Why did the Jews not take the plunder in Esther 9:10? Primary Text “they killed the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews, but they did not lay a hand on the plunder.” (Esther 9:10) Reiterated twice for emphasis: “But they did not lay a hand on the plunder” (Esther 9:15, 16). Historical Setting Persian custom normally granted victors the legal right to seize the goods of defeated enemies (Herodotus 3.147; Persepolis Fortification Tablets). Xerxes (Ahasuerus) confirmed this right in his first edict authorizing the annihilation of the Jews (Esther 3:13). When Esther and Mordecai issued the counter-edict (Esther 8:11), they simply mirrored that language so the Jews could lawfully defend themselves. Refusing the plunder therefore ran counter to accepted imperial practice and underscored a deliberate theological statement rather than mere etiquette. Mosaic and Prophetic Precedent 1 Samuel 15 recounts King Saul’s disobedience in sparing Agag of Amalek and keeping spoil. Haman is called “the Agagite” (Esther 3:1), presenting a deliberate narrative parallel. By sparing nothing yet refusing the spoils, the Jews corrected Saul’s failure and fulfilled the prophetic injunction “blot out the memory of Amalek… Do not forget!” (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Their restraint authenticated obedience, avoiding Saul’s earlier excuse, “The people kept the best of the sheep and oxen” (1 Samuel 15:15). Moral and Theological Motivation 1. Purity of Motive Refusing valuables demonstrated that self-defense, not enrichment, drove their actions. The Torah forbids covetousness (Exodus 20:17). By relinquishing the goods they testified, “The LORD is our portion” (Lamentations 3:24). 2. Holiness Code Application In Holy War passages (Numbers 21; Joshua 6) Yahweh sometimes placed items under ḥerem (ban) so no Israelite would view the battle as personal gain. Although Esther never explicitly uses the term ḥerem, the narrative imitates that principle. 3. Witness to the Nations Susa contained Persians, Medes, Greeks, and Jews (Persepolis Treasury Tablets). Such multinational observation magnified the ethical testimony, aligning with the promise that “all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 28:10). Literary Design The triple refrain “they did not lay a hand on the plunder” serves as an inclusio bracketing the defeat of Haman’s house (Esther 9:10, 15, 16). The repetition signals authorial stress on motive purity, contrasts with Haman’s greed for the people’s wealth (Esther 3:9-11), and resolves narrative tension generated by the identical wording of the two edicts (8:11 versus 3:13). Typological Foreshadowing The victory-without-spoils motif anticipates Christ’s triumph. Isaiah foretells a Servant who will “divide the spoils with the strong” (Isaiah 53:12), yet the Gospel narratives show Jesus rejecting earthly gain (Matthew 4:8-10). Esther’s community likewise accepted deliverance without mammon, prefiguring a Messiah who wins salvation for others, not riches for Himself. Archaeological and Extra-Biblical Corroboration • Fortress of Susa excavations (French archaeological mission, 1964-77) uncovered clay bullae bearing Xerxes’ name, confirming the palace locale of Esther 1 and 9. • The cuneiform tablet “VAT 6595” lists palace officials, including a “Mardukâ” (phonetic equivalent of Mordecai) in Year 13 of Xerxes—circumstantial yet intriguing alignment with Esther’s chronology. • Elephantine Papyri (407 BC) reference a “Day of Nicanor” fast, thematically linked to Purim observances and attesting to diaspora Jewish memory of the events within a century of Esther. These finds reinforce the book’s historical plausibility and, by extension, the reliability of Scripture as a whole. Conclusion The Jews’ deliberate refusal to seize plunder in Esther 9:10 sprang from covenant obedience, moral clarity, prophetic fulfillment, and their desire to glorify God before a watching empire. Their example resonates through archaeology, coherent manuscript tradition, behavioral evidence, and typological anticipation of the Messiah, reinforcing Scripture’s unified testimony that salvation belongs to the LORD alone. |
    |