BIBLE QUESTIONS

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 169, 22 August 1914, Page 5

BIBLE QUESTIONS

(Edited by 1 ' AQUILA. '')

Bible questions will be answered here if sent to the Editor of this column, accompanied by the names and addresses of the senders.

Q. —Your remarks on proplicey in answer to F.E. last week seem to me to be in the direction of ignoring the prophesies altogether. What do you make of the four beasts in the 7th of Daniel? The first beast had the form of a lion with the wings of an eagle. The wings were plucked, the beast was made to stand up like a man, and a man's heart was given to it. Is not this France 1 ? Napoleon's eagles were plucked, and the nation became a man with a man's heart: that is it became a republic. The second beast was a bear, with three ribs in its mouth. Is not this Russia with the ribs of Poland, Finland, etc., in its mouth? The next was a leopard (England) with four wings of a bird (the sails of her ships), four heads (England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), and dominion was given unto it. The fourth beast was '' dreadful, and terrible, and strong,'' was different from all others, had teeth of iron, claws of brass, and ten horns, and a mouth speaking great things. Is not this Germany armed to the teeth and given to truculence and bullying? The ten horns will stand for her ten kingdoms. One of these horns grows up and thrusts out three of the others, which may be Prussia absorbing Bavaria, Saxony, and Hanover. When we read of the drying up of the greaj: river Euphrates, "that the way of the kings of the east may be prepared," does not that refer to the forsaking of Christian principles by Europe, preparparing a way for barbarous Russia and Japan?— Student. A.—l am very unwilling to admit that the points of resemblance that you discover between these v ancient symbols and modern nations make them a prophecy that must be fulfilled, for in Daniel the fourth beast (Germany) overcomes all the others before it is overthrown. If you will read the Bth chapter, about the ram and the goat you will find an interpretation. Alexander the Great overcomes Persia and Media, and then his dominion splits into four. Daniel is supposed to have been written a century and a half after these events happened. He is not prophesying, but giving a vivid statement of well-known historical facts to encourage his readers to hope for the fall of their oppressors. The four beasts also had probably already passed into history. If they were future, then they would be in the then near future. The prophecies were written to serve their own age in the main, and had reference to political they referred to politics) then on the horizon. Let me suppose that, like many million of others just now, you have an anxious heart on account of the disasters with which the time is big. Of what benefit would it be to you if some inspired message should assure you that all wrong will be set right about 2000 years hence? Yet you want us to believe that the great practical preachers and poets of the Bible comforted their hearers with prophecies about the 20th century, and about nations which would not come into existence for 1500 years! I am far from objecting to there being prophecies about the kingdom of God, for the Bible abounds with them. We are ourselves constantly prophesying about the same thing. But the finding of sentences here and there with some fancied, likeness to passing events, and then calling them prophecies, is to my mind mere trifling with the Scriptures. A good man once showed me E/.ekiel, xxix., 4, "I will put hooks, in thy jaws," and said it referred to the anchors of the British ships before Sebastapol! Yet the whole chapter is addressed to Egypt. A good Irish Protestant;- too, long ago showed me Joel i., 17, "The seed is rotten under their clods," and insisted that it obviously referred to the Irish potato blight! Yet the whole passage is about Palestine, 'and refers to the drought smiting figs, vines, and pomegranates, and the "seed" is the seed of corn. This kind of prophecy mongering brings the Bible into contempt. Tt shows a want of historical perspective, and betrays a conceit that thinks that the passing events of our day are those on which God wishes to focus the attention of all the ages.

Q. —The Bible tells us that believers were to have the power of healing the siclc, etc. (Mark 16, 17-18). Why is it that ministers of religion and other believers do not possess that power? Some say that it was limited to Apostolic times, but, so far as I know, the Scriptures are silent 011 this point. Others contend that belief is not now accompanied by the power of healing the sick because believers have not sufficient faith", but surely there are believers nowadays who have as much faith as those of Apostolic times. —F.E. A. —I believe that, in suitable cases, the power of healing still resides in the Church, though it is not exercised. It does not appear that the power was in everyday use even in Apostolic times. Timothy has "often infirmities," but Paul does not recommend faith, but a little wine. Epaphroditus, too, was sick unto death (Phil. 2, 27), and there is 110 mention of any faith cure. Even St. Paul had his thorn in the flesh, which he thrice besought the Lord to remove, but his faith was not effective. (2 Cor., 12,7). This shows that there were suitable cases and unsuitable. The scientific distinction is "functional and organic." 1 pointed out some time ago that a conference of medical men and clergymen had urged the Church to resume its functions, in functional cases. The faith, however, must be in the patient in order td produce the desired result. This kind of cure does not involve. a miracle, but is a natural process.

Q. — 1. Was the kingdom of God inaugurated on the Day oi ! Pentecost., or is it, to bo set up on the second coming of Christ? What, is the teaching of Scripture regarding this matter? '2. Regarding your theory of the story of Jonah in the Old Testament., how far are we to accept as actual happenings the "walking on the sea," the "stilling of the tempest," the "raising from the dead of Martha's brother".' How are tlie.se happenings generally regarded by modern theologians .' —H.B.M .

A. — 1. The meaning of "the kingdom of (iod" is a much disputed point. Sometimes it seems to be heaven itself. "Ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of Uod " (Luke IL'S). Sometimes it is "at hand,'' sometimes it "is come unto you," and once, in a very impor taut - passage, it "is within

you" (Luke 17, 20-21). It does Hot come with observation, is not an outward organisation. It consists of the men of the new and unselfish heart; of those who are like the children. "Of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10, 13), of those who are converted and childlike (Matthew 18, 3), and of those who are "born again" (John 3, 3). The kingdom exists wherever these are. The number of instances in which the mention of the kingdom is associated with the renewed nature is a matter not to be overlooked in any serious study of this question. 2. These matters are related as history, and must be taken as such. No doubt there are individuals who would prefer to regard them as legends, but theologians as a class stand firmly by the New Testament miracles. If the incidents you quote would make better sense as parables they would be on the same footing as Jonah. S.G.M'.—Next week.