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,

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?

__________________
Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Easley, South Carolina

"Persons need not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious appetites." Jonathan Edwards

Kline apparently agreed (cf. Kingdom Prologue, p. 14). I think it is certainly legitimate.

__________________
Bryan Peters
Providence Reformed Church (URCNA)
Des Moines, Iowa

Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed. There is no offence in it; it is the staff of uprightness.
~Martin Luther~

Thanks, Bryan. It was probably Kline who first made me aware of the text's possible allusion to the covenant of works. I've not found it discussed in many other works on covenant theology though.

Interestingly enough, apparently Bahnsen thought similarly, relying on E.J. Young's analysis (cf. Five Views on Law and Gospel, page 111). John Frame also mentions it (Salvation Belongs to the Lord, page 119).

I think that you are in good company on that point. Not only will you find Reformed folk claiming support in that passage, but if you read Oswalt's comments in his 2 vol. study of Isaiah in the NICOT series, you will see him dismissing the arguments for this being a reference to the Noahic covenant, and describing, in essence, what we would call the Covenant of Works. The interesting thing about this is that Oswalt is (last time I checked) a Wesleyan-Arminian, so it's not like he has anything at stake in the matter by claiming this one way or the other.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

If this text refers to a prelapsarian covenant of works, then that doctrine is going to have to undergo some major reformulations in order to take in all the elements this text presents. The traditional teaching is that Adam stood as representative of the inhabitants of the earth, who are accounted as covenant-breakers in him; not that the inhabitants of the earth individually stand under the probation and personally break the terms of the covenant, as per the teaching of Pelagius.

The passage envisages a worldwide situation, but it does so through the lens of Israel's covenant relation with the Lord of the whole earth. One of the problems with reconstructionist exegesis is that it supposes the prophets pronounce woe on the nations as nations, and therefore sees the nations as bound to the specific laws given to Israel. The fact is that the curse on the nations is couched in the covenantal language of Israel because the nations are treated as the heritage of God's covenant people.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

B.B.Warfield argues in favor of "Adam" in Selected Shorter Writings, vol.1, I believe.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Hey, Matthew,
Interesting read on this passage. Are you saying that the "covenant-breaking" terminology is simply metaphorical? In other words, the nations in fact are not guilty of violating any berit 'olam, but the prophet simply couches their lawless behavior in covenantal categories?

Also, your hesitancy to identify this berit 'olam appears to be related to your viewing the probationary Tree of Knowledge stipulation as the heart of the primordial covenant's requirement on the human race. While the specific Tree probationary stipulation carried a unique application to Adam as our federal head, it did not exhaust the covenant stipulations, did it? Didn't God command mankind through Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it for the glory of God? If so, isn't that covenant sanction still in effect? Must one deny Adam's unique headship when he affirms that all men-Jew or Gentile- presently stand under the covenant of works with either Adam who failed as their head, meaning their failure, or Christ who succeeded as their head, meaning their success and the prospect of eschatological reward.

-----Added 2/12/2009 at 01:37:33 EST-----

Brother,

Thanks for the extra resources. It seems that Kline, Bahnsen, and Frame had one thing (among many others) in common: they were pupils of Cornelius Van Til. I seem to recall that Van Til treated "covenant" not as a superadditum but as a creational category. I'm inclined toward that view myself though I'm not inclined toward a reconstructionist approach to the Mosaic law. Thanks again for the extra resources.

Yes, there was a creation mandate in the covenant of works, but this creation mandate is founded in the moral order governing creation as a whole; it was not a positive commandment which could serve as a test for man to be confirmed in life. The old divines were surely correct to point out that the prohibition to eat from the tree served as an ideal means for man's probation seeing as it was well suited to his earthly appetites while abstinence would prove his spiritual and heavenly nearness to God.

Obviously there is this sense in which all men are under the covenant of works, namely, as it has been broken in Adam; but to say that all men personally and individually stand as Adam under the covenant of works is to make all men undergo their own probation. Charles Hodge (ST, 2:122): "In the obvious sense of the terms, to say that men are still under that covenant, is to say that they are still on probation; that the race did not fall when Adam fell."

It might also be pointed out that the covenant of works is conceived in reformed theology as a temporary administration. It is not usual to speak of it as the eternal covenant for the simple reason that once it was broken there was no provision for reconciliation. Its purpose was to prepare the way for the covenant of grace, which is more properly considered the everlasting covenant.

Blessings!

If you would accept an extreme layperson's inclusion into this discussion, O Palmer Robertson sees Adam as intrinsic to the covenant (the Covenant of Commencement as he terms it) that is more fully revealed in the subsequent covenants with Noah and so forth through to its full fruition in Christ.

I'm not sure you could unravel federal headship on this perspective given such passages as 1 Cor 15:21 "...since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead."

__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia
http://learningyesican.blogspot.com/

I just came across another interesting tidbit: