Providence Through Women Series

Paul Aurandt tells this fascinating true story that deals with the

paradox of positive rebellion. In April of 1847 it looked as if Mexico

was ready to make peace with the United States. President James

Polk chose Nicholas Trist to go as a peace commissioner. On his

way Trist spoke to reporters and told them too much. President

Polk was upset, and sent a letter to Trist telling him to return. Trist

read the letter and responded by saying he did not want to return.

The President was infuriated, and blasted Trist, but he could not

stop his negotiations with the Mexicans. Today, of course, this could

never happen with our speedy communications, but in 1848 it was a

different story. Trist, with no authority to do so, signed a treaty

with the Mexicans, and brought it back to the U. S. He was

immediately banished from government, and his salary was cut off,

and he was forced to go to work for a railroad to feed his family.

The president and congress accepted the treaty he signed,

however, for it was too good to refuse. It gave the U. S. what is now

all of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, and part of

Wyoming, and Colorado. Not a bad deal for a guy who was actually

fired, and not suppose to even be on the job. It cost him dearly, but

his rebellion gained for the rest of us a large portion of our nation.

You just never know what blessings are going to come out of

what seems to be so negative. Vashti provides us with another

example of this in the first chapter of Esther. She rebels against the

order of her husband, the king of Persia, the most powerful man on

the planet. It cost her dearly to refuse him and rebel, but it was a

major step on the road to Israel's being saved as a nation. If she had

not rebelled and lost her place as queen, and likely even her life,

there would be no way for Esther to come to the throne, where she

was the key to her people's deliverance.

Here is a pagan Persian Queen making a drastic decision that will

change the course of history for God's people. She, of course, does

not even know that she is doing it. Her action has nothing to do with

anyone but herself. The question is, why did she do it? The context

makes it quite clear that she was a victim of stag party morality.

While she and the ladies were having their banquet in a separate

place, the king and his leaders were really living it up. Nobody was

forced to drink, but verse 10 says the king had his share and was

feeling merry with wine. The banquet was in its seventh day, and

there was only one thing left to do before it ended. They had seen

the glory of all that men can make, but men still loves most of all to

see the glory that only God can make-the glory of a beautiful

woman.

Vashti the Queen was a beauty to behold, and the king was

determined that the climax of his six months and one week of

banqueting would be the marching of his lovely wife before this

hoard of bleary-eyed, drunken, and lustful men. From his

perspective at the time, being full of wine, it sounded like his best

idea ever. He later sobered up and regretted his folly, but by then

the damage had been done.

The most powerful argument for abstaining from alcoholic

beverages is the history of man's fool decisions under its influence.

One of the greatest causes of human sorrow in the world is that the

leaders of the world tend to mix alcohol and government. Prov. 31:4

says, "It is not for kings...to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong

drink lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive

all the oppressed of their rights. Herodotus, the Greek historian

writes much about the Persians, and tells us that it was their custom

to get drunk when they deliberated on weighty matters, but that

they then reexamined their decisions the next day when they were

sober. Xerxes did not follow this rule in our text,and many have failed

to do so throughout history.

Thank God we do not know how many of the decisions that affect

our lives are made by men whose minds are under the control of

booze. What we do know from history is frightening enough. One

example should be enough to see the potential for the kingdom of

darkness. In 1643 Governor Kieft of the New Netherlands had a

drunken party with his council. They decided it was time to teach