A Drunk King, a Defiant Queen, and a Divine Providence

Esther 1:10-22

Main Idea: God will use Ahasuerus’s wretchedness and Vashti’s rebellion to open the door for Esther’s future reign.

1. What’s Happening in the Text (1:10-22)?
   1. The king’s drunken demand (1:10-11)
   2. The queen’s definite defiance (1:12)
   3. The counselor’s despicable discernment (1:13-20)
   4. The king’s dumb decision (1:21)
   5. The king’s dishonorable decree (1:22)
2. Lessons Others Have Taught from This Text
   1. The dangers of drunkenness and of demeaning women
   2. The better model for the feminist movement
3. What Can We Learn about God?
   1. God will use Ahasuerus’s wretchedness and Vashti’s rebellion to achieve Esther’s reign.
   2. God is offended and greatly transgressed by disobedience.
   3. God grants us more grace than Ahasuerus granted Vashti.
4. What Can We Learn about Ourselves?
   1. Without God’s grace and intervention, we are all like Ahasuerus.
   2. When accountability is absent, rebellion prevails over repentance.
   3. When boasting, we should not be surprised if God humbles us.
5. What Can We Learn about Christ?
   1. Jesus’s power is absolute.
   2. Jesus’s constant motivation is God’s glory and our good.
   3. Jesus is sacrificial.
   4. Jesus deserves all the glory for our beauty.
   5. Jesus deserves honor.

I am grateful for every opportunity I have been given to teach at seminaries or Bible schools in Africa. I love meeting the students, many of whom serve in ministry, and getting to hear their stories and backgrounds. During my first trip to teach at the Uganda Baptist Seminary in Jinja, I had the opportunity to preach to the student body for a spiritual emphasis week and then help teach in their classes. One afternoon I sat in one of the preaching classes as they were sharing prayer requests. One student shared about an internally displaced persons camp in the north where rebel soldiers dressed up like Ugandan soldiers to gain access to the refugees. Those rebels then proceeded to slaughter all of the adults and to take many of the boys captive to fight in their army. The other children were being dispersed, and the one making the request was praying those children would be placed in homes where they would not be further abused or exploited.

I listened to another student who had been in Rwanda during the genocide. I heard how his parents, who had served as professors at the university in Kigali, were participating in a family birthday party when men with guns knocked on their door. The men took the student’s parents outside and shot them while he and his siblings fled out the back door of the house. At this point in the telling, another student shook his head and said, “In Africa, you never know who will be in charge when you wake up.”

This state of affairs is not just a problem for previous generations or limited to the continent of Africa. Political power grabs through the use of force have occurred in multiple countries. In some places those with the most power are able to take control, and they maintain control for as long as they maintain their power.

Unfortunately, in our world those with the most power are not always the ones with the purest motives. Some wield their power as they wish with primary regard being given to self. Kim Jong Un of North Korea is a contemporary example. I read this week of a high-ranking official who defected from the tyrant’s regime to South Korea (Associated Press, “Senior North Korean Defector Says His Sons Were Reason He Fled”). The defector said he was fortunate that both of his sons were already out of the country and in London. When most North Korean officials travel outside of the country, Kim Jong Un keeps at least one of their family members in order to guarantee the diplomat’s return. The people of North Korea are currently suffering under an oppressive ruler who does what he wishes to whomever he wishes with no repercussions. And so many in North Korea have known no other life.

Prior to the most recent presidential election in the United States, concerns were expressed over both candidates. For Hillary Clinton there were apprehensions about her trustworthiness. For Donald Trump there was fear of him having the nuclear codes and choosing to use them as a reaction to something someone posted about him on social media. The book of Esther opens on a king who is the most powerful ruler of his day. He wants all to know of his greatness and glory. But as we consider the remainder of chapter 1 in Esther, we will see that the one who has all the power is not a good man who makes decisions for the good of those he leads. Rather, he uses his power for his own agenda, and when drunk, he even uses it against those who are closest to him. He elicits both kinds of concerns mentioned above; he is untrustworthy and impulsive. God, however, will use Ahasuerus’s wretchedness and Vashti’s rebellion to open the door for Esther’s future reign.

What’s Happening in the Text?

Esther 1:10-22

In this first section of material, I will provide explanation and background for the events recorded in 1:10-22. I will reserve the majority of application, however, for the final three sections of this discussion, where we will examine what we can learn about God, ourselves, and Christ. From time to time, as I preach through books of the Bible, I use this method to vary my delivery style.

The King’s Drunken Demand (1:10-11)

I do not know of any good decisions made while someone was intoxicated. I can give you example after example, however, of poor decisions the condition produced. Two illustrations that immediately come to my mind both involve injury, pain, and loss. In the first example, one of my friends in college incurred over $10,000 in medical bills after being punched in the face by a drunk person he did not know. In the second example, I carried a rose and placed it in the chair next to me at my high school graduation where one of my good friends should have been sitting but could not because she was hit and killed by a drunk driver just two weeks prior. My undergraduate degree is in management, and not one single lecture that I heard in four years of study was titled, “Drinking and Decisions: How Intoxication Leads to Wisdom.”

The Persians saw drinking and decision-making differently. They believed those who imbibed “spirits” could come into closer contact with the spiritual world and possibly receive helpful counsel. The Persians may have also employed a decision-making strategy that included alternating between drunkenness and sobriety and then deliberating and deciding based on which mental state they were in (Jobes, Esther, 67–68).

After 187 days of feasting, apparently not all of Ahasuerus’s arteries were clogged; nevertheless, his critical thinking skills were definitely impaired. At the conclusion of the shorter feast, he acted on a drunken whim to show all the other men at the party the beauty of his wife. The author records no one around Ahasuerus trying to dissuade him from his foolishness. No one is chronicled as saying, “This probably won’t go well,” or asking, “Are you sure about this one, big fella?” Instead the king’s eunuchs are commanded to get the queen from the feast she is hosting and to bring her back wearing her crown or headdress. The eunuchs will comply. Vashti, however, will not.

The Queen’s Definite Defiance (1:12)

Before considering the queen’s rebellion, let us first consider her reputation. Who was Vashti? As previously noted, the name Vashti means “the best” or “desired,” which leads some to believe Vashti may be “an honorary title for the favored wife rather than her actual name” (Smith, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 231). Others contend she was also known by her Greek name, Amestris, and that she was “ruthless, powerful, and influential, once taking horrible revenge on a woman with whom her husband had been in love” (Prime, Unspoken Lessons, 32).

Based on what is revealed in the Bible, Vashti was beautiful and bold but (spoiler alert) would be banished. Beyond her refusal to obey the king’s command, she has no other actions recorded in Esther. Readers are not privy to any of her conversations, not even the one she had with the likes of Biztha and Bigtha and the rest of the eunuch envoys. Bush notes that “non-speech narration carries the primary freight in [Esther] in both plot development and characterization” (Ruth/Esther, 311). Instead of revealing dialogue made with her, the author of Esther only provides dialogue about her in the remainder of the first chapter.

Beyond the second chapter Vashti is not mentioned again in the text. From the biblical perspective then, we know Ahasuerus had a queen named Vashti, she was beautiful, she refused his drunken command, a decree would be made banishing her from his presence, and all of this would provide an opportunity for a new queen to be crowned. While minimal content is devoted to Vashti in the text, her refusal to appear before the king is a major facet in God’s preservation of his people.

But what led her to refuse to go before the king and those gathered with him? An answer to this question is not provided in the text. Here, then, is a good point at which to remind ourselves of something important regarding the study of Esther: unknowns are OK. Though we do not have all the information we may want in the Bible, we have all the information the Lord wants us to have for now and all the information we need.

The lack of a reason for Vashti’s rebellion being recorded in the text has not stopped some from seeking to provide their own. Some think the king intended her crown or headdress to be her only article of clothing. Another thought is that she was embarrassed by some blemish and did not want to appear in the royal court in such a state. Of course, there is another reasonable possibility, which many have noted, and that is that she did not want to be paraded in front of the king’s frat party to be, at a minimum, heckled, or worse, harmed by men who had been drinking for seven days. Whatever the reason, Baldwin notes the absence of an explanation in the text “strengthens the tension of the story by implying that Vashti had no rights in relation to her husband, and therefore reasons were irrelevant” (Esther, 60–61). Vashti’s concerns were not important, only Ahasuerus’s commands were.

Though readers are not provided a reason for Vashti’s rebellion, the author does note the king’s reaction. He is not a happy camper. Nor would the reader expect him to be. After the author has labored in describing Ahasuerus’s power and possessions and greatness and glory, one would expect all to obey any command he made with the utmost expediency. But the first slash in the façade of the king’s “absolute” power is seen in his inability to command either his queen or his own emotions. As Matthew Henry notes, “He that had rule over 127 provinces had no rule over his own spirit” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 505). Internally he was a burning rage that would “kindle” or “ignite” his subsequent actions (Wakely, “???,” 1:683).

Why was the king so mad? The answer is not simply because she disobeyed but because she would not participate in what he wanted displayed. Over the two feasts Ahasuerus had been showing off all his treasures and resources, and for the grand finale he wanted to show everyone his beautiful queen. Of course, displaying her beauty was not really about her but about him. Her beauty was to be a means to the end of furthering his boasting in his glory and greatness. But as Firth says, “The balloon of his prestige which had been so carefully established is pricked by a woman who will not come to his party” (The Message of Esther, 40). The question thus becomes, What should be done with Vashti?

The Counselor’s Despicable Discernment (1:13-20)

On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded seventy-three seconds after liftoff. The entire crew of seven perished, including Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher chosen to participate in NASA’s Teacher in Space program. A presidential commission was formed to help discern what went wrong. Teitel says, “The Commission ultimately flagged the root cause of the accident as ‘a serious flaw in the decision-making process leading up to the launch’” (“How Groupthink Led to 7 Lives Lost in the Challenger Explosion”).

The NASA employees in charge of decision-making for Challenger’s launch failed to let voices outside of the group influence their assessments. Considering this thirty years after the Challenger explosion, Schwartz and Wald note that “a body of research that is getting more and more attention points to the ways that smart people working collectively can be dumber than the sum of their brains” (“The Nation: NASA’s Curse?; ‘Groupthink’ Is 30 Years Old and Still Going Strong”). What happens in Esther 1:13-20 could certainly be described as “a serious flaw in the decision-making process,” and it is clear the group of wise men from whom Ahasuerus seeks counsel in dealing with Vashti seem none the smarter for working collectively.

After the queen defied the king’s command, Ahasuerus turned to a group of seven men—close advisors—to see what, if anything, should be done with Vashti according to the law. Often a wife for the king would be selected from among the families of a group like this seven, so it made sense for him to seek their discernment on the issue. Memucan’s anxiety and Ahasuerus’s anger, however, end up leading to a fabricated law based on fear and fickleness instead of foresight. Cooler heads, if they were even present, definitely did not prevail in the group’s predictions of empire-wide revolts by wives inspired by Vashti’s defiance.

For her great offense not only against the king but to all under his reign, Memucan proposed Vashti never be allowed again in Ahasuerus’s presence and the forfeit of her royal position. Little imagination is required to discern what Memucan means when he says someone “more worthy” should be queen. His ideal woman would obey the king the first time a command was given, every time a command was given, and with a happy heart. In his eyes the kingdom would be better served if a woman like this was queen.

The “wise men” hoped a decree from the emperor and his strict discipline toward Vashti would discourage the other wives in the realm from disrespecting their husbands. Ironically, Fox notes that Memucan’s “advice creates the very hullabaloo he had wanted to squelch and prevents Vashti from doing precisely what she had refused to do” (Character and Ideology, 168). In worrying that word would get out to all the realm regarding the queen’s actions, the king and his most trusted ones would actually be the cause of it.

The King’s Dumb Decision (1:21)

The psalmist says, “How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers” (Ps 1:1). Based on those criteria, Ahasuerus was neither happy nor blessed. He needed a father like the one in Proverbs, one who counsels, “My son, if sinners entice you, don’t be persuaded” (Prov 1:10). Sadly, Ahasuerus and the officials around him thought Memucan’s proposal was a great idea. The king accepted and then acted on the bad advice.

Though we will consider more in-depth application in a moment, I want to note a few observations here. Ahasuerus had been drinking and then made a demeaning demand of his wife. In the progression of events, he went from wanting everyone to see her to never wanting to see her again. In colloquial terms we might ask, “React much?” And in light of his counselors, “Influenced much?” After the decision and the decree, there is no record of his offering or seeking reconciliation, and there is certainly no grace extended to his bride.

So, what happened to Vashti? Fox says she was “made the victim of Xerxes’ instability and the princes’ insecurity” (Character and Ideology, 167). The Bible, however, does not tell us anything else about her story. One is inclined to think, though, of the story of Brer Rabbit. If we strain to listen, we might just hear this plea in a feminine, Persian dialect: “Please don’t throw me into the briar patch!” (Joel Chandler Harris, “Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby”). In other words, she may well have ended up exactly where she preferred to be.

The King’s Dishonorable Decree (1:22)

Fox pulls no punches when he writes,

Xerxes, as we quickly learn, is weak-willed, fickle, and self-centered. He and his advisers are a twittery, silly-headed, cowardly lot who need to hide behind a law to reinforce their status in their homes. (Character and Ideology, 168)

When I was a freshman in high school, our varsity football team won no games. When I was a sophomore, we won two. One day at practice, one of our players complained to our coach that hardly anyone was attending our games. Our coach replied with something I have never forgotten: “Respect is earned, not given.” For Ahasuerus and his boys, though, it seems respect is demanded even where it is not deserved. To his shame the king dispatches his decree in every language in his realm.

After commenting on the decree being disseminated throughout the empire, Duguid asks some thoughtful questions:

What was actually achieved by all this huffing and puffing? Was the social order of Persia really threatened by this one woman’s resistance? Even if it were, can such a principle of male authority in the household really be imposed by governmental decree? Are all men to exercise power in such a self-centered way as Ahasuerus did, and then expect instant obedience? Is every man supposed to banish his wife if she fails to submit to his will? (Esther and Ruth, 12)

Duguid concludes that all the decree demonstrates in every language of the empire is that the one, who in Esther 1:1-10 seemed to possess incredible power, actually lacks “authority in his own household” (ibid.). Whether the decree actually had any impact on the homes in the empire is not recorded. So, will one “more worthy” than Vashti be found to serve as queen? Time will tell.

Lessons Others Have Taught from This Text

In one of the doctoral seminars I taught a few years ago, a young gifted pastor shared a video of one of his sermons. Afterward I allowed the other students to provide feedback. They offered him many positive comments. But when it was my turn to share, I asked the student one question: What was the main point of that biblical text? He could not provide it to me, nor had he proclaimed it in his sermon. I then evaluated what he had shared and pointed out that though he considered a passage of Scripture and had great skills in communication, he had failed to preach the main idea the biblical author was addressing. In God’s grace this student accepted my reproof and has since made it his goal to make sure the main idea of each biblical text is the main idea of his sermon. He also encourages the other pastors he serves with and those he mentors to adopt the same practice.

One of the elders with whom I served in Baton Rouge used to caution those he taught how to study the Bible to be careful about “getting off in the broccoli.” What he meant was that we need to be careful about making side issues main issues or wading off into peripheral issues to the detriment of the primary concern. In my observations of commentaries and sermons on Esther, those preaching through 1:10-22 tend to “get off in the broccoli” with two issues in particular. Issue 1 is the danger of drunkenness that leads to the demeaning of women. Issue 2 is debating whether Vashti or Esther is the better representative of the modern feminist movement. I will address both issues now, but neither should be the main point when you’re preaching through this passage.

The Dangers of Drunkenness and of Demeaning Women

“Do not get drunk” and “Treat women better” are both good advice, but neither statement reflects the main point of 1:10-22. Before you accuse me of being a drunk who affirms disrespecting women, let me say this: while I consider drunkenness and misogyny horrific, neither topic can be identified as the main lesson of the author’s communication. With that being said, I do think Prime asks two good questions about the influence alcohol had on Ahasuerus:

First, would Xerxes have commanded Vashti to be brought before his guests—rather like a piece of furniture—if he had been completely sober? Secondly, if he had been sober, would he have become so angry? (Unspoken Lessons, 33)

Sin often leads to more sin.

As you teach through 1:10-22 then, it would be fine to affirm Paul’s imperative, “Don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless living, but be filled by the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). Ahasuerus’s actions are certainly an illustration of the dangers of alcohol. But if you are planning to use Esther as your focal text and your main point is prohibition rather than providence, then you will have made a side (but important) issue the main issue.

The Better Model for the Feminist Movement

When studying Esther, I was surprised to find so much discussion about whether Vashti or Esther served the cause of feminine advancement in a more helpful way. For instance, some contend that “Vashti is a counterpart of Esther. Vashti’s recalcitrance contrasts with Esther’s docility” and that “Esther is contraposed to Vashti not only in her initial obedience and ductility but also in the subtlety of her later efforts to sway the king to her will” (Fox, Character and Ideology,169). Some writers like Vashti’s brashness and refusal to play by the rules of the boys in the boardroom. But Esther’s approaching the king while seated on his throne would require no less courage than Vashti’s refusal to do so.

With regard to standing up for causes, it should be noted that Vashti’s decision was about herself and resulted in her being banned from further influence, while Esther’s advocacy was about more than herself and she maintained a position of influence. More could be said here, but neither time nor space permits. Just remember, the modern feminist movement was not the original author’s concern, nor should it be the main focus of a sermon.

What Can We Learn about God?

God Will Use Ahasuerus’s Wretchedness and Vashti’s Rebellion to Achieve Esther’s Reign

The psalmist declares, “The Lord is a great God, a great King above all gods” (Ps 95:3). In Psalms we are also told to “say among the nations: ‘The Lord reigns’” (Ps 96:10). Why would we be instructed to say this in every nation? Have all voted for God to reign? Have their legislative bodies passed bills affirming God’s leadership? Of course not, but God is sovereign regardless and does not rule over just a small group of earnest believers.

One of the great mysteries is how someone can do evil toward another, and yet God can simultaneously work whatever it is for the good of his providential plan. One of the clearest examples of this is found in the actions of Joseph’s brothers (Gen 37). When Joseph considered what his brothers did and God’s use of their betrayal, he said, “You planned evil against me; God planned it for good to bring about the present result—the survival of many people” (Gen 50:20). God did not put an evil plan into the hearts of Joseph’s brothers, but he used their choices to accomplish his purposes.

In Esther 1:10-22 God uses a series of decisions made by Vashti and Ahasuerus that he neither initiated nor prevented. He did not cause or stop Ahasuerus’s drunkenness, which led to the king’s desire not to honor his wife. God did not cause or stop Ahasuerus’s angry reaction, which led to his seeking bad counsel. God did not cause or stop the king’s decision based on foolish counsel or his disastrous decree. But a drunk king and a defiant queen would be used in the Lord’s definite providence. Neither the good nor the bad actions of pagans prevent God from accomplishing his plan.

What seemed insignificant for the Jews—a pagan party, a marital spat between two Persian royals, and a decision to replace the queen—actually had a lot of significance for God’s people. Before we are even aware there is a problem, then, God’s providence is already at work. If Haman had risen to power without Esther’s being in place, it could have been disastrous for God’s people. But the Lord oversaw Ahasuerus’s drunkenness and Vashti’s defiance without violating their wills or wants and used all of it to accomplish what he wanted.

God Is Offended and Greatly Transgressed by Disobedience

God has every right to be offended by our disobedience, and he is more transgressed than we will ever be. Ahasuerus’s pride was wounded by Vashti’s refusal to come to his feast, and his anger was kindled. There is no record of him seeking to find out if something was wrong with her; there’s just a revealing of his wrath. He was embarrassed, offended, and indignant. Memucan’s declaration that Vashti’s rebellion was not just against the emperor but the entire empire did not aid the cause of reconciliation but of reckoning. It implied, This needs to be made right!

Fortunately, when people sin against us, we do not react anything like Ahasuerus or Memucan, right? We are never prone to want vengeance, are we? When someone posts something on social media about us that is false or negative, we are never inclined to respond in the same manner, are we? Interestingly, Ahasuerus got all bent out of shape, but his command for Vashti was not with holy intentions, nor was her refusal a sin.

As noted earlier, there is no documented offer of reconciliation from the king toward his queen. Forgiveness was certainly not in the proposal from the group of “wise men.” But we are nothing like Ahasuerus, right? We quickly, totally, and lavishly forgive those who do wrong against us, right? We never hold a grudge or keep a record of wrongs, do we?

With regard to sin, no one is more offended, more transgressed, and more grieved than God. Every sin is a rejection of his reign and an assertion of ours. Every sin is a choice to disbelieve and disobey the good words of our good King. He has every right to be offended and to enact swift justice. The Lord, however, is “a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in faithful love and truth” (Exod 34:6). He also forgives iniquity (Exod 34:7). When we refuse to forgive fully and freely, we are not imaging God faithfully.

God Grants Us More Grace Than Ahasuerus Granted Vashti

For one rejection of Ahasuerus’s authority, Vashti was banished from his presence forever, but God atones for our sin and brings us into his presence. James informs us that “whoever keeps the entire law, and yet stumbles at one point, is guilty of breaking it all” (Jas 2:10). One transgression against God’s good precepts is the same as if we have rebelled against the sum of them. Paul lets us know that we are all guilty of this: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). For choosing just one sin, we deserve the full brunt of holy, eternal wrath. If you disagree and think this sounds too drastic, then you have a diminished and insufficient view both of your sin and of God’s holiness. For one refusal to obey his command, God could punish us forever. And in doing so, he would still be right and good and holy.

I, however, am not guilty of breaking just one of God’s commands one time in my life. I consider it a good start to the day if I have not chosen sin before my feet hit the floor each morning (because temptations like selfishness and slothfulness start nagging as soon as I wake). Yet, despite my sins being too numerous to count, God has chosen to enact reconciliation and not ruin (2 Cor 5:18-21). He says to his people, “Though your sins are scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are crimson red, they will be like wool” (Isa 1:18). Indeed, even when it seems certain God will reject his people because of their rebellion, he chooses to make atonement for them rather than abandon them (Ezek 16:62). The gospel truly is the best news for the worst people.

One of the ways I think we image God best is when we run toward sinners and not away from them. For those in our faith families, there is no greater balm than when we seek to offer restoration rather than condemnation. Ahasuerus wanted nothing more to do with Vashti because she transgressed his command. I am thankful God was willing to overcome all of our rebellion in order to bring us into right relationship with him. The sweetest prize of the gospel is not that we get heaven but that we get God. He wanted us even when we did not want him. He sought us even when we were not seeking him.

What Can We Learn about Ourselves?

Without God’s Grace and Intervention, We Are All like Ahasuerus

Throwing figurative rocks at Ahasuerus for his sin and condemning his actions can be easy, but if it were not for Christ, we too would continue in sinful and destructive actions. Without Christ’s setting us free from slavery to the flesh, the world, and the devil, we would be “slaves to impurity, and to greater and greater lawlessness” (Rom 6:19). Ahasuerus went from one bad decision to another in our text. Even in our sanctification, sin that we do not mortify does not dissipate but escalates. We cannot feed our flesh and our faith simultaneously. Every time we choose faith over flesh, it is evidence of the Lord’s grace at work in our lives.

Like Ahasuerus, we are tempted to use people for how they can benefit us without regard for their good. The king wanted to display Vashti at his feast but for his benefit rather than hers. Do we ever use people for our agendas and advancement but have no regard for their gain? Only Christ helps us see the value in others and empowers us to seek to serve them rather than just using them in our service.

When Accountability Is Absent, Rebellion Prevails over Repentance

When true voices of accountability are absent in our lives, rebellion tends to be more present than repentance. In the text Ahasuerus did not display any indicators of repentance or even regret for any of his selfish actions toward Vashti. Perhaps one reason for his lack of contrition is that those with whom he surrounded himself only pointed out how he had been wronged rather than how he was wrong. We need people in our lives who encourage us to obedience rather than disobedience. Of course, rules we make up are a lot easier to follow than the rules God has given to us. This is why we need those who will share with us not just what we may want to hear but what we need to hear from God’s Word.

I have an accountability partner with whom I try to meet each week. We both seek to keep our friendship a priority because we both need a brother in Christ who exhorts us to forsake sin rather than to be comfortable with it. Every time I travel to minister somewhere, he texts me and informs me of his prayers on my behalf and exhorts me to choose Christ rather than sin. In our meetings each week, we ask each other pointed questions with regard to putting on Christ and putting off sin. We strive to help each other put away anything that pulls us away from Jesus. Were it not for the Holy Spirit using his Word in my life and his using my family’s and faith family’s encouragements toward holiness, I too would be guilty of more rebellion than repentance.

When Boasting, We Should Not Be Surprised if God Humbles Us

How many have heard but refuse to heed this wise counsel: “Pride comes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall” (Prov 16:18)? In seeking to declare and display his power and possessions, Ahasuerus had no clue that by the end of his feasts, his power would be diminished. He is also an illustration of the fact that those who demand honor and those who deserve honor are not always the same. The king wanted to be honored, but instead he was humbled—not just in his palace but in every province.

It may not always seem to be so, but every humbling the Lord brings to our lives is ultimately a grace. His reminders that only his kingdom will not be shaken discourage us from trying to build our own. His reminder that he has seated Christ above every title given to man, “not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph 1:21), frees us to live for his name rather than ours. It truly is a grace to be brought to the same conviction as Paul to “never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal 6:14). If we are overly concerned with being honored rather than giving him honor, we may miss that God “leads the humble in what is right and teaches them his way” (Ps 25:9).

What Can We Learn about Christ?

Jesus’s Power Is Absolute

With Ahasuerus there was more pomp than true power, but Christ’s power is absolute. At the beginning of Esther 1, we are led to think Ahasuerus is all powerful, but by the end of the chapter, we are shown that he does not even have all the power in his own house. In the Gospels, however, we see the wind and waves obey Christ’s voice (Mark 4:39), we see demons and disease obey his commands (Mark 5:13, 29), and even death must yield to him (Mark 5:42). We also see that those who have “authority” over Jesus, like Pilate (John 19:10-11), only have it because he allows it. In the case of Ahasuerus, absolute power is a farce. With Jesus absolute power is a fact!

Jesus’s Constant Motivation Is God’s Glory and Our Good

It can be scary when a leader possesses a lot of power but lacks holiness. Ahasuerus made decisions from improper motives and impaired judgment. Jobes notes, “The Persian court was not a safe place because Xerxes held great power, and he wielded it unpredictably” (Esther, 69). In addressing Esther 1:9-12, she goes on to say,

When such absolute power is combined with decadence and ruthlessness, no one is safe. This scene, which shows the dangers of living under Xerxes’ power in the Persian empire, provides a backdrop for the major conflict of the story when the power of the Persian empire will be turned against the Jewish people. (Ibid.)

Ahasuerus was fickle and untrustworthy with power; Jesus, conversely, is not. Jesus does not make decisions on a whim but according to his wisdom. All of Christ’s decisions are rooted in his faithfulness and are not just for our good but for our best. His judgment is never impaired, and his motives are never improper.

Jesus Is Sacrificial

As a king Ahasuerus was selfish. As our King, Christ is sacrificial. There is no doubt Christ has all authority, yet he does not lord it over everyone like a baby having a tantrum. John records that on Jesus’s final night with his disciples before his crucifixion,

he got up from supper, laid aside his outer clothing, took a towel, and tied it around himself. Next, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel tied around him. (John 13:4-5)

The one who had all the power in the room (and in the universe) was serving.

As a husband Ahasuerus was selfish. As the church’s groom Christ is sacrificial. He does not seek to use us to our detriment and his benefit. In fact, our good actually required his detriment or, more specifically, his death. But Paul proclaims, “Christ loved the church and gave himself for her” (Eph 5:25). Likewise his sacrificial love is meant to be evident in and through us. And with regard to our homes, Duguid contends, “If Christian husbands were more like Christ and less like Ahasuerus, then perhaps we would find our wives more ready to submit to our leadership” (Esther & Ruth, 16).

Jesus Deserves All the Glory for Our Beauty

The gospel is not that if we do enough good things then maybe we will get Christ’s attention and earn his affection. No, that is not the gospel at all, but unfortunately many believe it is. The gospel is that even when we were in our worst state, Christ set his affections on us and took action for us.

Those who are in Christ have been made beautiful, but we did not start that way. Out of concern that they would forget who they were before Christ’s work in their lives, Paul reminds the Ephesians they (like all other Christians) “were dead in [their] trespasses and sins” and “were by nature children under wrath” (Eph 2:1, 3). We who have repented and believed, though, have not just been informed by Christ’s love but transformed by it. He has made us holy, and he has cleansed us “with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless” (Eph 5:26-27). Ahasuerus gets no credit for Vashti’s beauty, but Christ deserves all glory for ours.

Jesus Deserves Honor

Much has been shared already about Ahasuerus’s desire and demand to be honored, so I will not say anything further in this discussion about him. Christ, however, deserves all honor, and one day it will be declared in heaven and on earth. Consider now, as a close to this section, the sights and sounds John was allowed to see. He writes,

Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels around the throne, and also of the living creatures and of the elders. Their number was countless thousands, plus thousands of thousands. They said with a loud voice,

Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered

to receive power and riches

and wisdom and strength

and honor and glory and blessing!

I heard every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth, on the sea, and everything in them say,

Blessing and honor and glory and power

be to the one seated on the throne,

and to the Lamb, forever and ever!

The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped. (Rev 5:11-14)

The worship in Revelation 5 is not forced but fueled by who Jesus is and what he has done. He is worthy of eternal praise.

Reflect and Discuss

1. Why does sin tend to lead to more sin in our lives? Why is Christ our only hope of stopping this toxic decline?
2. Ahasuerus wanted to show off Vashti for his benefit rather than hers. In what ways do we use people for our good rather than theirs? How can we avoid using others to their detriment and to our benefit, and why should we?
3. Why do we need godly counselors in our lives who steadily push us to the Word? Who serves you in this way?
4. Why can we be slow to admit our sin and to seek reconciliation with those we wound?
5. Why are we sometimes slow to initiate reconciliation with those who have wounded us but are not seeking our forgiveness? How does initiating reconciliation instead of waiting for people to seek forgiveness image God?
6. We do not know that Ahasuerus ever felt regret about his decision with Vashti. If you could change one decision for the sake of the kingdom, what would it be?
7. God used Ahasuerus’s wretchedness and Vashti’s rebellion to open the door for Esther’s future reign. What does this tell you about his sovereignty and providence?
8. Ahasuerus could not be trusted with absolute power. Why, however, can Christ be trusted with all authority? In what ways is this comforting?
9. Though our political leaders may not make every decision from pure motives or with our good in mind, we know that Christ always does. How should we respond to this truth, especially if a decision Christ makes brings difficulty and grief into our lives?
10. In what ways are you seeking to honor Christ instead of being honored?