Man’s Reason Departs

Husbands and wives could not attend the same banquets in that day. For it was not customary with the Persians, nor other eastern nations, to admit of women to men’s festivals, but they feasted by themselves.
Who Vashti was is not known with any certainty. The Targumist says, she was the daughter of Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Her name seems to be the same with Vesta, a deity worshipped by the Persians, as Xenophon, and signifies vehement fire, which was in great veneration with them; and therefore this queen is most likely to be of Persian original: she kept her feast. Her guests not being so many, there was room enough in the king's palace for them, and where it was more decent for them to be than in the open air in the garden, and exposed to the sight of men.
Of the King’s feast, the last day of it, the Sabbath day. As the feast days advanced, the drinking was more freely indulged in, so that the close was usually marked by great excesses of revelry.
He commanded when he was intoxicated with it, and knew not well what he said or did; and the discourse at table ran upon the beauty of women, as the latter Targum; when the king asserted there were no women as beautiful as those of Babylon were, and, as a proof of it, ordered his queen to be brought in.
Seven chamberlains or "eunuchs", as the word is sometimes rendered; and such persons were made use of in the eastern countries to, wait upon women, and so were proper to be sent on the king's errand to the queen.
These were the eunuchs who had charge of the royal harem. The refusal of Vashti to obey an order which required her to make an indecent exposure of herself before a company of drunken revelers was becoming both the modesty of her sex and her rank as queen; for, according to Persian customs, the queen, even more than the wives of other men, was secluded from the public gaze. Had not the king's blood been heated with wine, or his reason overpowered by force of offended pride, he would have perceived that his own honor, as well as hers, was consulted by her dignified conduct.
1. He dishonored himself as a husband, who ought to protect, but by no means expose, the modesty of his wife, who ought to be to her a covering of the eyes (Gen. 20:16), not to uncover them.
2. He diminished himself as a king, in commanding that from his wife which she might refuse, much to the honor of her virtue. It was against the custom of the Persians for the women to appear in public, and he put a great hardship upon her when he did not court, but command her to do so uncouth a thing, and make her a show.
3. If he had not been put out of the possession of himself by drinking to excess, he would not have done such a thing, but would have been angry at any one that should have mentioned it. When the wine is in the wit is out, and men’s reason departs from them.
Being favored in this refusal by the law of Persia, which was to keep men’s wives, and especially queens, from the view of other men. Josephus says sent again and again, yet she persisted in her denial. Had she come, while it was evident that she did it in pure obedience, it would have been no reflection upon her modesty, nor a bad example. The thing was not in itself sinful.
Even though the king sent by Chamberlains again, as the Targum; and so says Josephus; which might not purely arise from pride in her, and contempt of him. But because she might conclude he was drunk, and knew not well what he did; and therefore had she come at his command, when he was himself and sober. He might blame her for coming, use her ill for it, and especially if she was to come naked, as say the Jews. Besides, it was contrary to the law of the Persians, as not only Josephus, but also Plutarch observes, which suffered not women to be seen in public. And particularly did not allow their wives to be with them at feasts, only their concubines and harlots, with whom they could behave with more indecency. As for their wives, they were kept out of sight, at home; and therefore Vashti might think it an indignity to be treated as a harlot or concubine.
He that had ruled over 127 provinces had no rule over his own spirit, but his anger burned in him. He would have consulted his own comfort and credit more if he had stifled his resentment, had passed by the affront his wife gave him, and turned it off with a jest.
Astrologers, that knew the fit time for doing anything; or that had knowledge of ancient times, historians, well read in history, and knew things that had happened similar to this.
These were probably the magi, without whose advice as to the proper time of doing a thing the Persian kings never did take any step whatever; and the persons named in were the "seven counselors" who formed the state ministry. The combined wisdom of all, it seems, was enlisted to consult with the king what course should be taken after so unprecedented an occurrence as Vashti's disobedience of the royal summons. It is scarcely possible for us to imagine the astonishment produced by such a refusal in a country and a court where the will of the sovereign was absolute. The assembled grandees were petrified with horror at the daring affront. Alarm for the consequences that might ensue to each of them in his own household next seized on their minds; and the sounds of bacchanalian revelry were hushed into deep and anxious consultation what punishment to inflict on the refractory queen. But a purpose was to be served by the flattery of the king and the enslavement of all women. The counselors were too intoxicated or obsequious to oppose the courtly advice of Memucan was unanimously resolved, with a wise regard to the public interests of the nation that the punishment of Vashti could be nothing short of degradation from her royal dignity. The doom was accordingly pronounced and made known in all parts of the empire. Josephus says that, on the contrary, he had a strong affection for Vashti, and would not have put her away for this offence if he could legally have passed it by; and then we must suppose Memucan, in his advice, to have had a sincere regard to justice and the public good. by setting a bad example to their wives, as after explained; it is an exaggeration of her crime, and made with a design to incense the king the more against her.
Other wife’s would make light of their authority, refuse subjection to them, slight their commands, and neglect to yield obedience to them, and so not give them the honor that is due unto them. They did not want the other women to not obey their husbands. This was a case of ‘male control’!
On recovering from the violent excitement of his revelry and rage, the king was pierced with emotional regret for the unmerited treatment he had given to his beautiful and dignified queen. But, according to the law, which made the word of a Persian king irrevocable, she could not be restored to being queen.
Whether it was the passion or the policy of the king that was served by this edict, G-d’s providence served its own purpose by it, which was to make way for Hadassah to the crown