Haman’s position was such that he could address the king directly instead of in the third person (see Esther 2:2). He chose to approach the matter from the angle of political stability. Rather than revealing his personal hatred for the Jews and for Mordecai (whose honourable deeds stood recorded in the annals), he pretended to speak out of a concern for the empire.
Haman cunningly laid out his argument, using a truth, a half-truth, and an untruth. It is true that the Jews lived as those scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of [Ahasuerus’] kingdom.
It is also true that their customs differed from those around them (a testimony to the many God-fearing Jews who lived in the dispersion). In keeping with the law of God, they circumcised themselves, ate only certain kinds of food, kept the Sabbath and followed a number of other customs which distinguished them from others.
However, Haman used the above-mentioned truth to make the Jews appear stubborn and implacable. His Amalekite hatred of the Jews (and their God) made him blind to the fact that God’s law made Israel wiser than all the other peoples (Deuteronomy 4:6; Psalm 147:19–20).
The Jews’ unique customs were not reason enough for their annihilation. After all, different customs and religions were tolerated in the Persian Empire. Therefore, Haman judged it necessary to add to his statements one that was an outright lie. Instead of describing the disobedience of one Jew, Mordecai, to one specific law of the king, he stated that all the Jews do not keep the king’s laws.
8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not to the king’s profit to tolerate them.