Beware! A New Version of Covenant by Michael Horton

At the Affinity conference in the UK in February of this year (2009) Michael Horton presented an extremely troubling view of covenant theology that I find hard to reconcile with the Westminster Standards. It appears to me that the Kline-Horton paradigm is to interpret biblical covenants through the lens of recently discovered, Near Eastern, and especially Hittite treaties. Perhaps the two most helpful books to analyse the source of their theological constructs are:

Meredith G. Kline, The Treaty of the Great King, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.

Horton is an extremely lucid communicator and ‘The White Horse Inn’ appears to have been a blessing to multitudes in spreading the reformed faith. However Horton’s ministry is not primarily in view initially but rather the injunction of Paul in Romans 4:3: ‘For what does the Scripture say?’

I have only engaged in a cursory reading of God of Promise by Horton but here goes the argument.

Chapter 2: ‘God and the Foreign Relations’. Horton puts forward that ‘there are remarkable parallels between ancient (especially Hittite) treaties and the covenantal structure of the OT (24)’. In sum he identifies that there two Hittite treaties, The Suzerainty Treaty and The Royal Grant (or patron covenant); the former is conditional, while the latter is unconditional (33).

Then in Chapter 3 ‘A Tale of Two Mothers’ he makes a huge quantum leap in applying this covenantal framework to biblical covenants. Red flags should be raised immediately because the Hittite gentile practices were the very opposite of God’s intention for establishing a holy nation (Exodus 19). However here we see the connection with T. David Gordon et al., and Horton states:

A covenant of law is established at Mount Sinai, engendering an earthly Jerusalem, which is identified with Hagar the slave; and a covenant of promise is given to Abraham and his seed, engendering a heavenly Jerusalem, which is identified with Sarah the free woman. Confusion of these two covenants, Paul believed, lay at the heart of the Galatian heresy, a charge repeated by the Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century. (35)’.

Need I say more! He pitches the Abrahamic covenant against the Mosaic and this chapter contends that the Mosaic covenant is a Suzerainty/conditional/law covenant and the Abrahamic covenant is a royal Grant/unconditional/promise covenant (39ff). This Hittite framework is then applied to the New Covenant in Chapter Four and here comes another staggering assertion. Horton concludes:

Concerning the covenantal unity of the two testaments: “Law and promise” do not represent the Old and New Testaments or berit and diatheke, respectively, but characterise two different kinds of covenants that obtain the same history (74-5).

Horton then insists on covenantal discontinuity between the New and the Mosaic covenant and he asserts that the Mosaic covenant is conditional, obsolete (Heb. 8:13) and not a covenant of grace (75). In the last chapter in the book ‘New Covenant Obedience (Chapter 9)’ I find it interesting that Horton somehow seems to lose his ability to teach clearly as he unfolds that he agrees in principle to the threefold division of the law (178) but that we go to the content of the NT for the meaning of the moral law (179-80). I have to admit that I cannot pinpoint him as to whether he is abrogating the moral law for the church but I guess in reality that is what will happen when such a radical discontinuity is taught between the Mosaic moral law and the new covenant.

Historical and contemporary theology teaches us to be extremely cautious when theologians introduce material into their theology that is alien to the community of faith. N. T. Wright, James Dunn et al do this with the use of the Pseudepigrapha, the Apochrypha and the writings from Second Temple Judaism; the result is a new theology of justification that takes hours to unravel and untold confusion. Rudolf Bultmann established hypotheses based on importing Gnostic gospels to explain John’s Gospel; a worldview that has now thankfully collapsed. Here we have Horton and Kline importing Hittite Treaty’s to explain God’s covenants, thus leading to a revision of our whole framework of theology. This is exactly why Horton has gone on to write his four volumes on covenant (published by Westminster John Knox Press). A revisionist view always requires a wholesale change in all of our theology.

This blog comment is far longer than I intended. Perhaps someone could take up the challenge to write a brief essay entitled: Does the Idea of Covenant in the Theology of Meredith Kline and Michael Horton fit within the Framework of the Westminster Standards? I think I have my answer already but it would be good to see something on paper.

Another Forgotten Truth!

Only a few decades ago almost all Christian denominations in the UK would have held to the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath. Sadly only few would claim to teach this vital truth and in some ways our forefathers may not have done us justice. After World War II there was still some remnant of Victorian Christianity in the UK but Sunday was seen as list of what you could not do rather than a joyful day. Maybe this has caused many people to mock and pour scorn on this biblical doctrine, but this is hardly a righteous approach to go around undoing the work of the gospel because one does not rightly understand something or because a truth has been wrongly applied.
So, what is the Christian Sabbath? The fourth of the Ten Commandments states:

Exodus 20:8-11. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

The command is clear but, how does this apply to the Christian Church? The Westminster Shorter Catechism supplies the answer:

Q. 59. Which day of the week has God designated as the Sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world until the resurrection of Christ God established the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. From that time until the end of the world the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath.

Sunday is the Christian Sabbath and it is a gift from God so that we can cease from our normal work with all good conscience and seek first God’s kingdom by worshipping God the whole day and by mediating on God’s covenant mercies. The Bible does not teach a half Lord’s Day and therefore we want to encourage Christian’s to attend church twice on Sundays. It is a day to turn away from normal worldly pleasures like the internet, TV, X factor, Sky sports etc and to nourish our souls spiritually. This is not legalism, this is God’s command and it is for our benefit. We need to be creative as families so that we include the whole family and find exciting things to do for the children so that they are not bored and so that they understand what the day is about. Check out an excellent sermon by Ted Donnelly on the subject http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82409924541

Here are a few reasons that explain the purpose of the Christian Sabbath.

1. Worship; this enables the whole family to worship the Triune God in public and in private.
2. Rest; physical and mental.
3. Obedience; the fourth commandment is partly ceremonial and partly civil that was fulfilled by Christ but there is an aspect of this commandment which is still binding on the consciences of Christians and the Book of Isaiah speaks of ‘calling the Sabbath a delight (Isaiah 58:13-14).
4. Remembrance; we remember weekly on this day that God is our creator and redeemer because this is the day that Christ was raised from the dead.
5. Sanctification; we set our lives apart from normal activity to be sanctified unto the Lord.
6. Spiritual refreshment; a time to let God work on us before we begin the week’s work.
7. An anticipation of heaven; hopefully this day gives us a taste of heaven on earth (Deut. 11:21)

Let us finish this short exhortation by listening to what the ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ has to say on this matter:

Isa 58:13 "If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words,
14 Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD; And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth, And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of the LORD has spoken.

One is Your Teacher, the Christ

Matthew 23:8-12: "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Here Jesus reminds us that ultimately we have only one ultimate, infallible teacher that is Christ himself. This does not mean that we do not need earthly instructors because Paul writes in Ephesians chapter 4 and explains that the main gift for the church’s edification today, are the gifts of pastor-teachers. However we must always keep things in perspective.

Recently I have encountered some teachings by men whom I respect who appear to have missed the plot theologically on some important points. Do I abandon everything they teach? Not necessarily but we need to continually exercise discernment of teaching and also to critically evaluate our own teachings. Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica and asked them to do just this:

1Th 5:19-21: Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.

The prophetic utterances I take to mean biblical exposition that Timothy was engaged in especially as Paul had left him behind (See Acts chapter 17 and note Paul’s method when he was at the church in Thessalonica). We are to ‘examine everything’!

This does not mean that we are to develop a critical spirit but we are to critically examine the content of all teaching and compare it with the ‘whole counsel of God as revealed in the 66 books of the Bible. The Westminster Confession states in Chapter 1:9, ‘Of the Holy Scripture’:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Where do we hear the voice of Christ? It is in the reading of or the hearing of the preaching of the Scriptures.

When was the Last Time you Sang a Psalm in Public Worship?

This is not a trick question. It is a very real biblical concern that relates to the public and private worship of God. Paul writes to the church at Ephesus and instructs them:

Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father (5:18b-20).
Clearly the important thing to bear in mind is that our worship comes to God through the name of the only mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). But what about the content of the songs we sing?
There has been much discussion as to the difference between ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ in this passage but there has not been discussion as to whether this includes the singing of literal psalms. So what has happened to the singing of psalms? Maybe some think it is old fashioned, or maybe people consider that psalms are not available in modern English or perhaps some believe that modern song writers are better able to explain the cross, the Trinity or our contemporary situation. While it is true that the Wesley brothers wrote some great hymns like ‘And Can it Be’, this does not appear to be the main concern of the apostle Paul.
The Westminster Assembly and Westminster Confession clarified the matter regarding ‘Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day’; they conclude:

The reading of Scriptures with godly fear; the sound conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart: as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ: are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God.
The literal singing of psalms was the conclusion of the Westminster divines and this practice needs to be recovered in our day. Some may ask ‘does this subject really matter to the church?’ Here are a number of reasons why the singing of Psalms (meaning the 150 Psalms as recorded in the Bible) is crucial:

• Paul commands this in Ephesians 5:19 and Col. 3:16, therefore it is a test of our obedience to the authority of Scripture.
• By singing psalms in modern English to modern tunes (For example I sang a version of Psalm 51 recently to the tune from ‘Rock of Ages’ and also I sang Psalm 136 to the tune from ‘When peace like a river’.) we are singing with pure words, without any human tainting of false doctrine.
• The psalms express the whole range of human emotions. Most hymns or contemporary songs tend to focus on the jubilation or celebratory aspect of praise. This may not be most pastorally helpful.
• Singing Psalms like Psalm 10, 13, 16, 142 etc help the church to see that it is possible to bring praise to God in the deepest trials that we face.

This is enough for now, but I suggest that you think through for yourself why it is important to recover the singing of psalms as part of our worship in our congregational singing. We must not forget that the high point of worship in reformed circles is the sermon and not just singing. How do we respond to this short challenge that I have written? For now, let us turn our face to God in prayer and ask Him to lead the way in this crucial matter, to show us how we can work towards recovering what has in most circles been sadly lost.

Where is the Seat of Church Authority (Matthew 18:15-20)?

One of the consequences of the Separatist movement that somewhat polarised positions was the evolutionary development of idea as to the exact seat of church authority. During this pursuit of a pure church two ideals or admonitions emerged: some Anglicans and Presbyterians understood that for practical purposes, that authority rested with the ministers and elders; whereas many of the Independents and Separatists favoured the view that this was to reside within the congregation.[1] It must be recognised though, that during this time of flux that there was much variance in the Puritan ideals, and hard and fast boundaries do not always work well in assessing this time period. However, many of its leaders did struggle with the question of church authority and it is perhaps helpful to understand in some measure how these two positions developed.

From the outset, any church that looked to Calvin and Geneva as its theological fountainhead invariably included church discipline as a non-negotiable ingredient for a truly Reformed church. In 1539, during a time of temporary exile in Strasbourg, the pastor from the church, Calvin, clearly defended the Reformed doctrine of the church in a letter to Cardinal Sadolet. He writes that ‘there are three things on which the safety of the church is founded, namely, doctrine, discipline and the sacraments’[2] and also that ‘the body of the church, to cohere well, must be bound together by discipline as with sinews’.[3] This concern for a well-ordered church highlights discipline as an important strand of Calvinistic ecclesiology.

The majority of the Puritan movement, and especially the Separatists up until 1608 at least, were ‘convinced Calvinists’[4] according to White, and besides which, the application of outward discipline would most likely have been more pressing with the use of church covenants to bind believers together. How else could the ideal of a pure church be realised and maintained other than through rigorous discipline? Presbyterians who advocated a different pattern for Anglican government while remaining within the church, White clarifies that in the ‘1570–80s they looked to Calvinistic Geneva as the ideal church’ and they were seeking ‘the one apostolic pattern revealed in Scripture, the Presbyterian pattern’.[5] This discloses a recurring issue that has remained to our day concerning the reformation of church polity and practice. Whether or not there is a single NT pattern and blueprint to be copied has remained a topic for much debate and this matter cannot be side-stepped concerning any vision that may pursue a connection between the Trinity and the church.

The classicus locus for the subject was Matthew 18:15–20 and the precise meaning of the phrase ‘tell it to the church’ (18:17) was hotly contested. Did this mean ‘tell the elders’ or ‘tell the congregation’? White has probably irreversibly established that there was a developed Separatist tradition and he devotes almost one whole chapter to these matters concerning Matthew 18:17. In an analysis of the apparent changing views of the English Separatist pastor in Amsterdam, Francis Johnson (1562–1618), White discerns: ‘In the interpretation of the key text, Matthew 18:17, “tell the church” he [Johnson] now understood “the church” to be “the elders”, and not, as the English Separatists had all held until then, “the whole congregation”.’[6]

The way this passage was expounded, often impacted what was a delicate balancing act between the spiritual authority of the elders and the congregation. This was frequently a reaction to the clerical control of parishes where members had little input in church governance. Church discipline may have been the starting point for discussion but this led to other matters relating to the locus of authority for the calling of ministers and congregational decision making. White maintains that a vital principle throughout Separatism (at least up until the end of Smyth’s ministry) was the conviction that Anglican ministry in its entirety was to be rejected as impure and apostate. Certainly any persistent participation in private fellowship with individual members of parish congregations and the listening to the preaching of even godly parish ministers would have led to excommunication.[7]

The shifting of church authority from the hands of the ordained ministers, into the midst of the gathered believers, led to an irreversible distancing from the Church of England. This left no room for the Episcopal authority of Bishops while simultaneously rejecting Calvin’s Presbyterianism. Perhaps this issue of authority also opened the door for many other unexpected wholesale changes that emerged, such as the validity of Anglican Baptism and Calvinistic soteriology.[8] Hopefully this sketch of the background to the times in which Smyth ministered is helpful, prior to our more detailed investigation of his theology. Crucial ecclesial issues have already arisen so far and these can be summarised with three questions: Is it valid to pursue a single all controlling blueprint for the reformation of the churches? Did a Separatist tendency towards ‘always progressing’, pave the way for unbridled fluidity in all aspects of ecclesiology? Where is the final seat of church authority?

[1] The historical context of English church reform during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century is a much discussed topic. Here are some references that are helpful to give some preliminary insights: Meic Pearse, The Great Restoration, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998; Nick Lunn, ‘Laurence Chadderton―Puritan, Scholar, and Bible Translator’, Banner Magazine, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008, 537; J. I. Packer, Among God’s Giants, Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1991, repr 2000; Basil Hall, ‘Puritanism: The Problem of Definition’ in Studies in Church History, Vol. 2, ed. G. J. Cunning. Nashville: Nelson, 1965; Francis J. Bremer, The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1976; Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, Wotton-Under-Edge: Clarendon Press, 1967, repr. 1990, 86.

[2] John Calvin, ‘Reply by John Calvin to the Letter by Cardinal Sadolet to the Senate and the People of Geneva’ in Calvin’s Tracts Relating to the Reformation, Vol. 1, Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1844, 38. Hereafter called Calvin’s Tracts.

[3] Calvin, Calvin’s Tracts, 55.

[4] B. R. White, The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century, Didcot: Baptist Historical Society, 1996, 18.

[5] White, The Development of the Doctrine of the Church Among the English Separatists, i–iii.

[6] White, The English Separatist Tradition, 142.

[7] Ibid., 158.

[8] Lee, ‘Chapter 1: Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Background’ in The Theology of John Smyth. This offers some helpful background of the historical context of John Smyth. This book also maps Smyth’s theological changes concerning baptism and soteriology that ran parallel to Smyth’s changing views on authority.

The Lost Art of Catechising

Whatever happened to the use of catechisms in the land of England and among English Christians? Before we go a little further I had better explain what a Catechism is.

Pr 22:6 ¶ Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.

Some Bibles have a cross reference to the word 'train' which suggests a meaning of 'to catechise'; this verse refers to the training up of children. So, what does catechise mean?


1.To instruct by asking questions, receiving answers, and offering explanations and corrections, - esp. in regard to points of religious faith.

2.To question or interrogate; to examine or try by questions; - sometimes with a view to reproof, by eliciting from a person answers which condemn his own conduct.

The philosophy of this method is crucial to dynamic discipleship in the church. In many areas Maria and I feel that we have been robbed of truth as many things have been simply withheld or not told us by Christian leaders over the years. Catechising is one such area. How does this work practically?

We as a family aim to have our evening meal together around the table at 6.00pm or there abouts and I give thanks for the meal (1 Timothy 4:4-6) and then after the meal we each get out our Bibles (including the children) and and we read out loud one question from the Westminster Larger Catechism and some of the Bible verses that are referenced to it. The children are involved in the discussion around the particular question and it greatly sharpens up Maria and I as well. At the end of the conversation we ask for prayer requests and we close by all praying. This means that family worship is established, the children are instructed and this forms an excellent corporate 'quiet time'.

It would greatly benefit churches also if they based their instruction of children and the youth on the Larger and Shorter (Shorter is generally for children) Westminster Catechisms. Especially if they had Sunday School before the main morning service service for instruction for the adults and children in seperate classes; this should then be followed by the whole family worshipping together for the whole service. This includes the children staying in for the preaching...preaching is the high point of worship and children should not be deprived from hearing preaching. Why? Romans 10:17, 'Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God'. How can the faith of children grow if they never hear preaching.

May the lost art of catechising be recovered in the church of God!

Wisdom From Martin Luther

One of the watchword phrases of the early Reformation was the statement of Martin Luther when he disputed with the Roman Catholics as to the source of his authority. Luther declared:

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen".

The question is; could we say the same thing today? It seems like there is a very subtle attempt to usurp the authority of the Bible where people place alongside biblical revelation, their own impressions, opinions, dreams, visions etc. All subjective 'words' have no place in the church.

God promises that it is in His Word that we will hear Him speaking, indeed God has spoken. Listen to the book of Hebrews chapter 1 verse 1-2:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.

God is no longer speaking the way he did in days of old, because he has revealed his gospel and it is found in Holy Scripture, and Scripture alone. This is not bondgage or the dead letter but it is God's will and we must submit to this or else be found rebelling against the very person we profess to love (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The public worship of God should be saturated with the Word of God (found in the Bible) and nothing else. We should be devoted to the pure preaching of Scripture, the reading of Scripture, singing based on Scripture alone, including literal psalm singing. God's Word should be our delight (Psalm 119). We should shun the use of unscripural content in our public worship and freely reject the wild enthusiasms of some, who claim to speak for God, but use their own words in man made prophesies. Let us return, let us return to the Word of God and may there be a fresh exodus from what Luther called the Babylonian captivity of the church.

Listen to Isaiah 8: 20

To the teaching and to the testimony. If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.