6 Discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants

Andy Naselli —  May 1, 2013 — 5 Comments

Herbert W. Bateman IV, Charts on the Book of Hebrews (Kregel Charts of the Bible; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 126:

discontinuities

(This is from a helpful book of charts. It’s endorsed by George Guthrie, David Alan Black, Jon Laansma, Sam Lamerson, and David Allen.)

 

5 responses to 6 Discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants

  1. I like this. I’m assuming then he takes each one and traces the logical implications?

  2. Nick Fitzkee May 2, 2013 at 7:11 am

    Can you explain #4 vis a vis covenant theology? I’m no theologian, but it was my understanding that the new covenants don’t necessarily “abolish” the old ones, but they do reveal a fuller and more accurate picture of what the old covenants actually mean. Thanks.

    • There’s a lot of debate about this. (It’s hard to convey concisely in a chart!) I’m guessing that you mean “new covenant” (singular) and not “new covenants” (plural).

      On the “abolish” language, for starters I’d recommend (1) Don Carson’s comments on Matt 5:17–20 in his Matthew commentary and (2) Doug Moo’s essay on the law in this debate-book.

      • Charlie King May 2, 2013 at 8:41 am

        Mr. Naselli is right there is much debate about New Covenant vs Re-newed Covenant. In my studies (which are on going…I am not an expert..so please just take this information as a humble comment and not authoritative.) I am finding that this is one of the distinctions between a Presbyterian Covenant believer and a Reformed Baptist Covenant believer. Pres believing (for the most part) in a renewed covenant and RB believing in an actual New Covenant. Pedo vs Credo baptism stemming from this very line of thought.

Leave a Reply

*

Text formatting is available via select HTML.

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>