Reconsidering The First Testament: What They Never Told You About The Earlier Word of God

Contrary to popular opinion, the Older Testament is not the Word of God Emeritus. Sometimes it takes a little serious study, or even critical thinking (yes, I said the "T" word) from the Bible -- about the nature of the Bible itself -- to understand the greatness of what God has given to His people in the first 39 books of the canon.

Let us consider then some of the features of the Older Testament, comparing them with those of the Newer. First, neither testament was created as a stand alone. They are interdependent by nature.

The First prophecies the coming of the Messiah, and the Second reflects back upon the First, interpreting it in many places for us, giving us a hermeneutical framework within which we may be certain we have properly understood it. The Lord Jesus and His apostles and prophets provide an authoritative guide of just how we are to handle the christological "pointing forward" texts of the First Testament.

But the interpretation they offer is not new, and was native to the actual texts of the First Testmament from the start. Theirs could have been, and SHOULD have been, our interpretation of the texts they consider all along.

What the First Testament promises, the Second displays as fulfilled in Jesus and His people (which are not covenantally separate, but one, on account of their legal identity (adoption into the same family is a legal transaction in the Bible) and for the mystical union of God's people with Christ by the Holy Spirit, the gift of God.

One cannot fully understand the greatness of what was promised apart from seeing how the promise comes to be fulfilled (executed in history). Each highlights and explains the crucial features and benefits of the other. For instance, one cannot properly understand the creation narrative of Genesis (I will brazenly argue) apart from understanding the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the pinnacle of new creation to which Genesis points.

For this is what is meant in the resurrection, "Let there be light." For the Bible sees the resurrection of Christ as the redemption, not merely of the elect (humans predestined for glory), but of all creation since they are raised up as kings over the creation to make it new. What kind of renewal could a thousand (ten thousand? More?) resurrected saints bring to planet earth? That remains to be seen. But it WILL be seen. They will do (derivatively, with wisdom and power from God, like that of a thousand -- actually many more -- Solomons upon the earth) what God did originally -- they will set it in order. The Bible thus speaks of the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21).

The First Testament carries a complete (perfect and sufficient) manual of praise for the worship of God as He has appointed it (for the work of the Lord's priests) in the Psalter of David, Asaph and others. This "Bible within the Bible" God gave to all his people of all ages, which continues into the New Covenant era, according to the commands of BOTH Testaments.

The New Testament has no such manual, because it both presupposes and implies, the sufficiency of the one already given in the First Testament. This shows that the First Testament has ABIDING AUTHORITY in God's Church, and in the nations. For all the priests of Christ are kings also (see Rev. 1:6-8).

Moreover, when we turn to the books both of the Torah and the Wisdom literature, we find self-references from the First Testament telling us that it's wisdom -- statutes, ordinances, precepts, judgments, proverbs and psams -- are the very wisdom of God which is eternal, from before the foundation of the earth. These therefore share in God's INcommunicable attributes. Thus, the First Testament calls itself, righteous, pure, holy, eternal, good, wise, sufficient, perfect, powerful, inviolable, and the like.

Moreover, the Lord Jesus and the apostle often reiterate just such sentiments in the very sayings to which we have become perhaps too familiar -- "It IS written" (Gk. gegraptai carries the duplicating prefix characteristic of the perfect tense, signifying the perpetual sense of abiding strength, "It forever stands written." This is made very clear from the fact that the simple present passive indicative COULD have been used instead ("it is presently written"). But the author had something else in mind.

Not to belabor the point, but the sense of the deliberate use of the perfect tense indicates an action performed in the past with continuing force up to the present moment, now matter how far into the future from the point of origin -- the original act -- that present moment is. Perpetuity is the point. We know this all the better since the Bible -- in both Testaments often self-refers as "eternal." When the theology of the Bible perfectly matches the grammar in an unmistakable fashion, we have strong assurance that we have acquired precisely the author's intended sense.

The Lord Jesus regularly cited the FIRST Testament with such a commanding introduction, as with the three temptations of Satan, which seductions the Lord rebuffed altogether (this was not the first time the Lord had systematically refuted Satan -- see the book of Job -- effectively a contest to see who is the wise man) with the Scripture of the FIRST Testament to show His people how to resist the devil, that he may flee from them. This resistance of the suggestions of Satan, the New Testament COMMANDS, and yet when we see the great example of just how we are to go about this, we find citations of the FIRST Testament upon the lips of our Lord.


His appeal was to the duty of MAN, not Israelites under the Older Covenant. It stands written, "MAN shall not live by bread alone, but on EVERY WORD which proceeds from the mouth of God." Thus, the authority of the Newer Testament rests upon, and much depends upon, that of the First Testament.


The apostles say nothing else. For when Paul cites Luke 10:7 for the instruction of Timothy his apprentice, He says right alongside it "Do not muzzle the ox while it treadeth out the grain" (Deuteronomy 25:4). If Luke's Gospel carries any authority for believers in Jesus today, then also Deuteronomy. This shows much the more that we must live by EVERY WORD which proceeds from the mouth of the Most High, not just those of the final 27 books of the Word.

Paul said also to Timothy that the "Scriptures [writings] are able to make you wise unto salvation" which reference was primarily too the Older Testament, the New not being penned altogether at that point, but existing some in writing, and some as carefully-guarded dominical and apostolic oral tradition (apodosis).

Additionally, we must affirm that the ethical and legal system taught in the First Testament -- which calls itself a legal code from heaven (the "law of the Lord") upon which all men ("MAN") are to depend for wisdom in every nation -- does not repeat itself in the Newer Testament. Altough all believers in Jesus detest the wicked practices of the nations surrounding Israel -- wherein it is despicable even to mention what the disobedient do in secret -- are yet repulsive to God and all his holy ones under the Newer Covenant also.

Yet the prohibitions against most such practices are not repeated under the Newer Covenant, for God need not say something twice before we must give it heed, lest we be absurd in our assumptions regarding God's authority. These, all manner of perverse sexual practices and religious abominations (as with the giving of children to Molech in the flames) had to be mentioned for the moral protection of God's people, and so are found in His Word plainly, though His eyes are too pure to look upon sin, and He hates even to make mention of such, but for our necessary protection and guidance unto wisdom must it be so.

In refusing therefore to repeat these, the Lord has assumed that we know them fully well as binding upon all men of all ages from the First Testament only. And where he has imposed regulations intended to make an ethical point -- whose service for teaching is no longer required under the Newer covenant -- (but yet the point taught by them continues forever to bind us to either the performance of what is commanded or the avoid what is thereby prohibited to us) - the Lord has told us plainly enough, or else by the authoritative example of the Lord Jesus and the Twelve, or else by good and necessary consequence in which we must reason from the Scriptures as the Lord did.

So we know that the dietary laws represent training wheels no longer appropriate to the mature state of the Church in redemptive history. Hebrews makes clear that all ceremonial laws (called ordinances in the Word) tied to the Temple complex, with its holidays, sacrifices, priestly and musical instruments, washings, etc are no longer of any use to God's people; and the providential and prophesied destruction of the Temple and the genealogical records of the tribes in A.D. 70 was a very helpful hint).

The laws governing land and inheritance uniquely tied to the tribes of Israel, the commanded abolition of the 7 Canaanite nations in Israel, the many clean-unclean laws regarding the deceased and diseases, etc, we know that these have ethical points to them, and that such points bind all men of all times and nations, but that the media chosen to convey them no longer serve any good or useful purpose.

Finally, many today note that the health benefits which may follow upon continuing to uphold such dietary laws confuses the point for which they were originally given. These were plainly DIDACTIC, and their side-benefits simply display the goodness of God in them to aid and abet the welfare of his people. Yet does Genesis plainly tell that all animals since the time of Noah are available to be eaten of men should it prove necessary or beneficial to them. The special didactic strictures of the First Testament forbid "mixed characteristics" to teach that the Lord's people must not covenant wantonly so as to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.

The point was covenantal, not culinary. We may note that there are many foods which are known of scientists now to be very healthy for us, which are nowhere commanded to be eaten in the Scriptures - fish, rice, and the like - and that substances like Aloe Vera -- which were known to men in the times of the Older and Newer Testaments and used for salve to heal -- these are not commanded as one might expect if the Lord merely sought to give us healthy recipes in His dietary instructions. But this was NOT the point.

So said the Lord Jesus, "It is not what goes into a man which defileth him ... but what comes out of his heart." Mark adds: "By saying this, Jesus made ALL FOODS CLEAN." Sweet and sour pork is IN. Praise the Lord, for He is good; His mercy endures forever. If you like shrimp, then "to the red sauce!" with thanksgiving to the Lord, it is set apart by prayer for the benefit of His people. Consider that God was not required to create shrimp. But He did. He gave men rule over all the sea-dwellers from the beginning, as well all other lower creation. This implies that they are good and were created good by God FOR US and FOR OUR CHILDREN forever.

There is nothing evil about ham and bacon either. The profitable saying is that one who eats these and lives unto God does well. The one who eats to much of them will yet obtain to heaven by the grace of God, albeit much sooner. And how ridiculous the man who thinks that a single shrimp unrepented of will keep a man from the Lord's presence. No, but Long John Silver's will condemn no one to the flames. And how foolish the man who holds that a wrong turn in your recipe will snuff out your lamp for all time. That is -- by lex talionis -- the theology of swine, who add to the Gospel of Christ, saying "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle."

Rather, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" "Taste and see that the Lord is good." And tartar sauce is optional.

When Solomon wrote, "Now all has been heard, here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of MAN, he referred to the commandments of the First Testament, which would later be qualified by further revelation.

The Lord Jesus (Mark 2) reflecting back on the giving of the commandments in the First Testament said, "MAN shall not live on bread alone, but on every WORD which proceedeth of the mouth of God," and "The Sabbath was made FOR MAN."

The Newer Testament, by the Great Commission, sees the resurrected Lord with all authority in heaven and ON EARTH, which explains the basis for the fact that the redeemed under the Newer covenant are of "EVERY tribe, tongue and nation."

The Gospel had gone international because of the transcendent nature of Christ in the resurrection. He was no longer a Jew. He DIED king of the Jews, and ROSE King of ALL NATIONS. Thus said Peter, "You men of Israel, be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucifed, both Lord and Christ." Here, Christ or Messiah means king of the Jews, adn Lord (Kyrios) was the title of Caesar the Emperor of all Gentiles, the king of kings, and master of every nation then considered of any consequence. Thus, did Peter declare that Jesus was "Lord of both Jew and Gentile" -- prefigured by "Melchizedek" whose name is Canaanite and was yet king and priest of SALEM (Jerusalem before Jerusalem, the city of God).

This risen transcendence and power of Christ -- universal authority -- made Him the federal head of all who would believe in him of all time and from every nation. He is BOTH Lord and Christ, so the Gospel went first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile.

But the Gospel is all the Word of the Lord, and the First Testament cannot somehow be cut from its canonical moorings; for its legal code, when men from every nation are trained by it, and raised up as priests and kings, will rule by the whole of the international legal code, hating all the practices it forbids not found decried in the Newer Testament.

The transcendent nature of the First Testament is the same as that of the Second, and the same as that of Jesus Christ risen, and all His people after Him. For He is the "firstfruits of them that are raised from the dead." Here, the firstfruits were the tithe of God, the best part which represents the whole of like kind.

When Christ, the living Word of God was raised by the mighty power of God, it was not as though only one half of the Word was raised with Him, for He was and IS the incarnation, the living counterpart to all of that which God commands. If in Christ some see the Older Covenant (as it were) put to death, then how much more has it been established in His resurrection with authority over all nations. For He is destined to rule them with a rod of iron -- the whole of the Word of God and Law of the Lord.

And what will His people sing in the resurrection to praise the Lord with all the heart -- or does one stupidly suppose they will quit praising God when raised rather than much the more -- For it says in the Proverbs, "the heart of the righteous sings for joy." Sings what? And Hebrews says of Christ [to the Father], "in the presence of the congregation, I will sing your praises." What will the living Word of God sing, if not the manual of Praise He alone perfectly embodies? If we will then sing it, in our limited and foolish understanding -- for all understanding is folly compared to that of the incarnate God - how much more the One who said, "I have set my Word even above my own Name"?

This Word of God, we have noted shares in the incommunicable attribute of God, those exceedingly great traits most worthy or our praise and adoration which God alone possesses - eternality, the original source of power (power to shape history, for once promised it MUST come to pass, whatsoever is written there) and wisdom (infallibility, supreme subtility, perfection of detail, and innate inerrancy), irreducibility and irrefragability (the Word has permanent integrity, and internal goodness and necessity, to which God suffers not the least compromise at any time), and all the many other incomparable excellenices by which it is shown to be the Word of God.

Never has any book spoken as this one. And it converts the heart of every man for whom the Spirit has designed that it should, doing all things well, and enlightening the mind in all manner of knowledge and wisdom, such that He who understands its teaching thoroughly would of necessity be like Solomon in all the earth. It makes wise even the simple, said Solomon. Now a good teacher can add to a wise man's learning, but to make wise the simple is miraculous, and beyond the scope of any mortal teacher. For the simple and fool hate learning and wisdom. But the Scripture is able.

It can overcome the sin that so easily entangles men, fighting against it with power mightier than that which wins battles. For which of the greatest warriors can make a fool into a wise man, or teach a man of vice to behave like a king? Or who among the mightiest can teach kings to do their duties with excellence? But the Word of God brings forth the treasures of wisdom, treasure both old and new, to the instruction of kings. Thus is the Word in all its teachings -- cover to cover -- a king to kings. Is not this like the Lord Jesus, or why is it called "the Word of Christ"?

Now the New Testament tells (1 and 2 Peter) us plainly of the First Testament that the Spirit of Christ "carried along" the prophets and holy men of old, who wrote the first 37 books of the Word, which being called the "law, the Psalms and the prophets" all speak of Christ, who must first suffer, and then enter His glory?

As the product of immediate inspiration, made for every man to obey, the First Testament teaches of Christ, truly, fully and finally, with authority over all the kings of all the nations. Or was the Queen of the South not the wiser for her visit to hear the preached wisdom of Solomon from the Word of God? Or was she also a Jew? And the men of Nineveh, when were they exempted from obedience to the commands of the God of the Older Testament? Or who commanded Pharaoh Necco to battle against the enemies of Israel in Josiah's day if it was not the same Lord who said to the king of Egypt by Moses, "Let my people go"?

Was Egypt stricken of ten plagues because they violated 11 commandments? Was this not the decalogue which God gave to Israel for which Egypt was punished? Or did God make only the Jews in His image, and not the Gentiles also, thus requiring all men to act as Adam ought to have done (and which only the second Adam did)?

Was the First Testament -- the Word of God enshrined forever in the canon - and which is destined to be the law of kings of every nation -- and of all their peoples, just for the Jews? And does God command only Jews to be wise?

Therefore, we can see from its several features, and its relationship to the Second Testament, that the First Testament (qualified by the New) forever binds the people of God, and all men who bear His image, as it was from the beginning (No, Adam and Eve were not Jewish, and their sin did not pass to Jews only but to all; Noah was a Gentile, and so was Abram, until the day of his circumcision, by which time God had considered him righteous by faith already). Now the Lord said of Abram, "I know him [Abraham], that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

We know this of the First Testament because:

1. It is inextricably linked to the later Testament, by prophesy, by promises, by wisdom, by those obligated to its laws (all men, or "man")

2. It shares in the incommunicable attributes of God, just as does the Newer Testament

3. It's wisdom is for all men, for kings and commoners of every nation, for all those saints raised in power to obey it.

4. It bound Gentiles of every nation to its obedience from the first (Adam, Noah, Abram, Queen of the South, Job the servant of God was a "man of the eastern country," Ninevites, the Egyptians, the 7 nations who failed to do it and were ousted, Rahab the Jerichoitess, Naaman the Syrian, the widow of Zarephath in the time of the prophet Elijah, all the nations (1 Kings 4) which came up to hear the scriptural wisdom of Solomon, all those empires against which the prophets railed (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, etc)

5. Melchizedek the Canaanite was priest of the Most High God, and holiness according to the law was a requirement for piacular and intercessory (priestly) service. Remember that Abiathar was fired upon losing his holiness, and Melchizedek was "greater than Abraham" the friend of God; he blessed Abraham, putting into effect the promises of God concerning the Abrahamic covenant. "And without a doubt, the lesser is blessed by the greater." (Heb. 7:7).

6. Jesus and the apostles compared its authority to that of New Testament passages. They also argued with their opponents from the tenses of the voice of First Testament passages (Exodus 3:15 -- it says "is" not "was" -- as in "I AM who AM; So God is the God of the living, not [was] of the dead. And from plural versus singular nouns -- Gal. 3:13-15 -- It [the First Testament] says "And to the Seed of Abraham, not seeds of Abraham, so the text refers to one person only, that is to Christ, the Seed of Abraham." For Paul was skilled in the Word of the Lord beyond all his opponents. And this apostle clearly considered every letter of the Older Testament binding upon all men, for the promise to Abraham is to all who believe in Jesus from every nation. Or was Paul not the apostle to the Gentiles, who are the seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus apart from circumcision? And was the promise of God to Abraham before or after he was circumcised? It was while Abraham was yet a Gentile that it says, "He believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness." Faith is what makes one the seed of Abraham, and faith is from the transcendent Spirit as the gift of God (so that no man of any nation can boast).

Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill. Here, abolish means the opposite of "fulfill." So fulfill cannot mean to abolish (as many foolishly assume in direct violation of the local context, which is the king of all hermeneutical principles), just the opposite. They would have it, " I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill in such a way as to abolish," which is nonsense. Rather, it means "to restore its proper meaning against the abuses of the pharisees, and to establish that proper sense." For this is precisely what Jesus proceeds to do in all the Gospels as the one True Priest of God and teacher of all God's people. For priest were the appointed teachers of Israel. And we have but One Teacher, that is, Christ. This is why it was said to Nicodemus the priest, "Are you Israel's teacher and know not these things?"

7. All the commandments of God, both Testaments tell us, are "for man."

8. Men were made to obey God, and one can only obey commands. Therefore, all men, being made after the likeness of their Creator must obey His commandments. Most of God's commandments are found in the First Testament.

9. A man is born from above by the Word -- all of the Word -- and the Spirit, both of which are transcendent, not bound to any one nation. In which nation does the wind fail to blow where it wills? So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. His new nature is given to obedience of all the commandments, not just those appearing in the latter part of the canon, for the same Spirit of Christ which works in him mightily to produce obedience inspired ALL THE CANON of the Holy Scripture. Do we hear His voice in some books only?

How will the Spirit working in a man ignore most of His OWN WRITING? No, but Christ is not divided against Himself, lest His kingdom cannot stand. For, it is written, "The secret things belong to the Lord, but those things REVEALED belong to us AND TO OUR children -- forever." This text is from Deuteronomy, just as is the commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all the heart, with all the soul and with all the mind."

10. If one decide that some passages of the First Testament bind to the performance, but not others, he is left hopelessly adrift in a sea of cherry-picking obscurity. This is both hermenuetically reckless and logically impossible. The only tenable position is the one so far described - God commands and we must obey, until he says otherwise in the canon itself by the several modes of commanding: explicit, by authoritative example (as when the apostles celebrate the Christian Sabbath on the First day of the week, no longer the last); or else by the logical force of one or many passages taken together in their proper sense.

The contrary is both logically impossible and ethically repugnant to the Holy Scripture itself (for no one can show from the New Testament that incest or many of the other sexually perverse acts prohibited in the Scripture constitute sexual immorality. They must assume the binding nature of the First Testament to fill in the missing premisses of their argument in order to justify what we all know is true ahead of time by the light of nature. For even nature tells us that men are for women and women for men, as also the apostle Paul says (1 Cor. 11), according to the holy doctrines of Genesis, which the Lord Jesus cites as well.

11. It follows that Christians and men from every nation must obey the commands of the First Testament from the reign of Christ over all nations as king of kings, for he rules them by one standard only -- differing weights and differing measures, both alike the Lord detests (Prov. 20:10) -- For that God has made this Jesus BOTH Lord and Christ, who was crucified by Jew and Gentile alike. These were the priestly and kingly representatives of both the Jewish nation and of Caesar. Therefore, for this wrongful death did the Lord Jesus inherit both jurisdictions as his own. For He rightly reproved all men -- king and priest alike -- establishing the law of both Testaments forever as the law of every nation.

He has all authority in heaven AND on earth. Yet He rules by one standard. Does heaven think the Older Testament is passe? There is no sin in heaven. So what standard of righteousness do the angels obey to make it thus? And why do we pray for God's kingdom to come upon the earth as it is in heaven if we do not like heaven's standard of perfect righteousness? They obey it perfectly and we do not; but only one standard obtains, for this is but One God, who created both men and angels.

When Christ reproved angels -- for what is Satan but a fallen angel, and Christ cast out countless demons -- did he cite only the Second Testament? Three times he cited the First Testament to a non-Jewish (nationally transcendent) being. "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test," "Man shall not live by bread alone..." and "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only."

When casting out demons, he often simply spoke by his own authority. Other times -- as with Satan -- he cited the authority of the First Testament. This shows that the Holy One considers His own new words (captured only in the New Testament Gospels) as of precisely equally authority with Deuteronomy and the Psalms.

12. The earliest baptismal formula - Jesus is Lord (Kyrios) implies this as well, since His Spirit inspired the Older Testament, and we are told by the Holy Spirit, "No one speaking by the Spirit says "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). The first phrase here (Gk. "Anathema Iesous") was required by the Romans as a PUBLIC renouncing of the Christian faith, which, at times of persecution was just what Rome commanded for a martyr to "spare himself the final penalty." Whereas, the contrasting phrase, "Jesus is Lord" was the public declaration of faith in Jesus required by Christian baptism. Now this often might cost a man his life, for it carried the cultural implication -- "Jesus, not Caesar, is the final authority in heaven and earth."

Each was a PUBLIC declaration showing, under the specific circumstances of threat to one's person or property, what the one so saying was really "made of," as we say. the courage to risk one's own life for fidelity to Christ -- Esther-like obedience, and in some cases just that of Daniel -- who was thrown to the lions as were many Christians -- such courage was born of the Spirit, or else the failure to possess it showed that the one failing His Lord was not truly ever born again in the first place.

Thus, the nature of baptism as applicable internationally, without respect to gender or social class, and the teaching of the baptismal formula itself (given the attitude of Jesus toward the First Testament, its inspiration by the Spirit of Christ, and the baptismal formula Jesus commanded [which implies the transcendence of the Older Testament and its consequent universal authority]) show that the First Testament is "Christian," (international) not merely "Jewish" in its authority to bind men to its performance.

Remember, baptism unlike circumcision, was required of Jew and Gentile alike, and of men and women. For in Christ, there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male or female, for all are [baptized into] one [family] in Christ." As a brief aside, the biblical doctrines and sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper form the bulwark of a refutation of feminist and Marxist class- and gender-based critical theories. For they broke down the class and gender distinctions of the ancient world, setting the rich alongside the poor in the Church not showing favoritism (See James 1 for a sermon on the evils of class distinction in the Church), the slave and free, men and women. For there, entirely regardless of the distinctions so important to Greek and Roman cultural values, each sat along side the other calling them "brother" and "sister" -- which the Romans hated and Tertullian rebuffed them for it -- as equals -- a thing never heard of in Greek or Roman societies.

But this is highly unpopular on college campuses, to note the transcultural (and counter-cultural but not multi-cultural) character of the preached Gospel, the law of the Lord and the sacraments. The Lord surely beat the Marxists and Feminists to the punch by thousands of years, where they had anything of value to impart. They say, "Marx," we say "Barnabbas." They urge "Women's rights," we say "Esther and Lydia." Been there, done that. Which of the Marxists or Feminists has advocated that women rule as Queens in righteousness for a thousand years with Christ? They know nothing of women's rights, for it has never entered into the mind of man or woman the good things God has prepared for those that love Him. Entrance into the Christian faith with the whole heart is adoption by the King of Kings. This adoption renders one royalty in the nature of the case. Recently, women in the U.S., have won the right to vote. Godly women of old have won the privilege to rule nations long ago. As it was promised to Sarah, "Kings shall come from your loins." Comparatively, voting is the stuff of paupers.

The fact that Jews and Gentiles, men and women, each have only one baptism - for the formula was the same for all -- a public declaration of the transcendent and universal authority of Christ -- shows that the Word of Christ, as an undivided unit which binds across cultures, carries abiding authority to command us how we should live our lives, what we must believe, and to whom we must answer as appointed authorities.

Now more reasons could be given for the qualified, and absolutely abiding, authority of the First Testament (as its very canonicity suggests -- for the canon is for all the saints of all generations, and God never gives us what is unnecessary) but these more than suffice for the logical rigor of the task at hand.

Adopting the more popular "Dispensationalist" approach of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we need to address this or that social problem (few Dispensationalists hesitate to quote the Older Testmament -- even its case laws -- to reprove the evil practice of abortion) leaves one with no objective guide, no guide other than the personal preferences of this or that Christian, for determining which biblical teachings of the Older Testament remain in force with respect to the principle it instances, or whether the mode of instancing the principle itself remains socially obligatory.

The "All of the Bible for all of life for all men of all nations" position -- usually dubbed "Theonomy," (which is much shorter) has no such ethical or epistemological problems. And the earlier cut and paste position has precursors we should wish to find less than desirable, such as Marcion and other well-known gnostics. Today, the so-called "Jesus Seminar" has procured its own man-made criteriology (which criteria and their methodological and philosophical assumptions humorously eliminate each other like an encircled firing squad) and highlights the same dispensational problem in principle, though such persons are far more historiographically self-conscious. They even know of some of the problems they face, and have admitted such in print.

Personally, I have been forced (and completely caved in) to admit that they have these irresolvable dialectical tensions and other problems too. In fact, using their own criteria, I have decided that most of the works of the Jesus Seminar developed over time, with legendary parts accruing as each group added its own redactions; and so these were not really written by the authors they purport. Many parts are inauthentic, and some are simply ahistorical. To determine just which are for real, however, we will need the local Presbytery to cast votes in the form of multi-colored beads.

The problem is the same in both cases. Without the Older Testament to sufficiently inform and explain the New, and the New to control the final interpretation of the Earlier, one either adopts no particular methodology (which is just personal prejudice) for deciding which of the commandments binds men which way, or else he constructs a man-made set of rules wholly inadequate to the task they pretend.

This is evident from the complete lack of any remnant of a biblical social theory found in Dispensational writings -- they do not wish to reform a "sinking ship" and so have no biblical platform for making such amends to society as the Gospel is wont to bring when men's hearts are changed and inclined to do the commands of God -- and by the many and conflicting portraits of Christ resulting from wanton and unwarranted (did I mention mutually conflicting?) criteriological standards and historiographic methods common to the post-modern Marcionite writers. Heresy by any other name, self-cancels just as beautifully.

They key to avoiding the arbitrariness of interpretation and application of passages -- on the one hand -- and the self-refuting rules of detecting "historical" or "authentic" passages remains the only biblical solution to each dilemma: the firm conviction that the Older Testament carries the same authority and the New, as Testament each defines the authority of the other. The first does so by promise and prophesy, and the second by retroactice reflection and dominical-apostolic interpretation.

For the gospel was preached to them beforehand in the Older Testamental era, and the law receives its full and balanced interpretation and application in the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus, and in the apostolic doctrine of the Newer Testament.

Here, the right hand is fully aware of what the left hand does, for one and the Same Spirit of Jesus spoke the words of all the prophets, from Adam to the apostles, which is what makes the Holy Scripture like a seamless garment, each part mutually consenting to the others. Unity of logical effect, in other words, stems from the unity of the Source.

Therefore, "The Scripture [The entirety as a single canonical unit] cannot be broken." But the nations He shall dash to pieces like so much pottery, ruling them with a rod of biblical iron.

These are a few things they may have forgotten to tell you about the First Testament.