Tag: redemptive-historical

Readers familiar with Covenant theology, will likely be aware of the theological divide over how many and what kind of covenants exist in the Bible (covenant of works, covenant of grace, dispensations, etc.). You, no doubt, consider this debate to be of the utmost importance, especially given its implications for the Reformed understanding of justification (double imputation). To others the debate over the biblical covenants may seem like an esoteric discussion not worthy of reflection.

To those familiar with this debate, I would aver that too much has been made over covenantal distinctions, that the gospel isn’t necessarily compromised by a mono-covenantal approach to Bible reading or by a single imputation understanding of justification. To those who think this debate to be too esoteric for reflection, I would aver that reflection on how God redeems and relates to humanity is always worthy of more reflection.

Dr. Jeffrey Niehaus recently wrote an article entitled “An Argument against Theologically Constructed Covenants,” (June, JETS) in which he challenged the idea that the Bible sets forth a singular, overarching covenant in God’s relationship to man. Critiquing two main proponents of this monocovenantal approach, W.J. Dumbrell and Scott J. Hafemann, Niehaus insists that these scholars 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.

According to Niehaus, the covenant with Adam and Noah is a covenant of “common grace,” affecting the whole of humanity, while the rest of the biblical covenants, Abraham to the New Covenant, are covenants of “special grace,” focused particularly on the elect of God. He states that the common grace covenants are part of the same “legal package.” 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.

Diving deeper, Niehaus’ main critique of the monocovenantal approach is that it does not make the proper distinctions between covenants and covenant renewals in the Bible (following ancient Near East convention). So, for Hafemann and Dumbrell, all covenants “confirm or formalize a relationship that already exists between two parties.” Not so for Niehaus. Instead, he argues that there are covenants (new relationships) and there are covenant renewals (renewed relationships).

To quicken to the implications, if all covenants confirm a pre-existing relationship, then no matter who makes it—Adam, Moses, David, etc—then God works the same way in all times with all people. As Hafemann has argued, creation is the Historical Prologue, the Grace of God that enables Adam’s obedience in the Garden. READ= no covenant of works. Meredith Kline, Niehaus and others strongly aver that there are two covenants, two new relationships between God and man, one based on works (Adamic, Mosaic) and one based on grace (Abrahamic, New Covenant).

In forthcoming posts, I will develop the deeper layers of the exegetical issues involved in answering the question: “Is there One Covenant or Many?”