# Esther - puritan opinion of Vashti (week 1)



## Eoghan (Oct 30, 2010)

In a sermon it was said that Vashti "upped the anti" (love to know where that one came from) by refusing the command of her husband and king. There being no sin in obeying the command she should have complied.

This despite the fact that the command was unwise. The Puritans held that if Xerxes was rash - she was equally rash in her refusal. This paying in the same coin exacerbatted the situation and led to an irreconcilable rift and divorce.

(It was probably not helped by the stress of planning the invasion of Greece - which would lead to the battle of Thermpylae)


----------



## Marrow Man (Oct 30, 2010)

Eoghan said:


> "upped the anti" (love to know where that one came from)



From Answers.com:



> The ante is the enforced bet that poker players must put into the pot before they can play a hand of poker. If you "up the ante," you increase the amount of the bets. Thus, upping the ante means to raise the stakes or increase the risk of a project.


----------



## Edward (Oct 30, 2010)

Eoghan said:


> "upped the anti" (love to know where that one came from)



Should be 'up the ante'. It's a poker term for raising the stakes of the game.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 30, 2010)

The account in Esther spends a fair amount of ink explaining why Vashti lost her position. Why is this? Is it to teach us a quick lesson about good husband/wife relationships before getting to the meat of the story? No. More likely, the setup is important to appreciating the main events that follow.

Vashti lost her position because she was a headstrong queen. Whether she was right or wrong doesn't matter. The point is that this explains what the king was looking for when he searched for "another who is better than she" (Esther 1:19). He and his advisors wanted a submissive queen. Someone more timid. The sort of queen who wouldn't raise a fuss even if she was bothered by something.

Surely Esther knew this. It makes her daring approach before the king several chapters later all the more impressive. And it makes the king's kindness, in spite of Esther's Vashti-like behavior, all the more attributable to the fasting and prayer Esther called for.


----------



## Eoghan (Oct 30, 2010)

Sorry I was so busy typing I forgot to ask the question - Who among the puritans took the view that Vashti acted rashly and wrongly - I am looking for sources here (not a lesson in poker  that was just an aside)


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 31, 2010)

Some believe that Vashti was to come before the king and his friends wearing nothing but the crown, according to someone I heard preaching on this.

Is such an interpretation justified? It would put a different slant on Vashti's disobedience.


----------



## JennyG (Oct 31, 2010)

Jack K said:


> this explains what the king was looking for when he searched for "another who is better than she" (Esther 1:19). He and his advisors wanted a submissive queen. Someone more timid. The sort of queen who wouldn't raise a fuss even if she was bothered by something.
> 
> Surely Esther knew this. It makes her daring approach before the king several chapters later all the more impressive.


that never occurred to me before! thanks for pointing it out

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> Some believe that Vashti was to come before the king and his friends wearing nothing but the crown, according to someone I heard preaching on this.
> 
> Is such an interpretation justified? It would put a different slant on Vashti's disobedience.


it certainly would - but surely there can be no hard evidence for that?
(the new "quote" facility is wonderfully handy - I've just used it twice in a row  )


----------



## TimV (Oct 31, 2010)

There's no hint that the king was drunk. Rather the opposite, since it is pointed out that the drinking wasn't compulsory it wasn't a Zoarastrian bacchanalia. There were the highest officials of the greatest power on earth and their subject dignitaries, and the Puritan commentaries that they were all drunk so no self respecting woman would show herself in their presence is just bunk. 

The guy was merry. He was proud of his pretty wife, and told the eunuchs to tell her to some sit on her throne (the Puritan writers who said Persian no self respecting Persian woman would show herself in public must have been thinking of contemporary Muslim Persian woman; the authors of the LXX who actually were familiar with that culture added that she was to be sitting on a throne) and then crown her.

So what? A laps of judgment, but a minor one. The woman was being the B word. She should have come out and smiled for the dignitaries, sat on her throne and let them put her crown on.

The outrage showed by the leaders of cultures as different as Indian, Greek (have you guys not seen how Greek women dressed in public???) Afghan, Arab and on and on show the woman was being the B word. Not to say the King was right in what he did, but just to throw another view point out there.


----------



## Eoghan (Nov 7, 2010)

Gill (commentary available as an e-sword add on) states that the practice of seperating the women was to allow a more degenerate party in their absence, specifically concubines and harlots would be in attendance,(this on the words of Herodotus or plutarch).

The jewish commentaries (Mishna?) say she was commanded to appear naked AND that there was some toing and frowing with the eunuchs conducting shuttle diplomacy.

Xerxes is described as "merry" ESV - this is in english usage the stage before all out drunkeness - but it does suggest some degree of intoxication. (He would not have been safe to get behind the wheel of a car / chariot).

The fact that he seems to regret his actions in chapter 2 suggests that he had sobered up and calmed down.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Nov 7, 2010)

The theme of the book of Esther is that those who exalt themselves shall be humbled, and those who humble themselves shall be exalted. When considered in this light, Vashti's actions, especially her pride are contrasted with Esther's humility, Mordecai's humility with Haman's pride. We do not excuse Ahasuerus--he was overly merry and wanted to show off his beautiful wife, objectifying her, which is folly. She refused, and that pridefully, the foolish desire of her husband, rather than seeking more humble means of redress to be of service to her husband, to be a true helper to him by helping to understand she was no object for other men to ogle. Her prideful refusal of her duty to her husband is contrasted to Esther's humble help that same foolish king, being of service to him to see his own folly in assenting to Haman's pogrom.


----------



## BertMulder (Nov 7, 2010)

in light of the testimony of Scripture, I do not see how the behavior of either Esther or Mordecai in this history was praiseworthy... especially as both of them denied their people and ancestry by still being in Persia, rather than having returned to their own people. Furthermore, Esther was the more disobedient to the law, in marrying this pagan king...

The theme of the book of Esther is God's delivery of his people, and making the birth of Christ possible, by preventing satan and the enemies of Christ to destroy His people, in spite of their wanton disobedience. In other words, the theme of the book is that God is faithful, contrasted with the unfaithfulness of His people and the hatred of the reprobate...


----------

