What do you think?
Rate this book
God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology
cov e nant (n): A binding agreement; a compact; a promise
Since biblical times covenants have been a part of everyday life. Simply put, they are promises, agreements, or contracts. But how do they translate into faith and the reading of Scripture? Are covenants merely elements of a narrative? Or do they represent something more? And what are the eternal implications of "cutting" a covenant with God?
In God of Promise, author Michael Horton unwinds the intricacies of crucial covenant concepts, showing how they provide a significant organizational structure for all of Scripture. They give us a context in which to understand the voices and message of the biblical narrative. They provide life with a goal and history with a meaning.
Whether you're a pastor, ministry leader, or professor, God of Promise will give you a new understanding of covenants and covenant theology, providing a framework for an important theological concept.
"Thought is packed tight in this masterful survey of the covenantal frame of God's self-disclosure in Scripture, and for serious students it is a winner."--J. I. Packer, professor of theology, Regent College
"God of Promise is a rigorous and articulate defense of a traditional view of covenant theology. Dr. Horton's federalist emphasis gleans from well-established Reformed writers while adding his own highly readable and insightful commentary."--Bryan Chapell, president, Covenant Theological Seminary
"Michael Horton has brought covenant theology to life in a way which engages modern thought and appeals to contemporary students and pastors alike. His book is a clear guide to an essential topic."--Gerald Bray, Anglican professor of divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Sanford University
204 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2006
158 people are currently reading
959 people want to read
About the author
Michael Scott Horton
86 books333 followersDr. Horton has taught apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1998. In addition to his work at the Seminary, he is the president of White Horse Inn, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. Before coming to WSC, Dr. Horton completed a research fellowship at Yale University Divinity School. Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than twenty books, including a series of studies in Reformed dogmatics published by Westminster John Knox.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews
November 16, 2012
Michael Horton in this book gives the church and updated primer on covenant theology, drawing upon and routinely surpassing the works of Meredith Kline and O. Palmer Robertson. It is superior to these two works both in style and choice of content. Few can match Horton’s clear, lucid writing. With regard to choice of content, Horton covers the same ground that most systematics cover, but he does so without being repetitious. As a whole, the book is outstanding, but I can only recommend it with a few qualifications (more below). Given the controversial nature of some things in this book, the reviewer must remind the reader that the first half of the book will only explicate some of Horton’s conclusions. The immediate absence of criticism in no way implies agreement with Horton, except as noted.
Controversially, Horton frames his covenant theology around the idea that there were two covenant principles in the Old Testament: the principle of promise given to Abraham and later repeated in the Davidic covenant, and the principle of works found in the Sinaitic covenant. Horton argues persuasively that Yahweh’s unilateral, unconditional promises to his people are always made in terms of the Abrahamic covenant and never the Sinaitic covenant (though he affirms elements of promise in the latter). While I do not care for the language of “republication of the Covenant of Works” (and Horton distances himself from that language), it does appear to be the case that there are two principles present (which Paul himself repeats in Galatians 3-4).
This view is particularly strengthened when Horton deals with the question of “conditions in the covenant” (176). Horton grounds his covenant theology within the Trinity, within the Pactum Salutis. The Covenant of Grace is merely imaging in history the eternal covenant. In neither covenant are their conditions or the possibility that God will fail to bring his people to fruition. There are conditions, however, in the Sinaitic covenant. Further, there are conditions in the administration of the covenants.
Horton’s most controversial chapter is “Providence and Covenant.” Horton notes that God has made a nonredemptive covenant with creation, the Noahic Covenant (113). Here he gives his common grace to all of creation. Much of the chapter is standard Reformed teaching on common grace. Horton notes that religious fundamentalism sees all of culture as “evil” while theological liberalism sees all of culture as “already saved.” He rightly rejects both approaches.
He then examines various millennial views as they relate to culture (119). Horton grudgingly acknowledges that even amillennialism has its dark moments: Christendom, Holy Roman Empire, Calvin and Servetus, and Augustine’s recommending the sword against Donatists (120). Horton charges that these guys, while rightly holding the Two Kingdoms view, did not practice it (more on that later).
Horton’s chapter on the Sacraments is the best in the book. He grounds his understanding of sacrament in the nature of how a covenant is made—cutting and oath (144). The circumcision passages in Genesis have Yahweh giving a self-maledictory oath. Of importance is the language of “cutting off,” which in the Old Testament represents rejection by God. The most dramatic moment of cutting off is Christ’s crucifixion, and in baptism we are united to Christ’s circumcision-death (148; cf Romans 6:1). In short, circumcision-baptism is judgment and alludes to judgment-moments in Israel’s history (1 Cor. 10:2; 1 Peter 3:21; Matt. 3:11ff).
Therefore, we see Horton placing baptism out of the arena of metaphysics and into the realm of covenant and eschatology. In Christian baptism the Covenant Lord brings his servants to an eschatological account, and those who are united to him by faith have life (152-153). Anticipating his section on the Lord’s Supper, Horton shows us why a covenantal (and therefore Reformed) understanding of the sacraments is superior: the reality (seated in the heavenly places with Christ) is not only signified but is actually communicated. A truly covenantal understanding of the sacraments does not have to worry about collapsing sign into the thing signified, or vice-versa. If one doesn’t hold a covenantal ontology, then one is forever in dialectic and tension on whether the sacraments do anything, with any answer to that specific question necessarily being a wrong answer.i
Excursus: What is a Covenantal Ontology
Horton correctly notes: “The covenantal background of the sacraments discloses a worldview far removed from the Greek one we have inherited at this point. In the former, sacraments inhabit the world of oaths and bonds, not substances and accidents” (153). The basics of a covenantal ontology include: “the name (calling on the name, being given the name), word, proclamation, promise, presence, the divine witnessing involved in God’s countenance, and so on, and are part of the vocabulary of covenant rather than metaphysics” (144).
A moment’s reflection will reveal how appropriate this “covenental ontology” way of reading the sacraments really is. He completely exposes how false both Romanism and Zwinglianism are. On Horton’s view it is impossible either to divorce or confuse the sign and thing signified. Even more important, when one reads the Scriptures, one sees little of substance, accidents, and primary substances. One does read about blood, cutting, oaths, and presence.
Interesting insights
Of particular importance is the way Horton (and Kline) root God’s word (the Canon) in the covenant. A lot of Orthodox and Romanists will challenge Protestants with, “What came first, Scripture or the Church?” The answer is, “Neither. The covenant came first.” Canon is the binding word of the covenant Lord. Canon is rooted, not in the Church primarily, but in the covenant Lord. Said even stronger, The existence of the covenant Lord (principium essendi) automatically entails canon-word of the covenant Lord (externum principium cognescendi).
Critique and Concluding Remarks
A few things keep this book from being recommended uncritically. While the Klinean model of the contrast between principle of works/principle of law safeguards the covenant of grace and clarifies many passages in Hebrews, one wonders how easily it can be squared with the Westminster Confession’s teaching that there are not two parallel covenants.
Most unfortunate, though, is Horton’s insistence that modern day rulers are to govern by the nonredemptive Noachic covenant and the principle of common grace. I agree with Horton’s unspoken criticism that modern evangelicalism’s foray into American politics has been a disaster. Further, it is true that Calvin did praise the pagans at points. Even more noted, a commonwealth does not necessarily have to rule by the Law of God in order to be a stable commonwealth.
With all of that said, however, a number of difficulties arise which Klineans cannot answer. If we are to rule by the common-grace ethic, then we must know what the content of that ethic is. Presumably, appealing to the Bible is out (which makes the appeal to the Noahic covenant somewhat strained: which unbeliever, using his “natural reason,” would ever agree to be ruled by one of God’s covenants, including one mandating the death penalty?). Can we appeal to natural law? That still raises the question: what is the specific content of that ethic?
Horton says a two-kingdoms approach prevents the church from blurring into the state. He is correct. However, he criticizes Calvin and the Reformers for upholding Two Kingdoms in theory while rejecting it in practice. Presumably he has in mind the ubiquitous position among the Reformers that the civil magistrate enforce the true religion. Here Horton runs into two problems: 1) as noted above, what is the content of the civil ethic in Two Kingdoms theory? If you cannot define that content then how can Calvin be guilty of violating two kingdoms? I realize some would respond, “The Law of Nations.” Fair enough. On the principle of the Law of Nations, Calvin approved the death penalty for blasphemy, and his critics in Rome agreed with his reasoning. Today’s Law of Nations theory, however, is most likely encoded in the United Nations charters, to which all good Christians must resist to the death.
Horton’s second problem with Two Kingdoms is that he is defining it (to the degree he actually defined it) differently than the Reformers. Two Kingdoms means the kingdom of the Church is not the Kingdom of the state (interesting sidenote: perhaps two kingdoms in fact means two kingdoms. Monarchy, anyone?). The Reformers separated the kingdoms with regard to function, not morality.
Aside from the several major problems mentioned above. The book has much to recommend it. It is superior to Robertson’s take on covenant theology both in style and content. The section on the sacraments is worth the price of the book several times over. Unfortunately, for all of Horton’s irenecism, he presents his arguments somewhat along partisan lines (at least in terms of conclusions) that will drive many away to dangerous theological positions which could have been avoided. His take on the sacraments is what many American Presbyterians need to hear—both the gnostics in the southern United States and the high-church men who are tempted to wilder extremes.
iI remember in seminary my professors struggling to understand what Herman Ridderbos meant on baptism. It seemed like he was ascribing a lot of power to baptism, which would threaten justification by faith. The problem was that they were stuck in Greek ontology and Ridderbos moved in covenantal language.
Controversially, Horton frames his covenant theology around the idea that there were two covenant principles in the Old Testament: the principle of promise given to Abraham and later repeated in the Davidic covenant, and the principle of works found in the Sinaitic covenant. Horton argues persuasively that Yahweh’s unilateral, unconditional promises to his people are always made in terms of the Abrahamic covenant and never the Sinaitic covenant (though he affirms elements of promise in the latter). While I do not care for the language of “republication of the Covenant of Works” (and Horton distances himself from that language), it does appear to be the case that there are two principles present (which Paul himself repeats in Galatians 3-4).
This view is particularly strengthened when Horton deals with the question of “conditions in the covenant” (176). Horton grounds his covenant theology within the Trinity, within the Pactum Salutis. The Covenant of Grace is merely imaging in history the eternal covenant. In neither covenant are their conditions or the possibility that God will fail to bring his people to fruition. There are conditions, however, in the Sinaitic covenant. Further, there are conditions in the administration of the covenants.
Horton’s most controversial chapter is “Providence and Covenant.” Horton notes that God has made a nonredemptive covenant with creation, the Noahic Covenant (113). Here he gives his common grace to all of creation. Much of the chapter is standard Reformed teaching on common grace. Horton notes that religious fundamentalism sees all of culture as “evil” while theological liberalism sees all of culture as “already saved.” He rightly rejects both approaches.
He then examines various millennial views as they relate to culture (119). Horton grudgingly acknowledges that even amillennialism has its dark moments: Christendom, Holy Roman Empire, Calvin and Servetus, and Augustine’s recommending the sword against Donatists (120). Horton charges that these guys, while rightly holding the Two Kingdoms view, did not practice it (more on that later).
Horton’s chapter on the Sacraments is the best in the book. He grounds his understanding of sacrament in the nature of how a covenant is made—cutting and oath (144). The circumcision passages in Genesis have Yahweh giving a self-maledictory oath. Of importance is the language of “cutting off,” which in the Old Testament represents rejection by God. The most dramatic moment of cutting off is Christ’s crucifixion, and in baptism we are united to Christ’s circumcision-death (148; cf Romans 6:1). In short, circumcision-baptism is judgment and alludes to judgment-moments in Israel’s history (1 Cor. 10:2; 1 Peter 3:21; Matt. 3:11ff).
Therefore, we see Horton placing baptism out of the arena of metaphysics and into the realm of covenant and eschatology. In Christian baptism the Covenant Lord brings his servants to an eschatological account, and those who are united to him by faith have life (152-153). Anticipating his section on the Lord’s Supper, Horton shows us why a covenantal (and therefore Reformed) understanding of the sacraments is superior: the reality (seated in the heavenly places with Christ) is not only signified but is actually communicated. A truly covenantal understanding of the sacraments does not have to worry about collapsing sign into the thing signified, or vice-versa. If one doesn’t hold a covenantal ontology, then one is forever in dialectic and tension on whether the sacraments do anything, with any answer to that specific question necessarily being a wrong answer.i
Excursus: What is a Covenantal Ontology
Horton correctly notes: “The covenantal background of the sacraments discloses a worldview far removed from the Greek one we have inherited at this point. In the former, sacraments inhabit the world of oaths and bonds, not substances and accidents” (153). The basics of a covenantal ontology include: “the name (calling on the name, being given the name), word, proclamation, promise, presence, the divine witnessing involved in God’s countenance, and so on, and are part of the vocabulary of covenant rather than metaphysics” (144).
A moment’s reflection will reveal how appropriate this “covenental ontology” way of reading the sacraments really is. He completely exposes how false both Romanism and Zwinglianism are. On Horton’s view it is impossible either to divorce or confuse the sign and thing signified. Even more important, when one reads the Scriptures, one sees little of substance, accidents, and primary substances. One does read about blood, cutting, oaths, and presence.
Interesting insights
Of particular importance is the way Horton (and Kline) root God’s word (the Canon) in the covenant. A lot of Orthodox and Romanists will challenge Protestants with, “What came first, Scripture or the Church?” The answer is, “Neither. The covenant came first.” Canon is the binding word of the covenant Lord. Canon is rooted, not in the Church primarily, but in the covenant Lord. Said even stronger, The existence of the covenant Lord (principium essendi) automatically entails canon-word of the covenant Lord (externum principium cognescendi).
Critique and Concluding Remarks
A few things keep this book from being recommended uncritically. While the Klinean model of the contrast between principle of works/principle of law safeguards the covenant of grace and clarifies many passages in Hebrews, one wonders how easily it can be squared with the Westminster Confession’s teaching that there are not two parallel covenants.
Most unfortunate, though, is Horton’s insistence that modern day rulers are to govern by the nonredemptive Noachic covenant and the principle of common grace. I agree with Horton’s unspoken criticism that modern evangelicalism’s foray into American politics has been a disaster. Further, it is true that Calvin did praise the pagans at points. Even more noted, a commonwealth does not necessarily have to rule by the Law of God in order to be a stable commonwealth.
With all of that said, however, a number of difficulties arise which Klineans cannot answer. If we are to rule by the common-grace ethic, then we must know what the content of that ethic is. Presumably, appealing to the Bible is out (which makes the appeal to the Noahic covenant somewhat strained: which unbeliever, using his “natural reason,” would ever agree to be ruled by one of God’s covenants, including one mandating the death penalty?). Can we appeal to natural law? That still raises the question: what is the specific content of that ethic?
Horton says a two-kingdoms approach prevents the church from blurring into the state. He is correct. However, he criticizes Calvin and the Reformers for upholding Two Kingdoms in theory while rejecting it in practice. Presumably he has in mind the ubiquitous position among the Reformers that the civil magistrate enforce the true religion. Here Horton runs into two problems: 1) as noted above, what is the content of the civil ethic in Two Kingdoms theory? If you cannot define that content then how can Calvin be guilty of violating two kingdoms? I realize some would respond, “The Law of Nations.” Fair enough. On the principle of the Law of Nations, Calvin approved the death penalty for blasphemy, and his critics in Rome agreed with his reasoning. Today’s Law of Nations theory, however, is most likely encoded in the United Nations charters, to which all good Christians must resist to the death.
Horton’s second problem with Two Kingdoms is that he is defining it (to the degree he actually defined it) differently than the Reformers. Two Kingdoms means the kingdom of the Church is not the Kingdom of the state (interesting sidenote: perhaps two kingdoms in fact means two kingdoms. Monarchy, anyone?). The Reformers separated the kingdoms with regard to function, not morality.
Aside from the several major problems mentioned above. The book has much to recommend it. It is superior to Robertson’s take on covenant theology both in style and content. The section on the sacraments is worth the price of the book several times over. Unfortunately, for all of Horton’s irenecism, he presents his arguments somewhat along partisan lines (at least in terms of conclusions) that will drive many away to dangerous theological positions which could have been avoided. His take on the sacraments is what many American Presbyterians need to hear—both the gnostics in the southern United States and the high-church men who are tempted to wilder extremes.
iI remember in seminary my professors struggling to understand what Herman Ridderbos meant on baptism. It seemed like he was ascribing a lot of power to baptism, which would threaten justification by faith. The problem was that they were stuck in Greek ontology and Ridderbos moved in covenantal language.
May 30, 2018
A modern book on covenant theology more accessible than Kline. Still it can sometimes be hard. Horton hold the same view than Kline on the mosaic covenant, he sees works principles at the typological level (life in Canaan). He suggests an interpretation of Kline (or whatever his opinion) by considering in the God-Israel relation grace as the abrahamic covenant and works as the mosaic covenant.
In the book, there are presentation of the biblical covenants (mosaic covenant or old covenant, new covenant, abrahamic covenant, and some notes on the noahic covenant, presentation of the theological covenants (covenant of redemption, covenant of works and covenant of grace), the reformed view of the sacraments (baptism and lord's supper, although there isn't focus on infant baptism), the pratical implications and utility of covenant theology, the suzerain treaty and royal grants at biblical time.
As many have said, I think it's not so much an introduction to covenant theology as I think it could be written simplier. But the idea is here.
In the book, there are presentation of the biblical covenants (mosaic covenant or old covenant, new covenant, abrahamic covenant, and some notes on the noahic covenant, presentation of the theological covenants (covenant of redemption, covenant of works and covenant of grace), the reformed view of the sacraments (baptism and lord's supper, although there isn't focus on infant baptism), the pratical implications and utility of covenant theology, the suzerain treaty and royal grants at biblical time.
As many have said, I think it's not so much an introduction to covenant theology as I think it could be written simplier. But the idea is here.
September 25, 2012
This was BRUTALLY unreadable. It’s packaged as a layperson’s introduction, but written like a stiff, dry, overly formal and complex academic textbook. I mean, I’m not a stupid girl, but I found it difficult to press through and comprehend. Still, it had good information, and the second half especially provided some fresh perspectives and food for thought, especially pertaining to communion and baptism. I’m at least intrigued to learn more about covenant theology.
September 25, 2014
This book is an excellent introduction to Horton's covenant theology, but not the best introduction to covenant theology. Those with little knowledge of covenant theology and Reformed theology in general may find it difficult to understand at times.
Still, it's an excellent read at times and I recommend it to those who want an introduction to a growing perspective (Klinian) on covenant theology.
Still, it's an excellent read at times and I recommend it to those who want an introduction to a growing perspective (Klinian) on covenant theology.
July 28, 2024
Real Rating: 3.6
This book is hard to rate for me (for context, this was my first book on Covenant Theology).
I say this because this book is packaged like a simplistic intro book to a broad complex topic. However, when you begin reading, you realize that is not the case.
Reading this was like playing DnD for the first time: looks like a blast and super fun before you quickly realize the mountain of handbook rules and complex game functions. However, if you make it past the rules, you enjoy your experience.
I would recommend this book to people who are interested in reading a book that briefly covers the broad topics of CT(3 covenants, eschatology, sacraments)in a rigid academic way (almost to academic; it feels like reading g a doctoral thesis) using historical research and theological insights from M.G. Kline, Calvin, Geerhardus Vos, M.G. Kline, the Heidelburg, the Westminster, and oh, also, M.G. Kline.
Oh... is that not a big group of people? Darn, I guess I wouldn't recommend it then.
To stop being mordant, I did enjoy a good chunk of this book: his Chapter on the Sacraments was great at emphasizing the spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and cup, the Spirits work in baptism, the presence of God as ratification and emphasizing, as the Westminster does, that the sacraments are indeed "effectual means of salvation", also the first chapter is phenomenal at emphasizing the importance of CT and the implications it has in theology as being "That particular architectural structure that we believe the scriptures themselves to yield." (13).
To finish, I would say if you want to learn about CT, don't read this book. There are better ones out there. There are good things to offer here, however, it is muddled in a mess which equates to a hard, taxing hike that leaves you with bloody knees, a sore back and an overly hungry stomach wondering when you finished "was that really worth it?"
This book is hard to rate for me (for context, this was my first book on Covenant Theology).
I say this because this book is packaged like a simplistic intro book to a broad complex topic. However, when you begin reading, you realize that is not the case.
Reading this was like playing DnD for the first time: looks like a blast and super fun before you quickly realize the mountain of handbook rules and complex game functions. However, if you make it past the rules, you enjoy your experience.
I would recommend this book to people who are interested in reading a book that briefly covers the broad topics of CT(3 covenants, eschatology, sacraments)in a rigid academic way (almost to academic; it feels like reading g a doctoral thesis) using historical research and theological insights from M.G. Kline, Calvin, Geerhardus Vos, M.G. Kline, the Heidelburg, the Westminster, and oh, also, M.G. Kline.
Oh... is that not a big group of people? Darn, I guess I wouldn't recommend it then.
To stop being mordant, I did enjoy a good chunk of this book: his Chapter on the Sacraments was great at emphasizing the spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and cup, the Spirits work in baptism, the presence of God as ratification and emphasizing, as the Westminster does, that the sacraments are indeed "effectual means of salvation", also the first chapter is phenomenal at emphasizing the importance of CT and the implications it has in theology as being "That particular architectural structure that we believe the scriptures themselves to yield." (13).
To finish, I would say if you want to learn about CT, don't read this book. There are better ones out there. There are good things to offer here, however, it is muddled in a mess which equates to a hard, taxing hike that leaves you with bloody knees, a sore back and an overly hungry stomach wondering when you finished "was that really worth it?"
January 20, 2018
There is a lot of good material on this book, particularly on the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, natural law, the law-gospel distinction, and the sacraments. The major downside is the underlying Klinean assumptions about the supposed similarities biblical covenants and ancient near eastern suzerain treaties. While I hold that there was a republication of the covenant of works under Moses, I am not sure that Michael Horton does justice to the Mosaic economy as the legal administration of the covenant of grace. Still, the book's strengths outweigh its weaknesses and it is a good antidote to moralism and legalism.
May 25, 2018
This book calls itself an introduction to Covenant Theology but without a foundation in theological concepts and terms (which Horton does not usually provide), this book will be difficult for the layperson. Even with a basic foundation, I was boxing above my weight with this book. The book reads more like a defense of covenant theology than an introduction - after reading, I feel I have at least been exposed to the major points of covenant theology and arguments for and counter arguments against this position even if my comprehension and retention may not be what I wish they were. A great potential re-read for me in the future.
January 22, 2024
The only critique I have for this book is that I don’t think I would call it an introduction to covenant theology. It’s pretty complex and could use a dose of clarity. I would recommend having a pretty decent base level knowledge of reformed theology, different views of covenant theology and a good understanding of biblical theology. It’s a well thought out and detailed intellectual read.
January 28, 2024
This was a difficult read that made me work for its content, and yet I can say with confidence I only grasped about half of the content. I appreciated Horton’s evident expertise in this area of theology. But, the book’s lack of intuitive organization (on both sentence and paragraph levels) left his knowledge a bit inaccessible.
June 5, 2024
Clarifying and educational
June 27, 2010
This review is somewhat difficult for me to write. As someone with a passing familiarity with covenant theology (a system of biblical interpretation which sees the various covenants between God and Man as an organizational structure for all of Scripture) who hoped for a good primer in order to better understand the system on its own terms, I was glad to find a book by Michael Horton that appeared to be what I was seeking. I have enjoyed other books by Horton, as well as his blog and radio show, and know that he is a very well-respected theologian within Reformed circles (and in Horton’s words, “Covenant theology IS Reformed theology“).
Unfortunately, this book is not as “introductory” as I had hoped. Horton draws extensively from the writings of several other authors, and his writing seems to assume that readers will have a little more prior knowledge of covenant theology than I possess. I suppose I may have been looking for more of an “overview” for the uninitiated, and this is not that book. Also, I honestly don’t know whether or not Horton’s position represents the “majority report” among covenant theologians, or whether his views are unique.
That being said, this was a very helpful book, even if it was a little more academic than expected. I feel like I at least have a firmer grasp of the basics of covenant theology, though I was hoping for greater clarity on a few points: particularly the covenantal view of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The greatest strength of this book was Horton’s clear separation between Law and Promise. I was also fascinated by some of the history of covenant terminology used in the suzerain-vassal treaties of the ancient Near East, and their similarities with the language of the covenants used in the Bible.
I’ll have to do more reading to verse myself more thoroughly in covenant theology (though I’m quite happy to do so). All-in-all this was useful in my quest for information, but it certainly does not stand on its own as a study tool for laypersons interested in learning a new system of theology. Less determined readers will likely not want to wade through all the rigorous academic writing… though there are some truly great words in here for language-lovers such as myself!
Unfortunately, this book is not as “introductory” as I had hoped. Horton draws extensively from the writings of several other authors, and his writing seems to assume that readers will have a little more prior knowledge of covenant theology than I possess. I suppose I may have been looking for more of an “overview” for the uninitiated, and this is not that book. Also, I honestly don’t know whether or not Horton’s position represents the “majority report” among covenant theologians, or whether his views are unique.
That being said, this was a very helpful book, even if it was a little more academic than expected. I feel like I at least have a firmer grasp of the basics of covenant theology, though I was hoping for greater clarity on a few points: particularly the covenantal view of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The greatest strength of this book was Horton’s clear separation between Law and Promise. I was also fascinated by some of the history of covenant terminology used in the suzerain-vassal treaties of the ancient Near East, and their similarities with the language of the covenants used in the Bible.
I’ll have to do more reading to verse myself more thoroughly in covenant theology (though I’m quite happy to do so). All-in-all this was useful in my quest for information, but it certainly does not stand on its own as a study tool for laypersons interested in learning a new system of theology. Less determined readers will likely not want to wade through all the rigorous academic writing… though there are some truly great words in here for language-lovers such as myself!
January 13, 2008
I actually thought this was a pretty good introduction to covenant theology. Horton makes use of much of Meredith Kline's work in covenant theology. But, as Horton argues, much of his (and Kline's) views have a solid reformed heritage behind it. At this point I'm not sure where I stand on this issue (modern debates between Klineans and Murrayites, for example), but Horton's little book did much to dissuade my Klinean prejudices (which, I'm sorry to admit, were mainly do to personal loyalties and not so much intellectual honesty with the arguments). There is a lot packed into this book, and it being only 192 pages is sure to leave many questions for the reader. But then again, the book is billed as an introduction to covenant theology.
May 10, 2012
Good overall. Really just a rehashing of Vos and Kline. I see what Horton was trying to do; take the writings of these scholars and filter them to the layman. Unfortunely, Horton can't get away from his covenental language enough to truly help beginners understand. Great content, but I wouldn't recomend it to someone just investigating covenant theology.
The chapter on Covenant People and Covenant Obedience were excellent, and Horton still had alot of great points. The last three paragraphs of the last chapter deserve to be read in a sermon.
Overall good, but not great.
The chapter on Covenant People and Covenant Obedience were excellent, and Horton still had alot of great points. The last three paragraphs of the last chapter deserve to be read in a sermon.
Overall good, but not great.
July 24, 2017
This is a book I will more than likely reread in the future. I was very new to covenant theology when I first read this back in 2015 and I had a very hard time comprehending it. Lectures at my local church about covenant theology made the topic much clearer and severed as a far superior introduction to the topic. I don't have a problem with the substance of the book but I do think it will be over the heads of those just starting to learn about covenant theology.
February 17, 2010
Claimed to argue Covenant theology from scripture, but made a key error/omission. Argued that the Abrahamic promises were about eternal salvation, whereas the Mosaic covenant was about temporal blessings in the land. Didn't address the fact that the Abrahamic promises, as written, refer to temporal blessing in the land and not to eternal salvation. Kind of a death blow to the argument.
August 19, 2009
Too academic for an introduction; a veiled argument against Federal Vision...
March 6, 2016
I read this work after reading Chase Sears' excellent Heirs of Promise: The Church as the New Israel in Romans (Snapshots). Sears’ book focuses on Paul's arguments in Romans about Christians being on equal footing and the inheritors of promises to Israel. Horton's work gives an overview of covenant theology and some of the views of early Reformers. It also contains some sermonizing only tangentially related to covenant theology, some of which is good. Like Sears, Horton strains to avoid replacement theology in describing covenant. “(I)nstead of seeing the church as Israel's replacement, it regards it as Israel's fruition” (p. 131).
Horton not only comes out of the Reformed tradition but writes that Reformed theology is covenantal theology. "Reformed theology is guided by a concern to relate various biblical teachings to the concrete covenants in Scripture as their proper context" (p. 11). Citing Meredith Kline's groundbreaking work (The Treaty of the Great King) on recently uncovered Near Eastern suzerain treaties through archaeology, covenant theology is seemingly a new strain of thought that blossomed under the re-emergence of biblical theology--focusing on the arc and message of Scripture in its entirety while appreciating the historical context and authorship of each component. Yet, Horton quotes many old voices, so that what is "new" is really just new again.
Horton's work helped me as I was working through the Pentateuch to teach a Sunday school class. He helped connect and enlighten some of the covenantal theology I was finding describes in various commentaries I was using. My Western American mind cannot wrap itself around joyful submission to a king, which Horton claims archaeology has shown us to be so in the Near East. “The great king was the father adopting the captives he had liberated from oppression” (p. 25).
The book begins by noting that all of creation has a covenantal relationship with God that goes back to Genesis 1. "the biblical understanding of God's relationship to the world as covenantal is both a bridge that deism ignores and a bar to any confusion of the Creator with his creation...We are all bound together ethically in mutual responsibility...The kingdom of God does not advance through cultural achievement but through divine rescue. Covenant theology marvelously unites these crucial commitments without confusing them." (p. 15-17).
The author then walks us through how the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants mirrored other covenants of the day with preamble, prologue, stipulations, witnesses, deposition, and blessings and curses. Horton sees a dichotomy between the two, and cites Paul to get there. “Even when we are talking about Israel in the Old Testament, it is not enough to talk about the covenant, as if there were only one covenantal arrangement that could account for all of the conditional and unconditional language. We will first look at the precise nature of the Sinai covenant (a covenant of law) and then the Abrahamic covenant (a covenant of promise)” (p. 37). Horton sees the Sinaitic as being temporary, Israel failed it and therefore have no claim on the land, no claim on the promises therein.
“Dispensationalism and the so-called two-covenant theory currently popular in mainline theology both treat the land promise as eternal and irrevocable, even to the extent that there can be a difference between Israel and the church in God's plan. Both interpretations, however, fail to recognize that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves qualify this national covenant in strictly conditional terms. This is the witness of the Law and the Prophets as well as Jesus and Paul, not to mention the radical Jewish communities of Second Temple Judaism. In fact, nobody in Jesus's day doubted that Israel was in exile as a direct consequence of their corporate disobedience to the terms of the Sinai pact” (p. 47). “As the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes, neither Abraham nor Joshua regarded the earthly inheritance as ultimate. Instead, they looked through this arrangement to the original promise of a heavenly rest” (p. 101).
Ultimately, the Sinaitic covenant found its fulfillment in Jesus alone. But the Adam-Noah-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-David covenant is separate and ongoing. “The unilateral and utterly promissory character of the Abrahamic covenant yields to the conditional arrangement at Sinai even while the former is never—can never be—revoked by the oath-taking God (p. 50). “For the apostle to the Gentiles, the simplistic identification of the Old Testament with ‘law’ and the New Testament with ‘grace’ is unthinkable. God's covenant of grace, announced beforehand to Adam and inaugurated with Abraham, is precisely the same as to its content in both testaments” (p. 68).
Horton’s rejection of what he sees as the false “law” and “grace” dichotomy of OT versus NT seems problematic given that he early on quotes John 1:17 from which that dichotomy seems to come: “for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” But Horton rightly points out that the Law was always based on love and the heart rather than outward works like circumcision. Circumcision came after God’s initial covenant with Abraham, it was an outward sign of belonging to the covenant people. In Deuteronomy 6, God commanded Israel to love Him supremely and circumcise their hearts, and David reminds us in Psalm 51 that it is ultimately a contrite heart and true repentance in faith that God requires. “So it does not contradict the Abrahamic promise in the slightest. No one in the Old Testament obtained the inheritance by works, but only by promise. Yet Israel's national status in God's land depended on fulfillment of the treaty's terms” (p. 101).
Horton deals briefly with various schools of eschatology-- amillennial, premillennial, postmillennial. Horton seems to be of the amillennial tradition, as he writes on page 120: “This view is usually called amillennialism (i.e,,"no-millennialism"), but this is a misnomer, at least for those of us who believe that the millennium is not denied but is in fact a current reality. What we reject is a literalistic interpretation of the thousand years, since the book of Revelation employs numbers symbolically.” He rejects the premillennial ideas prominent in contemporary American evangelical thought, noting it is the same error the Catholic church had made in seeing theirs as God’s kingdom on earth (P. 121-122):
“The body of Christ was not simply a heavenly, spiritual entity made visible in the world through Word, sacrament, discipline, worship, and fellowship in the covenant of grace, but a powerful worldly institution that served the interests of a particular earthly empire. This is the myth behind the Crusades, the Inquisition, and such American institutions as slavery and the doctrine of ‘manifest destiny,’ which gave narrative justification for the slaughter of American Indians. The American version of the Holy Roman Empire regarded the proliferation of Protestant hospitals, colleges, women's societies, and men's societies as signs of God's approval and, indeed, of the advancement of the kingdom of God...Ironically, even staunch premillennialists like Jerry Falwell sound a good deal like the postmillennialists of yesteryear. It is one thing to inconsistently act out a two-kingdoms position and quite another to act out a Christendom model because one has confused a particular culture with the kingdom of God.”
He further critiques the isolationist schools of Anabaptists and the Puritan thought of establishing God’s kingdom on earth which eventually led to the American Revolution. Pg. 127:
“But if Calvinists are not expected to endure tyranny, they are also not given liberty to take justice into their own hands or to exercise the judgment reserved for the King of Kings on the last day. Nor are they to seek to impose their distinctively Christian convictions on society through the kingdom of power, as both Rome and the radical Anabaptists tried to do. Rather, they are to pursue their dual citizenship according to the distinct policies proper to each kingdom. The Bible functions as the constitution for the covenant people, not for the secular state...Those who confuse civil righteousness with righteousness before God will be likely to confuse moral reform in society with the kingdom of God.”
It seems a fine line, and difficult to explain, how the church is the “fruition” of Israel and not its replacement. Grafted into the tree when Jews rejected Jesus, yet not a replacement. The promised land of the Abrahamic covenant no longer relates to a physical land, but to the place Christians dwell (Horton does a bad job of explaining this). Yahweh’s presence is the distinguishing mark between Israel and the nations (Exodus 19-20) and that can ony be said about Christians today. Covenantalists reject the idea that national Israel today has any special claim on the land. Yet, they agree that God is not done with the Jewish people; Romans 11:25-32 tells us that God will “pour out his Spirit on the Jewish people en masse” after the full number of non-Jews are brought into the fold (p. 132).
The author then looks at the sacraments and how the covenant is symbolized in them. I especially liked his thoughts on communion. He would decry the Southern Baptist churches I grew up in who often treat communion with the solemnity of a funeral rather than the celebration of a resurrection and forgiveness. P. 157:
“In all of this, therefore, two extremes are avoided: the sacerdotal error, which fails to distinguish the sign from the thing signified, and the memorialist error, which fails to recognize the union of the sign and signified.” P. 159-160:
“The Lord's Supper, then, is a covenant meal. That means that while it is first of all a ratification of God's pledge to us, it also ratifies our pledge to God and to each other...One cannot treat the Lord's Supper in an individualistic manner, but only as a covenant meal...The problem with the pietistic version of the Lord's Supper, therefore, is that in its obsession with the individual's inner piety, it loses much of the import of the feast as a sacred meal that actually binds us to Christ and to each other. Instead of viewing it first as God's saving action toward us and then as our fellowship with each other in Christ, we come to see it as just another opportunity to be threatened with the law. Instead of celebrating the foretaste of the marriage supper of the Lamb on Mount Zion, we are still trembling at the foot of Mount Sinai. It is no wonder, then, that there is a diminished interest in frequent communion.”
I had honestly never pondered the term “excommunication” in light of the communion sacrament/ordinance. Too often, we hear pastors warning congregants to abstain from communion unless they can take it in a “worthy manner.” This suggests that Christ’s death and resurrection was not sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. Since communion is a communal activity, not participating is self-excommunication. Horton notes that this is not biblical: “(W)e do not have this right to excommunicate ourselves. If members are not being disciplined by the church, they are worthy communicants.” As such, it is no wonder why churches that focus on pietism don’t have communion more frequently.
Horton then pivots back to the covenant and laws. “Calvin (like the Lutheran reformer Philip Melanchthon) followed many church fathers in distinguishing three types of old covenant law: the moral, the civil, and the ceremonial. The moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, is inscribed on our consciences by virtue of our being created in God's image (Romans 1-3)...the New Testament intensifies the requirements by emphasizing their internal significance...Paul's marvelous description of life in the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit is simply an elaboration of the inner significance of the moral law: loving God and neighbor...Jesus did not make the law easier, but more difficult (p. 178-179).
Jesus standards of Matthew 5 and 6 remove any idea that a person can be morally pure under the law; indeed, all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23).
My favorite passage in the book notes that there are no Lone Ranger Christians, covenant is communal and not individual. P. 179:
“Where both Jewish and Christian covenant theology agree is that piety is directed to others—God and our neighbor, not chiefly toward ourselves. Many Christians today associate words like piety, devotion, spirituality, and Christian life with things a believer does in private. ‘How's your walk?’ is shorthand really for asking how well you are keeping up with your personal Bible reading, devotions, and other spiritual disciplines...a covenantal orientation places much more emphasis on what we do together, with each other and for each other... “The piety Calvin advocated was largely communal, churchly. There is much here about 'frequenting the sermons' and sharing in the Lord's supper, but very little about individual devotional reading of the Bible or daily routines of prayer, let alone group Bible studies or prayer groups."
Hence, our piety should be toward service. We were saved to do good works, not to be introverts. Loving our neighbor. A sermon by a local pastor also stuck with me. He mentioned that 15 years ago, when he was in college, he might have told someone to pursue godliness by starting a quiet time with God, but has changed on that individualistic component if you ask him today. “To be sure, our obedience is never complete. Inner renewal and renovation are always in process, falling short of that holiness of heart and life that we will enjoy in our glorification. Nevertheless, we have died with Christ and we have been raised with him in newness of life. These new covenant blessings cannot be reversed” (p. 191).
I felt that much of the book was only tangentially related to the specific ideas of covenant theology, but some of that which may not have been exactly connected were quite good. Other points were not explained quite as well. I will judge this book better after reading JI Packer’s Intro and various dispensationalist critiques of Horton’s work. For now, 3.5 stars out of 5.
Horton not only comes out of the Reformed tradition but writes that Reformed theology is covenantal theology. "Reformed theology is guided by a concern to relate various biblical teachings to the concrete covenants in Scripture as their proper context" (p. 11). Citing Meredith Kline's groundbreaking work (The Treaty of the Great King) on recently uncovered Near Eastern suzerain treaties through archaeology, covenant theology is seemingly a new strain of thought that blossomed under the re-emergence of biblical theology--focusing on the arc and message of Scripture in its entirety while appreciating the historical context and authorship of each component. Yet, Horton quotes many old voices, so that what is "new" is really just new again.
Horton's work helped me as I was working through the Pentateuch to teach a Sunday school class. He helped connect and enlighten some of the covenantal theology I was finding describes in various commentaries I was using. My Western American mind cannot wrap itself around joyful submission to a king, which Horton claims archaeology has shown us to be so in the Near East. “The great king was the father adopting the captives he had liberated from oppression” (p. 25).
The book begins by noting that all of creation has a covenantal relationship with God that goes back to Genesis 1. "the biblical understanding of God's relationship to the world as covenantal is both a bridge that deism ignores and a bar to any confusion of the Creator with his creation...We are all bound together ethically in mutual responsibility...The kingdom of God does not advance through cultural achievement but through divine rescue. Covenant theology marvelously unites these crucial commitments without confusing them." (p. 15-17).
The author then walks us through how the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants mirrored other covenants of the day with preamble, prologue, stipulations, witnesses, deposition, and blessings and curses. Horton sees a dichotomy between the two, and cites Paul to get there. “Even when we are talking about Israel in the Old Testament, it is not enough to talk about the covenant, as if there were only one covenantal arrangement that could account for all of the conditional and unconditional language. We will first look at the precise nature of the Sinai covenant (a covenant of law) and then the Abrahamic covenant (a covenant of promise)” (p. 37). Horton sees the Sinaitic as being temporary, Israel failed it and therefore have no claim on the land, no claim on the promises therein.
“Dispensationalism and the so-called two-covenant theory currently popular in mainline theology both treat the land promise as eternal and irrevocable, even to the extent that there can be a difference between Israel and the church in God's plan. Both interpretations, however, fail to recognize that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves qualify this national covenant in strictly conditional terms. This is the witness of the Law and the Prophets as well as Jesus and Paul, not to mention the radical Jewish communities of Second Temple Judaism. In fact, nobody in Jesus's day doubted that Israel was in exile as a direct consequence of their corporate disobedience to the terms of the Sinai pact” (p. 47). “As the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes, neither Abraham nor Joshua regarded the earthly inheritance as ultimate. Instead, they looked through this arrangement to the original promise of a heavenly rest” (p. 101).
Ultimately, the Sinaitic covenant found its fulfillment in Jesus alone. But the Adam-Noah-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-David covenant is separate and ongoing. “The unilateral and utterly promissory character of the Abrahamic covenant yields to the conditional arrangement at Sinai even while the former is never—can never be—revoked by the oath-taking God (p. 50). “For the apostle to the Gentiles, the simplistic identification of the Old Testament with ‘law’ and the New Testament with ‘grace’ is unthinkable. God's covenant of grace, announced beforehand to Adam and inaugurated with Abraham, is precisely the same as to its content in both testaments” (p. 68).
Horton’s rejection of what he sees as the false “law” and “grace” dichotomy of OT versus NT seems problematic given that he early on quotes John 1:17 from which that dichotomy seems to come: “for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” But Horton rightly points out that the Law was always based on love and the heart rather than outward works like circumcision. Circumcision came after God’s initial covenant with Abraham, it was an outward sign of belonging to the covenant people. In Deuteronomy 6, God commanded Israel to love Him supremely and circumcise their hearts, and David reminds us in Psalm 51 that it is ultimately a contrite heart and true repentance in faith that God requires. “So it does not contradict the Abrahamic promise in the slightest. No one in the Old Testament obtained the inheritance by works, but only by promise. Yet Israel's national status in God's land depended on fulfillment of the treaty's terms” (p. 101).
Horton deals briefly with various schools of eschatology-- amillennial, premillennial, postmillennial. Horton seems to be of the amillennial tradition, as he writes on page 120: “This view is usually called amillennialism (i.e,,"no-millennialism"), but this is a misnomer, at least for those of us who believe that the millennium is not denied but is in fact a current reality. What we reject is a literalistic interpretation of the thousand years, since the book of Revelation employs numbers symbolically.” He rejects the premillennial ideas prominent in contemporary American evangelical thought, noting it is the same error the Catholic church had made in seeing theirs as God’s kingdom on earth (P. 121-122):
“The body of Christ was not simply a heavenly, spiritual entity made visible in the world through Word, sacrament, discipline, worship, and fellowship in the covenant of grace, but a powerful worldly institution that served the interests of a particular earthly empire. This is the myth behind the Crusades, the Inquisition, and such American institutions as slavery and the doctrine of ‘manifest destiny,’ which gave narrative justification for the slaughter of American Indians. The American version of the Holy Roman Empire regarded the proliferation of Protestant hospitals, colleges, women's societies, and men's societies as signs of God's approval and, indeed, of the advancement of the kingdom of God...Ironically, even staunch premillennialists like Jerry Falwell sound a good deal like the postmillennialists of yesteryear. It is one thing to inconsistently act out a two-kingdoms position and quite another to act out a Christendom model because one has confused a particular culture with the kingdom of God.”
He further critiques the isolationist schools of Anabaptists and the Puritan thought of establishing God’s kingdom on earth which eventually led to the American Revolution. Pg. 127:
“But if Calvinists are not expected to endure tyranny, they are also not given liberty to take justice into their own hands or to exercise the judgment reserved for the King of Kings on the last day. Nor are they to seek to impose their distinctively Christian convictions on society through the kingdom of power, as both Rome and the radical Anabaptists tried to do. Rather, they are to pursue their dual citizenship according to the distinct policies proper to each kingdom. The Bible functions as the constitution for the covenant people, not for the secular state...Those who confuse civil righteousness with righteousness before God will be likely to confuse moral reform in society with the kingdom of God.”
It seems a fine line, and difficult to explain, how the church is the “fruition” of Israel and not its replacement. Grafted into the tree when Jews rejected Jesus, yet not a replacement. The promised land of the Abrahamic covenant no longer relates to a physical land, but to the place Christians dwell (Horton does a bad job of explaining this). Yahweh’s presence is the distinguishing mark between Israel and the nations (Exodus 19-20) and that can ony be said about Christians today. Covenantalists reject the idea that national Israel today has any special claim on the land. Yet, they agree that God is not done with the Jewish people; Romans 11:25-32 tells us that God will “pour out his Spirit on the Jewish people en masse” after the full number of non-Jews are brought into the fold (p. 132).
The author then looks at the sacraments and how the covenant is symbolized in them. I especially liked his thoughts on communion. He would decry the Southern Baptist churches I grew up in who often treat communion with the solemnity of a funeral rather than the celebration of a resurrection and forgiveness. P. 157:
“In all of this, therefore, two extremes are avoided: the sacerdotal error, which fails to distinguish the sign from the thing signified, and the memorialist error, which fails to recognize the union of the sign and signified.” P. 159-160:
“The Lord's Supper, then, is a covenant meal. That means that while it is first of all a ratification of God's pledge to us, it also ratifies our pledge to God and to each other...One cannot treat the Lord's Supper in an individualistic manner, but only as a covenant meal...The problem with the pietistic version of the Lord's Supper, therefore, is that in its obsession with the individual's inner piety, it loses much of the import of the feast as a sacred meal that actually binds us to Christ and to each other. Instead of viewing it first as God's saving action toward us and then as our fellowship with each other in Christ, we come to see it as just another opportunity to be threatened with the law. Instead of celebrating the foretaste of the marriage supper of the Lamb on Mount Zion, we are still trembling at the foot of Mount Sinai. It is no wonder, then, that there is a diminished interest in frequent communion.”
I had honestly never pondered the term “excommunication” in light of the communion sacrament/ordinance. Too often, we hear pastors warning congregants to abstain from communion unless they can take it in a “worthy manner.” This suggests that Christ’s death and resurrection was not sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. Since communion is a communal activity, not participating is self-excommunication. Horton notes that this is not biblical: “(W)e do not have this right to excommunicate ourselves. If members are not being disciplined by the church, they are worthy communicants.” As such, it is no wonder why churches that focus on pietism don’t have communion more frequently.
Horton then pivots back to the covenant and laws. “Calvin (like the Lutheran reformer Philip Melanchthon) followed many church fathers in distinguishing three types of old covenant law: the moral, the civil, and the ceremonial. The moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, is inscribed on our consciences by virtue of our being created in God's image (Romans 1-3)...the New Testament intensifies the requirements by emphasizing their internal significance...Paul's marvelous description of life in the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit is simply an elaboration of the inner significance of the moral law: loving God and neighbor...Jesus did not make the law easier, but more difficult (p. 178-179).
Jesus standards of Matthew 5 and 6 remove any idea that a person can be morally pure under the law; indeed, all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23).
My favorite passage in the book notes that there are no Lone Ranger Christians, covenant is communal and not individual. P. 179:
“Where both Jewish and Christian covenant theology agree is that piety is directed to others—God and our neighbor, not chiefly toward ourselves. Many Christians today associate words like piety, devotion, spirituality, and Christian life with things a believer does in private. ‘How's your walk?’ is shorthand really for asking how well you are keeping up with your personal Bible reading, devotions, and other spiritual disciplines...a covenantal orientation places much more emphasis on what we do together, with each other and for each other... “The piety Calvin advocated was largely communal, churchly. There is much here about 'frequenting the sermons' and sharing in the Lord's supper, but very little about individual devotional reading of the Bible or daily routines of prayer, let alone group Bible studies or prayer groups."
Hence, our piety should be toward service. We were saved to do good works, not to be introverts. Loving our neighbor. A sermon by a local pastor also stuck with me. He mentioned that 15 years ago, when he was in college, he might have told someone to pursue godliness by starting a quiet time with God, but has changed on that individualistic component if you ask him today. “To be sure, our obedience is never complete. Inner renewal and renovation are always in process, falling short of that holiness of heart and life that we will enjoy in our glorification. Nevertheless, we have died with Christ and we have been raised with him in newness of life. These new covenant blessings cannot be reversed” (p. 191).
I felt that much of the book was only tangentially related to the specific ideas of covenant theology, but some of that which may not have been exactly connected were quite good. Other points were not explained quite as well. I will judge this book better after reading JI Packer’s Intro and various dispensationalist critiques of Horton’s work. For now, 3.5 stars out of 5.
October 23, 2023
I was really looking forward to reading this book because it has been cited in several other books I have read. But overall I was disappointed by this book for several reasons.
First, I was disappointed by this book because it is marketed as an introduction; indeed, the word introduction is used in its title. This was a very poor attempt at an introduction. This is not to say there were no introductory concepts in the book, but one had to work to piece together the introductory parts through a maze of verbiage.
Second, I was disappointed by this book because the author seemed more interested in speaking to other covenant theologians, while burnishing his Reformed credentials, than he was keen to clearly elucidate the basis of covenant theology. In other words, the author missed the forest for the trees, and for an introduction, this is a nonstarter.
Finally, I am disappointed by this book because I believe the author is an erudite scholar who is capable of clearly communicating complex topics in an approachable manner, and this simply did not happen here.
I do not like to be negative, because I realize an author’s heart and soul goes into writing a particular book, but I must be honest. Even though I have given this book a rather negative review, there is real value here. I thought the author’s discussion of the Abrahamic, Davidic and Noahic Covenants was extremely enlightening, especially as it pertains to the concept of the cutting of a covenant in the Ancient Near East. These insights alone were worth the value of the book.
If I were the editor of the book, I would recommend this volume be labeled volume 2, and I would have the author write a real introduction for volume 1. I would recommend as a volume 3 a real interaction with dispensational theology and progressive dispensationalism, because although these positions are premised on a different hermeneutic, there is much on which covenant and dispensational theologians can agree. And it truly is valuable to learn from those with whom one has disagreements, if for no other reason than not to misrepresent their position. Happy reading!
First, I was disappointed by this book because it is marketed as an introduction; indeed, the word introduction is used in its title. This was a very poor attempt at an introduction. This is not to say there were no introductory concepts in the book, but one had to work to piece together the introductory parts through a maze of verbiage.
Second, I was disappointed by this book because the author seemed more interested in speaking to other covenant theologians, while burnishing his Reformed credentials, than he was keen to clearly elucidate the basis of covenant theology. In other words, the author missed the forest for the trees, and for an introduction, this is a nonstarter.
Finally, I am disappointed by this book because I believe the author is an erudite scholar who is capable of clearly communicating complex topics in an approachable manner, and this simply did not happen here.
I do not like to be negative, because I realize an author’s heart and soul goes into writing a particular book, but I must be honest. Even though I have given this book a rather negative review, there is real value here. I thought the author’s discussion of the Abrahamic, Davidic and Noahic Covenants was extremely enlightening, especially as it pertains to the concept of the cutting of a covenant in the Ancient Near East. These insights alone were worth the value of the book.
If I were the editor of the book, I would recommend this volume be labeled volume 2, and I would have the author write a real introduction for volume 1. I would recommend as a volume 3 a real interaction with dispensational theology and progressive dispensationalism, because although these positions are premised on a different hermeneutic, there is much on which covenant and dispensational theologians can agree. And it truly is valuable to learn from those with whom one has disagreements, if for no other reason than not to misrepresent their position. Happy reading!
August 8, 2025
This is is mis-titled. It was not an "Introducing" level of covenant theology. I would place this at a level of book 2 or even 3. The reader needs to have a full knowledge of the differences between conditional and unconditional covenants as well as various types (e.g. covenant of works vs grace, etc.) before reading this text. Instead of an introduction of covenant theology, the first half of this book seemed more of an argument about why the Mosaic covenant is less like a covenant than all the others. He leans heavily on mainly two sources, citing them again and again in each chapter which makes me feel like I should be reading those texts instead of his.
On the positive, He does clearly show how covenantal theology is the connective tissue throughout scripture, proving promises made (OT) to promises kept (NT) while also supporting the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. This book made me dig deeper (because I had to reread the first 4 chapters and look up terms to try to understand what he was saying, so I am thankful for the challenge this text was for me.
On the positive, He does clearly show how covenantal theology is the connective tissue throughout scripture, proving promises made (OT) to promises kept (NT) while also supporting the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. This book made me dig deeper (because I had to reread the first 4 chapters and look up terms to try to understand what he was saying, so I am thankful for the challenge this text was for me.
November 2, 2018
Cannot bring myself to plod through this entire book. The beginning is great as there is great substance to stop and think about. I found myself zipping through clear water, amazed at what lied beneath the waves all the while seeing a shoreline that was quickly growing larger.
By the middle of the book the author suddenly looks to deepen the waters while simultaneously jumping from one point to another while poorly connecting them. This not only cut down on clarity but it also added a bit of confusion. The result was trying to tredge through this muddy water with no real sense as to the direction I was heading. I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with this and finally closed the book content with having survived the ordeal even though the muddy shore was never landed upon.
By the middle of the book the author suddenly looks to deepen the waters while simultaneously jumping from one point to another while poorly connecting them. This not only cut down on clarity but it also added a bit of confusion. The result was trying to tredge through this muddy water with no real sense as to the direction I was heading. I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with this and finally closed the book content with having survived the ordeal even though the muddy shore was never landed upon.
March 26, 2017
Horton's small diatribe on Covenant Theology is easy to understand. Whereas most volumes on Covenant Theology are thick and rely on people smarter than myself, specifically the Puritans. Yes, Horton does work with the Puritans and the Reformers, but this is actually a discussion about Biblical texts, rather than Church history. It shows that through the Old Testament Covenants and the New Covenant, the story of redemption is the story of God's soverignty and of the relationship between God and His people.
December 9, 2022
Amazing book on the different covenants in the Bible. Horton finds a way to connect all of them through a common thread-line of Christ and makes a beautiful biblical theology from the Reformed perspective. I wonder how I would receive the book today after an arms-length relationship with non-Barthian Reformed theology, but was really helpful in providing a framework for reading Scripture as a coherent story connected by a covenants. Would highly recommend for someone who is Reformed Evangelical to get a taste of traditional Reformed theology.
November 7, 2024
Excellent survey of covenant theology. He's got a couple hot takes, but I think he's correct on them. He's not super upfront about which of his takes are hot or not, so it can be a bit misleading if you're trying to figure out what the majority reformed opinion is. Last chapter off-handedly threw out Hebrews 3-4 as a nice piece of continuity of the people of the covenant of grace from OT to NT. I think those two chapters of the Bible may be the most convincing pieces of evidence for infant baptism.
January 1, 2018
This was overall a good book to read. It traces the historic development of the covenant as found in ancient Near Eastern treaties. At times, the book was a little stiff and on the academic and technical side, but it clearly conveyed the meaning of biblical covenants. Although this book is titled "Introducing Covenant Theology", it is far from being an introductory primer and should be for the intermediate reader.
May 13, 2020
Excellent introduction to covenant theology. Horton does a great job of explaining the major covenants that provide the structure for the story of redemptive history found in both Old and New Testaments. While he deals with significant issues relating to covenants, he does so in an easy to follow and well supported manner. Highly suggest this for those who want a better understanding of how covenants work and, more importantly how they relate to Christians today.
May 11, 2021
A solid intro to covenant theology. Horton does a good job of expounding the basics of covenant theology, establishing it within the Reformed tradition, and highlighting some of the different interpretations of it that exist. My favorite part was his explanation of how covenant theology relates to the sacraments.
The book is sometimes hard to follow, as Horton sometimes has abrupt and unexpected transitions to new subjects that seem to leave the previous one unfinished. Or sometimes he relates two ideas without really expounding on the connection between the two, which makes it hard to follow.
Overall, a good book if you're looking to jump into the world of covenant theology.
The book is sometimes hard to follow, as Horton sometimes has abrupt and unexpected transitions to new subjects that seem to leave the previous one unfinished. Or sometimes he relates two ideas without really expounding on the connection between the two, which makes it hard to follow.
Overall, a good book if you're looking to jump into the world of covenant theology.
December 29, 2020
If you ever wondered what was meant by Covenantal Theology, this is the book for you to read. A good mix of ease of readability while not dumbing down scholarship. If you're new to this subject or Bible Study, you may need to read it a little more slowly so you can look things up, but you will walk away with a great understanding of Covenantal Theology. Even if you disagree with the conclusions.
September 14, 2023
Can’t say for sure where I think he is right or wrong about Sinai. I think his argument has weight and people seem to avoid parts they don’t want to deal with when responding. Regardless I get the Horton/Kline position better and am forever grateful to Horton for his role in making Reformed Theology and the centrality of the gospel beautiful to me.
October 11, 2023
A good summary of the theology of covenant.
A complicated subject made accessible and relevant by the author who, engages in the different debates around the relevance of covenant today and successfully puts forward a perspective to covenant which is both illuminating and inspirational to the Christian faith.
A complicated subject made accessible and relevant by the author who, engages in the different debates around the relevance of covenant today and successfully puts forward a perspective to covenant which is both illuminating and inspirational to the Christian faith.
June 27, 2017
Pretty good, but it read more like a popular level survey of covenant theology for those already with a background in it rather than an introduction. This is not for the reader who was not brought up in this system.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews