Also the queen Vashti made a feast for the women of the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.
One quiet line sits inside a chapter of overwhelming display. The king entertains his empire, and the queen holds her own banquet in his palace. It reads like a footnote, yet the whole story turns on it.
Commentators start with the plain detail. Her gathering was separate, held in the king's house, and it followed the custom of the day.
Queen Vashti is now introduced. Her name means "beautiful woman." She made a separate feast for the women in the royal house that belonged to her husband, the king. Royal women of the East often gave such feasts. The account does not say how long her feast lasted.
Her feast runs at the same time as the king's. It does not interrupt his display. It completes it.
Queen Vashti also made a feast for the women at the same time. So the celebration of the kingdom's splendour was complete.
Nothing in the scene points to God. Even Nebuchadnezzar, an earlier world ruler, had a religion of a kind.
It is a vivid picture of earthly splendour, without a thought of God, true or false. Nebuchadnezzar brought in a religion of a low kind, and tried to force it on everyone. Xerxes appears to be the king who now holds the general title used here. He showed himself, as Daniel had said long before, "far richer than all before him." He thought of no one higher than himself. He gave himself up to showy indulgence, all the more so after his invasion of Greece failed completely.
The queen is named here for the first time. Her husband's character matters, because she is about to resist him.
Ahasuerus was proud of his unlimited power, and with that pride went a violent temper whenever an obstacle or any resistance appeared in his path. Again and again in this account the king bursts into anger and his fury blazes. Violence is never a sign of strength. On the contrary, it shows the weakness of a man who cannot govern himself.
The feasting is the last calm scene of the chapter. What comes next, in the royal city of Shushan, arrives without warning.
But a check came, and gloom fell over everything when it was least expected, right at the close. The princes and nobles had been honoured with a feast, and then came the seven days for all the people, small and great, who were in Shushan.
A hand no one can see is already at work in these feasts.
Here, from the very beginning we find the hidden providence of God at work. Man is full of grand plans. A feast lasting seven days, the crowning event of these long ceremonies, leads to Vashti's revolt against the king's decision. The king decrees that she is rejected, and the decree cannot be reversed. Yet it is not carried out until Ahasuerus returns. Then the Jewish wife, prepared by Providence, can come on the scene and take the place of the Gentile wife at the right moment.
This book never mentions God by name. Commentators treat that silence as part of its message.
Many have noticed that the name of God is not found in the Book of Esther. This is characteristic. God does not show Himself. The government of the world had fallen to that throne, with all its power and all its mistakes. Behind it, God holds the reins by His providence. He watches over the carrying out of His purposes, and over everything needed to fulfil them. And He cares for His people, whatever their condition and however strong their enemies.
Many commentators read the exchange of queens as a picture of a larger exchange still to come.
The great Gentile wife of the great king is discarded, and the remarkable thing is that a Jewish woman takes her place. I have no doubt that this is what will follow when the Gentile has proved himself disobedient, and has failed to display the beauty that should be seen in the testimony of God before the world.
Another writer applies the same picture to Christian profession that carries the name without the life.
Vashti was a Gentile and she is set aside; Esther replaces her. Vashti pictures the lifeless part of professing Christendom — pleased with itself, unwilling to submit to the Lord, and set aside in the end.
- Display — Her banquet in the king's house completes the empire's show of splendour.
- Emptiness — It is earthly glory with no thought of God in it, true or false.
- Fragility — The king at the centre is proud and violent. His violence shows weakness, not strength.
- Turn — This is the last calm line; the check falls at the close, when it is least expected.
- Providence — God is never named, yet He is already preparing the queen who will replace this one, and that exchange pictures a greater one still to come.
On the seventh day, when the king's heart was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of king Ahasuerus,
On day seven of the king's banquet, his heart merry with wine, he sends seven named officers to bring Queen Vashti out before the crowd. That one order turns the whole book.
These were not ordinary servants. Each of the seven ran a department of the palace, as one writer explains:
The seven chamberlains were eunuchs who held important positions. Mehuman was the chief officer. Biztha, going by the meaning of his name, was the treasurer. Harbona was the chief of the bodyguard. Bigath had charge of the women's quarters. Abagtha was the chief baker. Zethar was the chief butler. Carcas was the chief commander of the castle. The king sent these high officials to escort the queen to his feast.
A dictionary of Bible words defines the office:
Eunuch who had care of the king's wives and concubines.
So why send for her at all? One writer traces the order back to plain pride.
On the last day of the feast, Ahasuerus had no doubt consumed too much wine, and commanded seven eunuchs to go and bring Vashti back with them with the object of displaying her beauty before all the people (vv. 10-11). Why did he need to do this? Simply because it was to his credit that he had such a beautiful wife, just as all the glory of the kingdom was to his credit. Such is the pride of the natural man.
Commentators differ on what her refusal meant. One writer notes the Persian custom behind the scene: the king treated everyone as a slave except his lawful wife. Was her refusal open defiance, or self-respect? She may have refused to be ordered about by a drunken husband. She may have been unwilling to show herself in the middle of a drinking party. Or perhaps she simply had a feast of her own. Another writer holds her at fault: the refusal was an insult the king could not let pass, and obeying would have done her no real harm.
What was driving a display on this scale?
It is a vivid picture of earthly splendour, with no thought of God, true or false... Xerxes seems to be the king who held the general title used here. As Daniel had said long before, he showed himself far richer than all the kings before him. He thought of no one higher than himself, and he gave himself up to showy self-indulgence — all the more after his invasion of Greece failed completely. Under such unmatched grandeur you can make out shame and fear.
This is where the celebration peaks — and where it breaks. The king's limitless power meets a limit it cannot cross.
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus, and his limitless power is stopped. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge, well-ordered empire. Vashti may be divorced, but her act stands, and the humiliated king has no power to make her appear in public... Right from the start we see the hidden providence of God at work. Man is full of grand plans: a feast lasting seven days, the high point of these long ceremonies, ends in Vashti's revolt against the king's decision.
The king gives the order. What comes of it is not his to control.
One writer sees in this a pattern that reaches far beyond Persia.
In what this points forward to, how true it is that the Gentile has been unfaithful and stubborn, going his own way and completely failing to show the world the beauty of one so favoured! The result will be what it was here: the call of Zion to be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD and a royal diadem in the hand of her God.
Another writer applies the warning to pride in a place of privilege:
Vashti stands for that pride. Her humbling pictures in advance the judgment on those who carry the Christian name without the reality. After that, the "natural branches" will be brought back into the place of blessing and testimony — the olive tree — just as Esther is accepted once Vashti is gone.
- Wine — the order came on day seven, when the king's heart was merry with wine. What a man commands in that state shows what he is.
- Pride — the king put his wife on show as the last item in a display of all he owned — "such is the pride of the natural man."
- Emptiness — the whole display was earthly splendour "without a thought of God," and shame and fear lay under it.
- Providence — at the feast's high point, one refusal humbles the empire, and God's hidden hand begins to move.
- Reversal — Vashti is set aside and Esther takes her place. Judgment falls on pride, and blessing returns to those brought back in.
to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown to shew the peoples and the princes her beauty; for she was of beautiful countenance.
On the last day of a long royal banquet, the king gives an order: bring the queen out and show her beauty to the whole empire. Why would a king want his wife put on display like that?
The verse gives her beauty as the reason. One writer looks at what the king had been drinking, and at what the display was really for.
On the last day of the feast, Ahasuerus had no doubt drunk too much wine. He ordered seven eunuchs to go and bring Vashti back with them, to display her beauty before all the people (vv. 10-11). Why did he need to do this? Because a beautiful wife was to his credit, just as all the glory of the kingdom was to his credit. Such is the pride of the natural man.
The same pride shaped how he ruled.
Ahasuerus is a strange mixture of pride and weakness... His pride drives him to put on the most extravagant show of splendour, to dazzle the great men and the people of his empire.
The men sent to fetch her held high office at court. Why she then refused, no one can say for certain:
The seven officers were eunuchs who held important posts. Mehuman was the chief officer; Biztha, judging by the meaning of his name, the treasurer; Harbona, the chief of the bodyguard... She refused to obey the king's command. Commentators have explained her refusal in different ways... Was it defiance of the king's order, or self-respect? She may have refused so as to show that a drunken husband could not order her about, and that she was not willing to appear in the middle of a drunken party. Perhaps she did not want to come because she had a feast of her own.
Another writer leaves the reason unexplained and looks at the king's reaction.
But one jarring note spoiled this celebration. Vashti refused to come (v.12). We are not told what her reason was. The king had not expected any such refusal, and he became furious. The one person he expected to cooperate fully had challenged his authority.
One writer faults both sides here, then reads the scene as a wider picture.
If the king's demand was unusual, the queen's refusal was an insult that could not be passed over. The seven officers were properly sent to escort her. But she rebelled, when obeying would have done her no real harm, and would have laid any blame there was on her husband instead. In the picture this points to, how true it is that the Gentile has been unfaithful and stubborn, seeking his own will and completely failing to show the world the beauty of one so favoured! The result will be, as it was here, the call of Zion to be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD and a royal diadem in the hand of her God.
Another writer takes the feast itself as a picture, with the king standing for God.
Chapter 1 describes the glory of the king (who stands for God), and his generosity and grace. He invites people to a feast that runs for an extremely long time (180 days!), and he uses it to display the full splendour of his greatness. Read as a picture, the king's feast can be taken as the gospel feast (cf. Luke 14). But Vashti has no sympathy with the king in this and no share in it with him. She even dishonours him deeply by disobeying and refusing to acknowledge this great feast – and after that she is set aside.
The chapter ends with the king's power meeting its limit.
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus and holds his limitless power in check. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge, tightly organized empire. Vashti may be divorced, but what she did stands, and the humiliated king has no power to force her to appear in public... Man is full of grand schemes. A feast lasting seven days, the high point of these long celebrations, ends in Vashti's revolt against the king's decision.
- Pride commands. The order to parade the queen comes from a king who treats his wife as one more trophy of his glory. That is the pride of the natural man.
- Pride is refused. Seven high officers carry the summons, and the queen says no. Commentators differ on whether she acted from defiance, self-respect, or a reason never given.
- Pride is checked. One woman's no halts a vast empire. The humiliated king cannot make her appear.
- Beauty withheld. The failure was not in the beauty but in refusing to show it — a picture of those who were favoured and would not show that beauty to the world.
- Beauty restored. Vashti is set aside, and the picture looks on to Zion, called to be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD.
But the queen Vashti refused to come at the word of the king which was [sent] by the chamberlains; and the king was very wroth, and his fury burned in him.
Verse 12 is the hinge of the whole book. A queen says no, a king explodes, and a chain of events begins that ends with the Jews saved from destruction. Behind a marriage quarrel at a drunken banquet, something far larger is moving.
Scripture reports what Vashti did, but never explains why.
However, one jarring note marred this celebration. Vashti refused to come (v.12). What reason she had we are not told. The king had not expected any such refusal, and he became furious. The person he expected to cooperate most had challenged his authority.
The command reached her through seven court officials. Writers differ on why she said no.
The seven chamberlains were eunuchs who held important offices, and the king sent them to bring the queen to his feast. She refused to obey his command. Writers have explained her refusal in different ways. By Persian custom the Persian king treated everyone as a slave except his lawful wife. Was it in defiance of the king's order or out of self respect? She may have refused to show that a drunken husband could not order her about, and that she would not put herself on display in the middle of a drinking party. Perhaps she did not care to come because she had a feast of her own. Then the king became extremely angry.
The verse ends with the king's fury burning in him. That fire is not a mark of strength.
Ahasuerus was proud of his own unlimited power, and he turned violent whenever anything or anyone stood in his way. Again and again in this account the king bursts into rage and his fury blazes. (Esther 1:12; Esther 2:1; Esther 7:7, 10) Violence is never a sign of strength. On the contrary, it shows the weakness of a man who cannot govern himself. His weakness shows again in this: for all his claims to be a god-like ruler, Ahasuerus is the toy of his favourites, and he lets them take his place.
The man who rules an empire cannot rule himself.
The start of this whole story is small and shabby.
It was a small beginning, poor and mean in its character and material. Vashti's temper drove her into conduct that put her life at risk. That temper was the "little fire" which kindled this "how great a matter." It is a shabby, contemptible thing. What could be lower? The temper, we may say, of an overbearing woman! And yet God uses it to work out results, planned then in His own counsel, and to be seen in full in the coming day of Jewish glory.
That principle stretches from this banquet to the last chapter — and to the reader's own life.
If we go through the book of Esther we will find that nothing happened by chance. All started with the feast of the king and Vashti's refusal to come when he called her. All ended with his second decree that saved the Jews. Everything in between was directed by God. He holds all things in His hand. Paul reminds his Roman readers that "for those who love God all things" — not only some — "work together for good" (Rom. 8:28). Even if we sometimes may not see this, or even believe it to be the case, it is true. There is no event in our life that God will not use to carry out His plan.
The queen was asked only to let her beauty be seen. One writer sees a larger picture in her refusal.
If the king's demand was unusual, the queen's refusal was an insult that could not be ignored. The king had properly sent the seven chamberlains to bring her, but she rebelled, when obeying would have done her no real harm. In the greater reality this pictures, how true it is that the Gentile has been unfaithful and defiant, following his own will and completely failing to show the world the beauty of one so favoured! The result will be, as it was here, the call of Zion to be a crown of beauty in the hand of Jehovah and a royal diadem in the hand of her God.
There is also a direct warning here for anyone who reads it.
In Vashti we see a picture of the refusal of the invitation. The king had invited her to come and grace the feast with her presence; she would not come. It reminds us of the parable of our Lord, in which He speaks of the great supper, a symbol of the gospel, and the invited guests who made excuses for not coming. She had her own feast, which she probably would not leave. How many there are who refuse the gospel invitation because they love their own things best. And Vashti is banished.
- Spark. Vashti's refusal is the "little fire" that kindles the whole book — small, mean material in God's hands.
- Silence. Scripture never gives her reason. Writers differ: defiance, self-respect, or a feast of her own.
- Weakness. The king's blazing anger proves not power but a man who cannot govern himself.
- Chain. From this refusal to the decree that saved the Jews, nothing happened by chance. God directed every step in between.
- Warning. She would not come, and the king banished her. The same choice faces everyone who prefers their own feast to God's.
And the king said to the wise men who knew the times (for so was the king's business [conducted] before all that knew law and judgment;
The king is furious at Vashti's refusal, but he does not pass sentence himself. He hands a private insult at his own feast to the men who "knew the times" — and it becomes business of state.
The verse calls them wise men who knew the times. One writer names who they were, and what the king then did with the case.
At once the king called the wise men — the astrologers, the magi and the sorcerers. His private council was made up of seven princes, the princes of Persia and Media, who ranked next to the king. They sat with him and the wise men to take up this serious matter. The question is what should be done to Queen Vashti according to law, because she has not obeyed the command King Ahasuerus sent through his officials. So the king hands the case over to the wise men and the seven princes.
The insult was personal to the king. His advisers told him it struck at the whole state — and that, one writer says, exposes the king himself.
Violence is never a sign of strength. On the contrary, it shows the weakness of a man who cannot govern himself. That weakness shows itself again in another way. Ahasuerus claimed to be a god-like ruler, yet he is the plaything of his favourites. He lets them take his place, and the price is that he turns on them in revenge if they displease him. Let us add this too. The decision about Queen Vashti concerned him alone, yet he surrounds himself with counsellors who persuade him that the queen's act strikes at the whole organisation of the state.
The king asks what should be done according to law. That one phrase separates Persia from an older kind of kingship.
The Medes and Persians took pride in having just laws that could not be changed. So the king's question was what should be done according to law. Nebuchadnezzar would not have needed such advice. He was an absolute dictator: he executed anyone he wished, kept alive anyone he wished, raised up anyone he wished and put down anyone he wished.
The advisers were not weighing Vashti's motives. They were weighing the example she set for everyone else in the empire.
In the chapter before us now, we see Vashti, the Gentile wife, showing her rebellion, her disobedience and her lack of submission toward the one whose favour had lifted her up to the throne. She is proud of her position and her privileges. She is not afraid to show her independence from the head she depends on, and she refuses to display her beauty in public. According to the wise men who surround Ahasuerus, Vashti's revolt, if it were tolerated, would give approval to individual independence throughout the kingdom.
The king had to call a council because he could not get what he wanted by ordering it.
One weak woman resists Ahasuerus, and she holds his limitless power in check. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge and well-organised empire. Vashti may be divorced, but what she did stands, and the humiliated king has no power to make her appear in public.
The counsellors thought they were settling a quarrel in the palace. One writer names their advice as a step in something much larger.
How clearly all this is seen in the book of Esther. Vashti's beauty, the king's pride in it, his improper command, her angry refusal, the advice of the king's counsellors — all of them are simply the unfolding of the Lord's ripening purposes. Of all the beautiful young women gathered at the palace in Shushan, not one could be allowed to win the king's heart except Esther, the daughter of an unknown Jewish family, an orphan left all alone.
- Anger — the king's fury at a refusal shows a man who cannot govern himself, and who lets his favourites take his place.
- Counsel — the king calls in astrologers, magi and seven ranking princes, and a matter that touched him alone becomes business of state.
- Law — he asks what to do according to law, because Persian rule bound even the king, unlike the absolute rule of Nebuchadnezzar.
- Limit — one woman's refusal stops the whole machinery; a grain of sand humbles the pride of the empire.
- Providence — the pride, the refusal and the advice all worked out purposes no one in that room could see. They cleared the throne for an orphan girl.
and the next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, [and] Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king's face, and who sat first in the kingdom),
The king's week-long feast has ended in crisis: Queen Vashti has refused to appear, and the king turns to his advisers. The record stops to name seven men who stood nearest the throne, and their advice sets the whole story of Esther moving.
One writer names who was called in and the question they had to answer.
At once the king called in the wise men — the astrologers, the magi and the sorcerers. His private council was made up of seven princes, the princes of Persia and Media. They were next to the king, and they sat with him and the wise men to take up this serious matter. The question is, "According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?"
The order of the names matters too. Memucan comes last, and one writer takes that as a clue to how the council worked.
It seems most natural not to place "the president" last among the seven princes who served as counsellors of state. It is better to conclude that they were asked for their judgment in turn, beginning with the youngest. His opinion on the question before them was so convincing that all accepted it at once.
A king with this much power did not have to ask anyone. One writer finds the reason in Persian law, and contrasts it with the way Babylon was ruled.
The Medes and Persians were proud of having just laws that could not be changed. So the king's question was: what should be done according to law? Nebuchadnezzar would not have needed such a consultation. He was an absolute dictator: "whom he would, he killed, and whom he would, he kept alive; whom he would, he raised up, and whom he would, he humbled."
The phrase is a title of rank. One writer reads it as a picture of serving God today.
"They will see His face." In a spiritual sense this is a present privilege for His servants. Does it not have a special bearing on us now, when we seek to serve the Lord? In Esther 1:14 we read, "the men next to him being … the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king's face". Then in 1 Kings 10:8 the Queen of Sheba exclaims to king Solomon, "Happy are your men! Happy are your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom!". It was a privilege for these servants to serve the king, because they were able to look on the king's face.
Another writer connects the phrase to angels who stand in the Father's presence:
Each of these little ones had an angel to represent them in the presence of the Father. Seeing His face means that they are always in divine favour. Compare 2 Sam. 3:13; 14:24-33; Esther 1:14; Rev. 22:4.
A council this powerful also exposes the king. One writer shows a ruler run by his favourites, who let a private insult become a matter of state.
This weakness shows itself again in Ahasuerus. He claimed to be a god-like ruler, yet he is the plaything of his favourites. He lets them take his own place, and the price is that he turns on them in revenge if they displease him. Add to this that the decision about queen Vashti touched him alone. Even so, he surrounds himself with counsellors, and they persuade him that the queen's act strikes at the whole organization of the state.
The council settled Vashti's case. One writer shows whose plan was really moving forward.
Here, from the very beginning, we find the hidden providence of God at work. Man is full of grand plans. A feast lasting seven days, the crowning event of these long ceremonies, leads to Vashti's revolt against the king's decision. Her rejection is decreed and cannot be reversed, yet it is not carried out until Ahasuerus returns. Only then can the Jewish wife, prepared by Providence, come on the scene and take the place of the Gentile wife at the right moment.
The same writer notes that God's name is missing from the whole book, and explains why.
Notice how the name of God does not appear anywhere in this book. If His name were openly used in its course, the book would be badly spoiled. The main object is to show His hand working in secret, where it would not have been fitting to proclaim His name. Far from being a fault, this is one of the most strengthening thoughts we can have, when we remember that we deal with the same kind of secret providence every day.
- Face. "Who saw the king's face" is the language of nearness — the seven who sat first in the kingdom were the men admitted to the royal presence.
- Favour. The same phrase speaks of unbroken favour — and of servants whose privilege is to look on the face of the one they serve.
- Law. The king asked what should be done according to law. Persia could not reverse a decree; in Babylon one man's will was the law.
- Weakness. Behind the pomp stood a ruler ruled by his favourites, who turned a personal insult into a matter of state.
- Providence. Seven advisers cleared the throne for Esther without knowing it — God at work in a book that never names Him.
What shall be done to the queen Vashti according to law, because she has not performed the word of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?
Vashti has refused the king's summons, and instead of punishing her on the spot, the furious king asks his advisers what the law requires. That one question — a king reaching for legal cover in a private quarrel — sets in motion everything that follows in the book.
The wording of the king's question matters. He does not ask what he wants; he asks what is lawful. The Persian king had less freedom than the ruler of the empire before him:
The king then consulted seven leading princes of Persia about what should be done over Vashti's defiance of his order (vv. 13-15). The Medes and Persians were proud of having just laws that could not be changed (Dan. 6:12), so the king's question was: what should be done according to law? Nebuchadnezzar would not have needed such a consultation. He was an absolute dictator.
That unchangeable law cut both ways. It flattered the king's sense of being untouchable while handing his nobles a lever against him:
His pride rests on a custom that great men and governors have always upheld: the law of the Medes and Persians could not be undone. This custom gave the king the illusion that he was a sacred person who never changed. At the same time it gave the great men of the empire a way to escape the power of the judge on the throne.
The men the king summoned included the empire's religious experts. He handed the whole case over to them:
At once the king called the wise men — the astrologers, the magi and the sorcerers (Dan 2:2). His private council was made up of seven princes, the princes of Persia and Media, who ranked next to the king. They sat with him and the wise men to take up this serious matter… So the king turns the case over into the hands of the wise men and the seven princes.
The quarrel with Vashti was the king's own. He did not keep it that way:
Violence is never a sign of strength. On the contrary, it shows the weakness of a man who cannot govern himself. This weakness shows itself again in Ahasuerus. He claims to be a god-like ruler, yet he is the toy of his favourites, and he lets them take his place… And let us add this: when he had to make a decision about queen Vashti, a matter that concerned only him, he surrounds himself with advisers who persuade him that the queen's act strikes at the whole structure of the state.
The verse names the charge: she did not obey the command the officials brought to her. Scripture never says why she refused, and commentators differ:
People have explained her refusal in different ways. By Persian custom the Persian king treated everyone as a slave except his lawful wife. Was her refusal defiance of the king's order, or self-respect? She may have refused in order to show that a drunken husband could not order her about, and that she would not display herself in the middle of a drinking party. Perhaps she did not want to come, because she had a feast of her own.
Others judge her more sharply, weighing what obeying would have cost her:
If the king's demand was unusual, the queen's refusal was an insult that could not be passed over. The king properly sent the seven court officials to escort her, but she rebelled — when obeying would have done her no real harm.
The whole empire cannot make one woman appear. That failure is where God's work begins in this book:
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus and holds his limitless power in check. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge, well-ordered empire. The king may divorce Vashti, but her act stands, and the humiliated king has no power to make her appear in public… Here, from the very beginning, we find the hidden providence of God at work.
The removal of one queen opens the place a Jewish woman will fill, and writers see a larger picture in it:
The great king's Gentile wife is cast aside, and then comes the remarkable fact that a Jewish woman takes her place… Vashti is the Gentile wife who is cast aside for her disobedience, and for her failure to display her beauty before the world.
- Law — The king asks what should be done "according to the law." A Persian ruler was tied to decrees he could not later undo.
- Council — The king does not settle the case alone. It passes to seven princes and to the empire's wise men, astrologers and magi.
- Weakness — He hands a private matter to favourites, and they persuade him it threatens the whole state. His rage shows a man who cannot govern himself.
- Silence — Scripture never explains why Vashti refused. Commentators differ: self-respect before a drunken husband, or plain rebellion she could have avoided at no cost.
- Providence — One woman's "no" stops an empire, and from that check God begins to clear the throne for Esther.
Then said Memucan before the king and the princes, The queen Vashti has not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the peoples that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus.
The queen has refused to come to the king's banquet, and one of his advisers now turns that insult into a matter of state. Two questions follow: was his charge honest, and who was steering the king's decision?
One of the princes answers first, and his charge keeps widening:
One of the princes, Memucan, took the lead in suggesting what should be done. He said that Vashti had not only wronged the king, but also all the princes and all the people who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus (v. 16). No doubt it was true that all women would hear of Vashti's behavior. They would then feel free to despise their husbands' authority unless someone took drastic action quickly (vv. 17-18).
The dispute began between a husband and wife. It did not stay there, and the king's own character explains why:
This weakness shows itself again. Ahasuerus claimed to be a god-like ruler, yet he is the toy of his favorites. He lets them take his place, and the price is that he turns on them in revenge if they displease him. Let us add this too. He had to make a decision about Queen Vashti that concerned only himself. Yet he surrounds himself with advisers who persuade him that the queen's act touches the whole ordering of the state.
His speech sounds like pure concern for public order. Older Jewish accounts remembered a different motive:
Memucan had brought about the downfall of the queen; she disappears completely. Jewish tradition gives several reasons why Memucan was so hostile to Vashti. One is that his own wife had not been invited to Vashti's feast and another, because he wanted his own daughter promoted and become the queen.
One writer marks this advice as the hinge on which the whole book turns:
So the king asks his nobles for advice, and one of them dares to give very bold counsel: send Vashti away. This is the first great step in the providence of God that the book sets before us, and all the remarkable results follow.
The king's power looked limitless. One woman stopped it:
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus and holds his limitless power in check. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge, well-ordered empire. The king may divorce Vashti, but her act stands, and the humbled king has no power to make her appear in public. If she had repented, what would the result have been? Here, from the very beginning we find the hidden providence of God at work.
Commentators also read this refusal as a picture of something larger. The king's favour had raised the queen to her place, and he asked her to be seen:
In this chapter we see Vashti, the Gentile wife, show her rebellion, her disobedience and her refusal to submit to the one whose favor had lifted her up to the throne. She is proud of her position and her rights. She is not afraid to show her independence from the head she depends on, and she refuses to show her beauty in public. The result of the revolt is that he puts her away as his wife, and a captive Jewish girl is called to take a place she has never held, as the wife of this great king.
The same picture goes further. The rejected queen is answered by Zion, Jerusalem, called back into honour:
In the reality this pictures, how true it is that the Gentile has been unfaithful and defiant, following his own will and completely failing to show the world the beauty of one so favoured! The result will be, as it was here, the call of Zion to be a crown of beauty in the hand of Jehovah and a royal diadem in the hand of her God, when she will no more be termed Forsaken, nor her land any more Desolate.
- Hidden. God's name never appears here, yet one adviser's speech is the first great step of God's providence in this book.
- Inflated. Memucan takes a wrong against the king alone and calls it a wrong against the princes and every province. A private slight becomes a crisis of state.
- Interested. Jewish tradition remembers that Memucan had reasons of his own. The loudest voice for public order had something to gain.
- Weak. One woman resisted the king no one could resist. All his power could not make her appear in public.
- Replaced. Favour raised Vashti, she refused to be seen, and the king puts her away. A captive Jewish girl is called to a place she never held.
For the act of the queen will come abroad to all women, so as to render their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when they shall say, The king Ahasuerus commanded the queen Vashti to be brought in before him, and she came not!
Queen Vashti refused to appear at the king's banquet. His adviser Memucan now argues that her refusal threatens every household in the empire, because what she did will not stay inside the palace.
The verse is not the king's verdict but his adviser's argument, and the shift from private offence to public emergency is itself part of the story. A man with absolute power hands a domestic quarrel over to his counsellors, who promptly enlarge it.
This weakness shows itself again. Ahasuerus claims to be a ruler treated as a god, yet he is the toy of his favourites. He lets them take over his place, and they pay for it with his revenge if they displease him. Add to this that he had to make a decision about queen Vashti which concerned no one but himself. Even then he surrounds himself with counsellors, and they persuade him that the queen's act strikes at the whole organisation of the state.
Memucan treats the queen's motive as settled. Writers do not, and they differ on why she stayed away.
Her refusal has been explained in different ways. By Persian custom the Persian king treated everyone as a slave except his lawful wife. Was it in defiance of the king's order or out of self respect? She may have refused to show that a drunken husband could not dictate to her, and that she was not willing to display herself at a wild party. Or she may not have wanted to come, because she had a feast of her own.
Another writer reads it as plain rebellion, since obeying would have cost her nothing:
If the king's demand was unusual, the queen's refusal was an insult that could not be passed over. The seven officials were properly sent to bring her; but she rebelled, when obeying would have done her no real harm, and would have put any blame that was due on her husband.
Memucan's case is about reach — one act reported to every woman in the empire.
He said that Vashti had wronged not only the king, but also all the princes and all the people in every province of King Ahasuerus (v. 16). No doubt it was true that all women would hear of Vashti's behaviour, and would then feel free to despise their husbands' authority unless someone took strong action at once (vv. 17-18).
The council's answer is law: remove the queen and publish an order. Even so, the king is still the man Vashti walked away from.
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus and holds his limitless power in check. A grain of sand humiliates all the pride of this huge, carefully organised empire. The king may divorce Vashti, but her act stands, and the humiliated king cannot force her to appear in public.
This king once had the sea whipped with rods for wrecking his bridges. One writer sets that story beside the decree:
But it was easier for him to beat the sea than to get what his edict demanded.
One writer sees more than palace politics here. He takes the queen's failure to show her beauty as a picture of something far larger.
In the reality this pictures, how true it is that the Gentile has been unfaithful and rebellious, bent on self-will and failing completely to show the world the beauty of one so favoured! The result will be what it was here: the call of Zion to be a crown of beauty in the hand of Jehovah and a royal diadem in the hand of her God, when she shall no longer be called Forsaken, nor her land Desolate.
A queen's temper at a banquet looks like nothing at all. One writer weighs what God did with it.
after-note:
It was a small beginning, poor and mean in its character and material. Vashti's temper drove her into a course of conduct that put her life in danger. That temper was the "little fire" which kindled this "how great a matter." It is a miserable, despicable circumstance. What could be meaner? The temper, we may say, of a domineering woman! And yet God works results by it — results then known to Himself in His counsel.
- One act — a refusal at one banquet concerned the king alone. The counsellors turn it into a crisis for every province.
- One fear — the report will travel, and other wives will learn to despise their husbands' authority.
- One decree — the answer chosen was law: depose the queen and publish an order.
- One limit — the decree could not undo the act; it was easier for this king to beat the sea than to get what his edict demanded.
- One purpose — out of this mean, despicable circumstance God works results that were then known to Himself alone.
And the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's act, will say it this day to all the king's princes, and there will be contempt and anger enough.
Memucan is not describing a family quarrel. He warns the king that word of Vashti's refusal will spread that same day, and that noble households across Persia and Media will copy it. His whole case rests on one word — contempt — and on the wrath he says will follow it through every level of the empire.
Memucan speaks first about damage, before he speaks about punishment. He claims the harm reaches far past the throne room, and the wives of the empire are the ones who will carry it.
One of the princes, Memucan, took the lead in suggesting what should be done. He said that Vashti had wronged not only the king, but also all the princes and all the people in every province of King Ahasuerus (v. 16). No doubt Vashti's behavior would become well known to all women. Unless the king acted quickly and firmly, they would feel free to despise the authority of their husbands (vv. 17-18).
The king's advisers gave their verdict. They treat one refusal as a pattern the whole empire will copy, and their cure is a law read out in every province.
They decide that Vashti has wronged the king, and that her refusal set a dangerous example to all the king's subjects. Much contempt and wrath would follow throughout the empire. So they advise that Vashti lose her royal position and be sent away. The king agrees, and at the same time issues a decree for his whole great kingdom: all wives should honor their husbands.
The panic in this verse has a cause. One refusal has just exposed the limits of absolute power.
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus, and her resistance checks his limitless power. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge, so well organized empire. Vashti may be divorced, but her act remains, and the humiliated king has no power to force her to appear in public. Here, from the very beginning, we find the hidden providence of God at work. Her removal is not carried out until Ahasuerus returns. Then the Jewish wife, prepared by Providence, can come on the scene and take the place of the Gentile wife at the right moment.
Why did Memucan push so hard? Jewish tradition, not the Bible, offers two answers.
The Annotated Bible by A.C. Gabelein records that "Jewish tradition gives several reasons why Memucan was so hostile to Vashti. One is that his own wife had not been invited to Vashti's feast, and another, because he wanted his own daughter promoted and become the Queen."
The contempt Memucan feared is a real danger. One writer traces where it leads inside a home, and the cost falls on the children.
A woman who takes over the headship of the house and treats her husband with contempt will surely be unhappy and miserable. She will reap the bitter fruit of her own rebellion: her children, brought up in disorder, become lawless.
One writer sees a picture in the refusal itself. Vashti was asked for something that would have cost her nothing, and the Gentile nations have treated God's favour the same way.
If the king's demand was unusual, the queen's refusal was an insult that could not be overlooked. The seven court officials were properly sent to bring her. But she rebelled, when obeying would have done her no real harm, and she shifted whatever blame there might be onto her lord. In what this pictures, how true it is that the Gentile has been faithless and unruly, seeking his own will and completely failing to show the world the beauty of one so favoured!
Nobody in the room could see where this was heading. The advisers were fixing a problem of household discipline. The result was an empty throne, waiting for the Jewish wife that Providence had prepared.
- Refusal. Vashti would not come. Memucan turned that one act into a case about the whole empire.
- Contempt. The advisers feared that noblewomen would hear the story and answer their husbands the same way. The fruit would be contempt and wrath.
- Decree. Their cure was law. Remove the queen, and tell every province that wives must honour their husbands.
- Limits. A decree can remove a queen, but it cannot create a willing heart. One woman stopped the world's greatest power by not coming.
- Providence. The council's damage control emptied the throne. God's hidden providence was at work from the very beginning.
If it please the king, let a royal order go forth from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it may not pass, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate to another that is better than she;
One night's anger at a banquet turns into permanent law: Memucan advises a decree no one can reverse, and Vashti's place goes to another woman. Two questions follow — what can an "unchangeable" human law achieve, and who was arranging the vacancy Esther would later fill?
The advisers do not just want Vashti punished. They want her removal written into national law, where no change of mood can undo it.
So Memucan suggested this. If the king agreed, a royal decree would be announced and recorded in the laws of the Persians and Medes, which made it unchangeable. The decree would banish Vashti and give her royal position to another woman better than she.
Why turn one woman's refusal into public law?
The wise men around Ahasuerus held that Vashti's revolt, if tolerated, would give approval to individual independence throughout the kingdom. So order must be restored: the Gentile wife is rejected completely.
The phrase translated "her royal estate" is one Hebrew word, and it names a rank rather than describing a garment or a title.
"Royal" is not the word actually in the original. The original meant simply "her royal estate," or "royal dignity," by malcuth. Any Hebrew dictionary shows that malcuth is a noun, not an adjective. The French version by J. N. Darby agrees, giving the one Hebrew word as "la dignité royale de Vashti," with the note: "literally, her royal dignity."
The unchangeable law of Persia flattered the king and protected the court at the same time. It also had a track record.
His pride rests on a custom that great men and governors had always upheld: no one could reverse the law of the Medes and Persians. The custom let the king imagine he was a sacred person who never changed. At the same time it gave the great men of the empire a way to escape the power of the ruler on the throne. Men of high rank used exactly this under Darius the Mede, to get rid of the prophet Daniel.
The decree could strip a queen of her position. It could not create the respect it demanded.
They advise the king to take away Vashti's royal estate and send her away. He approves, and at the same time issues a decree across his great kingdom: all wives should honour their husbands. The Persian kings were great autocrats who ruled with an iron hand, and no one could revoke their laws. "The story told of Xerxes is certainly no fable. When flooding destroyed all the bridges over the Hellespont, he ordered the sea to be beaten with rods for disobedience (Herodotus 7:35). But it was easier for him to beat the sea than to get what his edict demanded."
God is never named in this book, yet the timing of the vacancy is the point. The sentence falls here, and the empty place waits for the king's return.
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus and holds his limitless power in check. A grain of sand humiliates all the pride of this huge, tightly organised empire. The king may divorce Vashti, but her act remains, and he stands humiliated, unable to force her to appear in public. … Here, from the very beginning, we find the hidden providence of God at work. … Her rejection is decreed and cannot be reversed, yet it only takes effect when Ahasuerus returns. Then the Jewish wife, prepared by Providence, can come on the scene and take the Gentile wife's place at the right moment.
Commentators read the deposed queen as a picture of something larger.
In the reality this pictures, the Gentile has been faithless and rebellious — chasing self-will and completely failing to show the world the beauty of one so favoured! The result will be the same as it was here. Zion will be called to be a crown of beauty in the hand of Jehovah, a royal diadem in the hand of her God. She will no longer be called Forsaken, and her land will no longer be called Desolate.
Another writer follows the same picture into Romans 11.
Vashti, the Gentile wife, may be looked on as Christendom, set aside for her disobedience. Esther the Jewess takes her place. This reminds us of the parable of the two olive trees in Romans 11: the grafted-in branches, Gentile Christendom, are to be cut off, and the broken-off branches, Israel, put back on their own olive tree.
- Dignity. What Vashti loses is malcuth — her royal rank itself, not a robe or a courtesy title.
- Decree. The laws of Persia and Media lock her fall in place. Courtiers had used the same device against Daniel.
- Limit. A law can empty a throne. It cannot command honour: Xerxes found it easier to beat the sea than to get what his edict demanded.
- Delay. The place stays empty until the king returns, so the right woman arrives at the right moment. That is providence at work, with God never named.
- Design. One woman's place is "given to another." Commentators read the deposed queen as the favoured Gentile set aside, and Esther's call as Zion brought in.
and when the king's edict which he shall make shall be heard throughout his realm -- for it is great -- all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, from the greatest to the least.
The king's adviser Memucan ends his advice with a law for every province. One insult at a banquet becomes an order that every wife, rich or poor, must honour her husband. Can a law create respect? And why does the Bible record a palace quarrel at all?
The king had one decision to make about his wife. His advisers turned it into a matter for the whole empire. One writer traces this back to the king's own weakness.
His weakness shows itself again here. He had to make a decision about queen Vashti that concerned only himself. Yet he surrounds himself with counsellors, and they persuade him that the queen's act touches the very organisation of the state.
The councillors were not only protecting a husband's pride. They argued that the kingdom itself was at stake.
Memucan appealed not only to the king's authority in his own house, but also to his authority over the kingdom. Quick action here would have the good effect of moving wives to honour their husbands (v. 20)... The king and the princes thought such action was needed to keep the kingdom from corruption and collapse from within.
The verse gives the size of the empire as the reason the decree will work. One writer tells a story about a Persian king that suggests otherwise.
The king approves it, and at the same time issues a decree for his whole great kingdom: all wives are to honour their husbands. The Persian kings held absolute power and ruled with an iron hand. Their laws could not be changed. "The story told of Xerxes is certainly no fable. When the flooding of the Hellespont had destroyed all the bridges, he ordered the water to be beaten with rods for disobedience. But it was easier for him to beat the sea than to get what his edict demanded."
The king published this decree because one woman had said no. No amount of law could undo her refusal.
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus, and his limitless power is stopped. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge, well-organised empire. The king may divorce Vashti, but her act remains, and he is left humiliated and powerless to force her to appear in public.
The decree is not simply wrong. It is one-sided: it commands the wife and says nothing to the husband about love.
Letters were sent to all the provinces under the king's rule to the effect that every man should be master in his own house. So the letter in effect agreed with the Christian principle that the husband is head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23). But it did not agree with what the same chapter tells husbands: "Husbands, love your wives" and "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies" (Ephesians 5:25, 28).
The whole affair was small and shabby. One writer says God was working through it anyway.
It was a small beginning, poor and shabby in its nature and its material. Vashti's temper drove her to act in a way that put her life at risk. That temper was the small fire that kindled this great blaze. It is a miserable, despicable thing. What could be lower? The temper, we may say, of a domineering woman! And yet God uses it to work out results known then to Himself in His plan, and their fulfilment will appear in the coming day of Jewish glory.
The advisers wanted order restored across the empire. One writer gives their reason for removing the queen, a Gentile (non-Jewish) wife, for good.
The wise men around Ahasuerus judged that Vashti's revolt, if allowed to stand, would give approval to individual independence throughout the kingdom. So order had to be restored: the Gentile wife is put away completely.
- The decree begins in anger. Advisers turned a private insult into a threat to the state, because a weak king let others decide for him.
- The decree spreads by size. The advisers trusted the size of the empire and the unchangeable laws of Persia to make honour reach every home, high and low alike.
- The decree meets a limit. The king could divorce Vashti, but he could not make her obey. One refusal showed the limit of absolute power.
- The decree is half right. It matched the truth that the husband is head, but left out the command that husbands love their wives.
- The decree serves a hidden purpose. A queen's temper was the small fire that kindled a great blaze, and God used this shabby beginning to work out results He had already planned — results the coming day of Jewish glory will show.
And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan.
A private insult at a banquet has just become imperial law. The king adopts Memucan's plan — and the book leaves us asking who was steering it.
Why would the most powerful man in the empire need advisers to settle a quarrel at home? One writer traces it to the king's own character:
Violence is never a sign of strength. On the contrary, it shows the weakness of a man who cannot govern himself. The same weakness shows again in Ahasuerus. For all his pretence of being a god-like sovereign, he is the plaything of his favourites and lets them take his place — though he may turn on them in vengeance if they displease him. Let us add one more thing. He had to make a decision about queen Vashti that concerned only himself. Yet he surrounded himself with counsellors, and they persuaded him that the queen's act touched the very organisation of the state.
One writer sets out how the advice was reached, and what the letters then ordered:
It seems most natural not to place "the president" last among the seven princes who served as counsellors of state. It is better to conclude that opinions were sought beginning with the youngest. His view so commended itself on the question raised that all accepted it at once. So letters went out. Someone better than Vashti was to take her place. And family order was to rest on honouring the head in his own house throughout the whole kingdom.
The counsellors did not argue that Vashti had wounded her husband. They argued that one act of independence, left unpunished, would spread:
The wise men around Ahasuerus reasoned like this. If Vashti's revolt were tolerated, it would give licence to individual independence throughout the kingdom. So order must be restored. The Gentile wife is cast off altogether.
Nothing here mentions God. Yet one writer calls the king's agreement the first move in all that follows:
He would display her beauty to all the world, and she declined. So the king sought counsel with his nobles, and one of them ventured very bold advice: the dismissal of Vashti. This is the first great step in the providence of God set before us in the book. All the remarkable consequences follow.
The same writer finds a second layer in the story:
The book is not only a book of providence... It is also a picture of the great dealings of God that are still to come. What does the book open with? The great Gentile wife of the great king is discarded, and a Jewess takes her place.
So who was steering? One writer points to a hand that stays out of sight:
Many have remarked that the name of God is not found in the Book of Esther. This is characteristic. God does not show Himself. But behind the power and the mistakes of that throne to which the government of the world had fallen, God holds the reins by His providence. He watches over the carrying out of His purposes, and over everything needed to fulfil them. And He cares for His people, whatever their condition and however strong their enemies.
Saying God directed the outcome does not turn Ahasuerus into a machine. One writer is careful to hold both sides together:
God uses circumstances and events to carry out His purposes. He also uses people. Some are godly, like Mordecai and Esther. Others are ungodly and wicked, like Haman. Even king Ahasuerus, the mightiest man on earth at that time, was only an instrument in His hand. God's dealings with people never contradict or remove man's responsibility. Man is not a puppet in His hand. He has made us in such a way that we can make our own decisions, and we bear full responsibility for what we do.
- Counsel — A ruler who cannot govern himself hands a private matter to advisers. They turn it into a question of state.
- Decree — The letters replace Vashti with someone better and set a rule for every home. A Gentile queen is discarded, and a Jewish girl will take her place.
- Providence — The king's agreement is the first great step of God's providence. Every later turn in the book follows from it.
- Responsibility — God used the king as an instrument. Yet the king still chose, and people who serve God's purposes stay fully answerable for what they do.
- Purpose — God is never named in Esther. Behind a throne full of power and mistakes, He holds the reins and cares for His people.
And he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people according to their language, That every man should bear rule in his own house, and should speak according to the language of his people.
The chapter closes not with a private quarrel but with a piece of legislation. Letters go out to every province, each in its own script and language. They settle one question: who is master at home?
Memucan proposed it, and the king and his princes agreed. One commentator weighs the letter against what Scripture tells husbands.
The king and the princes all liked Memucan's solution to the problem (v. 21). So the king sent letters to all the provinces under his rule, saying that every man should be master in his own house. So in practice the letter agreed with the Christian principle that the husband is head of the wife (Eph. 5:23). But it did not agree with what the same chapter tells husbands: "Husbands, love your wives" and husbands "should love their wives as their own bodies" (Eph. 5:25, 28).
The empire had the machinery to deliver such a letter. Tradition also records why Memucan wanted Vashti gone.
Persia had an excellent postal service, according to the historian Herodotus, and the letters went out through it. Memucan had brought about the downfall of the queen; she disappears completely. Jewish tradition gives several reasons why Memucan was so hostile to Vashti. One is that Vashti had not invited his own wife to her feast. Another is that he wanted his own daughter promoted and made queen.
An empire can publish a command in every language it governs. It cannot make hearts obey it.
The Persian kings were great autocrats and ruled with an iron hand. No one could cancel their laws. "The story told of Xerxes is certainly no fable. When flooding in the Hellespont destroyed all the bridges, he had the sea beaten with rods for disobedience (Herodotus 7:35). But it was easier for him to beat the sea than to get what his edict demanded."
The decree covers the empire, yet the injury was to one man. The king did not settle it himself.
Ahasuerus was proud of his own unlimited power. He also had a fiercely violent character whenever an obstacle or any resistance appeared in his path. Again and again in this account the king bursts into anger (Esther 1:12; 2:1; 7:7, 10). Violence is never a sign of strength. It shows the weakness of a man who cannot govern himself... And let us add this. He had to make a decision about Queen Vashti that concerned only himself. Yet he surrounds himself with counsellors, and they persuade him that the queen's act touches the whole organisation of the state.
For all the letters, the one thing the king wanted never happened.
A weak woman resists Ahasuerus and holds his limitless power in check. A grain of sand humbles all the pride of this huge, well-organised empire. The king may divorce Vashti, but her act remains. He is humiliated, and powerless to force her to appear in public.
Scripture gives husbands a different instruction from the one the couriers carried.
Husbands are not urged to rule, since that is not a point where they are likely to fail, but to love. The wives are not addressed in this way: love in them is not so likely to be weak as submission. And what is set before the husband? "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." Once we understand this, it lifts us above merely natural ground. Divine love is our heavenly pattern.
That changes the method. Love produces order; a decree cannot.
Consider the Christian husband whose heart has rested on Christ's love through a day that may have been cloudy and stormy, warming itself in that love. He does not come home and frown his wife into silence, submission and obedience. He loves her into it. The only force he uses is his own example: submission and dependence on Christ the Head, and obedience to His Word.
The letters close a domestic scandal and open the whole book. What looks like a banquet gone wrong is the opening of a chain no one in the story can see.
Letters were sent accordingly, that someone better than Vashti should take her place, and that family order should stand in the honour of the head in his own house throughout all the kingdom.
The consequence was that the king seeks counsel with his nobles, and one of them ventures on very bold advice — namely, the dismissal of Vashti. This, then, is the first great step in the providence of God brought before us in the book, and all the remarkable results follow.
- Decree — Letters go to every province in its own language: every man is to be master in his own house. Scripture does say the husband is head. But the decree leaves out the command to love.
- Limit — The empire could have the sea beaten for disobedience, yet it could not get what its edict demanded. A law can reach every province and change nothing.
- Weakness — The king rages, then lets counsellors turn a private slight into a state matter. That is a man who cannot govern himself, and one woman's refusal humbles the whole empire.
- Contrast — Husbands are told to love, not to rule. Christ's love for the church is the pattern. Love wins a home; frowning a wife into submission never will.
- Providence — Vashti's dismissal is the first great step of God's hidden working in this book. Every later result follows from it.