Tablets of stone - 24 May 2010 |
|
Here are the questions for session 26 of the Guided Reading Course, covering O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, chs 6-10.
1. “From the very outset, God intends by the covenant of redemption to realise for man those blessings originally defaulted under the covenant of redemption” (p. 91). What evidence does Robertson adduce in this chapter to support this conclusion? Why is this claim important?
2. Who, according to Robertson, is Satan’s “seed” (p. 98)? What biblical data does Robertson adduce to support his conclusion (pp. 99-103)? Can you think of any other relevant biblical texts?
3. What light does Genesis 3:15 shed on “the cherem-warfare of Joshua’s day”? (p. 102; cf. pp. 93-101)
4. What six characteristics of the covenant with Noah does Robertson identify (pp. 110-125)?
5. How does Robertson defend his contention that the Noahic covenant is a “bond-in-blood” (p. 124)? What implications might follow if he is mistaken at this point (recall our previous discussion of Robertson’s definition of a covenant; session 25, questions 1-3)?
6. What does Jeremiah 34 tell us about the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the events of Jeremiah’s day (pp. 131-137)?
7. How is the imagery of “birds of the air / heavens” employed in Mark 4:32 (cf. Ezek 17:23; 31:6, 13)? What light does this shed on the discussion on p. 135-137?
8. How are “death” and “covenant” related (p. 139)? How does this illuminate Hebrews 9:15-20 (pp. 139-141, 144)?
9. “This absolute openness to the incorporation of Gentiles into the community of Israel has far-reaching significance affecting the interpretation of massive portions of Old and New Testaments” (p. 154). Why?
10. “The circumcision symbol of the old covenant has no value whatsoever unless it be joined with the true righteousness which it represents … The symbol of circumcision under the old covenant is not the thing which makes a man acceptable to God. Only the true circumcision of the heart by the Spirit accomplishes the cleansing which is sufficient to make a man acceptable to God” (pp. 160-161). Does this make you a little uneasy? If so, why?
11. According to Robertson, what bearing do the ancient Hittite treaties have on the dating of Deuteronomy (pp. 168-169)? What do you think of this argument?
12. “Whatever concept of law may be advanced [concerning the Mosaic era], it must at all times remain subservient to the broader concept of covenant” (p. 171). What does this mean? Do you agree? Why does it matter?
13. Robertson believes that Dt 9:9, 11 emphasize “the externalized character of the Mosaic law-administration,” whose “stone-engraven character” can be described as “stark” and “cold” (p. 173). Do you agree? Why or why not?
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Guided Reading Course, Minister's Blog