So Far In This Series, we have not had cause to think highly of the Persian attitude towards women. It is worth briefly recapping the facts. First there was Ahasuerus’ drunken desire to parade his wife before his cronies for their entertainment. In this scene the king treats her like a trophy bride, an object for others to ogle in order to exalt him. Because of her refusal to comply, a decree is made, the effect of which is to compel all wives throughout the realm to properly honour and obey their husbands, as Vashti so clearly had not (!). We shall need to return to this decree shortly. In another scene, even the king’s own wife is not sufficiently close a companion to him to be allowed to enter his presence unbidden — this scarcely seems an articulation of the ‘help meet’ that God originally intended! One would have thought that his own immediate family members, especially his wife, would be allowed at least this degree of intimacy, but apparently not. Esther’s fear for her life, as she contemplates entering into the king’s presence, shows that previous wives of Persian kings must have met their end by precisely such an attempt to company with their husbands. It is an unfortunate picture of male authoritarianism.
A third scene, this time from chapter two, illustrates further the king’s perception of women as objects, as it describes his ‘house of concubines’ and the laborious selection process to choose a new wife. Night after night the king tries out successive women until at last he finds one deemed worthy of him. There is no word about what they might want: it is only his will that counts.
King’s attitude seen today
It might justly be claimed that each of these three tableaux shows how Ahasuerus in particular (rather than Persians in general) treat their wives. Nevertheless, the decree of chapter 1 is clearly intent on rolling out the king’s own attitudes across the Empire to his subjects beneath him Besides, there is a further picture of a Persian marriage in the book of Esther, yet to be discussed, which describes an equally unfortunate model.
Despite all its posturing about equality and the exploitation of women, modern society manages to look all too Persian in its frequent treatment of women as sex objects and in the male chauvinism which still persists (sometimes even in the Brotherhood). A review of a recent film about Thailand in the UK’s Financial Times newspaper commented on the film’s repeated ‘tut Ming’ about Western exploitation of Thai women, while simultaneously peppering the film with scantily-clad Thai girls! Such hypocrisy is all too easily achieved, both in the life of the individual as well as in society at large.
The theme in Esther
It emerges that gender and the relationships between the sexes constitute an unexpected theme of the book of Esther. There are positive examples, too, in which women use their own ‘power’ for good (next month). For now I want to focus on two more negative items: the decree which affects all women in the Empire in chapter one, and the marriage of Haman in chapters five and six.
It is worth quoting some of the precise phraseology used in chapter one’s decree:
Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus…so that women shall despise their husbands… likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king’s princes… thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath…and when the king’s decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire (for it is great), all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small… that every man should bear rule in his own house… (1:16-22).
The decree provides the king’s princes with a means of extending their control over society, and in particular over women (as if they didn’t have enough power already!). For it transpires that Ahasuerus’ inability to resolve his domestic disagreements is mirrored in other households also. Even males in the highest echelons of Persian society find themselves cowards at home, and any device by which this unpleasant state of affairs might be overturned must be worth their pursuit.
Male insecurity widespread
There are a number of points to note. First, Vashti’s behaviour towards her particular husband is taken by the princes as the queen’s statement about men in general, and as an attempt to set a new model for gender relations. Yet the text nowhere hints that this is indeed Vashti’s agenda. Second, failure to do as one’s husband wishes is read by the princes as a despising of the man and a holding of him in contempt. But what if the man wants something which is bad, as could well have been the case in this instance? This would indeed create a dilemma, each case constituting a matter of conscience for a woman (a duty of submission to the husband on one hand, but also the need to consider the principle of obeying God rather than man). Of course, the Persian males advising the king are careful not to entertain this possibility that the husband might want something which should not be; for them males are always and intrinsically right. Third, for all their power, the seven princes of Ahasuerus (and probably the king as well) are basically insecure. The disobedience of their wives is something they fear; they see it as a real possibility that their wives might despise them. And therefore they are prepared to do all within their power to ensure such a scenario does not materialise, for they would not be able to deal with it if it did.
This is no way to build a marriage. Compelled obedience, especially when the compulsion is to do something wrong, and when it arises from fear of losing control, is worse than worthless in this context. It is shameful. Marital harmony and the scriptural principle of the headship of the male ought to be built upon and arise out of Biblical precedent and the Christ-like example of the male, not demanded as an intrinsic right of maleness. Headship in the modern disciple’s home should be exercised with a Godly fear, with a full awareness of the huge responsibility it entails and the perils of mis-rule. The husband-disciple should lead from within the family, not by towering above it. It is the husband’s spiritual qualities and Christ-like way which should command, not some authoritarian approach.
Right leadership and honor
The passage is particularly thought-provoking because it echoes and anticipates language used elsewhere in the scriptures to describe husband/ wife relations. Esther 1:22 speaks of males ‘bearing rule’ in their houses, and the concept of the male ‘ruling’ is found initially in Genesis 3:16 and expounded by Paul in the New Testament. But it is too simplistic to take this as a condoning of the kind of rulership for which the Persians seek. For them, ruling is by dictate; it is about the husband’s will towering over the wife’s rather than the companionship and the leadership from within the family spoken of elsewhere in the Bible.
The other Scriptural echo is, in fact, an inversion. From the Persian point of view, wives should give their husbands honour. Yet in the epistles of Peter, it is the husband who should give honour unto the wife ‘as unto the weaker vessel’ (I Peter 3:7). Of course, there should be a mutual respect and honouring, but from Peter’s point of view, it is a particular responsibility of the husband to give honour to the wife, just as it is the wife’s responsibility to submit to her husband.
Haman self-centered with Zeresh
Moving on from the decree of chapter 1, another snapshot of Persian sexual politics can be seen through turning to Haman, the arch-enemy of the book, and asking the question: What sort of a marriage did Haman have? It is not a question which is normally asked, nor do the Scriptures highlight the relationship of Haman and Zeresh as a major focal point. Nevertheless, the two scenes that we do have of them together are highly illuminating.
And when Haman came home, he sent and called for his friends, and Zeresh his wife. And Haman told them of the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and all the things wherein the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king. Haman said moreover, Yea, Esther the queen did let no man come in with the king unto the banquet that she had prepared but myself,• and to morrow am I invited unto her also with the king. Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate. Then said Zeresh his wife and all his friends unto him, Let a gallows be made of fifty cubits high, and to morrow speak thou unto the king that Mordecai may be hanged thereon; then go thou in merrily with the king unto the banquet. And the thing pleased Haman; and he caused the gallows to be made (5:10-14).
Haman is feeling proud. He has just attended Esther’s exclusive banquet (his delight in this at the end of the passage is like a small child who has been picked for the school team when his classmates haven’t!), and it is not long since he has been promoted to the position of Grand Vizier of the Persian Empire. So what does he do? He gathers his wife and friends and proceeds to boast to them.
Perhaps they were used to this kind of treatment, to the role of sounding board for Haman’s ego. His self-centredness is total; he has completely lost himself within it. His relationship with his wife (from this scene at least) is only about him. How pathetic he is as he tells them of ‘the glory of his riches’ and of ‘all’ the things in which the king had ‘promoted and advanced’ him.
But most amazing of all is his recounting of ‘the multitude of his children’! If there was one thing Haman’s wife would have known for certain it would have been how many children he had! And if his friends were worth anything at all then they would have known it, too.
In his self-absorption, Haman evidently had no better idea about the true centre of a marriage than his princely colleagues had. In this scene his wife and friends humour him and simply listen (or just keep quiet and switch off); no doubt it is in their personal (and probably financial) interest to do so. But what does Haman’s attitude to marriage and to friendship really beget? The answer to that is given in a second scene only a chapter later; in the meantime his fortunes with the king have completely reversed.
But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered. And Haman told Zeresh his wife and all his friends every thing that had befallen him. Then said his wise men and Zeresh his wife unto him, If Mordecai be of the seed of the Jews, before whom thou hast begun to fall, thou shalt not prevail against him, but shalt surely fall before him (6:12-13).
Small comfort now from his friends and family! There is no loyalty towards him now that his luck is out, no words of comfort or advice as to how he might extricate himself from his predicament. And of course Haman has not deserved or merited any loyalty from his wife and friends. How quickly they appear to change sides; how little they care; how readily they read off the omen of what has happened and pronounce his fate. A good marriage and real friendship require the sacrifice of self and a substantial investment of a kind that Haman just didn’t know how to give. Now he must pay the price.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One