Question / Discussion on the Book of Ester

[PinkPebbles]

In the book of Ester some passages in chapter One stood out to me which caused my eyebrow to raise and would like to have a discussion.

The King, Nobles, and Eunuchs felt as though Queen Vashti behaved disrespectfully towards her husband who was the King and their guests when she refused the King's command.

10 On the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in high spirits from wine, he commanded the seven eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carcas- 11 to bring before him Queen Vashti, wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at. 12 But when the attendants delivered the king's command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then the king became furious and burned with anger.

As a result, Queen Vashti was made an example to other women. The King divorced her.

15 "According to law, what must be done to Queen Vashti?" he asked. "She has not obeyed the command of King Xerxes that the eunuchs have taken to her."


16 Then Memucan replied in the presence of the king and the nobles, "Queen Vashti has done wrong, not only against the king but also against all the nobles and the peoples of all the provinces of King Xerxes. 17 For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women, and so they will despise their husbands and say, 'King Xerxes commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she would not come.' 18 This very day the Persian and Median women of the nobility who have heard about the queen's conduct will respond to all the king's nobles in the same way. There will be no end of disrespect and discord.

My question - Do you think Queen Vashti was disrespectful to her husband, the King by refusing his request?

In what ways are women and married women disrespectful to their husband or any man without realizing it?

Do you think many of this is learned behavior?

One thing comes to mind. In Corporate America I'm assertive, aggressive, and takes the initiative on projects. My conduct is rewarded and praised. However, I do not want to behave in this manner in my future marriage.

In some church ministries I have to catch myself and take the passenger seat and allow the men of God to drive, especially if they are eager too.

So what are your thoughts about Queen Vashti's conduct and married women?

I hope that the married women on this forum would chime in as well !

TIA!

 

[Reminiscing]

Good question!

Have you read the "Ideal Wife" by Jacquelin Thomas? It's a christian fiction novel, that tells the story of a woman's refusal to submit to her husband. In the story, Jacquelin references Queen Vashti's story several times and the question of whether or not she was disrespectful to her husband was brought up.

Jacquelin uses Ephesians 5:22 to give her answer. In the KJV it reads, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." The part she emphasizes is "as unto the Lord." Most people quote the scripture and stop at "unto your husbands" but the key to this verse is that women must submit to their husbands but only as it is pleasing to our Lord.

So to answer your question, I think we need to understand first what the King was really asking his wife to do. When I read the scripture it seems like he just wanted to present her before his people to show off her beauty while wearing her crown. In this case I can see how it could be annoying to her but it's not really a sin for a husband to show off his wife so there's no real ground for her to disobey. HOWEVER, I've read other views on this chapter where it's believed that the King was asking her to appear naked before his people ONLY wearing her crown. Now in that case, then she had every right to disobey because appearing naked before the people would not be pleasing unto God.

So what are you thoughts on that? What do you ladies think the king was really asking his wife to do? I feel it's important that when we're making a decision on whether or not to obey, we first must understand what is being asked of us.

This "submissive" thing is becoming a huge issue within our community. I don't really want to get into the topic of interracial dating and why black men are turning away from black women but without discussing it we all know the word submissive has something to do with it. This very word could be a tool that the devil is using to prevent us from having healthy christian marriages. I thinks it's important that us wives-to-be (whether we've met our husbands or not) understand our role as submissive wives. If we educate ourselves now then the devil can't use it to attack us.

I have more to say on this topic because like you PinkPebbles, I have to be aggressive and firm on my job but thankfully I also know how to leave that at the office. I'm not married yet but I do want to submit to my future husband as unto the Lord. But I've said a bunch in this post so I'm going to give others a chance to respond before I continue.

Thanks for starting this discussion PinkPebbles! I hope some wives will chime in soon!

 

[PinkPebbles]

Good question!

Have you read the "Ideal Wife" by Jacquelin Thomas? It's a christian fiction novel, that tells the story of a woman's refusal to submit to her husband. In the story, Jacquelin references Queen Vashti's story several times and the question of whether or not she was disrespectful to her husband was brought up.

Jacquelin uses Ephesians 5:22 to give her answer. In the KJV it reads, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." The part she emphasizes is "as unto the Lord." Most people quote the scripture and stop at "unto your husbands" but the key to this verse is that women must submit to their husbands but only as it is pleasing to our Lord.

So to answer your question, I think we need to understand first what the King was really asking his wife to do. When I read the scripture it seems like he just wanted to present her before his people to show off her beauty while wearing her crown. In this case I can see how it could be annoying to her but it's not really a sin for a husband to show off his wife so there's no real ground for her to disobey. HOWEVER, I've read other views on this chapter where it's believed that the King was asking her to appear naked before his people ONLY wearing her crown. Now in that case, then she had every right to disobey because appearing naked before the people would not be pleasing unto God.

So what are you thoughts on that? What do you ladies think the king was really asking his wife to do? I feel it's important that when we're making a decision on whether or not to obey, we first must understand what is being asked of us.

This "submissive" thing is becoming a huge issue within our community. I don't really want to get into the topic of interracial dating and why black men are turning away from black women but without discussing it we all know the word submissive has something to do with it. This very word could be a tool that the devil is using to prevent us from having healthy christian marriages. I thinks it's important that us wives-to-be (whether we've met our husbands or not) understand our role as submissive wives. If we educate ourselves now then the devil can't use it to attack us.

I have more to say on this topic because like you PinkPebbles, I have to be aggressive and firm on my job but thankfully I also know how to leave that at the office. I'm not married yet but I do want to submit to my future husband as unto the Lord. But I've said a bunch in this post so I'm going to give others a chance to respond before I continue.

Thanks for starting this discussion PinkPebbles! I hope some wives will chime in soon!

Reminiscing - you have raised some excellent points !

I will check out the book 'Ideal Wife' by Jacquelin Thomas!

I've never heard or read the interpretation that the King wanted to present his wife naked before everyone. Thanks for sharing. However, it is hard to believe that the King would request this of his wife . If that is indeed the case then I agree that she had every right to refuse his request.

I also agree that this 'submissive' thing is huge in our community . I believe it extends across the board, not just in relationships, but on our job, in various organizations, etc.

Slightly off topic: Sadly, blacks would bend over backwards to take orders from a non-black manager; but let it be a black manager that tells them to do something and they would get the side eye.

Again, thanks for sharing. Please feel free to share more!

 

[kbragg]

I don't think it's relevant to us as Christians as these were not a Godly people. They did not follow God's law, they had their own (Which Haman pointed out to the King later in the book when he sought to have all the jews killed because of his hatred of Mordecai). Women of the ancient world were seen as slaves, property, practically cattle which Christ and later Paul set out to set right. Unfortunately there are some who'd seek to bring women back down to this level again but that's a whole other topic.

 

[dicapr]

I heard a pastor preach on this once. His conclusion was that the King was actually making an unreasonable request of his wife. He wanted to flaunt her beauty in front of a bunch of drunk men and be objectified. This kinds of jives with the fact that after he sobered up he regretted his behavior. He said that often women were called to those types of parties wearing no clothes. She basically told him that she would not be disrespected. It was only because of his pride and drunk state that he was decided that she was being unreasonable.

 

[PinkPebbles]

I don't think it's relevant to us as Christians as these were not a Godly people. They did not follow God's law, they had their own (Which Haman pointed out to the King later in the book when he sought to have all the jews killed because of his hatred of Mordecai). Women of the ancient world were seen as slaves, property, practically cattle which Christ and later Paul set out to set right. Unfortunately there are some who'd seek to bring women back down to this level again but that's a whole other topic.

Thanks for sharing. That explains why some interpreted why the King did not have a problem presenting Queen Vashti naked before his guest.

Why did Mordecia wanted Ester to marry this King, a non-Jew? A king that humiliated his ex-wife.

What was Mordecai's position; was he in the military, an official? Haman conspired to kill the Jews only after Mordecai refused to bow down to him.

 

[momi]

This is a great discussion... I have always been told that the king requested Vashti to appear naked and this is why she disobeyed. It this was the case then she was correct not to come as it is better to obey God than man, however if it is not and she was just "full of herself" then she was wrong.

Mordecai was Esthers cousin and her guardian since her parents were gone. To be honest, I'd always thought he held some type of position in the kings party but apparently not. Apparently he just hung out at the king's gate because his charge "Esther" was inside... he probably rose to some type of position in the kings court when she was crowned queen though.

A contrast to this example would be Sara and Abraham... she obeyed him even when he was wrong. Remember when she agreed to let King Abimilech (sp) think she was Abraham's sister? Even though she did this, Peter uses her as an example because of her obedience... hmmmm

I tell you one thing - who we choose to marry matters.


Good discussion.

 

[PinkPebbles]

This is a great discussion... I have always been told that the king requested Vashti to appear naked and this is why she disobeyed. It this was the case then she was correct not to come as it is better to obey God than man, however if it is not and she was just "full of herself" then she was wrong.

Mordecai was Esthers cousin and her guardian since her parents were gone. To be honest, I'd always thought he held some type of position in the kings party but apparently not. Apparently he just hung out at the king's gate because his charge "Esther" was inside... he probably rose to some type of position in the kings court when she was crowned queen though.

A contrast to this example would be Sara and Abraham... she obeyed him even when he was wrong. Remember when she agreed to let King Abimilech (sp) think she was Abraham's sister? Even though she did this, Peter uses her as an example because of her obedience... hmmmm

I tell you one thing - who we choose to marry matters.


Good discussion.

Thanks for sharing! I totally agree on who we choose to marry matters..

This makes me wonder why Mordecai wanted Ester to marry this King, a non-Jew.

It leads me to question whether or not Mordecai had an agenda way before Esther. When the king was looking for a queen it was a perfect opportunity for Mordecai to use Esther with his alleged agenda.:scratchch.

I wonder if Mordecai sought the Lord about his plan; or did the Lord place this idea in his heart!?!

Esther did exactly what Mordecai told her to do. She was truly submissive to Mordecai. Ironically, Esther received favor with the King, and everyone who she came into contact with at the palace before she was decreed Queen.

 

[phynestone]

This is a story in the Bible that always left a bad taste in my mouth. I did not think Vashti disrespected her husband b/c I thought he and his company were under the influence of alcohol. Who knows what could have happened to her, queen or not? I agree with the poster who stated she didn't want to be objectified. The king was probably upset and his ego a little bruised, so he dismissed her to save face, as some men do even today. They don't look into what they did wrong.

Esther learned from Vashti's mistakes and catered to Ahasureus. She and Mordecai were just strategic about everything they did. I don't think she would have been chosen if she didn't observe and listen...

 

[Nice & Wavy]

I take it that Queen Vashti did not want to do what her husband requested of her because it wasn't befitting for a Queen. As a Queen, she wasn't like the common women in those days, therefore she didn't feel as though this type of thing 'applied' to her. It must have been demeaning/degrading whatever it was that her husband wanted her to do.

I don't believe that the King ever did this type of thing to her before, so she was taken aback and was very startled that he would treat her in such a way. Her very first response was to say 'no'.

It wasn't that she didn't respect her husband, but that she saw herself in a role of respect as the Queen, so she chose NOT to do it, therefore, saying no to her demise. She understood the ramifications of what would take place and she refused anyway.

I also believe that God allowed this to take place, for the sake of saving Esther and her people. If Queen Vashti would have given in to her husband's request, what would have happened to Esther and her people at that time?

I have said no to my husband on numerous occasions, with explanation as to why. He may not have liked it at the time, but later on realized that I was walking in wisdom and it helped him later on. Saying no doesn't mean 'disrespect'.

This is my opinion.

Have a blessed weekend!

 

[PinkPebbles]

I'm enjoying this discussion!

As I continue to study the Book of Ester and read everyone's response I realize there is something to be learned from Queen Vashti and Queen Ester.

As many have stated and interpreted, Queen Vashti perhaps refused the king's request with valid reasons. I agree with saying 'No' doesn't mean disrespect.

The bible tells us to exercise and use discernment, discretion, and godly wisdom when making decisions.

I was placed in situations on my job where I had to respectfully say no to those who were in charge over project tasks that were in error or unreasonable.

I have also witnessed in various organizations and relationships where people abused their authority.

As Queen Vashti demonstrated, if she was in fact asked to do something shameful and humiliating; we have to stand up for what is right, or we would fall for anything.

On the other hand, Queen Ester demonstrated how to submit to authority when it is done in decency and in order; where it pleases the Lord and blessings can stem from it.

I agree with the poster that said Ester and Mordecai were strategic; they listened and observed.

I believe Ester was strategic because she was humbled, yet strong. Her humbleness is what allowed her to submit to authority. And her strength in the Lord is what kept her.

In her submission she had safety and protection.

Ester placed herself under Mordecai's authority as the man who raised her. Ester listened to Mordecai when he instructed her not to reveal her religion, people, or her family.

Ester also placed herself under Hegai's authority as the man who could help her in practical matters to win the king's favor. Hegai taught Ester exactly what the king would like and she only did what he advised. As a result, Ester knew how to please the king and was chosen to be the queen.

I read in a book, submission is not a bad thing if you are under the authority of a person who loves you as Christ loves the church!

Mordecai loved Ester as if she was his own daughter. However, I'm still puzzled at the fact that he encouraged Ester to marry a non-Jew; a king that didn't particularly care for her people.

Maybe Mordecai was able to foresee some events. He said this to Ester when the Jews needed help:

"Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. 14 For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?"

 

[Laela]

Hi, Pebbles,

The story of Esther is a fascinating one and I see you've asked the same question at least twice, so I'll try to answer it (from my understanding of this book).

Why did Mordecai want Ester to marry a non-Jew?

She was chosen. Not by Mordecai but by God. God also chose Mordecai, because a wicked man was being used by the devil to kill God's people. That wasn't going to happen but God needed to use earthly vessels to protect his people. Mordecai was a God-fearing man, which is why he refused to bow to Haman.

Throughout the Bible you'll see God uses the most unlikely people, who do the most unseemly things. But God knows and sometimes we just can't comprehend but we just trust Him. This story is a good example.

As for Vashti, whether her reason for refusing the King was warranted (it's not clear what her frame of mind was, whether she was belligerent or just simply tired and didn't feel well) --the bottom line is she refused the king's command, an offense to not only him but the entire kingdom. So it would be good to say, she 'broke' their law, because the king's commandments were the law. We have to remember those were Babylonians, ungodly people. In those ancient days, women were owned - even queens. Even Ester, when she became queen, risked 'breaking the law' so she could do what she had to do. The only difference between the two women is God was with Ester.

Her being chosen by the king came with much strategy, because it was part of God's plan to save His people from being destroyed.

Another thing I don't see mentioned is that Ester and her people also prayed and fasted and I believe God guided them -- Mordecai -- at those critical times on what to do next, esp. when Ester asked them to fast/pray before she went to see the King. They turned to God and relied on Him for guidance. That's a very critical and important lesson in the story of Ester.

I'm enjoying this discussion!

As I continue to study the Book of Ester and read everyone's response I realize there is something to be learned from Queen Vashti and Queen Ester.

As many have stated and interpreted, Queen Vashti perhaps refused the king's request with valid reasons. I agree with saying 'No' doesn't mean disrespect.

The bible tells us to exercise and use discernment, discretion, and godly wisdom when making decisions.

I was placed in situations on my job where I had to respectfully say no to those who were in charge over project tasks that were in error or unreasonable.

I have also witnessed in various organizations and relationships where people abused their authority.

As Queen Vashti demonstrated, if she was in fact asked to do something shameful and humiliating; we have to stand up for what is right, or we would fall for anything.

On the other hand, Queen Ester demonstrated how to submit to authority when it is done in decency and in order; where it pleases the Lord and blessings can stem from it.

I agree with the poster that said Ester and Mordecai were strategic; they listened and observed.

I believe Ester was strategic because she was humbled, yet strong. Her humbleness is what allowed her to submit to authority. And her strength in the Lord is what kept her.

In her submission she had safety and protection.

Ester placed herself under Mordecai's authority as the man who raised her. Ester listened to Mordecai when he instructed her not to reveal her religion, people, or her family.

Ester also placed herself under Hegai's authority as the man who could help her in practical matters to win the king's favor. Hegai taught Ester exactly what the king would like and she only did what he advised. As a result, Ester knew how to please the king and was chosen to be the queen.

I read in a book, submission is not a bad thing if you are under the authority of a person who loves you as Christ loves the church!

Mordecai loved Ester as if she was his own daughter. However, I'm still puzzled at the fact that he encouraged Ester to marry a non-Jew; a king that didn't particularly care for her people.

Maybe Mordecai was able to foresee some events. He said this to Ester when the Jews needed help:

"Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. 14 For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?"

 

[PinkPebbles]

Hi, Pebbles,

The story of Esther is a fascinating one and I see you've asked the same question at least twice, so I'll try to answer it (from my understanding of this book).

Why did Mordecai want Ester to marry a non-Jew?

She was chosen. Not by Mordecai but by God. God also chose Mordecai, because a wicked man was being used by the devil to kill God's people. That wasn't going to happen but God needed to use earthly vessels to protect his people. Mordecai was a God-fearing man, which is why he refused to bow to Haman.

Throughout the Bible you'll see God uses the most unlikely people, who do the most unseemly things. But God knows and sometimes we just can't comprehend but we just trust Him. This story is a good example.

As for Vashti, whether her reason for refusing the King was warranted (it's not clear what her frame of mind was, whether she was belligerent or just simply tired and didn't feel well) --the bottom line is she refused the king's command, an offense to not only him but the entire kingdom. So it would be good to say, she 'broke' their law, because the king's commandments were the law. We have to remember those were Babylonians, ungodly people. In those ancient days, women were owned - even queens. Even Ester, when she became queen, risked 'breaking the law' so she could do what she had to do. The only difference between the two women is God was with Ester.

Her being chosen by the king came with much strategy, because it was part of God's plan to save His people from being destroyed.

Another thing I don't see mentioned is that Ester and her people also prayed and fasted and I believe God guided them -- Mordecai -- at those critical times on what to do next, esp. when Ester asked them to fast/pray before she went to see the King. They turned to God and relied on Him for guidance. That's a very critical and important lesson in the story of Ester.

Thank you Laela...very well said! I believe God used and guided Ester and Mordecai as well .

My confusion comes into play in knowing whether or not Haman and the Babylonians planned to kill the Jews before Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman or long before this incident?

If the question is yes, then I really believe Mordecai had an agenda and Ester was perfect for it, the king's search for a queen came in perfect timing!

And Laela you better stop calling me Pebbles before the real Pebbles come and get you!!!..... I'm PinkPebbles...LOL!!!!

 

[Laela]

I believe that Haman's plot was well underway long before Mordecai 'overheard' those two soldiers by the gate talking about it and before Esther was offered up to the king. Haman was known to be an astrologer. Mordecai was a man of God..that's key

He had to have heard from God on what to do and how to deal with Ester. Look at his response to the Queen in Chapter 4:


12And they told Mordecai what Esther said.
13Then Mordecai told them to return this answer to Esther, Do not flatter yourself that you shall escape in the king's palace any more than all the other Jews.
14For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance shall arise for the Jews from elsewhere, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows but that you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this and for this very occasion?

Thank you Laela...very well said! I believe God used and guided Ester and Mordecai as well .

My confusion comes into play in knowing whether or not Haman and the Babylonians planned to kill the Jews before Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman or long before this incident?

If the question is yes, then I really believe Mordecai had an agenda and Ester was perfect for it, the king's search for a queen came in perfect timing!

 

[Laela]

Let me add... even with the various accounts on Vashti's refusal --that she was asked to appear naked or that it was punishment for how she treated the Jewish girls who were forced to appear naked in her presence -- it was known that she was no more modest than the king himself.... Ungodly people.

 

[PinkPebbles]

I believe that Haman's plot was well underway long before Mordecai 'overheard' those two soldiers by the gate talking about it and before Esther was offered up to the king. Haman was known to be an astrologer. Mordecai was a man of God..that's key

He had to have heard from God on what to do and how to deal with Ester. Look at his response to the Queen in Chapter 4:


12And they told Mordecai what Esther said.
13Then Mordecai told them to return this answer to Esther, Do not flatter yourself that you shall escape in the king's palace any more than all the other Jews.
14For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance shall arise for the Jews from elsewhere, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows but that you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this and for this very occasion?

!

I definitely agree that Mordecai was a man of God!

When Mordecai heard the two soldiers plotting to kill the King - he (the King) was not Jewish. From my understanding, it did not have anything to do with Ester.

Haman plotted and wanted to kill the Jews after Mordecai refused to bow down to him.

Overall, I understand where you are coming from.. Mordecai was indeed led by God, I'm quite sure it wasn't an accident or coincidence that he heard the two soldiers.

Sometimes we don't know that we are being used by God until after the fact. That's why I questioned whether or not Mordecai had an agenda before Ester came along. Agenda meaning - to save his people, the Jews from the Babylonians.

Thanks for your input!!!!

 

[Laela]

Well, let me ask you this... do you think Haman liked the Jews before the incident with Mordecai? Why do you think he wanted to kill the king?

No the king wasn't Jewish...but Ester was queen at that time and Mordecai was keeping his eyes on her.

I definitely agree that Mordecai was a man of God!

When Mordecai heard the two soldiers plotting to kill the King - he (the King) was not Jewish. From my understanding, it did not have anything to do with Ester.

Haman plotted and wanted to kill the Jews after Mordecai refused to bow down to him.

Overall, I understand where you are coming from.. Mordecai was indeed led by God, I'm quite sure it wasn't an accident or coincidence that he heard the two soldiers.

Sometimes we don't know that we are being used by God until after the fact. That's why I questioned whether or not Mordecai had an agenda before Ester came along. Agenda meaning - to save his people, the Jews from the Babylonians.

Thanks for your input!!!!

 

[PinkPebbles]

Well, let me ask you this... do you think Haman liked the Jews before the incident with Mordecai? Why do you think he wanted to kill the king?

No the king wasn't Jewish...but Ester was queen at that time and Mordecai was keeping his eyes on her.

Good question!

Ok. From my understanding Haman did not know that Ester or Mordecai were Jewish until it was investigated on the reason why Mordecai would not bow down to him.

Also, I thought that when Mordecai overheard the two soldiers, Ester was not decreed queen. It took 12 months of preparation for Ester and the other Virgins to see who would become queen.

It's not a surprise that Haman did not like the Jews, especially if he is Babylonian. It could be a lot of reasons why Haman wanted to kill the King (power, greed, jealousy, etc)

( I will have to re-read the order of sequence once I get home).


1 After these events, King Xerxes honored Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles. 2 All the royal officials at the king's gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor.



3 Then the royal officials at the king's gate asked Mordecai, "Why do you disobey the king's command?" 4 Day after day they spoke to him but he refused to comply. Therefore they told Haman about it to see whether Mordecai's behavior would be tolerated, for he had told them he was a Jew.


5 When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor, he was enraged. 6 Yet having learned who Mordecai's people were, he scorned the idea of killing only Mordecai. Instead Haman looked for a way to destroy all Mordecai's people, the Jews, throughout the whole kingdom of Xerxes.


7 In the twelfth year of King Xerxes, in the first month, the month of Nisan, they cast the pur (that is, the lot) in the presence of Haman to select a day and month. And the lot fell on [a] the twelfth month, the month of Adar.


8 Then Haman said to King Xerxes, "There is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey the king's laws; it is not in the king's best interest to tolerate them. 9 If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will put ten thousand talents [b] of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business."

10 So the king took his signet ring from his finger and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. 11 "Keep the money," the king said to Haman, "and do with the people as you please."

 

[Laela]

Haman knew who Mordecai was... he's a descendant of the Amalekites (Arabs), those who chased the Children of Israel out of Egypt. So there's a long enmity between the peoples of both men... The Amalekites came from Esau. The Israelites came from Jacob.
I may be wrong that Haman knew of the plot to kill the king, but he had a lot of jealousy towards the king as well, and acted as if he were king himself, to the point he quickly rose to power. I believe this was his plan all along, to attack the Jews.... long before Ester was to appear before the king to be selected.

 

[momi]

How did I miss so much of this thread??? I have to go and see what I missed... good to see the discussion continuing!

 

[Reminiscing]

How did I miss so much of this thread??? I have to go and see what I missed... good to see the discussion continuing!

Momi, you took the words right out of my mouth. I came in hear ready to post, but now I realize I have to go study some more before I can jump in on this convo.

Great work ladies! This is very enlightening!

 

[JinaRicci]

This is a nice discussion.

Haman knew who Mordecai was... he's a descendant of the Amalekites (Arabs), those who chased the Children of Israel out of Egypt. So there's a long enmity between the peoples of both men... The Amalekites came from Esau. The Israelites came from Jacob.
I may be wrong that Haman knew of the plot to kill the king, but he had a lot of jealousy towards the king as well, and acted as if he were king himself, to the point he quickly rose to power. I believe this was his plan all along, to attack the Jews.... long before Ester was to appear before the king to be selected.

I agree. If we go back to 1 Samuel 15, Saul was supposed to kill all the Amalekites and not even spare the animals but he kept Agag the king and the best of the animals supposedly for sacrifices.

1 Sam 15: 9
But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Samuel had to end up killing Agag himself but the disobedience to God still cost Saul the crown (vs 26) and his life in the war with the Philistines (ch 28-31).

Haman was an Amalekite and specifically an Agagite (Esther 3:1) suggesting that someone from Agag's line still survived.

Do you all remember in the beginning of One Night with the King (love that movie) that they showed Saul keeping Agag's queen who escaped and gave birth to Haman's ancestor? That's not in the Bible but the fact that the term Agagite is only used in Esther to describe Haman and his father suggests that someone else from Agag's household that wasn't mentioned could have been kept alive. It really could have been a woman who was already pregnant or even a child.

So... Haman would have had some serious issues with the Jews for killing off his people that went way back.

 

[PinkPebbles]

This is a nice discussion.



I agree. If we go back to 1 Samuel 15, Saul was supposed to kill all the Amalekites and not even spare the animals but he kept Agag the king and the best of the animals supposedly for sacrifices.

1 Sam 15: 9
But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Samuel had to end up killing Agag himself but the disobedience to God still cost Saul the crown (vs 26) and his life in the war with the Philistines (ch 28-31).

Haman was an Amalekite and specifically an Agagite (Esther 3:1) suggesting that someone from Agag's line still survived.

So... Haman would have had some serious issues with the Jews for killing off his people that went way back.

Thank you!

I remember the story about Saul's disobedience for not killing all the Amalekites....the scriptures you referenced in the book of Samuel brings things into perspective!

 

[Laela]

All those 'ites' .. it all started with that wild man, Edom.

Thanks for the Scriptures... this chapter is where we get the "it's better to obey than sacrifice" reference from. That doing what God says trumps doing what we think is right or what religious actions call for. I had a few hard lessons on this...

To tie this in with the book of Esther, marrying a non-Jew wasn't the right thing to do.

This is a nice discussion.



I agree. If we go back to 1 Samuel 15, Saul was supposed to kill all the Amalekites and not even spare the animals but he kept Agag the king and the best of the animals supposedly for sacrifices.

1 Sam 15: 9
But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Samuel had to end up killing Agag himself but the disobedience to God still cost Saul the crown (vs 26) and his life in the war with the Philistines (ch 28-31).

Haman was an Amalekite and specifically an Agagite (Esther 3:1) suggesting that someone from Agag's line still survived.

Do you all remember in the beginning of One Night with the King (love that movie) that they showed Saul keeping Agag's queen who escaped and gave birth to Haman's ancestor? That's not in the Bible but the fact that the term Agagite is only used in Esther to describe Haman and his father suggests that someone else from Agag's household that wasn't mentioned could have been kept alive. It really could have been a woman who was already pregnant or even a child.

So... Haman would have had some serious issues with the Jews for killing off his people that went way back.

 

[Laela]

PinkPebbles always strike up the tough discussions... [yep, I remember..PinkPebbles.. lol ] God's Word is unfathomable and some historical parts send me right back to the Bible, too... including this one. That's indeed a good thing....

I look forward to reading your insight....

Momi, you took the words right out of my mouth. I came in hear ready to post, but now I realize I have to go study some more before I can jump in on this convo.

Great work ladies! This is very enlightening!

 

[JinaRicci]

PinkPebbles- to answer your question on why Mordecai wanted Esther to be queen: I agree with all who said that it was God leading. God always has back-up plans.

I think also from a practical standpoint, the alternative wasn't better. She was already rounded up for the selection process. So it seems that the best option would be to become queen.

When the virgins were getting ready they were in the custody of Hegai (Ch 2: 3; 8). But after their night with the king, they went into the custody of Shaashgaz, keeper of the concubines (vs 14).

In the evening she went, and on the morrow she returned into the second house of the women, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king's chamberlain, which kept the concubines: she came in unto the king no more, except the king delighted in her, and that she were called by name.

From the sounds of that, I'd rather be queen too. I don't know for sure what the night with the king entailed. What do you all really think happened during their one night?

 

[PinkPebbles]

PinkPebbles- to answer your question on why Mordecai wanted Esther to be queen: I agree with all who said that it was God leading. God always has back-up plans.

I think also from a practical standpoint, the alternative wasn't better. She was already rounded up for the selection process. So it seems that the best option would be to become queen.

When the virgins were getting ready they were in the custody of Hegai (Ch 2: 3; 8). But after their night with the king, they went into the custody of Shaashgaz, keeper of the concubines (vs 14).

In the evening she went, and on the morrow she returned into the second house of the women, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king's chamberlain, which kept the concubines: she came in unto the king no more, except the king delighted in her, and that she were called by name.

From the sounds of that, I'd rather be queen too. I don't know for sure what the night with the king entailed. What do you all really think happened during their one night?

JinaRicci - Now that is an interesting / good question!

I'd like to know too...

Maybe Ester only did what Hegai advised her to do; Since Hegai knew what would please the king....

 

[OhmyKimB]

Good question!

Have you read the "Ideal Wife" by Jacquelin Thomas? It's a christian fiction novel, that tells the story of a woman's refusal to submit to her husband. In the story, Jacquelin references Queen Vashti's story several times and the question of whether or not she was disrespectful to her husband was brought up.

Jacquelin uses Ephesians 5:22 to give her answer. In the KJV it reads, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." The part she emphasizes is "as unto the Lord." Most people quote the scripture and stop at "unto your husbands" but the key to this verse is that women must submit to their husbands but only as it is pleasing to our Lord.

So to answer your question, I think we need to understand first what the King was really asking his wife to do. When I read the scripture it seems like he just wanted to present her before his people to show off her beauty while wearing her crown. In this case I can see how it could be annoying to her but it's not really a sin for a husband to show off his wife so there's no real ground for her to disobey. HOWEVER, I've read other views on this chapter where it's believed that the King was asking her to appear naked before his people ONLY wearing her crown. Now in that case, then she had every right to disobey because appearing naked before the people would not be pleasing unto God.

So what are you thoughts on that? What do you ladies think the king was really asking his wife to do? I feel it's important that when we're making a decision on whether or not to obey, we first must understand what is being asked of us.

This "submissive" thing is becoming a huge issue within our community. I don't really want to get into the topic of interracial dating and why black men are turning away from black women but without discussing it we all know the word submissive has something to do with it. This very word could be a tool that the devil is using to prevent us from having healthy christian marriages. I thinks it's important that us wives-to-be (whether we've met our husbands or not) understand our role as submissive wives. If we educate ourselves now then the devil can't use it to attack us.

I have more to say on this topic because like you PinkPebbles, I have to be aggressive and firm on my job but thankfully I also know how to leave that at the office. I'm not married yet but I do want to submit to my future husband as unto the Lord. But I've said a bunch in this post so I'm going to give others a chance to respond before I continue.

Thanks for starting this discussion PinkPebbles! I hope some wives will chime in soon!

I remember reading somewhere that Vashanti was pregnant, and that because of the difference in culture it was basically rude as all heck for her to present herself like that.

 

[Reminiscing]

I remember reading somewhere that Vashanti was pregnant, and that because of the difference in culture it was basically rude as all heck for her to present herself like that.

The theory of her being pregnant is mentioned in the footnotes of the NLT version but unfortunately it's doesn't say if there is any truth to it or not. It just says that some believed she was pregnant. It's pretty vague as to what her condition was at the time be it, pregnant, naked, clothed, etc. I wish there were a more concrete answer.

 

[Reminiscing]

All those 'ites' .. it all started with that wild man, Edom.

Thanks for the Scriptures... this chapter is where we get the "it's better to obey than sacrifice" reference from. That doing what God says trumps doing what we think is right or what religious actions call for. I had a few hard lessons on this...

To tie this in with the book of Esther, marrying a non-Jew wasn't the right thing to do.

Laela- I like what you wrote here. I had the same thoughts when I was reading about Mordecai refusing to bow down to Haman. What you wrote is very powerful. "What God says trumps what religious action calls for." I know that Mordecai's situation was on the large side of the sprectrum, meaning him against the law of the land. His actions put an entire group of religious believers in danger, but this scripture made me think of how this applies to us on a smaller scale.

At times, we get so caught up in what our church tells us we should and shouldn't do that we forget we have a personal relationship with God. Our churches are there for guidance but God is our ultimate leader. His orders come first and foremost which is why it's important that we stay tuned in to his still small voice. We shouldn't be more dedicated to our church than we are to God. God gave us commandments and rules to live by in the Bible which can be considered the large side of the spectrum as with Mordecai and the laws of the King. We have to obey these well-known commandments, but God speaks to us everyday also on a smaller scale. He tells us bit by bit what his plan is for us. He gives us our own personal laws and commandments on how to accomplish his plan for us. How many of us are doing exactly what he tells us to do? Is someone pushing you to join one committee in your church but you know in your heart that God is telling you he needs you on a different committee? In this case "it is better to obey than to sacrifice" applies as well. In order to obtain your full blessing from God, you have to do what he asks of you.

I'm not saying that our churches are giving us bad guidance or anything like that. I just want to point out that God is the only one who knows the plan he has for us. It's great to receive advice or to hear someone else's vision for you but we need to always cross-reference it with what God speaks to our hearts. Our connection with our churches or any other organization should not trump our personal relationship with God. Obey the laws of the land yes, but be in tuned with God also so that first and foremost you're always obeying him.

Every time I'm going through something God gives me a scripture that confirms what he's saying to me. And this one was right on time. I was being led the wrong way on a church committee but God reminded me of his true purpose and plan for me.