Esther 9:7-10 · Bible study
Esther 9:7-10 Commentary: The Ten Sons of Haman
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
A study of Esther 9:7-10, examining the listing of Haman's ten sons and the Jews' refusal to take plunder, with insights from key commentators.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The passage records the execution of Haman's ten sons and emphasizes that the Jews did not take plunder, showing their motives were self-defense, not greed.
- Key words: 'Plunder' (H0961 בִּזָּה), 'stretched out' (H7971 שָׁלַח) with 'hand' (H3027); negated by 'not' (H3808 לֹא).
- Main debate: Whether the Jews forsook plunder out of piety (to prove they sought no gain) or political prudence (to ingratiate themselves with the king).
- Theological theme: God's justice is thorough, yet His people are called to exercise restraint even in victory.
- Best use: Preaching on divine reversal, integrity in conflict, and the importance of leaving a clear legacy.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
7including Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha,
8Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha,
9Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vaizatha.
10They killed these ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews, but they did not lay a hand on the plunder.
WEB World English Bible 2000
7They killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha,
8Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha,
9Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vaizatha,
10the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jews’ enemy, but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder.
KJV King James Version 1769
7And Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha,
8And Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,
9And Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vajezatha,
10The ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews, slew they; but on the spoil laid they not their hand.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
7And Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha,
8and Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,
9and Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vaizatha,
10the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jews’ enemy, slew they; but on the spoil they laid not their hand.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
7and Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha,
8and Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,
9and Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vajezatha,
10ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, adversary of the Jews, they have slain, and on the prey they have not put forth their hand.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
7And Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha,
8and Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,
9and Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vajezatha,
10the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the oppressor of the Jews, they slew; but they laid not their hands on the prey.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
7Pharsandatha, and Delphon, and Esphatha
8And Phoratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,
9And Phermesta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Jezatha.
10And when they had slain them, they would not touch the spoils of their goods.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Esther 9:7
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The commentators agree that this passage serves two main purposes: recording the complete destruction of Haman's lineage and highlighting the Jews' restraint. The ten names are Persian in origin, as Barnes and the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges note, confirming Haman's Persian identity against the view that he was somehow not native to the empire. All ten sons were killed alongside five hundred other enemies in Susa (v.6). The repeated statement that the Jews did not lay their hands on the plunder is universally taken as a sign of their motive. Adam Clarke, Gill, and Matthew Henry all argue that the Jews could have taken spoils under the king's decree (Esther 8:11) but chose not to, proving their actions were about self-defense, not greed. Keil and Delitzsch tie this restraint to a desire to show that they sought only deliverance, not enrichment. Wesley offers a similar reading: the Jews left the plunder so that later generations would see their cause was necessity, not malice.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The Jews killed Haman's ten sons and did not take any plunder, demonstrating that their actions were about self-defense rather than enrichment.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The listing of each son by name | The names are Persian, confirming Haman's Persian background. The vertical arrangement in Hebrew is ancient and significant. | Some traditions see scribal peculiarities (large/small letters) as pointing to symbolic meanings, such as being hanged at different heights; others see only a textual curiosity without clear significance. |
| The restraint from plunder | The Jews had legal right to plunder (Esther 8:11) but chose not to, proving their actions were not motivated by material gain. | Commentators differ on whether this was an act of piety (trust in God's provision), political wisdom (to avoid appearing greedy before the king), or both. |
| The justice of killing all ten sons | The sons were linked to their father's plot against the Jews and were killed in the context of lawful self-defense (the edict allowed killing attackers). | Christians interpret this differently: some see it as a pattern of corporate judgment (like Achan), while others struggle with the idea of children dying for a father's sin, noting that the sons likely were adults complicit in the conspiracy. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Esther 9 records the day the Jews defended themselves against those who would have destroyed them. A previous royal decree had authorized the enemies of the Jews to attack on the thirteenth day of Adar. But through Esther and Mordecai's intercession, a second decree allowed the Jews to gather and defend their lives, and to plunder the possessions of their attackers (Esther 8:11). The scene in Susa is the heart of the conflict. The ten sons of Haman were no ordinary citizens: they were part of the household of the man who had plotted genocide, who had boasted of his many children (Esther 5:11). Their names are distinctively Persian, as several commentators observe, and likely reflect Haman's status at court. In the Hebrew text, the names are arranged vertically, one under another. The Cambridge commentary notes this arrangement and points out that Jewish tradition holds they were hung one above another on a high gallows. Scribal peculiarities, a large letter in Vaizatha's name and smaller letters in three others, remain obscure but underline the careful preservation of these names. The phrase 'the Jews’ enemy' echoes earlier portrayals of Haman (Esther 3:10, 7:6) and ties this execution to the larger story of God's protection of His people. The refusal to take plunder recalls Abraham's similar refusal after defeating the kings in Genesis 14:23, a parallel drawn by the Cambridge Bible. This was a day of reversal: those who hoped to seize property found their own property untouched.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Esther 9:7-10. The Hebrew text does exhibit scribal peculiarities: the names are written vertically rather than in a continuous line. According to the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, the first letter of the last name (Vaizatha) is written large, and one of the letters composing the second, seventh, and tenth names is made smaller. The reason for these variations remains obscure, though Jewish tradition interprets the arrangement as indicating the sons were hung one above another on a single gallows.
Reception History
Jewish tradition has given this passage a central role in the celebration of Purim. During the public reading of the book of Esther (the Megillah), the ten names are read in a single breath, signifying that all died together. In Christian tradition, the account has often been read as an example of God's deliverance and the vindication of His people. The refusal to take plunder has been highlighted as a moral lesson about integrity in victory. Some early Christian writers allegorized Haman as a type of Satan and his ten sons as vices or demonic powers that are fully defeated by Christ. Across centuries, the specificity of the names has served as a reminder that God records every detail of His justice and grace.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Complete justice. The names of all ten sons are recorded; nothing is overlooked. God sees every thread of the enemy's plot and unravels it entirely.
- Restraint in victory. The Jews had legal right to plunder but chose not to. They wanted their motive clear: this was about saving lives, not taking wealth.
- A story preserved for generations. The vertical list, the names, the notice of restraint, all become part of Scripture so that future readers know God works in specific, trustworthy ways.
Five-point outline
- The Persian names. These sons belonged to the elite of Susa. Their elimination removed a whole household of opposition.
- The enemy identified. Haman was not just a personal enemy but an 'adversary' of God's covenant people, connected to Amalek (Esther 3:1; Exodus 17:16).
- Self-defense, not offense. The Jews gathered only to protect themselves. They did not seek out new enemies.
- The refusal of plunder. This act echoes a pattern of God's people trusting Him rather than pursuing gain.
- The foundation for Purim. This victory becomes a festival of remembrance, celebrated annually (Esther 9:20-28).
Illustration hooks
- A legal settlement. Someone wins a lawsuit but refuses the monetary award so that observers know the suit was about principle, not profit. Their refusal proves integrity.
- A sports team. After a championship win, the captain donates the prize money to a cause, making clear that the victory itself mattered more than the reward.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Is it right for Christians to celebrate the deaths of enemies? (This passage sits in the Old Testament; the New Testament teaches love of enemies, yet the defeat of evil remains good.)
- If the Jews were entitled to plunder, why did they refuse? Does that set a precedent for how we handle material gain?
- Why are all ten sons named individually? Does that mean they shared their father's guilt?
Leading a Discussion
This passage records a dramatic turn in the story of Esther: God’s people defend themselves and the house of Haman is destroyed. But the detail that the Jews did not take plunder surprises many readers. As you discuss these verses, consider what the writer wants us to notice about justice, motive, and memory.
Discussion questions
- Look at the list of names in verses 7-9. Why do you think each son is named, rather than just saying 'the ten sons'? What does this level of detail communicate?
- Read Esther 8:11. What were the Jews legally allowed to do? Now read verse 10: 'they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder.' What reasons do the commentators give for this choice?
- Compare the Jews' restraint with Abram’s refusal of the king of Sodom’s goods in Genesis 14:23. What similar principle might be at work?
- Haman had boasted about his many sons (Esther 5:11). How does the death of all ten sons underscore the reversal of his plans?
- The Hebrew text writes the names vertically. The Cambridge Bible mentions a tradition that this suggests they were hanged one above another. What does the care given to recording these names tell us about the writer’s intent?
- Some Christians struggle with the violence in the book of Esther. How does the 'no plunder' detail shape the picture of the Jews’ motives? Does it change how you understand their action?
- This event becomes the basis for the feast of Purim, a time of joy and gift-giving. What does it mean to remember a day of deliverance that required fighting?
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)
| Genesis 14:23 | that I will not take a thread nor a sandal strap nor anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ |
| Exodus 17:16 | He said, “Yah has sworn: ‘Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’” |
| Exodus 20:5 | you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, |
| Esther 3:1 | After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him. |
| Esther 5:11 | Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, the multitude of his children, all the things in which the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king. |
| Esther 7:4 | For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for male and female slaves, I would have held my peace, although the adversary could not have compensated for the king’s loss.” |
| Esther 7:6 | Esther said, “An adversary and an enemy, even this wicked Haman!” Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen. |
| Esther 8:11 | In those letters, the king granted the Jews who were in every city to gather themselves together and to defend their lives—to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to plunder their possessions, |
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
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke notes that the Jews did not take any of Haman’s wealth even though they were allowed to by law. They chose to protect their own lives instead. This shows they valued safety above property.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes notes that the people keep the royal treasures for themselves instead of taking them as plunder. They choose not to steal from the spoils left after the battle.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator notes that the ten names are written in a vertical order with one initial letter larger and another smaller. He believes these formatting details show the names were hung on a tall gallows one above another.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
Geneva Bible Notes notes that the ten sons of Haman were killed but the plunder was left untouched. This shows that vengeance was intended only for Haman himself. Your hope rests in Christ and the resurrection.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights that the Jews refused to take any plunder from Haman's ten sons, even though the king's decree permitted it. This restraint showed their motive was self-defense, not greed, and may also have been meant to win favor with the king by leaving the estates for confiscation.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch note that the day originally planned for the Jews’ harm turned into a day of their success because the enemies’ hopes were reversed. They also explain that the Jews fought back with violence as permitted by royal decree and did not take any plunder.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange sees the Jews’ victory on the day their enemies hoped to destroy them as a reversal caused by divine providence, not human effort. He stresses that the Jews refused the spoils to prove they fought only for self-defense, not plunder. For him, this points to a deeper pattern: those who oppose God’s kingdom will ultimately be conquered.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that some read these verses as a literal historical account of Jews killing their enemies in 509 BC. Christians have understood this passage to mean it points to deeper spiritual realities.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley observes that these people acted not out of malice or greed but out of sheer necessity and the basic law of self-preservation. They wanted to leave a clear record for their children so that future generations would not mistake their motive.