‘But they like Adam (or ‘men') have transgressed the covenant.
There have they dealt treacherously against me.
Gilead is a city of those who work iniquity,
It is stained with blood.
Three views are taken of the interpretation of these verses. The first is that ‘adam' refers to Adam, the original man, the second that it refers to men in general (adam is a word for ‘man'), and the third is that it refers to the city of Adam (Joshua 3:16), thus paralleling the mention of the city Gilead.
The first interpretation describes Israel as being like Adam who transgressed his original covenant with God and acted in a treacherous way against Him, possibly with the implication that the city of Gilead was like Cain, his murderous ‘son'. This would tie in with the language in Hosea 7:2 b where Israel's behaviour is openly revealed ‘before the face' of YHWH in a similar way to Adam's, for Adam hid among the trees from ‘before His face' (Genesis 3:8). The problem this then raises is as to what the ‘there' refers to in the second line. This is not too much of a problem, however, as it may simply be a general indication and refer to wherever they were.
This interpretation is very forceful and would have been very telling. All were aware of how Adam had been faithless and disobeyed God. Thus they were being warned that by breaking YHWH's covenant with them they were repeating the sin of Adam in being faithless and disobedient. They were having their part in the first gross sin. This interpretation also fits well with the idea of treachery. And it is made even more vivid by the fact that it is connected with a city of spilt blood, in the same way as Cain spilled the blood of Abel.
The second interpretation sees men in general as having transgressed the covenant, and Israel having therefore done so ‘as men'. It lacks both force and vividness (although it could still be right).
The third interpretation sees it as referring to the city of Adam near the River Jordan (Joshua 3:16). It is argued that this makes a good parallel to the city Gilead mentioned in the third line. However, it can conversely be argued that Gilead in fact parallels Shechem as a city of blood (Hosea 6:8-9), rather than ‘Adam'. It can also be argued that it is difficult to see why an obscure city like Adam would have been chosen by Hosea, while everyone would know who the man Adam was. Some who hold this interpretation translate as ‘at Adam', but this requires altering the Hebrew consonants which is not to be encouraged.
An example of the breach of covenant is then given with reference to the city Gilead. This may have been Ramoth-gilead, or the Gat-gilead mentioned in the Ugaritic texts. Or it may have been some other city in the area of Gilead. And it is described as a city where there was much iniquity and where murder was commonplace. Alternatively it may be referring to a particularly hideous murder which had stained its reputation. This may have been the murder of Pekahiah by Pekah and ‘fifty men of Gilead' (2 Kings 15:25).