Comments on: Review of Hafemann and House, Central Themes in Biblical Theology

By: Jeffrey Niehaus

Jeffrey Niehaus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:56:09 +0000

With regard to Jdodson’s comment, I would like to note that I have no problem with theological constructs per se, and have not written against them per se. Certainly the concepts of common and special grace are old theological constructs, or perhaps better, concepts, which, I believe, do a good job of capturing some essential truths in two brief phrases. When applied to biblical covenants this ought to be obvious. It is surely beyond dispute that everyone lives under the Noahic covenant, for example, since the terms are such in Genesis 9, so the Noahic covenant is a good specimen of God’s common grace - his grace extended to all people. By contrast, it is equally obvious that not all people lived under the Mosaic covenant, so that covenant is a good example of God’s special grace, or special revelation, extended to a people whom God himself called chosen or elect out of all peoples.

There is a big difference, however, between such a restating of the biblical data, on the one hand, and the attempt which unicovenantalists make, on the other, to make all of the biblical covenants into one. It is rather like comparing apples and oranges, and to lump them together as “constructs” that vie on the same grounds for our approval seems to me to border on obscurantism.

I certainly agree with my good colleague Scott Hafemann when he says that what we want is the most biblical way of construing the data. The difference - or one difference - between our views is, that I have portrayed a distinction between the covenants which God has extended to all people, on the one hand, and those which he has extended to his elect on the other, whereas, so far as I can make out, and as I quote him in my article, Dr. Hafemenn maintains that “one covenant relationship” exists in all of these covenants. But, this is at best an unfortunate choice of wording. We all recognize, I hope, that the same (”one”) covenant relationship does not characterize the relationship to God of a non-believer, who lives under the Noahic covenant, and a believer, who has entered into the New Covenant relationship with God through faith in Christ. Another difference between Dr. Hafemann and myself has to do with the idea that a covenant confirms an already existing relationship. I would hope that what I have already written in the JETS article makes it clear that this cannot be an adequate description of what newly initiated covenants do, either in the ancient Near East or in the Bible.

I hope these comments contribute some clarity to the conversation.

By: jdodson

jdodson — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:53:49 +0000

This is one of the best edited volumes on BT available. The BT: Retrospect and Prospect by ed by Hafemann is equally substantive, with essays that take a slightly narrower focus. As for Hafemann’s monocovenantal view, it is exegetically tight but for some theologically problematic. Enter Niehaus.

Niehaus insists that these scholars (Hafemann, Dumbrell, etc) have imposed a “theologically constructed covenant” upon the Bible as a whole. Instead, he argues for an interpretation of the biblical covenants in terms of special and common grace. The problem with Niehaus’ alternative is that it, too, is theologically constructed. The notion of common and special grace, though arguably biblical notions, are in fact theological constructs. What we need is more exegetically driven BT, especially on the topic of covenants.

By: jimhamilton

jimhamilton — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:58:15 +0000

Goldsworthy is a good place to start. The evangelical classic has long been Vos’s Biblical Theology, but you might be better off to start with Tom Schreiner’s Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. From there, go to Ladd’s NT Theology (unless it takes you until April, when you can buy Schreiner’s NT Theology).

Enjoy!

JMH

By: Vinnie Beichler

Vinnie Beichler — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:18:29 +0000

Jim, I am very interested in getting started in Biblical Theology. I haven’t really read anything in this realm. What would you recommend for someone who is just getting started? I have heard good things about Goldsworthy’s According to Plan…

By: Blake White

Blake White — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:12:25 +0000

Thanks for the review. I have only read Hafemann, Schreiner, and Martens. I was disappointed with Martens’ chapter. Schreiners was excellent! Hafemann’s was insightful but I agree with Niehaus that he flattens the covenants out too much. I am looking forward to the BT that Niehaus is working on!

By: Travis

Travis — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:50:20 +0000

Jim,

Thanks for this review. I have wanted to read this book and your review has provided a good preview of the contents.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:59:33 +0000

Thanks for the review, Jim. I found the book very helpful, too, and hope that more works from this big-picture, meta-narrative perspective will be forthcoming in the future. My reaction to Hafemann was that he was trying to erase distinctions between many of the covenants in Scripture by drawing such a wide, broad canvas that they all come out looking the same in the end. I haven’t read the critique in JETS, but I look forward to it. I did thinkt that Ciampa’s essay was worth the price of the book! What a great piece of biblical theology.