From the early Church Fathers to now.
1 Jewish · 1 Reformed · 1 Methodist · 1 Catholic
“For we are given up, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. And would God we were sold for bondmen and bondwomen: the evil might be borne with, and I would have mourned in silence: but now we have an enemy, whose cruelty redoundeth upon the king.”
“for the adversary has no consideration for the king’s loss He does not care for the king’s loss, for if he sought your benefit, he should have said, “Sell them for slaves and bondswomen and receive the money, or keep them to be your slaves, they and their descendants.””
“For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish,.... She makes use of these several words, to express the utter destruction of her and her people, without any exception; not only the more to impress the king's mind with it, but she has respect to the precise words of the decree, Est 3:13 as she has also to the 10,000 talents of silver Haman offered to pay the king for the grant of it, when she says, "we are sold", or delivered to be destroyed: but if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my tongue: should never have asked for deliverance from bondage, but have patiently submitted to it, however unreasonable, unjust, and afflictive it would have been; because it might have been borne, and there might be hope of deliverance from it at one time or another; though it is said, slaves with the Persians were never made free (g); but that being the case would not have been so great a loss to the king, who would have reaped some advantage by their servitude; whereas, by the death of them, he must sustain a loss which the enemy was not equal to, and which he could not compensate with all his riches; which, according to Ben Melech, is the sense of the next clause: although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage; or, "for the enemy cannot", &c. the 10,000 talents offered by him, and all the riches that he has, are not an equivalent to the loss the king would sustain by the death of such a multitude of people, from whom he received so large a tribute; but this the enemy regarded not; and so Jarchi interprets it, the enemy took no care of, or was concerned about the king's damage; but there is another sense, which Aben Ezra mentions, and is followed by some learned men, who take the word for "enemy" to signify "distress", trouble, and anguish, as in Psa 4:1 and read the words, "for this distress would not be reckoned the king's damage" (h), or loss; though it would have been a distress to the Jews to have been sold for slaves, yet the loss to the king would not be so great as their death, since he would receive benefit by their service. (g) Alex. ab. Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 20. (h) "adversitas", Drusius, De Dieu; "angustia", Cocc. Lexic. in rad.”
“To be destroyed, to be slain - She here repeats the words which Haman put into the decree. See Est 3:13. Could not countervail the king's damage - Even the ten thousand talents of silver could not be considered as a compensation to the state for the loss of a whole nation of people throughout all their generations.”
“Perish. Three terms of the same import express the greatness of the misery. (Haydock) — King. Whose revenue will be greatly impaired, (Calmet) and character injured, for having given such power to a monster. (Haydock) — The kings of Persia had taken many precautions not to be thus deluded, having appointed officers, who were styled “the eyes and ears” of the king, purposely to obtain all necessary information. But these eyes were often darkened; these ears were often deaf, (Calmet) and unwilling to act with fidelity; (Haydock) though their diligence in make secret transactions known, caused the people to look upon their kings as gods. (Apul. Mund. Cyrop. viii.) (Calmet)”
The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.