PDA

View Full Version : Covenant with Adam



markedward
Jun 13th 2010, 03:49 AM
Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
What "covenant" did God and Adam have?

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 03:53 AM
I think a basic covenant of not eating of the tree, I think. :)

markedward
Jun 13th 2010, 03:56 AM
So, simple obedience to that one command?

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 03:59 AM
Yes, I believe so. That's the only thing I can think of

markedward
Jun 13th 2010, 04:24 AM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about:

Adam had access to everlasting life (i.e. the tree of life). If the "covenant" between God and Adam consisted of Adam performing a certain work (i.e. don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), then his access to everlasting life was contingent upon his ability to follow that commandment... which is the opposite of what we have been taught in the New Testament.

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 04:42 AM
Yes I can see quite the dilemma. The only thing I could think of are two possibilities the first is that God knew that even with such a simple thing we still couldn't do what He required or else that we misunderstood what was our requirement in the NT :hmm: Of course I could be wrong altogether too

rom826
Jun 13th 2010, 05:11 AM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about:

Adam had access to everlasting life (i.e. the tree of life). If the "covenant" between God and Adam consisted of Adam performing a certain work (i.e. don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), then his access to everlasting life was contingent upon his ability to follow that commandment... which is the opposite of what we have been taught in the New Testament.

I believe Adam was given a choice. God told Adam he could eat freely of every tree in the garden which included the tree of life. Unfortunately Adam made the wrong choice and ate of the tree of knowlege of good and evil rather than the tree of life which God gave him freely to eat and prompted him to eat of. I believe God's covenant with Adam, and every man after him is everlasting life through Jesus Christ.

RevLogos
Jun 13th 2010, 05:14 AM
Interesting verse in that it is one of those that is translated very differently in some Bibles.

KJV: But they like men have transgressed the covenant
MKJV: But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant
NET: At Adam they broke the covenant

The NET has this footnote regarding the translation of Adam. It could be a city (see Jos 3:16), or "like sinful men".

Or "Like Adam"; or "Like [sinful] men." The Masoretic Text (MT) reads כְּאָדָם (ke'adam, "like Adam" or "as [sinful] men"); however, the editors of BHS suggest this reflects an orthographic confusion of בְּאָדָם (be'adam, "at Adam"), as suggested by the locative adverb שָׁם (sham, "there") in the following line. However, שָׁם sometimes functions in a nonlocative sense similar to the deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, "Behold!"). The singular noun אָדָם ('adam) has been taken in several different ways: (1) proper name: "like Adam" (כְּאָדָם), (2) collective singular: "like [sinful] men" (כְּאָדָם), (3) proper location: "at Adam," referring to a city in the Jordan Valley (Jos_3:16), emending comparative כְּ (kaf) to locative בְּ (bet, "at"): "at Adam" (בְּאָדָם). BDB 9 s.v. אָדָם 2 suggests the collective sense, referring to sinful men (Num_5:6; 1Ki_8:46; 2Ch_6:36; Jer_10:14; Job_31:33; Hos_6:7). The English versions are divided: KJV margin, ASV, RSV margin, NASB, NIV, TEV margin, NLT "like Adam"; RSV, NRSV, TEV "at Adam"; KJV "like men."

The idea it is a city seems weak to me because as far as we know, nothing special happened there to reference it here. But it is correct that English versions are divided.

markedward
Jun 13th 2010, 05:24 AM
KJV: But they like men have transgressed the covenantI agree regarding the city being a weak interpretation. This one, however, also seems to be a weak translation; it's too vague to be helpful to Hosea's case. Why make a simile to such a generalized subject?

RevLogos
Jun 13th 2010, 05:25 AM
As for a covenant, it seems to be wrapped up in these three verses:

Gen 2:15 And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden,
Gen 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.


So in 2:15 Adam is to work it, to be a steward of it. Just as we are today.
In 2:16-17 Adam is told not to eat from the tree of TKOGAE, but nothing about the tree of life. Later when banished from Eden, the whirling flaming sword guards the tree of life. This implies to me that Adam and Eve would have lived forever, so that eating from the Tree of Life wouldn't do anything. But they were told they would die of they ate from the other.

There is also a command earlier in Chapter 1:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them [humans]. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth.

This implies to me that Eden couldn't be just an orchid in the East, but had to be the entire world. Doesn't it?

markedward
Jun 13th 2010, 05:33 AM
This implies to me that Adam and Eve would have lived forever, so that eating from the Tree of Life wouldn't do anything.Then... why was the tree of life in the garden if it was of no benefit to an already-everlasting Adam and Eve, and why does God explicitly say that Adam and Eve were cut off from the tree so that they couldn't eat of it and live forever?


This implies to me that Eden couldn't be just an orchid in the East, but had to be the entire world. Doesn't it?Wherever Eden was, Genesis 2 says that the garden itself was on the east side of that region... and it also refers to several other regions apart from Eden.

RevLogos
Jun 13th 2010, 05:44 AM
Then... why was the tree of life in the garden if it was of no benefit to an already-everlasting Adam and Eve, and why does God explicitly say that Adam and Eve were cut off from the tree so that they couldn't eat of it and live forever?

The answer would have to be in 3:22. We would become like a god, but without the maturity to chose what is good and right.


Wherever Eden was, Genesis 2 says that the garden itself was on the east side of that region... and it also refers to several other regions apart from Eden.

Yes. Puzzling. Verse 1:28 seems more suitable for the post-fallen world. There is quite a bit of overlap between the latter Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

Sirus
Jun 13th 2010, 05:50 AM
I agree regarding the city being a weak interpretation. This one, however, also seems to be a weak translation; it's too vague to be helpful to Hosea's case. Why make a simile to such a generalized subject?To me it suggests what other scripture sugests. That all have sinned and fallen short. All being -all in Adam -man.

Sirus
Jun 13th 2010, 05:53 AM
I think a basic covenant of not eating of the tree, I think. :)Where's the sacrifice - blood?

holyrokker
Jun 13th 2010, 05:57 AM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about:

Adam had access to everlasting life (i.e. the tree of life). If the "covenant" between God and Adam consisted of Adam performing a certain work (i.e. don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), then his access to everlasting life was contingent upon his ability to follow that commandment... which is the opposite of what we have been taught in the New Testament.But the NT doesn't teach that we are unable to floow the commands. It teaches that we cannot be justified by obeying the Law.

Nomad
Jun 13th 2010, 05:42 PM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about:

Adam had access to everlasting life (i.e. the tree of life). If the "covenant" between God and Adam consisted of Adam performing a certain work (i.e. don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), then his access to everlasting life was contingent upon his ability to follow that commandment... which is the opposite of what we have been taught in the New Testament.

The covenant God made with Adam was in fact a covenant of works. It can be seen here:

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Spiritual and physical life was contingent upon perfect obedience. A covenant of works was possible because adam was originally created in a state of innocence. It was only after Adam fell that a covenant of grace was necessary. The first mention of the covenant of grace can be seen here:

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Nihil Obstat
Jun 13th 2010, 06:18 PM
Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
What "covenant" did God and Adam have?

Perhaps it has to do with how Adam dealt with his transgression: by seeking to cover it himself. "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant..." (Hos. 6:6-7a) Maybe the prophet is saying that though the house of Israel and Ephraim offer sacrifices, they do so in the likeness of Adam stringing together fig leaves to hide his nakedness.

BroRog
Jun 13th 2010, 07:02 PM
Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
What "covenant" did God and Adam have?

I'm liking the KJV translation in which the Hebrew term adam is translated rather than kept as a name. This seems to echo passages like Numbers 23:19 in which God is being compared to mankind, "God is not a man that he should lie, etc." In this case, if I am right, Hosea would be saying, "but it's just like a man to break a covenant whenever it suits him." (paraphrase :) ) In contrast to the concept of "loyalty" found in verse 6.

RogerW
Jun 13th 2010, 07:25 PM
Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
What "covenant" did God and Adam have?

Hi Markedward,

The covenant was eternal life...(((IF))) Adam obeyed God!

Even though God pronounced the human He created "very good", was that enough to merit humans eternal life? If it were, wouldn't that mean that man possessed a righteousness of his own apart from the righteousness of Christ? But we don't find Scripture, not even at creation, telling us that man possesses righteousness and can save himself by obeying God's law.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jun 13th 2010, 07:34 PM
I think regardless of the level of discernment A&E possessed, Eve MUST (God ordains it) be deceived by the serpent and disobey God. If they do not fall, they would not be barred from the tree of life and they could live forever in a fallen spiritual death. But what does this say about their need for Christ? If they could have obeyed and lived for ever through keeping the law, why would they need a Savior, or for that matter why would they need God? I'm thinking God ordained the fall to drive them to the Father and the Son because it is only through the righteousness of faith that it might be by grace. Otherwise it is not of grace at all, but through their own righteousness that they are saved. If this be true, why give all praise, honor and glory to God since they really didn't need Him to have eternal life after all? Do you suppose that if A&E could have obeyed God and lived forever that they would glorify Him as God? Or do you suppose they would begin to worship the created (self) rather then the Creator?

Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jun 13th 2010, 07:39 PM
The covenant God made with Adam was in fact a covenant of works. It can be seen here:

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Spiritual and physical life was contingent upon perfect obedience. A covenant of works was possible because adam was originally created in a state of innocence. It was only after Adam fell that a covenant of grace was necessary. The first mention of the covenant of grace can be seen here:

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Hi Nomad,

So you believe first the fall then election? Wouldn't that say God is reactionary to man's choices?

Many Blessings,
RW

Zack702
Jun 13th 2010, 07:39 PM
Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
What "covenant" did God and Adam have?

Maybe because when God tells us something and we at first believe in by faith then later for some reason we stray from what we at first believed then we transgress what God gave us.


It is not that God was mad because a piece of fruit was missing from the tree.

But rather perhaps more upset because Adam had forced his hand against him.


A covenant is both ways God just doesn't cast a covenant on you.

You need to believe in God at first.


The works are perhaps only a way for you to continue, in a refreshing way, with the faith that you at first started with.


Was it the actuall eating of the fruit that was evil?

Or was it the straying from the belief of what God said?

At what point did Adam break the covenant?

When he ate the fruit or when he decided to eat the fruit?

It wouldn't of mattered if God had stepped in to stop Adam and Eve from actually eating it.

What matters is that they made the decision to eat it all the while containing the word of God which said do not eat it.

inn
Jun 13th 2010, 07:40 PM
Do you suppose that if A&E could have obeyed God and lived forever that they would glorify Him as God?Or do you suppose they would begin to worship the created (self) rather then the Creator?


Excellent questions. Yes if they obeyed, they would glorify Him as God!

'Or do you suppose they would begin to worship the created (self) rather then the Creator? '
I am not sure what you are asking, but because of the fall they worshipped created things.
Did I understand right?

RogerW
Jun 13th 2010, 07:55 PM
Excellent questions. Yes if they obeyed, they would glorify Him as God!

'Or do you suppose they would begin to worship the created (self) rather then the Creator? '
I am not sure what you are asking, but because of the fall they worshipped created things.
Did I understand right?

Hi Inn,

Exactly! If they had been able to obtain eternal life apart from Christ, it would have been by their own righteous works (obeying God). Why worship the Creator since they can merit eternal life without Him? Even in an unfallen state, without having the knowledge of either 'good' or evil, it would be natural to look to ourselves for life. Why look to the One, Who alone is good, when all we know is that we earned eternal life through our obedience?

Many Blessings,
RW

genealogist
Jun 13th 2010, 07:56 PM
Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
What "covenant" did God and Adam have?

I take the same stance that many have already answered. Namely, there were 2 covenants with Adam 1) the Edenic. To put it bluntly, they were the conditions God promised in the Garden of the purpose of man, and the choice he had (and the price of disobedience). It's like job requirement conditions.

2) This is really called the Adamic Covenant and pronounces the sentence of his sin, but also a type of proto gospel in Genesis 3:15 of the promised Seed of the woman.

These are good questions as I truly believe understanding of the bible comes with understanding the covenants which are actually "crossroads" in the bible where God makes these agreements for His purpose as it unfolds. And unlike many who think the Old Testament Covenants are all done away with in favor of the New Covenant, the so-called Old Covenant is merely the Law of Moses with Israel (righteousness by works). The others, such as the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic are neither old nor new but in full effect yet. They are the frameworks of the New and need to be in place for it's foundation. In a bit I should have my first blog entry regarding the Abrahamic Covenant since this is strictly a genealogical Covenant for a certain people specifically named. The same can be said of the Davidic Covenant.

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 08:04 PM
Where's the sacrifice - blood?

There was none needed with the very first one. After the fall things changed dramatically

RogerW
Jun 13th 2010, 08:07 PM
I don't believe Scripture shows us that God has a plan A and a plan B. God's covenant of redemption, with humans has always been only one covenant, and this was established by promise in eternity from before the foundation of the world.

Blessings,
RW

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 08:09 PM
Hi Inn,

Exactly! If they had been able to obtain eternal life apart from Christ, it would have been by their own righteous works (obeying God). Why worship the Creator since they can merit eternal life without Him? Even in an unfallen state, without having the knowledge of either 'good' or evil, it would be natural to look to ourselves for life. Why look to the One, Who alone is good, when all we know is that we earned eternal life through our obedience?

Many Blessings,
RW

Well way back then there wasno need for all that. I believe they had eternal life before the fall as demostrated by these verses:


17 And He said to Adam, "Because you listened to your wife's voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'Do not eat from it':
The ground is cursed because of you.
You will eat from it by means of painful labor
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow
until you return to the ground,
since you were taken from it.
For you are dust,
and you will return to dust."

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 08:11 PM
I don't believe Scripture shows us that God has a plan A and a plan B. God's covenant of redemption, with humans has always been only one covenant, and this was established by promise in eternity from before the foundation of the world.

Blessings,
RW

I disagree with that. I do think God knew what was going to happen but hoped it wouldn't I do not think as most Reformed folk might that Adam's and Eve's disobedience was set in stone.

Sirus
Jun 13th 2010, 08:28 PM
There was none needed with the very first one. After the fall things changed dramaticallyI can understand you wanting to say this, but isn't it pure assumption, since there is no indication of a covenant between God and Adam? A covenant with God is done with those that are not in fellowship -participating together. Adam did not have this problem before he sinned. He was given dominion over all the works of God's hands -in fellowship- without a veil because he had no sin.

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 09:23 PM
I can understand you wanting to say this, but isn't it pure assumption, since there is no indication of a covenant between God and Adam? A covenant with God is done with those that are not in fellowship -participating together. Adam did not have this problem before he sinned. He was given dominion over all the works of God's hands -in fellowship- without a veil because he had no sin.

I would still say it was a covenant. Our only idea of a covenant is what we learned but that is not to say it could have been done differently pre fall, then there was no need for bloodshed back than.

Sirus
Jun 13th 2010, 09:38 PM
could is the key word there. I do not base my theology on assumption and guesses. I have to go by the text, and the text does not indicate a covenant with Adam.

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 09:40 PM
could is the key word there. I do not base my theology on assumption and guesses. I have to go by the text, and the text does not indicate a covenant with Adam.

But I think it does :) As other said here a covenant of works not to eat of the tree or you will die, to me that is a covenant

Sirus
Jun 13th 2010, 09:45 PM
You think based on your own assumption not the text.
A covenant has a promise. What promise did God give Adam?

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 09:50 PM
That if Adam did not eat he wouldn't die. That was a promise as well as the flip side

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die."

Gen 2:17

Sirus
Jun 13th 2010, 10:02 PM
Wrong. That's a negative. God's promises are in the positive.
What promise did God give Adam?

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 10:06 PM
That he wouldn't die, I do not surmise we will agree :)

Sirus
Jun 13th 2010, 10:15 PM
It does not say you will not die it says you will die. That's not positive.
No, we will not agree since you think a negative is a positive.

Nomad
Jun 13th 2010, 10:19 PM
Hi Nomad,

So you believe first the fall then election? Wouldn't that say God is reactionary to man's choices?


Hi Roger,

I'm not sure what I said that may have given you that idea, but no, when it comes to the order of God's eternal decrees I would consider myself a supralapsarian.

You may be interested in the following article:

http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/pactum-salutis-historia-salutis-ordo-salutis-and-the-ministry/

newinchrist4now
Jun 13th 2010, 10:26 PM
It does not say you will not die it says you will die. That's not positive.
No, we will not agree since you think a negative is a positive.

I never said it was a positive, it was a negative covenant but one none the less.

RogerW
Jun 14th 2010, 01:07 AM
Hi Roger,

I'm not sure what I said that may have given you that idea, but no, when it comes to the order of God's eternal decrees I would consider myself a supralapsarian.

You may be interested in the following article:

http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/pactum-salutis-historia-salutis-ordo-salutis-and-the-ministry/

Hi Nomad,

It would appear I lacked care in reading...my apologies. Thx for the link.

Blessings,
RW

Scruffy Kid
Jun 14th 2010, 05:04 AM
Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. What "covenant" did God and Adam have?

The discussion here, thus far, has been predicated upon the particular (English) quotation from Hosea 6:7 as markedward quoted it.

However, this is not the only way to translate the verse. The KJV, for instance, translates Hosea 6:7 "But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."

The noun which the English version markedward used translates "Adam" is in fact the Hebrew adam (Strong's H120); but this noun is translated "man" -- in the sense of "humanity" or "humankind" or "a human being" more frequently than it is translated "Adam". (This is discussed at some length in my posts #67 and #77 in markedward's thread/poll on Genesis.) In the case of Hosea 6:7, a quick gander at blb (blue letter bible) also tells us that the LXX (the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) also translates H120 (adam) in this verse as anthropos (ἄνθρωπος), that is as "humanity" or "a human being", not as "Adam."

If one translates the verse in this way, the question of a "covenant with Adam" doesn't arise. The verse, read that way, seems simply to be saying that human beings are often faithless and break their agreements: The people of Judah, just like human beings do, has violated their solemn agreement with God.

ThyWordIsTruth
Jun 14th 2010, 06:20 AM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about:

Adam had access to everlasting life (i.e. the tree of life). If the "covenant" between God and Adam consisted of Adam performing a certain work (i.e. don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), then his access to everlasting life was contingent upon his ability to follow that commandment... which is the opposite of what we have been taught in the New Testament.

haven't read through everything so I don't know if it's already been addressed, but...

not really. I believe all sin stems from unbelief, including disobedience. Recall incident of God sending manna for the Israelites in the desert. God said collect on 6 days, on the 6th day collect double because there will be none on the 7th day. God also promised that on the 7th day there will be no manna, but whatever they collected on the 6th day will not go bad, like every other day. According to the records some disobeyed and still went out to collect. I ask why did they do it? Because they don't believe God. They don't trust him.

Same in Adam's case. God said the day you eat of it, you shall surely die. Serpent said you will surely not die, but you will be like God. Adam disbelieved God and believed Satan instead. So his sin was one of unbelief, which is consistent that salvation comes by faith. Adam was faithless and did not believe God, and his faithlessness led to his outward disobedience.

RogerW
Jun 14th 2010, 11:42 AM
The discussion here, thus far, has been predicated upon the particular (English) quotation from Hosea 6:7 as markedward quoted it.

However, this is not the only way to translate the verse. The KJV, for instance, translates Hosea 6:7 "But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."

The noun which the English version markedward used translates "Adam" is in fact the Hebrew adam (Strong's H120); but this noun is translated "man" -- in the sense of "humanity" or "humankind" or "a human being" more frequently than it is translated "Adam". (This is discussed at some length in my posts #67 and #77 in markedward's thread/poll on Genesis.) In the case of Hosea 6:7, a quick gander at blb (blue letter bible) also tells us that the LXX (the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) also translates H120 (adam) in this verse as anthropos (ἄνθρωπος), that is as "humanity" or "a human being", not as "Adam."

If one translates the verse in this way, the question of a "covenant with Adam" doesn't arise. The verse, read that way, seems simply to be saying that human beings are often faithless and break their agreements: The people of Judah, just like human beings do, has violated their solemn agreement with God.

Greetings SK,

Why exclude Adam from among humanity? Is not he also a human, who, like all men transgressed the covenant? And was he not the representative head of all humanity?

A question we might ask is what are the terms of a covenant? Isn't a promise of deliverance for obedience a covenant that is established between parties? A covenant is an agreement between at least two people...yes? The Westminster Confession defines it as “life…promised…upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”

The text in Genesis 2:16-17 says, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” What do we see here? We see a command; we see a stipulation; we see consequences; but do we see a covenant?

Reformed Theologians call this probation time the Covenant of Works. The reason they say this is because if Adam works righteously then he will retain his place in the garden and will be able to eat of the Tree of Life, and live forever. If he does not work righteously by obeying the commands of God, then he will die. Obedience to the Covenant is exceedingly pivotal in both Adam’s state of innocence and our righteousness in Christ. Adam will surely die if he transgresses the command. The command holds in it blessings and curses – stipulations – which Adam either obeys or disobeys. It is unfortunate that he disobeyed – the whole world is thrown into sin. Would you not agree that we find covenant binding here? As such, Adam too was included in covenant with God.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jun 14th 2010, 04:02 PM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about:

Adam had access to everlasting life (i.e. the tree of life). If the "covenant" between God and Adam consisted of Adam performing a certain work (i.e. don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), then his access to everlasting life was contingent upon his ability to follow that commandment... which is the opposite of what we have been taught in the New Testament.

Your statement at the end is interesting and this is a good question. Was God's offer of eternal life a valid offer to Adam? If so, what do we make of the New Testament discussions concerning salvation by faith, and not by works of the law? Wouldn't obeying a commandment to avoid eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil be a "work" of the "law", i.e. an action predicated on a commandment? I think this is insightful and something we need to look at. And in light of this, perhaps we need to evaluate our view of the Mosaic Law. Was God's promise of life a valid promise? Or was that promise a cosmic joke? [here, take this law and see what you can do with it. And if you can perfectly obey it, then I'll give you life.] Was that not also a valid, legitimate promise? Did Paul think so?

RogerW
Jun 14th 2010, 04:29 PM
Your statement at the end is interesting and this is a good question. Was God's offer of eternal life a valid offer to Adam? If so, what do we make of the New Testament discussions concerning salvation by faith, and not by works of the law? Wouldn't obeying a commandment to avoid eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil be a "work" of the "law", i.e. an action predicated on a commandment? I think this is insightful and something we need to look at. And in light of this, perhaps we need to evaluate our view of the Mosaic Law. Was God's promise of life a valid promise? Or was that promise a cosmic joke? [here, take this law and see what you can do with it. And if you can perfectly obey it, then I'll give you life.] Was that not also a valid, legitimate promise? Did Paul think so?

Hi BroRog,

What was the purpose of the commandment (law) to both Adam and the nation? Was the command(s) given as a way of obtaining eternal life, or to show us that none are righteous, no not one, thereby leading us to Christ?

As to the offer...was it an offer i.e. do/don't do this and receive life everlasting? Or was the offer the means for which God used to show mankind that apart from grace through faith through the Perfect Lamb, slain from before the foundation of the world, no man could live forever? In this sense we find disobedience serves the purpose of God to save a people for Himself.

Many Blessings,
RW

markedward
Jun 14th 2010, 05:10 PM
However, this is not the only way to translate the verse. The KJV, for instance, translates Hosea 6:7 "But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."Is it simply saying that mankind is wont to break covenants, or is it referring to a specific "the covenant", and in that case... what covenant is it?

Scruffy Kid
Jun 14th 2010, 10:51 PM
I said:



Hosea 6.7: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
What "covenant" did God and Adam have?
The discussion here, thus far, has been predicated upon the particular (English) quotation from Hosea 6:7 as markedward quoted it.

However, this is not the only way to translate the verse. The KJV, for instance, translates Hosea 6:7 "But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."

The noun which the English version markedward used translates "Adam" is in fact the Hebrew adam (Strong's H120); but this noun is translated "man" -- in the sense of "humanity" or "humankind" or "a human being" more frequently than it is translated "Adam". (This is discussed at some length in my posts #67 and #77 in markedward's thread/poll on Genesis.) In the case of Hosea 6:7, a quick gander at blb (blue letter bible) also tells us that the LXX (the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) also translates H120 (adam) in this verse as anthropos (ἄνθρωπος), that is as "humanity" or "a human being", not as "Adam."

If one translates the verse in this way, the question of a "covenant with Adam" doesn't arise. The verse, read that way, seems simply to be saying that human beings are often faithless and break their agreements: The people of Judah, just like human beings do, has violated their solemn agreement with God.

Roger W replied:

Greetings SK,

Why exclude Adam from among humanity? Is not he also a human, who, like all men transgressed the covenant? And was he not the representative head of all humanity?

A question we might ask is what are the terms of a covenant? Isn't a promise of deliverance for obedience a covenant that is established between parties? A covenant is an agreement between at least two people...yes? The Westminster Confession defines it as “life…promised…upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”

The text in Genesis 2:16-17 says, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” What do we see here? We see a command; we see a stipulation; we see consequences; but do we see a covenant?

Reformed Theologians call this probation time the Covenant of Works. The reason they say this is because if Adam works righteously then he will retain his place in the garden and will be able to eat of the Tree of Life, and live forever. If he does not work righteously by obeying the commands of God, then he will die. Obedience to the Covenant is exceedingly pivotal in both Adam’s state of innocence and our righteousness in Christ. Adam will surely die if he transgresses the command. The command holds in it blessings and curses – stipulations – which Adam either obeys or disobeys. It is unfortunate that he disobeyed – the whole world is thrown into sin. Would you not agree that we find covenant binding here? As such, Adam too was included in covenant with God.

Many Blessings,
RW

Markedward replied:

Is it simply saying that mankind is wont to break covenants, or is it referring to a specific "the covenant", and in that case... what covenant is it?

Roger W: Thanks for your question. But perhaps you have misunderstood me.

Markedward's original question, which started the thread, translated Hosea 6:7 "But like adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me" Markedward then asked: "What 'covenant' did God and Adam have? This question seemed to take for grantted that the verse referred to some special covenant between God and Adam. All subsequent posts seemed to accept that translation, and therefore that assumption, and answer based upon that assumption.

All I was doing was pointing out that that is not the only -- and perhaps not the most likely -- way to read, or translate, that particular verse. An alternative (used by the KJV and the LLX) is "But like men they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me." That translation does not presuppose that a specific or particular covenant between Adam (considered as an individual) and God is being referred to by Hosea. If one reads the verse that way, then, there's no real point in trying to locate some specific covenant between Adam and God that's being referred to, because the verse is not speaking of one.

I was taking no position: I was just trying to point out that this alternative reading was possible.

Markedward: Thanks for your question also.

On the reading that goes with the LXX and KJV, I'm still not sure what the verse means. Certainly the reading you raise as a possiblity -- that it's "simply saying that mankind is wont to break covenants" or agreements -- seems like the most likely view, on the LLX/KJV reading.

But I don't know. I just don't know. I was simply trying to help the discussion by pointing out, here as on your other thread, that H120, the Hebrew word adam, is used in more than one way; and that one had to remember that in trying to figure out what Hosea 6:7 is referring to.

Blessings,
Scruff

RogerW
Jun 14th 2010, 11:31 PM
Roger W: Thanks for your question. But perhaps you have misunderstood me.

Markedward's original question, which started the thread, translated Hosea 6:7 "But like adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me" Markedward then asked: "What 'covenant' did God and Adam have? This question seemed to take for grantted that the verse referred to some special covenant between God and Adam. All subsequent posts seemed to accept that translation, and therefore that assumption, and answer based upon that assumption.

All I was doing was pointing out that that is not the only -- and perhaps not the most likely -- way to read, or translate, that particular verse. An alternative (used by the KJV and the LLX) is "But like men they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me." That translation does not presuppose that a specific or particular covenant between Adam (considered as an individual) and God is being referred to by Hosea. If one reads the verse that way, then, there's no real point in trying to locate some specific covenant between Adam and God that's being referred to, because the verse is not speaking of one.

I was taking no position: I was just trying to point out that this alternative reading was possible.

Scruffy, I understood what you were saying. My question still applies. Since Adam, (translated humanity) is the first human, he is the representative head of the human race. Therefore 'the covenant' with Adam/humanity is the same covenant that humans tend to transgress through faithlessness. The covenant in Eden was specifically to Adam individually, but inclusive of the whole human race. We all, as humans, like Adam have transgressed 'the' covenant and dealt faithlessly with God. This is the covenant enacted through Adam to the whole human race at the beginning of creation.

Many Blessings,
RW

Nihil Obstat
Jun 15th 2010, 12:58 AM
Again, Hos. 6:7 is not saying that Adam / man was in covenant with God. All it says is that Judah and Ephraim, in breaking the covenant with God, was like Adam / man. Thus, my suggestion that the verse be translated as 'Adam' as opposed to 'man', given the context of the house of Israel thinking that their sins were being covered though they were not being loyal to God.

RogerW
Jun 15th 2010, 01:41 AM
Hos 6:7 is speaking about the parallel of the Law from Moses at Sinai and The Law with Adam in the garden. In both cases there was a covenant with Law, and in both cases they transgressed the covenant. As Adam was in probation in the garden, that Adam transgressed and it is reckoned to our (humanity) account that we (humanity) transgressed the covenant, and that as a result we are all fallen. Adam represented the whole world, and the whole world was in Adam when he transgressed. The whole world was in covenant with God, so to speak, in Adam; but this is simply the same thing as if they were there.

Both Adam, at the time a believer, and all unbelievers, the whole world, were in probation before God in covenant. Whatever Adam did, that would be imputed whether for blessing or curse. We know that the whole world lies in the wicked one. They are born wicked. They are unbelievers. Adam represented them all, and the whole world was involved in the Covenant of Works before God.

Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jun 15th 2010, 03:57 AM
Hi BroRog,

What was the purpose of the commandment (law) to both Adam and the nation? Was the command(s) given as a way of obtaining eternal life, or to show us that none are righteous, no not one, thereby leading us to Christ?

As to the offer...was it an offer i.e. do/don't do this and receive life everlasting? Or was the offer the means for which God used to show mankind that apart from grace through faith through the Perfect Lamb, slain from before the foundation of the world, no man could live forever? In this sense we find disobedience serves the purpose of God to save a people for Himself.

Many Blessings,
RWPaul says that the Law was like guardian or a tutor to lead his kinsmen to Christ. But I wasn't talking about the legislation contained in the Mosaic Law but God's promise through Moses that if the people kept the Law they would find life. "Do this and live", was the promise. The question is, was that a bona fide promise? As I read the Law, and contrary to popular belief, the law wasn't impossible to keep. When I was a young Christian I was told that God abandoned the Law in favor of Grace because the Law was impossible to keep. A man couldn't gain salvation through the Law because he couldn't measure up to it's standards. But in fact, now that I have studied this out myself, I don't think the traditional Christian view is right. It was always possible to keep the covenant and the law of Moses and to gain justification by faith in THAT context -- as a Jew. Paul wasn't arguing as if salvation by grace or salvation through faith were something new. Instead, he argues that salvation has always been by grace through faith, even for the Jews living according to Moses.

BroRog
Jun 15th 2010, 03:59 AM
Again, Hos. 6:7 is not saying that Adam / man was in covenant with God. All it says is that Judah and Ephraim, in breaking the covenant with God, was like Adam / man. Thus, my suggestion that the verse be translated as 'Adam' as opposed to 'man', given the context of the house of Israel thinking that their sins were being covered though they were not being loyal to God.

Since the man Adam stands for the typical man, the everyman, then whether the word is translated "Adam" or "man" seems like it would mean the same thing either way. What am I missing?

Nihil Obstat
Jun 15th 2010, 04:40 AM
Since the man Adam stands for the typical man, the everyman, then whether the word is translated "Adam" or "man" seems like it would mean the same thing either way. What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. I think your take is a great way to understand the verse as well. My main point is that Adam is not said to have been in a covenant with God in Hos. 6:7.

RogerW
Jun 15th 2010, 01:42 PM
You're not missing anything. I think your take is a great way to understand the verse as well. My main point is that Adam is not said to have been in a covenant with God in Hos. 6:7.

The point I make is that mankind has been in covenant with God since creation. (The same covenant that was established in eternity before the foundation of the world via the Lamb slain) From the moment God gave Adam the command, He gave mankind the command, because all of humanity is in the loins of Adam by seed. So the covenant transgressed in Hos 6:7 is the same covenant that every man transgresses through a lack of faithfulness. Hos 6:7 could be translated thus, "But they like all of humanity have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me." What covenant? The same covenant God gave Adam in the garden. And the promise of the woman's "Seed" that will crush the serpents head for the salvation of man will now be fulfilled through Christ.

1Jo*3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jun 15th 2010, 01:59 PM
Paul says that the Law was like guardian or a tutor to lead his kinsmen to Christ. But I wasn't talking about the legislation contained in the Mosaic Law but God's promise through Moses that if the people kept the Law they would find life. "Do this and live", was the promise. The question is, was that a bona fide promise? As I read the Law, and contrary to popular belief, the law wasn't impossible to keep. When I was a young Christian I was told that God abandoned the Law in favor of Grace because the Law was impossible to keep. A man couldn't gain salvation through the Law because he couldn't measure up to it's standards. But in fact, now that I have studied this out myself, I don't think the traditional Christian view is right. It was always possible to keep the covenant and the law of Moses and to gain justification by faith in THAT context -- as a Jew. Paul wasn't arguing as if salvation by grace or salvation through faith were something new. Instead, he argues that salvation has always been by grace through faith, even for the Jews living according to Moses.

I would state it slightly different. The keeping of the Law could NEVER take away sins. Even if it were possible to obey the Law perfectly, that is not enough to cleanse us from our sins.

Heb*10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb*10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb*10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb*10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb*10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb*10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb*10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb*10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb*10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb*10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb*10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

You have rightly stated that justification (to be declared righteous) comes by faith. It was obedience to the law of Moses that demonstrated faith, but not faith coming from obedience to the law, but faith in God that led them to Christ, the true sacrificial Lamb.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jun 15th 2010, 03:27 PM
You're not missing anything. I think your take is a great way to understand the verse as well. My main point is that Adam is not said to have been in a covenant with God in Hos. 6:7.

Oh yea. :) That's what I meant too.

BroRog
Jun 15th 2010, 03:34 PM
I would state it slightly different. The keeping of the Law could NEVER take away sins. Even if it were possible to obey the Law perfectly, that is not enough to cleanse us from our sins.

Heb*10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb*10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb*10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb*10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb*10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb*10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb*10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb*10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb*10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb*10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb*10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

You have rightly stated that justification (to be declared righteous) comes by faith. It was obedience to the law of Moses that demonstrated faith, but not faith coming from obedience to the law, but faith in God that led them to Christ, the true sacrificial Lamb.

Many Blessings,
RWYea. I agree with that too, which brings us back to Markedward's very interesting observation that God's promise of Eternal Life, whether we are talking about Adam's encounter with the Tree of Life, or Israel's encounter with the promise of life through faith in the context of keeping the Law of Moses, were genuine, bone fide offers. Or do you think his offer was bogus because he knew that Adam and Israel were incapable of living by faith?

RogerW
Jun 15th 2010, 03:51 PM
Yea. I agree with that too, which brings us back to Markedward's very interesting observation that God's promise of Eternal Life, whether we are talking about Adam's encounter with the Tree of Life, or Israel's encounter with the promise of life through faith in the context of keeping the Law of Moses, were genuine, bone fide offers. Or do you think his offer was bogus because he knew that Adam and Israel were incapable of living by faith?

Adam would have lived forever IF he had obeyed! And the nation would have blessings and long life IF they had obeyed! So no the offer was not bogus. Did God know that both Adam and Israel were incapable of living by faith? Apparently yes, for Christ is the answer for the problem of sin before the foundation of the world. Why does God provide a remedy for sin before sin or even man existed? What is the purpose of the covenant God made with all humanity before the foundation of the world? Does this covenant include even Adam? And is this the covenant the nation and all humanity daily transgress?

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jun 15th 2010, 08:13 PM
Adam would have lived forever IF he had obeyed! And the nation would have blessings and long life IF they had obeyed! So no the offer was not bogus. Did God know that both Adam and Israel were incapable of living by faith? Apparently yes, for Christ is the answer for the problem of sin before the foundation of the world. Why does God provide a remedy for sin before sin or even man existed? What is the purpose of the covenant God made with all humanity before the foundation of the world? Does this covenant include even Adam? And is this the covenant the nation and all humanity daily transgress?

Many Blessings,
RWNo one can know the answer to these questions for certain, since the Bible doesn't answer them directly. We can, however, get the gist of the overall picture and conclude that God has a narrative purpose for these kinds of things. We know that he planned to make Jesus Christ the central figure of human history, and to place him at the head of all things, except of course, God himself. We can also deduce from the entire book of the Bible taken as a whole that God was creating a redemption narrative and planned this from the beginning too.