Esther 7 4

Esther 7:4 kjv

For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my tongue, although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage.

Esther 7:4 nkjv

For we have been sold, my people and I, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated. Had we been sold as male and female slaves, I would have held my tongue, although the enemy could never compensate for the king's loss."

Esther 7:4 niv

For I and my people have been sold to be destroyed, killed and annihilated. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king."

Esther 7:4 esv

For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated. If we had been sold merely as slaves, men and women, I would have been silent, for our affliction is not to be compared with the loss to the king."

Esther 7:4 nlt

For my people and I have been sold to those who would kill, slaughter, and annihilate us. If we had merely been sold as slaves, I could remain quiet, for that would be too trivial a matter to warrant disturbing the king."

Esther 7 verses

Esther 7 4 Meaning

Esther 7:4 marks a pivotal moment where Queen Esther directly exposes Haman's wicked plot to King Ahasuerus. She reveals that she and her entire people have been "sold" – condemned by decree – not into mere servitude, which would be grievous enough but bearable, but specifically "to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish." Her plea highlights the ultimate and irreversible nature of the planned genocide, strategically contrasting it with the less severe fate of slavery. She then asserts that had the decree been for slavery, she might have remained silent, because even then, the king would suffer significant loss. However, annihilating a populace brings far greater, irrecoverable "damage" to the king's domain and resources, a loss Haman's bribe could never compensate.

Esther 7 4 Context

Esther 7:4 takes place during the second of two banquets hosted by Queen Esther for King Ahasuerus and Haman. At this banquet, Esther chooses to reveal Haman's evil plot, seizing the opportune moment she had meticulously planned. The entire book of Esther revolves around Haman's genocidal decree against the Jews throughout the Persian Empire, fueled by his personal hatred for Mordecai and the wealth promised to the king (Esth 3:8-15). Earlier, Esther was hesitant to approach the king unbidden, but Mordecai's exhortation about her potentially being in her royal position "for such a time as this" (Esth 4:14) spurred her to act. This verse represents the climax of her intercession, as she uses strategic rhetoric to turn the king's favor against Haman and highlight the vast negative implications of the decree, appealing to the king's self-interest in addition to personal appeal.

Esther 7 4 Word analysis

• For we are sold: The Hebrew verb is makar (מכר), here in the passive Qal perfect. It literally means "to sell," but in this context, it carries the strong connotation of being "given over" or "condemned," highlighting the transaction that undergirds Haman's decree. Haman had offered ten thousand talents of silver (Esth 3:9) for the privilege of destroying a people, framing them as a "nuisance" and himself as a benefactor. Esther underscores that her people have effectively been 'sold' to him for annihilation, like goods on the market, by royal decree.
• I and my people: Esther’s bold declaration of solidarity. Until this point, her Jewish identity was kept hidden from the king. This phrase emphasizes her personal connection and risk, embodying the call of Mordecai in Esther 4:13-14 for her to identify with her people. It transforms the issue from an abstract "certain people" (Esth 3:8) into a personal attack on the queen herself and her direct kin.
• to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish: A powerful triad of verbs signifying utter annihilation.
  • "destroyed" (lehashmid - לְהַשְׁמִיד): to be utterly cut off, annihilated. This often implies a complete eradication.
  • "slain" (laharog - לַהֲרוֹג): to be killed by violence. This refers to the physical act of murder.
  • "perish" (le'abbed - וּלְאַבֵּד): to be lost, made to vanish, or become extinct. This suggests a complete disappearance, a fate more severe than mere death.This threefold expression amplifies the horror and finality of Haman’s plan, emphasizing that no trace of them would remain. It implies total genocide.
• But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen: Esther draws a crucial distinction. While slavery was a terrible fate, it implied survival and economic utility to the oppressor. It suggests a future, however grim. Her argument highlights the king's self-interest; enslaved people could serve as a valuable workforce and source of revenue, contrasting sharply with their utter elimination. This rhetorical move is shrewd, as it shifts the king’s perspective from mere racial hatred to practical, economic consequences for his empire.
• I would have held my tongue: The Hebrew is hechresh-ti (הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי), "I would have been silent." Esther states that if the fate were mere slavery, the atrocity, while horrific, would be primarily their suffering. She strategically conveys that the magnitude of this particular plot (annihilation) is so immense it transcends personal hardship, impacting the very fabric of the kingdom. This silence is not approval of slavery but recognition of its lesser impact on the king's domain compared to complete erasure.
• although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage: This phrase seals her argument. The "enemy" (Haman, though not named here directly, is clearly implied) could never "countervail" or "compensate" (shavah - שָׁוָה, meaning "to be equal," "to be equivalent," "to make good") the immense "damage" (nezeq - נֶזֶק, meaning "loss," "injury," "harm") that the king would incur by losing a significant, productive portion of his population. This damage includes not only the lost tax revenue from loyal subjects (Haman's 10,000 talents would be a paltry sum compared to the sustained loss over generations) but also the destabilization, potential revolts, and administrative chaos that such a decree would unleash. Esther shrewdly frames the genocide as a colossal economic and administrative blunder for Ahasuerus.

Esther 7 4 Bonus section

The subtlety of Esther's appeal in this verse is paramount. She does not initially directly name Haman, allowing the King's own curiosity and mounting fury to land on the guilty party later (Esth 7:6). Her focus on "damage to the king" subtly reminds Ahasuerus that Haman, who claimed to be loyal, was in fact destroying a significant portion of his king's productive subjects. This appeal to self-preservation and material loss, rather than purely moral grounds, might have been more impactful in a secular royal court and shows Esther's pragmatic wisdom under divine guidance. This rhetorical brilliance prevented Ahasuerus from dismissing the matter as a minor ethnic dispute and elevated it to a direct challenge to his authority and kingdom's prosperity.

Esther 7 4 Commentary

Esther 7:4 is the moment of truth where Esther’s courageous and carefully crafted strategy comes to fruition. She masterfully appeals to King Ahasuerus's self-interest, shifting the narrative from a mere personal grievance (which might have seemed petty) to a direct assault on the kingdom’s welfare. By juxtaposing enslavement (bad, but profitable for a king) with annihilation (catastrophic, a net loss), she compels Ahasuerus to see Haman's plot not just as cruel but as profoundly foolish and detrimental to his own power and wealth. Her deliberate choice to frame the "damage to the king" as uncompensatable shows her acute understanding of Ahasuerus’s motivations and the political realities of the Persian court. This verse underscores Esther's extraordinary courage, rhetorical skill, and self-identification with her people in a critical moment.

• Practical usage example: It exemplifies speaking truth to power strategically, especially when confronting grave injustice. It teaches the value of framing arguments in terms understandable and compelling to the decision-makers, highlighting the true cost of unrighteous decisions.