Many scholars today believe that the book of Esther was written as a play, not history. There are several reasons why this makes sense, but we will not focus on those here. While the Protestant canon places Esther alongside historical books like Ezra and Nehemiah, the Hebrew Bible Canon places the book alongside Wisdom literature. It is also worth noting that there are several known versions of the Book of Esther, each with notable differences. For instance, preachers have often pointed out that the book of Esther is a book of the Bible that does not mention God at all; God is an invisible hand writing the story. However, in some of the other versions, God is explicitly invoked in the story.

Furthermore, Esther and the Song of Solomon are books that were hotly contested during the process of establishing the Hebrew Bible canon. One apparent reason is that these books are rather sexual, and some of the deciding powers did not think that sex and spirituality walk together. In the case of Esther, there might have been another reason people resisted its canonization: the story is about heroines, not a hero.

That’s right. I think there are two heroines in the book of Esther, though we have often focused on one and maligned the other. The Jewish girl, Esther, certainly deserves the praises that have been accorded her since the book was written. She risked her life by approaching the Persian king unbidded:

Esther 4:11 ESV
[11] “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that if any man or woman goes to the king inside the inner court without being called, there is but one law—to be put to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter so that he may live. But as for me, I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days.”

This was probably an imperial law enacted to protect the king from ambitious individuals in the kingdom who might attempt to assassinate him in his chambers. Nevertheless, Esther prioritizes the possibility of her people’s survival over her own death. Besides, a Persian law was likely not the only kind she broke. Esther likely broke Yahweh’s law by marrying a Persian, contrary to the common practice of endogamy in the Israelite community. Ultimately, she successfully rescued her people. In commemorating her bravery, the Jewish festival of Purim was instituted.

The first heroine in the story is Queen Vashti. Esther would not have been able to save her people had Vashti not made the choice she made. Since the church had typically maligned Vashti, let us zero in on her decision.

The book of Esther opens with a description of the majesty of the Persian empire, spanning from Ethiopia to India. That is roughly equivalent to the combined modern-day United States and India. In his third year of reigning, the king threw two parties. The first was for “The army of Persia and Media and the nobles and governors of the provinces were before him, [4] while he showed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his greatness for many days, 180 days.” (Esther 1:3-4 ESV). Of course, there was much fine wine, the drink of the gods, available. When the 6-month-long party was over, the king decided to throw another party:

Esther 1:5 ESV
And when these days were completed, the king gave for all the people present in Susa the citadel, both great and small, a feast lasting for seven days in the court of the garden of the king’s palace.

On the seventh day, the king had one more thing to show off. He thought it a good idea to have his queen entertain the drunk people present with her beauty. He was grossly mistaken. It turned out that Vashti seemed to have had a much higher value placed on herself and refused to be priced cheaply. She would not be another item in the possession of the king to be shown off to whoever cared. So, though the king summoned her, Vashti refused.

As one might expect from men who see women as tools and possessions, the king was enraged. The story then further reveals just how terribly the palace men viewed their wives. When the king sought counsel from his inner circle of men, they gave the following advice:

Esther 1:16-17, 19 ESV
[16] Then Memucan said in the presence of the king and the officials, “Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. [17] For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’
[19] If it please the king, let a royal order go out from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be repealed, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus. And let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she.

For these men, the dignity of the woman did not seem to matter. What mattered was that she refused to do the king’s demeaning request. The men also claimed that all the wives in the kingdom would be encouraged by Vashti’s behavior. This suggests that women in that empire were not treated as people whose thoughts and dignity mattered. Finally, the men recommended that Vashti’s royal position be given to someone else. This began a process that eventually led to Hadassah.

Generations of churchgoers have been taught that Vashti deserved the punishment. Two common related reasons often given are that she likely broke a law by refusing the king’s command and that a king’s command is as good as law.  Both of these ideas are problematic.

First, the text does not say Vashti broke any law. On the contrary, in one of many ironies in the story, it was Vashti’s replacement who willingly broke a law by approaching the king unbidden (Esther 4:16). Second, the story introduces editorial notes for clarity in 1:13, “for this was the king’s procedure toward all who were versed in law and judgment”.  If there was a rule Vashti was breaking, we should expect the narrator to clear up the matter in a similar manner. Third, to punish Vashti, as quoted earlier, a new “royal order” which would not be repealed was to be issued “among the laws of the Persians and Medes” (1:19). This clearly implies that there were no extant laws that Vashti broke. That is why a new law had to be enacted.

The second idea also has its problems. It is true that a king’s wishes were as good as law, but this does not mean that such a wish must always be carried out. This is especially the case in unethical situations. Churches celebrate the women in Moses’ life – his mother, Egyptian midwives, and Pharaoh’s daughter – who defied Pharaoh’s command to kill Hebrew boy infants. These are similar situations involving women finding reasons to disobey kings. Also, some ancient sources speculate that king Xerxes’ command might have been unethical. For instance, the Targum, an Aramaic commentary on the Hebrew Bible, stresses how the king instructs Vashti to appear “with her royal crown” (1:11) and concludes that Vashti was expected to appear naked. We may never know her reasons, but the story does not portray her as breaking a law.

Another irony in the story is that, whereas Vashti was despised for not carrying out the king’s wishes, it was the king who carried out the wishes of Vashti’s replacement:

Esther 7:2 ESV
And on the second day, as they were drinking wine after the feast, the king again said to Esther, “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.”

Well, the wish was granted when Haman was hanged on the gallows he had designed for Mordecai, another irony in the story.

Vashti stands in a long list of maligned and maltreated women in the Bible. There was nothing wrong about choosing not to be exhibited like an animal in the zoo. Yes, Esther deserves her praises. But make no mistake, had Vashti not been a woman of dignity, Esther and her people might very well have perished.