THE ROYAL SEED IS PLANTED IN BABYLON.
By William W. Prescott
In the book of Daniel, concerning which Jesus said: “Whoso readeth, let him understand,” we have in small compass a divinely written history of the world from the time of “Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,” to “the end of the days.” Here we have the key to the correct interpretation of all history. Here we have the principles of the kingdom of heaven plainly revealed in contrast with the principles inculcated by the “god of this world;” and all this upon the actual stage of human action, a living panorama. Here is traced in bold outline the controversy that has been waged during all these centuries in the effort of the “prince of this world” to set up a permanent kingdom on this earth, which would rival the kingdom of God. Here we see the outcome of this controversy, with such light upon the present as enables us to understand the nature of the events just before the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom. It is because “this gospel of the kingdom” is so plainly preached in the book of Daniel that we invite attention to it at this time. “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.” In the opening sentences of the book the kingdom question is presented. Two earthly kings are warring with each other, and the Lord decides the issue of the conflict. And it will be seen that it is decided in a way to spread abroad in all the earth the knowledge of the kingdom of God, to preach the gospel of the kingdom. But how does it happen that Jehoiakim king of Judah is overcome by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon? Why are the Lord’s people conquered by the heathen? The walls of Jericho falling at the shout of faith, and Israel turning “their backs before their enemies” at Ai, furnish the answer. “Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them.” Joshua 7:11. “Jehoiakim . . . did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” 2 Chron. 36:5. Furthermore, the Lord never intended that his people should have any king but himself. When the people demanded a king, God said of them, “They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” He it was who would have given them victory over all their enemies, and have made them “the head, and not the tail,” above and not beneath, “if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the Lord thy God.” But when they chose a visible king in the place of the “King eternal, immortal, invisible,” and he departed from the Lord, they lost the working of that “eternal power” through faith in which kingdoms are subdued (Heb. 11:33), and were carried captive by the heathen. It is also true that the Lord works through his people to preach the gospel of his kingdom throughout the world, and thus to restrain the kingdom of evil; but when they become self-centered, and shut this light away from the heathen, then the Lord overrules this very failure that gives them into the hands of the heathen, as the means of accomplishing the work that they neglected to do in a time of prosperity. Thus the truth to be learned by each person is that “the kingdom of God is . . . righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;” that “a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom;” that “the kingdom of God is within you.” And the truth to be learned about earthly kingdoms is that “the Most High ruleth in the123kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” It is only in the light of these principles that the experiences of individuals and of nations can be read aright. These are the themes of the book of Daniel. The sacred vessels were removed from the house of God, and were displayed in the heathen temple as the outward tokens of the superiority of the gods and the religion of Babylon over the God and the religion of the Jews. Alas, that “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles” by those who profess, but do not have, faith in him “who is over all, God blessed forever.” But the truth will triumph, even though its day of victory is often delayed by the unfaithfulness of those who profess to believe it. “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; 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, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 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. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego.” Some of the captives, who have the best physical appearance, and who give evidence of possessing intellectual ability already well developed, are selected for training, that “they might stand before the king.” They are “children,” “lads,” probably in their teens, just at that age when surroundings usually have the most powerful influence upon conduct, when those who are not controlled by a living principle within are swayed to and fro by the pressure of outward circumstances. With the evident purpose that these young captives should retain their good physical appearance, and that they should make rapid progress in “the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans,” the king provided for them what he regarded the best diet, just such food and wine as was found upon his own table. It was a royal bill of fare, “as supplied to his majesty the king,” but the king was the king of Babylon. The question of the kingdom is thus before these young men. Shall they follow the instruction of their real King, or that of the king of Babylon? Will the fact that they have been chosen for training that they may serve the king of Babylon lead them to excuse a departure from right principle, with the plea that they are captives and in Babylon, and that when in Babylon, they must do as the Babylonians do? Will it really make so much difference after all what they eat and drink, provided they hold fast to their creed, and are well prepared to defend it against the heathen? Thus does the mere formalist betray his trust, substituting argument for conduct, sound for substance. Thus do all those think who regard religion as merely a round of ceremonies, and God’s commandments as simply arbitrary requirements. To all such the kingdom is outward, visible, fleshly; and they are easily persuaded that one form is as good as another, and that God is “not so particular” about these matters, so long as we maintain a sort of ethereal atmosphere about us, which is sometimes mistaken for spirituality, and is boasted of as that liberty by which we keep the law in the spirit, and so are privileged to disregard it in the letter. Such is the modern idea of gospel liberty. In this way does convenience dictate to principle: obedience becomes a mere matter of circumstance, and the kingdom of heaven becomes the kingdom of Babylon. W. W. P.