Esther

[Angela53510]

Said I was done, but I have to point out, it isn't the singular word ypy that carries the meaning I and multiple actual academics see, but the entire phrase har שלה ypy in conjunction with the mention of only the crown to be worn.

And again, this not a vital issue to divide us, and your refusal to see what the passage says is not troublesome, not irksome, just strange. Why should it surprise you that a Median king of the fifth century was a boorish drunk and uncouth abusive husband?

And now I let it go. You view it as you see fit.

I would suggest VW that you go back and read my post. It explains the very reason why Xerxes was NOT a boorish drunk and uncouth abusive husband. You are committing the fatal and egregious hermeneutical error of reading your culture back into a 5th century or later Bible story.

 

[Dan_473]

The biggest argument that Jesus had with pharisees and Rabbinic tradition was their tendency to build upon Scripture that which was not explicitly contained therein!

an interesting point! one thing I notice is that the nt writers often have a 'read between the lines' or something approach to the ot... an example that comes to mind is Matthew say 'the virgin shall conceive', when the hebrew says 'young woman' (yes? i think you know more hebrew than i do)

Had Ahashuerus desired to display Vashti nude, it was certainly in his power to do so without her permission.

true! I think he wanted her to be happy about it, be the willing object... not be all glum and forced-looking...

 

[Dan_473]

I agree totally with Marc. In fact, I was shocked to read these extra-Biblical interpretations of what happened with Vashti.

Herodotus, the Greek historian explains that his was no mere drinking party with his buddies. That is interpreting Scripture through the lens of western culture. Instead, the interesting fact is that the Persians drank as they deliberated matters of state.

"Moreover, the Persians custom to deliberate about the gravest matters of state when they are drunk and what they approve in their counsels is proposed to them the next day by the master of the house where they deliberate, when they are now sober, and if being sober they still approve it, they act thereon about a matter when sober, they decide upon it when they are drunk."

This custom may seem bizarre to us, but the ancients believed intoxication put them in closer touch with the spiritual world. If Herodotus is right on this point, excessive drinking would have been an essential element of Xerxes' war council.

And if Xerxes was deliberating with his war council, the refusal of his own queen to obey his command (as a King, not a husband) he must have been extremely embarrassing. No wonder Xerxes became furious and burned with anger! He need his men to obey his commands as they went to war, but in his own palace he could not even get his own wife to obey!

Further, the author of the book of Esther views Vashti specifically as the Queen, not the wife who refuses. The political ramifications of her decision foreshadow that of the role of her successor, Esther. The author does not label Vashti as the rebellious wife nor does he evaluate her refusal as good or bad, right or wrong. Interpreters should also resist the temptation to build an interpretation by imposing such judgments.

The ambiguity of Vashti's actions and motives must be allowed to stand as the deliberate intention of the author, for he could have easily supplied an interpretation. The author instead, refrains from commenting not only on Vashti's behaviour and motives, but also does not supply an evaluation for any of the people in the story. This ambiguity is not a problem to be overcome to interpret the text, but is part of the literary fabric of the story!

Please note the author does not fault the king for drinking, nor does he commend or condemn Vashti for refusing to appear at the king's command. The ethical and moral ambiguity of the characters is an important element in the story and is particularly appropriate to its meaning and application for divine providence works through human behaviour that flows even from the most ambiguous and confused of motives.

As for Vashti's fate, all scripture says is that she was never allowed to go into the presence of the king again.

"If it please the king, let a royal order go out from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be repealed, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus. And let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she." Esther 1:19

There is no mention of her death, any more than the command to appear can be construed as her appearing naked before the king. Ironically, the statement in verse 19 is published throughout the empire. So Vashti's disobedience, instead of being a warning, actually publicizes the king's embarrassing plight, and orders what the king could not accomplish in his own palace, that:

"all women will give honor to their husbands, high and low alike.” Esther 1:20.

The author is using parody and humour to introduce the Persian powers that came treacherously close to extinguishing the Jewish people. Why humour in a book that recounts a deadly serious threat to the Jews?

It is obvious that the author of Esther can write this story with humour, expecting his readers to appreciate it, because it is written several generations after the deliverance of the Jews by God through Esther and Mordecai. Time must pass before one can look back on a bad situation and appropriately laugh at it. Thus, although the threat to the Jews was serious, time proved it was not real!

interesting points, and I imo this relates to how scripture is interpreted...

I think differently about this part
"The author instead, refrains from commenting not only on Vashti's behaviour and motives, but also does not supply an evaluation for any of the people in the story."

because I think this is comment/evaluation
17 For this deed of the queen will become known to all women, causing them to show contempt for their husbands, when it is reported, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she didn’t come.’ 18 Today, the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s deed will tell all the king’s princes. This will cause much contempt and wrath.

 

[MarcR]

an interesting point! one thing I notice is that the nt writers often have a 'read between the lines' or something approach to the ot... an example that comes to mind is Matthew say 'the virgin shall conceive', when the hebrew says 'young woman' (yes? i think you know more hebrew than i do)




true! I think he wanted her to be happy about it, be the willing object... not be all glum and forced-looking...

an example that comes to mind is Matthew say 'the virgin shall conceive', when the hebrew says 'young woman'



the hebrew says 'young woman'

The Hebrew 'almah' does literally mean young woman. However, young women conceive all the time. There is no sign from God in that. A sign from God not only implies; but, in fact, demands something extraordinary! That is why 'virgin' which is a legitimate usage of almah, is preferred.

 

[Dan_473]

In fact, I was shocked to read these extra-Biblical interpretations of what happened with Vashti.

sometimes people can be shocked by possible sexual interpretations in the bible... (not saying that's what's happening here, but could be...)

some people strongly dislike the speculation that Mary Magdeline had the hots for Jesus... not just because it's speculation, but because it somehow 'sullies' Jesus... imo, it doesn't, it just could mean Mary was a real person...

 

[Dan_473]

Herodotus, the Greek historian explains that his was no mere drinking party with his buddies.

very well researched post, btw!

 

[just-me]

I was going to make this into two posts but then I decided against it so there's going to be two parts to this.

1) Queen Vashti, was what she did good or bad? How I understand it is she refused to parade around naked in front of the kings friends. I looked it up online and someone described her as the first feminist. I like that. On the flip side she did disobey her husband but then again her husband was a bit of a jerk. So I'm a little confused.

2) There is a verse in Esther and it says "they have customs that are different from everyone else's and they refuse to obey your law." That reminded me a lot about how it is today. Back then the law did not match up with Jewish custom so the Jews went and followed their own custom which made the government pretty upset. It's the same today with how Christians have customs that do not match up with the governments law and society's beliefs as a whole. What are your thoughts on this? Does anyone have anything to add? It was just something interesting I saw.

Vashti's actions opened the door for Esther. As far as I know, neither Vashti nor Esther was never told that she needed to parade naked in front of the King and princes. I never picked that up in scripture because it's no mentioned. Both ladies were very beautiful. Esther was submissive and became greater unlike Vashti's un-submissiveness. Esther also won the King's heart, and in so doing the Jews were not slaughtered. Her Uncle was finally recognized by the king with great esteem. Jews celebrate this event to this very day called "Purim".

Esther 2:1-2
1 After these things, when the wrath of king Ahasuerus was appeased, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Then said the king's servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king:

 

[Dan_473]

Which is why he sent seven eunuchs to enforce the demand.

good point about the eunichs, imo...

 

[Dan_473]

Kings and princes whose hearts are merry with wine is only trouble for women who are nearby.

I wondered this myself... maybe the king's request is reasonable... but Vashti knows things could go downhill quickly...

 

[Dan_473]

[my post] explains the very reason why Xerxes was NOT a boorish drunk and uncouth abusive husband.

I agree that there's nothing in the story that demands that xerxes be uncouth or prevents it...

I read the story knowing how humans are, and were back then... to me, this makes it more realistic...

were there men back then who had the equivalent of a porn addiction? I think so... is it possible xerxes is that way? sure, we just don't know...

certainly something was afoot that would lead Vashti to take this kind of risk...

 

[Dan_473]

an example that comes to mind is Matthew say 'the virgin shall conceive', when the hebrew says 'young woman'



the hebrew says 'young woman'

The Hebrew 'almah' does literally mean young woman. However, young women conceive all the time. There is no sign from God in that. A sign from God not only implies; but, in fact, demands something extraordinary! That is why 'virgin' which is a legitimate usage of almah, is preferred.

good point, though the sign is in multiple parts, imo... the first part is a sign to Ahaz, and means stuff will happen before that child gets very old...imo...

another example... doesn't Paul use a command from the law about muzzling oxen, and say it also means pay the preacher?

 

[MarcR]

The vast majority of good scholarship on the verse (Est 1:11) suppose that indecent exposure is implied. I never intended to argue that point. I am not afraid to depart from mainstream scholarship when I see what seems to be a flaw in their reasoning. Many competent scholars (including myself) tend to cite each other rather than duplicate each other's study. It saves a great deal of effort buts limits our potential to catch each others errors. I, like most people genuinely seeking truth, appreciate having my errors caught.

 

[maxwel]

This thread has caused me to reread Esther 1. I've found things in my reading I've not seen before.

Ahas had at least 180 days to show, introduce Queen Vashti to the emissaries. 1:4. (He may have presented her, but seems he did not.)

When the King's heart is merry with wine . . . he's a king drunk on wine. Not good. He summons (while his heart was merry with wine) Queen Vashti. 1:10,11.

Why WASN'T Vashti feasting with the King and the others? Why did she prepare a feast exclusively for women? (Kings and princes whose hearts are merry with wine is only trouble for women who are nearby. Does Vashti know the king intoxicated? I think so. She knows about the king's feast. Knows it is to last 7 days. Chamberlains may have informed her that the king's heart was merry with wine at the time.)

The Queen's separate feast seems to be agreeable to the King. The feast is held in the royal house that belonged to the king. And he apparently did not publicly charge Vashti to not have the feast. If he had so ordered, then word of Vashti's disrespect to the king would have spread through the kingdom.

Prior to the summons, it is Vashti THE QUEEN. Not by beauty alone, but also by obeying the king. She would not have been queen had she not been an obedient queen. Vashti was not in the habit of disobeying a summons from the King. So why would she disobey the summons from him on the last day of the feast?

Is this reasonable, just thought of it. Could it be that Vashti did not go to the drunken feast to protect not only herself but also the women that were with her in the king's royal house?
I see Vashti's decision to disobey the king to be unusual behavior on her part. Why wouldn't she obey the summons? Danger. Danger to her and to the other women whom she had purposely kept separated from where king, princes, and wine were mingled together.

I've always thought Vashti disobeyed because she was modest, not wanting to entertain men with her physical beauty to any extent. That is not a stretch of interpretation upon the passage.

Here's something else: Queen Vashti was summoned by the king. She refused and was punished. (Perhaps, however, saving the other women from stirred passions of princes demanding for all the women to be summoned to the drunken pit.) Compare this then to Esther's "If I perish, I perish." Not being summoned by the king, but by approaching him uninvited, she saves the Lord's people!)

This is interesting, but it's only an assumption.

We need to be careful about assuming things that aren't in the text.


Also, it's likely an assumption that isn't consistent with the cultural norms of the day.
The REAL danger in that time was to REFUSE whatever a king requested.
Anyone in a palace would know that.

 

[MarcR]

good point, though the sign is in multiple parts, imo... the first part is a sign to Ahaz, and means stuff will happen before that child gets very old...imo...

another example... doesn't Paul use a command from the law about muzzling oxen, and say it also means pay the preacher?

INDEED!!!!

 

[GodIsSalvation]

To comment on Vashti: It never says in Book of Esther that Xerxes wanted Vashti put on some cabaret show or any of that. This argument I find to be much later from only a few centuries ago and it is basically founded on nothing. The Bible says only that Xerxes wanted her to wear her crown and appear before the king as he was holding a celebration showing off the splendour of his empire, and of course a king's queen is like unto a magnificent jewel.

Vashti refused, which as we see caused the people to worry that then all the women of the empire might become insolent towards their husbands. Therefore was Vashti removed from being queen and all her estate and all her position of queen was given to one better than she.

 

[Dan_473]

It never says in Book of Esther that Xerxes wanted Vashti put on some cabaret show or any of that. This argument I find to be much later from only a few centuries ago and it is basically founded on nothing.

for me, it's founded on having some idea of how humans are, and what they do when they feel they have unquestioned power...

is it conclusive? no, I don't think so...

the story doesn't have a lot of details about this part, so for me it's a possibility I like to consider...

 

[JFSurvivor]

Vashti's actions opened the door for Esther. As far as I know, neither Vashti nor Esther was never told that she needed to parade naked in front of the King and princes. I never picked that up in scripture because it's no mentioned. Both ladies were very beautiful. Esther was submissive and became greater unlike Vashti's un-submissiveness. Esther also won the King's heart, and in so doing the Jews were not slaughtered. Her Uncle was finally recognized by the king with great esteem. Jews celebrate this event to this very day called "Purim".

Esther 2:1-2
1 After these things, when the wrath of king Ahasuerus was appeased, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Then said the king's servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king:

But Esther wasn't submissive. She went to the king without his permission risking her very life.