Esther

[JFSurvivor]

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.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The law today also don't match up to Christian religion so the Christians went and made their own man made religion and this is making God upset.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

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.

No woman has to submit to abuse from her husband in order to be obedient, so Vashti was absolutely right in refusing to strip down and parade around her idiot husband's dinner party. Unfortunately, though Esther does not make it clear, she was probably beheaded for her disobedience.

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.

Certainly our beliefs are unacceptable to a fallen and lost world, and as we draw closer to the end of things, the world becomes more hostile to what we believe. There will come a point, I believe soon, that the persecution our brothers and sisters have endured in Asia and the Mideast these last 15 or more years will come to Europe and the U.S., and that is when our faith will be truly tested.

Will we stand, even if it means our death? Pray God for strength to do so.

 

[Dan_473]

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.

yeah, i suspect that her husband wanted her to do a stripper-style pole-dance...

i heard an interpretation that the king is a type of Christ and Esther is like the church, in submission to the head... myself, I don't see it...

 

[MarcR]

I think that to understand Scripture we must try to refrain from trying to impose our cultural norms and values on our understanding. When we attempt to apply scriptural teachings to our own lives [which should occur AFTER we understand the lesson Scripture is trying to teach] we must consider our own cultural context.

The Bible gives NO EXPLICIT STATEMENT that Ahashuerus intended Vashti to disrobe. In our culture many men, who are blessed with beautiful wives enjoy showing off their good fortune; but few would disrobe their wives in public.


Ahashueris was asking of his wife what he had the power to command of any of his subjects. In refusing his request she publicly shamed him. If Ahashuerus's intent was to display her nakedness; he had the power to do that without her permission. He refrained from doing that even after she had shamed him.

I think we would do well to make our judgements on facts rather than assumptions. We might actually learn more.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

The Bible gives NO EXPLICIT STATEMENT that Ahashuerus intended Vashti to disrobe.

Not in English, no, you are correct.

However, in the Hebrew, and by Jewish extra-biblical history, it is obvious that was his intent. Jewish commentators dating back to the fifth century BC have made the point that Ahashuerus/Xerxes was intent on winning an argument, as second-hand accounts of the banquet report that the conversation had turned vulgar in comparing the wives and concubines of the nobles present to one another. The king, being the king, was determined to prove he had to most beautiful, sexy wife of all, and told his eunuchs to tell Vashti to disrobe and come to the central hall.

You can accept this or not, but the history is too strong, and the biblical language too suggestive, to mean anything else.

 

[MarcR]

Not in English, no, you are correct.

However, in the Hebrew, and by Jewish extra-biblical history, it is obvious that was his intent. Jewish commentators dating back to the fifth century BC have made the point that Ahashuerus/Xerxes was intent on winning an argument, as second-hand accounts of the banquet report that the conversation had turned vulgar in comparing the wives and concubines of the nobles present to one another. The king, being the king, was determined to prove he had to most beautiful, sexy wife of all, and told his eunuchs to tell Vashti to disrobe and come to the central hall.

You can accept this or not, but the history is too strong, and the biblical language too suggestive, to mean anything else.

I read Est Chapter 1 in the Hebrew through verse 13; and parsed every sentence. I see absolutely nothing to suggest improper exposure. the fact is that she was to wear the crown which rather suggests that she was to be royally robed.

The fact that she was conducting a feast of her own seems more likely her reason for refusal.

 

[Dan_473]

The Bible gives NO EXPLICIT STATEMENT that Ahashuerus intended Vashti to disrobe.

true! a couple things I considered...

the king has no reason to curb his lust...

the king is basically sitting around with his beer buddies...

if they are looking for a strip show, they want the lady to be happy-looking... smiling... like she likes doing this...

if all the queen has to do is poke her head in and wave at the guys, it seems likely she would have done it... and saved her position, maybe her life...

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I read Est Chapter 1 in the Hebrew through verse 13; and parsed every sentence. I see absolutely nothing to suggest improper exposure. the fact is that she was to wear the crown which rather suggests that she was to be royally robed.

Actually, the fact the phrase har שלה ypy (ra'ah lah yophiy) -- "display her beauty" -- while mentioning only the crown is the reason Jewish commentators and historians have believed for centuries that Xerxes' intent was, indeed, to display her naked.

The fact that she was conducting a feast of her own seems more likely her reason for refusal.

No queen of that age would use such a "flimsy excuse" to refuse a lawful request of her king. The request, even though vulgar in it's intent to show off her nude body, was nonetheless lawful, given it was the king. But Vashti was still correct in refusing such a dishonorable demand, and undoubtedly she knew it would cost her her life.

 

[MarcR]

Actually, the fact the phrase har שלה ypy (ra'ah lah yophiy) -- "display her beauty" -- while mentioning only the crown is the reason Jewish commentators and historians have believed for centuries that Xerxes' intent was, indeed, to display her naked.

No queen of that age would use such a "flimsy excuse" to refuse a lawful request of her king. The request, even though vulgar in it's intent to show off her nude body, was nonetheless lawful, given it was the king. But Vashti was still correct in refusing such a dishonorable demand, and undoubtedly she knew it would cost her her life.

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!

We ought not to emulate Rabbinic tradition by responding to what is not explicitly said or unquestionably implied in Scripture.

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

 

[Angela53510]

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!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

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!

Marc, brother -- one more time, and then I'm done.

In the Hebrew language structure, and by secondary, extrabiblical accounts, what Xerxes asked was clearly for his queen to strip down to nothing but her crown and parade around his drunken banquet. I don't care if you don't believe that, and it certainly isn't a salvic issue. But the evidence, to me, and to countless others far closer to the Hebrew language and tradition than I, is overwhelming.

We ought not to emulate Rabbinic tradition by responding to what is not explicitly said or unquestionably implied in Scripture.

That's your error. You decline to see it "implied" when it is, in fact, implicit.

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

Which is why he sent seven eunuchs to enforce the demand. But he wasn't going to be barbaric and have his own queen stripped down naked by slaves in front of his nobles. So he quietly dispatched her -- literally -- and "advertised" for a new queen. God bless.

 

[atwhatcost]

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.

I'm ignoring #1, because I haven't read Esther in this century. I'm so rusty on it, I make the tin man look like he never needs the oil can. lol

#2. Seems to me, the whole Bible was about God's relationship to Man and vice versa. God gives one command, and Man won't keep it. God let's people live like they ought without bringing up any commands and the first thing that happens is sibling rivalry to the Nth degree. (Come on! They were both supposed to be offering up something good to God. Cain was upset that Abel's was better? How do you get better between plants and animals? They aren't the same thing.) Man continues to do whatever, until God takes the next step -- wipe most out and start over. That doesn't work either because Man keeps thinking we know better.

So, after seeing all sorts of truly stupid things, AND after seeing God pull off TEN plagues, plus a good drowning of the entire Egyptian army after God's people just walked through that same very large sea, God gives Man a choice. Either go to him and trust him, or be ready to follow the rules.

Really? Really? To me that's like either accept this billion dollars from me or be a slave all your life. Seems like a no brainer, but the Israelites went with Whatever you say, we will do. Just don't come face to face to us. You make us nervous. Then they saw what he wanted. He wasn't even done handing the whole law over to Moses before they broke #2!

We are what we are. Give us a law and our immediate inclination is to break it. For me it's like "You can do anything you want whenever you want, just as long as you don't rob a bank." I don't want to rob a bank. It's not in my nature. But it is very much the one and only thing I want to do, if I'm free to do anything else.

That brings us back to the Israelites. Same thing. Keep the Sabbath Day. It's really not all that complicated to do, but they wrote books and books about it. (Okay, scrolls and scrolls of it.) One of the doozies is on the Sabbath you're not supposed to draw water from a well. Well, who actually remembers to gather water before the Sabbath? That was someone's problem, so they came up with you can't draw water with a rope. You can if you string up enough girdles. Really? Isn't it easier and quicker just to use rope?

But, this goes back to "Do anything but rob a bank." Tell me I can't, and immediately I'm after how to do that very thing without getting caught!

That's why God gave up on making agreements with us. We never hold our side of the bargain. That's why the covenant that worked was between God and God on our behalf. Because he will keep his promise and we won't.

You say this reminds you of today? It reminds me of the entire history of Man. lol

 

[crossnote]

#2
Sounds like a false accusation of Haman's, the enemy of the Jews as there are many today.

We as Christians are to obey the ruling authorities unless it directly counters God's principles, then we are to obey God rather than man.

 

[valiant]

This thread is a good example of how Christians take the pure word of God and play with it and alter it in order to fit in with their own ideas. There is no suggestion, either in the Hebrew or the text, that Vashti was to appear naked. (Later Jewish tradition is notoriously unreliable). She was dressed in all her finery and was to wear the crown royal. She would of course have been drunk , as were the other lords and ladies, and who knows what a proud and beautiful woman who was used to swaying men with her beauty would do when drunk?

Either she was piqued, or sure that her husband would not harm her. But she refused his command. The story is only told in order to prepare the way for Esther.

 

[Galahad]

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.

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!)

 

[valiant]

Not in English, no, you are correct.

However, in the Hebrew, and by Jewish extra-biblical history, it is obvious that was his intent. Jewish commentators dating back to the fifth century BC have made the point that Ahashuerus/Xerxes was intent on winning an argument, as second-hand accounts of the banquet report that the conversation had turned vulgar in comparing the wives and concubines of the nobles present to one another. The king, being the king, was determined to prove he had to most beautiful, sexy wife of all, and told his eunuchs to tell Vashti to disrobe and come to the central hall.

You can accept this or not, but the history is too strong, and the biblical language too suggestive, to mean anything else.

I am sorry but this is not correct. As the events themselves could not have occurred before late 5th century BC it impossible that there could have been Jewish commentators commenting on it from that century. It had to be written first!!!

The sources which contained these stories were

1. Yalkut Shimoni Esther 1049,
   
2. Esther Rabbah
   
3. Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer 48

These were written well over 500 years after the incident, and whilst they contain earlier midrashes we have no genuine way of knowing how much earlier. Thus your conclusion is highly suspect.

The reason why Vashti was having a separate feast for the women was precisely because Persian kings kept their wives in exclusion. In his drunkenness he my have decided to show her off. He would not wish to humiliate her further. It would be totally against Persian culture for Vashti his chief wife to be presented naked. It would disgrace the king. And there is nothing in the Hebrew to require it.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I am sorry but this is not correct. As the events themselves could not have occurred before late 5th century BC it impossible that there could have been Jewish commentators commenting on it from that century. It had to be written first!!!

I'm sory too, but because it you, not me, who is incorrect. The book of Esther describes events that took place during the reign of the Persian King Ahasuerus, the Hebrew rendering of the Median name Xerxes I (486-465 BC). That is the fifth century BC. Your references are inaccurate.

 

[MarcR]

Marc, brother -- one more time, and then I'm done.

In the Hebrew language structure, and by secondary, extrabiblical accounts, what Xerxes asked was clearly for his queen to strip down to nothing but her crown and parade around his drunken banquet. I don't care if you don't believe that, and it certainly isn't a salvic issue. But the evidence, to me, and to countless others far closer to the Hebrew language and tradition than I, is overwhelming.

That's your error. You decline to see it "implied" when it is, in fact, implicit.

Which is why he sent seven eunuchs to enforce the demand. But he wasn't going to be barbaric and have his own queen stripped down naked by slaves in front of his nobles. So he quietly dispatched her -- literally -- and "advertised" for a new queen. God bless.

Here are several examples of the same word 'beauty' [OT 3308] used in context.

Est 1:11

11 To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on.
KJV


Ps 45:10-14

10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

13 The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.
KJV

Ps 50:1-4

50 The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.

2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.

3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

4 He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.
KJV


Isa 33:16-18

16 He shall dwell on high: his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure.

17 Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off.

18 Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe? where is the receiver? where is he that counted the towers?
KJV


I see nothing suggestive in the word's ordinary usage

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Here are several examples of the same word 'beauty' [OT 3308] used in context.

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.