111. Chapter 1: The Church of the Old Testament from Adam to Abraham
------------ CHAPTER ONE ------------ The Church of the Old Testament from Adam to Abraham
Thus far we have given a comprehensive presentation of both the nature and the characteristics of the gracious work of man’s redemption. We shall now proceed to consider the difference of the administration of this work prior and subsequent to the incarnation of Christ. The administration preceding the time of Christ is called the Old Covenant or Testament; after His incarnation it is referred to as the New Covenant or Testament. Since Scripture uses the words berith and diatheke, I have used the words “covenant” as well as “testament” to show that there is no basis for erroneous views which are propagated by making a distinction between them. The distinction between the manner in which the covenant of grace is administered in the Old and New Testaments is based upon the Word: “... ministers of the New Testament” 2 Corinthians 3:14 “... in the reading of the Old Testament” (2 Corinthians 3:14); “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second” Hebrews 8:13 “In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old” (Hebrews 8:13). The Old Testament is an administration during which it was promised that the Surety and Savior would come. Thus, the time from Adam to Christ was the age of promise, wherein the Savior was typified in His natures, suffering, and death -- the purpose being that the people of Israel would be better acquainted with and believe in Him. This was accomplished by way of many sacrifices, which the apostle denominates as figures. They clearly depicted Christ; and thus the people, so to speak, with their physical eyes daily witnessed and beheld Christ in His suffering and death.
“Which was a figure for the time then present” Hebrews 9:9, Christ not having as yet become incarnate. The writer of Hebrews also refers to these ceremonies as types. All types were constructed according to the divine prescription, precisely typifying the coming Christ. Thus, we do not define Christ according to the types, but the types are defined according to Christ; in the type, the people beheld the image of Christ who was to come. “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5). The ceremonies were also referred to as shadows -- not because their intent was to darken, conceal, and obscure the matter, but to depict the matter as clearly as possible, even though the matter itself could not yet be seen. This can be compared to a man standing on one side of a fence in the brightly shining sun, who is able to see the shadow of another man standing on the other side of the fence. He cannot see the person himself because the fence blocks his view. However, the shadow extending beyond the end of the fence can be observed by him. Furthermore, he is not only able to infer from this shadow that a human being is present whom he has not yet seen, but he can also observe whether this person is a child or an adult; and by way of the clothing he can determine whether it is a man or woman -- yes, whether the person is moving or standing still, standing upright or bending over, and even what he might be doing. The sacrifices of the Old Testament were such shadows. “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:17). They are commonly referred to as ceremonies; however, this word is not to be found in the Bible. [Note: This is not true for the KJV, as the word “ceremonies” is found inNumbers 9:3.] Ceremonies are external exercises, accompanied with words or gestures. Since the term is not scriptural, we only wish to say that the term tends to incline the reader to either not understand or misunderstand the matters at hand. It is therefore better to use scriptural words. Such a practice we wish to adhere to. The Old Testament Administration of the Covenant of Grace Begins in Paradise The Old Testament or Covenant encompasses the entire period from the gospel declaration in Paradise until Christ. During this entire time frame there was no diversity in its manner of administration -- an administration which functioned during this entire period by way of promises and figures. However, relative to the subjects of this administration, we can make a chronological distinction between the church prior to Abraham and thereafter. Prior to Abraham the church consisted of various nationalities -- as is also true in the New Testament era. However, God took Abraham and his seed to be His church. Thus, subsequent to Abraham’s time, other nations rapidly became estranged from true religion. This pure religion was preserved, however, among the descendants of Abraham. Therefore, when speaking of a national covenant, it must be understood as the covenant of grace established with that particular nation. The term does not imply more than that. Not much has been recorded concerning the condition of the church from Adam to Abraham. What has been recorded, however, is sufficient to show us that the gospel and true religion were as well-known and practiced then as was the case thereafter. It was by way of that generational line that the Lord Jesus descended from Adam. His descent from Adam was necessary in order to His being the Mediator. It was necessary that this be known in order to acknowledge Him as such. The time frame from Adam to Abraham encompasses about two thousand years and has been recorded in the first chapters of the first book of Moses. We shall briefly outline the most significant matters and then answer some questions.
After Adam and Eve had transgressed the covenant of works, the Lord announced a new covenant, a covenant of grace, with the following words: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel” (Genesis 3:15). This text has been expounded previously in this work. The words are few, but they encompass the great work of the redemption of the sinner; the overthrow of the devil’s tyranny over the elect; the enmity and warfare between God’s children and the children of the devil -- and they point to the Person through whom this would be accomplished, who is called the Seed of the Woman (and thus not seed of the man). This Person is Christ -- the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Mary -- who through His death has destroyed the devil (Hebrews 2:14). God had expounded this matter more clearly to Adam and the holy men after him. Adam remained in the church for nine hundred thirty years. Enoch was a prophet who proclaimed the day of judgment Jude 1:14-15. Noah was a preacher of righteousness. The content of his preaching was Christ 1 Peter 3:19-21, and he prophesied concerning the calling of the Gentiles after the rejection of the seed of Shem (Genesis 9:27). God also instructed and strengthened these believers by faith in the sacrifices of the fruits of the field, clean cattle, and of the firstborn (cf. Genesis 4:4; Genesis 8:20).
Hereby the people acquired knowledge concerning the mysteries of salvation and were led to believe in Christ. When Eve gave birth to Cain, her eye was upon Christ. She viewed his birth either as the beginning of the procreative process out of which Christ would be born, or she was in error concerning the person, thinking that he would be the Redeemer. For upon giving birth to Seth, she said, “For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew” (Genesis 4:25). She knew that God had rejected and cursed Cain and his descendants Genesis 4:26, and believed that the Savior would be born out of Seth. Abel was a righteous man Matthew 23:35 and a strong believer -- and thus pleasing to God (Hebrews 11:5). Enoch walked with God and was taken away without seeing death, having this testimony that he pleased God (Hebrews 11:5). During the time of Enos, believers separated themselves from the ungodly, joined one another in fellowship, and called upon the name of the Lord (Genesis 4:26).
Also then the church became corrupt, so that its members married unbelievers. By this the church became even more corrupt, and therefore God did not want His people to intermarry with other nations (cf. Daniel 7:3; 2 Corinthians 6:14). The earth became increasingly corrupt. Contributing to this were the proud Lamech -- the first man who had two wives and boasted of the sword of his son -- and the fierce giants who relied upon their strength and reputation, ruled with violence, and made a name for themselves (Genesis 6:4). Since the world and the church had become extremely ungodly, God caused all men with whatever moved upon the face of the earth to perish by means of the flood.
However, Noah and his wife, together with his three sons and their wives, as well as a representation of every living species, were preserved alive in the ark, by which they were saved. Noah planted a vineyard and became drunk -- either because of his great desire for wine which he had not drunk in a long time, or because he had become unaccustomed to wine and was affected by it that much more quickly, or because the wine was stronger than the wine he had drunk previously. The fact is that at one time he became drunk and laid down to sleep. Due to stirring in his sleep, his covering was removed, and he lay there naked. When his son Ham entered the tent and saw his father’s nakedness, he went out and informed both his brothers. While approaching their father backward, they took a covering and spread it over him. Ham’s sin was not merely in the act of seeing, for if in moving about he had unexpectedly seen this and had quickly departed, he would not have sinned and brought such a curse upon himself. Rather, while seeing this, something occurred which amounted to mockery: Either Ham went so far as to mock with his father, or his son Canaan, seeing his grandfather lying there naked, paused and mocked with him. In fact, the curse was not pronounced upon the person of Ham and his entire posterity, but upon his son Canaan. It could be that he had mocked, or that Ham was punished in his child -- this being the severest punishment for a father. It could also be that they were both guilty, for Shem and Japheth received a blessing of their father, whereas Ham was passed by.
Ham’s genealogy is placed side by side with those of Japheth and Shem. In this genealogy Nimrod is mentioned, of whom it is said, “He was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:9 a). This can be interpreted as a description of an ungodly man, being a terrible tyrant who cared neither for God nor man. It could also be a description of a Godfearing man, being desirous to provide a safe shelter for people -- or more particularly, who killed and drove away the animals of prey for the benefit of his family. Wild animals had multiplied greatly and prevented people from living quietly and peacefully. Thus, it was not the timid hare or the quickly-frightened deer which he hunted, but rather lions, bears, tigers, wolves, and similar animals of prey. This required courage and, being accompanied with danger, caused him to flee to God for refuge, and with His help, overcame the wild beasts, thereby creating a safe residence for people.
These people, who intended to make a name for themselves by building a high tower and erecting a beacon to prevent their dispersion, were prevented in doing so by having their language confounded -- and were thus dispersed over the entire face of the earth. These are the particulars of what has been recorded for us concerning the first two thousand years. Then Moses turns to Abraham, as the church was restricted thereafter to his family only.
Six Rules to Be Observed in Determining Whether Something is a Type
Prior to Christ’s coming, men sought for the substance itself, longing and yearning for the fulfillment of the promises and shadows. Now that both the light and the substance have come, people look for shadows and types -- rejoicing when they believe to have found a shadow. While in darkness, people sought for the light, and now that there is light, people look for darkness. This is deemed to be scholarship, and therefore everyone feels compelled to look for something new. The rule adhered to in such a pursuit is that there must be similarity in regard to name, issue, and circumstances. He who finds or constructs that, believes then to have found a type. Before we discuss the types to be found during the time from Adam to Abraham, we shall first show what constitutes a type.
First, it is to be observed that, according to Paul’s exhortation, a man must think soberly, and not think of himself more highly than he ought to think (Romans 12:3). In this matter one must conduct himself with fear and trembling, and assign no other meaning to the holy words of God than what God has expressed by them. By allegorizing nearly everything, and by fabricating as many prophecies and types as the mind can contrive, one will deprive the Word of its sanctity and spirituality.
Secondly, the similarity between names or their meanings, the congruency and analogy of certain matters, and the fact that the exegesis neither conflicts with the context of the text nor the rule of faith, are not rules by which types are established. The reasons for this are as follows:
(1) Where are such rules to be found in God’s Word? If, however, one does establish his own rules, any exposition according to such self-made rules is no more than a fabrication of one’s own mind. I reject these rules; let their validity be proven. Would it not be appropriate that irrefutable proof be rendered for a method used to interpret nearly the entire Bible?
(2) If one is to recognize a type by his own rules, then any type incompatible with those rules would be unacceptable -- even if God Himself, with great clarity, has designated it to be a type.
(3) If one adopts his own rules, the entire Scripture can be distorted at will. Every grapevine, every tree, every foundation upon which a house is built, every kernel of grain, every door, every road and pathway, as well as the sun, the morning star, a lion, a hen, a worm (and very many other things) would be a type of Christ, for all these names are attributed to Him. There is some analogy and similarity between them and Christ; they are neither in conflict with the context of those texts nor do they contradict the regulative principle of faith. Thus it is readily perceived that to designate all these things as types would be foolishness -- nevertheless, to do so would conform to such rules. This makes it very clear that these rules yield neither proof nor any foundation to designate a given matter to be a type.
One might say that the precise analogy between given matters is not accidental, it having been the intent of the omniscient and all-wise God to direct things in such a way that one thing would be a type of the other. I reply that the intent of a precise analogy is not to recognize a type. Were it so, nearly everything in the Bible could be designated as a type, and the entire Scripture could be made into an allegory and be reduced to a number of comparisons. A painting can resemble a different person as well as he whom the painter had in mind. It could be that such persons either resemble each other, or that the painting, without this being the painter’s intent, depicts certain features whereby it resembles the other person more than him of whom the painting was made. Would one conclude on the basis of this resemblance that it was the painter’s intent to paint the other person? This is also the case here. Even though God knows what matters resemble each other, it has not been His intent that the one thing would be a depiction or type of the other. Also in the New Testament there are descriptions of many matters and people who have a semblance and are analogous to those of later date. Who would conclude on the basis of such similarities that matters spoken of in the New Testament are types of matters of some later date? Furthermore, things occur daily that resemble matters and people related to occurrences of one hundred or two hundred years ago. Also these are not outside of God’s providence. Would one thus conclude that the former are types of the latter? It is therefore evident that something is a type not by virtue of analogy, but rather by divine appointment.
Thirdly, even the word type (or example) does not always signify a representation -- a future depiction -- exemplifying the Christ who would come. Rather, examples are also matters which, by way of application, are presented for the purpose of warning, emulation, or as an explanation, so that one may come to a clearer understanding of a given matter by way of analogy. This does not then say, that those matters which are used as examples were established for the purpose of predicting and depicting given events. Instead, they are used in retrospect by way of application.
(1) Consider an example which is given to us as a warning. “Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted” (1 Corinthians 10:6); “Now all these things happened to them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition” vs. 11; “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes ... making them an ensample (cf. Hebrews 8:5) unto those that after should live ungodly” (2 Peter 2:6). Obviously, these examples are not types of Christ, nor did they typify the time of the apostles. Instead, by way of application, they may in retrospect be used as a warning. This may and must occur in all ages.
(2) Consider an example given for emulation. “Brethren, be followers together of me ... as ye have us for an ensample” (Php 3:17).
(3) Consider an example given with the intent to explain it by way of analogy. “... Adam ... who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Romans 5:14). In this chapter Adam is presented as being the cause of death of all who are comprehended in him, that is, the entire human race; and Christ is presented as quickening all who are in Him, that is, the elect. It is beyond controversy that Adam, prior to the fall, did not depict Christ as the One who was to come, since there was as yet no sin which needed to be removed -- the purpose of Christ’s coming. There was then no need of Him; therefore He had not been promised as yet. Also in his fall, Adam was no type of the Christ who would come to remove sin, for there was neither any covenant of grace revealed nor had Christ yet been promised and typified. Also after his fall, Adam was not presented to the Old Testament church as a type of Christ. Rather, it is very clear that all we have here is a comparison. The matter with which the apostle was dealing could be explained by way of analogy and contrast -- that is, as Adam was the original and only cause of sin and condemnation, so Christ is the original and only cause of atonement for and the eternal felicity of the elect who had died in Adam. The same applies to Jeremiah 33:20-26 : “Thus saith the Lord; if ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night ... then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant,” etc. The permanent institution of day and night was not a type of the covenant with David, even though the covenant with David is compared to it. Rather, the institution of day and night serves as an analogy and an application in order to point out the immutability of the covenant with David.
Fourthly, whatever is a sign is not necessarily a type. All types are signs, but all signs are not types. The lying in the crib and the being wrapped in swaddling clothes were signs that this child was the Messiah (Luke 2:12); however, they were not types. The star which went before the wise men of the east and which remained stationary above the dwelling place (of Joseph and Mary) was a sign that the newborn King was present there; however, it was not a type. A type anticipates something in the future, whereas a sign points out a certain matter -- past, present, or future -- and unveils it to the understanding. In this sense the Lord Jesus established Jonah as a sign of His burial. “There shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:39-40). Nowhere is Jonah either presented or designated to the Old Testament church as an example of Christ’s burial. Thus, they committed no sin if they neither perceived nor believed Jonah to be a type of His burial. Moreover, Christ did not say that Jonah was a type of Himself for the church of the Old Testament. Instead, the Lord Jesus gave Jonah as a sign to the Jews of His time. Nowhere in the entire New Testament does this ever mean that whatever befell Jonah is typical of what would also befall Christ. Thus, what we have in these verses is an explanation of what would happen to Jesus -- by way of analogy with Jonah -- so that when it would come to pass, they would be convinced that He was the true Messiah.
Fifthly, in the New Testament both expressions and matters are transferred from the Old Testament by way of allusion in order to explain the matter at hand -- however, without being types. Consider Revelation 2:7
Sixthly, consider attentively that God caused matters to transpire in the Old Testament with the intent that His wise and adorable providence would be observed afterwards, and that these matters would be applied allegorically. Thus, it is not only so that there would (or could) be an analogy between both, but God indeed intended it to be so. The apostle therefore presents Hagar and Sarah as having allegorical significance (Galatians 4:24). The Greek word is allegoroumena. Hagar was not a type of the Old Testament, for as the Old Testament is designated a typical covenant, the one type would thus be a type of another. Even without such a supposition, Hagar would be a type of those types which are presented therein -- which is a complete absurdity. Moreover, the apostle does not call her a type. Instead, he states that they are allegoroumena, which signifies matters which, by way of analogy, are transposed from one meaning to another. Thus, it is permissible to transpose the meaning of many matters to other matters, even though it may not be possible to determine with unquestionable certainty that God had that meaning in mind with that given situation. Consequently, one can thus delight himself in the wise providence of God which, for example, can be observed in God’s command to Abraham to offer his son Isaac upon Mount Moriah, the place where hundreds of years later the temple of Solomon was built and where sacrifices were made. One can do likewise in many other situations. One must, however, refrain from making types of them. I believe this is a solution to eliminate the differences of opinion concerning types. A Type Defined in the Strict Biblical Sense of the Word A type is something ordained of God prior to the coming of Christ, to typify the Savior who was to come. Its purpose was to instruct His church during that time frame and lead her to faith in Christ.
If one is to designate something as a type, the following must be true:
(1) It must have been appointed by God to be a type, for a type is an essential element of religion whereby the people of Israel were called to faith in Christ. However, their religion had to be utterly divorced from all will-worship and human precepts.
(2) Types had been given to the church of the Old Testament in order that during that time frame she would thereby look unto Christ and believe in Him. This is to be observed in Hebrews 9:9, “Which was a figure for the time then present.”
(3) Since the types had been given to the church of the Old Testament for the practice of religion, all those who did not use these types for their intended purpose -- to know and believe in the future Messiah -- did sin.
Therefore, something is most certainly a type (1) when one finds a person or matter designated as such in either the Old or New Testament;
(2) when such a person or matter had been revealed and given as such to the church of the Old Testament; and
(3) if one were guilty of sin because he failed to make use of this given type. When these three criteria are absent, however, one may not appoint or designate something as a type. We believe that this will convince the conscience of all who esteem God’s holy Word and delight in sound religion, making them to be careful in establishing and designating types. From what has been said, it is evident that:
(1) Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc., cannot be designated as types of the Lord Jesus, for there is neither evidence that they were appointed to be types, nor were they given as such to the Old Testament church -- nor is there evidence that it was or would be a sin to the church if she were not to avail herself of these men as types.
(2) The garments of Adam and Eve may not be designated as types of the righteousness of Christ wherewith believers are clothed. Aside from the fact that no word is mentioned about this in God’s Word, the basis upon which one does so is improbable; namely, that these clothes were made from the skins of those animals which Adam had sacrificed. Adam was at that time still in Paradise, and when God dressed them with these clothes, which were a rebuke for their sins, He derided them, saying, “Behold, the man is become as one of Us” (Genesis 3:22).
(3) For the identical reason, the ark of Noah is not a type of Christ. A similarity does not make something to be a type.
(4) The flood was neither a sacrament of the covenant of grace nor a type of holy baptism. Nowhere is it designated as such; the argument rests only on similarity.
Objection: The flood has been designated as a sacrament of the covenant of grace: “For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee” (Isaiah 54:9). Furthermore, holy baptism is identified as an antitype of the flood: “The like figure [Note: The Statenvertaling uses the word “tegenbeeld,” that is, antitype.] whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). The form for baptism speaks in like manner of the flood and the Red Sea, saying, “... by which baptism was signified.”
Answer: The text, Isaiah 54:9, does not speak of the actual flood as to the time and occasion of its occurrence. Rather, it speaks of something which transpired subsequently: the oath of God upon Noah’s sacrifice, that He would no more destroy the world by means of a flood. The flood is also not designated as either a sacrament or type -- neither are the Jews commanded to designate and use it as such. Instead, God declares what the matter, which transpired after the flood, meant to Him: He would be as true to His promise that He would not be wroth with His church as He was true to the oath He swore after the flood. Israel could be as sure of this as they were of the fact that the world would not again be drowned. The text, 1 Peter 3:21, does not establish the flood as a shadow or type of baptism. For even though holy baptism and the Lord’s Supper have come in the place of the Old Testament sacraments, these sacraments are not a type of the New Testament sacraments -- and much less of the flood. Where is the flood designated as a type? Did it serve that purpose during that time frame? This would have to be proven; however, not a word about this is to be found. We have shown before that examples are also mentioned which did not typify anything. They are only presented by way of application, as a warning, or for the purpose of emulation or explanation. Thus, holy baptism is here designated as an antitype for the purpose of explanation; that is, as Noah was protected against the water by the water which raised the ark, likewise is baptism, which seals and assures believers of their atonement by the blood of Christ, a means unto their salvation. The form for baptism does not say that the flood is a type of baptism, but rather that baptism is signified thereby. We have already shown in a previous paragraph that an alternate meaning does not presuppose a covenant. The Rainbow is Not a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace
Question: Is the rainbow a sacrament of the covenant of grace? Answer: One might be inclined to think that this is so, since it is called the token of the covenant (cf. Genesis 9:12-13). We answer negatively for the following reasons:
(1) It is a token of the covenant between God and the earth, all men (both good and evil), and all living animals which had been in the ark with Noah (cf. Genesis 9:9-17). The covenant of grace is only a covenant between God and believers.
(2) By means of the rainbow, the Lord did not seal any spiritual benefits in Christ, but temporal blessings only; this blessing being that there would be no more flood upon the earth. The covenant of grace, however, contains spiritual promises.
(3) Since the covenant and the rainbow will remain until the end of the world, this would mean that we would have three New Testament sacraments. The first one would then be the rainbow -- which is absurd.
(4) The word “covenant” does not always refer to a covenant in the actual sense of the word. It can also refer to an unchangeable promise or institution as in Jeremiah 33:20 : “If ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season.” The word “covenant” is here to be interpreted as an unchangeable promise and institution.
Objection: In Revelation 4:3 we read there was a rainbow round about the throne upon which Christ sat. This causes us to reflect upon the rainbow of the covenant established with Noah, indicating that this rainbow points to Christ.
Answer (1) This was a prophetic vision and must not be stretched beyond that.
(2) The rainbow reflected the radiance of Him who sat on the throne -- just as the rays of the sun shining through water vapor upon a heavy cloud cause the rainbow. Even if it were to refer to Noah’s rainbow (which is not certain), it would be an indication of the immutability and certainty of the things which would be revealed to John -- just as the rainbow gave assurance that there would be no reoccurrence of a global flood. There is no mention here whatsoever of the covenant of grace being sealed by the rainbow. The Old Testament Begins Neither at Mount Horeb nor Consists in the Inheritance of Canaan
Question: Did the Old Testament begin with the first promise in Paradise, or did it begin at Mount Horeb, consisting in the inheritance of Canaan as a type of heaven?
Answer: Some distinguish between the time before Mount Horeb, referred to as the time of promise, and the time after Horeb, referred to as the Old Testament, but not a covenant, which they distinguish from a testament. The first period they designate as a period of freedom, the other as one being under the hard yoke of bondage. This latter period would neither consist in the holding forth of the promises of salvation through Christ, nor as being the covenant of grace, but would consist in the inheritance of Canaan.
We respond in the first place by saying that Scripture does not make a distinction between covenant and testament, since the one word (berith) is used in the Old Testament, and the word (diatheke) is used in the New Testament. Furthermore, Scripture makes no distinction between these matters. Even the very time period they exclusively want to be designated as the Old Testament is referred to as a covenant in Scripture, describing this era in such terms as cannot be applicable to a testament. “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers ... because they continued not in My covenant” (Hebrews 8:9). The heir cannot disannul the testament, but a member of a covenant can break a covenant. Their distinction between testament and covenant is due to the entire construction of their argument being founded upon that distinction. If one were to refer to it as a testament, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have to be assigned to the first time frame, called the time of promise. By assigning them to this testament, the period of the Old Testament could neither be designated as a period of hard bondage, nor be limited to the inheritance of Canaan as being the substance of the Old Testament. They did not have Canaan in their possession as yet, but only the promise that their descendants would possess it. However, as we have shown in the appropriate place, the distinction between covenant and testament is unfounded.
Secondly, we maintain that the Old Testament does not consist in the inheritance of Canaan as a pledge of heaven.
(1) God’s Word states nowhere that Canaan is a pledge of heaven; this would have to be proven. It is indeed true that heaven is called a rest Hebrews 4:1 and that Canaan is also called a rest (Hebrews 3:18). However, one cannot designate something to be either a type or a pledge on the basis of name. It is not even Paul’s objective to compare Canaan and heaven with each other. Rather, he admonishes to be diligent to enter heaven by faith, using as his motive the evil consequences for the unbelieving Israelites in the desert. They did not enter Canaan because of unbelief, provoking God to wrath -- and are thus given as a warning example (1 Corinthians 10:11).
(2) If Canaan were a pledge of heaven, all ungodly Jews who lived in Canaan would have a pledge of heaven, and thus they would most certainly be saved -- for to whomever God gives a pledge, He will most certainly also give the matter itself.
(3) Since the disputants claim that the Jews lived in the fear of missing Canaan, such ungodly Jews could not have lived in such fear of death if Canaan were indeed a pledge of heaven. One would readily and easily dispense with the pledge in exchange for the matter it represents, as the pledge cannot even be compared to it. Since Canaan is not a pledge of heaven, it follows that the Old Testament does not consist in the inheritance of Canaan as being a pledge of heaven. The words “as a pledge” would then have to be left out and it would have to be said that the Old Testament consists in the inheritance of Canaan -- as something of a physical nature, and thus end in that which is physical. This point can also be verified as follows:
(1) God, by His very nature, cannot establish an external covenant, promising only temporal blessing upon outward obedience. We have dealt extensively with this in volume one, chapter 16. If God cannot enter into an external covenant with man, the Old Testament does not consist in the inheritance of Canaan.
(2) It is immaterial whether the Old Testament consists in either the promise of Canaan or in the possessing of it. If it consists in the promise, it did not begin at Mt. Horeb, but rather with Abraham who received the promise four hundred thirty years before that. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would then also belong to the Old Testament -- a fact the disputants deny.
(3) If the Old Testament consists in the possession of Canaan, it would not have begun at Mt. Horeb, but upon the entrance into Canaan -- consequently, forty years later. How then will Israel’s presence in Babylon be explained? Were they outside of the Old Testament during that time?
We thus conclude that the Old Testament does not consist in the inheritance of Canaan -- neither outwardly, physically, nor as a pledge of Canaan -- but rather that Canaan pertained to a temporal promise flowing out of the covenant of grace. Also in the New Testament the covenant of grace includes temporal blessings. The apostle Paul therefore changes the promise of Canaan into the promise of the earth: “That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth” (Ephesians 6:3).
Thirdly, we maintain that the Old Testament did not begin at Mount Horeb, but rather with the first promise of the gospel given to Adam in Paradise. This is true for the following reasons:
(1) It is evident from what has been said before: The Old Testament does not consist in the inheritance of Canaan, and therefore did neither begin with Abraham, nor with Horeb, nor with the entrance into Canaan.
(2) The first book of Moses describes the state of the church prior to the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt. This book is a book of the Old Testament, as the apostle confirms: “For until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament. ... But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart” (2 Corinthians 3:14-15). Paul here refers to the books of Moses -- not only the last four, but also the first one. Thus, the first book of Moses is a book of the Old Testament. Consequently, the church was at that time in the Old Testament; therefore, the Old Testament did not begin with Horeb, but with Adam.
(3) During the Old Testament period, Christ was depicted and sacrificed typically in the sacrifices. Thereby it was understood and confessed that satisfaction for sin had not actually occurred -- satisfaction which one day would be accomplished by the seed of the woman. This period the apostle refers to as the first covenant: “For if that first covenant had been faultless. ... In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old” Hebrews 8:7
(i) there is no other text in which it is contrasted with the new; that is, the one which came in its place;
(ii) the apostle shows this in the same chapter, verse 5: “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.”
Thus, the entire period during which Christ was exemplified and typified was the Old Testament. Christ was, however, depicted and sacrificed by way of shadows in the sacrifices not only in and after Moses’ time, but also prior to Moses -- from the very time of Abraham. Already then they had altars and sacrifices of the firstborn of clean cattle as well as of the fruits of the field. We observe this with Cain and Abel Genesis 4:3-4, Noah Genesis 8:20, Abraham Genesis 12:7-8, the sacrifice of Isaac and of the ram in Isaac’s place Genesis 22:13, Isaac Genesis 26:25, and Jacob, who built an altar upon God’s command (Genesis 35:1-7). In all this Christ was depicted for them; therefore it is said of Christ that He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). Whereas the Old Testament consists of the ministry of shadows, and since the ministry of shadows has functioned since Adam, the Old Testament thus originates with Adam.
(4) The period when sins were atoned for by Christ prior to His incarnation belongs to the Old Testament. This is evident from Hebrews 9:15 : “And for this cause He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” However, Christ did not only atone for the sins committed subsequent to Moses, but also prior to Moses, that is, since the time of Adam. This is beyond controversy.
Evasive Argument: Christ did indeed make atonement for those sins, but the apostle nevertheless speaks only of the Old Testament which began with the exodus of the church from Egypt, and thus limits the forgiveness of sins to that period.
Answer (i) Since the disputants believe that the inheritance of Canaan constitutes the Old Testament, the apostle would then have to speak only of those sins which were committed relative to that testament. This is absurd and contradicts the objective of the apostle.
(ii) Scripture does not divide the period prior to Christ as a period of promise prior to Moses, and a period subsequent to Moses, denominating only that period as the Old Testament. Scripture only knows of two periods: yesterday and today. Yesterday is the entire period prior to Christ, and today is the period subsequent to Christ. It declares that the death of Christ was equally efficacious in both periods: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8).
(iii) The apostle shows in the same chapter, Hebrews 9:1-28, that he does not restrict the atonement of sin to the period from Moses forward; rather, he has in view all sins of believers committed prior to Christ -- and thus also those sins which have been committed from the foundation of the world. This is evident in verse 26: “For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world.” This means that His one sacrifice would then have lacked the efficacy to remove all the sins of His elect which had been committed from the foundation of the world. Thus it is a certainty that the time from Adam to Christ is the time of the Old Testament.
(5) The Old Testament constitutes that period, the sacrifices and typical ministry of which had to cease and be annulled by virtue of their fulfillment through Christ, the substance of the shadows. “In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). It cannot be maintained here that the apostle has only the period of Moses in view, calling it the first testament. In addition to what has been stated above, none would be able to show that the sacrifices and other shadows in use prior to Moses had been abolished. However, all those sacrifices and shadows in use prior to Moses also belong to “those things that are shaken,” which have to be removed (Hebrews 12:27). All those things were abolished, just as those in use during and after Moses. Consequently, the sacrifices since the time of Adam belong to the Old Testament. This period is as much the time of the Old Testament as is the time after Moses.
Objection #1: “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). Thus, the covenant commenced at Horeb.
Answer: Israel stood before Jordan, ready to enter Canaan. Moses, addressing those who were alive at that moment, contrasted them with their fathers. The covenant which God made with them there was not made with their fathers. Who were the fathers? They were those who died during the forty-year sojourn in the wilderness -- this in accordance with God’s threat that all who had left Egypt, being twenty years of age or above, would not enter Canaan. The Lord had indeed made a covenant with the nation of Israel at Horeb. Those involved, however, were already dead and did not receive the fulfillment of the promise of Canaan. Instead, those who were then alive would possess it, and with them God made this covenant. The essence of this covenant was no different from the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and with Israel at Horeb. In essence they are one and the same: “... that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers” (Deuteronomy 7:12). However, the circumstances were different, involving different people: a people who now stood ready to cross Jordan and enter into Canaan. It was a solemn renewal of that covenant; it had not taken place with their fathers, but it had with them. Circumstances will change a given situation; thus a given matter is referred to in different terms, thereby negating the former as to measure and manner. Observe this in John 7:39 : “The Holy Ghost was not yet given,” who, however, was from all eternity, and of whom believers prior to and during the time of Christ were partakers. Consider also Romans 16:25-26 : “... according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest.” It is even clearer in Ephesians 3:5 : “Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed.” The intent here is the same: not with our fathers, but with us. Those who advance the initial text as a counter argument cannot but understand this text to mean just that, for they do not place the beginning of the Old Testament at the moment when Israel stood before the Jordan and solemnly renewed the covenant, but at the exodus or at Horeb.
Objection #2: “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (Jeremiah 31:32). Since God established the Old Testament then, one must therefore place its commencement at that time, and not any earlier.
Answer (1) This has already been answered; that is, when a matter which in essence already existed is said to have transpired subsequent thereto, it means that it has occurred in a different manner and measure. The covenant made at Horeb in its essence existed prior to that, for it was the covenant which God had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is by virtue of that covenant that God delivered Israel from Egypt in order to bring them to Canaan (Exodus 2:24). It is by virtue of that covenant that God inaugurated the covenant with Israel at Horeb and at the Jordan. “Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God ... that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God ... that He may establish thee to day for a people unto Himself, and that He may be unto thee a God, as He hath said unto thee, and as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” Deuteronomy 29:10
Objection #3: “... these (Hagar and Sarah) are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar” (Galatians 4:24). The Old Testament therefore necessarily begins at Sinai.
Answer: The apostle does not state that it began at Sinai. Rather, he refers to this place due to the official ratification and the solemn inauguration of this covenant, for it has been shown that the covenant, as far as its essence is concerned, already existed prior to this. If Hagar were the covenant, it must consequently originate with her. By way of application, she is referred to as the covenant retroactively, there being similarity and agreement in some matters (cf. p. 382). We shall discuss this text more comprehensively elsewhere. From what has been said, it has been shown sufficiently that this text does not state that the Old Testament commenced at Sinai.
Objection #4: “Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood” (Hebrews 9:18). The word “dedicated” signifies the construction of something new; thus, one must place the origin of the Old Testament at Sinai. There, by way of a large system, it was ratified with blood. The apostle refers to this time, which is evident from the verses which follow.
Answer (1) Dedication does not signify the beginning of a matter which previously did not exist, for this word is also used for something which is either improved or renewed: “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication” (John 10:22). Here is the same word, signifying renewal.
(2) The first covenant was already ratified in Adam’s time with the first sacrifice. Noah ratified it by blood when he exited the ark. When the covenant was established with Abraham and his seed, it was also solemnly ratified with blood (Genesis 15:8-9).
(3) A marriage may have been arranged long before the official ceremony; however, this does not constitute a different marriage. A king may already be king and have reigned prior to having been crowned. However, the crowning ceremony neither makes him a new king nor does it even make him a king. It is the same here. The covenant spoken of at Sinai existed already and had been initiated several times previously. However, in this situation it manifests itself under entirely different circumstances. At this occasion, there was a general and public ratification of the covenant which had been established with their father Abraham. The shadows and types were now regulated and arranged in a different order, all of which would be subservient to keep the church in the midst of that nation faithful to true religion. Thus, the identical covenant, which had already existed and had already been inaugurated, was ratified anew with festive ceremonies. Therefore, this text does not indicate that the Old Testament commenced at Sinai.
Remission of Sins by the Shedding of Blood by Way of Sacrifices Predates Moses and the Ceremonial Laws
We have hereby demonstrated that the Old Testament did not begin at Sinai, but with Adam; and that the Old Testament did not consist in the inheritance of Canaan as being an example and pledge of heaven. Consequently, the period from Adam to Moses can no longer be referred to as the time of promise in contrast with the time after Sinai. The entire period from Adam to Christ is the time of promise. What the apostle says of the fathers of the Old Testament in Hebrews 11:13 is most certainly true for the believers of all that time: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them.” The supposition which distinguishes between the time prior to Moses as being the time of promise only, and the time after Moses as being the Old Testament, engenders another supposition: The sacrifices from Adam to Moses were neither mandatory nor imposed, but were offered voluntarily, and then only when men had a desire to do so. These sacrifices were not intended to declare men guilty in regard to sin, unpaid debt, and inability to make personal satisfaction, and to lead them to the only sacrifice of Christ, He being the fulfilling antitype of their foreshadowing sacrifice.
We respond, first of all, that we cannot imagine there would be anyone who would maintain that the sacrifices of that period were neither instituted nor mandated, for:
(1) How would man himself be able to fabricate such suitable types of Christ, they being the same types as were commanded of God subsequent to Sinai, and to that end distinguish between clean and unclean cattle?
(2) Their sacrifices would then not even have been religious in nature. Instead, it would have been a self-willed religion established by men, which had been forbidden by God and declared by the Lord Jesus to be vain (Matthew 15:9).
(3) They would then not have been able to sacrifice in faith -- which nevertheless they did. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Hebrews 11:4). Their sacrifices could then not have been pleasing to God -- which nevertheless they were. “And the Lord smelled a sweet savour” (Genesis 8:21).
(4) God had expressly commanded to build an altar: “And God said unto Jacob ... make there an altar” (Genesis 35:1). If there is a command to build an altar, then there is also a command to offer up sacrifice, this being the purpose for which the altar was made.
Secondly, it is God’s will that all religion instituted and commanded of God be practiced. God has never given man the freedom of choice as to whether he would practice a mandatory religious exercise or not. Noncompliance with God’s commandment is disobedience toward Him. Furthermore, God does not want compulsory service. All service must proceed from faith and love; and wherever these are present, there will be voluntary compliance. Any religious exercise which one does against his wishes and by coercion will not be well-pleasing to God. “To obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22). Whatever was needed for the construction of the tabernacle had to be given voluntarily. It is commanded that it be so: “Serve Him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind” (1 Chronicles 28:9). Since God had commanded the sacrifices, and everyone was thus obligated to comply, God uses motives to stimulate men to be obedient, doing so at times with promises and at other times with threats -- it being God’s will that transgressors of His law be punished by having them expelled from the church. Since God also had a separated people (a congregation or church) who practiced religion prior to Moses and Abraham, there was necessarily also order -- and thus also rebuke and excommunication from the congregation if someone was and continued to be disobedient.
Both prior to and after Moses, the shadows were not given for punitive purposes; that is, as a vexatious and troublesome burden. Rather, they were a divine blessing and benefit. They constituted the gospel which instructed them about Christ and led them to Him. The more types God afforded them, the greater benefit God bestowed upon them, and the more clearly He made Christ known to them. The godly found great delight in these types and thanked the Lord for them. Therefore, we readily admit that the sacrifices prior to the time of Moses were not given to be a vexatious burden -- as is also true for the sacrifices subsequent to Moses. Among all the ordinances prior to Christ, there was none more difficult or painful than circumcision, which Peter refers to as “a yoke ... which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). This circumcision had already been instituted several hundred years prior to Moses; nevertheless, compliance with this ordinance was delightful and easy for those whose pleasure it was to serve God according to His will.
Thirdly, all sacrifices point to Christ. Apart from that purpose they were neither instituted, nor were they pleasing to God, who is not pleased with external service. Thus, the sacrifices prior to Moses also looked forward to Christ, and it is for that reason that Christ is called “the Lamb which was slain before the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). Moreover, they sacrificed in faith, which always points to Christ. Therefore, the sacrifices prior to Moses typified Christ.
Fourthly, all the sacrifices were a remembrance again of sins to the humbling of those who sacrificed. All sacrifices declare that the guilt of sin had not been satisfied, but would be satisfied by the substitutionary Surety, Jesus Christ. All sacrifices declare that neither he who sacrifices nor the sacrifice itself can remove sin, but point to the substance of those shadows. All this is characteristic of a sacrifice; otherwise a sacrifice is not a sacrifice. Consequently, all sacrifices point to sins and their removal. This is to be observed in Leviticus 1:4 : “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” Thus also the sacrifice of Job -- who did not descend from Abraham and who, in all probability, lived prior to Moses -- pointed to sin and atonement. When offering a burnt offering, he said, “It may be that my sons have sinned” (Job 1:5). All sacrifices are of an identical nature. Nowhere is a distinction made between the sacrifices before and after Moses. There is no argument that the sacrifices after Moses pointed to sin and atonement; therefore, this is equally true prior to Moses. Even in the New Testament, holy baptism and the Lord’s Supper point to sin and atonement -- much more so than the sacrifices in the Old Testament. From all this it is very clear that religion prior to and after Moses does not differ as to nature and sort -- nor is there a difference between the state of the church prior to and after Moses.