I’d recommend this interesting essay to readers. It was published by the Christian Research Institute.
The essay has some deficiencies, in that there are other important differences (and nuances within the differences noted). For example, the OT law was also something extended to non-Israelites (i.e., God expected the elohim allotted to the nations (Deut 32:8-9, reading with the Dead Sea Scrolls, as in the case of ESV) to rule those nations justly–in accord with Yahweh’s good law. That’s but one example of how the societal and moral goodness of the law was intended to make life better for the Gentile. But of course this didn’t happen, and the gods of the nations are condemned for it in Psalm 82. Additionally, as I’ve discussed on several episodes of the podcast, chaos in any nation, Israel or otherwise, was linked to abandonment of God’s justice and moral law. Following the law (even if only “written on the heart” in the case of Gentiles) was a moral and social benefit intended by God (not an “imposition” — the article’s word for how sharia law was to extend to outsiders — and so I’d quibble with that paragraph a bit). I’d also reword the footnote about how there are OT passages where God hates sinners. God doesn’t hate the non-Israelite for being a non-Israelite. That cannot be the case given the original covenant blessing was *designed* to extend to Gentiles (Gen 12:3). Rather, the non-Israelite (and the Israelite — see the current Naked Bible podcast series on Ezekiel!) becomes detestable when they practice wickedness, or their lives are characterized by something God deems detestable. I don’t think that distinction was articulated well here.
You get the idea, and I won’t drone on about things that could be added or tweaked. The essay is a good starting point for this topic.