Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read the Book of Esther in the past (at least most of it), but I've yet to read it with spiritual understanding. Many times when we read Scripture, there are instances where you don't know if a character in the story are in the wrong in God's eyes, or if they are in the right. For example you have Jacob who deceives his father for a blessing. Was he right for doing this? After all, God did tell his mother that her older son would serve the younger. The Bible doesn't explicitly say God had a problem with Jacob doing this thing, but we know spiritually speaking it was wrong.
So fast forward to the beginning of the Book of Esther. Esther 1-12 reads.....
This is what happened in the days of Xerxes, who reigned over 127 provinces from India to Cush.
In those days King Xerxes sat on his royal throne in the citadel of Susa.
In the third year of his reign, Xerxes held a feast for all his officials and servants. The military leaders of Persia and Media were there, along with the nobles and princes of the provinces.
And for a full 180 days he displayed the glorious riches of his kingdom and the magnificent splendor of his greatness.
At the end of this time, in the garden court of the royal palace, the king held a seven-day feast for all the people in the citadel of Susa, from the least to the greatest.
Hangings of white and blue linen were fastened with cords of fine white and purple material to silver rings on the marble pillars. Gold and silver couches were arranged on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl, and other costly stones.
Beverages were served in an array of goblets of gold, each with a different design, and the royal wine flowed freely, according to the king’s bounty.
By order of the king, no limit was placed on the drinking, and every official of his household was to serve each man whatever he desired.
Queen Vashti also gave a banquet for the women in the royal palace of King Xerxes.
On the seventh day, when the king’s heart was merry with wine, he ordered the seven eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar, and Carkas—
to bring Queen Vashti before him, wearing her royal crown, to display her beauty to the people and officials. For she was beautiful to behold.
Queen Vashti, however, refused to come at the king’s command brought by his eunuchs. And the king became furious, and his anger burned within him.
Now we know what happens after this, with Esther becoming the queen in Vashti's stead. Because it was Vashti's removal that made room for Esther becoming queen, we assume that all of this was just a part of God's plan. That it was actually God humbling Vashti, and giving her position to someone more deserving. This feeling even feels more or less confirmed when you read the following verses showing how the king didn't act rash with Vashti's disobedience, but consulted his wise men and the laws of his kingdom. Making it seem as though the king was in the right the whole time, and he justly banned Vashti from his sight.
However when we look at the conduct of the king before hand, we can see why Vashti didn't want to obey the king's command. For a full week, every one was drinking to their hearts content. We're told in verse 10 how the king's heart was merry with wine. This let's us know all his inhibitions were down, and so it was with his guests. The men around the king probably told him he's shown everyone his vast empire, but there was one possession he's yet to show off and was keeping to himself. They were probably egging him on to show off his wife. (Something I'm thinking they wouldn't dare ask if sober) So the king took them up on it, and commanded that his wife be brought in.
One historical rabbi suggested Vashti was actually to be brought in naked, wearing nothing but her royal crown. (As mentioned in verse 11) Now we don't officially know this is ultimately what the verse was implying, but perhaps there is a good case for it. These guys were stupid drunk, and the verse specifically mentioned her wearing her crown, saying nothing of her royal robes or something to that extent.
Let's just say that is the case, because she still would have been on display whether wearing clothes or not. Even though she disobeyed the king, is she to be viewed as a hero in Biblical thought? Or is she to be viewed as disrespectful toward her husband? Or is it possible both answers are right? (Could she have sent her husband a message saying it wouldn't be good for her to appear in this manner) There will be a poll with this thread, so give your answer and thoughts.
One additional note........
If it is true that Vashti was to appear before the men and people just bearing her crown, of course that would have been wrong all the way. Though the Bible mentioned Vashti herself was beautiful to behold. Yes, she would be on display, but from a public standpoint, she herself wouldn't be put to shame. By this I mean this situation wouldn't be for shaming purposes. (I hope people don't get the wrong idea and say I'm making light of these circumstances if that was the intended command for Vashti)
With this thought in mind, I'm reminded of what Jesus willingly put Himself through. Jesus, who I believe is God come in the flesh, was beaten and mocked. He was spat upon, and of course finally nailed to the cross. Now we know the cross itself besides being a death sentence, was something for everyone to see. It's very purpose is for mocking and putting to shame. On the cross, Jesus was completely naked. No film showing the crucifixion will ever go that in depth with the reality of crucifixion, but in reality, Jesus had no clothes on, no loincloth covering His genitals. The only thing He was allowed to wear, was a crown. A crown of woven thorns. All of it for the explicit purpose of mocking and shame. Jesus took it all on, for us. This is just another thought I had concerning this topic.
Whether Vashti was right or wrong in refusing the king's command isn't really the point. It's simply the circumstance that brought about the ascension of Esther.
While the king's request was out of line (apparently, according to Haydock, even for the social mores of the time and place!) I certainly wouldn't call her a hero, especially considering the manner in which she likely went about refusing, which we know only served to enrage the king.
Head. But without any other covering. (Chaldean) Sulpitius entertained perhaps the same idea. Stulto rege consultior, pudens, virorum oculis spectaculum corporis præbere jussa, abnuit. (Haydock) Some Greek copies assert, very improbably, (Calmet) that she was sent for "to be crowned queen. " Beautiful. "The Persian ladies were noted for beauty "(Ammian) insomuch that Alexander called them eye-sores, oculorum dolores. (Curtius) Only prostitutes appeared publicly at feasts. (Macrob. vii. 1.) (St. Ambrose, de Elia. i. 15.) In effect, Vasthi's refusal was conformable to the laws of the country. (Josephus) (Plutarch in Themist.) Her offence consisted, therefore, rather in her haughty carriage or words. (Haydock) For the proposal was neither decent nor safe for the king, (Grotius) as the history of Candaules shews. (Herodotus i.) (Not. Var. in Sulpitius)
Whether Vashti was right or wrong in refusing the king's command isn't really the point. It's simply the circumstance that brought about the ascension of Esther.
While the king's request was out of line (apparently, according to Haydock, even for the social mores of the time and place!) I certainly wouldn't call her a hero, especially considering the manner in which she likely went about refusing, which we know only served to enrage the king.
Head. But without any other covering. (Chaldean) Sulpitius entertained perhaps the same idea. Stulto rege consultior, pudens, virorum oculis spectaculum corporis præbere jussa, abnuit. (Haydock) Some Greek copies assert, very improbably, (Calmet) that she was sent for "to be crowned queen. " Beautiful. "The Persian ladies were noted for beauty "(Ammian) insomuch that Alexander called them eye-sores, oculorum dolores. (Curtius) Only prostitutes appeared publicly at feasts. (Macrob. vii. 1.) (St. Ambrose, de Elia. i. 15.) In effect, Vasthi's refusal was conformable to the laws of the country. (Josephus) (Plutarch in Themist.) Her offence consisted, therefore, rather in her haughty carriage or words. (Haydock) For the proposal was neither decent nor safe for the king, (Grotius) as the history of Candaules shews. (Herodotus i.) (Not. Var. in Sulpitius)
Very interesting! Thanks for the commentary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
