Earlier text: The Impending ConflictThe Medo-Persian Empire.
By Alonzo T. Jones
The passing away of the Babylonian Empire was shown to King Nebuchadnezzar in the interpretation of his vision of the great image. Daniel declared to him:— “And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee.” Dan. 2:39. We know whence this other kingdom should arise; we know what nations should come against Babylon; we know who should lead the armies; and we know how the city should be taken; for God mustered the forces, and directed the siege, and his plans were all revealed to his prophets from sixty to one hundred and seventy-five years before the city and the kingdom of Babylon fell. The way is all clear before us in this—the prophecy is plain, so also is the history. Of the nations that should overthrow the kingdom of Babylon, we read:— “Make bright the arrows; gather the shields; the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes; for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple.” “Prepare against her the nations with the kings of the Medes, the captains thereof, and all the rulers thereof, and all the land of his dominion.” Jer. 51:11, 28. But the Medes were not to be alone. Isaiah cries, “Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media.” Isa. 21:2. “And Elam bare the quiver with chariots of men and horsemen.” Isa. 22:6. Elam, the Susiana of ancient geography and history, was a province of the Babylonian Empire as late as the third year of Belshazzar (Dan. 8:1, 2); but on the rise of the Persian power, it threw off the yoke of Babylon, joined itself to Persia, became the chief province of the Persian Kingdom, and its capital, Susa (the Shushan of Scripture), became finally the capital of the whole Medo-Persian Empire. See “Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible,” “McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia,” “Young’s Analytical Concordance,” etc. The sequel of the revolt of Elam and of its mention in this prophecy lies in this, that Cyrus was of Elamite origin, and the recognized chief of the Susianians (Sayce, “Ancient Empires,” chap. 2, par. 46); and when he became king of Persia and began to spread his conquests, the Susianians (Elamites) only waited for the opportune moment, to revolt from Babylon and join the standard of Cyrus. But this time never came till Cyrus started to the conquest of Babylon in B. C. 539; because Cyrus and his forces, for nearly twenty years, until this time, were away to the northwest, the north, and the east, far away from the borders of Elam. (Rawlinson, Fifth Monarchy, chap. 7, par. 9, 15, 21, 25.) But when he started from Ecbatana (Fourth Mon., chap. 8, par. 47, 57, note 232), his Median capital, to the conquest of Babylon, he had to cross the province of Elam; then came the time when they could join their chosen chief; then Elam could “go up,” Media could “besiege,” and Cyrus, of Persia, could lead the forces. God had not only long beforehand named the nations that should destroy Babylon, he had also called by name the general that should lead them:— “Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of brass; and cut in sunder the bars of iron; and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which called thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name; I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” Isa. 45:1–4. The analysis of this scripture will give us the fall of Babylon better than any other way that we could get at it. 1. “I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” This was written about B. C. 712. Cyrus started against Babylon in B. C. 539, and took it in 538, when he was about sixty-one years old. (“Seven Great Monarchies,” Fourth Mon., chap. 8, par. 47, 49; Fifth Mon., chap. 7, par. 25, 26.) Thus we see that the Lord called him “by name” 113 years before he was born, and told what he should do, 174 years before he did it. 2. “To open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.” “I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron.” That this may be properly understood we shall have to give a brief description of the city of Babylon. And as an introduction we will give an extract from Nebuchadnezzar, and one from Herodotus. Of the building of the walls and fortresses of the city, and the length of the wall, Nebuchadnezzar himself wrote an inscription as follows: “Imgur-bel and Nivit-bel, the great walls of Babylon, I built them square. . . . I repaired, with bitumen and bricks, the sides of the ditches that had been dug. I caused to be put in order the double doors of bronze, and the railings and the gratings, in the great gateways. I enlarged the streets of Babylon so as to make them wonderful. I applied myself to the protection of Babylon and Vale Saggatu (the pyramid), and on the most elevated lands, close to the great gate of Ishtar, I constructed strong fortresses of bitumen and bricks, from the banks of the Euphrates down to the great gate, the whole extent of the streets. I established their foundations below the level of the waters. I fortified these walls with art. I caused Imgur-bel, the great wall of Babylon, the impregnable, such as no king before me had made, to be measured, 4,000 mahargagar.” “This measurement,” says Lenormant, “corresponds exactly with the 480 stades [sixty miles] given by Herodotus as the circuit.”—Ancient History of the East, book 4, chap. 5, sec. 3, par. 16. “The city stands on a broad plain,” says Herodotus, who visited it in the fifth century before the Christian era, “and is an exact square, 120 furlongs in length each way, so that the entire circuit is 480 furlongs. While such is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that approaches to it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall 50 royal cubits in width, and 200 in height. (The royal cubit is longer by three fingers’ breadth than the common cubit.)”—Ancient History of the East, book 4, chap. 5, sec. 3, par. 7. The city, as stated above, lay in the form of a square, 15 miles on each side, making 60 miles around it. It was surrounded by a wall 350 feet high and about 85 feet thick at the top. On the top of the wall at irregular intervals were built towers to guard the most accessible parts. Of these towers there were 250. The open space on the wall, within the line of these towers, was of sufficient breadth to allow a four-horse chariot to turn with safety. Twenty-five gates pierced the wall on each side, making 100 gates in all in the outer wall. These were double gates of solid brass, with brazen lintels and posts, and fastened with bars of iron. Around the wall on the outside ran a moat, that had been formed by taking from it the earth with which the bricks were made to build the wall. Under the wall and diagonally through the city, from corner to corner so as to obtain the greatest length of water, ran the River Euphrates. On each side of the river, inside of the city, was built a strong wall, each wall being pierced with twenty-five gates opening into the streets that ran from the outer gates. These were also brazen gates like those in the outer wall. The banks of the river were lined throughout with brick laid in bitumen, with sloping landing-places at the gates. Boats were always ready at these landing-places by which to pass from side to side of the river. Over the river about the middle of the city was a drawbridge thirty feet wide supported on stone piers. At the two ends of the bridge were the two grand palaces of the city. Of course this vast area within the city was not built up solidly with houses as is a modern city. There were gardens, orchards, and fields interspersed among the houses, and about the palaces and temples. It was expected that if ever the city should be besieged, they could grow sufficient provisions within the walls to support the population, so that they might shut their gates, man the towers, and dwell securely with no fears of ever being overcome by any besieging force. Such, briefly outlined, was the Babylon against which Cyrus went to lay siege. In describing the fall of Babylon, we shall give bodily the historical view as drawn by Rawlinson from Herodotus, Xenophon, Polyhistor, Berosus, Abydenus, and the inscriptions; and as we go along insert in the record, within brackets, the prophecies that are therein fulfilled, and also the state of affairs in the city that night, as described by Daniel. This we think the best, because in this way we can present the two views almost in the form of a parallel. We would simply remark that Nabonadius was king of Babylon, and quote the history. “When at last it was rumored that the Persian king had quitted Ecbatana (B. C. 539) and commenced his march to the southwest, Nabonadius received the tidings with indifference. His defenses were completed; his city was amply provisioned; if the enemy should defeat him in the open field, he might retire behind his walls, and laugh to scorn all attempts to reduce his capital either by blockade or storm.” “If we may trust Herodotus, the invader having made all his preparations and commenced his march, came to a sudden pause midway between Ecbatana and Babylon. One of the sacred white horses, which drew the chariot of Ormazd, had been drowned in crossing a river; and Cyrus had thereupon desisted from his march, and, declaring that he would revenge himself on the insolent stream, had set his soldiers to disperse its waters into 360 channels. [Cyrus swore that he would so break the strength of the river, that, in the future, women should pass it without wetting their knees.—See Grote’s “Greece,” chap. 33, par. 3.—A. T. J.] This work employed him during the whole summer and autumn; nor was it till another spring had come that he resumed his expedition. To the Babylonians such a pause must have appeared like irresolution. They must have suspected that the invader had changed his mind and would not venture across the Tigris. If the particulars of the story reached them, they probably laughed at the monarch who vented his rage on inanimate nature, while he let his enemies go scot free.” “Cyrus, however, had a motive for his proceedings, which will appear in the sequel.” [But whatever motive Cyrus may have had in stopping here from one spring to another, there was yet a higher motive in, and over, it all. God’s people were in Babylon and they must know when its fall would be, that they might save themselves. Sixty years before He had said: “My people, go ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the fierce anger of the Lord.” And then, too, he gave them the sign by which they should know when her destruction was at hand. He said: “And lest your heart faint, and ye fear for the rumor that shall be heard in the land; a rumor shall both come one year, and after that in another year shall come a rumor, and violence in the land, ruler against ruler.” Jer. 51:45, 46533 Thus when Cyrus started out, Babylon heard the “rumor” and made all ready, but Cyrus stopped and stayed all summer, through the fall, and all winter, then when spring came again, again he started, and again a “rumor” was heard in Babylon, followed swiftly by “violence” and “ruler against ruler.” And that is why he stayed there at the river so long. God was over it all. He had said that two rumors, a year apart, should reach Babylon, then his people should go out of the midst of her, and deliver “every man his soul from the fierce anger of the Lord.”] “Having wintered on the banks of the Gyndes in a mild climate, where tents would have been quite a sufficient protection for his army, he put his troops in motion at the commencement of spring, crossed the Tigris apparently unopposed, and soon came in sight of the capital. Here he found the Babylonian army drawn out to meet him under the command of Nabonadius himself, who had resolved to try the chance of battle. An engagement ensued, of which we possess no details; our informants simply tell us that the Babylonian monarch was completely defeated, and that, while most of his army sought safety within the walls of the capital, he himself with a small body of troops threw himself into Borsippa, an important town lying at a short distance from Babylon toward the southwest.” “It might have been supposed that his absence would have produced anarchy and confusion in the capital; but a step which he had recently taken with the object of giving stability to his throne, rendered the preservation of order tolerably easy. At the earliest possible moment he had associated with him in the government, his son, Belshazzar, or Bel-shar-uzur,—probably when he was about fourteen—the grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar. [See Jer. 27:6, 7; Dan. 5:2, 11, 13, margin before noticed.] This step, taken most likely with a view to none but internal dangers, was now found exceedingly convenient for the purposes of the war. In his father’s absence Belshazzar took the direction of affairs within the city, and met and foiled for a considerable time all the assaults of the Persians. He was young and inexperienced, but he had the counsels of the queen-mother [Dan. 5:10–12] to guide and support him, as well as those of the various lords and officers of the court. So well did he manage the defense that after a while Cyrus despaired, and as a last resource ventured on a stratagem in which it was clear that he must either succeed or perish.” A. T. J. (To be concluded next week.) There is not the slightest certainty that any invention, however terrible, would put an end to war; while there is almost a certainty that if such an invention were perfected, it would grievously increase the miseries of mankind. Taken in large numbers, men will face any means of destruction whatever, if they also possess it themselves. Give two men pistols, and they will fight across a handkerchief. They are not afraid of death, but only of death without a chance of victory. King Theodore, of Abyssinia, asked his courtiers, when the rocket-sticks fell at his feet, if he could be reasonably expected to face things like those, and ultimately, in pure despair of defeating science with unscientific weapons, killed himself; but if he also had possessed rockets, he would have fought on. No men, not even Prussian soldiers or English sailors, will face shells without shells to throw back, but when they have shells they face the enemy's shells as bravely as they did the old round shot. The methods of war are changed by science, but war is not extinguished. Suppose it true that able chemists and mechanicians could invent a method of throwing an asphyxiating vapor on a sleeping army, what would be the result? First, the adoption of some protective covering, such as ironclad huts for sleeping in; next, the adoption of a method of encamping which spread the army over a surface too great or too uneven to be reached, and next, the use of similar mechanicians and chemists as the assailing force. Huxley would march with his fishermen to choke Tyndall with his Alpine climbers. War would then consist mainly of efforts to obtain advantageous positions, from which showers of death would be thrown, but war would not cease. Forlorn hopes would be organized among chemists or mechanicians as easily as among soldiers; enormous rewards would be paid to the new warriors, and nations would fight each other as briskly as ever.—London Spectator. In Too Great Haste.
By Observer
Every now and then somebody rises to remark on the slowness of ministers and religious people generally to recognize and follow the new lights in theology. In vain have Kuenen and Wellhausen re-written the Hebrew history; our pulpits still have an unconquerable prejudice in favor of Moses and the prophets as interpreted by our Lord and his apostles. In vain has the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the sacred writers been abated of its significance until the Scriptures are put nearly upon the same level with all other religious and edifying books, and such attenuated theories of their divine authority find favor with writers of reputed orthodoxy, still in our churches generally the Bible is read and revered as the very word of God. Now this excites the impatience of some people who think that a new epoch has risen upon the churches. They gravely censure or lightly ridicule all of us who remain steadfast in our faith. A popular magazine even calls the Sunday-schools to account, insisting that they are doing mischief by teaching from the Bible precisely as if Kuenen and Wellhausen, Robertson Smith and Dr. Ladd, had not written. The writer assumes that new views must be taken, if not now, at some time in the near future, and that it is a wrong to tender minds to teach them the Bible as a book the truth of which may be depended upon! Really, it seems to us, this is claiming a great deal. It amounts to this, that the new views of the Bible may not only be taken by those who believe in them, but must be taken, nolens volens, by those of us who think them false. We must not teach the Scriptures as we believe, but as somebody else believes. Our neologists have their own liberty, but, not content with that, condemn us for exercising the same freedom. Those who doubt the truth of the Bible may publish their doubts in season and out of season,—in theological reviews, in literary magazines and daily newspapers, in pulpits and on platforms,—but pious men and women who search the Scriptures and believe that in them they have eternal life, are reprehended for commending their faith to those who are placed under their instruction. Much good may this do the critics. They may rely upon it that in Sunday-school instruction, and in ten thousands of pulpits, the truth of the Bible will be asserted as the foundation of our immortal hopes. And this will be in no willfulness or obstinacy of spirit, but in an intelligent faith. It has been too much the fashion with some among us to assume that the last theory of European skeptics is to be taken as “the last result of criticism.” Cavils that are as old as the history of unbelief are endowed with new life and vigor because written in the German tongue. What a Celsus or a Porphyry urged without effect is suddenly discovered to have wonderful cogency because coming from a Dutch or a Scotch university. Even if the objections are as new in substance as in form, it is too soon to yield, before one has considered the reply to them. It ought not to be necessary to say, for the hundredth time, that a theory is not a demonstration; that, with all respect for the learning and ability of the scholars who claim to have subverted the credibility of the Scriptures, it is still true that scholars as learned, as able, and as candid, give reasons for a different opinion; that an old and long-cherished belief is not necessarily incredible; and that a faith which is associated with the noblest triumphs of the gospel, has a title to respectful treatment by those who profess and call themselves Christians.—Observer. No Self-Sacrifice.
By Vexa
THERE is too little hard work, coupled with self-sacrifice, among church-members. This may sound strange, in view of the many wide-awake, active men and women always occupied with some religious matter, but when you allude to it their almost invariable answer is, “I love to do it.” “Was it interesting?” This is the first question asked of the sermon, prayer-meeting, or Sunday-school. We hear about “making it interesting for the young,” doing something to interest the children,” till it seems as if there could be no instruction not combined with amusement. Everything hinges on enjoyment, and the yearly round of religious pleasures cumulates in a visit to Chautauqua, or some other picnic ground. Because our ancestors had none of these modern comforts, we think our condition is much better than theirs; but, alas, we fail to see the fearful inroads Satan is making! I read in a religious paper, that a certain clergyman has received a pastoral call, and the only item worthy of mention in connection with it is this: “He receives $3,000 salary and four weeks’ vacation.” Nothing said concerning Satan’s majority in that parish and the prospect of defeating him. All is about the clergyman’s benefits. But is enjoyment the chief end of a Christian life? Are the days of our warfare accomplished?—Vexa, in the Congregationalist. Catholics in British America.
The Catholic Church has entrenched itself very strongly in British America. It is divided into four provinces and two districts, one of which is under the direct control of the holy see, the other under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Oregon. The Catholic population is nearly two millions. The most populous diocese is Montreal, which has 412,000 Catholics, followed by Quebec with 296,666. Next in order comes Three Rivers with 124,000, St. Hyacinthe with 110,210, and Ottawa with 100,000. The total number of priests is 2,052; of bishops, 24; and of archbishops, 5. The number of churches is 1,556, besides 367 chapels and missions that are scattered throughout the less thickly settled parts of the country. There are 130 establishments devoted to higher education, while rudimentary education is represented by 3,511 parochial schools. The bulk of the Catholic population of the Dominion is in Lower Canada, and the great majority of Quebec Catholics are of French descent. In the province of Halifax there are about 110,000 French-speaking Catholics out of a total Catholic population of 278,000; in that of Toronto there are about 75,000 out of a total of 265,000; and in that of St. Boniface, about 13,000 out of a total of 38,000.—Sel. Divine Judgment Against Babylon and the Nations
“I WILL rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the Lord. I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water; and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.” “This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.” LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—SEPT. 26.
1. To what nation did Daniel belong? “And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes.” “Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” Dan. 1: 3, 6. 2. In what condition was the Jewish nation at this time? At the time when the book of Daniel opens, the Jewish nation was subject to the Babylonians, and part of the people were in Babylon. The king of Egypt had deposed Jehoahaz, and placed Eliakim, whom he named Jehoiakim, on the throne of Israel. 2 Chron. 36: 2-4. This was about 610 B. C. In the third year of his reign (Dan. 1: 1) Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and besieged it. The city was taken, Jehoiakim was bound with fetters, and part of the vessels of the house of God (2 Chron. 36: 7; Dan. 1: 2) were carried to Babylon. Some of the people were also carried to Babylon, among whom were Daniel and his fellows. Dan. 1: 3-7. Jehoiakim, however, was allowed to remain in Jerusalem, where he reigned eight years longer. 2 Chron. 36: 5. He was then succeeded by Jehoiachin, his son, who, after a reign of three months, was taken by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. 2 Chron. 36: 9, 10. With him were also taken all the royal family, the wealthy people and the artisans, so that only the poorest people of the land were left in Judah. 2 Kings 24: 8-16. This was about B. C. 599. Mattaniah was then placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, who changed his name to Zedekiah. After a few years’ reign he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who again came to Jerusalem, and in the eleventh year of Zedekiah’s reign (about B. C. 588) succeeded in capturing the city. Zedekiah was carried to Babylon, and with him all the people who had before been left, and the walls and palaces of Jerusalem were burned to the ground. 2 Chron. 36: 11-21. This fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah (chap. 17: 27), and completed the overthrow of the Jewish nation. 3. Whom did the king of Babylon set apart for a special purpose? “And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes.” Dan. 1: 3. 4. What were to be their qualifications? “Children in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace.” Verse 4. 5. What were they to be taught? “Children . . . whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” Verse 4. 6. What provision did he make for them? “And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank; so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.” Verse 5. 7. What ones of this company were mentioned in verse 6? “Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” 8. Would they partake of the unlawful food that the king had provided? “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.” Verse 8. 9. What request did they make? “Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.” Verse 12. 10. What was the result of their strict integrity in this matter? “And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.” Verse 15. 11. When brought before the king, what were their attainments? “And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.” Verse 20. 12. What special gift did God bestow upon Daniel? “As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.” Verse 17. 13. Who was king of Babylon at this time? “Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.” Verse 18. 14. What occurred to the king in the second year of his reign? “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” Dan. 2: 1. 15. On whom did he call for an explanation of his dream? “Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.” Verse 2. 16. What were these people mentioned in this verse? The magicians were such as practiced magic, using the term in its bad sense; that is, practiced all the superstitious rites and ceremonies of fortune tellers, casters of nativities, etc. Astrologers were men who pretended to foretell future events by the study of the stars. The science, or the superstition, of astrology, was extensively cultivated by the Eastern nations of antiquity. Sorcerers were such as pretended to hold communication with the dead. In this sense we believe it is always used in the Scriptures. Modern Spiritualism is simply ancient heathen sorcery revived. The Chaldeans here mentioned were a sect of philosophers similar to the magicians and astrologers who made physic, divinations, etc., their study. All these sects or professions abounded in Babylon. The end aimed at by each was the same; namely, the explaining of mysteries, and the foretelling of future events, the principal difference between them being the means by which they sought to accomplish their object.—Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. 17. What did the king require them to do? “The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me; if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.” Verse 5. “The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter; therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean.” Verse 10. 19. What decree did the king send forth? “And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.” Verse 13. 20. What remonstrance did Daniel make when the king’s captain came to slay him and his fellows? “Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon. He answered and said to Arioch the king’s captain, Why is the decree so hasty from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel.” Verses 14, 15. 21. What request did Daniel make of the king? “Then Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would show the king the interpretation.” Verse 16. 22. How did he seek help, and from what source? “Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions; that they would desire mercies of the God of Heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.” Verses 17, 18. 23. In what way was the secret revealed unto Daniel? “Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of Heaven.” Verse 19. The Shunammite’s Son
By Alonzo T. Jones
As soon as Elijah had been taken away from him, Elisha took up the mantle that had fallen from the translated prophet, and went back and stood by Jordan, and, as Elijah had done as they two went over, he smote the water with the mantle, and the waters separated, and Elisha passed over. He then came back to Jericho, and the men of the city called his attention to its pleasant situation, but the water was bitter and the ground barren. Elisha took salt, and cast it into the spring, and said, “Thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land. So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha.” 2 Kings 2:19–22. SHORTLY afterward, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel, and the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom, went against him, and came out into the wilderness where there was no water; and according to the word of Elisha, “there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water,” and this with “neither wind nor rain.” Next there came to him a woman whose husband had died in debt, and the creditor had come to take her two sons for bondmen to pay the debt, and all they had was a single pot of oil. Elisha told her to go and borrow empty vessels from all her neighbors, and then pour into these from her one pot of oil till they were all full, then go and sell the oil, pay the debt, and she and her sons live of the rest. THEN the next account of him is that given in our lesson. “It fell on a day that Elisha passed to Shunem.” Shunem was a city of the tribe of Issachar (Josh. 19:18), about five miles south of Mount Tabor, about the same distance from Mount Gilboa, about three miles from Jezreel, and in full view of the point on Mount Carmel where Elijah stood when the great decision was made between the Lord and Baal. It was at Shunem where the Philistines had pitched, when Saul saw them from Mount Gilboa, and his heart failed him, and he went and had a spiritualist medium at Endor hold a séance for him. 1 Sam. 28:4.
At Shunem Elisha found “a great woman,” a good woman too, as events proved; “and she constrained him to eat bread. And so it was,535 that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread. And she said unto her husband, Behold now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God, which passeth by us continually. Let us make a little chamber, I pray thee, on the wall; and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a stool, and a candlestick; and it shall be, when he cometh to us, that he shall turn in thither.” AND this kindness to Elisha was not forgotten by him, nor by the Lord. “For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.” Heb. 6:10. “He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” Matt. 10:41, 42. The Lord wants people to use hospitality. It is one of the qualifications demanded in one who shall be chosen to be elder of the church. 1 Tim. 3:2. THE Lord wants it to be genuine hospitality too. He says, “Use hospitality one to another without grudging.” 1 Peter 4:9. When we see people coming to our house, we say, “I should like to know what they are coming here for. I just wish they would stay away;” and then, when they reach the house, say, “How do you do? I am so glad to see you! Sit right down. Why I haven’t seen you for so long. Oh! you must stay to dinner. I can’t think of your going before dinner,” &c., &c. Then we rustle around and get a big dinner, and have a grand time gossiping about everybody in the neighborhood, and finally the visitors go away, and then we say, “There, I am glad they are gone, and now I hope they will stay away,” &c., &c. And we call that hospitality! But it is no such thing. Hospitality, to be real hospitality, must be “without grudging,” must be from the heart, before people come, while they are with us, and after they are gone. Nor is it forgetful to entertain strangers. THIS Shunammite was genuinely hospitable. She thought, and planned, and executed, to make her guest comfortable, and specially because he was a “man of God.” And she was richly rewarded for it. First, by being blessed with that boon that was, as the whole history of the nation shows, the highest aspiration of every wife among the children of Israel—the boon of embracing a son in hope of the coming Messiah. And second, the wonderful blessing of having him restored to her even from the dead. Thus the Lord, in his loving-kindness, remembered and blessed the acts of kindness that had been shown to his servant. BUT the Lord’s mercy and goodness is not limited to our acts. Once David sat in his house thinking. Presently he spoke, and said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.” That same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan to go and tell David that “The Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house. . . . And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever.” 2 Sam. 7. David was not allowed to build an house for the Lord. But because he thought of it, because his mind had a care for the work and worship of God, God took note of the thought and blessed it with a reward that embraces eternity. Oh that there were more men like David! Oh that there were more women like this Shunammite, to take thought and care for the work, the worship, and the service of God! What blessings would be upon such! What grace would be to the children of men! “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” Col. 3:2. “AND when the child was grown, it fell on a day, that he went out to his father to the reapers. And he said unto his father, My head, my head! And he said to a lad, Carry him to his mother. And when he had taken him, and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon, and then died.” It is supposed that the child’s disease was sunstroke, followed by brain fever. “And she went up, and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out. And she called unto her husband, and said, Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men, and one of the asses, that I may run to the man of God, and come again. And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him today? it is neither new moon, nor Sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.” The new moon, the beginning of the month, was a solemn feast day (Ps. 81:3), and the Sabbath was the day of weekly convocation. It would be natural for her to wish to go to the man of God on these days, but as it was neither, her husband is surprised, and yet she has such faith that the child shall be restored, that she will not allow her husband to suffer the grief of knowing that his only child is dead. And when Elisha asks her if it is well with herself, with her husband, and with her child, her answer is, “It is well.” Thus may say everyone who believes in God. Has death taken away your child? God has said, “Thy children shall come again to their own border.” “They shall come again from the land of the enemy.” Jer. 31:16, 17. Death is the enemy, and God has promised to destroy it, and bring back those who are held in its strong grasp. There is One who has all power in Heaven and in earth. He lives, and was dead; and is alive forevermore, and has the keys of hell (the grave) and of death. Rev. 1:18. And trusting in Him, even though the child be dead, we can truly say, “It is well.” For when He shall call, the child shall live, never to die any more. “THEN she saddled an ass, and said to her servant, Drive, and go forward; slack not thy riding for me, except I bid thee.” It seems strange that people would use an animal for riding that has to be followed by a person on foot to whip it up all the time. But in the East, to this day, the people do just that thing. A late traveler thus tells of the donkey boys in Damascus: “These persecutors run after the animals, shouting and goading them for hours together; they keep the donkey in a gallop always, yet never get tired themselves nor fall behind.” A. T. J.