1st & 2nd Testament: God’s Story Without the Misleading Labels

I have a spectacular verbal rebrand that is going to confuse a few and probably annoy others when I say this: 

1st and 2nd Testament

I have made it clear many times that I don’t believe that once the “New” Testament came around, God kicked the “Old” to the curb. 

People made that word distinction, not God. Honestly, though, I get the reasoning behind it; it does make sense simply from a distinction standpoint.

But come on.

You can’t expect people to do something and not figure that satan’s going to find some way to exploit it to his advantage. Out with the old, in with the new should honestly be satan’s motto at this point.

Especially with the way people, Christian and non alike, are attacking the Old Testament.

Satan couldn’t have planned anything better if he tried, and he doesn’t have to; all he has to do is sit back and let people — well, be people.

Here’s a good question: 

Why do we still call it the Old Testament anyway?

Why label it like it’s some dusty irrelevant relic, a “before” to something better? It’s misleading. It makes people think God suddenly decided to change. And calling the other the New Testament? That makes it sound separate, shinier, less serious, and like a replacement.

Let me point something out:

• 1st & 2nd Samuel

• 1st & 2nd Kings

• 1st & 2nd Chronicles

• 1st & 2nd Corinthians

• 1st & 2nd Thessalonians

• 1st & 2nd Timothy

• 1st & 2nd Peter

• 1st, 2nd & 3rd John

  
  

Couldn’t have any of those 2nd’s (or that random 3rd) without any of those 1st’s, otherwise that would make for a very odd read. 

And no, word counts don’t apply here, and neither do writing styles, message, theme, time period, writer, etc, because the Bible is a very eclectic collection of inspired works, chosen by God, guided by God, and approved by God. It’s so eclectic you wouldn’t win any of those arguments.

Here’s a thought:

Maybe it’s high time we start calling them the 1st Testament and 2nd Testament. 

Not just for kicks — there’s a precedent. We already have 1st and 2nd editions. Nobody is debating those. Everyone understands they’re sequential, chronological, and part of the same ongoing message to us.

Nothing about that changes God’s character, story, or His message.

Calling them 1st and 2nd Testaments keeps that continuity intact, puts God’s revelation in order, and then slows satan down from twisting things as easily.

Because people would stop seeing the Old Testament (especially the laws he’s trying to tear down) as irrelevant.

It also pulls the plug on this whole “selective Christianity” BS. You know, the whole “I only follow the God of love” nonsense. 

That stops being funny when you realize you just tossed half of God aside because it made you uncomfortable.

The case for 1st and 2nd:

• The 1st Testament sets the stage, the 2nd Testament reveals the actor. 

• The Law is the backdrop, Christ is the spotlight. 

• The prophets were the previews, Jesus is the feature. 

• The promises were written in ink, the fulfillment was spilled in blood.

• You don’t get the Messiah without Moses. 

• You don’t get the cross without the covenant. 

• And you definitely don’t get Revelation’s victory without Genesis’s beginning.

  
  

Consider this with seriousness (at least the concept) because your life very well could depend on how much God you decide to chop out of your opinions.

This article is inspired by God our Father and Medium writer, Richoka.

© Jane Isley