Acts of the Apostles – Adnah

Acts of the Apostles

1. Summary of contents.— The fifth book of our NT gives the history of the Church from the Ascension till c. a.d. 61. It may be divided into two parts, one of which describes the early history (‘Acts of Peter’ and ‘Acts of the Hellenists’), and the other the life of St. Paul (‘Acts of Paul’) from his conversion to his imprisonment at Rome. The two parts overlap each other; yet a clear division occurs at 13S from which point forwards the Pauline journeys are described by one who for a considerable part of them was a fellow-traveller. The parallelism between Peter and Paul is very striking, corresponding deeds and events being related of each; and this peculiarity was thought by the Tubingen school to betray a fictitious author, who composed his narrative so as to show the equality of Peter and Paul. Though this conclusion is arbitrary, the parallelism shows us that the author, whoever he was, selected his facts with great care and with a set purpose.

2. Unity of authorship.^From 16i» onwards, the writer, who never names himself, frequently betrays his presence as a fellow-traveller by using the pronoun ‘we.’ It is generally conceded that these ‘we’ sections are genuine notes of a companion of St. Paul. But some assert that the author of Acts was a later writer who incorporated in his work extracts from a diary contemporary with the events described. These critics see in the book traces of four strata, and assert .that it is a compilation of the same nature as the Pentateuch, the Book of Enoch, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Now no doubt our author used sources, in some parts of his book written sources. But if he were a 2nd cent, compiler, we ought to be able to detect interpolations from differences of style (as we do in Apost. Const.), and often from anachronisms. Moreover, seeing that he was at least a man of great literary ability, it is remarkable that he was so clumsy as to retain the pronoun ‘we’ if he was a late writer copying a 1st cent, source. His style is the same throughout, and no anachronisms have been really brought home to him; his interests are those of the 1st, not of the 2nd century (§ 8). Further, the Third Gospel is clearly, from identity of style and the express claim in Acts 1:1 (cf. Luke 1:3). by our author, and yet the Gospel is now generally admitted to have been written by c. a.d. 80. Thus we may, with Harnack, dismiss the compilation theory. 3. The author. — Internal evidence, if the unity of authorship be admitted, shows that the writer was a close companion of St. Paul. Now, if we take the names of the Apostle’s companions given in the Epistles, we shall find that all but four must be excluded, whether as having joined him after his arrival at Rome (for the author made the voyage with him, 27). or as being mentioned in Acts in a manner inconsistent with authorship(so, e.g., Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Prisca, Aquila, Trophimus must be excluded), or as having deserted him, or as being Roman Christians and recent friends. Two of the four (Crescens and Jesus Justus) are insignificant, and had no specially intimate connexion with the Apostle. We have only Titus and Luke left. Neither is mentioned in Acts; both were important persons. But for 2 Timothy 4:10 f. we must have conjectured that these were two names for the same person. We have then to choose between them, and Patristic evidence (§ 4) leads us to choose Luke. But why is Titus not mentioned in Acts? It cannot be (as Lightfoot suggests) that he was unimportant (cf. 2 Co. passim), but perhaps Luke’s silence is due to Titus being his near relation (Ramsay); cf. Exp. T. Jfvm. [1907] 285, 335, 380.

Tjje author was a Gentile, not a Jew (Colossians 4). a conclusion to which a consideration of his interests would lead us (5 8; see also Acts 11:9 ‘in their language’). Hebrews 7 a physician (Colossians 4:14). and had quite probably studied at the University of Athens, where he seems quite at home though not present at the Athenian scenes he describes (Acts 17). His native country is disputed. A Preface to Inike, thought to be not later than the 3rd cent., says that he was ‘by nation a Syrian of Antioch’; and Eusebius (.HE in. 4), using a vague phrase, says that he was, ‘according to birth, of those from Antioch’ ; while later writers like Jerome follow Eusebius. Certainly we should never have guessed this from the cold way in which the Syrian Antioch is mentioned inActs. Some(Rackham, Rendall) conjecturethatPisidian Antioch is really meant, as the scenes in the neighbourhood of that city are so vivid that the description might well be by an eye-witness. But the ‘we’ sections had not yet begun, and this seems decisive against the writer having been present. Others (Ramsay, Renan) believe the writer to have been a Macedonian of Philippi, since he took so great an mterest in the claims of that colony(16i2). Indeed. Ramsay (S(. Po«Z, p. 202 ft.) propounds the ingenious oon- ‘,1o^n™i* , j "‘‘?’,’‘*‘"P8 met Paul at Troas accidentally (6:10; It could not have been by appointment, as Paul had not meant to go there) , was the’ certain man of Macedonia’ who appearedin the vision (16:9) ; it must have been some one whom the Apostle knew by sight, for otherwise he could not have told that he was a Macedonian. This is a very tempting conjecture. Luke need not have been a new convert at that time. On the other hand, it must be said that against his having been a native of Philippi are the facts that he had no home there, but went to lodge with Lydia (16:15). and that he only supposed that there was a Jewish place of prayer at Philippi (I612 RV). His interest in Philippi may rather be accounted for by his having been left in charge of the Church there (17:1 20:5; in the interval between St. Paul’s leaving Philippi and his return there the pronoun ‘they’ is used). Yet he was quite probably a Macedonian [Acts 27:2 is not against this], of a Greek family once settled at Antioch; he was a Gentile not without some contempt for the Jews, and certainly not a Roman citizen like St. Paul. His Greek nationality shows itself in his calling the Maltese ‘barbarians’ (28:2). i.e. non-Greek speaking, and in many other ways.

4. Patristic testimony. — There are probable references to Acts in Clement of Rome (c. a.d. 95), who seems to refer to 13:22 20:35 etc.; and in Ignatius (c. a.d. 110), who apparently refers to 4; also in Polycarp (c. Ill); almost certainly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. a.d. 155); and full quotations are found at the end of the 2nd cent, in TertuIUan, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus, all of whom ascribe the book to Luke. So also the Muratorian Fragment (c. a.d. 200). Moreover, the apocryphal Acts, some of them of the 2nd cent., are built on our canonical Acts, and their authors must have known the latter.

5. Style. — The book is not a chronological biography; there are few indications of time (11 24:27; cf. Luke 3:1), yet the writer often uses vague phrases like ‘after some days,’ which may indicate intervals of days, months, or years. He seizes critical features, and passes over unessential details. Thus he does not relate the events of the years spent by St. Paul in Tarsus (9:30). probably as being years of education in which no striking event occurred. So he tells us practically nothing of the missionary journey through Cyprus (13:6). though much work must have been done among the Jews then; while great space is given to the epoch-making interview with Sergius Paulus. The writer leaves a good deal to be understood ; he states facts, and leaves the reader to deduce the causes or inferences; he reports directions or intentions, and leaves it to be inferred that they were carried into effect, e.g. 13:8 (no reason given for Elymas’ opposition, it is not explicitly said that Paul preached to the proconsul), 13:13 (the reason for Mark’s departure not stated, nor yet for Paul and Barnabas going to Pisidian Antioch), IQ^ (no reason given for the Philippi praetors’ change of attitude), 17:15 (not said that the injunction was obeyed, but from 1 Thessalonians 3:1 we see that Timothy had rejoined Paul at Athens and was sent away again to Macedonia, whence he came in Acts 18:5 to Corinth), 20:16 (not stated that they arrived In time for Pentecost, but it must be understood), 27:43 (it must be inferred that the injunction was obeyed).

6. Crises in the history. — These may be briefly indicated. They include the Day of Pentecost (the birthday of the Church); the appointment of the Seven (among them Nicholas, a ‘proselyte of righteousness, i.e. a Gentile who had become a circumcised Jew); the conversion of St. Paul; the episode .of Cornelius (who was only a’ proselyte of the gate,’ or ‘God-fearing,’ one who was brought into relation with the Jews by obejring certain elementary rules, such, probably, as those of 15:29. but not circumcised [this is disputed; see Nicolas); this means, therefore, a further step towards Pauline Christianity); the first meeting of Paul and Barnabas with a Roman ofBcial in the person of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, the initial step in the great plan of St. Paul to make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (see § 7 ; henceforward the author calls Saul of Tarsus by his Roman name, one which he must have borne all along, for the purposes of his Roman citizenship); the Council of Jerusalem, the vindication of Pauline teaching by the Church; the call to Macedonia, not as being a passing from one continent to another, for the Romans had not this geographical idea, nor yet as a passing over to a strange people, but partly as a step forwards in the great plan, the entering into a new Roman province, and especially the association for the first time with the author (§ 3) ; the residence at Corinth, the great city on the Roman highway to the East, where Gallio’s action paved the way for the appeal to Csesar; and the apprehension at Jerusalem. These are related at length. Another crisis is probably hinted at, the acquittal of St. Paul; tor even it the book were written before that took place (§ 9), the release must have become fairly obvious to all towards the end of the two years’ sojourn at Rome (cf. Philippians 2:24).

7. Missionary plan of St. Paul. — (a) The author describes the Apostle as beginning new missionary work by seeking out the Jews first; only when they would not listen he turned to the Gentiles, 13 14 16 (no synagogue at Philippi, only a ‘place of prayer’) 17 (the words ‘as his custom was’ are decisive) 17 18 igsf. 28; we may perhaps understand the same at places where it is not expressly mentioned, 14 or the Jews may "have been weak and without a synagogue in those places. — (b) St. Paul utilizes the Roman Empire to spread the gospel along its lines of communication. Hebrews 3 proud of his Roman citizenship (16 22 etc.; cf. Philippians 1:27 [RVm] 3:20, Ephesians 2:19). He seems to have formed the great idea of Christianity being the religion of the Roman Empire, though not confined to it. Hence may be understood his zeal for Gentile liberty, and his breaking away from the idea of Jewish exclusiveness. In his missionary journeys he confines himself (if the South Galatian theory be accepted; see art. Galatians [Epistles to the]) to the great roads of traffic in the Empire. He utilizes the Greek language to spread Christian influence, just as the Roman Empire used it to spread its civiliza^ tion in the far East, where it never attempted to force Latin (for even the Roman colonies in the East spoke Greek, keeping Latin for state occasions). Paul and Barnabas, then, preached in Greek; they clearly did not know Lycaonian (cf. Acts 14:11 with 14:14). The Scriptures were not translated into the languages of Asia Minor, which were probably not written languages, nor even into Latin till a later age.

Following thesame idea, the author represents the Roman officials in the colonies as more favourable to St. Paul than the magistrates of the ordinary Greek cities. Contrast the account of the conduct of the Greek magistrates_ at Iconium and Thessalonica who were active against him, or of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens who were contemptuous, with the silence about the action of the Roman magistrates of Pisidian Antioch and Lystra, or the explicit statements about Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus, (Claudius Lysiaa and Julius the centurion, who were more or less fair or friendly. Even the prsetors at Plylippi ended byapologizingprofusely when they discovered Paul s status.

8 . The writer’s interests. — It is interesting to observe these, as they will lead us to an approximate date for the work. There is no better test than such an inquiry for the detectfon of a forgerjr or of a compilation. The principal interest is obviously St. Paul and his mission. To this the preliminary history of the Twelve and of the beginnings of Christianity leads up. The writer emphasizes especially St. Paul’s dealings with Roman offlcials. Of minor interests we notice medicine, as we should expect from ‘the beloved physician’ ; and the rival science of sorcery ; the position and influence of women (1:14 8:3, 12 9:2 13:50 16:14 17 21:5, 9 22:4 etc.; in Asia Minor women had a much more prominent position than in Greece proper) ; the organization of the Church (2:41 ff. 4:31 ff. 6:1 ff. 8:5 ff. IS^"- 19:1 ff. etc.); Divine intervention to overrule human projects (note especially the remarkable way in which St. Paul was led to Troas, 16:6–8) and navigation. This last interest cannot but strike the most cursory reader. The voyages and harbours are described minutely and vividly, while the land journeys are only just mentioned. Yet the writer was clearly no professional sailor. He describes the drifting in 27:27 as a zigzag course when it must have been straight ; he is surprised at their passing Cyprus on a different side when going westward from that on which they had passed it going eastward (27:4 21:3). though that was, and is, the normal course in autumn for sailing vessels (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 317). It has been truly remarked by Ramsay (ib. p. 22) that the writer’s interests and views are incompatible with the idea of a 2nd cent, compiler; e.g. the view oi the Roman officials, and the optimistic tone, would be impossible after the persecution of Domitian — or even (we may add) after that of Nero.

9. Date. — -From the reasoning of §§ 2, 8 (see also § 12) we must reject the idea of a 2nd cent, compiler, and decide between a date at the end of the two years at Rome, 28:30 f. (Blass, Salmon, Headlam, Rackham), and a later date 70-80 a.d. (Ramsay, Sanday, Harnack, and most of those who ascribe the book to Luke). — (a) For the former date we note that there is no reference to anything after the Roman imprisonment, to the martyrdom of James the Lord’s brother in a.d. 62, or to the Neronian persecution in a.d. 64, or to the death of Peter and Paul (contrast the allusion to Peter’s death in John 21:19). or to the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Also there is good reason to believe from the Pastoral Epistles, from Eccle.siastical history, and from a priori reasons, that St. Paul was released soon after the two years; but we should gather that our author did not know for certain the result of the appeal to Ceesar. He could hardly have known that the Apostle’s expectation that he would not again see the Ephesian elders was falsified, or he would not have left 20 without remark [but see Paul, i. 4 (d)]. The optimistic tone (§ 8), contrasting so greatly with that of the Apocalypse, points in the same direction; as also does the absence of any reference to the Pauline Epistles, which we should expect if 15 or 20 years had elapsed since they were wjitten; and of any explanation of the apparent contradiction between Galatians and Acts (see art. Galatians [Epistle to the]). On the other hand, it is quite likely that a close companion of St. Paul would be the last to have, as long as he was with him, a copy of his correspondence. — (6) For the later date, A.D. 70-80, it is suggested that Luke contemplated a third volume, and so ended his second abruptly (cf. 1:1. properly ‘first treatise,’ not ‘former’; but in late Greek comparatives and superlatives were frequently confused, cf. 1 Corinthians 13:13 RVm). It is also thought that Luke 21:20 must have been written after the taking of Jerusalem, and that a fortiori Acts must be later; and that the atmosphere of the Flavian period may be detected in it. For an alleged borrowing of Acts from Josephus, and for further remarks on the date, see artt. Luke [Gospel acc. to] and Theudas. To the present writer the earlier date given above seems the more probable.

10. Sources. — The author had exceptional opportunities of getting information. For the last part of the book he was his own informant, or he had access to St. Paul. John Mark would tell him of the deliverance of St. Peter and of the mission to Cyprus (12:1). For the ‘Acts of the Hellenists’ (chs. 6-8) and for the Cornelius episode he would have Philip the Evangelist as an authority, for he spent two years at Caesarea; and perhaps also Cornelius himself. He had perhaps visited the Syrian Antioch, and could get from the leaders of the Church there (e.g. Manaen) information about the events which happened there. The first five chapters remain. Here he had to depend entirely on others; he may have used written documents similar to those mentioned in Luke 1:1. though he may also have questioned those at Jerusalem who had witnessed the events. Dr. Blass thinks that Luke here used an Aramaic document by Mark; this is pure conjecture, and it is quite uncertain if Luke knew Aramaic.

11. The Bezan codex. — This great Uncial MS (D, now at CJambridge) , supported by some MSSof the OldLatin Version , presents a strikingly different text from that of the other great CJreek MSS, and has also many additions, especially in Acts. Dr. Blass’ theory is that the variations in Acts come from Luke’s having made two drafts of the book, though he would admit that some of the readings of D are interpolations. He thinks that the ‘Bezan’ Acts represents the first draft, the ‘Bezan’ Luke the second draft, cut the Bezan text of Acta is too smooth, and its readings are too often obviously added to ease a rough phrase, for it to be original. It is more probable that it represents a revision made in Asia Minor in the 2nd cent, by one who was very familiar with the localities described. Many scholars, however, think that it preserves a large number of true and authentic readings which have been lost in the other great MSS; but this seems doubtful. — In 11:28 this MS (supported by Augustine), by inserting ‘we,’ makes the writer to have been present at Syrian Antioch when Agabus prophesied.

12. Accuracy of Acts. — This is most important, as it would be almost impossible for a late writer to avoid pitfalls when covering so large a ground. Instances of remarkable accuracy are: (o) the proconsul in Cyprus (13:7). which had only been under the rule of the Senate for a short time when St. Paul came there, and afterwards ceased to be so governed — otherwise the governor would have been a ‘proprsetor.’ An inscription in Cyprus is dated ‘in the proconsulship of Paulus.’ (6) So the proconsul in Achaia (18:12) this province had been off and on united to Macedonia. At one time separated and governed by a propraetor and then united, a few years before St. Paul’s visit it had been again separated and governed by a proconsul, (c) The ‘first men’ at Pisidian Antioch (13), i.e. the Duumviri and the ‘First Ten.’ This last title was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East ; in Roman colonies in Italy the name was given to those who stood first on the Senate roll. (,d) The ‘first man’ in Malta (28) and (e) the ‘politarchs’ (‘rulers of the city’) at Thessalonica (17:6; probably a local Macedonian title), are both attested by inscriptions, (f) The old Court of the Areopagus at Athens (17:19). which really ruled the city, — though it was a ‘free city,’ — as the demos or popular assembly had lost its authority. ((/) The ‘Asiarchs’ at Ephesus (19:31 RVm), the presidents of the ‘Common Council’ of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor. Their friendliness to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could only have been written while the Imperial policy was still neutral to Christianity, or at least while the memory of that time was still green. Contrast the enmity between Christianity and this Rome worship depicted in Revelation 2:13 13:15 etc. No 2nd cent, author could have written thus. (h) The details of the last voyage, thoroughly tested by Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, who sailed over the whole course. — Against all this it is alleged that there are contradictions between Acts and Galatians (see art. on that Epistle); but these vanish on examination, especially if we accept the ‘South Galatian’ theory. Instances of minute accuracy such as those given above show that we have in Acts a history of great importance and one that is most trustworthy. The accuracy can only come from the book being a genuine contemporary record. a. J. Maclean.

Acue

Acue (1 Esdras 5:31). His sons were among the ‘temple servants’ who returned with Zerubbabel. Called Bakbuk, Ezra 2:51. Nehemiah 7:53.

Acud

Acud (1 Esdras 5:30). His sons were among the ‘temple servants’ who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel. Called Akkub, Ezra 2:45; omitted in Nehemiah 7.

Adadah

Adadah (Joshua 15:22). A city of Judah in the Negeb; perhaps a corrupt reading for Ararah, i.e. Aroer oi 1 Samuel 30:28.

Adah

1. One of the two wives of Lamech, and mother of Jabal and Jubal (Genesis 4:19, 20). The name possibly means ‘brightness’ (cf. Arab, ghadat), Lamech’s other wife being named ‘Zillah’ = ‘shadow,’ ‘darkness’ 2. Daughter of Elon, a Hittite, and one of the wives of Esau (Genesis 36:2). In Genesis 26:34 (P) the daughter of Elon the Hittlte, whom Esau takes to wife, is named Basemath (wb. see).

Adaiah

(‘Jehovah has adorned’). 1. The maternal grandfather of Josiah, 2 Kings 22:1. 2. A Levlte, 1 Chronicles 6:41. called Iddo in v. 21. 3. A son of Shimei (In v. 13 Shema) the Benjaraite, 1 Chronicles 8:21. 4. The son of Jeroham, a priest, and head of a family in Jerusalem, 1 Chronicles 9:12. 5. The father of Maaseiah, a captain who helped to overthrow the usurpation of Athaliah, 2 Chronicles 23:1. 6. One of the family of Bani, who took a strange wife during the Exile, Ezra 10:29. 7. Another of a different family of Bani, who had committed the same offence, Ezra 10:39. 8. A descendant of Judah by Pharez, Neh 11. 9. A Levite of the family of Aaron, Neb 11; probably the same as No. 4.

Adaua

(Esther 9:8). The fifth of the sons of Haman, put to death by the Jews.

Adam

The derivation is doubtful. The most plausible is that which connects it with the Assyr. adamu, ‘make,’ ‘produce’; man is thus a ‘creature’ — one made or produced. Some derive it from a root signifying ‘red’ (cf. Edom, Genesis 25:30). men being of a ruddy colour in the district where the word originated. The Biblical writer (Genesis 2:7) explains it, according to hia frequent practice, by a play on the word ‘adamSh,’ ground’; but that is itself derived from the same root ‘red.’ The word occurs in the Heb. 31 times in Gn l’-5=. In most of these it is not a proper name, and the RV has rightly substituted ‘man’ or ‘the man’ in some verses where AV has ‘Adam.’ But since the name signifies ‘mankind,’ homo, Mensch, not ‘a man,’ vir, Mann (see 5:2). the narrative appears to be a description, not of particular historical events in the life of an individual, but of the beginnings of human life (ch. 2), human sin (ch. 3), human genealogical descent (4:1, 25 5). In a few passages, if the text is sound, the writer slips into the use of Adam as a proper name, but only in 5:3–5 does it stand unmistakably for an individual.

1. The creation of man is related twice, IM-2’ (P) and 2:7 (J). The former passage is the result of philosophical and theological reflexion of a late date, which had taught the writer that man is the climax of creation because his personality partakes of the Divine (and in 5:3 this prerogative is handed on to his offspring) ; but the latter is written from the naive and primitive standpoint of legendary tradition, which dealt only with man’s reception of physical life (see next article).

2. Man’s primitive condition, 2:8–25 (J). The story teaches: that man has work to do in life (2:15) that he needs a counterpart, a help who shall be ‘meet for him’ (vv. 18, 21); that man is supreme over the beasts in the intellectual ability, and therefore in the authority, which he possesses to assign to them their several names (vv.); that man, in his primitive condition, was far from being morally or socially perfect; he was simply in a state of savagery, but from a moral standpoint innocent, because he had not yet learned the meaning of right and wrong (v. 25) ; and this blissful ignorance is also portrayed by the pleasures of a luxuriant garden or park (vv. 8–14).

3. The Fall, 2:16 f. 3 (J). But there came a point in human evolution when man became conscious of a command — the earliest germ of a recognition of an ‘ought’ (2:16 f. 3:3) and this at once caused a stress and strain between his lower animal nature, pictured as a serpent, and his higher aspirations after obedience (3:1–5) [N.B. — The serpent is nowhere, in the OT, identified with the devil; the idea is not found till Wisdom 2:23)) by a deliberate following of the lower nature against which he had begun to strive, man first caused sin to exist ly.’y, with the instant result of a feeling of shame (v. 7). and the world-wide consequence of pain, trouble, and death (vv. 14–19) and the cessation for ever of the former state of innocent ignorance and bliss (vv. 22–24)

On the Babylonian affinities with the story of Adam, see Creation, Eden. A. H. M’Neile.

Adam in the Nt

A. In the Gospels.— 1. In Matthew 19:4–6 II Mark 10:6–8 Jesus refers to Genesis 1:27. His answer to the Pharisees is intended to show that the provision made for divorce in the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:1) was only a concession to the hardness of men’s hearts. The truer and deeper view of marriage must be based on a morality which takes its stand upon the primeval nature of man and woman. And with His quotation He couples one from Genesis 2:24 (see also Ephesians 5). The same result is reached in Mt., but with a transposition of the two parts of the argument.

2. In Luke 3:38 the ancestry of Jesus is traced up to Adam. As a Gentile writing for Gentiles, St. Luke took every opportunity of insisting upon the universal power of the gospel. Jesus is not, as in St. Matthew’s Gospel, a descendant of Abraham only, but of the man to whom all mankind trace their origin. But further, the same Evangelist who relates the fact of the Virgin-birth, and records that Christ was, in His own proper Person, ‘Son of God’ (l**), claims, by the closing words of the genealogy, that the first man, and hence every human being, is ‘son of God.’ As Jesus is both human and Divine, so the genealogy preserves the truth that all mankind partake of this twofold nature.

B. In the Epistles. — The truth taught by St. Luke is treated in its redemptive aspect by his master St. Paul.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:22. The solidarity of mankind in their physical union with Adam, and in their spiritual union with Christ, involves respectively universal death and life as a consequence of Adam’s sin and of Christ’s work.

2. In Romans 5:12–21 this is treated more fully.— (a) VV.12-U. There is a parallelism between Adam and Christ. Both had a universal effect upon mankind — in the case of Adam by a transmission of guilt, and therefore of death; the corresponding statement concerning Christ is postponed till v. 19. because St. Paul intervenes with a parenthesis dealing with those who lived before any specific commands were given in the Mosaic law, and yet who sinned, owing to the transmitted effects of Adam’s fall, and therefore died. The Apostle, without attempting fully to reconcile them, places side by side the two aspects of the truth — the hereditary transmission of guilt, and moral responsibility; ‘and thus death made its way to all men, because all sinned.’ — (6) VV.18 -1’. The contrast is far greater than the similarity ; in quality (v. 15), in quantity (v. 16), in character and consequences (v. 17). — (c) Summary of the argument (VV.18-21).

3. 1 Corinthians 15:44–47. In the foregoing passages St. Paul deals with the practical moral results of union with Adam and Christ respectively. These verses (o) go behind that, and show that there is a radical difference between the nature of each; (6) look forward, and show that this difference has a vital bearing on the truth of man’s resurrection.

(a) w.™-". It is shown, by Illustrations from nature, that it is reasonable to believe man to exist in two different states, one far higher than the other. In vv. 445, 4 St. Paul adapts Genesis 2:7 (LXX), and reads into the words the doctrinal significance that the body of the first repre.sentative man became the vehicle of a ‘psychical’ nature, while the body of the Second is the organ of a ‘pneumatical’ nature. The second half of his statement — ‘the last Adam became a litegiving spirit’ — appears to be based on a reminiscence of Messianic passages which speak of the work of the Divine Spirit, e.g. Isaiah 11:1, 2. Joel 2:28–32.

(6) But as the living soul (psyche) preceded the life-giving spirit (pneuma), so it is with the development of mankind (v. 46). As the first man had a nature in conformity with his origin from clay, while the Second has His origin ‘from heaven’ (v. 47), so the nature of some men remains earthy, while that of some has become heavenly (v. 48). But further, in his present state man is the exact counterpart of the first man, because of his corporate union with him; but the time is coming when he shall become the exact counterpart of the Second Man (cf. Genesis 2). ■), because of our spiritual union with Him (v. 49).

4. In Philippians 2:6 there is an implied contrast between ‘Christ Jesus, who . . . deemed it not a thing to be snatched at to be on an equahty with God,’ and Adam, who took fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God said had made him ‘as one of us’ (Genesis 3:22).

6. On 1 Timothy 2:13 f. see Eve; and on Jude see Enoch.

A. H. M’Neile.

Adam

(city). A city in the Jordan valley, ‘beside Zarethan’ (Joshua 3) usually identified with Jisr ed- Damieh, near the confluence of the Jabbok and the Jordan, where there was once a bridge. Hiram, Solomon’s worker in brass, may have had his furnace here (cf. 1 Kings 7:46). G. L. Robinson.

Adamah

A fortified city of Naphtali (Joshua 19:36) identified by Conder with ‘Admah on the plateau north of Bethshean; placed by the Palestine explorers at ed-Damieh, 5 miles S.W. of Tiberias. See Adami-nekeb

Adamakt

Adamakt is twice (Ezekiel 3:9. Zee 7:12) used in AV and RV as tr. of Shamir, which is elsewhere rendered either ‘brier’ (Isaiah 5:6 7:23, 24, 2 Q" 10:17 27:4 32:13) or ‘diamond’ (Jeremiah 17:1). ‘Diamond,’ which arose from ‘adamant’ by a variety of spelling (‘adamant,’ or ‘adimant,’ then ‘diamant’ or ‘diamond’), has displaced ‘adamant’ as the name of the precious stone, ‘adamant’ being now used rhetorically to express extreme hardness.

Adami-nekeb

‘The pass Adami’ (Joshua 19:33). on the border of Naphtali. Neubauer and G. A. Smith identify it with ed-Damieh, 5 miles S.W. of Tiberias. See Adamah. G. L. Robinbon.

Adar

Adar (Ezra 6:15. Esther 3:7, 13 8:12 9:1, 15 ff.: 1 Maccabees 7:43, 49. 2 Maccabees 15:36. Esther 10 13 i6zo)._The 12th month in the later Jewish Calendar. See Time.

Adasa

A town near Bethhoron (1 Maccabees 7:40, 45. Jos. Ant. XII. X. 6), now the ruin ‘Adaseh near Gibeon.

Adbeel

The third son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13. 1 Chronicles 1:29). eponym of the N. Arab, tribe, which appears in cuneiform inscrip. as Idiba’il or Idibi’al, and which had its settlements S.W. of the Dead Sea.

Addan

Addan (1 Esdras 5:36). Some of the inhabitants of this place returned with Zerubbabel, but were unable to prove their true Isr. descent by showing to what clan or family they belonged (Ezra 2:59). The name does not appear in the later lists in Ezra 10, Nehemiah 10. In Nehemiah 7:61 it appears as Addon.

Addar

1. A town on the border of Judah south of Beersheba (Joshua 15:3). The site is unknown. 2. See Akd.

Adder

See Serpent.

Addi

An ancestor of Jesus, Luke 3:28.

Addo

The grandfather of the prophet Zeehariah (1 Bs 6’). See Iddo.

Addon

Nehemiah 7:61. See Addan.

Addus

1. His ‘sons’ returned with Zerub. (lEs56<); omitted in the parallel lists in Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7. 2. See Jaddus.

Adida

A town in the Shephelah (Jos. Ant. xiii. vi. 5) fortified by Simon the Hasmonaean (1 Maccabees 12:38 13). See Hadid.

Adiel

(‘ornament of God’). 1. A Simeonite prince, 1 Chronicles 4 2. A priest, 1 Chronicles 9:12. 3. The father of Azmaveth, David’s treasurer, 1 Chronicles 27:25.

Adin

Adin (Ezra 2:15 8:6, Nehemiah 7:20 10:16. 1 Esdras 5:14 8:32). See Abintj.

Adina

A Reubenite chief, 1 Chronicles 11:42.

Adino

The present Heb. text of 2 Samuel 23:8 is corrupt. the true reading being preserved in the parallel passage 1 Chronicles 11:11 ‘Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, he lifted up his spear.’ The last clause, hn ‘Brer eth-hanltho, was corrupted into hu’ adlnS ha’elsnl, and then taken erroneously as a proper name, being treated as an alternative to the preceding ‘Josheb-basshebeth, a Tahchemonite’ (see Jashobeam).

Adinu

(1 Esdras 5:14. called Adiu in S"). His descendants returned with Zerub. to the number of 454 (1 Esdras 5:14. Ezra 2:15) or 655 (Nehemiah 7:20). A second party of 61 (Ezra 8:6) or 251 (1 Esdras 8:32) accompanied Ezra. They are mentioned among ‘the chiefs of the people’ who sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:16).

Adithaim

Adithaim (Joshua 15:36). A town of Judah in the Shephelah. The site is unknown.

Adlai

The father of Shaphat, one of David’s herdsmen, 1 Chronicles 27:29.

Admah

Admah (Genesis 10:19 14:2, 8. Deuteronomy 29:23. jjos 11:8). One of the cities of the Ciccar or ‘Round.’ It is not noticed as overthrown in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), but is included in their catastrophe in the two later passages.

Admatha

(Esther 1:14). One of the seven wise men or counsellors of Ahasuerus, who were granted admittance to the king’s presence (cf. 2 Kings 25:19).

Admiration

This word in AV means no more than wonder, as Revelation 17:6 ‘I wondered with great admiration’ (RV ‘with a great wonder’).

Adna

(‘pleasure’). 1. A contemporary of Ezra, who married a foreign wife (Ezra 10). 2. The head of the priestly house of Harim (Nehemiah 12:15).

Adnah

1 . A Manassite officer of Saul who deserted to David at Ziklag(l Ch 122"). 2. An ofiicer in Jehoshaphat’s army (2 Chronicles 17:14).