took the extreme measure of removing tho once fortified. And so thou shalt endamage ,T e,rn from their own land to Babylo~,, they the revenue. The general meaning is given had rebelled against him three several times- correctly enough by this rendering, but once under Jehoi&ki.m (2 Kings xxiv. 1), once "revenue" is not expressly mentioned_ under his son Jehoi&chin (ibid. vers. 9, 10), Aphthom, the word so translated, means and once under Zedekiah, the l&St king (ibid. really "at length," "at lut." Translate, vi>r. 20). Thus they had &basis of truth on "And so at last thou shalt endamage the which to ground their charge that Jerusalem kings." was "the rebellious and the bad city." And Ver. 14.-We have maintenanoe from the have set up the walls thereof. It appears king's palace. The marginal rendering is very clearly from the book of Nehemiah better, and shows the true sense. " Eatin~ the. t the walls of Jerusalem were not restored a man's salt" in the E&St is deriving one's till his time, seventy-five years after this. subsistence from him. The man who eats The Samaritans, however, would naturally another's salt is bound to look after his exaggerate, and call the rebuilding of the interests. It was not meet for us to see the temple, and of a certain number of dwelling- king's dishonour. Rather, "the king's houses, a fortifying of the place. The ex- detriment or loss "-it wu not meet for us aggeration, however, is not so great in the to stand by tamely and see the king stript Chaldee text as in the Authorized Version. of his due. ,rhat is said seems to be, that "they are Ver. 15. -That search may be made in setti:ng up the walls and joining the found- the book of the records of thy fathers. It aiions." That the work was far from e,.. m- was the practice at the Persian court to plete is admitted in the next verse. We register all important events in a book, may doubt whether it was really begun. which from time to time was read to the Yer. 13.-Then will they not pay toll, kings (Esther ii. 23; vi. 1). The Samaritans tribute, and custom. This was plausible sug~est a consultation of this book, which reasoning. In Greece, if a subject city set wollld at any rate contain their own previous to work to fortify itself, rebellion was imme- accusations against Jerusalem (supra, vers. diately anticipated, not unfairly. But the 6, 6), and might make some mention of the circumstances of the Persian empire· were revolts from Babylon (see the comment on different. In the remoter parts of that ver. 12). For which cause was this city empire the central government was weak, destroyed. This was the great fact on which and disorders frequently occurred. A city the Samaritans relied. Nebuchadnezzar had might need fortifications to protect it against only destroyed Jerusalem in consequence of its immediate neighbours, when it had not repeated rebellions. True ; but no sufficient the slightest intention of asserting independ- indication that there would be revolt from ence. Judging from the later history, which Persia, which was anti-idolatrous, and had shows no revolt of the Jews against Persia, proved herself so true a friend to the Jews. we may say that the accusation now alleged Ver. 16.-Thou shalt have no portion on was unfounded, though perhaps it was not this side the river. It is not quite clear made in bad faith. Toll, tribute, and whether the rivet intended here and in ver. custom represent the chief heads of Persian 10 is the EuJ>hrates or the Jordan. Generally taxation, which, however, did not include in the Old Testament hannahar means the " custom " in our sense of the wor<i The Euphrates, but the exaggeration is gross if three terms used by the Samaritans really that river was intended here. Only twice represent, respectively, "tribute," or the in their history had the Israelites advanced money payment required from each province, their frontier as far as that stream-under "provision," or the payment in kind equally Solomon (1 Kings iv. 21) and under Mena- required (Hero<i, i. 192; iii. 91), and hem (2 Kings xv. 16); in their present "toll," or contributions from those who depressed condition it was absurd to imagine made use of the Persian highways. Ac- that they could rival those early glories. cording to the Samaritans, none of these But jealousy does not stop to weigh the would be paid by the Jews if Jerusalem was reasonableness of its accusations.
HOMILETICS. Vera. 6-16.-Tlie work maligned. Besides "hiring counsellors," as mentioned in ver. 5 , or it may be, in order to provide these counsellors with documents to present a~d ~et on ; we are here told that the Samaritan " adversaries " sent various letters to the Persian kings against the temple builders at Jerusalem. One of these sent to a king here styled Ahasuerus, is merely referred to as an "accusation." .Another and more successful one, sent "in the days of Artaxerxes," is described 11t full length. With many commentators of note and of various schools (see Words- olt. tv. "l-1G.J 'l'lIEJ BOOK OF EJZRA.