• In my last email, I was concerned about Mordecai’s refusal to submit to authority and argued that if he had only done so, the tension in Esther might have been averted.  With new lenses, this act becomes a statement of resistance, and Mordecai becomes a character of great courage.
• Previously I argued that Esther and Mordecai orchestrated the use of excessive force and went far beyond what was necessary to survive.  With new lenses, I remember that they were members of a people who were in danger of genocide.  Was survival enough?  Or would that simply allow for another strike on another day?  Perhaps their use of excessive force was a deterrent from further aggression from their enemies.  In this sense, they struck so hard that the enemy would think twice before coming after them again.  While this is still problematic in some ways, I can certainly see the logic behind such a move.
• I also argued that Esther was opportunistic when the king accused Haman of assault.  If I were in Esther’s place, though; if I had gone through such danger in the past few days; if I was meeting the archenemy of my people, would I see God’s providence in the king’s misunderstanding of the situation.  Could this be God’s way of delivering Haman to the chopping block?  I can certainly see how I might think so.

In the end, I think that we can still argue for moral ambiguity, but we must do so with sympathy for the protagonists of the story.  Only in reading Esther in this way can we identify with the intended audience, and only in this way can we understand the ambiguity of the situation that led to ambiguous actions.  Switching the lenses proves to be a necessary exercise.