Babylon is invoked in the commentary on Esther less as a narrated setting than as a place of exile and a theological metaphor. The author recalls the Jews’ return from the Babylonian captivity while arguing that divine Providence can use human wrongdoing to advance deliverance without excusing the people who act wrongly; he then extends Babylon into the image of a religious community from which believers are called to come out.

Exile and the Return

Babylon enters the discussion through the return from captivity. The author recalls that, after the return from the Babylonian exile, Israelites had taken foreign wives and had children with them. In his account, the Book of Ezra shows that those marriages were treated as sinful by people who feared God, and that wives and children could be sent away despite the severe family consequences. He uses this example to reject the claim that difficult circumstances release believers from obedience to divine law.

That comparison sharpens his criticism of Esther and Mordecai’s conduct. The author regards Esther’s marriage to Ahasuerus as a prohibited union with a heathen, and argues that its usefulness to the Jews does not make it lawful. The earlier return from Babylon supplies a precedent for his claim: even grave losses to families, and even the prospect of harming children’s upbringing, do not authorize a departure from what he understands the law to require.

Babylon as a Metaphor

The commentary also uses Babylon figuratively, describing a religious situation as mystical Babylon. The author says that some of God’s people remain in such a condition and may, through their work, serve purposes they do not fully understand. Their usefulness, however, does not justify their position or cancel the call to leave it. The image thus turns Babylon from the name of an exile’s destination into a warning about remaining within a religious order the author considers corrupt.

This metaphor is linked to his criticism of religious accommodation. He argues that Christians may not defend practices he considers contrary to God’s commands by pointing to the good they accomplish, such as making the gospel accessible to people otherwise difficult to reach. Providence may use such circumstances, but their beneficial effects do not establish that the circumstances are right. In this reasoning, coming out of Babylon means refusing to treat usefulness as a substitute for obedience.

Providence, Responsibility, and Deliverance

Babylon’s historical association with captivity supports the commentary’s larger account of Providence. The author maintains that human actions remain voluntary and blameworthy even when God appoints that, through them, his purposes will be fulfilled. He applies this principle to Esther’s elevation: in his reading, the marriage that helped place her in a position to aid the Jews was at once an act he condemns and an instrument of their deliverance. God’s use of wrongdoing does not make the wrongdoing innocent.

The author makes the same distinction when discussing Mordecai and Esther’s ignorance of duty. Their conduct, he argues, prepared them to take part in the deliverance of the Jews, but its providential consequence does not excuse their error. God may bring good from the ignorance of his people and the hostility of his enemies; believers must not therefore choose disobedience in the hope of doing good. Babylon consequently carries two related meanings in the commentary: the historical setting of exile and return, and a figurative condition from which obedience may require separation.