Why did the Jews not take the plunder in Esther 9:11? Permitted Yet Refused Xerxes’ second edict (Esther 8:11) expressly allowed the Jews to “destroy, kill, and annihilate the entire force of any people or province…and to plunder their possessions” . The text therefore highlights a voluntary renunciation, not a legal prohibition. Their motive must be sought in theology, ethics, and historical memory. Historical Memory: Amalek and Agag Haman is called “the son of Hammedatha the Agagite” (Esther 3:1). Agag was king of Amalek (1 Samuel 15:8). God’s earlier command regarding Amalek was total destruction with no spoil kept (1 Samuel 15:3). Saul’s failure—“the people took of the spoil” (1 Samuel 15:9, 19)—cost him the throne. By refusing plunder, Mordecai’s generation rectified Saul’s disobedience, completing the long-delayed judgment on Amalek (Exodus 17:16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19). The Theology of Ḥērem (Devotion to Destruction) In holy war passages (Deuteronomy 20:16-18; Joshua 6:17-19) spoils could not be appropriated when the campaign was “devoted” (ḥērem) to the LORD. Esther does not use the term ḥērem, yet the narrative aligns with its principle: judgment belongs to God alone, and profit contaminates purity (cf. Proverbs 16:8). The Jews sought vindication, not enrichment. Moral Testimony before the Empire Persian law usually rewarded victors with goods (Herodotus, Hist. 9.33). By declining plunder, the Jews signaled to the empire that their uprising was defensive, not rapacious. Josephus records, “They fought only for their lives, leaving the goods untouched” (Ant. 11.6.10). Such restraint neutralized potential accusations of rebellion—an apologetic strategy echoed in 1 Peter 2:12. Providential Provision Already Granted Esther had been given Haman’s estate (Esther 8:1), and Mordecai was advanced to “a position second only to King Xerxes” (Esther 10:3). God had supplied their material needs beforehand. The plunder would have offered no real increase but risked moral compromise (Proverbs 30:8-9). Early Jewish Commentary The Talmud (Megillah 7a) notes three times the text repeats “they did not lay their hands on the plunder,” teaching that their motive was pure obedience and that the property, once under royal decree, technically reverted to the crown. Medieval commentator Rashi echoes the Amalek connection, linking their restraint to Saul’s earlier failure. Archaeological Corroboration The Persepolis Fortification tablets document royal permits for ethnic militia defense units c. 479 BC, matching Esther’s timeline. A clay docket (PF 337) references “rations for Yehudaya” in Susa, supporting the Jewish presence and capacity to mobilize without pillaging Persian assets. Christological Echo and Canonical Cohesion The Jews’ refusal to profit foreshadows the Messiah who, though victorious, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6). The ethical pattern—victory without personal gain—finds its fullness in Christ’s resurrection triumph, offered freely for human salvation (1 Corinthians 15:57). Application for Believers Today 1. Justice must be pursued without greed (Micah 6:8). 2. Obedience in the small details vindicates God’s people (John 14:21). 3. Ultimate security rests in God’s providence, not material surplus (Matthew 6:33). Answer Summarized They abstained from plunder to (1) complete God’s judgment on Amalek in perfect obedience, contrasting Saul’s failure; (2) demonstrate moral integrity before the watching empire; (3) acknowledge prior divine provision; and (4) prevent cycles of retaliatory violence, thereby glorifying Yahweh as the righteous Judge. |
    |