It has been suggested that St. Paul adopted the designation of Christ as ' the last Adam ' and ' the second Adam' from Uabbinic theology. But such a comparison between Adam and the Messiah was unknown to the earlier Jewish teachers. Passages adduced to support it belong to the Middle Ages, and are influenced by the ^fabbala. See O. P. Moore, JUL xvi. (1897), 158-161; Dalman, The Words of Jestis, Eng. tr. 248 f., 251 f.
(d) Ph 20. St. Paul speaks of ' Christ Jesus, who being [in His eternal and inherent nature, CTa.pxa)v] in the form of God, deemed it not a thing to be snatched at (ip-Txyij.it) to be on an equality with God.' There is here an implied contrast with Adam, who took fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God said had made him ' as one of us ' (Gn 322).
2. In Mt lO''" II Mk lO^-s reference is made by Jcsu.s to the account of Adam and Eve in Gn l'" ' male and female created he them ' (cipae^ Kal eijXv iiroli)(Tev avTois). Phari.sees came and asked Him whether divorce was allowable [' for any cause,' Mt.]. Our Lord's answer is intended "to show that the provision made for divorce in the Mosaic law (Dt 24') was onhr a concession to the hardness of men's hearts. The truer and deeper view of marriage whicli f'hi isti.iiis sIh.uM :iil(i|it iuu>t be based on a nolilci- nii.i-ility, "H :> ni. utility wliidj takes its stand 111! (h.- iirii'ii'>\-:il ii,'iliiri> of I'liaii and woman as Goil iiKidr thciii. ''I'o Miit (tt/h'is) your hardness of heart he wrote for you tliis coniiiKiiiil- ment. But from the beginning of tlie creaticm "he made them male and female."' And with this quotation is coupled one from Gn 2-^ (see also Eph 5^'), ' For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother [and shall cleave to his wife (Mt.)], and they twain shall become one flesh.' The same result is reached in Mt., but with a trans- position of the two parts of the argument. See Wright's Synopsis, in loc. Thus Jesus bases the absolute indissolubility of the marriage tie on the union of man and woman from the first. In Mt 19" 5'2 this pronouncement is practically annulled by the admission of the words ' e.xcept for fornica- tion (/IT) iivl TTopvciq., and irapfKTbs X470U vopvilas). See Wright, in loc, who contends that 'the Church (of Alexandria?) introduced these two clauses into the Gospel in accordance with the permission to legislate which our Lord gave to all Churches (Mt I8'«).' See art. Marriage.
3. In Ju 8''-' a.vepunvoKT6voi may refer to the intro- duction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. But sue art. AliEL.
dropped from the Cross, washed awav the sins of the buried protoplast * the first Adam and thus the words of the apostle were fulfilled, —quoting Eph 51-1 Epiphimuq (contia Hour \1m 5) goes farther stating that C hri^l s 11 or! dropped upon Adams skull and restored him to life The tradition is men lloiiLd also bj Basil \ii 1 1 1 I tli I
1)111 ;/ ( ryof
I I I I I /the
Adam and the Aew Buth , Thackeray, The Uelation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thovght, ch n
A. H M'Neilc ADDL— An ancestor of Jesus Christ, Lk 3'^
ADULTERY (/xoixe'a).— This word is used to de- note the sexual intercourse of a married man or woman with any other than the person to whom he or she is bound by the marriage tie. It has .sometimes been maintained that juoixe'a is confined in its use to the misdemeanours, in this respect, of the woman. That it has, however, a wider sense is evidenced by the reference which Jesus makes to the inward lust of any man after ani/ woman (Sri Tras 6 p^iivuiv -yvvaZKa Trpos rb eTri0viJ.rj(Tai. aur^s -rjdi) ifiolxevaei' avrijv, k.t.X., Mt 5"*). The word iropvela is also employed to describe this sin, though it has been contended that it refers solely to pre-nuptial immorality ; and again we have a reference made by Jesus in His teaching to this sin, which disposes of that contention, and which establishes the fact that the married woman who connnits herself in this way was said to be guilty of iropvela (cf. tra- peKrbs Xoyov wopvda^, Mt 5^-, and (ei) /xrj eVi wopvelif, Mt 19"). In both passages just quoted Jesus makes the woman's guilt the ground of His teaching on divorce. With these examples we may compare the words of Am 7" (LXX) . . . ri ym-q aov iv rg TToXei TtopyevacL, k.t.X., where the form of the expres- sion incidentally but conclusively carries out our argument.
A very favourite figure of speech, by which the intimate relations of Jeliovah and Israel were de- noted by GT writers, was that of marriage (see, e.g., Ts 54'' (;■>,. I i;r. •?'■', Ibis i- '''■-") : .111, 1 ar,,ii,li.igly in
|"'.,i,lrlr,,iiitlii_'.-illai-s,,lM,.|io\:,li,;,ii,l ili.n irpeated rfvi'isi..ii,s t(i the ^^(,^^llil. .-ui.l pi.-iriirrs ,,!' their li.'.-illiciiiiriulilK.ui-,s, w,.ir>l,Lji,iaii/j'd as 'adultery' {,n'i,,,h ,„■ i,,-i,i,luni, .I.-.- 1:;-, h:/k -Ja"; cf. Is 5V,
• Ici' .■)"■, I'./k -S.i"]. This uaiisiriciice of an idea fruiii I ha ilaily s.H-ial lifu lo I he life spiritual finds its pla.r 111 \\i,- (rachinu of .Jesu.s_, whose example in this r. -jiiii I- followed by writers of a subse- queiil |i'Mici(| iii..l.a4'). The generation in which He li\LMl was .h iiouiKcd by Him, for its continued rejection of His .laiins, .is 'wirki-il .and adulterous' (yevta iroPTlpa. /,ai /;<H\a\is, !\lt i'J'' Hi'; d. also Mk 8^). It is, of .a.uise. [K.-ssihle thai .1,-sus l,y these words had in \ie\v the social evils of lli.s day, as well as the general lack of spiritual religion. 'That nation and generation might be called adulterous literally ; for what else, I liesccch you, Vas their irreligious polyg.iniy than coiiliiinal adultery? And what else was ilaii mdinaiy inac