Commenting on Hosea 6:7: "Adam" or "adam"? Is this a Covenant verse or not?

[asterisktom]

Whether or not we should understand the "adam" in Hosea to be "Adam" or not, the bone of contention is whether that gives any evidence of an actual covenant with Adam. The two possibilities I see:

1. If Adam, the man, is meant: Both Adam, on the one hand, and Judah and Ephraim, on the other, were entrusted with some blessing from God. Both parties here professed allegiance and proved themselves to be faithless to that allegiance.
2. If by "adam", "men" is meant: Judah and Ephraim, like all fickle and untrustworthy humans, proved themselves to be treacherous and unworthy of divine blessing.

The Hebrew word 'adam' occurs well over 300 times in the OT. It seems to me that the translators chose "Adam" over "men" not out of linguistic necessity, but presupposition. Also interesting is that many who make much out of what the Hebrew could mean in Genesis 1, suiting their purpose, are not nearly as eager to unpack the "adam" here. They are quite content to abide by the rendition of the KJV translators.

But to read this as a proof for a covenant back in the time of Adam is serious stretching, for several reasons. Perhaps the greatest is that it would be a strange omission indeed to keep this seemingly pivotal truth out of the divine record for so many centuries.

And yet we have a full record of God's covenant with Noah in Genesis 8 and 9. Why the full record for Noah's covenant and the silence for Adam's covenant?

It is because there was no covenant with Adam. He was given commandments, but they are not the same as covenant.

 

[percho]

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Is it that Amos 3:1,2 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.; that is Israel and Judah like all men eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Is that the covenant all have broken? Is it a covenant of death for the very purpose of a greater covenant made before the foundation of the world? Redemption through the Christ who is propitiation (place of mercy) for our sins and not ours only but of the whole world?

 

[Deacon]

You have ruled out Adam’s covenant because it is not found in scripture

You've listed two options for translating, some commentators pose even a third option, that of Adam being a place (Joshua 3:16)
The New International Commentary on the Old Testament makes a grammatical case for this option (NICOT Hosea, p. 198)

How would the original audience hear the passage?
My personal guess is that they would listen a bit less literally than you do, seeing a future promise (or covenant if you will) in the command to rule over God’s creation.

Rob

 

[asterisktom]

You have ruled out Adam’s covenant because it is not found in scripture

You've listed two options for translating, some commentators pose even a third option, that of Adam being a place (Joshua 3:16)
The New International Commentary on the Old Testament makes a grammatical case for this option (NICOT Hosea, p. 198)

How would the original audience hear the passage?
My personal guess is that they would listen a bit less literally than you do, seeing a future promise (or covenant if you will) in the command to rule over God’s creation.

Rob

In my original post I had listed that third one but then edited it out by for some reason. But I didn't think that was a viable option . Also I would suggest that a covenant is more than a promise. There are many more promises than covenants in the Bible.

 

[Deacon]

I consider the location a low-probability option too.


I just find it curious here; aren't you from a Reformed Theology background? ...and you're arguing against an implied covenant!

I'm from a dispensational background ...and arguing for an implied covenant.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Whether or not we should understand the "adam" in Hosea to be "Adam" or not, the bone of contention is whether that gives any evidence of an actual covenant with Adam. The two possibilities I see:

1. If Adam, the man, is meant: Both Adam, on the one hand, and Judah and Ephraim, on the other, were entrusted with some blessing from God. Both parties here professed allegiance and proved themselves to be faithless to that allegiance.
2. If by "adam", "men" is meant: Judah and Ephraim, like all fickle and untrustworthy humans, proved themselves to be treacherous and unworthy of divine blessing.

The Hebrew word 'adam' occurs well over 300 times in the OT. It seems to me that the translators chose "Adam" over "men" not out of linguistic necessity, but presupposition. Also interesting is that many who make much out of what the Hebrew could mean in Genesis 1, suiting their purpose, are not nearly as eager to unpack the "adam" here. They are quite content to abide by the rendition of the KJV translators.

But to read this as a proof for a covenant back in the time of Adam is serious stretching, for several reasons. Perhaps the greatest is that it would be a strange omission indeed to keep this seemingly pivotal truth out of the divine record for so many centuries.

And yet we have a full record of God's covenant with Noah in Genesis 8 and 9. Why the full record for Noah's covenant and the silence for Adam's covenant?

It is because there was no covenant with Adam. He was given commandments, but they are not the same as covenant.

No Covenant of Works for you, Eh?

 

[percho]

2. If by "adam", "men" is meant: Judah and Ephraim, like all fickle and untrustworthy humans, proved themselves to be treacherous and unworthy of divine blessing.

Name one, other than Christ, who has not proved themselves to be treacherous and unworthy of divine blessing.

Is this a covenant with all men, inclusive of, you only of all the families of the earth.

Romans 8:20 For the creation (The creation of Genesis 2:2,3) was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

Is Christ the mediator of the new covenant that, hope?

 

[asterisktom]

No Covenant of Works for you, Eh?

No. I don't see that covenant in the Bible.

 

[asterisktom]

I consider the location a low-probability option too.


I just find it curious here; aren't you from a Reformed Theology background? ...and you're arguing against an implied covenant!

I'm from a dispensational background ...and arguing for an implied covenant.

Rob

I was from a dispensational background back in the 70s - 90s. Then I became convinced of the Reformed view. Because I read lots of people like John Owen, Calvin - (several Johns, it seems!) - I also signed on with the Covenant of Works, that it had begun with Adam.

But I had never really studied it out on my own. At one point I came across an excellent piece from Riesinger (another John?) who challenged my whole assumption on this.

This is just of several points of doctrine I had to rethink and, in some cases, abandon upon more careful study of the Bible - keeping all the various Bible "helps" at judicious arms-length.

 

[asterisktom]

Additional note to the preceding (for some reason I cannot just edit the above post):

"When someone asked Augustus H. Strong when the Covenant of Works began, he answered. “In Amsterdam in 1468.”" - from John Riesinger's site
http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index052.htm

BTW, I no longer believe some of NCT doctrines but I think they are spot on on this topic.

 

[asterisktom]

Name one, other than Christ, who has not proved themselves to be treacherous and unworthy of divine blessing.

In the context of the passage quoted it was Judah and Ephraim who proved themselves most treacherous. Yes, all have sinned, but where greater light is given - if in vain - greater guilt is assumed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is because there was no covenant with Adam. He was given commandments

Do you mean Genesis 2 rather than Genesis 1 in you post above?

If nothing else but the word 'covenant' in Genesis 1 & 2 will satisfy you (and Hosea 6:7 is not persuasive to you), then I will not be able to convince you of a covenant with Adam, in the same way that if someone demands the word 'Trinity' in the Bible before he will believe in such a thing then he will not become a Trinitarian because the word isn't there.

But I believe that all the conditions of a covenant are in place in God's dealings with Adam in the Garden, and that they are confirmed in the N.T. One can only understand the Temptation of our Lord and its absolute necessity before HIs ministry could start (cf. Mark 1:12) when one sees Him as the second Man, who must keep the covenant where the first man failed.

With regard to Hosea 6:7, my NKJV reads, 'But they, like men, transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously.' The margin has, 'or "like Adam."' To me, the translation 'like men' is a tautology; they were men! How else should they behave? You yourself have found it necessary to add the words 'fickle' and 'untrustworthy' (which are, of course, not in the text) in order to make your point. In fact, it is only when you translate 'like Adam' that the verse has any real meaning or relevance. If the city is meant: 'at Adam,' the surely it is a play on words to make people think of the man Adam and his fall (cf. Hosea 1:6-9; Micah 1:10-15 where the Spirit uses a play on words in different contexts).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Also I would suggest that a covenant is more than a promise. There are many more promises than covenants in the Bible.

How do you define the 'Covenants of Promise' in Ephesians 2:12. The covenant with Abraham is repeatedly referred to as a promise or promises in the NT (eg. Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:16-18; Hebrews 7:6).

 

[percho]

So God created man (Adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Gen 1:27,28

Was that man Adam in the image he was created above going to have dominion over all things or was he going to need to be re-created?

Hebrews 1:1,2 God, (?The Father?) who at sundry times and in divers manners spake (?The Word which became flesh?) in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken (The Word) unto us by his Son, whom he (?God the Father?) hath appointed heir of all things, by <(for) whom also he made the worlds;

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, (Adam) that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, (Including Ephraim and Judah) that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; (Is he going to be able to have dominion over all things being a little lower than the angels?) thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. Heb 2:6-8

Did the first man Adam fall from from being the heir or from the beginning was he to be joint heir with the heir of God, the Son of God to be born of woman and who would give his life a ransom and be raised from the dead as the inheritor of all things? The last Adam?

That is the old covenant and the new covenant in my mind.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was from a dispensational background back in the 70s - 90s. Then I became convinced of the Reformed view. Because I read lots of people like John Owen, Calvin - (several Johns, it seems!) - I also signed on with the Covenant of Works, that it had begun with Adam.

But I had never really studied it out on my own. At one point I came across an excellent piece from Riesinger (another John?) who challenged my whole assumption on this.

This is just of several points of doctrine I had to rethink and, in some cases, abandon upon more careful study of the Bible - keeping all the various Bible "helps" at judicious arms-length.

That would be under the new Covenant theology, correct?

 

[asterisktom]

That would be under the new Covenant theology, correct?

Yes.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes.

What part of NCT do you agree with then?

 

[percho]

How do you define the 'Covenants of Promise' in Ephesians 2:12. The covenant with Abraham is repeatedly referred to as a promise or promises in the NT (eg. Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:16-18; Hebrews 7:6).

An interesting phrase from Eph 2:12

'Covenants of Promise'

Covenants (plural) of the (definite) promise (singular)

 

[asterisktom]

What part of NCT do you agree with then?

Sorry that I missed this comment. I don't really remember all the beliefs of NCT (btw, there is a spectrum within the group). It has been awhile since I read any of their writings.

I do know that we disagree on eschatology.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

An interesting phrase from Eph 2:12

'Covenants of Promise'

Covenants (plural) of the (definite) promise (singular)

The covenants of Promise are the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic. The promise is the promise of grace, specifically through a Seed.
It's interesting to contrast the promises of these covenants with the conditional nature of the Sinaitic covenant:

Gen 9:11(Noahic). Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”

Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic). “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

1Chron 17:11 (Davidic). “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”

Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”

The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic. Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.

Matt 1:21. “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 1:32. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”

‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20). The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ.