ADONIJAH reply to the charges brought against him, now AD'MAH, one of the cities in the vale of manner. ADONIJAH (Jehovah [is] my Lord), the fourth son of David, by Haggith. He was born after his father became king, but when he reigned over Judah only (2 Sam. iii. 4). According to the Oriental notion developed in the article ABSALOM, Adonijah might have considered his claim superior to that of his eldest brother Amnon, who is supposed to have been born while his father was in a private station; but not to that of Absalom, who was not only his elder brother, and born while his father was a king, but was of royal descent on the side of his mother. When, however, Amnon and Absalom were both dead, he became, by order of birth, the heir-apparent to the throne. But this order had been set aside in favour of Solomon, who was born while his father was king of all Israel. Absalom perished in attempting to assert his claim of primogeniture, in opposition to this arrangement. Unawed by this example, Adonijah assumed the state of an heir-apparent, who, from the advanced age of David, must soon be king. But it does not appear to have been his wish to trouble his father as Absalom had done; for he waited till David appeared at the point of death, when he called around him a number of influential men, whom he had previously gained over, and caused himself to be proclaimed king. This was a formidable attempt to subvert the appointnent made by the Divine king of Israel; for Adonijah was supported by such men as Joab, he general-in-chief, and Abiathar, the highpriest; both of whom had followed David in all i's fortunes. But his plot was, notwithstanding, lefeated by the prompt measure taken by David, who directed Solomon to be at once proclaimed, tad crowned, and admitted to the real exercise of the sovereign power. Adonijah then saw that all was lost, and fled to the altar, which he reused to leave without a promise of pardon from King Solomon. This he received, but was warned that any further attempt of the came kind would be fatal to him. Accordingly, when, some time | after the death of David, Adonijah covertly endeavoured to reproduce his claim through a father [ABISHAG], his design was at once penemarriage with Abishag, the virgin widow of his trated by the king, by whose order he was instantly put to death (1 Kings i.-ii. 13-25). (1 Kings iv. 6). This name is exhibited in he ADONIRAM (lord of height, that is, high lord) contracted form of ADORAM in 2 Sam. xx. 24; 1 Kings xii. 18; and of Hadoram in 2 Chron. x. 18. king of Hamath, who was sent by his father to 1. ADONIRAM, or HADORAM, son of Toi, congratulate David on his victory over their common enemy Hadarezer, king of Syria (1 Chron. xviii. 10). This prince is called Joram in 2 Sam. viii. 10. 2. ADONIRAM. A person of this name is the reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam. mentioned as receiver-general of the imposts in Only one incident is recorded in connection with this person. When the ten tribes seceded from the house of David, and made Jeroboam king, Rehoboam sent Adoniram among them, for the purpose, we may presume, of collecting the usual imposts, which had become very heavy. Perhaps he had been rigid in his invidious office imposts which had occasioned the revolt was not under Solomon: at all events the collector of the the person whose presence was the most likely to soothe the exasperated passions of the people. They rose upon him, and stoned him till he died (1 Kings xii. 18). justice, i. e. just lord, but some would rather ADONIZE'DEK. The name denotes lord of have it to mean king of Zedek. He was the Canaanitish king of Jerusalem when the Israelites invaded Palestine; and the similarity of the supposed) the same place, Melchi-zedek (king of name to that of a more ancient king of (as is justice, or king of Zedek), has suggested that Zedek was one of the ancient names of Jerusalem. Be that as it may, this Adonizedek was the first of the native princes that attempted to make head against the invaders. and Ai were taken, and the Gibeonites had sucAfter Jericho Adonizedek was the first to rouse himself from ceeded in forming a treaty with the Israelites, the stupor which had fallen on the Canaanites (Josh. x. 1, 3), and he induced the other AmoEglon, to join him in a confederacy against the ritish kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and enemy. They did not, however, march directly against the invaders, but went and besieged the Gibeonites, to punish them for the discouraging example which their secession from the common cause had afforded. Joshua no sooner heard of this than he marched all night from Gilgal to the relief of his allies; and falling unexpectedly upon the besiegers, soon put them to utter rout The pursuit was long, and was signalized by Joshua's famous command to the sun and moon, as well as by a tremendous hail-storm, which greatly distressed the fugitive Amorites [JOSHUA] The five kings took refuge in a cave; but were observed, and by Joshua's order the mouth of it was closed with large stones, and a guard set pursuers returned, the cave was opened, and the over it, until the pursuit was over. five kings brought out. When the set their feet upon the necks of the prostrate The Hebrew chiefs then D monarchs-an ancient mark of triumph, of which | the monuments of Persia and Egypt still afford illustrations. They were then slain, and their bodies hanged on trees until the evening, when, as the law forbade a longer exposure of the dead (Deut. xxi. 23), they were taken down, and cast into the cave, the mouth of which was filled up with large stones, which remained long after (Josh. x. 1-27). The severe treatment of these kings by Joshua has been censured and defended with equal disregard of the real circumstances, which are, that the war was avowedly one of extermination, no quarter being given or expected on either side: and that the war-usages of the Jews were neither worse nor better than those of the people with whom they fought, who would most certainly have treated Joshua and the other Hebrew chiefs in the same manner, had they fallen into their hands. ADOPTION. The Old Testament does not contain any word equivalent to this; but the act occurs in various forms. The New Testament has the word often (Rom. viii. 15, 23; ix. 4; Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5); but no example of the act occurs. The term signifies the placing as a son of one who is not so by birth. The practice of adoption had its origin in the desire for male offspring among those who have, in the ordinary course, been denied that blessing, or have been deprived of it by circumstances. This feeling is common to our nature; but its operation is less marked in those countries where the equalizing influences of high civilization lessen the peculiar privileges of the paternal character, and where the security and the wellobserved laws by which estates descend and property is transmitted, withdraw one of the principal inducements to the practice. And thus most of the instances in the Bible occur in the patriarchal period. The law of Moses, by settling the relatious of families and the rules of descent, and by formally establishing the Levirate law, which in some sort secured a representative posterity even to a man who died without children, appears to have put some check upon this custom. The allusions in the New Testament are mostly to practices of adoption which then existed among the Greeks and Romans, and rather to the latter than to the former; for among the more highly civilized Greeks adoption was less frequent than among the Romans. In the East the practice has always been common, especially among the Semitic races, in whom the love of offspring has at all times been strongly manifested. It is scarcely necessary to say that adoption was confined to sons. The whole Bible history affords no example of the adoption of a female. The first instances of adoption which occur in Scripture are less the acts of men than of women, who, being themselves barren, gave their female slaves to their husbands, with the view of adopting the children they might bear. Thus Sarah gave her handmaid Hagar to Abraham; and the son that was born, Ishmael, appears to have been considered as her son as well as Abraham's, until Isaac was born. In like manner Rachel, having no children, gave her handmaid Bilhah to her husband, who had by her Dan and Naphtali (Gen. xxx. 5-9); on which his other wife, Leah, although she had sons of her own, yet fearing that she had left off bearing, claimed the ADOPTION right of giving her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob, that she might thus increase their number; and by this means she had Gad and Asher (Gen. xxx. 9-13). In this way the greatest possible approximation to a natural relation was produced. The child was the son of the husband, and, the mother being the property of the wife. the progeny must be her property also; and the act of more particular appropriation seems to have been that, at the time of birth, the handmaid brought forth her child upon the knees of the adoptive mother' (Gen. xxx. 3). A curious fact is elicited by the peculiar circumstances in Sarah's case, which were almost the only circumstances that could have arisen to try the question, whether a mistress retained her power, as such, over a female slave whom she had thus vicariously employed, and over the progeny of that slave, even though by her own husband. The answer is given, rather startlingly, in the affirmative in the words of Sarah, who, when the birth of Isaac had wholly changed her feelings and position, and when she was exasperated by the offensive conduct of Hagar and her son, addressed her husband thus, Cast forth this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac' (Gen. xxi. 10). A previous instance of adoption in the history of Abraham, when as yet he had no children, appears to be discoverable in his saying, 'One born in my house is mine heir.' This unquestionably denotes a house-born slave, as distinguished from one bought with money. Abraham had several such; and the one to whom he is supposed here to refer is his faithful and devoted steward Eliezer. This, therefore, is a case in which a slave was adopted as a son-a practice still very common in the East. A boy is often purchased young, adopted by his master, brought up in his faith, and educated as his son; or if the owner has a daughter, he adopts him through a marriage with that daughter, and the family which springs from this union is counted as descended from him. But house-born slaves are usually preferred, as these have never had any home but their master's house, are considered members of his family, and are generally the most faithful of his adherents. This practice of slave adoption was very common among the Romans; and, as such, is more than once referred to by St. Paul (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 5-6), the transition from the condition of a slave to that of a son, and the privilege of applying the tender name of Father' to the former Master,' affording a beautiful illustration of the change which takes place from the bondage of the law to the freedom and privileges of the Christian state. As in most cases the adopted son was to be considered dead to the family from which he sprung, the separation of natural ties and connections was avoided by this preference of slaves, who were mostly foreigners or of foreign descent. For the same reason the Chinese make their adoptions from children in the hospitals, who have been abandoned by their parents. The Tartars are the only people we know who prefer to adopt their near relatives-nephews or cousins, or, failing them, a Tartar of their own banner. The only Scriptural example of this ADORATION kind is that in which Jacob adopted his own grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh to be counted as his sons (Gen. xlviii. 6). The object of this remarkable adoption was, that whereas Joseph himself could only have one share of his father's heritage along with his brothers, the adoption of his two sons enabled Jacob, through them, to bestow two portions upon his favourite son. The adoption of Moses by Pharaoh's daughter (Exod. ii. 1-10) is an incident rather than a practice; but it recalls what has just been stated respecting the adoption of outcast children by the Chinese. In 1 Chron. ii. 34, &c., there is an instance recorded of a daughter being married to a free slave, and the children being counted as those of the woman's father. The same chapter gives another instance. Machir (grandson of Joseph) gives his daughter in marriage to Hezron, of the tribe of Judah. She gave birth to Segub, who was the father of Jair. Jair possessed twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead, which came to him in right of his grandmother, the daughter of Machir; and he acquired other towns in the same quarter, which made up his possessions to three-score towns or villages (1 Chron. ii. 21-24; Josh. xiii. 30; 1 Kings iv. 13). Now this Jair, though of the tribe of Judah by his grandfather, is, in Num. xxxii. 41, counted as of Manasseh, for the obvious reason which the comparison of these texts suggests, that, through his grandmother, he inherited the property, and was the lineal representative of Machir, the son of Manasseh. ADORA'IM, a town in the south of Judah, enumerated along with Hebron and Mareshah, as one of the cities fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 9). This town does not occur in any writer after Josephus, until the recent researches of Dr. Robinson, who discovered it under the name of Dura, the first feeble letter having been dropped. It is situated five miles W. by S. from Hebron, and is a large village, seated on the eastern slope of a cultivated hill, with olivegroves and fields of grain all around. There are no ruins. ADORATION. This word is compounded of ad to, and os, oris, the mouth,' and literally signifies to apply the hand to the mouth,' that is, to kiss the hand.' The act is described in Scripture as one of worship (Job xxxi. 26, 27). And this very clearly intimates that kissing the hand was considered an overt act of worship in the East. 7. The same act was used as a mark of respect in the presence of kings and persons high in office or station. Or rather, pe haps, the hand was not merely kissed and then withdrawn from the mouth, but held continuously before or upon the mouth, to which allusion is made in such texts as Judg. xviii. 19; Job xxi. 5; xxix. 9; xl. 4; Ps. xxxix. 9. In one of the sculptures at Persepolis a king is seated on his throne, and before him a person standing in a bent posture, with his hand laid upon his mouth as he addresses the sovereign (fig. 1). Exactly the same attitude is observed in the sculptures at Thebes, where one person, among several (in various pos tures of respect) who appear before the scribes to be registered, has his hand placed thus submissively upon his mouth (fig. 2). ADRAM'MELECH is mentioned, toge with Anammelech, ia 2 Kings xvii. 31, as one of the idols whose worship the inhabitants of Sepharvaim established in Samaria, when they were transferred thither by the king of Assyria, and whom they worshipped by the sacrifice of their children by fire. This constitutes the whole of our certain knowledge of this idol. 2. ADRAMMELECH, one of the sons and murderers of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (2 Kings xix. 37; Isa. xxxvii. 38). ADRAMYTTIUM, a sea-port town in the province of Mysia in Asia M'nor, opposite the isle of Lesbos, and an Athenian colony. It is mentioned in Scripture only, from the fact that the ship in which Paul embarked at Cæsarea as a prisoner on his way to Italy, belonged to Adramyttium (Acts xxvii. 2). It was rare to find a vessel going direct from Palestine to Italy. The usual course, therefore, was to embark in some ship bound to one of the ports of Asia Minor, and there go on board a vessel sa ling for Italy. This was the course taken by the centurion who had charge of Paul. The ship of Adramyttium took them to Myra in Lycia, and re they embarked in an Alexandrian vessel bound for Italy. Adramyttium is still called Adramyt. It is built on a hill, contains about 1000 houses, and is still a place of some commerce. ADRIATIC SEA (Acts xxvii. 27). This name is now confined to the gulf lying between Italy on one side, and the coasts of Dalmatia and Albania on the other. But in St. Paul's time it extended to all that part of the Mediterranean between Crete and Sicily. This fact is of importance, as relieving us from the necessity of finding the island of Melita on which Paul was shipwrecked, in the present Adriatic gulf; and consequently removing the chief difficulty in the way of the identification of that island with the present Malta. A'DRIEL (the flock of God), the person to whom Saul gave in marriage his daughter Merab, who had been originally promised to David (1 Sam. xviii. 19). Five sons sprung from this union, who were taken to make up the number of Saul's descendants, whose lives, on the principle of blood-revenge, were required by the Gibeonites to avenge the cruelties which Saul had exercised towards their race [GIBEONITES]. ADUL'LAM, an old city (Gen. xxxviii. 1, 12, 20) in the plain country of the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 35), and one of the royal cities of the Canaanites (Josh. xii. 15). It was one of the towns which Rehoboam fortified (2 Chron. xi. 7; Micah i. 15), and is mentioned after the Captivity (Neh. xi. 30; 2 Macc. 12, 38). it is evident that Adullam was one of the cities of 'the valley,' or plain between the hill country D 2 36 ADULTERY of Judah and the sea; and from its place in the ADULTERY. In the common acceptation It will be seen that this Oriental limitation of adultery is intimately connected with the existence of polygamy. If adultery be defined as a breach of the marriage covenant, then, where the contract is between one man and one woman, as in Christian countries, the man as much as the woman infringes the covenant, or commits adultery, by every act of intercourse with any other woman: but where polygamy is allowed, where the husband may marry other wives, and take to himself concubines and slaves, the marriage contract cannot and does not convey to the woman a legal title that the man should belong to her alone. If, therefore, a Jew associated ADULTERY, TRIAL OF with a woman who was not his wife, his concu- inent. It seems that the Roman law made the same important distinction with the Hebrew, between the infidelity of the husband and of the wife. Adultery' was defined by the civilians to be the violation of another man's bed, so that the infidelity of the husband to his own wife could not alone constitute the offence. It is understood that the crime was punished among the Assyrians and Chaldeans by cutting off the nose and the ears; and this brings to mind the passage in which the prophet Ezekiel (xxiii. 25), after, in the name of the Lord, reproving Israel and Judah for their adulteries (i.e. idolatries) with the Assyrians and ChalOne or both of deans, threatens the punishment, they shall take away thy nose and thy ears.' these mutilations, most generally that of the nose, were also inflicted by other nations, as the Persians and Egyptians, and even the Romans; but we suspect that among the former, as with the latter, it was less a judicial punishment than a summary infliction by the aggrieved party. It would also seem that these mutilations were more usually inflicted on the male than the female adulterer. In Egypt, however, cutting off the nose was the female punishment, and the man was beaten terribly with rods. The respect with which the conjugal union was treated in that country in the earliest times is manifested in the history of Abraham (Gen. xii. 19). . ADULTERY, TRIAL OF. It would be ADULTERY, TRIAL OF anjust to the spirit of the Mosaical legislation | to suppose that the trial of the suspected wife by the bitter water, called the Water of JealOnsy, was by it first produced. It is to be regarded as an attempt to mitigate the evils of, and to bring under legal control, an old custom which could not be entirely abrogated. ADUM'MIM, a place which is only twice named in Scripture. Once (Josh. xv. 7), where, from the context, it seems to indicate the border between Judah and Benjamin, and that it was an ascending road between Gilgal (and also Jericho) and Jerusalem. The second notice (Josh. xviii. 17) adds no further information, but repeats the ascent to Adummim.' Most commentators take the name to mean the place of blood, and follow Jerome, who finds the place in the dangerous or mountainous part of the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, and supposes that it was so called from the frequent effusion of blood by the robbers, by whom it was much infested. These are curious interpretations of the original word, which merely denotes the redness of the soil or rock. However, as a difficult pass in a desolate rocky region, between important cities, the part of the road indicated by Jerome, and all after him, was as likely to be infested by robbers in earlier times as in those of Jerome and at the present day. Indeed, the character of the road was so notorious, that Christ lays the scene of the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke x.) upon it; and Jerome informs us that Adummim or Adommim was beas a real person) fell among thieves.' He adds that a fort and garrison was maintained here for the safeguard of travellers. The travellers of the present century mention the spot and neigh bourhood nearly in the same terms as those of older date. They all represent the road as still infested by robbers, from whom some of them have not escaped without danger. The place thus indicated is about eight miles from Jerusalem, and four from Jericho. The original usage, which it was designed to mitigate, was probably of the kind which we still find in Western Africa, where, when a party is accused of murder, adultery, or witchcraft, if he denies the crime, he is required to drink the red water, and on refusing is deemed guilty of the offence. But in Africa the drink is highly poisonous in itself, and, if rightly prepared, the only chance of escape is the rejection of it by the stomach, whereas, among the Hebrews, the 'water of jealousy,' however unpleasant, was prepared in a prescribed manner with ingredients known to all to be perfectly innocent. It could not therefore injure the innocent, and its action upon the guilty must have resulted, not from the effects of the drink itself, but from the consciousness of having committed a horrible perjury. As regulated, then, by the law of Moses, the trial for suspected adultery by the bitter water amounted to this, that a woman suspected of adultery by her husband was allowed to repel the charge by a public oath of purgation, which oath was designedly made so solemn in itself, and was attended by such awful circum-lieved to be the place where the traveller (taken stances, that it was in the highest degree unlikely that it would be dared by any woman not supported by the consciousness of innocence. And the fact that no instance of the actual application of the ordeal occurs in Scripture, affords some countenance to the assertion of the Jewish writers, that the trial was so much dreaded by the women, that those who were really guilty generally avoided it by confession; and that thus the trial itself early fell into disuse. And if, as we have supposed, this mode of trial was only tolerated by Moses, the ultimate neglect of it must have been desired and intended by him. In later times, indeed, it was disputed in the Jewish schools, whether the husband was bound to prosecute his wife to this extremity, or whether it was not lawful for him to connive at and pardon her act, if he were so inclined. There were some who held that he was bound by his duty to prosecute, while others maintained that it was left to his pleasure. From the same source we learn that this form of trial was finally abrogated about forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The reason assigned is, that the men themselves were at that time generally adulterous; and that God would not fulfil the imprecations of the ordeal oath upon the wife while the husband was guilty of the same crime (John viii. 1-8). ADULTERY, in the symbolical language of the Old Testament, means idolatry and apostacy from the worship of the true God (Jer. iii. 8, 9; Ezek. xvi. 32; xxiii. 37; also Rev. ii. 22). Hence an Adulteress meant an apostate church or city, particularly the Laughter of Jerusalem,' or the Jewish church and people (Isa. i. 21; Jer. iii. 6, 8, 9; Ezek. xvi. 22; xxiii. 7). This figure resulted from the primary one, which describes the connection between God and his separated people as a marriage between him and them. ADVOCATE, one who pleads the cause of another; also one who exhorts, defends, comforts, prays for another. It is an appellation given to the Holy Spirit by Christ (John xiv. 16; xv. 26; xvi. 7), and to Christ himself by an apostle (1 John ii. 1; see also Rom. viii. 34, Heb. vii. 25). In the forensic sense, advocates or pleaders were not known to the Jews until they came under the dominion of the Romans, and were obliged to transact their law affairs after the Roman manner. Being then little conversant with the Roman laws, and with the forms of the jurists, it was necessary for them, in pleading a cause before the Roman magistrates, to obtain the assistance of a Roman lawyer or advocate, who was well versed in the Greek and Latin languages. In all the Roman provinces such men were found, who devoted their time and labour to the pleading of causes and the transacting of other legal business in the provincial courts. It also appears that many Roman youths who had devoted themselves to forensic business used to repair to the provinces with the consuls and prætors, in orde, by managing the causes of the provincials, to fit themselves for more important ones at Rome. Such an advocate was Tertullus, whom the Jews employed to accuse Paul before Felix (Acts xxiv. 1) [ACCUSER]. EGYPT. [EGYPT.] |