Herbert W. Bateman IV, Charts on the Book of Hebrews (Kregel Charts of the Bible; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 126:
(This is from a helpful book of charts. It’s endorsed by George Guthrie, David Alan Black, Jon Laansma, Sam Lamerson, and David Allen.)
I like this. I’m assuming then he takes each one and traces the logical implications?
The book includes endnotes that comment on the charts, but they’re not very lengthy. They mostly point to other resources.
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.
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.