Vashti vs. Esther

[None]

Remember how Vashti pretty much went into rebellion with the desire to have "her own" banquet? It caused such an uproar. The picture to me is one of entitlement and rebellion. It caused much dessention in the king's domain....

Where did you get this? Disney movie?

(stop encouraging me, firehill, i'm trying to be good)

(and, you're right, how selfish of her)

Sorry, none.

I thought I was delusional. I read the passage, read this thread, then rubbed my eyes and did it again. I thought I must not be reading the bible and that I was seeing things that weren't really there in the bible. I was like,

Naturally, people will see what they want to see. It's not a bad thing, not all the time. Maybe I can't see something like the message to be submissive to your husband because my particular husband would lead my family and I, if I did "submit" to his pagan ways, into the pit of satan.

Maybe I'm "failing to see the beauty" because I've seen too many submissive women killed by their overbearing husbands.

Maybe it's because I read the history books where 100,000 women were burned at the stake just for being a women, and by whom, by men. Should men really dominate women in this way, or did Jesus come to set women free from that slavery, as well as the men who were captives.

[methinkshe]

Remember how Vashti pretty much went into rebellion with the desire to have "her own" banquet? It caused such an uproar. The picture to me is one of entitlement and rebellion. It caused much dessention in the king's domain....

Where did you get this? Disney movie?

(stop encouraging me, firehill, i'm trying to be good)

(and, you're right, how selfish of her)

Sorry, none.

I thought I was delusional. I read the passage, read this thread, then rubbed my eyes and did it again. I thought I must not be reading the bible and that I was seeing things that weren't really there in the bible. I was like,

Naturally, people will see what they want to see. It's not a bad thing, not all the time. Maybe I can't see something like the message to be submissive to your husband because my particular husband would lead my family and I, if I did "submit" to his pagan ways, into the pit of satan.

Maybe I'm "failing to see the beauty" because I've seen too many submissive women killed by their overbearing husbands.

Maybe it's because I read the history books where 100,000 women were burned at the stake just for being a women, and by whom, by men. Should men really dominate women in this way, or did Jesus come to set women free from that slavery, as well as the men who were captives.

I, too, have an unbelieving husband, and in no way do I submit to anything ungoldy that he suggests. However, where possible, and where there is no direct contravention of God's law, I do allow his authority to pertain. And, guess what, he then has to take the reponsibility when it all goes wrong! Over the years, he's learnt to become a little less keen to oppose me when I offer good reason for not following a particular course, but then defer to his authority. Personally, I find it very convenient to have the God-given right to submit to authority and therefore require my husband to take authority and place on him the responsibility when it all goes wrong. I kinda like that freedom!

Ruth

[sheya joie]

I just don't see from the Bible text that Vashti holding a banquet for the women at the same time that the king held a banquet for the men, is her being in rebellion. What makes you think she hadn't gotten the king's permission to give her banquet?

[None]

I, too, have an unbelieving husband, and in no way do I submit to anything ungoldy that he suggests. However, where possible, and where there is no direct contravention of God's law, I do allow his authority to pertain. And, guess what, he then has to take the reponsibility when it all goes wrong! Over the years, he's learnt to become a little less keen to oppose me when I offer good reason for not following a particular course, but then defer to his authority. Personally, I find it very convenient to have the God-given right to submit to authority and therefore require my husband to take authority and place on him the responsibility when it all goes wrong. I kinda like that freedom!

Ruth

Hi, Ruth.

I would love to, as you say, pass responsibility to my husband, gladly, if it were not still being passed by him onto his parents.

When he's not at their home, he's attached to them by ear.

Should I, then, rest my submission in his parents? No. I don't believe so.

Rather, when I became a part of the Body of Christ, I became Someone else's Bride; my unsaved husband remained bound to another spouse. "No one can serve two masters, either he will love the one and hate the other...", my loyalties are with the only one who will never fail me and I hand over my complete trust to Him daily, otherwise, my husband would have driven me to my grave by now. It's this way for many women married to an unsaved man, you know this. Their is no more law of submission when you're spouse is unsaved. It no longer applies. We can play "pass the buck" if we want, he plays that game better than I do, but we each have our roles in the home, his duties, my duties, he has his side of the house and I have mine. He submits to his weaknesses and I submit to God. My loyalties remain in God.

By the way, many people on these boards keep pointing out that it is Scripturally lawful to obey the laws of the land. The one who married my husband and I never stated in the vows that I was to be obedient to him or he to me. Only faithful to each other, which we both agreed. As far as I know, there is no such law in America that states women are to obey their husbands.

To refuse to "submit" is not a sin. I don't believe in grey areas of sin, only black or white. Either it IS a sin or it is NOT a sin to refuse to submit. Either there IS exemption or their is NOT exemption from submission. There can be no greys in matters of sin.

I treat my own husband with the love and respect(which is why I won't name him publicly) that I expect from him towards me, even when the scales are unbalanced. THAT is the duty God tells me and THAT is the duty I obey.

I just don't see from the Bible text that Vashti holding a banquet for the women at the same time that the king held a banquet for the men, is her being in rebellion. What makes you think she hadn't gotten the king's permission to give her banquet?

I believe it worked out better for the OP's point that way.

Banquets were separate back then.

It makes no sense that the queen would have even had resources to have a banquet for all the women of the palace, did you read how brilliant the king's lavishings were? If her party were nothing like his, why did she not want to leave it and join the better one? It makes sense she had full permission to have her own banquet and I doubt it was lacking in luxuries.

[tsth]

As far as I know, there is no such law in America that states women are to obey their husbands.

To refuse to "submit" is not a sin. I don't believe in grey areas of sin, only black or white. Either it IS a sin or it is NOT a sin to refuse to submit. Either there IS exemption or their is NOT exemption from submission. There can be no greys in matters of sin.

I treat my own husband with the love and respect(which is why I won't name him publicly) that I expect from him towards me, even when the scales are unbalanced. THAT is the duty God tells me and THAT is the duty I obey.

[Ok, it's worth a rabbit-chase.]

Dear none,

You are correct, there is NO "American" law, but there is a "biblical" command to obey your husband, whether he is a believer or not. As I will clearly show you. (Please, do not try and argue with me, over what I am about to post, as these most certainly are NOT my words, so I am not responsible for them. You'll have to contend with the Lord over them, I am merely the messenger to post them)

1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-- 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. 7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Col. 3:18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. 20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. 22 Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God.

This is the order that God implemented clearly through His Word. And methinkshe, is being entirely faithful by submitting to God's Word, to see that what has been said by God will be proved out. I have no doubt that if she continues to do what God says, then her husband WILL indeed be won over to the Lord and His Word through His Word.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[None]

Suzanne,

Those passages are always misused in that way. Why not just go back to Levitical Laws, since you're taking things out of context(culture) like that. Do you not remember the commandments Jesus gave as the ones we needed to obey? Why do you think He kept it so simple? Because His teachings were unbound by the culture in that generation, they were and are timeless. When Paul, Peter and the others were setting up churches back than, they used rules and regulations that fit to that time period. Just as when America made up it's constitution, backed by Biblical values, it's laws applied to our generation's culture.

Here are some rules that were laid down in simplicity, as Jesus did, when the complex ones were "chasing" people away from God:

10)Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples

a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?

11)No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

...

19)"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

20)Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols,

from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

21)For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

...

28)It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

29)You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals

and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

These "rules" were the only ones given here, as you can plainly see.

Three simple rules.

Different, I might add, than "Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself." which was the simplified version Jesus used. In all of Jesus' complex versions of the laws He told us to abide by, I don't ever remember Him telling wives to obey their husbands. In fact, He stated that we are to forsake our families and follow Him, or we are not worthy of Him.

[tsth]

So, if you're going to discount certain NT passages of Scriptures, who gets to decide "which ones" to disregard?

ALL of the passages are inspired and given for our benefit and instruction. There were no wasted Words of God.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[hepatocyte]

The thing is, we'll never know what was going on in Vashti's head. And what's wrong with throwing a banquet for the women of the court?

Symbolism can be tweezed from any story.

[firehill]

Woah, is there lots of confusion going on in this thread.

Hopefuly, we'll have threads opened soon to discuss just those very topics.

For now, keep in mind:

1. The bible never commands a wife to obey her husband. Paul instructs a wife to submit to hers, yes, but that is only part of the story.

[firehill]

The thing is, we'll never know what was going on in Vashti's head. And what's wrong with throwing a banquet for the women of the court?

Symbolism can be tweezed from any story.