I was recently drawn to study the book of Esther. There seem to be many drawn to this interesting story in the Old Testament in this season, mostly focusing on being alive at "such a time as this." However, as I began to read this story, I began "seeing" some things from it in a different light than what I have often heard taught. It is these insights I wish to share.
Chapter 1 sets the stage for Esther's entrance into the story. We do not really hear of her until chapter 2. In chapter 1, we learn a little about King Ahasuerus, "who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces." While boundaries have, of course, changed over time, these ancient nations are still in existence today. For those "geographically challenged," take a look at a map of the world. Ahasuerus apparently ruled over territory extending from India northwest through modern-day Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, likely Syria and the Saudi Arabian peninsula (including not only Saudi Arabia but Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen), then southwest through Egypt and Sudan to Ethiopia. Wow! Imagine all of that being one country, under one ruler today! He ruled his empire from Susa, which is in what is now southern Iraq - a good, central location for his empire.
He apparently was experiencing peace within his empire, since he was able to turn his attention to entertaining all of his nobles, princes, and army officers at a banquet in Susa. While the passage in Esther 1:4 is often interpreted as this event having been a 6-month party, this scripture actually says that "he displayed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor of his great majesty" for six months. Let me equate that to a display that might be on exhibit at a museum. Ahasuerus put his riches on display for those of his kingdom to see and enjoy. It was at the end of this 6-month period that the king threw a 7-day party - for all who were "in town" to enjoy.
"When these days were completed, the king gave a banquet lasting seven days for all people who were present at the citadel in Susa, from the greatest to the least, in the court of the garden of the king's palace." (Verse 1:5, emphasis added.)To complete the stage for what unfolds in this chapter, it should be noted that "Queen Vashti also gave a banquet for the women in the palace which belonged to King Ahasuerus." (1:9) Note that the queen was giving an "indoor" party for the women, within the king's house - his house, not hers. (Hold that thought.)
Where most people begin in their discourse of this story is with verses 10-12.
"On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded ... the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, to bring Queen Vashti before the king with her royal crown in order to display her beauty to the people and the princes, for she was beautiful. But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command delivered by the eunuchs. Then the king became very angry and his wrath burned within him."We can read over these three verses very quickly. The slant I have probably heard the most on this was that when the king became drunk, he sent to have his wife, who was beautiful, come and parade herself lewdly before his drunken guests - and she, in her righteousness, refused to do so. Then, in a fit of drunken rage, he, at the advice of his friends, dethroned her.
As I began to study this passage, that is not the story that is recorded.
Let's start taking a closer look at this passage, beginning in verse 10. "On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine ..."
This is the part that is often cited to indicate that the king was drunk. However, the original language does not say, nor even imply, that. The word for "merry" is the word towb (tobe). It means "good" or "a good or good thing." It can also mean "beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, fine, glad, good, graciously, joyfully, kindly, kindness, loving, merry, most pleasant," etc. The king wasn't drunk - he was in a good, gracious, kind-hearted mood!
Nor is there indication that his guests were drunk. In fact, some may not have been drinking at all. Verse 8 states that "The drinking was done according to the law, there was no compulsion, for so the king had given orders to each official of his household that he should do according to the desires of each person." The fact that this was recorded for us seems to imply that there were some who chose not to partake of the king's vast quantities of the best wines of the day.
Let's continue with the story. In his "merry" state, "he commanded" his eunuchs "to bring Queen Vashti before the king..."
The word that is translated "commanded" is the word amar (aw-mar'). It would have been more accurately translated as "bid" or "call." The Literal Translation of the Bible states, "he said." The initial word sent to Vashti by the king was not a demand, but rather an invitation.
Further, the word translated "to bring" is the word laqach (law-kakh'), which means "to take, bring, carry away, fetch, get, send for," etc. Putting the terms together, this passage is saying that Ahasuerus sent his eunuchs "to go get" his queen who, remember, was in the palace while he was out in the garden.
He wanted his beautiful wife to come to be seen by (and, might I venture, "greet") his guests on this final day of feasting ending the 6-month display of the things within his kingdom of which he was most proud or pleased. He was proud of his wife, as any husband should be. They had been celebrating in different areas and he wanted her to join him for this final day of celebration ending a 6-month season. Does that really seem to be an outrageous request?
Continuing this verse, they were "to bring Queen Vashti before the king with her royal crown in order to display her beauty to the people and the princes, for she was beautiful." (Emphasis added.)
The queen was to come "with her royal crown" - or, put another way, in her royal attire. There is no indication here that Ahasuerus wanted his beautiful wife to disrobe herself before the people. In fact, his request was that she adorn herself as royalty. If we read the story as it is written, he was wanting to present his queen, in all of her royal beauty, to their subjects. It seems to me that this should have been viewed as being honored rather than being dishonored or disgraced, as I have often heard it portrayed.
Yet, the queen, for whatever reason, "refused to come at the king's command." We can speculate about her reason or reasons, but scripture does not reveal them to us. (Which, to my way of thinking, means they were not a vital part of the story.)
It is the word maen (maw-ane') that is translated "refused." It means to "refuse utterly." That's the first really strong word we find in this story. There is no evidence in what is recorded that Vashti in any way tried to appeal to the king that she did not want to come and ask if she might be excused from doing so. Rather, she "utterly refused" his invitation.
Another interesting note is that in this passage the word translated "command" is a different word than was used in verse 10. Here it is the word mitsvah (mits-vaw') which means "a command." Somewhere between verse 10 and verse 15, the king's request had turned into a demand. Perhaps when the queen failed to accept his initial invitation he had sent the eunuchs back with a more firm request. Maybe these messengers made several trips back and forth between the royal monarchs, carrying messages that began to escalate in tone. We do not know. What we do know is that by verse 10 Vashti had "utterly refused" the request of her husband. She refused the request of the king, at whose pleasure she had become queen, in whose palace she dwelt, and at whose expense she entertained.
It was only after receiving her "utter refusal" that "the king became very angry and his wrath burned within him."
This is the crowning event of a 6-month period of celebration of his accomplishments - and his wife "utterly refused" to join him in it. From this perspective, we can see that it is Vashti who is dishonoring her husband, the king, the one who sought her hand and placed her in her royal position, rather than Ahasuerus seeking to dishonor her. Can we blame him for being upset?
Yet, in his own integrity, he did not respond rashly. Rather he sought sound counsel from those who knew the law of the land, inquiring what was to be done to someone who failed to obey a command of the king.
"Then the king said to the wise men who understood the times - for it was the custom of the king so to speak before all who knew law and justice and were close to him ... who had access to the king's presence and sat in the first place in the kingdom - 'According to the law, what is to be done with Queen Vashti, because she did not obey the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?'"(1:13-15)We know that the recommendation to the king, which he accepted and implemented, was "that Vashti may no longer come into the presence of King Ahasuerus, and let the king give her royal position to another who is more worthy than she." (1:19)
In honest reflection, this seems a "just reward" for her behavior. She was not put to death. She wasn't even banished from the kingdom. She was, however, banished from his presence and stripped of her royal position.
There are a couple of interesting things to note here. "Royal position" is the translation used for the word malkuwth (mal-kooth'). Malkuwth means "a rule or a dominion." It can be translated "empire, kingdom, realm, reign," etc. Vashti was not queen "in name only." Though we do not know exactly what, she had some measure of rule within Ahasuerus' kingdom. This is not inconsistent with who Ahasuerus was as a person or monarch. In Esther 5:3 and 5:6, he offers Esther "even to half" of his kingdom. Perhaps it was the fact that she was co-monarch with him that caused Vashti to feel she "had the right" to disobey his command.
A second observation from this passage is that the word translated as "who is more worthy" is the same word "towb" used in verse 10 to describe the "merry" heart of the king. This re-enforces the fact that this word carried a connotation of being good - and not one of being drunk.
However, after breaking the whole story in this first chapter of Esther, I want to focus on why Vashti was deposed. It was Memucan, one of those "who knew law and justice" that clearly stated the heart of the issue:
"'For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women causing them to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, "King Ahasuerus ommanded ueen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come." This day the ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's conduct will speak in the same way to all the king's princes, and there will be plenty of contempt and anger.'" (1:18-19)Within any nation and, particularly, any kingdom, there is proper protocol. We see this protocol carried out throughout the book of Esther where those summoned come to the king and those who are not summoned do not. This was a well-understood protocol for the empire. Yet, Vashti had somehow decided that she was "above the law" of the kingdom and displayed contempt for it and for the king.
The word translated as "contempt" in this passage is the word bazah (baw-zaw'). It means "to disesteem"or to "despise, disdain, [find] contemptible, to think to scorn." Memucan knew that in order to prevent this type of attitude from breeding within the kingdom, it had to be addressed fully and quickly.
Again, many have judged both Ahasuerus and his advisers as simply being "male chauvinists" who wanted "to keep their wives in their place." I disagree. There is a proper place for respect and proper protocol for approaching a king. Vashti clearly violated both. The fact that Memucan expanded this to the wives of others in the kingdom is not inconsistent with scripture. Consider Peter's admonition in 1 Peter 3:1.
"In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior."In fact, I submit that Esther is a wonderful case study for what Peter taught many centuries later.
How This Applies to Believers Today
When reading the book of Esther, we usually focus on how Esther risked her life to take a stand for her people. There are certainly lessons for us to learn from Esther and Mordacai, and I do not minimize those. However, I believe there are also some lessons in this first chapter that we often overlook.
Vashti had been selected by King Ahasuerus to be his Queen. As such, she apparently was a co-monarch with him, in that she had "a royal position" that granted her some level of dominion and rule.
Does that sound familiar? Christ, as King of kings, is looking for a Bride that will be a joint-heir and reign beside Him as the true Queen of Heaven throughout eternity. [Side note: No wonder Satan has tried so hard to empower a false Queen of Heaven to pervert what Jesus wants done in the earth!]
As His Bride & Queen, we are granted dominion and rule within His kingdom.
Yet, we must never take our position with Him for granted. We must never fail to "come when He calls" or do what He asks us to do - whether or not it was the thing "on our agenda" for that time or season. "Our agenda" must always stay submitted to His will.
No doubt, Vashti considered that she was busy "working for Ahasuerus" as she was entertaining the ladies of his kingdom. However, Ahasuerus wasn't interested in her busyness; he wanted her presence with him. We need to make sure we do not resist the invitation to come into the presence of our King by being too busy working - even when that means working in His Kingdom.
We must always approach Him rightly. While there is no longer a veil of separation and we can come freely before His throne, we must still remember that He is a sovereign God. While Father God is our "Abba, Father" [Daddy], He is still The One True God, Creator of the Universe. While Jesus is our Heavenly Bridegroom, The Lover of our Soul, He is also our Lord and Savior. While the Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Comforter, and The One Who Leads Us Into All Truth, He is also the Spirit of the Most High God and not to be grieved.
Let us take a lesson from the way in which Ahasuerus dealt with Vashi in a manner consistent with the law of his kingdom and justice. While God is a personal God and in His grace takes us "where we are," He is also a just God who will not tolerate rebellion or contempt. If we show contempt [lack of full respect] for Him or His commandments, like Vashti with Ahasuerus, we will no longer "see His face." Remember, it is the pure in heart that shall see God. (Matthew 5:8)
God, in His graciousness (by His grace), may not "banish from His kingdom" those who do not truly honor Him as He should be. He may still allow them to live in heaven instead of being cast into outer darkness with those who have refused to be reconciled to Him. Yet, there is still a place reserved for those who are willing to fulfill the role of Bride, with all due respect for and obedience to her Husband and King. If we want that place of favor, we must abide by the laws of His Kingdom.
Let us Love and Honor our King of kings ... at all times and in all ways. May we always be swift to answer His summons to His presence. And may we never find ourselves banished from seeing His face.
