To Correspondents

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 2, 1870

To Correspondents.

F. H. MORRISON: We think 1 Cor. 11: 5, 6, has reference to the customs of society at the time the language was written. With the Greeks and Romans in those days it was usual for all women of modest deportment and virtuous characters, to wear a vail. Only those of an opposite character appeared without them. Hence a woman so appearing, dishonored her head, or husband, verse 3. By the law of Moses, a woman suspected of adultery was deprived of her vail. Num. 5: 18. And if a woman refused to wear a vail, let her says Paul, be shorn (of her hair); this being, at that time, a punishment for adultery. If the woman would persist in presenting an immodest appearance, let her wear the badge of infamy by being shaven.

“SUBSCRIBER” from Boston, Mass., asks: “When we meet together for worship away from home on the Sabbath, is it right to buy food, having neglected to bring it from home?” We are inclined to answer this question according to a very usual Yankee method, by asking another: Why should the bringing of all necessary food from home be neglected? We think a person should not fail to make provision for all circumstances, so far as they can be foreseen. But if he finds himself unexpectedly without food, and it is not thought advisable to fast, and provision can be procured in no other way, it then becomes a matter of necessity or of mercy to purchase. But if the condition supposed has resulted from carelessness or inexcusable neglect, we should say, let a repetition of it be rendered very improbable by the person’s maintaining a rigid fast.

INQUIRER, West Union, Iowa: We think that there can be but little doubt that “who” in Rom. 5: 14, refers to Adam. The construction seems to demand this. Adam is the one of whom Paul is specially speaking, and is the leading subject in the verse. It is most natural, therefore, that the relative, who, should refer back to him as its antecedent. Verses 13–17 inclusive are parenthetical. By reading verse 18 in connection with verse 12, leaving out the parenthesis, it will be seen that Paul’s subject is Adam and Christ, and the contrast between their works. By Adam came death; by Christ comes life. And the expression in verse 14 that death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, seems to be designed to show that we suffer death not for our own transgressions, but in consequence of Adam’s sin. So by the obedience of Christ, and his intervention in behalf of the race, we are to be released from this death, even although we have not been obedient after the similitude of Christ’s righteousness. That which comes upon us unconditionally, as a consequence of Adam’s transgression, is removed unconditionally by Christ. Had Adam never sinned, and had the race continued in uprightness the allotted period of their probation, he would have stood forth at last as the father and head of a righteous people, they having derived their life through him. But Adam having lost this privilege through sin, Christ now comes in to save as many as will avail themselves of his proffered aid. Thus Christ takes the place of Adam in reference to the saved, being their Redeemer, and they deriving their life through him. In this respect he occupies the same position that Adam would have occupied but for sin; hence Adam is taken as a type, figure, or representation, of Christ, who is plainly called by Paul, the second Adam. 1 Cor. 15: 45–49.