I found this post by Aaron Brake at Apologetics Junkie.
Excerpt:
Perhaps no area of the Old Testament is more foreign and confusing to modern-day Christians than the Mosaic Law. When reading through the Pentateuch, many believers breeze through the narrative of Genesis only to hit a roadblock when confronted with the overwhelming number of commandments, statutes, and ordinances in the last half of Exodus (not to mention the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).
Yes, this is why you have to be careful when telling people to read the Bible, because not all parts of the Bible are good for new Christians! Not only are some parts pretty difficult to read, but the new reader has no framework to interpret what they are reading! I had a non-Christian guy in my office who was starting to read the Bible and he got bogged down in the Old Testament and had no idea whether these laws applied today. It’s a major problem, which is why I recommend everybody start with John instead, then maybe Luke and Acts.
There are two ways of solving this problem that are pretty popular. One way is the covenant model and the other is the dispensation model. I think that Aaron is presenting the covenant model. In the covenant model, the Old Testament laws were part of a covenant made between God and the people of Israel.
Aaron writes:
The Law in ancient Israel served three distinct purposes: relational, instructional, and structural. The Law was given to Israel in order to form a covenant or relational agreement between Yahweh and His people… the Law functioned as a constitution which provided internal structure for the nation as a whole. It provided objective standards by which the Israelites could maintain appropriate boundaries with one another as well as neighboring nations.
Jesus formed a new covenant with a new group of people who believed in his identity as the Messiah and that his death was an atonement for sin. So only the parts of the old covenant that are explicitly carried over to the new covenant still apply to our conduct as Christians.
Aaron writes:
Therefore, the primary interpretive question readers should approach the text with is this: “What does this passage tell us about God and His holiness, about Israel and her sin, and about how Israel needed to obey in order to maintain her covenant relationship with God?” Also ask, “What specific areas of life does God expect holiness and transformation within His people?”
I recommend reading the whole post. I think this is something that should be communicated to people who are coming at the Bible from a non-Christian perspective. Maybe we should have some scholars created an optimal ordering of the books of the Bible so as not to scare people away?
Note: I haven’t really looked into this problem in detail, but the covenant model makes more sense to me.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“the covenant model makes more sense to me.” More sense than what?
LikeLike
The dispensational model.
LikeLike
Thanks WK, I should have figured that out.
Another way of looking at it is the moral law continues, but the ceremonial/theocratic laws cease. The Seventh of the 39 Anglican articles puts it this way:
“VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.
Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.”
LikeLike
I have never had the opportunity to respond to this problem with a non-Christian perusing the Bible for the first time (Only nominal Christians, former so-so Christians and CINOs). I think the best response is to simply have them put aside their questions until they’ve read the whole Bible. Give it at least one cover-to-cover before confronting such issues, keeping in mind that there is a theme that runs throughout the entire Book, even though it is comprised of many books.
LikeLike
I might go even further to recommend that they start in the NT, finish that, then read the OT. Especially if they are using a study bible, which I recommend for non/new Christians, they will have been exposed to a lot of the important OT concepts by the time they get around to it.
LikeLike
Good post Wintery, thanks.
Now you just need to do a post or two on God commanding the israelites to commit ‘genocide’ and i’ll be very happy! ;)
LikeLike
Briefly, MB, here’s how I would tackle it.
1. God is Creator, Lord, and Judge, the Giver of Life. The Giver of Life is uniquely entitled to be the taker of life. Embodying perfect justice and wisdom, he is also uniquely qualified to do so.
2. The nations that God commanded the Israelites to destroy were not innocent; they were not just ripe for judgment, they were over-ripe. In fact, the Israelites had to over-endure oppression in Egypt while the nations slated for judgment over-riped.
3. The Bible is a story of redemption. God chose to redeem the world through an obscure insignificant tribe. There were life-and-death threats to that tribe. Life was dangerous, brutal, and bloody. When God commanded Israel to wipe out its enemies, it served to protect Israel from risk of annihilation so that the redemption story could proceed to its successful climax with the redemptive work of Christ — without whom all mankind would have perished.
We all should be grateful to God that he acted as he did in punishing the wicked and preserving Israel so that the Righteous One could one day walk among us.
* * *
Genocide is more of a western concept. It is wrong for nations to take it upon themselves to wipe out other nations; it is never wrong for God to do so. In the case of the redemption story, Israel was at times his instrument.
With the coming of the New Covenant, there is now no such warrant for nations to take upon themselves the judgment that belongs to God.
LikeLike
So much of the challenge and difficulty of this is really having a solid understanding not only of the rights and forms commanded, but also their indicated purpose (which is sometimes and frustratingly implicit, not explicit). A good rule of thumb:
If it is a command tied to God’s character and essential nature, it does not ever expire. Look at how God begins the 10 Commandments, (Exodus 20:2 ESV):
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”
If it is tied to the sacrificial system, then Jesus is the complete and total fulfillment of that law. “I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” Amen.
If it has to do with civil relationships, then I think we need to carefully consider the content and intent of the original setting and purpose… we need to apply careful exegesis and heurmanuetical work to find the principles and concepts that apply that purpose to our setting.
Graeme Goldsworthy’s book, “According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible” is an excellent and very readable introduction to biblical theology. That is to say, it traces out how certain themes run from front to back in the bible, including the law. I read this in an afternoon, so I think it’s easily suggestable to a new believer or even a non-believer.
LikeLike
Thanks for the book suggestion, James. As I said in my comment above, I see the Bible as having an overarching theme and Goldsworthy’s book may give me a better way of articulating that in discussions I often have at my blog.
LikeLike