BIBLE QUESTIONS

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 187, 12 September 1914, Page 5

BIBLE QUESTIONS

(Edited by "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.—"The profit of the earth is for all" (Eccl. v., 9). Thanks for your reply re this. If the Church exists for '' spiritual purposes'' only, why do minI isters at church conferences talk about "studying" the economic question? Do they not propose to study it so as to qualify themselves to give light and leading on it? Because various denominations wage war against the liquor traffic and gambling, do you consider such denominations "essentially worldly?" If not, then why should they not also specifically denounce the great fundamental economic wrong—land monopoly, than which there is no greater breach of moral law? The remedy is simple. It lies in changing the incidence of taxation. Were not the early Christians persecuted because they preached the gospel of justice, which struck at the fetters of the captive and at the bonds of the slave? The Old Testament gives an account of the Hebrew economic system,- the main result of which was that the whole of the wealth produced went to the producers, less the amount of a tax called "tithe." Why is it that we hear nothing from the pulpits about the principles of that Divine economic system, which was evidently intended to be a guide to all generations? I do not see that Christ's attitude towards the matter you refer to,, viz., dividing an inheritance between two individuals (Luke xii., 13-14), has the slightest bearing on the question of economic justice. It is certain that Christ denounced robbery and oppression (Matt., xxiii., 14-28) ?—S.G.M.

A. —It seems to me that Christ's words, '' Who made me a divider'' of worldly gear, have a very direct bearing on the duty of His Church in regard to the same kind of division. The early Church preached mercy and humanity and brotherhood, and in so doing gradually loosened the bonds of the slave. It did not make any direct attack on the slave system. In the same way the Church now preaches justice and brotherhood, but does not join a party. That at least seems to be the ideal. The application of the high principles taught rests with society as a whole. That is my opinion, but it is for the Church to decide for itself what its policy and duty are. Whether it will ever make the "incidence of taxation" and "land monopoly" staples of its teaching or not I cannot say; but I am quite clear that those subjects cannot be discussed in this column. The Hebrew land system, which you call "divine, "may fairly come under the heading of Bible Questions. But I doubt whether you would desire to see it established among us.. You will find that there were great estates under that system, and a host of poor, and of beggars; that debtors lost their land, and even their personal liberty till the fiftieth year, and that the land was subject to the Sabbath year, the seventh year, when it was allowed to lie waste and accumulate weeds. One of the chief objections to the Zionist movement, the return of Jews to Palestine,- &nd the reinstitution of the Law, is that it would involve this absurd regulation.

Q. —Do you consider that the exhortation that wives shall obey their husbands still holds good? If So r why approve the suggestion of the gentler sex that the word "obey" should be omitted from the marriage service? In this, as in many other Scriptural exhortations and commands, the harsh letter of the law seems getting gradually departed from. Is it that the Churches are adapting Christianity to the ever-changing conditions of human life, and are not now so unflinching—one might say fanatical—in carrying out the direct Scriptural commands? —H. B. M. A. —You put it correctly. "Be in subjection to your own husbands" (1 Peter ii., 1) and "Submit yourselves," etc. (Ephesians v., 22) are exhortations rather than commands. The word "obey" is applied to children and to bond servants, but not to wives. Of course, the exhortation holds good, and in the nature of things cannot ever be out of date. It does not follow, however, that the word "obey" should be in the marriage service. The Church put it in to express the sentiment of one condition of society, and I presume has a. right to take it out when another condition of society arises.

Q— (1) What were "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which Christ said he would give to Peter (Matthew xvi., 19)? (2) What is meant in the next verse by "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc.?—H. P.

A. —(1) Some say that the "keys" were apostolical authority. But that is inconsistent with the fact that all the apostles had such authority; and with the fact that Paul disputed Peter's conduct and blamed him (Galatians ii., 1114), and appears to have won against Peter all along the line. Others say that the promise was fulfilled in the fact that Peter opened the kingdom to the Jews by preaching on the Day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles by admitting Cornelius the centurion. But that does not seem quite adequate. (2) To bind and to loose are said to have meant in Jewish speech to forbid and to allow. Those who contend for this believe that the reference is to the superior authority of Peter. They also urge that the words refer to tilings, not to men. Others consider that the reference is to the forgiving of offences, and they refer to Matthew xviii., 18, where the same words are addressed to all in connection with forgiveness. It is obvious that the manner and tone of our dealing with those who offend has much to do with their reformation. The tone of high siiperiority hardens the sinner, while if you "restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted" (Galatians vi., 1) you soften him, and the results of your conduct affect the relation of the erring one with heaven itself. It is-curious, however, that the word "Church" occurs but twice in the Gospels, and that in both cases it is connected with the words in question. Critics think that the word "Church" was not used till some time after Christ's death, and that it suggests a late origin for this important passage. ■

Q. —Was it at all consonant with the mildness and mercy of the Christian religion that Peter sliould strike Auaiiias and his wife dead for telling a fib about their gift to the common fund? —Anti-Capital Punishment.

A. —If he had struck them dead it would have been not only uu-Christian,

but would in all probability have brought Peter into serious relations with the Eoman authorities. Is it not better to interpret the Bible in the light of everyday happenings than to be always supposing that miracles took place at every turn? Here are two Press Association messages, which I preserved as the best commentary on the incident in Acts v., "New York, December 14, 1931: The guests, on assembling to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the marriage of Mr and Mrs Bernard Kotch, aged 67 years, found both the husband and wife dead. Mr Kotch died from heart disease, and his wife was killed by the shock.'' New York, September 6, 1912: Lieutenant-General Macarthur, a distinguished soldier of the Civil War, who was attending a reunion of his old regiment, the 24th Wisconsin Yolunteers, dropped dead from apoplexy. Captain Parson, a comrade-in-arms, was stricken with paralysis on seeing General Macarthur fall." It is quite possible that the writer of the Acts thought that the incident he records was miraculous, but even he does not say anything about "striking dead." ■'<