Misreading Esther: Haman, Not Persia or Iran!

Against the backdrop of rising tensions involving Iran, a well-known evangelical leader, Franklin Graham, made the following statement on April 1, 2026. Speaking during a prayer at an Easter luncheon hosted by Donald Trump at the White House, he said:

“Father, you tell us in the book of Esther that the Persians, the Iranians, were wanting to kill every Jew, woman, child, and do it all in one day…But you have raised up President Trump…for such a time as this…And Father we pray that you’ll give him victory.”

Graham’s remarks are not an isolated case. They reflect a broader pattern within some Christian circles, where the story of Esther is often summarized in stark and simplified terms: “The Persians planned to kill all the Jews in a single day.”

It is a compelling line. It sounds biblically grounded, resonates with contemporary headlines, and offers a clear moral binary. But it is also an oversimplification — one that risks becoming misleading in today’s geopolitical climate.

While the Book of Esther certainly depicts a terrifying threat, the Scriptural narrative itself is far more nuanced than this slogan suggests. The danger does not arise from a monolithic national hatred, but rather from the specific actions and ambitions of a particular individual serving as a court official. By paying close attention to what the text actually says — and how it is often retold — we can move beyond reductive readings and stereotypes and approach the story with the nuance it deserves.

What the Text Actually Says

The narrative is careful in how it presents the threat against the Jewish people. The plot is introduced not as a national movement, but through a single figure: Haman.

The text identifies Haman as an “Agagite” (Esther 3:1; 3:10; 8:3; 9:24) and not as ethnically Persian or Iranian. Many interpreters understand this as a literary or theological link to Agag, the king of the Amalekites — longstanding enemies of Israel. Agag is also mentioned in an ancient oracle of Balaam where he predicted the ascent of an Israelite king over Agag (Cf. Num. 24:7). As Jon Levenson observes,

“The text of Esth. 3:10 communicates the enormity of his malevolence not only by reference to his Agagite ancestry (see the commentary on 2:5 and 3: 1), but also by the initial use of the fearful epithet “the enemy of the Jews,” which will recur in 8:1; 9:10,24 (see also 7:6)” (Levenson, J. D. Esther: A Commentary, p 72).

What is clear in the narrative is that Haman is a high-ranking official in the Persian court under King Ahasuerus (commonly identified with Xerxes I, who ruled from 486–465 BCE, though some scholars question this identification). He operates within the structures of imperial power — but the initiative and motivation for the decree originate with Haman.

The edict itself, once authorized, carries the full weight of imperial authority. It is issued in the king’s name and distributed across the empire (Esther 3:12–15), calling for the destruction of Jews throughout the provinces. In that sense, the decree functions as official policy within the story. Yet the narrative consistently frames the plot as the result of Haman’s personal ambition and hostility, rather than as a broadly driven ethnic or national agenda among the Persian people.

Why the Misunderstanding Persists

So how did “Haman’s plot” become “the Persians’ plot”? A few factors help explain the shift:

Because the story takes place within the Persian Empire — particularly in Susa, one of its key administrative centers — readers can easily conflate the setting with the source of hostility.

Furthermore, in simplified retellings — in sermons, children’s materials, and popular summaries — complex narratives are often reduced to clear moral binaries. Over time, this can flatten the story into “evil empire versus oppressed minority,” losing important textual distinctions. Given contemporary tensions involving the modern state of Iran — which occupies much of the territory of ancient Persia — there can be a temptation to map the biblical narrative directly onto present-day conflicts. However, the political, cultural, and historical continuity between ancient Persia and modern Iran is far from straightforward and should not be assumed.

Why Precision Matters

This is more than a technical or academic concern. How we describe the story shapes how it is understood — and sometimes how it is applied.

Common Misreading: “The Persians plotted what we might today call mass extermination”

Textually Grounded Reading “Haman persuaded the king to authorize a decree”

Common Misreading: Assigns blame to an entire people

Textually Grounded Reading: Locates responsibility in a specific individual within the court

Common Misreading: Risks reinforcing modern tensions

Textually Grounded Reading: Encourages careful, context-aware reading and interpretation

The text does describe a sweeping and terrifying decree. But attributing that decree to “the Persians” as a people risks misrepresenting how the narrative assigns responsibility.

Many modern biblical scholars observe that the Book of Esther reflects several authentic Persian administrative features — such as court protocols, legal practices, and the use of royal decrees. At the same time, the specific events described in the story cannot be independently verified through external historical records.

This narrative is a powerful story of vulnerability, courage, and deliverance. It continues to resonate across centuries for good reason. However, it deserves to be read with care.

The story does not simply depict “a people” plotting against another people. It presents a more specific and complex account — one in which power, influence, and personal animosity intersect within an imperial system.

How we read ancient texts shapes how we understand — and treat — people in the present. When we blur the line between a specific antagonist and an entire nation, we inadvertently validate the collective blame that fuels contemporary prejudice. Recognizing that Haman’s plot was a localized abuse of power, not an inherent trait of the Persian or Iranian people, allows us to condemn specific acts of hatred without demonizing entire cultures or religions. In an era where ancient conflicts are too easily mapped onto modern borders, returning to the text with care is itself an act of peacebuilding.

For further reading:

Originally published at https://vinodjohn.substack.com.