Introducing Covenant Theology

I think this is a great introductory text to covenant theology. It should be accessible to anyone with a cursory knowledge of reformed Christian doctrine, and Horton's writing style is very smooth, less stilted and academic than some of the other big-name books on this topic (e.g., Vos, Robertson). I don't have any substantial gripes with the book's substantive content - although I don't think I fully buy his explanation of a third covenant, the "Covenant of Redemption." But he gives equal time to those who would disagree with him on that subject, and I'm inclined to think it's just a matter of differing terminology. I have only a couple of minor critiques.First, I think that the book would have worked better if it had included a chapter at the beginning that clearly defines terms and provides an overall structure of covenant theology. Throughout the first three to four chapters, there are many terms used that readers with only a cursory knowledge of covenant theology will not understand. More than that, I think a roadmap of the structure of the covenants would have been useful from the outset. If he had more clearly set out his overarching Covenants of Redemption, Works, Grace from the start, along with the various sub-covenants under each larger theme, it would have made for easier sledding at the beginning. That being said, it all becomes clear by the fourth chapter or so. I just think it's a misstep for a book billed as an introduction to covenant theology.Second, I would have liked to see more time given to the differences of opinion among those who subscribe to covenant theology. Horton does this with some issues - such as the existence of the "redemptive covenant," as he calls it - but I feel like there's more diversity in opinion, particularly about structure and organization, than he lets on here.Overall, I would wholeheartedly recommend this text for any layperson who wants a concise, readable overview of covenant theology. Also - no gripes with the Kindle formatting.

The return of Covenant of Works ( real works ) and Covenant of GraceIn recent years it seems the bi-covenantal teaching(i.e. Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace) was loosing steam as the mono-covenantal teaching(i.e. Covenant of Grace ) was gaining adherents. However, this could be the watershed book that reverses the tide. Dr Horton is a well respected scholar on issues revolving around Covenant Theology and this book demonstrates his erudition in the area. He builds a very strong case that Covenant Theology is the warp and woof of Scripture. Many Covenant Theology proponents might agree with this. However, he goes further to show that all Covenants in biblical history( basically falls under the grouping of Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace). The Covenant of Works is really a covenant of works. By doing certain things you merit certain things. There is no grace in this specific arrangement. Yes, it is gracious for a superior(e.g. God) to enter into a covenant with an inferior(i.e. sinful human), but the stipulations, blessings, and curses are based strictly on works. If you do this you will receive the blessings. If you do not do this you will receive the curses! On the other hand the Covenant of Grace is not fulfilled by your doing, but instead the superior's doing (e.g. God ). There maybe "conditions" in this covenant, but they are all fulfilled by the superior. I will forgive your sins! I will be your God! I will give you a new heart! These two covenants are drastically different in that regard. Dr Horton walks you through the Ancient Near East, the Law, the Prophets, the New Testament, Common Grace, the Sacraments and others his shows how Covenant Theology should be the architectonic structure of Scripture.If you want to learn and understand more about covenant theology you should definitely get this book. I only wish the book had footnotes instead of endnotes and an index.

Overall, I am in some ways sympathetic to the project Michael Horton is attempting in Introducing Covenant Theology. I would say I like the idea of it all, but he leaves many questions unanswered. I would consider myself Reformed in my theological leanings, or you could use the word Calvinist(ic) if you wanted to. However, I am not entirely convinced the case Horton makes here holds exegetical water. The book does follow a fairly logical flow, but that might not be enough in the end to overcome the exegetical errors.Horton starts with the big idea of covenant theology, then in the next chapter moves to the ancient Near East background of the concept of covenant. In chapter 3 he starts dealing with the biblical data on the matter using the lens of Paul's allegory in Galatians 4 of the two mothers. His conclusion is that there are essentially two types of covenants, unconditional and conditional, which roughly correspond to promise and law respectively. In chapter 4, Horton elaborates on the new covenant and explains where there is continuity and discontinuity between it and the old covenants in the Hebrew Scriptures.At that point, the discussion in the book then shifts to unpacking the basics of covenant theology as a system of interpretation in chapter 5. It is here that Horton addresses the traditional Reformed covenants of redemption (intra-Trinitarian), works (between God and humanity), and grace (between God and the elect). Chapters 6-9 then unpack the implications of this understanding starting with how to live the world in light of common grace (chapter 6); how the covenant people are constituted (chapter 7); the signs and seals of this covenant of grace (chapter 8); and how we are to live in light of it all (chapter 9).I like many of the things that Horton says throughout the book, and like I said, I am generally on board with covenant theology, or at least would not consider myself dispensational. Horton does not do the best job in the book interacting with dispensationalism and at times makes sweeping statements about the view for which he offers no support (pg 129 for instance). This is perhaps ironic, for Horton had earlier opined that O. Palmer Robertson said something without a supporting footnote for which "it would be very difficult to find a credible Reformed theologian, past or present, who holds this view" (pg. 102-103). Overall though, his rhetoric is not out of line, he just does not really interact with opposing view very much.There are however some deeper problems. Most notably is his treatment of covenant in general and Genesis 15 in particular. To start with the particular, it would be a little too nit-picky to hold Horton to the standard of being on the forefront of biblical studies and scholarship since that is not his field. That being said, there are a couple of glaring errors in his treatment of Genesis 15. He sees this narrative as the most important example of the nature of the Abrahamic covenant (pg. 40). He quotes Delbert Hillers at length (whose book was written in 1969) concerning how it was customary in the ancient Near East to walk through the severed pieces of animals to ratify a covenant (pg. 40). He had previously noted in regard to suzerain-vassal treaties that they were ratified in the same fashion (pg. 28). While the oath and slaughter of animals is present in many ancient Near East treaties and covenants, the walking between the animal parts is not. After reviewing all the extant covenant making texts from the ancient Near East, Ake Viberg makes the observation that "None of them presents either a divided animal or someone partaking in the covenant by walking through the parts." Or in other words, a more careful recent study has shown fault with earlier assumptions (and they were only assumptions for the most part).This may be a minor quibble, but considering how often Horton references Genesis 15, it is at least significant that it is not a typical demonstration of an unconditional covenant, and the ritual may be more at home in other ceremonies. More importantly, as Gordon Johnston noted in paper presented at ETS a few years back, there are syntactically different ways of referring to a covenant depending on whether it is primarily conditional or unconditional. Careful exegesis would bear out that the unconditional formula is used in reference to the Davidic and New covenants. The conditional formula is used in reference to the Mosaic covenant and in reference to the Abrahamic covenant only once...in Genesis 15. A bit of an oversight it seems on Horton's part.[5]Shifting from the particular to the general, there are two projects Horton needs to address to make his case stand: (1) outlining a valid definition of the Scriptural term(s); and (2) a principle for the acceptable use of the concept of covenant. Horton is right to point out that one can speak of covenants even in absence of the word (e.g. "berit" is not used in 2 Samuel 7 or 1 Chronicles 17). However this still leaves open the issue of when it is appropriate to use the concept "covenant" to describe what is going on in a particular passage. In the example just mentioned, while the actual passages do not use the word, other passages do in connection with them. It may then be better to say that one shouldn't press hard for describing a reality as covenantal when Scripture never does. It may be helpful to do so in order to unpack the meaning, but that is a bit different than insisting that covenant is the underlying reality of a given passage.Case in point, the two controversial examples from covenant theology are whether or not it is appropriate to speak of a covenant among the persons of the Trinity concerning the redemption of man, and whether or not it is appropriate to speak of Adam's relationship to God in the garden as covenantal. Neither incident is spoken of in Scripture using covenant terminology, nor does it seem any specific writer of Scripture conceives of those two realities covenantally.[6] In the case of the Trinity, Horton oversteps the exegetical data in arguing that the covenant of redemption is a revealed teaching of Scripture (pg. 80) and is as clearly revealed in Scripture as the Trinity (! pg. 82). He does admit that Scripture "knows of no suzerain-vassal type of treaty between the persons of the Trinity," so then argues that we cannot have to restrictive of a definition of "covenant." This though seems to go against his modus operandi of using exegetical data to support systematic conclusions (pg. 12-13, 23, 77). If we are going to go with how Scripture defines covenant, then it is inappropriate to call the plan of the Triune God to save his people a covenant among the members, since Scripture never conceives of it that way, and the usage of "berit" does not fit a relationship among divine persons. If we are going to loosely define covenant in a way that allows us to cover everything that fits our system, then that is a different story altogether. While Horton had stressed the importance of not using systematic theology to impose a system on Scripture but to draw out the main teaching of Scripture from Scripture itself, it does not seem his own work here accomplishes that task.

Very clear and concise teaching on fundamental principles of the Biblical truth of covenantal theology. Dispensationalist should read it.

Order arrived quickly. Horton’s book is excellent. Although I found his first few chapters lacked some clarity and were a little scrambled.. once I got passed the first couple chapters it got a lot better. As for content, it is excellent and scholarly.

great clear book on the subject