# Book on Covenant Theology



## louis_jp (Dec 27, 2010)

Could someone recommend a good book on covenant theology? I'm looking for something in-depth, that deals particularly with the relationship of the Mosaic administration to the covenant of grace, and preferably something that is both historical and exegetical. Would prefer to deal with a single volume but open to other recommendations if none exists.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 27, 2010)

Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson


----------



## Alex Stophel (Dec 27, 2010)

I'm by no means an expert, so a recommendation by me should be taken with a grain of salt.

I really enjoyed: "God of Promise: An Introduction to Covenant Theology" by Michael Horton


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 27, 2010)

Louis, I have both of those recommended books if you would like to borrow one or both.


----------



## louis_jp (Dec 27, 2010)

Thanks, Tim. Those are good recommendations, but I'd prefer something more detailed.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 27, 2010)

louis_jp said:


> Thanks, Tim. Those are good recommendations, but I'd prefer something more detailed.


 
Well, if you want more detailed, Witsius on the Covenants is excellent, which you can get alone, or together with his other works (which I'd highly recommend).


----------



## louis_jp (Dec 27, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Tim. Those are good recommendations, but I'd prefer something more detailed.
> ...


 
Yes, I just read that. Excellent book! I was looking to build on Witsius, particularly on the nature of the Mosaic covenant and how it has been understood in the Reformed world.


----------



## JM (Dec 27, 2010)

Pink's work on the subject is good, The Divine Covenants


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 27, 2010)

Amazon.com: Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (9780664231637): Michael S. Horton: Books

Covenant and salvation: by Michael S. Horton.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 27, 2010)

> Yes, I just read that. Excellent book! I was looking to build on Witsius, particularly on the nature of the Mosaic covenant and how it has been understood in the Reformed world.



Well if you read Scott Clark's material on Covenant Theology you'll see that there have been slightly different views on the Mosaic Covenant.

Westminster Seminary California

There is a bit of a debate going on just now as to whether and in what sense the Mosaic Covenant is a Republicaion of the Covenant of Works "in some sense". 

I don't believe it was, or should be called, a RoCoW in any sense to avoid unecessary confusion in terminology and understanding for a start. It was part of the CoG with certain typological teaching aids which were peculiar to the Jews but graciously given by God as suitable for them as sinners that had already broken the CoW in Adam, and to instruct us - the more mature Israel - as we look back at them.

Some Covenant Theologians are "Republicationists" of various types and degrees (e.g. Scott Clark, Michael Horton) and some are not (e.g. Johnnie Murray).

When they say that they believe that the "Sinai Covenant" was a "RoCoW in some sense" they are not saying that God was offering to save individual Israelites for Heaven by their works.

They tend to mean that there was a national covenant such that if the Jews lived up to a certain standard of morality they would not be exiled as a nation.

They tend to overlook the fact that 

(a) This would be a very different proposition from the CoW made with Adam e.g. he was sinless, the Israelites weren't; he had to live perfectly, the Israelites didn't. And numerous other contrasts between Sinai and what they are proposing, and the original CoW. Therefore even if what they were saying the RoCoW was, was the case, it would be very confusing to call it a RoCoW in any sense.

(b) If the Jews had been very good and managed to live godly lives by faith in the Lord, such that they weren't exiled by the Assyrians, Babylonians and later the Romans, this would all have been of God's grace to sinful breakers of the CoW in Adam.


----------



## eqdj (Dec 28, 2010)

> Generally speaking, there were four different views concerning the nature of the Mosaic Covenant espoused by the seventeenth-century Puritans.32 First, the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works. Second, the Mosaic Covenant was a subservient covenant. Third, the Mosaic Covenant was a mixture of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Fourth, the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace.
> The difficulty in classifying the various Puritans according to these four categories is that “many of them held several of the different views in varying combinations.”33 As a result, some divines seemed confused and contradictory.34 Other divines use the same terminology of the various classifications but in different senses.35 Moreover, many theologians within the same general category differ on the various details of the Mosaic Covenant.36 Nonetheless, if we are careful to make the necessary distinctions, these four classifications are both necessary and useful. After all, the Puritans themselves employed them.


D. Patrick Ramsey's (co-author with Joel Beeke of "An Analysis of Herman Witsius' THe Economy of the Covenants") article in WTJ 66.2 (Fall 2004)​
In the quote above Ramsey references Ernest Kevan's "The Grace of Law" and Patrick Fairburn's The Revelation of Law in Scripture.


----------



## louis_jp (Dec 28, 2010)

eqdj said:


> D. Patrick Ramsey's... article in WTJ 66.2 (Fall 2004)



Excellent resource. Thanks!

And thanks to everyone else who responded!


----------



## Michael Doyle (Dec 28, 2010)

eqdj said:


> > Generally speaking, there were four different views concerning the nature of the Mosaic Covenant espoused by the seventeenth-century Puritans.32 First, the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works. Second, the Mosaic Covenant was a subservient covenant. Third, the Mosaic Covenant was a mixture of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Fourth, the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace.
> > The difficulty in classifying the various Puritans according to these four categories is that “many of them held several of the different views in varying combinations.”33 As a result, some divines seemed confused and contradictory.34 Other divines use the same terminology of the various classifications but in different senses.35 Moreover, many theologians within the same general category differ on the various details of the Mosaic Covenant.36 Nonetheless, if we are careful to make the necessary distinctions, these four classifications are both necessary and useful. After all, the Puritans themselves employed them.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Awesome resource indeed. Thanks for this. I have downloaded to the Kindle and loving it!


----------

