The Best Way to Translate Hosea 6:7

Status
Not open for further replies.

David073

Puritan Board Freshman
KJV: “But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.”

ESV: “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.”

Which is the best way to render אָדָם, Adam or men?
Ive heard many reformed men using this text to help prove the covenant of works, but is Adam the correct rendering? If so, what are the arguments in favor in rendering it Adam as opposed to mankind? Thanks!
 
Here are some views, seemingly going either way.

Matthew Poole:
Like men; or, like Adam: some take it for a proper name, and so refer it unto the first man, and his breaking covenant; and, for aught I see, it may well enough refer to him, who forgot or slighted the threat, who judged of what he did by what it appeared, as a small matter; and so these forget and slight my threats, and judge of the place where, and the persons by whom, and the times when, sacrifices are to be offered as no material circumstances, and therefore do choose what places they please, and appoint what priest liketh them best to offer; or else transgress the covenant, as if it were the covenant of a man like themselves.
Matthew Henry:
[2.] In this they had but acted like themselves, like men, who are generally false and fickle, and in whose nature (their corrupt nature) it is to deal treacherously; all men are liars, and they are like the rest of that degenerate race, all gone aside, Ps. 14:2, 3. They have transgressed the covenant like men (like the Gentiles that transgressed the covenant of nature), like mean men (the word here used is sometimes put for men of low degree); they have dealt deceitfully, like base men that have no sense of honour. [3.] Herein they trod in the steps of our first parents: They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant (so it might very well be read); as he transgressed the covenant of innocency, so they transgressed the covenant of grace, so treacherously, so foolishly; there in paradise he violated his engagements to God, and there in Canaan, another paradise, they violated their engagements. And by their treacherous dealing they, like Adam, have ruined themselves and theirs. Note, Sin is so much the worse the more there is in it of the similitude of Adam’s transgression, Rom. 5:14. [4.] Low thoughts of God and of his authority and favour were at the bottom of all this; for so some read it: They have transgressed the covenant, as of a man, as if it had been but the covenant of a man, that stood upon even ground with them, as if the commands of the covenant were but like those of a man like themselves, and the kindness conveyed by it no more valuable than that of a man. There is something sacred and binding in a man’s covenant (as the apostle shows, Gal. 3:15), but much more in the covenant of God, which yet they made small account of; and there in that covenant they dealt treacherously, promised fair, but performed nothing. Dealing treacherously with God is here called dealing treacherously against him, for it is both an affront and an opposition. Deserters are traitors, and will be so treated; the revolting heart is a rebellious heart.
John Gill:
which they transgressed, either "like Adam" the first man, as Jarchi; who transgressed the covenant of works in paradise God made with him, and all mankind in him: or like the men of old, the former generations, as the Targum; meaning either the old inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites; or the men of the old world at the time of the flood, who were a very wicked and abandoned generation of men; or like men in common, depraved and degenerated, fickle and inconstant, vain and deceitful, and not at all to be depended upon; especially like the lower sort of men, the common people, who have no regard to their word, covenant, and agreement; or particularly like such men that are given to penury, and make no conscience of oaths and covenants ever so solemnly made: or, as others read the words, "but they have transgressed the covenant like man's"; making no more account of it than if it was a man's covenant
Calvin prefers "men":
Some thus render the word אדם, adam, — “As the covenant of man have they transgressed it,” transferring it to the genitive case, “And they have transgressed the covenants as if it was that of man;” that is, as if they had to do with a mortal man, so have they despised and violated my holy covenant; and this exposition is not very unsuitable, except that it somewhat changes the construction; for in this case the Prophet ought to have said, “They have transgressed the covenant as that of a man;” but he says, ‘They as a man,’ etc. But this rendering is far from being that of the words as they are, ‘They as men have transgressed the covenant.’ I therefore interpret the words more simply, as meaning, that they showed themselves to be men in violating the covenant.

And there is here an implied contrast or comparison between God and the Israelites; as though he said, “I have in good faith made a covenant with them, when I instituted a fixed worship; but they have been men towards me; there has been in them nothing but levity and inconstancy.” God then shows that there had not been a mutual concord between him and the Israelites, as men never respond to God; for he sincerely calls them to himself, but they act unfaithfully, or when they have given some proof of obedience, they soon turn back again, or despise and openly reject the offered instruction. We then see in what sense the Prophet says that they had transgressed the covenant of God as men.

Others explain the words thus, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant.” But the word, Adam, we know, is taken indefinitely for men. This exposition is frigid and diluted, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant;” that is, they have followed or imitated the example of their father Adam, who had immediately at the beginning transgressed God’s commandment. I do not stop to refute this comment; for we see that it is in itself vapid.
 
Here are some views, seemingly going either way.

Matthew Poole:

Matthew Henry:

John Gill:

Calvin prefers "men":
Thanks brother, I’ve read Poole’s Henry’s, and Calvin’s before, but Gill’s was new to me. Which side of the fence do you fall on?
 
From my Sunday School materials on the minor prophets (which also deals with the third alternative "at Adam"):

There is a translational challenge in Hosea 6:7: did Israel sin “like Adam” (the first human being; cf. ESV), “like human beings” (which is what the Hebrew word ’adam often means; cf. KJV, “like men”), or “at Adam”, understanding this as a place name (see Josh. 3:16; cf. NIV). The first two translations are more likely, since they don’t involve making a change to the text. The latter alternative involves a slight emendation of the text, from ka’adam to ba’adam, but those in favor of this reading point to a series of locations that are indicted in the subsequent verses, notably Gilead and Shechem, along with the word “there” in the second half of verse 7. However, the place “Adam” is very obscure in comparison to Gilead and Shechem, with no memorable acts of covenant unfaithfulness taking place there, and there is no manuscript support for emending a text that makes good sense as it stands. Whether the point of comparison is “human beings” or “Adam” is less important, since their essential nature is linked. “Human beings” are unreliable covenant breakers because they have inherited their natures from Adam, the first human being and the first covenant breaker. Both may therefore be in view.

It might be worth adding that when the Hebrew word 'adam is used in the generic sense "men, human beings" it often retains creational overtones, which is why in the CSB we often chose to translate bne-'adam as "sons of Adam" rather than "sons of men".
 
Thanks brother, I’ve read Poole’s Henry’s, and Calvin’s before, but Gill’s was new to me. Which side of the fence do you fall on?
I can't read Hebrew, so I do not know, but I agree with Prof. Duguid that the choice does not seem all that important, theologically.
 
I agree completely with Iain. I would mention also that B.B. Warfield has an excellent piece in his Shorter Writings, volume 1, pp. 116-129 dealing with this question.
 
the choice does not seem all that important, theologically
Perhaps not for everyone. During a church Bible study, an elder who advocates for Dispensationalism argued that there is no Covenant of Works with Adam in Eden, since the text does not explicitly use the word "covenant (bĕriyth)." So, for some, it is actually very important that Hosea 6:7 is not referring to Adam.
 
Perhaps not for everyone. During a church Bible study, an elder who advocates for Dispensationalism argued that there is no Covenant of Works with Adam in Eden, since the text does not explicitly use the word "covenant (bĕriyth)." So, for some, it is actually very important that Hosea 6:7 is not referring to Adam.
Even if you did convince a dispensationalist that this verse is speaking of Adam, that wouldn't go very far in convincing them of the whole of covenantal theology.

Source: I'm a recovering Dispensational
 
Even if you did convince a dispensationalist that this verse is speaking of Adam, that wouldn't go very far in convincing them of the whole of covenantal theology.

Source: I'm a recovering Dispensational

It depends on who they are and where they are at in their inquiry - or if they are even doing inquiry vs. just doing polemics. Not every comment out there is made from certainty in one's own position. You never know.
 
One pastor I had a discussion with on this point (who did not believe in a covenant of works because Moses never referred to it as a "covenant"), this reference was important. If the Bible refers to Adam's situation as a covenant, then its a covenant, end of discussion.

Side note - one important hermeneutical principle I picked up from Dr. Robert Cara - "theology is done at the concept level, not the word level." In other words, you don't need the exact word to indicate the presence of the concept (though it sure does help for some people who struggle with the relationship between words and concepts ;) ).
 
Last edited:
One pastor I had a discussion with on this point (who did not believe in a covenant of works because Moses never referred to it as a "covenant"), this reference was important. If the Bible refers to Adam's situation as a covenant, then its a covenant, end of discussion.

Side note - one important hermeneutical principle I picked up from Dr. Robert Cara - "theology is done at the concept level, not the word level." In other words, you don't need to the exact word to indicate the presence of the concept (though it sure does help for some people who struggle with the relationship between words and concepts ;) ).
Very true. Which is why I really like the language of "good and necessary consequence" the the WCF uses when speaking of biblical doctrine. It protects us from being "biblicists".
 
Side note - one important hermeneutical principle I picked up from Dr. Robert Cara - "theology is done at the concept level, not the word level." In other words, you don't need the exact word to indicate the presence of the concept (though it sure does help for some people who struggle with the relationship between words and concepts ;) ).

That is very important. It will put a man in good stead over a wide variety of exegetical and theological issues. Exegetically we do not need to reinterpret words to fit the concept; and theologically we can develop the concept from the whole of Scripture without having to pin it on verbal similarity.
 
Some previous threads on the topic:



 
In reading Owen's introductory volumes on the Epistle to the Hebrews, I came across the following:

Owen 1.jpeg
Owen 2.jpeg Owen 3.jpeg

I would like to hear what others have to say about the prefix used and whether it more likely translates to "mankind" than Adam.
 
Printers in those days were bad with Hebrew. The mistake isn't Owen's.
The phrase is מושל באדם, he is quoting II Samuel 23:3.


In reading Owen's introductory volumes on the Epistle to the Hebrews, I came across the following:

View attachment 11729
View attachment 11730View attachment 11731

I would like to hear what others have to say about the prefix used and whether it more likely translates to "mankind" than Adam.


Owen does not seem to be talking about Hosea at all here. He is discussing II Samuel 23:3, where, again, the preposition בָּ (bā) is used. It says "He that ruleth over (literally: in) men", not "He that ruleth like men".
 
What I find interesting is that here in Hosea 6:7 the KJV translates כְאָדָ֣ם as "like men" while a few modern versions, the ESV and CSB notably, translate it "like Adam" - the NIV goes with the least plausible (in my mind) "at Adam"... BUT... then in Job 31:33 we find the exact same construction "כְאָדָ֣ם" and in that case the KJV translates it "as Adam" whereas the ESV and CSB (and NIV) all translate is as "as others" (the NIV: "as people"). So the KJV (on the one hand) and the ESV and CSB (on the other) trade translative places! :D

The only version (of which I am aware) that translates כְאָדָ֣ם in Hos 6:7 and in Job 31:33 the same is the NASB - they translate it as "Adam" in both cases.
 
What I find interesting is that here in Hosea 6:7 the KJV translates כְאָדָ֣ם as "like men" while a few modern versions, the ESV and CSB notably, translate it "like Adam" - the NIV goes with the least plausible (in my mind) "at Adam"... BUT... then in Job 31:33 we find the exact same construction "כְאָדָ֣ם" and in that case the KJV translates it "as Adam" whereas the ESV and CSB (and NIV) all translate is as "as others" (the NIV: "as people"). So the KJV (on the one hand) and the ESV and CSB (on the other) trade translative places! :D

The only version (of which I am aware) that translates כְאָדָ֣ם in Hos 6:7 and in Job 31:33 the same is the NASB - they translate it as "Adam" in both cases.
The whole challenge of translation is that words have a different range of meaning in a source language and a target language. One Hebrew word, 'adam can mean Adam (the person), a human/man; humanity/mankind, or Adam (the place). The translators task in each specific context is to try to work out which part of the semantic range is in view in that context. No one always translates 'adam as Adam, or as man, or as humans. Nor should they: it would make for a terrible translation. So there is really no reason why a translation should translate Hos 6:7 and Job 31:33 the same way. This is why translation is really hard (have I said that before?)
 
The whole challenge of translation is that words have a different range of meaning in a source language and a target language. One Hebrew word, 'adam can mean Adam (the person), a human/man; humanity/mankind, or Adam (the place). The translators task in each specific context is to try to work out which part of the semantic range is in view in that context. No one always translates 'adam as Adam, or as man, or as humans. Nor should they: it would make for a terrible translation. So there is really no reason why a translation should translate Hos 6:7 and Job 31:33 the same way. This is why translation is really hard (have I said that before?)
I'm familiar with the numerous possible meanings for the word 'adam though I do think in most cases there isn't much debate (is there?) about when the proper name Adam is and isn't intended - context and all that. But yet Hosea 6:7 and Job 31:33 both fall into that relatively rare category of "debated passage" about whether or not the (man) Adam is in view. And I think I see why these 2 passages are debated: there are clear theological implications if the (person) Adam is intended.

Why do you suppose the NASB went with their decision to translate both passages as Adam?
 
I'm familiar with the numerous possible meanings for the word 'adam though I do think in most cases there isn't much debate (is there?) about when the proper name Adam is and isn't intended - context and all that. But yet Hosea 6:7 and Job 31:33 both fall into that relatively rare category of "debated passage" about whether or not the (man) Adam is in view. And I think I see why these 2 passages are debated: there are clear theological implications if the (person) Adam is intended.

Why do you suppose the NASB went with their decision to translate both passages as Adam?
Well by definition more literal interpretations are going to lean in a more "literal" translation, so here I would expect the NASB to go in that direction. Of course, even the NASB isn't purely literal, so I'm sure that they considered the options, but their inclinations are going to head toward "Adam". Likewise, the ESV, CSB and (especially) the NIV are going to spend more time considering whether there are better secondary alternatives. That's why ideally pastors should be competent enough in the original languages to understand the alternatives and decide which is better in this particular context.

Personally, I like the translation of "Adam" in both cases, provided that we understand that all humans are in Adam by nature and therefore included. It is common to hear liberals say that Adam isn't really a key figure in the Old Testament apart from Genesis 1-3, and 1 Chronicles 1. He's actually more important than is often recognized, because 'adam is often (appropriately) translated in other ways. You can't really convey that complexity in a translation (unless you go down the route of the Amplified Bible, which runs the risk of overcomplicating everything); this is why we still need preachers to help us grasp the nuances of the Biblical text, even though we confess that the Scriptures are, in the main, perspicuous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top