To Correspondents by J. H. W.

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 13, 1872

To Correspondents.

By J. H. W.

M. A. CONRAD: You ask if the Gentiles to whom Paul preached, used pork. Undoubtedly they did; and whether or not the apostle undertook to reform them in reference to this practice, except on the general principles of temperance, and the abstaining from things hurtful, we are not informed.

J. M. G.: The most reliable chronologers make the world to be, at the present time, about six thousand years old.

Please inform me through the REVIEW what the Greek word is from which “at hand” is translated in Matt. 4: 17 and 2 Thess. 2: 2.

In Bro. White’s tract, “The Kingdom,” he says the first is “engizo,” and the second is “enisteemi,” while in the book, entitled “Prophecy of Daniel, Four Kingdoms, Sanctuary, and Twenty-three Hundred Days,” it is given in Matt. 4: 17, to be “engikee,” in 2 Thess. 2: 2 is given “enisteeken.”

Now can it be both, or which is correct?

W. W. S.

ANS. Both are correct, essentially. They are but different forms of the same words.

In the REVIEW of Jan. 16, under the heading Question Answered, I find an exposition of Rom. 10: 4: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. I shall not object to the exposition, only I think the phrase, “Law for righteousness,” refers particularly to the Levitical priesthood law of sacrifices, by which the people received atonement, and consequently, justification, or righteousness, in believing in the Messiah to whom these sacrifices pointed.” The Levitical priesthood, in which all those rites were administered, being typical of the sufferings and death of Christ by which we receive the atonement and justification. Therefore, Christ is not only the scope and design of that law, but also the termination of it. Col. 2: 14: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” For further evidence of this fact, I refer the reader to the whole epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, wherein he portrays the similarity of the priesthood of Aaron to that of Christ, and wherein he describes the greater excellency of that of Christ to that of the former.

T. P. STILLMAN.

ANS. All that is here said about the relation of the priesthoods of Aaron and Christ is correct. But that Heb. 10: 4 refers to the priesthood of Aaron cannot be correct. See the exposition to which you refer, on the latter part of the verse. Your theory would have some show of plausibility if you could make it appear that Christ was the termination of any law to the believer and not to the unbeliever. But, as such an idea is absurd, your view must be wrong.

QUES. Is it right to raise swine to sell?

ANS. We are disposed to leave this question to be answered by Rom. 14: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” We cannot consent to bind people’s consciences in matters concerning which we have no direct order in the Scriptures.

1. Please give an exposition of 1 Cor. 15: 45.

2. A man here belonging to the M. E. church, claims, from what is recorded in Gen. 2, that man and woman were not created until after God’s six days of labor were ended. Will you give us light on the subject?

T. D. W.

1. On the second part of this verse there can be no query. Christ is the second Adam, a quickening, or life-giving spirit. The first is a quotation from Gen. 2: 7: man, the first Adam, became a “living soul.” Clarke, in commenting on Gen. 1: 24, says of the phrase “living creature:” “nephesh chaiyah; a general term to express all creatures endued with animal life, in any of its infinitely varied gradations, from the half-reasoning elephant, down to the stupid potto.” But Clarke does not mention the fact that the words living soul in Gen. 2: 7, applied to man, are exactly the same as in chap. 1: 24, there rendered “living creature.” Our confidence in his commentary might sometimes be heightened if he had told the whole truth on some important points. His remarks on the formation of man, and the difference between his body and soul, are entirely out of harmony with his comment on the same words in chap. 1: 24. The true idea of chap. 2: 7, may be found as follows: “Man became a living soul”—text: “A general term to express all creatures endued with animal life.”—Clarke.

2. We do not know what object, or what reason, he can have for making such a statement. Gen. 1 shows the order of God’s work of creation; and the making of man is set down as part of the work of the sixth day. In chap. 2 the making of man is referred to in order to show how he was made, and to introduce the narrative of his probation. But it does not contradict the definite statement of chap. 1, or say that man was made on any other than the sixth day of the first week.

J. H. W.