Tue 23 Sep 2008
Reserve Reading #3 – The Law
Posted by S.G.R. Webster under An Introduction to the Old Testament
[36] Comments
-
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- Tuesday, Sep 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
- Category :
- An Introduction to the Old Testament
- Tags :
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-
(pg 169) How were people “saved” in the Old Testament, was it by the LAw because it says it was a gift to set the people apart?
When i have read the law in the past some of the laws look like they are rules just for the sake of rules, but it is interesting how the book explanes that the laws were written to protect the isrealites from certain things, help them live together, and teach them how to worship him.
On page 165 it syas that Christians nowadays are not expected to express their loyalty to God by keeping the OT promises. It then says on 167 that loyalty itself is still expected, but how we are to show it has been changed. So how are we to show OT loyalty in todays culture?
under the Caustic Law heading it quotes the passage from Deuteronomy and discusses application and moral but it doesn’t mention any symbolism. Was the piercing of the ear lobe on the DOOR-POST significant?
On page 169 it says that “nowhere in the Old Testament is it suggested that anyone was saved by the Law”, however in the Bible there is a man who was stoned because he worked on the sabbath, so wouldn’t by keeping the Law they be saved from punishment? Or is the salvation they are talking about a spiritual salvation?
If the law was never a “means of salvation”, then why does the Bible say over and over that Jesus set us free from the law and that now we are no longer obligated to follow it? (pg 170)
I liked the section about “Unusual Prohibitions” on pages 178-179. Before reading this, I wondered why God prohibited things like mixing two kinds of seed, and it was interesting to see the purposes of these commands.
So, the animal sacrifices and keeping the law were more of an outward symbol of an inward change rather than steps to salvation? Like, Jesus sacrifice was eternal, for all before and all after, so the keeping of the law was for them kinda like living for Jesus is for us today? Am I getting this right?
I was confused by the concept of God’s use of the suzerian treaty method mentioned on page 166. Did He use this because the Israelites were already familiar with them or was He just using a practical method already in use? If the latter is true , was God borrowing from human ingenuity?
(Pg. 169)Talks about how God gave the Israelite people a law to separate them from their pagan neighbors. Why would God do this? I was thinking about this whole thing and the via maris concept came to my mind. How could the Israelite people have an impact on their neighbors if God was just protecting them and keeping them away from everyone else? Where would be there via maris?
On page 168 it talks about how part of the old covenant is renewed in the new covenant therefore giving it purpose in our lives. other than the obvious examples like the ten commanments, what are some examples of these laws that have been renewed?
If Old Testament people weren’t saved by the law, how were they saved? pg.169
On p. 170 it talks about how the law stands as a model and it’s not just a list of things to do to please God or a list of “do’s” and “don’ts,” and it presents examples of what it means to be loyal to God. This really stuck out to me and helped me apply this to the New Testament. The N.T. applies to us and is our “law.” so many times we see it as God giving us “do’s” and “don’ts” and focus on what we’re “supposed to do.” when in reality it is so much more than that. just as God loved His ppl and gave them laws, He has given us laws on how we as God’s ppl should live and walk w/ Him.
There’s something on page 170 that really has me distraught. I have often heard many pastors preach on the significance of OT law and how it was created for us to point out our sins and that we couldn’t keep it no matter how hard we tried; it was to put Jesus’ new law into perspective. On page 170, it clearly states that the law was broken NOT because the Israelites couldn’t keep it, but because they CHOSE to disobey it. If this is true, then is it really possible that maybe a few people could have been considered “perfect”?
On page 170 it says, “Israel’s problem in the Old Testament was not with their inability to keep the Law; it was with their choosing not to do so.” Later, however, on page 172, it says that if one were to set out to keep the spirit of the Old Testament law, he would surely fail eventually and that no human can consistently please God in light of such high standards. Was Israel choosing not to obey the law or were they unable to keep it?
They talked about how we didn’t have to obey the Law anymore, but only the parts that had been renewed. But when was this renewal? It seems like they were implying it was when Jesus died on the cross. I don’t know, that doesn’t seem to be as straight forward as the covenant making at Mt Sinai and it also seems to be a bit presumptuous of them, where did they get this idea, it doesn’t seem Biblically based at all.
-page 167 (sorry)
(p. 165) There is a New Testament Law now, since God sent his son Jesus Christ, God knew that we could never measure up under the olt Testament Law; it was there to show us we needed a Savior.
When it talks about the laws about the shedding of blood, what was the meaning of putting some of the blood on the altars horns and pouring it at the base of the altar? (178)
okay this might be a little bit off the point, but it’s something I’ve wondered a lot. pretty much all well-established civilizations have laws similar to those that God gave Israel (like don’t steal and murder, not necessarily how to ritually sacrifice an ox) but a lot of those countries weren’t founded by people that believed in christianity, like many asian and middle eastern countries. how/why do they believe that the same things are morally wrong as what God said is wrong but not believe it’s from God? how do they justify their beliefs without attributing the final judgement to a higher power?
On page 170, about the third paragraph down, the book talks about how the law can show us what God was like. how do we know this?
does that make sense? haha
on page 177 it talks about all the laws that were technically way ahead of any other culture which is how God set them apart as His people. So in this culture with God’s new laws for us shouldn’t we as Christians instead of walking on the middle line between the secular and godly world be totally set apart like God had intended us too
If the law was not designed to provide eternal life then how did they achieve it? What is all the talk of Abraham’s bussoom as a place where the saved were to go to wait? pg 177
pg 167. They say that the O.T. is not our Testament or covenant. Is it fair to say the the N.T. is our COVENANT? I’m confused because in the O.T. God made a covenant directly to the Israelites. Making a 1 to 1 covenant. The N.T. definately applies to us, but because it’s not 1 to 1 (God to us) but rather Paul to churchs or Jesus to discples etc., how is the N.T. our COVENANT directly with God?… I think that’s what I’m trying to ask
In the Old Testament were people not saved at all? What happened to the people in the time of the O.T.? (Pg. 169)
I thought it was interesting on pg 177 how the food laws were not made as a restriction, but as a protection and even a blessing. I hear most people talk about the “ridiculous” and “unnecessary” laws of the OT, but this has definitely shown me that God, who is often portrayed by men as wrath-filled in the OT, has total love and compassion for a people who continuously turn their backs on Him.
How can a reliabe guide hve a general application?
sorry it was on pg.171
On pg. 168 it talks about part of the old covenant is renewed in the new covenant. Why are there still laws we have to follow if the law was fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross?
What benefit did the Akkandians for example get from following the law? (pg 175) Israelites got compassion and the Lord. (pg 178) did they feel no guilt or shame, and totally disregard what they did if they did not follow their law (since many of the people got off scott free and just had to pay money or do something to a woman)?
why is it harder for christians to apply the commandments when we know it’s the right thing to do? pg. 165
On page 173-174 concerning slavery,it seems that the argument used to support biblical interpretation of God’s views on slavery is similar to the
arguments used to support slavery in American history. “The slaves were acutally better off being in bondage than being free. On their own, they could die of starvation or exposure.” From today’s view that seems off. Does God allow us to own slaves?
I have been wondering for several weeks now, what are the “horns of the altar?”(pg 178)
Wow!I’m late! Anyway, my question is, Israel obviously was a sinful nation before the Law, but were they outside the covenant before the Law was enacted because the fulfilment did not come until Jesus came and took away their (and our) sins.
why do people say that reading is a lost art. i mean i know our culture is very teck savy, but that doesnt mean we have lost it. i know many people as well as myself like to read something instead of watch it on tv or somethig.
Pg.97