Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Excerpts from Hortator (pseud.), Simplicity of Health (1829)

I have been reading some works on 19th-century views of tobacco, alcohol, tea, and coffee. Here are some notes from:


Hortator (pseud.), Simplicity of Health: Exemplified by Hortator (London: Effingham Wilson, 1829):

 

34. There is, perhaps, nothing so injurious to the teeth as hot food or drinks. We should make it a rule to take nothing above blood heat, and it would be found generally conducive to health. Meat, if only plainly roasted or boiled, is seldom above the proper medium; but hot tea, hashes, vegetables, soups, punch, puddings, pies, and the like, should at least be avoided by those who value their teeth. I have already observed that no one can be secure against the toothache, until he can bear cold water in his mouth at any time, and it is surprising how soon this will accomplish it. Let any person, ever so sensible of pain by cold water in the mouth, take nothing above luke warm for a week only, and he will prove the truth of my assertion. (p. 28)

 

SOBRIETY.

 

56. By sobriety I mean an abstinence from intoxicating liquors, or such a discretion in the use of them, as amounts to nearly the same thing. Of its great importance to health, I am so convinced, that I intended to treat the subject at considerable length in this volume. But, finding that it would extend beyond the limits that I here propose to myself, I determined to reserve it for a separate treatise, of which I shall merely give a kind of synopsis or sketch.

 

My subject being to show the follow, the imprudence, and the impolicy of ebriety, I I have no scruple in avowing that the immorality of it forms no part of my consideration. That I leave to its proper place the pulpit. The sin of drunkenness is well known, and any feeble exhortation from me, would be only wasting my own and the reader’s time. On that point I am sure that I should make no sensible impression. After the many excellent moral discourses that have appeared, and the affecting expositions of this vice that are constantly delivered by the clergy of all persuasions, I could say nothing original in a religious view of the subject. My business is to show the injury that it does to our health, how it mars our advancement in temporal life, how it presents us from being independent of our inferiors, whether we are masters or agents. I lay bare the flimsy apologies that ae made for the volatility and inexperience of young men; I show how they can be obstinately and determinedly reserved to the last degree upon other occasions, and some where the tenderest passions are concerned—how they can be economical, despite of the laughs of their gayer or wilder companions, and how nothing can shake their resolution in certain cases. I point out how insobriety may be always avoided, and in short I exhibit the fuddled youth in the most contemptible and degraded view, yet not more highly coloured than it ought to be. And as for those advanced in life, I flatter myself that, I leave them, whether married or single, as objects to be despised, not pitied, under any circumstances. Nor do I at all confine myself to common drunkards or ordinary tipplers, for there are many men who drink a great deal without every being tipsy. I insist, if a man consult his health, he should be very sparing in the use of strong liquors; and if he look to his character, he can never maintain it with energy or proper respect, unless by undeviating sobriety. I relate no stories of the melancholy accidents and frightful dissenters arising from drunkenness: were I so inclined, it would be to little purpose, for there is no one past childhood who could not fill a large volume with narrations of similar occurrences within his own time. (pp. 42-43)

 

91. It will readily occur to any one, that such things as evidently affect the head, must be bad for this complaint. And, accordingly, when the symptoms are alarming, those who are accustomed to take wine or spirits, is very proper certainly; but there is a much simpler beverage, tea, that is considerably more injurious. Its power in determining blood to the head is as astonishing as that it should have remained unknown; and I do not hesitate to call it an important discovery.

 

92. The effects of tea are very slow, and consequently the more dangerous and deceptive. It is hardly necessary to say, that I mean strong tea—when taken weak, it is comparatively harmless. Many years may go over without any serious apprehensions, but all the time it is imperceptibly progressing in accomplishing its baneful tendencies. Its effects are different according to the various peculiarities of constitution. Some feel their nerves affected. Those I wonder the most fortunate, because they immediately lay it to the right cause—it being generally considered as the principal, if not the only bad consequence from tea. Others have an occasional headache, without knowing that it proceeds from this favourite exotic. From many, it gradually takes away the appetite for breakfast, and in short it is the cause of many complaints with which it is not supposed to have any connexion. But its quality of preventing sleep, ought to be a convincing proof of its power in disturbing the head. However, as long as it does not affect the nerves, the general opinion is, that it is incapable of doing any other injury. I am anxious to show that this is a very erroneous belief, and perhaps I cannot expose it better, then by relating tow or three cases that fortunately came under my own observation.

 

93. A man of a spare habit, who lived a regular and abstemious life, but who took his tea or coffee for breakfast very strong, found occasionally an uneasy sensation in his head, a strong pulsation of beating, something like an inclination to faint or to go into a state of insensibility. But as it used to be soon over, and as he was long subject to a headache, he did not much mind it. This continued for four or five years, when it assumed a character calculated to excite the most serious alarm. The fits, if they might be so called, increased in duration, and intensity, so that the strongest sensations were excited by only closing the teeth or touching the knees together. The sensibility in the head became so delicate, that the least contact of one part of the body with another, caused a sudden dash of what one generally calls fulness in the head, or rather something like a violent or almost overpowering rush of some fluid or heavy body. It required the greatest exertions to prevent his sinking under these attacks, and he has assured me that he was often tempted to give way to them, but the fear of “falling into nought” prevented him. Besides, being in a public situation, the dread of exposure operated, and the possibility of awaking with the loss of his senses. When these attacks came towards evening, he went to bed as early as he could, finding that keeping the head motionless, lessened the accession of flushing, But the ast time that he had it very bad, it got worse in bed—insomuch that, util the access abated, he was afraid to go to sleep, lest he might awaken in another world! It was then that he saw there was no time to lose in seeking for a remedy or palliative. This he felt satisfied could not be done by medicine, as his bowels were always perfectly free, and yet his regularity of living left no change open, unless to discontinue malt drink. But, as he had observed that he was never affected by taking a pint, or even more, of porter or ale, he could expect no relief from abstaining from them. He would have turned his attention to the strong tea and coffee that he used at breakfast, but as his nerves remained remarkably vigorous and steady, he dismissed that idea as altogether erroneous. In the deepest distress of mind he half resolved at a last resource, to apply to an eminent physician, although he knew that bleeding would be ordered, to which he had a strong objection, believing that repetitious are, in such cases, the inevitable consequence. Whilst in this state of appalling indecision, I fortunately saw him. After detailing what I have just given, suspecting that his strong tea and coffee must be the cause of his complaint, I asked if he were accustomed to take tea in the evening, and he said very seldom. I then begged him to try and recollect if he, latterly felt those symptoms of hurry and flushing accelerated after evening tea, and he said that he thought he did. To me this was conclusive. From all considerations, I was not satisfied that his strong breakfast, tea and coffee, must be the cause of his complaint, and, by my advice, he reduced them to one-fourth of their usual strength, which left them weak enough. The rapid cure that this effected was astonishing. He assured me that in less than a week, the symptoms were so completely eradicated, that, with all the efforts of imagination, he could not perceive the slightest trace of any affection in his head. I recommended him to go on, and not substitute milk. He continues the weak tea or coffee, and has reduced their strength lower, in order the better to secure himself against that horrid malady that so justly alarmed him. It is now about two years since this occurrence. He finds his abandonment, as it may be called, of tea and coffee, agrees admirably with him, in every respect. His constitution seems to be completely renovated, and he has no longer a headache. It was, no doubt, a great privation for one who was fond of taking them very strong, and who was so moderate in other indulgences, but he considered that no price was too high for good health. . . . Although I have scarcely mentioned coffee, it is proper to observe that, when taken strong, it affects the head, not perhaps so much as tea, but quite enough to show the necessity for its discontinuance, where the other is injurious. In comparison to these, the effects of chocolate are very light. It should not, however, be used in a greater proportion than half an ounce to a pint and half of milk and water. (pp. 61-63, 66-68)

 

170. HOT FOOD OR DRINK.—I have pointed out (34) the bad effects upon the teeth, from taking hoot food or drink. But it is so very hurtful, generally, to the constitution, that I think it right to notice it again. I said that nothing should be used above blood heat, and this is the best way to ascertain the proper standard. On going to take anything that is warm, from the spoon or cup, let the upper lip rest in it for three or four seconds, and if it be in the least smarted, the heat is too great. This is, besides, a polite manner of eating or drinking, as it is, certainly, not a sign of gentility or good breeding to transfer soft food or liquids directly or hastily from the spoon, or the cup, at once into the mouth. For those things that are eaten with the fork, a very small but should be first taken as a trial, and by this the proper heat can be easily known. There is, beside constitutional objects, another advantage in these precautions which is essential to good breeding and personal convenience. We can never be surprised by putting into the mouth, or swallowing, anything so hot as to cause pain or distress. What a pitiable exhibition, in genteel company, in the writhing and contortions, after ingulfing a spoonful of scalding soup, or to see a person contenting with a morsel of food, turning it round in his mouth, and debating whether he shall, in defiance of all decorum, throw it out to obtain some relief for his burning palate! (pp. 114-15)

 

175. TEA.—In addition to what has been said in chapter xiii, it is necessary to notice another effect. There is a malady, of which I do not recollect the regular name, through I think I have seen it called Dementiae metus, in which the unhappy sufferer is tormented by an apprehension that he shall become insane. He grows low-spirited, watchful, and distrustful of his own correctness or capability upon the most ordinary occasions. This makes him be have similar to, and exhibit the same anxiety of, a man who has been tippling and does not wish the effects to be perceived. It no doubt arises from those irregularities in the course of the blood to the head that have been already mentioned, and, as this is felt, the patient, when alarmed, usually leaves off all kinds of strong liquors, from a conviction, natural enough, that they must be injurious. But he never thinks of lowering the strength of his tea or coffee; on the contrary, believing them innocent, it is often increased, in order to rouse and exhilarate him. Yet perhaps nothing can be worse in such a case. The object should be to promote a moderate circulation and abate the secretion of blood; and, strong tea or coffee being particularly calculated for aggravation, the disorder too often proceeds to insanity.

 

I cannot resist expressing an opinion that, of the two most celebrated persons who flourished in the present century, one was much injured and the other lost his life by strong coffee. Though I shall not dispute that Bonaparte died of a cancer in the stomach, I believe that those fits of oblivion or insensibility to which there can be no doubt that he was subject, were heightened by his unsparing use of that fascinating beverage. The report, on posthumous inspection, stated, that a quantity of something, resembling the grounds of coffee were found in his stomach; but I do not mean to call in that circumstance to aid my conclusions. I only mention it as a thing not entirely unworthy of medical consideration.

 

As for Lord Byron, I have no hesitation in saying that strong coffee caused his death. His head was one remarkably unsuited to bear it. Let the faculty ponder well upon all the symptoms some time previous to, and during, his last illness—let them consider his general affections and constitution—let them condescend to reflect upon my assertion (92), that the effects may be in progress for years, and then it is not improbable that they would allow my observations some claim to attention. (pp. 119-20)

 

Responding to Criticisms of the First Vision and Debate Challenge on Modalism as the Earliest LDS Christology

Recently, Dan Vogel wrote the following in response to a presentation I gave on the First Vision (I have uploaded the unedited powerpoint slides on dropbox here]):

 

On Psalm 14: This was dictated between late July 1832 and 2 July 1833, after Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon claimed to have seen “the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father” (D&C 76:20). Nothing in JS’s revision implies his First Vision. He still had to justify Moses seeing God (Moses 1). Some of his followers were seeing Jesus. In Dec. 1832, a revelation promised the sanctified a view of God (D&C 88:68).

 

This misses the point I was making; the language one finds from Jesus in the 1838 account is found here, alongside verbiage found in the 1832 account (and such, in JST 14, is attributed to the Lord) showing it was created out of whole clothe in 1838. As I said, Bradley and Walker have a forthcoming article on this and they will be going into more detail on this, and on Moses seeing God, I will be discussing this and related issues on Stephen's channel next time I appear ("Can Man See God?" will be the title of the episode).

 

Also, D&C 76:62 refutes your thesis that Modalism was early LDS Christology (I know your ‘responses’ to these texts and find them exegetically wanting, to put it nicely). Stephen Murphy approached you to debate me on this topic and you pulled the “I am too busy” card. You work one day a week in a grocery store and spend a lot of time on youtube with RFM et al. You should be willing to debate and defend your claim, made for decades now, that the Book of Mormon and early LDS literature (including the Lectures on Faith) is that of Modalism.

 

On D&C 20:5: . . . Robert, you seem to have trouble with the word “manifestation,” but the BofM and D&C use it for non-visionary experiences: “manifestation of the Spirit” (Alma 5:47; 7:17; D&C 5:16; 8:, etc.).

 

Ah, yes; I must struggle with the word "manifestation." Insult the intelligence of your critics, Dan. Furthermore, this only shows you were not paying attention to anything I said. I acknowledged the language of “manifestation” can be used in such a way; notice, however, those texts speak of “manifestation of the Spirit” (i.e., an example of a movement of the Spirit and/or demonstration of the gifts of the Spirits). As I noted, "manifest" with reference to the Father and/or the Son often means a theophany. You did not deal with those texts. Perhaps you have trouble with the word "manifestation" and paying attention to your critics?

 

Robert, I think you are reading too much into the text of 2 Nephi 27:24-26. Of course, this text was dictated by Joseph Smith near the end of the project. Smith (or Nephi depending on how you view it) adapts the entire chapter 29 of Isaiah to his situation, but its primary use pertains to the Book of Mormon and the sealed book. There part that you interpret as a prophecy of the First Vision creates no problem for the naturalist since chronologically (in 2 Nephi) it comes after the book is sealed up again (v 22). It doesn’t say when the Lord speaks the words or how (personally or through revelation), but in context it seems to be poetic and not literal.

 

How so? What can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied. This is pretty pathetic, Dan, as well as a false dichotomy (if something uses poetical devices it must be 100% non-literal; speaking personally and through revelation [false dichotomy], etc.) but to be expected from someone who has no training in exegesis and comes up with all types of mental gymnastics to salvage his pet theories, whether early Mormon Modalism or, as my friend Stephen Smoot has shown, the Book of Abraham. And the claim that “In this chapter, the Lord is made to say a lot of things that do not seem to be literal” is another stretch. At times, 2 Nephi 27 uses hyperbolic language to describe realities. Note the opening verses:

 

But, behold, in the last days, or in the days of the Gentiles-- yea, behold all the nations of the Gentiles and also the Jews, both those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all the lands of the earth, behold, they will be drunken with iniquity and all manner of abominations.

 

Nephi is talking about a literal reality (i.e., people engaged in ‘abominations’ [idolatry, etc]) even if he is waxing lyrical (“drunken with iniquity”). The context of the pericope also suggests a literal event, not one that is merely poetical. Notice the promise from the Lord concerning the witnesses and other events about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon:

 

Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men. (v. 22)

 

The text clearly presents the witnesses as real, not poetical or metaphorical; the sealing up of the plates and their being hidden up to God as a real event; the preservation being a real event; and their being revealed in the then-future to the children of men as a real event. This then leads into the pericope I discussed. A theophany, not a "born again experience" merely without a theophany (I try not to engage in false dichotomies) is supported by the text. Further, in, vv. 24-26, while there might be poetic language used, it discussing literal (space-time) events, such as the then-future translator reading/translating the text (v. 24); the people of the time paying lip service to the Gospel and believing in false gospels (v. 25; cf. Gal 1:6-9); and doing a "marvellous work among this people" (coming forth of the Book of Mormon; preaching of the true Gospel, etc [v. 26]).

 

Dan: Stephen Murphy, as I noted, asked you to debate me on the claim you have been making for years now that the Book of Mormon, 1832 First Vision, and even the Lectures on Faith (Lecture #5 in particular) teaches Modalism. I will happily debate you on this topic in a moderated debate (Stephen Murphy, who has shown himself to be fairly neutral, would be a perfect moderator). And I am not a randomer on this topic or some “Internet apologist” who has no training; I have the formal education in the relevant fields (e.g., degree in theology; coursework in Christology and relevant topics; very good grasp of 19th-century religious debates [I have studied other groups from that time in-depth, such as the Christadelphians [who are Socinian in their Christology] and others with heterodox Christologies, historic and modern]). I will be having a dialogue soon with with my friend Adam Stokes (member of The Church of Jesus Christ with the Elijah Message--The Assured Way of the Lord) on this topic (see also my 3-hour discussion of the topic with Stephen).

 

Robert Boylan

ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom

An Example of Accommodation by Brigham Young

  

In January 1867, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the territories from discrimination based on race, making any territorial ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment symbolic (“Universal Suffrage in the Territories,” Weekly Champion and Press [Atchison, Jans.], February 14, 1867, 1). Utah was eager to show its support for the amendments; the Union had won, and the Saints knew they needed to side with the allies. They hoped the gesture would persuade northern states to support Utah statehood. Meanwhile, other western states and territories dragged their feet. Idaho Territory agreed to the federal legislation in 1874 (George Connor and Christopher Hammons, eds., The Constitutionalism of American States [Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2008], 612). Oregon rejected the amendment outright in 1870 and did not adopt it until 1959 (Patricia Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West [New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1987], 279. See also Quintard Taylor, In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West [New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1999], 336 note 54). California waited until 1962 (Linda Peavey and Ursula Smith, Pioneer Women: The Lives of Women on the Frontier [Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996], 131). Thomas L. Kane saw Utah’s willingness to support the hotly debated Fifteenth Amendment as leverage to persuade the Republican Party to support Utah statehood: “I have proposed to our party leaders . . . to carry the Fifteenth Amendment by the admission of a number of new States including Utah. They ought to see now more plainly that they need her” (Thomas L. Kane, Letter to Brigham Young, October 13, 1869, Brigham Young Office Files, Box 40, fd. 14, CHL). To expedite the territory’s support, the territorial legislature opted to forgo a constitutional convention, submitted amendments “erasing the word ‘white’” from the constitution, then ratified the document by popular vote—14,000 to 30 (Brigham Young, Letter to William H. Hopper, January 31, 1867; Brigham Young, Letter to Thomas L. Kane, October 26, 1869, MSS 792, Box 15, fd. 4, HBLL). Whatever Brigham had said in 1852 about blacks participating in government (“Negroes shall not rule us, . . . I will not consent for the seed of Cain to vote for me or my brethren),” he was more than willing to accommodate the federal government now (For his comments from 1852 on the black vote, see Collier, The Teachings of Brigham Young, 3:49-50). Since territories had no ratifying power, Utah’s support amounted to a symbolic show of support for the new racial order. (Russell Stevenson, Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables [2013], 60-62, emphasis in bold added)

 

Dallin H. Oaks (June 13, 2015) on the "Witness" of Christ and Modern Apostles

  

On June 13th, 2015 Elder Oaks and church Historian Richard E. Turley spoke at a regional conference in Boise. The purpose of the Conference was to answer questions and concerns. Here is part of the transcript. . . . Richard E. Turley: [1:03:55}

 

Another claim that we sometimes hear is that current apostles have no right to run the affairs of the church since they do not meet the New Testament standard of apostles because they do not testify of having seen Christ.

 

Dallin H. Oaks: [1:04:11]

 

The first answer to this claim is that modern apostles are called to be witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world, Doctrine and Covenants 107:23. This is not to witness of a personal manifestation. To witness of the name is to witness of the plain, the work, or mission such as the atonement and the authority or priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which an apostle who holds the keys is uniquely responsible to do.

 

Of course apostles are also witnesses of Christ just like all members of the Church who have the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is because the mission of the Holy Ghost is to witness of the father and the Son. In addition, while some early apostles and other members of the church have had the sublime spiritual experience of seeing the Savior and some have made a public record of this, in the circumstances of today we are counseled not to speak of our most sacred spiritual experiences, otherwise with modern technology that can broadcast something all over the world, a remark made in a sacred and a private setting can be said abroad in violation of the Savior’s commandment not to cast our pearls before swine.” (Boise Regional Conference, 13th 2015; emphasis added). (Tyler Kelly, Sons and Daughters of the Restoration: Preserving What God Has Given Us [2017], 59, 60-61)

 

Chris W. Lee on John 8:44 in light of Genesis 2:17 and Related Issues

  

Jesus’ description of the devil (ÎŽÎčαÎČÎżÎ»ÎżÏ‚) as “a liar and the father of lies” in John 8:44 could possibly be an indirect allusion to Gen 3:4, and perhaps reflects a line of understanding in the NT that identifies the serpent as the devil who told the very “first” lie in human history. In Gen 3:4, the serpent explicitly denies God’s death warning (Gen 2:17): “you will surely not die” (‎ڜֹֽڐ־Śž֖Ś•ֹŚȘ ŚȘְּŚžֻŚȘֽŚ•ּڟ). Such an understanding, holding the devil responsible for the introduction of death to humanity, is also found in Wis 2:23-24, and therefore this is not unprecedented: “For God made man as incorruptible/immortality . . . but by the envy of the devil (ÎŽÎčαÎČÎżÎ»ÎżÏ‚), death came into the world.” . . . If we take John 8:44 as a possible allusion to the Genesis incident, then Jesus’ view of the devil as a “liar” further reflects his and/or his contemporary’s understanding of the serpent’s retort in Gen 3:4 as a “lie” in contrast to God’s command, which by logic must have been understood as a true statement. In the Genesis narrative, however, it appears that it is actually the prediction of the serpent that turned out to be true: “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Gen 3:5-7). . . . According to this view, them, the divine command, “on the day you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die” (Gen 2:17) must have been fulfilled in a certain way (regardless of the nature of the death) in order for it to be true. Perhaps Paul’s description of Satan as one who “disguises himself as an angel of light” in 2 Cor 11:14 is an indication of his acknowledgment of a similar understanding. Cf. also Rev 12:9; 20:2, the author of Revelation describes Satan in these verses as Îż ÎżÏ†Îčς Îż αρχαÎčÎżÏ‚ (“ancient serpent”). Such a line of interpretation, which assumes the serpent’s retort in Gen 3:4 to be a lie, will logically lead to the understanding that God was right, that Adam and Eve indeed died, either spiritually or in the sense that they became mortal. Paul’s promise to the Roman church in Rom 16:20 that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” echoes one of God’s punishments directed at the serpent in Gen 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” Paul’s description of Satan in this verse echoing the language in Gen 3:15 is a likely indication of Paul’s identification and association of the serpent with Satan, which fits with Jesus’ description of the devil as a “father of lies.” The likelihood that Paul is considering the garden narrative is supported by the previous verse (Rom 6:19), where another implicit allusion to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is found in Paul’s exhortation to the church “to be wise with respect to the good and pure with respect to evil” (v. 19). See also Hebrews 6:8 for an NT allusion to the agricultural aspect of God’s punishment of Adam in Gen 3:18. The author of the Hebrews describes a land that yields “thorns and thistles” as a “curse.” (Chris W. Lee, Death Warning in the Garden of Eden [Forschungen zum Alten Testament. 2. Reihe 115; TĂŒbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020], 149-50 n. 37)

 

Chris W. Lee on Δφ' ω in Romans 5:12 in Death Warning in the Garden of Eden (2020)

  

Rom 5:12 was the foundational text on which Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) formulated his doctrine of “original sin.” In particular, Augustine highlighted the prepositional phrase Δφω in the final clause of Rom 5:12 as a proof-text to make his case for “original sin.” Augustine interpreted ω as a masculine relative pronoun referring back to “one man” in 5:12a: “death spread to all men in whom [Adam] all sinned.” According to Augustine, the sin of Adam has been transmitted down to all his descendants, therefore it is not necessarily the actual sin of each individual, but instead Adam’s sin that automatically makes all human beings sinners because “all sinned in Adam.” It has long been suggested, however, that there is an error in Augustine’s interpretation in that he relied on a faulty Latin translation: in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [Adam] all sinned”). Further, as Fitzmyer points out, treating ω as a masculine pronoun referring to “one man” does not read smoothly as the distance between the pronoun and the antecedent (“one man”) is too great. Augustine may have taken up this idea from 1 Cor 15:22, “in Adam all die” (ΔΜ τωΑΎαΌ παΜτΔς Î±Ï€ÎżÎžÎœÎ·ÏƒÎșÎżÏ…ÏƒÎčΜ), but as Fitzmyer suggests, if Paul meant to say “it is Adam in whom all sinned,” he would have used the prepositional phrase ΔΜ ω (lit. “in whom”), as in 1 Cor 15:22, instead of Δφω (lit. “on which” or possibly “on whom”). (Chris W. Lee, Death Warning in the Garden of Eden [Forschungen zum Alten Testament. 2. Reihe 115; TĂŒbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020], 163-64)

 

Most modern scholars followed by major English translations, now take the prepositional phrase Δφω as functioning as a causal conjunction that is somewhat equivalent to ÎŽÎčστÎč (“because”) or ΔπÎč Ï„ÎżÏ…Ï„Îż ÎżÏ„Îč (“for this reason that”); hence the translation “death spread to all men because all sinned.” This causal use of Δφω could possibly yield an interpretation that “death spread to all men” because of their own personal sin; therefore the immediate problem with this interpretation is that it seems to contradict what Paul emphatically asserts earlier in Rom 5:12, as well as in later verses (5:13-21): that death entered because of the transgression and disobedience of one man (ÎŽÎčÎ”ÎœÎżÏ‚ Î±ÎœÎžÏÏ‰Ï€ÎżÏ…). It must be noted, however, that even if the causal use of Δφω in 5:12d, which stresses the individual sin of human beings, is presumed, this does not need to preclude or lessen the stress of Paul’s main idea, which emphatically attributes the entering of death as the effect/consequence of Adam’s sin, as Paul clearly states in the main clause of Rom 5:12ab. Further, with the causal use of Δφω Paul may possibly be expressing the idea that the deaths of all men can be ascribed to their own sins on the premise that Adam’s sin brought about the condition in which are all destined to sin. (Ibid., 164-65)

 

After discussing Δφω in the Pauline epistles:

 

In light of the other Pauline uses of Δφω that can be explained as a relative clause (exclusively in Phil 4:10), the third interpretative option for the prepositional phrase Δφω, which I suggest is a more likely option in the case of Rom 5:12d, is taking the relative pronoun ω as neutral with its antecedent being the entire idea of “sin and death entering the world and spreading to all men” in the previous clause (5:12ab). If this interpretation is assumed, the suggested translation of the prepositional phrase Δφω is “on the basis of which” or “under which circumstances.” Not only does this make good sense contextually and grammatically, but this usage also better reflects the presence of the relative pronoun than the causal usage of Δφω (“because”). The relative-pronoun understanding of Δφω would also certainly help to avoid the misunderstanding that would have developed from the causal usage (“because”), i.e., “one’s death is due to his own sin.” In the LXX, the phrase Δφω appears twice (the Letter of Jeremiah 1:58; Prov 21:22) and it is noteworthy that ω in these two occurrences is exclusively used as a relative pronoun referring back to its antecedent: 1) “A wise person attacked the strong cities and demolished the strongholds (Ï„Îż ÎżÏ‡Ï…ÏÏ‰ÎŒÎ±) on which (Δφω) the impious trusted” (Prov 21:22); 2) “So it is better to be a king who displays his manliness or a useful vessel in a house, which (Δφω) the owner will use, then these fake gods . . . “ The above Pauline and LXX examples suggest that it is acceptable, or perhaps even commended to take Δφω in Rom 5:12d to also mean “on which” referring to the statements in the preceding clauses. (Ibid., 166-67)

 

What is more important to note in each interpretation is that the subordinate clause at the end of Rom 5:12, “all sinned,” does not counter Paul’s main point in the logical sequence of Rom 5:12 that attests: death and its universal influence on all humanity had its origin in Adam’s sin. The causality of Adam’s sin on the death of all people, i.e., Paul’s stress on Adam’s act and role as the instrument through which sin and death came into the world, has been so clearly and emphatically expressed by Paul (both in Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15:21-22) that it outweighs other possible meanings and the force of Δφω that would suggest otherwise. Therefore, based on Paul’s overwhelming linguistic and thematic references to the entering/existence of death in relation to Adam’s disobedience to God’s command, there is no reason to deny the correlation made by Paul between death of all and Adam’s disobedience. In Paul’s own words, it is clear that both sin and death entered the world through Adam’s transgression. (Ibid., 169)

 

Excerpts from Elias Smith, The Age of Enquiry (1825)

The following are excerpts from:


Elias Smith, The Age of Enquiry, Christian’s Pocket Companion And Daily Assistant; Calculated Also For The Benefit of the Rising Generation, in Leading Them Into Truth (Exeter, N.H.: Abel Brows, 1825):

 

Jesus called “the everlasting Father” (Elias was not a Modalist):

 

To Saints of every denomination.—Beloved brethren, of the great family of our Lord Jesus Christ, the everlasting Father; . . . (6)

 

On Matt 16:18 and Jesus being the “Rock” (Ï€Î”Ï„ÏÎżÏ‚):

 

By the Rock mentioned is meant Jesus Christ, the stone laid in Zion for a foundation, that whosoever believeth on him should not be ashamed. Christ is a foundation of his church as a sacrifice for sin, and as king and lawgiver. This foundation remains unmoved, and will throughout all ages, world without end. The church built on this rock, means the same as his kingdom. (111)

 

On Baptism:

 

Elias Smith believes baptism is not regenerative, but something one does after they are saved as an external sign of their new status:

 

The first law given to a person born again, is baptism. (112-13)

 

Related to this, his interpretation of 1 Pet 3:21:

 

This figure mentioned, has reference to the ark in which Noah and his family were saved from the flood, “wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” The water did not save them, but the ark which was in the water; so baptism does not save the believer, but Christ the ark which was in the water of Jordan; the believer being baptized or immersed in water, is to shew that he is in him who was baptized, even Christ. Noah and his family left the old world to go into the ark, and in the ark discovered the new one: so the believer leaves his old company, is “buried by baptism,” and rises to newness of life. The Apostle says, baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh, but answers a good conscience, because he does it knowing that Christ has commanded it, and is happy in manifesting his love to him by obeying his commands. Baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ; when the believer is raised up from the water, he shews that his salvation depends on him who was raised from the dead, of which baptism is a figure. (108-9)

 

The following is reminiscent of 2 Nephi 29:3-10:

 

But you have heard formerly, and some of you may still hear strange and uncommon surmises, wild conjectures and most dismal insinuations. But if you would know the truth at once, if you would be fully informed by one that best knows what religion I am of, I will tell you (with Mr. Baxter) ‘I am a chrisitan, a mere christian; of no other religion: my church is the christian church.’ The Bible! the Bible! is my religion; and if I am a dissenter, I dissent only from modes and forms of religion which I cannot find in my Bible; and which therefore I conclude have nothing to do with religion, much less should they be made terms of christian communion, since Christ, the only lawgiver of his church, has not made them such. Let this congregation be that of a chrisitan society, and I little care what other name it wears. (135-36)

 

Blog Archive