Hosea 6:7

[TimV]

OK, please play the devil's advocate. In Sunday School pastor was talking about the Covenant of Works, and pointed out that some people have have claimed there was no covenant with Adam for whatever reason. An example was John Murray (who kinda/sorta left the door open for Norman Shepherd.

So, please give me a reason the KJV and some others translate Adam for man in Hosea 6:7

If it should be translated Adam, the game's over. There was a covenant. If man is a legit translation, then the big proof text isn't so big.

Thanks

 

[Jack K]

I can't give any technical insight into the translation (not in the least qualified), but found it interesting that the ESV Study Bible comments on the question. By the way, ESV has "Adam"... "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me (Hosea 6:7)." Here's the comment:

“Covenant” appears four other times in Hosea (2:18; 8:1; 10:4; 12:1). Twice it refers to the transgressing of covenant (6:7; 8:1). The following phrase, there they dealt faithlessly with me, along with 8:1 (“they have transgressed my covenant and rebelled against my law”) makes it virtually certain that the “covenant” in view is the Mosaic covenant. In addition, the kinds of sins and curses pronounced in the Sinai covenant dovetail precisely with the warnings of the prophet: the end of agricultural prosperity, military disaster, foreign exile, the demise of their offspring, and a return to slavery in Egypt. In sum, the crisis in Israel was Israel's failure to keep covenant. The hard issue is: to whom or to what does “Adam” refer? Many commentators suggest a geographical locality. The difficulty is that there is no record of covenant breaking at a place called Adam (Josh. 3:16), and it requires a questionable taking of the preposition “like” (Hb. ke-) to mean “at” or “in.” “There” represents the act wherein Israel was unfaithful to the covenant (cf. Hos. 5:7; 6:10). “Mankind” is another suggestion for “Adam,” but that would be a vague statement with no known event indicated, and therefore it would not clarify the sentence. It is best to understand “Adam” as the name of the first man; thus Israel is like Adam, who forgot his covenant obligation to love the Lord, breaking the covenant God made with him (Gen. 2:16–17; 3:17). This also implies that there was a “covenant” relationship between God and Adam, the terms of which were defined in God's words to Adam, though the actual word “covenant” is not used in Genesis 1–3.

So it seems to me our ESV Study Bible commentator is saying the "covenant" referred to in the verse is pretty clearly the Sinai covenant, and the mention of Adam "implies" (but doesn't prove conclusively) that Adam also had a covenant with God. If that's right, "Adam" could be the proper translation but the case for an Adamic covenant still comes up inconclusive, though likely, based on this passage alone.

I'm not arguing this, just pointing out that perhaps not everyone will buy the assertion that a translation of "Adam" means the game's over.

 

[Wayne]

And the ESV Study Bible commentator for Hosea is....[fill in blank] ??????

I ask because that could be interesting in itself, maybe.

 

[LawrenceU]

That would be Vasholz. And, yes that is interesting

 

[py3ak]

Tim, you might find Warfield's discussion of this point illuminating (in the Selected Shorter Writings, v.1).

Even if Hosea 6:7 is rendered "man", though, I don't think that overthrows its use as an indication of a covenant of works made with Adam. Because if the verse asserts that the Israelites, like men in general have transgressed the covenant, that shows that men in general have transgressed: well men in general haven't transgressed the Mosaic covenant, so what's left?

That said, though, if anyone is using Hosea 6:7 as their main proof for the covenant of works, I think they are making a mistake. To my mind, Genesis 2 (with confirmation from Exodus 6:3) and Romans 5 are the primary passages, and Hosea 6:7 would come in for confirmation.

 

[MW]

The AV contains "Adam" in the margin.

What is gained by confining the reference to Adam? Yes, you might gain a theological point in the controversy over whether there was a covenant made with Adam, but at the same time you lose the relevance of that covenant for the whole of the human race.

Exegetically, one must have a specific reason for rendering the word "Adam," and the text provides no internal markers for so translating it.

 

[paculina]

It seems to me that Genesis 2:15-3:24 is clearly a covenant between God and Adam. God told Adam "This is what you may do (eat from any tree), this is what you may not do (except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and if you disobey me, this is what will happen (you will surely die.)" Then Eve was deceived by the serpent, Adam fell, and God imposed the consequences of breaking the covenant. And verse 3:15 is clearly a covenant that foreshadows Christ.

in my opinion, this Hosea verse only poses a problem if you don't believe that God had a covenant with Adam. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the controversy is.

 

[Wayne]

I've long appreciated Jeremiah Burroughs' Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea, (SDG, 1989). Here are a portion of his comments on the text:

Burroughs on Hosea 6:7, page 334

Ver. 7. But they like men have transgressed the covenant : there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Here is an argument that mercy in the former verse is to be understood in a large sense; why? because it is the very substance of the covenant; they have been hard-hearted, cruel, and unmerciful, and thereby have transgressed the covenant. I am merciful in the covenant, and my grace is free and full to sinners there; but they have transgressed the covenant by being cruel and unmerciful : "But they like men have transgressed the covenant."

"Like men," that is, like Adam; these men have sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. Rom. v. 14, speaks of those who "had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression:" but these, as they have old Adam in them, so they have dealt with me as he did; and as he for his sin was cast out of Paradise, so these men have deserved to be cast out of the good land. But Vatablue, and Tremelius, and others, read the words thus, They have broken my covenant as a man, they thought that I had been as their fellow creature; as they made it their practice to break covenants with men, so they thought to do with God: so they have transgressed my covenant. This sense may be admitted; and hence it would be seasonable to observe, that the cause of breach of covenant with God is, because we consider not that it is with God that we make our covenants.

But the words are more usually read, as in our books, "But they like men have transgressed the covenant;" that is, not as I, who, like a God, have kept covenant; but they, like such men as themselves, i.e., weak, inconsistant, frail, unfaithful creatures, have transgressed, Job xxxi. 33.

But may not this seem to be an excusing or diminution of their sin to say, "They like men," implying the common frailty of human nature, "have transgressed"?

No; it is rather an aggravation of their sin. Therefore the word here translated "men." is used for man in his corrupt state, for weak, frail men; and so distinct from that which signifies generous and strenuous men; and so the comparison is not only between God and man, but between the several degrees of men.

Or thus, They have transgressed my covenant like men; that is, not like my people. Saints that are of my church, they have not transgressed my covenant so. Their ways have been the ways of ordinary men, and as such they have transgressed my covenant. The two last senses are principally meant here.

 

[TimV]

Thanks, all.

 

[greenbaggins]

The AV contains "Adam" in the margin.

What is gained by confining the reference to Adam? Yes, you might gain a theological point in the controversy over whether there was a covenant made with Adam, but at the same time you lose the relevance of that covenant for the whole of the human race.

Exegetically, one must have a specific reason for rendering the word "Adam," and the text provides no internal markers for so translating it.

I really fail to follow your argument at this point, Matthew. How in the world can translating it "like Adam" lose its relevance for the whole human race if Adam is the covenant head of the human race? You would have to separate completely Adam from his posterity (something neither the Bible nor the confessions do). Secondly, why must one have a specific reason for translating "adam" as "Adam?" I completely disagree that there is any hermeneutical warrant for saying that the Hebrew word means "man" unless it is completely obvious that it means "Adam." One would have to have a concrete reason for translating the word "man" just as much as for translating it "Adam." Thirdly, to combine the two together, Hosea uses the name "Ephraim" in verse 10 to represent all Israel. So why can't the use of the proper name "Adam" represent all humanity? I'm going with Warfield on this one.

 

[MW]

I really fail to follow your argument at this point, Matthew. How in the world can translating it "like Adam" lose its relevance for the whole human race if Adam is the covenant head of the human race? You would have to separate completely Adam from his posterity (something neither the Bible nor the confessions do). Secondly, why must one have a specific reason for translating "adam" as "Adam?" I completely disagree that there is any hermeneutical warrant for saying that the Hebrew word means "man" unless it is completely obvious that it means "Adam." One would have to have a concrete reason for translating the word "man" just as much as for translating it "Adam." Thirdly, to combine the two together, Hosea uses the name "Ephraim" in verse 10 to represent all Israel. So why can't the use of the proper name "Adam" represent all humanity? I'm going with Warfield on this one.

First, my point pertains to the theological ramifications of this text. Obviously one can import the idea of representation into the text if one feels the need to justify the conclusion that it affects all mankind; but the text itself cannot be interpreted as making that point when "Adam" replaces "men." If we confine the text as it stands to "Adam" we remove the reference to "men;" so we are left without any statement as to the condition of mankind as a whole.

Secondly, the reason one requires internal markers in the text is due to the semantics tied up with the Hebrew word. It is more generally understood to be a common noun and only refers to a proper name in specific contexts. That being the case, there must be specific markers to justify taking it as a proper noun.

Thirdly, the broader context of Hosea shows that he uses general references to human behaviour to characterise the conduct of Israel; e.g., 4:4; 5:10, and 6:9; so it is only natural to take 6:7 as making the same type of comparison. The immediate context is even more compelling because it is dealing with God's purpose to show mercy in spite of the human fickleness displayed by His people. In this context one could provide a rationale for tracing this fickleness to the first human, but there is nothing in the text which necessitates this rationale. It makes perfect sense without it.

Fourthly, to follow Warfield on this point one should acknowledge (1.) that he denies the federalists siezed on this text to prove a covenant made with Adam, which is contrary to many popular uses of it; and (2.) In the end he was content to err in good company if in fact it was an error to hold that the text referred to Adam. Fair enough. One simply adds Warfield to the good company if one defers to Warfield's reasons for accepting a reference to Adam.