Esther 9:7-10 Meaning: Why List Haman's Ten Sons?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Meaning in one sentence
Why does Esther 9:7-10 list the ten sons of Haman? Learn the meaning of this detailed account and why the Jews refused the plunder.
Context
The Jews are defending themselves on the very day Haman's decree would have destroyed them. In Susa alone they kill five hundred enemies, including the ten sons of Haman. The passage lists each son by name, then adds a crucial detail: they did not take the plunder. Earlier, the king's new decree had given them the right to seize the property of their attackers (Esther 8:11). But here they leave it untouched. This is not a story of looting. It is a story of measured self-defense, one that leaves a clear record of what they sought and what they refused.
Key Words
The Hebrew verb for "they killed" is harag, a word used throughout the Old Testament for taking a life in battle or execution. It is plain and final. The sons of Haman are not casualties of a skirmish; they are named specifically, one by one, as the heads of the enemy force. That listing matters. It shows this was not anonymous slaughter but a deliberate defeat of those who led the attack on God's people.
The phrase "they didn't lay their hand on the plunder" uses two ordinary words with weight. Shalach yad (to stretch out the hand) often means to take possession of something with intent to keep. Bizzah (plunder) means the spoils of war, goods rightfully seized. By refusing to stretch out their hands, the Jews made a statement. They had legal cover to enrich themselves. They chose not to. Their motive was survival and justice, not greed.
How Christians Read This Verse
Christian commentators consistently highlight the refusal to take plunder. Matthew Henry notes the Jews acted from "mere necessity, and by that great law of self-preservation." The Cambridge Bible draws a parallel to Abraham's refusal of Sodom's goods: both wanted to avoid any claim that their prosperity came from human victory. Gill's Exposition suggests the Jews may have wanted to ingratiate themselves to the king, letting the plunder fall to the royal treasury. Whatever the motive, all interpreters see restraint as the mark of a righteous cause. The listing of Persian names is also seen as evidence that the account is historically grounded, not symbolic fiction.
A common misunderstanding
Some readers assume the Jews took full advantage of the king's edict and kept everything they could get. In fact, the passage goes out of its way to say they did not lay a hand on the plunder. Their fight was for their lives, not for profit. The detail is there to show that their actions were defensive, not predatory.
Living This Out
When someone has wronged you deeply, there is often an opportunity to press for more than what is fair. You could demand restitution, leverage the situation for your own good, or quietly take what you feel you are owed. The Jews in Susa had every legal right to the possessions of their enemies. They chose not to take them.
What would it look like this week to settle a conflict or defend a boundary without trying to gain from it? You might have to let go of a claim that is technically yours. You might choose to walk away from compensation that feels deserved. Restraint is not weakness. It is a quiet sign that you trust God to provide for you, and that your goal is not getting ahead at someone else's expense.
Main takeaway: God’s people can defend themselves with restraint, trusting Him for justice and provision rather than grasping for gain.
For Families
For ages 5, 8
A bad man named Haman wanted to hurt God’s people. But God turned everything around. The Jews fought to protect themselves, and when they won, they did not take the bad men’s toys or treasure. They only wanted to be safe.
For ages 9, 12
The Jews could have taken all the valuables of their enemies after winning the battle. The king’s law even allowed it. But they chose not to. They wanted everyone to see that they were fighting only to save their lives, not to get rich. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is walk away from something you could legally take. That kind of restraint shows real strength, and it honors God.
Questions People Ask
Why are all ten sons of Haman listed by name in Esther 9:7-10?
The list emphasizes that Haman’s entire family line was wiped out. Each name is given individually, not as a group, so there is no doubt that the threat to the Jews was fully removed. Jewish tradition also notes that in the Hebrew text the names are written vertically, perhaps to show they were hanged one above another.
Why didn’t the Jews take the plunder when the king’s decree allowed it?
The edict in Esther 8:11 permitted them to take the possessions of their enemies, but the Jews chose not to. Commentators suggest several reasons: to prove they fought only for self-defense, not greed; to avoid any appearance of profiting from bloodshed; or to let the plunder go to the king’s treasury. Their restraint shows their motive was not material gain.
What is the significance of the number ten here?
Haman had ten sons, which matched his boast in Esther 5:11 about the multitude of his children. The complete destruction of all ten sons shows the total reversal of Haman’s plans. The number ten also echoes earlier biblical themes of completeness, such as the ten plagues on Egypt.
Are the names of Haman’s sons Persian?
Most of the names, like Parshandatha, Dalphon, and Aspatha, appear to be of Persian origin. This detail supports the historical setting of the story in the Persian Empire. It also counters the idea that Haman himself might have been a different nationality; the names suggest a Persian background.
How does this passage connect to Abraham in Genesis 14?
In Genesis 14:23, Abraham refused to take any plunder from the king of Sodom, so that no one could say they made him rich. The Cambridge Bible notes a similar motive here: the Jews wanted to avoid any claim that their victory was about enrichment. Both stories show God’s people trusting Him for provision rather than human spoils.
For pastors & researchers
Hebrew interlinear, 8 commentaries & word study