“And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.” Dan. 2:40.
It is certain that of these four kingdoms of the prophecy, each is universal in its time and place, and so in the very nature of the case must be successive. Of the kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar it is said, “Wheresoever the children of men dwell, . . . hath He given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all.” Of the next kingdom it was said: “And after thee shall arise another kingdom.” The preceding one extending over all civilized countries, when another should arise it must establish its authority and ascendancy, or it could not be recognized as “another kingdom;” and the only way in which it could possibly so establish itself would be by overturning the power which then exerted the universal rule, which, of necessity, would plant itself as the successor in that supremacy. This view is made positive by the words which introduce the next; the “third kingdom of brass, which” should “bear rule over all the earth.” By the terms which describe the place of each of these three kingdoms it is literally impossible that more than one of them could be in existence at the same time.
Having seen the extent of the “third kingdom”—that of the Grecian—it is plain that when the “fourth kingdom” shall arise it must be universal, as was each of the three which preceded it in the description given by the prophet. Especially must this be so, in view of the words in which it is set forth as being “strong as iron,” and as iron that breaketh all things, “so shall it break in pieces and bruise.” This shows that, as iron is the strongest of metals, so the fourth kingdom should be the strongest of these kingdoms. Therefore the fourth kingdom must be stronger than the Grecian under Alexander the Great; and as that bore rule over all the then known earth, this can do no less; and for the fourth kingdom we must look for one that ruled the more widely known world more absolutely than it was ruled by Alexander the Great.
This fourth kingdom is fairly, and nicely, introduced in the last historical quotation which we gave on the extent of the kingdom of Alexander the Great. We will here reproduce that part of the quotation:—
“History may allow us to think that Alexander and a Roman ambassador did meet at Babylon; that the greatest man of the ancient world saw and spoke with a citizen of that great nation, which was destined to succeed him in his appointed work, and to found a wider and still more enduring empire.”—Arnold’s History of Rome, chap. 30, par. 2.
And every school-boy who has ever read in McGuffey’s old Fifth Reader, knows of
“Rome,
That sat on her seven hills, and from her throne
Of beauty ruled the world!”
And how that
“in that elder day, to be a Roman,
Was greater than a king.”
The Scripture, too, speaks of the widespread power of Rome, saying:—
“And in those days there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Luke 2:1.
Cæsar Augustus was the first emperor of Rome. His name was originally Caius Octavius; but as he was grand-nephew to the great Julius Cæsar, and as that great man adopted him into his own family titles and honors, and made him his heir, with the name of Caius Octavius was incorporated that of Julius Cæsar, and then his name stood, Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus. Then when he became the sole head of the mighty empire of Rome, as he already bore the name of the “greatest man of the Roman, or perhaps of all the ancient world,” in casting about for a title most befitting his majesty,—
“At last he fixed upon the epithet Augustus, a name which no man had borne before, and which, on the contrary, had been applied to things the most noble, most venerable, and most sacred. The rites of the gods were called august; their temples were august. The word itself was derived from the holy auguries; it was connected in meaning with the abstract term authority, and with all that increases and flourishes upon earth. The use of this glorious title could not fail to smooth the way to the general acceptance of the divine character of the mortal who was deemed worthy to bear it.”—Encyc. Brit., art. Augustus and the Augustan Age.
And as thus he bore the greatest name,—Cæsar,—and the most sacred and authoritative title known to the Roman world, his own name now assumed the form Cæsar Augustus. He it was who issued the decree “that all the world should be taxed.” Not taxed in the form of levying and collecting money, as we now understand the word, but rather an enrollment, or, as we would now express it, he ordered a census of the empire to be taken.
To see how fitly Luke’s words describe the extent of the power of Cæsar Augustus and of Rome, and to show how perfectly Rome fulfills the prophecy of the fourth kingdom, we shall now present the testimony of the most authoritative writers. We can introduce this no better than with the following words of Gibbon:—
“The empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly. On every side he was encompassed with a vast extent of sea and land, which he could never hope to traverse without being discovered, seized, and restored to his irritated master. Beyond the frontiers, his anxious view could discover nothing except the ocean, inhospitable deserts, hostile tribes of barbarians, of fierce manners and unknown language, or dependent kings, who would gladly purchase the emperor’s protection by the sacrifice of an obnoxious fugitive. Wherever you are, said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror.”—Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 3, par. 37.
In illustration of the absolute power exerted by the emperor, Gibbon subjoins the following two notes:—
“Seriphus was a small and rocky island in the Ægean Sea, the inhabitants of which were despised for their ignorance and obscurity. The place of Ovid’s exile is well known, by his just, but unmanly lamentations. It should seem, that he only received an order to leave Rome in so many days, and to transport himself to Tomi. Guards and gaolers were unnecessary.
“Under Tiberius, a Roman knight attempted to fly to the Parthians. He was stopped in the straits of Sicily; but so little danger did there appear in the example, that the most jealous of tyrants disdained to punish it.”—Id.
Ovid was banished by Cæsar Augustus. Tomi was a “semi-Greek semi-barbaric town,” on the coast of the Black Sea; about ninety miles south of the mouth of the Danube. There, to “the very outskirts of civilization,” he was ordered to go; there he went, and there he remained about eight years, even to the day of his death; and all that was required to either take or keep him there, was the word of the emperor of Rome. Thus far-reaching; and so absolute, was the power of Rome.
“That imperatorial dignity . . . was undoubtedly the sublimest incarnation of power, and a monument the mightiest of greatness built by human hands, which upon this planet has been suffered to appear.”—De Quincey’s Essays, The Cæsars, chap. 6, last paragraph, last sentence.
“But the same omnipresence of imperial anger and retribution which withered the hopes of the poor humble prisoner, met and confounded the emperor himself, when hurled from his giddy height by some fortunate rival. All the kingdoms of the earth, to one in that situation, became but so many wards of the same infinite prison. Flight, if it were even successful for the moment, did but little retard his inevitable doom. And so evident was this, that hardly in one instance did the fallen prince attempt to fly, but passively met the death which was inevitable, in the very spot where ruin had overtaken him.”—Id., The Cæsars, introduction, par. 12.
“Rome, therefore, which came last in the succession, and swallowed up the three great powers that had seriatim cast the human race into one mould, and had brought them under the unity of a single will, entered by inheritance upon all that its predecessors in that career had appropriated, but in a condition of far ampler development. Estimated merely by longitude and latitude, the territory of the Roman Empire was the finest, by much, that has ever fallen under a single scepter. . . . Rome laid a belt about the Mediterranean of a thousand miles in breadth; and within that zone she comprehended not only all the great cities of the ancient world, but so perfectly did she lay the garden of the world in every climate, and for every mode of natural wealth, within her own ring-fence, that, since that era, no land, no part and parcel of the Roman Empire, has ever risen into strength and opulence, except where unusual artificial industry has availed to counteract the tendencies of nature. So entirely had Rome engrossed whatsoever was rich by the mere bounty of native endowment. Vast, therefore unexampled, immeasurable, was the basis of natural power upon which the Roman throne reposed.”—Id., paragraph 8.
“Its range, the compass of its extent, was appalling to the imagination. Coming last among what are called the great monarchies of prophecy, it was the only one which realized in perfection the idea of a monarchia, being (except for Parthia and the great fable of India beyond it) strictly coincident with the civilized world: Civilization and this empire were commensurate; they were interchangeable ideas and co-extensive. . . . The vast power and domination of the Roman Empire, for the three centuries which followed the battle of Actium, have dazzled the historic eye. . . . The battle of Actium was followed by the final conquest of Egypt. That conquest rounded and integrated the glorious empire; it was now circular as a shield. . . . From that day forward, for three hundred years, there was silence in the world; no muttering was heard; no eye winked beneath the wing. Winds of hostility might still rave at intervals; but it was on the outside of the mighty empire; it was at a dream-like distance; and, like the storms that beat against some monumental castle, and at the doors and windows seem to call, they rather irritated and vivified the sense of security, than at all disturbed its luxurious lull.”—Id., Philosophy of Roman History, par. 1, 2.
(To be Continued.)
A. T. J.
When the Choir Rises Above the Minister
By Watchman
We were reading lately about a large and new house of worship, in which “the organ and choir are at the pulpit-end of the house, and are just above the minister.” This is now a very common arrangement; in fact, at whichever end of the house the organ and choir may be set, there is danger that they will put themselves above the minister.
Because It Is Right.
By S. S. Times
FROM the very beginning, many children are trained, unconsciously, by their parents, to build right deeds upon a wrong foundation. Children naturally want a reason why they may do this thing and may not do that thing; and the principle which is given them is very often a wrong one. "You must not take what does not belong to you; because, if you do, you will be found out and sent to prison." "You must not go to the river when I tell you not to; for if you go there, you will fall in and be drowned." "You must not do this or that; because, if you do, you are sure to suffer for it."
What is this but to teach a child that wrong is wrong because it hurts; and to hinder him, as far as possible, from seeing the true reason why it is wrong to do these things? The parental teaching which says distinctly to a child, "You must not take what is not yours; for God, who made us, forbids us to steal," is worth a thousandfold more to a child, as a guiding principle through life, than all the examples which could be collected of thieves who have been caught, and who have been imprisoned or pilloried for their sins.
In the one case, the parent teaches the child that God has forbidden theft, always and everywhere; in the other case, he teaches him that theft is likely to be resented and punished by men, and that, therefore, it is unsafe, and so wrong. A child who has nothing else to guide him than such teaching as that, will soon notice that theft is not always found out, and will ask himself why he may not thieve if he can thieve with impunity. The radical defect of all such teaching is that it makes the right or wrong of an action depend upon its pleasant or unpleasant results for the person doing it, instead of upon the supreme law of God.
Sooner or later there will come to the person so taught a time when to do the wrong will result, for the time being, in profit to himself; and to do the right will result in loss. If he does not go down before that temptation, it will not be because of any vital principle in his teaching. It will be rather because he finds himself in circumstances which seem to throw doubt upon his teaching; because he feels, as we may suppose a boy to feel, who, trained to distinguish the parts of speech by colored type, sees for the first time a book printed throughout in plain black letters, and who begins to wonder whether, after all, a noun is a noun because it is red, and a verb a verb because it is yellow.
There are a thousand forms of teaching now current which do not differ essentially from that of the father who teaches his child not to do wrong, because to do wrong generally hurts. There is even a philosophy which claims that that is right which will turn out for the best good of the highest number—right because it will turn out for the best good of the highest number—a specious fallacy, which owes its popular acceptance to the truth that that which is right will ultimately prove to be for the best interests of all.
It would be difficult to say how large a proportion of the human race practically proceeds upon the assumption that personal enjoyment, refined or coarse, rational or irrational, is the one standard by which all things are to be measured. The principle masks under many names; it borrows for itself the plumes of social refinement, intellectual progress, even spiritual culture. But under whatever form it appears, it is insufficient as the guiding principle of life, and can only be followed with disaster. It fails to recognize that right is something higher than the rational happiness of one man or of any number of men; that while right generally makes men happy, right is not right because it makes men happy, any more than a noun is a noun because it is red, or a verb a verb because it is yellow.
The majority of men are too timorous to strike down boldly to the basal principle of God's word. This timorousness ought to be thrown aside. There is a sure foundation upon which men can safely build. That foundation, indeed, no man can take away; but it is to the shame of many a Christian parent and of many a Christian teacher, that, instead of exhorting those committed to their charge to build boldly upon the eternal rock, they first pile sand upon the rock foundation, and then invite Christ's little ones to build upon the shifting mass.
There is a lack of candor and a lack of courage shown by every believer who attempts to make anything else than God's revelation the foundation upon which he builds his life-work. Most of the social evils which perplex society would be greatly diminished if Christian men were generally to make it known that for them neither pleasure, nor happiness, nor the material prosperity of any or of all, could justify the slightest deviation from the law of God.
That law often shuts the door upon pleasant paths. We believe that it is well, even where we do not see that it is so. But we know that neither our own happiness nor our own safety, nor the safety and happiness of those nearest and dearest to us, would justify us in entering a path which God has closed to us. Right is something higher than our own weak choosing; and right does not cease to be right because it may bring to us pain, or even fatal disaster.
He that is set to teach should utter no uncertain sound on this subject. Modern life is full of pitfalls, and the only safe guide is the word of God. Happy is the child, who, from his earliest days, is trained to make that the light of his feet and the principle of his living. So long as he walks in that light, he will not stumble. —S. S. Times.
Fast Living.
How to live morally in reality includes how to live physically. Yet it is to be feared that a great many in this world forget what it is to be just to the body. The impositions upon our human natures are often self-inflicted. The race of fast livers is rapidly increasing. It is not wonderful that in these days of rapidity man himself should rush on and in many ways lose his balance. It is altogether probable that Methuselah had very little to hurry him, and that the modes of doing business as late as the Roman Empire had but little of the hot haste of the present day. When we are rushed along by steam at the rate of fifty or sixty miles per hour, and can have intelligence from around the globe in a day, it is inevitable that business methods will receive a like impetus, and that men and women will seek to crowd into a day what formerly took a week. The influence extends into every walk and run of human life. Just as every mile of speed added to the locomotive after it has attained a high rate adds tenfold to wear and tear, so, in this human race, it is the stress and strain beyond a certain mark that puts the whole framework into a state of tension. It is true that, by early and continued training, method may be so attained, and an automatic response so secured, that one does with ease what would exhaust another. But the measure of the capacity must be known to the person himself.
Rapid eating is one of the first developments of this haste. It must be ludicrous to a restaurant boy to see a cow chewing the cud, and quietly resting in placid enjoyment. The idea of rest and recreation and deliberation in eating no longer occupies the thought of the average American boy, much less of the business man. Yet the power of life depends as much upon this as upon any one conduct of life. The relation of the chewing and the juices of the mouth to the after digestion, all along the digestive track, and to that assimilation which is to give force and vigor to work, is such that we cannot afford to forget the essential relationship.
The failure of this part of the apparatus to do its part does not involve immediate loss of power or bed-ridden sickness, but is a more frequent limitation upon forceful life than any one disability. A thorough digestion not only leaves the mind clear and the nervous system placid, but so provides the physical and mental machinery with its propelling power as to make thought as natural as if it were a physical function. It is not difficult to see in the work, as well as in the writings of some men, the traces of a bad physical condition. Emerson overstated the case when he said that the sick man is on the road to rascality, but, nevertheless, did indicate what is true, that a man in a chronic state of embarrassed digestion is out of gear with himself and the rest of mankind. We believe that the foundations of many an incapacity is laid in this want of quiet, deliberate eating.
Methods of study, to a large degree, have similar errors. The cramming process is still too popular. It is not always that the amount of study assigned is too great. Oftener the child leaves the work to be crowded into too small a space of time, or to hours which are those of tire and sleepiness. The mind is with difficulty goaded on to its work, and what is accomplished is at a much greater expenditure of vital force. So as to methods of business. Too much is done under the pressure and excitement of hurry and in order that as few hours as possible may be occupied.
Irregular meals and irregular sleep come in for their share of influence. Because the system seeks to some degree to adjust itself to the forced conditions, the person is too apt to conclude that it is no serious matter. But observers even on change are noting the effects. There are fewer middle-aged and old men that continue to do business than formerly. Young life is at the head of most mercantile and banking establishments. The number that are retiring too early from actual break-down or premature old age is undisguised. There is need to order a halt as to all this fast living. Most men are happier not to retire too early from active life, even if they have a competency. All are happier with employment, if the cessation is the result of damaged health. We cannot cross the ocean, or tarry a summer or a winter at any great resort, without noting how many there are who are only partial invalids, and yet whose life-work is restricted by imprudence as to the care of life. If, now, a man past sixty is found in the full enjoyment of business activity, he is looked upon as rather a wonder. Such men as Metternich, Nesselrode, Palmerston, Gladstone, and Victor Hugo are scarce on this side of the water. While there are a very few that survive fast living, if you will gather the histories of 1,000 persons over 65 years of age, it will be found that, both by good inheritance and careful living, the race is prolonged. The laws of self-control and self-restraint need to be brought more thoroughly to bear on each individual life. For, next to character, health is the best capital to have in this world. He who spends the thrift of a good constitution is a spendthrift more than he who is careless as to accumulating wealth.—Independent.
Daring to Do Right
By Methodist Recorder
A TRUE man, when occasion requires it, will not shrink from assuming responsibility. When a man through fear or favor fails to perform his duty, he shows that his sense of moral obligation is very weak. A true man will dare to do right, whatever others may think of his acts.
Science and Christian Faith
By Heubner
SCIENCE has no faith-begetting power. Therefore a Christian should not rest upon scholastic wisdom, but on the power of God renewing the heart.—Heubner.
Give What You Have
By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Give what you have. To some one it may be better than you dare to think.—Longfellow.
Notes.
The wings were plucked.—At first the lion had eagle's wings, denoting the rapidity with which Babylon extended its conquests under Nebuchadnezzar. When this vision was given, a change had taken place; its wings had been plucked. It no longer flew like an eagle upon its prey. The boldness and spirit of the lion were gone. A man's heart, weak, timorous, and faint, had taken its place. Such was emphatically the case in the person of the imbecile and pusillanimous Belshazzar, who in weakness and fear shut himself up in the city of Babylon, and with whom the Babylonian kingdom came to an end, B. C. 538.—Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation.
Raised up itself on one side.—The bear raised itself up on one side. This kingdom was composed of two nationalities, the Medes and the Persians. The same fact is represented by the two horns of the ram of chapter 8. Of these horns it is said that the higher came up last; and of the bear, that it raised itself up on one side; and this was fulfilled by the Persian division of the kingdom, which came up last, but attained the higher eminence, becoming the controlling influence in the nation.—Ibid.
Three ribs in the mouth.—The three ribs perhaps signify the three provinces of Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, which were especially ground down and oppressed by this power.—Ibid.
Four wings of a fowl.—If wings upon the lion signified rapidity of conquest, they would signify the same here. The leopard itself is a swift-footed beast, but this was not sufficient to represent the career of the nation which it symbolized in this respect; it must have wings in addition. Two wings, the number the lion had, were not sufficient, it must have four; and this must denote unparalleled celerity of movement, which we find to be historically true of the Grecian kingdom. The conquests of Grecia under Alexander have no parallel in historic annals for suddenness and rapidity.—Ibid.
The beast had also four heads.—The Grecian Empire maintained its unity but little longer than the lifetime of Alexander. Within fifteen years after his brilliant career ended in a drunken debauch, the empire was divided among his four leading generals. Cassander had Macedon and Greece in the west; Lysimachus had Thrace and the parts of Asia on the Hellespont and Bosporus in the north; Ptolemy received Egypt, Lydia, Arabia, Palestine, and Cœle-Syria in the south; and Seleucus had Syria and all the rest of Alexander's dominions in the east. These divisions were denoted by the four heads of the leopard.—Ibid.
Review of Lessons 1-7.
[LESSON FOR PACIFIC COAST.—NOVEMBER 7.]
1. How DOES God make known to man the events that will come upon the earth?
"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Num. 12:6.
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7.
2. What does Peter say of the importance of prophecy?
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts." 2 Peter 1:19.
3. What does Paul say of the importance of a knowledge of God's word?
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
4. To what portion of the Bible did Timothy have access, as mentioned in verse 15?
To the Old Testament, for the New was not then in existence.
5. What lesson may we learn from this?
6. To what are the books of Daniel and the Revelation specially devoted?
7. What noted captives are mentioned in Daniel 1:6?
8. What especial 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." Dan 1:17.
9. What remarkable dream was given to King Nebuchadnezzar in the second year of his reign?
"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." Dan. 2:31-35.
10. Give the interpretation.
11. What vision was given to Daniel in the first year of Belshazzar?
"Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another." Dan. 7:2, 3.
12. Describe the four beasts that came up from the sea.
"The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it; and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns." Dan. 7:4-7.
13. What did these four beasts represent?
"These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth." Verse 17.
14. Was Daniel fully satisfied with the interpretation he received?
"Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me; but I kept the matter in my heart." Verse 28.
15. After two years, what symbols were shown to Daniel, as mentioned in chapter 8?631"Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns; and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last." "And as I was considering, behold, a he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes." "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Verses 3, 5, 9.
16. What did the first beast denote?
"The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." Verse 20.
17. What did the rough goat represent?
"And the rough goat is the king of Grecia; and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king." Verse 21.
18. What are the names of the first three universal empires?
19. By what symbols is Babylon represented in chapters 2 and 7?
20. By what is Medo-Persia symbolized in chapters 2, 7, and 8?
1. WHAT is the name of the first universal kingdom of Daniel 2, and by what was it represented?
2. By what is this same kingdom represented in Daniel 7?
3. What change took place in this beast?
"The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it." Dan. 7:4.
4. What did this change denote? See note.
5. By what was the Medo-Persian Empire represented in Daniel 8?
"The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." Verse 20.
6. What peculiarity in regard to the horns is mentioned in verse 3?
7. What did this represent? See note.
8. By what is this kingdom represented in chapter 7?
"And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it; and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh." Verse 5.
9. What may be inferred by its raising itself up on one side? See note.
10. What may the ribs denote? See note.
11. What was said to the bear?
"And they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh." Verse 5.
12. What similar work of conquest and slaughter was to be performed by the ram of Daniel 8?
"I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great." Verse 4.
13. By what was the Medo-Persian Empire represented in chapter 2?
14. What characteristic of the great image may represent the two branches of this kingdom?
15. By what is Grecia represented in chapter 8?
"And the rough goat is the king of Grecia; and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king." Verse 21.
16. By what is the same kingdom represented in chapter 7?
"After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it." Verse 6.
17. What characteristic was represented by the four wings? See note.
18. What did the four heads signify? See note.
19. By what metal was this third kingdom represented in Daniel 2?
"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." Verse 39.
AFTER the anointing of Jehu as king of Israel, nothing more is said of Elisha till this record of his last sickness and death—a period of about forty-five years; this covered the whole of the reign of Jehu and his son Jehoahaz, and part of the reign of Joash, the grandson of Jehu. Hazael reigned in Syria all this time, and continued to commit depredations in all the coasts of Israel (2 Kings 10:32; 13:22). He even made an incursion into the kingdom of Judah, took Gath, and "set his face to go up to Jerusalem." Then Joash of Judah "took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the Lord, and in the king's house, and sent it to Hazael, king of Syria; and he went away from Jerusalem." 2 Kings 12:17, 18. Hazael had so persistently oppressed Israel that finally there was left "of the people to Jehoahaz but fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria had destroyed them, and had made them like the dust by threshing."
THIS was the condition of affairs at the time of our lesson. "Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died. And Joash the king of Israel came down unto him, and wept over his face, and said, O my father, my father! the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof." Now that Joash is about to lose Elisha from his kingdom forever, he comes to weep over him, and to remember the day when Elisha alone was more than a match for all the armed hosts of Syria. He now begins to realize what a protection Elisha was, and what a power the kingdom is now about to lose. If he had remembered this sooner, he would not have been brought so low. If he had never forgotten it, Israel would have flourished instead of being oppressed. It is ever so. We appreciate our blessings when they are gone. Then, too, we act without them as we should have acted when they were with us. But if we would only learn to appreciate our blessings while we have them, then we should not have to do without them; for by the advantage of these, we should but be advanced to other and greater ones.
BUT for even this parting token of regard, Elisha, in kindness, shows the king a token of good from the Lord. "Elisha said unto him, Take bow and arrows. And he took unto him bow and arrows. And he said to the king of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow. And he put his hand upon it; and Elisha put his hands upon the king's hands. And he said, Open the window eastward. And he opened it. Then Elisha said, Shoot. And he shot. And he said, The arrow of the Lord's deliverance, and the arrow of deliverance from Syria; for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them. And he said, Take the arrows. And he took them. And he said unto the king of Israel, Smite upon the ground. And he smote thrice, and stayed. And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldst have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it; whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice."
HAZAEL was succeeded by his son Ben-hadad. "And Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again out of the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities which he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz his father by war. Three times did Joash beat him, and recovered the cities of Israel." And Syria never invaded Israel any more.
"AND Elisha died, and they buried him." And that is the obituary of Elisha, the "man of God." The Bible writers are remarkable for the brevity of the obituaries. It would be well if their way were followed more fully at the present day.
"AND the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year." The Moabites were the descendants of Moab, the son of one of the daughters of Lot, by her father, after the destruction of Sodom. Their country lay to the east of the Dead Sea.
"AND it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulcher of Elisha; and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet." It is idle to conjecture upon why the Lord wrought this miracle. He has not told us why it was. He has recorded the fact, and that is all we can say about it.
WITH the death of Elisha closes the lessons in the Kings, for this year. But the kingdom of Israel continued only about a hundred years longer, until even the Lord could no longer bear with them, and then he cast them out of his presence. In to-day's lesson, verse 23, we read that for all the sins of the successive kings, yet "the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet." Finally, however, they had so literally "sold themselves to do evil" that the Lord removed them out of his sight, and rejected all the seed of Israel, and they were carried captive into Assyria, and never returned to their own land. A. T. J.