D
Danny69
Guest
I keep reading different text books that say that the first covenant was with Noah and other books that say it was with Adam, which one is correct? Any quotes with sources appreciated.
- Status
C
Chesster
Guest
I don’t recall Scripture ever referring to an covenant with Adam; I believe the first covenant was with Noah.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Interesting question. I am currently studying Genesis in a Bible study by Jeff Cavins, “Great Adventures, Bible Timeline”
He has some interesting theories on Covenants.
According to Jeff, it was Adam. He promised to put enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent, this foreshadows Jesus. Genesis 3:15
Footnote from NAB
3 [15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, “They will strike . . . at their heels.” However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.
C
Chesster
Guest
Hmmm - I thought that a Biblical Covenant involved roles that both sides fulfill but maybe that is too narrow an understanding.
X
xformer7
Guest
From the catechism:
70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.
70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.
C
Chesster
Guest
I stand corrected.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Scott Hahn’s “A Father Who Keeps His Promise” (and, well, almost all of his books really 
) talk a lot about the covenants of the Old Testament. The dispute arises because the first explicit covenant is with Noah. The covenant with Adam is more implicit, but it’s still there.
) talk a lot about the covenants of the Old Testament. The dispute arises because the first explicit covenant is with Noah. The covenant with Adam is more implicit, but it’s still there.
D
Danny69
Guest
The interesting thing here is that according to the catechism God promises the covenant after the fall, yet in Scott Hahn’s book a Father who keeps his Promises (p35), he states that the covenant form was marriage and the covenant sign was the sabbath which obviously occurs before the fall.
Which makes me wonder whether marriage as the first covenant with Adam is an error by Scott Hahn?
What exactly is the first covenant according to the catechism?
D
Danny69
Guest
**
According to Scott Hahn, the first covenant was with Adam yet it was a marriage covenant. It’s rather perplexing that Jeff seems to say it was salvific covenant yet Scott is saying something totally different? Of course both these guys worked together on Our Father’s Plan bible study discussing covenants which the Great Adventure was seemingly an expansion upon.
**
According to Scott Hahn, the first covenant was with Adam yet it was a marriage covenant. It’s rather perplexing that Jeff seems to say it was salvific covenant yet Scott is saying something totally different? Of course both these guys worked together on Our Father’s Plan bible study discussing covenants which the Great Adventure was seemingly an expansion upon.
N
nordskoven
Guest
Hosea 6:7 “But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against Me.”
“Adam” meaning “man” is translated in the KJV as only that, “man.” It makes no sense. Here is the back-engineered first covenant, and that is with Adam. I think the covenants of God got more elaborate with every contravening of the previous covenant(s) so the covenant with Adam looks a little to ethereal to seem like a covenant. But it is. Genesis itself is written in the dualistic form of the Suzereinty Treaties, covenants if you will.
The first covenant entails the command to eat, i.e., is one of God’s providence of life-giving sustenance; complemented with a command to not eat one taboo thing or else sin and death will come into the world. And God recognition of Adam’s broken eating covenant explains why the Earth, the medium of God’s providence, is cursed to give forth thorns and thistles when Adam tills it. So part of the covenant of God’s providence was abundance until contravened. The other creation cursed is Satan himself, by the way, not Adam, not Eve, just the Earth and Satan.
The first covenant in my opinion illuminates the difference between sacred and profane eating and is the precursor of the Eucharist. Those who “eat and drink unworthily” not discerning the Body and Blood of Christ are also cursed. Food is the matter of the Sin of Adam; eating, not procreating. Marriage is the first sacrament–and the last perfected in the Lord’s Second Coming as He unites with His Bride, the Church. It is eating, not procreating, that is the essence of the first covenant, and profane eating brought sin and death into the world.
“Adam” meaning “man” is translated in the KJV as only that, “man.” It makes no sense. Here is the back-engineered first covenant, and that is with Adam. I think the covenants of God got more elaborate with every contravening of the previous covenant(s) so the covenant with Adam looks a little to ethereal to seem like a covenant. But it is. Genesis itself is written in the dualistic form of the Suzereinty Treaties, covenants if you will.
The first covenant entails the command to eat, i.e., is one of God’s providence of life-giving sustenance; complemented with a command to not eat one taboo thing or else sin and death will come into the world. And God recognition of Adam’s broken eating covenant explains why the Earth, the medium of God’s providence, is cursed to give forth thorns and thistles when Adam tills it. So part of the covenant of God’s providence was abundance until contravened. The other creation cursed is Satan himself, by the way, not Adam, not Eve, just the Earth and Satan.
The first covenant in my opinion illuminates the difference between sacred and profane eating and is the precursor of the Eucharist. Those who “eat and drink unworthily” not discerning the Body and Blood of Christ are also cursed. Food is the matter of the Sin of Adam; eating, not procreating. Marriage is the first sacrament–and the last perfected in the Lord’s Second Coming as He unites with His Bride, the Church. It is eating, not procreating, that is the essence of the first covenant, and profane eating brought sin and death into the world.
D
Danny69
Guest
I will reflect on that Scripture you quoted, I have never noticed that before…interesting. You mention the first covenant as entailing the command not to eat and that the part of the covenant was abundance until contravened, however the catechism para 70 mentioned by a previous poster seems to imply to me that the covenant was made after the fall. Also Scott Hahn seems to think that the first covenant was one of marriage…This makes this pretty confusing to me, as the piece of Scripture you quoted would imply to me that the covenant was made before the fall!!!
C
Chesster
Guest
In the RSV it says “But at Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” I think that “Adam” in this verse is a place not the first man. Besides if Adam is not a place then where is the “there” spoken of in this verse?
M
maryj
Guest
In my notes from the Bible timeline study the first thing I have is:
Adam can be- Man, ground or soul
- Status