The First Testament

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     It was God's original intent when he called Abram, to make of his seed a great nation. To accomplish His purpose he allowed the descendants of Abram to be cradled and conditioned in the most advanced culture of that day. In Egypt they were confined in slave status until the seventy souls who went down to that country with Jacob had multiplied in number until they probably exceeded two million. When the proper time came, they were freed from bondage and started on the way to the land which was to be peculiarly theirs, according to promise.

     God reveals himself in a manner adapted to the state of things existing when the revelation is given. Since the cardinal purpose was to make a nation which would keep alive the idea of the existence of the one true God, it was necessary to impress upon all nations the significance of His selection of Israel as a nation separate and apart from others. At that time when "every nation made gods of its own" (Cp. 2 Kings 17:29), the feeling was universal that the power of a god could be determined by the state of the people over whose fate he was alleged to preside, and by works of wonder performed in their behalf. If a nation prospered materially, was strong in battle, and triumphed over others, it was conceded that the god of such a nation was a powerful deity.

     To gain a proper degree of respect and reverence for Himself and the chosen people, God accepted this criterion, and proceeded to demonstrate His superiority. Since His people were slaves in Egypt, the first manifestation of power was against that nation and its gods. Selecting as an ambassador one who had been reared and educated in the king's palace, but who had become a political exile under charge of homicide, He sent him to the royal court with a positive ultimatum to let His people go. When the haughty monarch denied any knowledge of the God of Israel it became necessary to show His divinity. Now any proof of divine power to be effective to mankind, must be supernatural, and capable of being fully perceived and apprehended by the senses.

     Ten different demonstrations were manifested in Egypt. The first three were simply to prove that Jehovah was the Lord. "And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth my hand upon Egypt" (Exo. 7:5). The next three were to demonstrate that he was also God in Egypt and the deities of that land were impotent before Him. To this end He drew a line of demarcation between Goshen, the province where Israel dwelt, and the rest of Egypt. Goshen was unaffected by the succeeding disasters which paralyzed the remainder of the country. "But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where my people dwell, so that no swarms of flies shall be there; that you may know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth.

[Page 2]

Thus I will put a division between my people and your people. By tomorrow shall this sign be" (Exo. 8:22, 23).

     The third series of three catastrophic events went one step more. They proved that there was none like Him in all the earth. "For this time I will send all my plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants and your people, that you may know there is none like me in all the earth. For by now I could have put forth my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth; but for this purpose have I let you live, to show you my power, so that my name may be declared throughout all the earth" (Exo. 9:14-16).

     The final blow was destined to prove at the very birth of the nation, that this God was a master of all gods. He proposed to deliver these bond slaves without revolt, clash of arms, or loss of a single life among them. At this time Egypt was the mightiest nation on earth. The Pharaoh was feared above every other earthly monarch. On the night appointed, the slaves demanded of their masters jewelry of silver and gold. At midnight the death angel passed through the land with terrible execution, and smote all of the first-born, "from the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of cattle" (Exo. 12:29). Yet "against any of the people of Israel, either man or beast, not a dog growled" (11:7). There was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead. The agonized Pharaoh did not wait until morning. He summoned Moses and Aaron by night, and said, "Rise up, go forth from among my people, both you and the people of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as you have said. Take your flocks and your herds, as you have said, and be gone, and bless me also."

     When the full realization of what he had done dawned on Pharaoh, he changed his mind, and decided to pursue the Israelites and return them to bondage. The Israelites trembled when they saw the approaching Egyptians, but Moses said, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still." Lifting his rod over the waters of the Red Sea, he caused them to part by the power of God. The people of Israel marched through on dry ground, and the Egyptian cavalry attempting to follow were all drowned.

     So mighty was this feat that many years later Moses asked, "Has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, and by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him" (Deut. 4:34, 35). The expression "take a nation for himself" is a key one in any study of the relationship of God to Israel. In fulfilling His design God showed His superiority to the gods of the most prosperous and flourishing nation of the day.

     The people unanimously agreed, saying, "All that the Lord has spoken will we do." Moses reported their decision to God, who then informed him he would personally address the people on the third day in a manner they could not forget. As a preliminary for the occasion, the mountain was to be regarded as sacred, with a boundary line drawn, across which the people were not to set foot. The death sentence was decreed for any man or beast crossing the line. During the three days the people were to wash their garments and abstain from all sexual commerce. The blast of a heavenly trumpet would signal the beginning of the public announcement of the covenant.

     On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings, a thick cloud upon the mountain, and a very loud blast upon the trumpet. Sinai was enveloped in smoke, and the entire mountain shook and trembled. The startled people were brought forth to stand gazing at the awesome spectacle and wondering what the future held for them. Moses spoke, and God answered in the rumbling of thunder. "So terrifying was the sight that Moses said, 'I tremble with fear'" (Heb. 12:21). He never forgot the inauguration ceremony for the covenant, and shortly before his death addressed the people as follows, "For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether such a great thing as this has ever happened or ever was heard of. Did any people ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of fire, and still live?...Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire" (Deut. 4:32, 33, 36).

     In view of this, we humbly submit that any understanding of the new covenant must be approached through a proper concept of the old. If the second is not

[Page 4]

like the first, a correct survey of the first will prepare for a rational investigation of the second. What was the nature of the old covenant? Why was it given? What did it embrace? What were its bounds and limitations? A proper evaluation of these matters will make it possible for us to place the Jacob's staff of our spiritual survey at the exact spot from which to look at the better covenant based upon better promises. Because this has generally been ignored, the world is filled with religious teachers talking about the old and new testaments, "who know not what they speak or whereof they affirm."

     At the very outset, let us remember that nowhere in all of the sacred writings does God ever suggest that all of the holy scriptures from Moses to Malachi constitute the "old testament." No inspired writer ever hinted that the old testament contained thirty-nine books. Some of these recount the history and chronicles of a covenant people, some are the literature and song books of the covenant people, some the prophetic warnings and promises to the covenant people. But the history of such a covenant people is no more a part of their constitution than a book on American history is part of the Constitution of the United States. Such a history may refer to our constitution, detail our departures from its principles, and urge our return to its original spirit, but it is not "the Constitution" or national covenant.

     A nation is a social unit created when a number of clans or tribes associate themselves together for mutual progress and protection. In the very nature of things, the first requirement is a compact, or agreement. Such an agreement is called a covenant, or constitution. When God calls a nation out for himself, it is evident that such a nation must constitute a theocracy. Being such, and not a democracy, God must announce the terms of the relationship involved. As soon, therefore, as God separated his people from the enslaving power, he led them to a mountain of sufficient height, about which they could congregate, and from which he could address them as from a divine rostrum. He first proclaimed the testament orally, then wrote its provisions on two tables of stone with his own hand, these in turn being deposited by angels with his chosen ambassador acting as mediator.

     The preamble of the constitution was a proclamation of what God had done for them. God never enjoins a covenant upon the human family except upon the basis of prior deeds in their behalf. In this instance, the preface would serve for all ages to identify the people involved and the God whom they were to serve. In solemn tones, the words were uttered, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." There followed ten commandments, which, with the preamble, constituted what the inspired writers call "the old covenant" or ' the first testament." Since a nation is a social unit, its people sustain a dual relationship--to God and one another. The ten commands are divided into two classes. The first four pertain to the responsibility to God; the last six to the responsibility to man.

     The second and third statements were directed against treasonable intent. Knowing the tendency of man to worship what he creates, it was forbidden to make any graven image or likeness of any creature in the universe. To bow down before the work of the sculptor or graver, or to give any homage or reverence thereto was also a capital offence. The third command was designed to forbid any lessening of respect or awe for the name of Jehovah. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." To "take the name of God" meant to call upon him to witness to a promise or vow. This was generally done by saying, "As the Lord liveth I will do this or that." To do so in vain, meant to take such an oath in the name of God to perform an act, which the one thus vowing had no intention of performing. "Men indeed swear by a greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation" (Heb. 6:16). Since this was the final appeal for confirmation, reverence for the name of God would soon disappear if he was called upon to sanction a falsehood or empty promise.

     The fourth command stipulated the percentage of time to he accorded the Lawgiver and King. One day in seven was to be assigned to him in honor of two great events. His creative work ended and he rested on the seventh day. On that same day he brought the people out of Egypt. The creation of the earth and the creation of the nation to honor the God of the universe, were to be commemorated by hallowing the seventh day, and the method of consecration was the same which God himself originally employed, absolute cessation from creativity, and rest, or relaxation.

     Carrying forward the patriarchal procedure, the fathers were directly charged with the responsibility of instructing their children. The solemn duty was enjoined immediately following the Shema, the watchword of Israel, for after pronouncing it, Moses said, "And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." Each home was to be a school, upon whose gates and doorposts these things were written.

     This implies that the Torah was simple enough in essence for the fathers to expound, and for the children to understand. It was only when professional teachers arose, and eventually divided into representatives and defenders of various schools of thought, or sects, that the word became obscured by vain janglings. Inasmuch as the parents were ordained as the sacred teachers, it is not surprising that the next command following those relating to the proper attitude toward God, enjoined reverence for them. "Honor thy father and mother." The parent stood in the room of God to the offspring, giving them the Torah as God gave it originally.

     The remainder of the ten commandments constituted the great moral or ethical code intended to set the people apart

[Page 6]

from the degenerate worshipers of other gods. Taken together, they compose "the old testament" or covenant. All other laws, statutes, and judgments, grew out of a relationship to these. While other laws carried a penalty for violation, the national existence was not necessarily impaired or destroyed by disregard for them. But the ten commandments constituted the national covenant, the constitution, and upon this the nation had been formed, and by it would continue to exist. A disregard for the covenant would bring about the dissolution of national sovereignty unless the breach were repaired firmly and decisively.

     The ten commandments and their preamble are "old testament." The books of history, poetry, and prophecy, are not a part of the covenant. They are scriptures, or writings, which grew out of the relationship created by the covenant, but they are not "the first testament" as God employs that term. That which established covenant relationship was one thing, the sacred books written to the covenant people constituted a wholly different thing. Because we have familiarly and unthoughtedly spoken of the thirty-nine books as composing "the old testament," and have subscribed to this popular error as we have to so many other traditional views, it is necessary to reexamine the scriptures related to this matter.

     One may ask what difference it will make. This is the refuge of those who prefer to continue in error than to discover truth. Does it not make a difference whether we have a correct or an incorrect view of what constitutes a covenant of God, seeing that we have already established that God's entire relationship with man has been revealed as being on a covenantal basis? Can any professed preacher of the gospel be respected who ridicules, derides or scoffs at a matter so grave that it strikes at the root of our very approach to the Deity? Is one deserving of reverence as an instructor in holy things who deliberately chooses to ignore truth and continue to teach error? Such may be worthy of those who place the sect above all else, but surely it has no place in the life or thought of truth-loving men and women.

     There is an even more serious and sobering aspect. The covenantal relationship of old was the school of instruction for those who live under the new. If we mistake the nature of the old covenant, its scope and breadth, we can as easily be wrong about the new. I am prepared to prove, if God spares my life, that as a people, we have done this, and in doing so, we have merely substituted one system of legality for another, as the ground of justification, and are again binding a yoke upon men which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. As a result, we have developed a Pharisaical attitude. Conditioning our relationship unto God upon the basis of knowledge of a compilation of sacred writings, and not upon faith in Jesus, we have actually in many cases made the Bible our God. As a result, we are of all men most inconsistent. Every interpretation, exegesis, or opinion produces a new division, sect, or party, because we have made an agreement with men, not a covenant with God, the basis of our hope. When the apostle of liberty wrote about the two covenants, he declared, "To this day when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away." What was true of them with regard to the old covenant has been true with us as regards the new. We have becn looking at the matter through a veil. It is time that the veil be lifted! Only through exaltation of Christ can that be done.

     The lifting of veils is a thankless task. One who thus writes will experience the hatred and animosity of every partisan who prefers to maintain the status quo and who would resent even an angel "troubling the waters." Even now I am feeling personally the brunt of opposition of many whom I love in the Lord, but reverence for truth impels me to speak for I know that "the night is coming." I must give account to the Judge of all the earth if I deliberately condone error and stifle truth. I dare not face Him, if I enter

[Page 7]

into a conspiracy to strike truth down in the streets.

     I am reminded that a short time ago, while discoursing on the difference between the covenant by which we enter into relationship with the Eternal One, and the writings which were necessitated by the failures and errors of the covenant people, a preacher publicly remarked that I relegated the scriptures to a secondary place, yet quoted from them to establish my position relative to the covenant. I realize it will be more difficult for preachers to acknowledge the truth of what we say or write on this topic, than for others to do so. So many sermon outlines will be wrecked, so many scriptural passages will be seen to have been misapplied. It is harder for one who has been the idol of some segment or splinter party to admit error. Having taught the word of God for years, having come to the realization of how many mistakes I have made, having been humbled before God by confession and penitent prayer for forgiveness and greater light, I know the bitterness and gall one tastes before he has the courage to admit, "I have been wrong all my life about this matter or that." They are fortunate whose influence may not have been so widespread, or who were never exalted as party champions. When one is the leader of a great party there will always be more people to hate him, and to count him as a traitor, when he can no longer conscientiously defend the narrow, intolerant party line.

     I can thus sympathize with such a preacher as the one mentioned, even while deploring his lack of understanding. We do not at all relegate the sacred scriptures to an inferior position. Only a spiritually blinded man could so conclude. Every sacred scripture is inspired of God. The prophets, holy men of God, spoke as they were motivated by the Holy Spirit. But they spoke to a covenant people. What they spoke was not the covenant, neither is it now the covenant. The covenant by which man comes into relationship with Deity, and thus into fellowship with all others who are joint partakers of that same relationship is one thing; the scriptures written to such a people a wholly different thing. This is not the first time a man has been accused of overthrowing the law. My defence is the same as another and far greater than myself. "Do we overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Romans 3:31).

     The "old covenant" was contained in the sacred writings; the "new covenant" is revealed in the sacred writings. Certainly we must appeal to the record for any knowledge of what God has said in relationship to the covenants. But a reference to them to discover the nature of our relationship to God, no more concedes that all of these writings are "the covenant" than to argue that a knowledge of family history is essential to becoming a child of your parents. One does not need to read all of the letters written to his family before he can be born. An examination of my "family tree" may reveal the extent of my relationship, but it does not create that relationship.

     Thirty eight years later, in the plains of Moab, Moses rehearsed in the ears of the surviving children of the original covenantees, the things that transpired. "And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven,

[Page 8]

wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone (Deut. 4:11-13).

     More explicit yet is the account in Deuteronomy 5. "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day." Certainly then, the first sixty-nine chapters of the Bible are not a part of "that first covenant" mentioned in Hebrews 8:7, for they deal with the fathers before Sinai. But, just as Moses eliminates the sacred writings dealing with prior history from the covenant, so he also eliminates all future writings from it. He repeats the ten commandments as the covenant, then concludes, "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the deep gloom, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone and gave them to me." Although God "added no more," men have added some thirty-seven books, of history, chronicles, poetry, songs, wise sayings, prophecies and apocalyptic writings to the covenant made at Horeb. When my brethren speak of the "old testament" they include all of these in their concept. Worst of all, they carry that same concept over to the new covenant, and make our very relationship to God and each other dependent upon their idea, and even upon their interpretations and speculations about the meaning of certain portions of the sacred writings, denying that any one can be in covenant with God who disagrees with them in any particular.

     A consideration of the following points will help us to realize that "the first testament" did not include all of the scriptures now called "old testament."

1. The two tables of stone, are distinctly said to be the tables of the covenant (Deut. 9:11). They are called "the tables of stone, the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you" (verse 9).
2. The sacred chest, or coffer, containing the tablets of stone was called "the ark of the covenant" (Num. 10:33; Deut. 10:8). When Solomon erected the temple, he said, "There have I set the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which he made with the people of Israel" (2 Chron. 6:11). The ark had disappeared before many of the books of prophecy were even written.
3. The covenant was distinctly said to have been made and given in Horeb (Deut. 5:2). The apostle Paul identifies this as Mount Sinai in Arabia (Gal. 4:25). But the rest of the old covenant scriptures were all written in Palestine, in Babylon, or in Persia, during the exile.
4. The covenant was said to have been made when God "took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt" (Jer. 31:32). The scriptures were written much later and in many other places.
5. Certainly the prophecy of Jeremiah was no part of "the first testament" for by the time Jeremiah wrote, the people had already broken the covenant of God, and the prophet predicted a new one would be made (Jer. 31:32).

      It is our intention to examine the new covenant and its nature as carefully as we have the old testament. We will be asked the question whether or not the scriptures, when written, constitute a law by which we must be governed, and if so, why all the furore about the exact identification of the covenant? It is our intention to deal with this fairly and conclusively, but in the interim, we affirm that it makes a great deal of difference upon what basis we predicate our relationship with God, for this will determine what constitutes fellowship and brotherhood. It may yet be that the great battle over justification by law or by faith in Christ Jesus must be fought over again, to secure once more the liberty from legalism which is our only hope in Christ Jesus. To that task we humbly and sincerely dedicate our feeble talent.