Dr. Bob Gonzales
Puritan Board Junior
A good number of Bible scholars question whether the prelapsarian arrangement between God and Adam should be viewed as a "covenant." When Hosea 6:7, which reads, "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me" (ESV, cf. NAS, NIV, NET, CSB), is offered as a prooftext, many of these scholars opt for an emendation to the text, which makes the referent a city rather than the first man or mankind in general (LXX, KJV, NKJ). I remain unpersuaded by the arguments and continue to see Hosea 6:7 as supporting the idea of a primordial covenant. For a helpful discussion of this text, see Thomas McComiskey, Hosea, in vol. 1 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expositional Commentary, ed. Thomas McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 95, and B. B. Warfield, “Hosea vi.7: Adam or Man?” Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, ed. John E. Meeter (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1970).
There is, I believe, another, sometimes overlooked text, that provides further support for a primordial covenant. In chapter 24 of his prophetic corpus, Isaiah universalizes Hosea’s verdict of covenant breach and applies it to all the nations: “The earth is polluted because of its inhabitants, who have transgressed laws, violated statutes, broken the ancient covenant [berit 'olam]” (Isa. 24:5, NAB). The phrase berit 'olam (“ancient” or “eternal” covenant) is applied to the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:16), Abrahamic covenant (Psa. 105:9-10), the Sabbath within the Mosaic covenant (Lev. 24:8), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), and the New Covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8). The fact that Isaiah’s indictment is directed to all the nations, however, preludes a direct reference to any of the specifically Jewish covenants.
Some commentators opt for the Noahic covenant, referring to the stipulations in 9:1-7 as the “laws” [torot] and the “statute” [hoq] that had been violated. But I think a good argument can be made that the Noahic covenant is in some sense a republication of an original covenant with Adam. So the prophet Isaiah seems to be alluding to that primordial covenant God gave to humanity through the head of the human race, Adam. As John Oswalt observes,
What do you think?
There is, I believe, another, sometimes overlooked text, that provides further support for a primordial covenant. In chapter 24 of his prophetic corpus, Isaiah universalizes Hosea’s verdict of covenant breach and applies it to all the nations: “The earth is polluted because of its inhabitants, who have transgressed laws, violated statutes, broken the ancient covenant [berit 'olam]” (Isa. 24:5, NAB). The phrase berit 'olam (“ancient” or “eternal” covenant) is applied to the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:16), Abrahamic covenant (Psa. 105:9-10), the Sabbath within the Mosaic covenant (Lev. 24:8), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), and the New Covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8). The fact that Isaiah’s indictment is directed to all the nations, however, preludes a direct reference to any of the specifically Jewish covenants.
Some commentators opt for the Noahic covenant, referring to the stipulations in 9:1-7 as the “laws” [torot] and the “statute” [hoq] that had been violated. But I think a good argument can be made that the Noahic covenant is in some sense a republication of an original covenant with Adam. So the prophet Isaiah seems to be alluding to that primordial covenant God gave to humanity through the head of the human race, Adam. As John Oswalt observes,
While the eternal covenant may have specific reference to the Noahic covenant in Gen. 9:1-17 with its prohibition of bloodshed, its broader reference is to the implicit covenant between Creator and creature, in which the Creator promises life in return for the creature’s living according to the norms laid down at Creation (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, NICOT, ed. Robert L. Hubbard Jr. [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986], 446; cf. E.J. Young, The Book of Isaiah [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969], 2:156-158).
If this is true, then there is no such think as a non-covenantal human being. All men stand in covenant with God. They are not merely guitly of violating the 10 Words imprinted on their conscience, but they are also guilty of failure to fill and subdue the earth for the glory of God.
What do you think?
Last edited: