Esther 1:13-22, Husbands Living Like Princes

This is an interesting passage and story, of course.  The historical setting of Esther’s rise to the position as Queen is set in the choice of her predecessor, Vashti, refusing the request of the King.  The motivation of the King and his goal is that each man should be master in his own house (1:22).  What does this mean?

I remember hearing Billy Graham preach on this story and relate it to the thought that the king requested the queen to come and show herself in an immoral way, as if she wore nothing but her crown.  If that is the case then the king would be desiring that men should be able to rule their wives in the sense of Gen. 3:16 where I believe “rule” (a different word than in Esther 1:22) is part of the curse on the woman.  I loved Billy Graham as a man of God and great evangelist.  But I’m not sure this is what’s going on.

The other sense would be that Vashti defied her husband and the king was concerned that this would lead to family difficulties all across his kingdom.  It is no surprise that even a king in a pagan nation would be concerned about this.  One does not need the Bible to know that the family is a foundational building block for society and that husbands and wives must live in harmony.  Certainly the king’s method of handling this was sinful.  He divorced Vashti and took a new queen after what was an immoral beauty contest.  The story is not easy in the sense of being “all good” or “all bad”.  It’s the way things go in a society that is not submitted to the law of the one true God. 

What caught my attention was a word study of “master” in 1:22. The use of the English word master may indicate the translators were thinking of this in a harsh sense, the sense of Gen. 3:16.  The term is a primitive root, only used a few times in the OT. 

The first use (and quite often the first use of a word in the Hebrew OT is critical) is in Num. 16:13.  There, those who rebelled against Moses’ leadership used it of him in the negative, harsh sense: Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you should keep acting like a prince over us?  The literal meaning of the term is “to rule as a prince, to rule over, to govern.”  They accused Moses of excessive “lordship” if you will.  But in the end, God affirmed Moses and his leadership.  Moses was leading as God intended and was not excessive.  We can say that the rebels were acting like many do in our day when you speak of the leadership of a husband in his home.  That whole thought is excessive to many.  But not to God who see it as essential to the qualities that make a man fit to lead in the Church (1 Tim. 3:4,12).

Prov. 8:16 uses the term in saying that by wisdom, princes rule.  There you can see that there can be such a thing as excessive ruling by a prince (or husband) but that the term, in and of itself, is not meant to convey that sense.  Princes are supposed to rule; it is a blessing to the people if he rules with wisdom.  Likewise, husbands are to rule.  What a blessing if he rules with wisdom.

Lastly the term is used in Isaiah 32:1 in the context of the Messianic Kingdom where a King will reign and “princes will rule.”  Here it must be a righteous and wise rule because it is under the authority and blessing of the Messiah.

What we can say from all this is that a man should see himself as a “prince” in his home, and his wife and children should honor him accordingly.  That is not a bad thing.  That does not have to be prideful.  If you struggle with this it might just be because we live in a society where husbands who lead are automatically termed “abusive” and that women who follow their leadership are weak.  Society still rests on the stability of the family and we still must have men who will lead like wise princes.