# Covenant Theology: Robertson's or Horton's Book?



## Jessica (Nov 25, 2007)

Hi, I'm trying to get a deeper grasp on the subject of Covenant Theology. And I was curious as to which book the PB members would suggest and why.

So which book between O. Palmer Robertson's _The Christ of the Covenants_ and Michael Horton's _God of Promise_ would you suggest, and why? (I specifically wanted to know which of _these_ two books.) Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks so much.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2007)

Hello Jessica,
I've only read Robertson's book. It's good, if somewhat dry. I can't say about Horton. I imagine it is well-written. I do know that he probably takes a Klinean approach to Covenant Theology, whereas Robertson critiques Kline on a few points.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2007)

If I were limited to those two books, I would choose the Robertson. I was frankly disappointed in Horton's book. I like Horton, and I like the way he writes. But unless you are ready to be a card carrying Klinean, _God of Promise_ is not for you. He skims over major issues while jumping to Klinean conclusions over and over again. It is very unsuited to be a primer. Robertson, on the other hand, is more basic, more mainstream.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> If I were limited to those two books, I would choose the Robertson. I was frankly disappointed in Horton's book. I like Horton, and I like the way he writes. But unless you are ready to be a card carrying Klinean, _God of Promise_ is not for you. He skims over major issues while jumping to Klinean conclusions over and over again. It is very unsuited to be a primer. Robertson, on the other hand, is more basic, more mainstream.



I have to agree with Fred almost word for word. I really like Mike a lot but I found the desire to use the Suzerein Treaty language to be unnecessary. I haven't studied enough of this stuff to understand why it is so insisted upon. I think it's interesting that ancient Hittite treaties resemble God's Covenants and it certainly makes some sense that there would be some imitation of a nearby nation or even that the Hittites would, from the light of nature, reflect something of their Creator's Covenants.

That said, I've never understood the confidence that people place in the way that a pagan nation made treaties to recast terminology and thinking about the Scriptures. I don't think Mike is extreme in this in all areas of his theology but in the book, over and over, the language is used and I really think it just could have been skipped to focus more on what the Word says rather than noting how other treaties worked.

Other portions are very useful, however, where he does a vivid job of describing the Reformed understanding of the Sacraments.

Anyway, I did like Mike's book but I simply had those reservations.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 25, 2007)

I'm going to take a chance and recommend another book anyway: _Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism_ by Robert R. Booth (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1995). While making his case, Booth gives a very clear and well-written explanation of covenant theology. He is a theonomist (if I recall rightly), but I wouldn't let that stop you from reading his book (you can always read around the theonomy). It's a good book for the general reader.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Nov 25, 2007)

I'm about halfway through Robertson's book, and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. After you get over the initial dryness of his writing, things run much more smoothly.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I'm going to take a chance and recommend another book anyway: _Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism_ by Robert R. Booth (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1995). While making his case, Booth gives a very clear and well-written explanation of covenant theology. He is a theonomist (if I recall rightly), but I wouldn't let that stop you from reading his book (you can always read around the theonomy). It's a good book for the general reader.



That book has little to do with theonomy. Non-starter. It is a good book. Booth might indeed mention theonomy in the book (I read it about 4 years ago, can't remember). Sure, he might make an argument like continuity between covenants, but all paedos make that argument when arguing for paedo.


----------



## Casey (Nov 25, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> If I were limited to those two books, I would choose the Robertson. I was frankly disappointed in Horton's book. I like Horton, and I like the way he writes. But unless you are ready to be a card carrying Klinean, _God of Promise_ is not for you. He skims over major issues while jumping to Klinean conclusions over and over again. It is very unsuited to be a primer. Robertson, on the other hand, is more basic, more mainstream.


I'm in complete agreement here.  I read Horton's book thinking it would be a primer on covenant theology, and it turned out to be a primer on Klinean theology. It wasn't what I expected and I was very much disappointed with it. Robertson's book doesn't seem to me to be so much a primer as an exegetical defense for covenant theology, and that is why it might at times seem dry and may be difficult reading, but I think it is worth the effort and is thoroughly edifying. Get Robertson.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2007)

Jessica said:


> Hi, I'm trying to get a deeper grasp on the subject of Covenant Theology. And I was curious as to which book the PB members would suggest and why.
> 
> So which book between O. Palmer Robertson's _The Christ of the Covenants_ and Michael Horton's _God of Promise_ would you suggest, and why? (I specifically wanted to know which of _these_ two books.) Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks so much.



These are the transcripts to Ligon Duncan's lectures on Covenant Theology. This is the best place to start.
INDEX of covenant theology lectures


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Jessica said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, I'm trying to get a deeper grasp on the subject of Covenant Theology. And I was curious as to which book the PB members would suggest and why.
> ...



This is indeed the best place to start. For books, I would get _Marrow of Modern Divinity_, which can be found online: The Marrow of Modern Divnity

Or purchased here:
Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - $5 Shipping - Marrow of Modern Divinity


----------



## Covenant Joel (Nov 25, 2007)

I would echo the thoughts about Horton, though I would add that I found it quite dry. Horton is not usually a dry writer--at least judging from other things that I have read by him. But as others have noted, his constant reference to suzerainty treaties and other ancient near eastern documents make it somewhat difficult to wade through at times. That being said, there is some good stuff in there. I particularly parts of the section on the sacraments and their relation to covenant theology. The best book I have read (or at least the one that helped me the most) on covenant theology is _Far As the Curse is Found_ by Michael Williams.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 25, 2007)

Hi:

O. Palmer Robertson's book is the best introductory work on the subject. I would also suggest that you read the Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fischer.

Meredith Kline's work is useful in proving the Covenant of Works from the first few chapters of Genesis. Many people, like John Murray and our New Pauline friends, like to argue that the Covenant of Works did not exist prior to the Fall because there is no specific mention of a covenant in those chapters. Kline proves that even though the word is not present the concept of a Covenant is clearly understood.. I think that Horton was too transfixed with Kline's theology, and his book suffers for it.

Blessings in your study,

-CH


----------



## Jessica (Nov 26, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> He skims over major issues while jumping to Klinean conclusions over and over again. It is very unsuited to be a primer. Robertson, on the other hand, is more basic, more mainstream.



Thanks so much, Mr. Greco. That was a helpful piece of info for me.



SemperFideles said:


> I don't think Mike is extreme in this in all areas of his theology but in the book, over and over, the language is used and I really think it just could have been skipped to focus more on what the Word says rather than noting how other treaties worked.
> 
> Other portions are very useful, however, where he does a vivid job of describing the Reformed understanding of the Sacraments.
> 
> Anyway, I did like Mike's book but I simply had those reservations.



Thanks so much, Rich!


----------



## Jessica (Nov 26, 2007)

Thank you all for all your replies and feedback! I knew I'd get some helpful info by coming and asking the people on this board.  I took some time to check out the web links and other resources suggested above...and really appreciate them! Thanks so much.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2007)

There are virtues to both books. Mike's book is a little difficult, but it's worth the effort. Yes, it's Klinean, but as a scholar of the history of covenant theology, I am confident that Mike's book is, in its main conclusions, very much in the mainstream of the covenant theology.

Palmer's book has much to commend it, but it does have a significant flaw in that its definition of covenant necessarily excludes the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption. Horton's book has the virtue of including both of those covenants in his account. Palmer's is a book done by a Bib studies guy and reflects the discussion post-Murray in the 70s and 80s and Horton's book reflects the state of scholarship today as well as having a more traditional three covenant structure.

There's nothing odd about the covenants of redemption (between the Father and the Son), the covenant of works (before the fall), and the covenant of grace.

The Westminster Confession refers to the covenant of works 4 times! Judging, however, from the covenant theology that predominated in the 60s-80s in Reformed theology (in the USA) one would never know that the the covenant of works was a mainstream Reformed idea taught by most all the leading formuators of Reformed covenant theology. Mike's book does a good job of bringing things back into balance.

He correlates the last two to the Suzerainty treaty (covenant of works) and the royal grant (covenant of grace), both of which were established forms in the ancient near eastern world in which the Scriptures were given. There's nothing odd about reading the bible grammatically, historically. 

Mike is quite open that there is a long-running debate about how to speak of the Mosaic covenant. That he takes one side over the other shouldn't disqualify it as an important and useful book.

If you want to know more about these issues see:

Westminster Seminary California clark

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2007)

There is more stuff here relative to the question of the Mosaic Covenant.

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> There are virtues to both books. Mike's book is a little difficult, but it's worth the effort. Yes, it's Klinean, but as a scholar of the history of covenant theology, I am confident that Mike's book is, in its main conclusions, very much in the mainstream of the covenant theology.
> 
> Palmer's book has much to commend it, but it does have a significant flaw in that its definition of covenant necessarily excludes the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption. Horton's book has the virtue of including both of those covenants in his account. Palmer's is a book done by a Bib studies guy and reflects the discussion post-Murray in the 70s and 80s and Horton's book reflects the state of scholarship today as well as having a more traditional three covenant structure.
> 
> ...



I don't want my comments to be read as disqualifying his work. I also noted the fact that he doesn't speak exclusively of that and I found his discussion of the Reformed understanding of the Sacraments to be quite useful.

I was wondering if the "shoe would drop" and you'd come in here and I was very careful not to try to bad mouth Mike as I think the work was good.

Perhaps the "royal grant/Suzerainty treaty" language appears grammatico-historical to you but those are relatively new theological terms and they're based upon studying patterns that may or may not exactly correspond to the nature of God's Covenants. I wonder if some might place too much stock in a pagan Covenant that resembles the Covenants of Scripture to re-cast some Scriptural concepts. I'm not saying that a Near Eastern treaty doesn't make for some historically interesting ways of understanding the Scriptural language but it seems that some Klineans can't just say Covenant of Grace or other terms that have been in Reformed Usage for a while. I remember a few years ago, somebody kept throwing the "Royal Grant" lingo around and, honestly, I had heard of Kline at that point but hadn't heard that term. It sort of struck me as "theology speak" since everyone else was using a different term to describe the same thing but the Klinean insisted on the new lingo. Just seemed kind of "cliquish".

In contrast, however, I don't ever really hear Mike using those terms much on _The White Horse Inn_ (that's the program that has some old guy doing commercials for Westminster Seminary California and telling people to "relax"). I guess I was just surprised to see so much of the "lingo" present in the book that was an otherwise great introduction to many Covenant Theology concepts.


----------



## Richard King (Nov 26, 2007)

I don't know if this is of any use but at our church the elder's class is studying the 
Robertson book while the general adult Sunday School is studying the Horton book.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 27, 2007)

Hi Rich,

Yes, the book came out a little more "technical" than I expected it to be. He does use the traditional Reformed vocabulary, but he also tries to do what we've always done and that is to read the history of redemption in its historical context. The biblical covenants were revealed in a time and place that is not very familiar to us. That is our problem. We need to become more familiar with the original context of the revelation of the covenants under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

Some might find interesting that, at the recent AAR meetings (American Academy of Religion) in San Diego, Mike asked a renowned semitics scholar if he though that the Royal Grant/Suzerain Treaty approach "works" to explain the two sorts of covenants in Scripture and he said "Yes, absolutely." 

It means that right there in the culture in which Scripture was being given were good illustrations of the two great principles of Scripture: law and gospel. Even in our theological language we use daily metaphors: imputation (accounting), acquittal (court room) and so forth. Why is it okay for us to do it but it's not possible for Scripture to do it? Of course Scripture does it all the time.

I hasten to remind everyone not to set up a scheme whereby John 1:1-3 cannot happen. Of course it did happen. What happened? The Apostle John borrowed from ancient PAGAN Greek philosophy by calling Jesus the _Logos_. That was a bold move and one that, I gather, some would say that he either could not or should not have done. But he did it. It was liable to misinterpretation -- it was misinterpreted rather badly by some early fathers, namely Justin Martyr who developed a "Logos Christology" -- but that didn't prevent the Spirit from inspiring John to appropriate a widely known and used term for Christian usage.

If that could happen, why couldn't the Spirit inspire Moses to use widely known and used terms from the Ancient Near East? Of course, the Spirit is free to do what he wills. Modern semitics has learned a lot about the ANE that wasn't known when our covenant theology was being developed in the 16th and 17th centuries. Had they access to the information to which we have access now, I think they would have done the same thing. They certainly did similar things. They played off of feudal imagery (similar to the Suzerain treaty forms) and made use of what they knew about the ANE. Why can't we do the same?

This is what "historical-grammatical" means. It means reading the Scripture in its original context. The beautiful thing here is that the original context helps us understand Scripture in a way that resonates with what we confess, that God made two historical covenants: works and grace. 

Part of the criticism of this approach to contemporary covenant theology is fueled by an antipathy to distinguishing the two types of covenants and this gets us back to the basic breakthrough of the Protestant Reformation: the distinction between law and gospel. The Reformed did nothing more than to express their hermeneutical breakthrough, their repudiation of the medieval and Roman Catholic "old law-new law" hermeneutic (which Rome and the FV still confess) in covenantal terms. Against the "old law-new law" hermeneutic, we confessed that Scripture contains within it two kinds of words: law ("do this and live") and gospel ("For God so loved the world"). We expressed those two different kinds of words, in redemptive-historical categories, by speaking of two different kinds of covenants: works and grace. 

rsc


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 27, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> There are virtues to both books.



Yes, my answer would be, *both.* I would suggest *both* because *both* have things to commend it.

Horton's book is easily read in two or three sittings, so why not do it?

And, I don't think you have to be a full fledged Klinean to see the use of ANE treaties in interpreting some aspects of CT. Even Frame agrees....but then he agrees with almost everyone!...in a sense 

I liked Horton's book. Let me say that it was better than I thought it would be.

Robertson's is a staple, of course. Good nuggests in there as well.


----------



## youthevang (Nov 27, 2007)

I love Dr. Horton's book and I just finished reading if for the fourth time.
I understand some hesitation in reading about ANE, but for me
it reiterates the greatness of our God, His statutes, His covenants, and His ways.
All these other nations claim to have gods that spoke, gave laws, and did miracles.
It reminds me of what Moses said:



> See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should
> do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them,
> for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they
> hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'
> ...



All the other nations had there statutes and laws (i.e. Code of Hammurabi) but it was pale in
comparison to the laws the Israelites received because it came from a true and living God, who is just
and righteous and His laws, covenants, and ways are good. Other nations claimed to have knowledge, but
it was Israel who had true knowledge of the Holy.


----------



## Ron (Nov 28, 2007)

Reformed Apologist: More Confusion over the "Covenant of Grace" and "Conditions and Causes" (This Tme by Michael Horton)

Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism: 3 Part Series


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 14, 2007)

Hey there Jessica. I have Robertson's work on CT and Horton's introduction to CT. Personally, I find myself agreeing with Robertson more than the Klinean view of the covenants, mainly because Kline leans towards dispensationalism (not to say the least of the man). I'm not saying he's dispensational in his theology but merely that it tends to lead that way. One instance is in his view concerning the "blood and testament." And as some of the people in this group have mentioned, Horton has Klinean conclusions without question. I'm personally a big believer in the continuity of scripture (Old and New) with a theonomic bent, so I'll most likely read Booth and Robertson. But since you have Robertson on hand, I'd read that over Horton any day.


----------

