be good, and if I have found grace before him, and the thing hath been right before the king, and I be good in his eyes, let it be written to bring back the letters--a device of Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite--that he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all provinces of the king,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
and said, If it please the king and if I have found grace before him, and the thing seem right to the king, and I be pleasing in his sight, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews that are in all the king's provinces.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And said: If it please the king, and if I have found favour in his sight, and my request be not disagreeable to him, I beseech thee, that the former letters of Aman the traitor and enemy of the Jews, by which he commanded that they should be destroyed in all the king's provinces, may be reversed by new letters.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y dijo: Si place al rey, y si he hallado gracia delante de él, y si la cosa es recta delante del rey, y agradable yo en sus ojos, sea escrito para revocar las letras del designio de Amán hijo de Amadatha Agageo, que escribió para destruir á los Judíos que están en todas las provincias del rey.
E disse: Se for do agrado do rei, e se tenho achado favor diante dele, e se for correto perante o rei, e se eu lhe agrado em seus olhos, escreva-se que sejam revogadas as cartas do plano de Hamã, filho de Hamedata, agagita, que ele escreveu para destruir os judeus que estão em todas as províncias do rei.
Elle dit alors: Si le roi le trouve bon et si j’ ai trouvé grâce devant lui, si la chose paraît convenable au roi et si je suis agréable à ses yeux, qu’ on écrive pour révoquer les lettres conçues par Haman, fils d’ Hammedatha, l’Agaguite, et écrites par lui dans le but de faire périr les Juifs qui sont dans toutes les provinces du roi.
und sprach: Gefällt es dem König und habe ich Gnade gefunden vor ihm und ist' s gelegen dem König und ich gefalle ihm, so schreibe man, daß die Briefe Hamans, des Sohnes Hammedathas, des Agagiters, widerrufen werden, die er geschrieben hat, die Juden umzubringen in allen Landen des Königs.
En zij zeide: Indien het den koning goeddunkt, en indien ik genade voor zijn aangezicht gevonden heb en deze zaak voor den koning recht is, en ik in zijn ogen aangenaam ben, dat er geschreven worde, dat de brieven en de gedachte van Haman, den zoon van Hammedatha, den Agagiet, wederroepen worden, welke hij geschreven heeft, om de Joden om te brengen, die in al de landschappen des konings zijn.
e disse: “Se così piace al re, se io ho trovato grazia agli occhi suoi, se la cosa gli par giusta, e se io gli sono gradita, si scriva per revocare le lettere scritte da Haman, figliuolo di Hammedatha, l’Agaghita, col perfido disegno di far perire i Giudei che sono in tutte le province del re.
I rzekła: Jeźli się królowi podoba, a jeźlim znalazła łaskę przed obliczem jego, i jeźli się to za słuszne zda być królowi, i jeźlim ja przyjemna w oczach jego, niech napiszą, aby były odwołane listy zamysłów Hamana, syna Hamedata Agagiejczyka, które rozpisał na wytracenie Żydów, którzy są po wszystkich krainach królewskich.
и сказала: если царю благоугодно, и если я нашла благоволение пред лицем его, и справедливо дело сие пред лицем царя, и нравлюсь я очам его, то пусть было бы написано, чтобы возвращены были письма по замыслу Амана, сына Амадафа, Вугеянина, писанные им об истреблении Иудеев во всех областях царя;
說：「亞甲族 哈米大他 的兒子 哈曼設謀傳旨，要殺滅 在王 各 省 的 猶大人。現今 王 若 願意，我若 在王眼前 蒙 恩，王 若以 為美，若喜悅 我，請王另下旨意，廢除 哈曼 所 傳 的那旨意。
And she said, If it is the king's pleasure and if I have his approval and this thing seems right to the king and I am pleasing to him, then let letters be sent giving orders against those which Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, sent out for the destruction of the Jews in all divisions of the kingdom:
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Esther 8:5
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that verse 5 showcases Esther’s careful diplomacy. The Cambridge Bible notes that the long preface “shews some doubt on Esther’s part whether it will be granted.” Gill observes she piles up similar phrases “to work upon the king’s affections” and underscore her submission. Keil and Delitzsch point out that the introduction is strengthened compared to earlier petitions. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown praise the “great tact” with which Esther rolls “the whole infamy of the meditated massacre on Haman” while honouring the king. Crucially, she attributes the murderous letters entirely to Haman, never mentioning the king’s involvement. The king’s reply in verse 8 will confirm the legal reality: a decree sealed with the royal ring “may not be reversed by any man.” The consensus sees Esther’s petition as the hinge that opens the door for a second decree that neutralises the first, preserving the Jews without technically revoking the old law.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Neutralization reading: The king’s reply (Esther 8:8) indicates the first decree cannot be reversed, so the new decree authorises Jews to defend themselves, effectively neutralising the threat without rescinding the original. This is the majority view among commentators.
- Royal prerogative reading: Some argue that the king’s absolute authority allows him to override any previous decree. The statement ‘may no man reverse’ (v.8) applies to others, not the king himself. The new decree thus supersedes the old, constituting a de facto reversal.
What is clear: Esther’s request is granted, the Jewish people are delivered from destruction, and God’s purpose to preserve His covenant people prevails regardless of the legal mechanism.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Irrevocability of Persian decrees | Both Scripture (Esther 8:8) and ancient sources confirm that Persian royal decrees issued in the king’s name and sealed with his ring could not be rescinded. Commentators agree this was a historical legal principle. | Christians differ on whether this was an absolute rule or one the king could override by issuing a new decree. The narrative suggests the latter, as the king authorises a new decree that effectively neutralises the first (Esther 8:8). |
| Esther’s rhetorical strategy | All major commentators recognise that Esther deliberately attributes the decree to Haman alone, not mentioning the king’s involvement, to secure the king’s favour and avoid implicating him. This is seen as wise and tactful. | Some see this as primarily strategic submission (she was still uncertain of the king’s mood), while others emphasise it as a sign of respect and political acumen. A few wonder if the king was more complicit than Esther implies. |
| Theological significance | Christians across traditions see God’s providential hand in the reversal of Haman’s plot, even where God is not explicitly named. Esther’s request is a pivotal moment of deliverance. | Debate exists over how active Esther’s faith was, whether she acted from trust in God or from natural courage, since the book does not mention prayer or divine guidance. Some traditions point to Mordecai’s earlier words (4:14) as evidence of her trust. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The Persian legal system, reflected in Esther 8:8 and corroborated by classical historians, treated royal decrees issued in the king’s name and sealed with his signet ring as irrevocable (cf. Daniel 6:8,15). Once a law went out, no human authority, not even the monarch, could cancel it. That principle had been exploited by Haman when he obtained the king’s ring to seal the decree of genocide (Esther 3:10, 13). Now, after Haman’s execution (Esther 7:10), Esther approaches the king a second time. The scene builds on earlier favour: the king had already given Esther Haman’s estate and promoted Mordecai to the vacated office (Esther 8:1, 2). Yet the first decree still stands, and Esther falls at the king’s feet, weeping. The golden scepter extended (v.4) signals royal acceptance, but the legal barrier remains. Esther’s language, calling the letters “the device of Haman” (Haman’s plot), is shrewd. She avoids accusing the king of complicity, even though Haman had acted with royal authority. Her request for a written reversal (yikkatev, “let it be written,” a Niphal form that implies humble petition) directly addresses the legal problem: a new document must be composed to counter the old one. The cultural setting, where both the monarch’s self-interest and a rigid legal code were at play, makes her request not only bold but also masterfully strategic.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Esther 8:5. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts, with only minor scribal differences that do not affect the meaning. The phrase “the letters devised by Haman” appears consistently, and the king’s response in verse 8 is also well preserved.
Reception History
Esther 8:5 has been read across Christian and Jewish traditions as a model of intercessory wisdom. Eighteenth-century commentators such as Matthew Henry and John Wesley highlighted the queen’s tact in rolling responsibility onto Haman while honouring the king. Wesley noted that Esther’s “various expressions” were intended to confirm the king’s favour. The verse has also been a key text in the celebration of Purim, where the reversal of Haman’s decree is recalled as God’s deliverance of His people. In medieval Jewish exegesis, Esther’s request was seen as an example of effective petition within a court setting, trusting Providence while using all available means. Reformation-era writers appreciated the legal nuance of the irrevocable decree, drawing parallels to God’s unchanging word and the gospel’s way of “overruling” the law without abolishing it.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Humble Approach. Esther’s repeated “if it pleases the king” (four conditional clauses) is not empty flattery. She acknowledges the king’s sovereignty and her own dependence. Her tone models how believers approach a greater King, with reverence that does not hide urgency.
- The Specific Request. She asks for a written reversal of Haman’s letters. Naming the enemy and the crime (destroy the Jews) makes the petition concrete. She does not merely complain; she proposes a remedy: “let it be written to reverse.”
- The Legal Barrier. The Persian decree cannot be undone. But the king authorises a new decree that empowers the Jews to defend themselves (v.8). God’s deliverance often works through human laws and institutions, not by miracle alone.
Five-point outline
- Recognising the crisis (v.3, 4: Esther falls at the king’s feet).
- Approaching with humility (v.5a: four-fold conditional preface).
- Shifting blame to the true enemy (v.5b: “letters devised by Haman”).
- Appealing to the king’s affection for Esther (v.5c: “I am pleasing in his eyes”).
- Receiving the king’s practical solution (v.7, 8: a new decree through Mordecai).
Illustration hooks
- A teacher sends a mistaken email to the entire school district. The message cannot be unsent, but a follow-up email can correct the error and limit the damage. Esther needs a “follow-up decree.”
- A court issues a restraining order that later proves to have been based on false testimony. The order itself stands, but a judge can issue a new order that supersedes it. The legal system has workarounds.
- A parent grounds a teenager for a month, then discovers the teenager was innocent. The parent cannot erase the week already past, but they can lift the punishment and restore trust. The new decree “neutralises” the unjust verdict.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Could Esther have asked for the original decree to be cancelled outright? Why did the king propose a different solution?
- Why is Esther so careful to attribute the letters to Haman alone? Is she protecting the king, or protecting herself?
- How does this passage encourage us when we face a situation that seems “irreversible” (broken relationships, bad decisions, systemic injustice)?
Leading a Discussion
Esther’s petition is a masterclass in wise intercession. She speaks truth to power, but she does so with humility and specific intent. As you read the passage together, notice how each of Esther’s words and gestures serves a purpose. She knows the legal barriers, but she also knows the king’s heart. In our own prayers, we too can combine honesty about the problem with trust in the one who has power to provide a way forward.
Discussion questions
- What do Esther’s introductory phrases (“If it pleases the king… I have found favor”) reveal about her relationship with the king and her assessment of the risk she is taking?
- Why does Esther refer to the letters as “devised by Haman” rather than simply “the decree to destroy the Jews”? What does this choice accomplish?
- The king had already given Esther Haman’s house and elevated Mordecai (v.1, 2). Why does Esther still feel the need to fall at his feet and beg?
- How does the king’s answer in verse 8 explain the legal problem of irrevocability? In what sense does the new decree “reverse” the old one?
- Compare Esther’s language here with her earlier request at Esther 5:8 and 7:3, 4. How has her confidence grown, and what remains the same?
- Where do you see God at work in this passage, even though His name is never mentioned? How does this shape the way you read the rest of the book?
- Think of a situation in your own life where a wrong decision seemed final. How did God provide a “new decree” or an unexpected way forward?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 33:13 | Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me your way, now, that I may know you, so that I may find favor in your sight; and consider that this nation is your people.” |
| Exodus 33:16 | For how would people know that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Isn’t it that you go with us, so that we are separated, I and your people, from all the people who are on the surface of the earth?” |
| I Samuel 20:29 | He said, ‘Please let me go, for our family has a sacrifice in the city. My brother has commanded me to be there. Now, if I have found favor in your eyes, please let me go away and see my brothers.’ Therefore he has not come to the king’s table.” |
| Esther 2:4 | and let the maiden who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti.” The thing pleased the king, and he did so. |
| Esther 2:17 | The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained favor and kindness in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown on her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti. |
| Esther 3:12 | Then the king’s scribes were called in on the first month, on the thirteenth day of the month; and all that Haman commanded was written to the king’s local governors, and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, and it was sealed with the king’s ring. |
| Esther 3:13 | Letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions. |
| Esther 5:8 | If I have found favor in the sight of the king, and if it pleases the king to grant my petition and to perform my request, let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will prepare for them, and I will do tomorrow as the king has said.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
Esther shows hesitation about asking the king to cancel Haman’s letters. The king explains that once something bears his seal no one can change it. He suggests sending new letters with his seal to counter the old ones.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
Geneva Bible Notes points out that the queen asks the king to order the destruction letters written by Haman to be recalled. This action shows she is willing to use her power to protect the Jews from harm.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill observes that Esther piles up nearly identical phrases of humility to soften the king's heart and show her complete submission to his will. She also shrewdly avoids blaming the king for the decree, instead suggesting that Haman wrote it on his own authority without the king's full awareness.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB highlights Esther's diplomatic skill in this scene, noting the variety of expressions she uses to show willing submission to her husband while rolling the full blame for the massacre plot onto Haman. Her argument that the king's sanction was obtained surreptitiously is what secures the reversal.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch note that the prayer includes two new phrases to emphasize the seriousness of the request. It asks whether the action is proper and whether the speaker is pleasing in the king’s eyes before any writing is made to stop Haman’s letters.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange notes that Esther’s plea faced the legal obstacle of Persian decrees being irrevocable, so she asks not to cancel but to issue a counter-decree. Her tearful kneeling shows urgent desperation, while her careful choice of the rare word “kasher” (to be successful or advisable) underscores the need for a wise solution.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that Esther does not ask the king to punish Haman herself but asks him to order his letters destroyed. He says this shows she trusts the king’s authority enough to let him handle justice directly.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley observes Esther's careful strategy in speaking to the king: she uses varied expressions to secure his favor while prudently shifting the blame entirely onto Haman. This distances the king from any responsibility, making clear that Haman alone circumvented and deceived him for his own ends.