Written by Ian J. Vaillancourt |
Tuesday, February 28, 2023
As we grow in understanding the Pentateuch as the essential first act in the Bible’s grand story, our experience of Christ will never be the same. Let’s work to be whole-Bible Christians who together grow in our vision of the gospel in resplendent color.

A Vision of the Gospel in Resplendent Color (from the Pentateuch!)
The theater lights are dim and everyone’s attention is fixed on the screen. Those watching are comfortable in their seats and so wrapped up in the story that popcorn sits uneaten on every lap. This is why no one really notices when, fifteen minutes into the action, we tiptoe in. We find a few seats in the back corner and begin to piece the story together. Twenty minutes pass, then thirty, then a full hour, and by the time the theater lights come back on, we have a nagging feeling that we are missing something. Sure, we sort of figured out the story’s high points, but without its essential first part, we could not enjoy the movie the same way as everyone else.
The Pentateuch is a cluster of five books that make up the essential first act in the Bible’s grand story. This means that if we are Christians who want to understand the gospel better, the Pentateuch is a great place to start. Although this might sound counterintuitive, it’s true. As we go deeper in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, a black-and-white grasp of the Bible’s message will increasingly give way to a vision of the gospel in resplendent color. These foundational books are the entry point into the biblical story that continues through the Old and New Testaments and gloriously concludes in the book of Revelation. Without the Pentateuch, there would be no first act in the grand drama.
The First Christians
For the first Christians, these claims would not have been counterintuitive. The apostle Paul—who began his ministry career as Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee—was steeped in the Old Testament (and especially the Pentateuch). After Paul encountered the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, he spent his first years as a Christian rethinking the entire (Old Testament) Scriptures that he already knew so well, in light of Jesus as their fulfillment. This was also true for the first Jewish Christians, who were raised on the (Old Testament) Scriptures. And although the first non-Jewish Christians had not been raised with a biblical worldview, their first encounter with the gospel, and then their learning at church gatherings, would have been focused on the (Old Testament) Scriptures.
Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck put it well:
The Gospel is the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament. Without it, the Gospel hangs suspended in the air. The Old Testament is the pedestal on which the Gospel rests, and the root out of which it came forth.1
If these things are true for the first three quarters of the Christian Bible—the entire Old Testament—how much more so for the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is the first act in the Old Testament story, and it is the foundation on which everything in the Old Testament rests. As we better understand the first act, we will discover a new depth in our understanding of themes as they develop through the rest of the Old Testament, and then as they are revealed with Christ as their fulfillment in the New Testament.
A Wonderful Description of Jesus
Although entire libraries of books have been written on this topic, let’s catch more of the vision by turning to a wonderful passage in Hebrews:

Related Posts:

Love is not what valorizes a human sexual relationship in God’s eyes. Love, of course, is related to the idea of a deep and lasting bond between two human beings. But given how widespread the mantra “love is love” has become in valorizing various types of human sexual relationships, it needs to be mentioned separately. The rightness and goodness of a human sexual relationship is not to be found in the subjective feelings of the two human beings. Rather, it is to be found in the objective characteristics of God’s design for human bodies, minds, and relationships. If one is to find love in a sexual relationship, it will not be found in any structure of sexual relationship one chooses. Instead, it will be found by placing oneself within a sexual relationship designed by God.

Every day brings new evidence that the LGBTQ+ movement is capturing more and more territory in American life, and that more and more hearts and minds are being won over to the movement’s ideology, including among Christians. Confusion about sex runs rampant and threatens to trample traditional Christians in its path.
It might seem there is nothing for those of us who are traditionally minded Christians to do but look forward in anxiety. Yet, we would do well instead to look back at what God teaches us about human sexuality through his Word in the Old Testament. The culture today offers only shifting sands about the definition of words, the purpose of bodies, the nature of reality and identity, and truth itself. The Old Testament, in contrast, is direct and firm about these things, in ways that are directly relevant to our current predicament.
The Old Testament tells us that the world was created in a certain way, that it fell apart in a certain way, and that it continued on in a certain fallen way.
The way God created the world and how he wanted it to be can be seen in Genesis 1 and 2.
In Genesis 1:26-28, God created human beings. In particular, to render the Hebrew of Gen 1:27 literally, God “created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them.” Thus, God formed a gender binary of male and female (the “them”), and together that binary formed a human singularity (the “it”). He then instructed man and woman, acting together, to reproduce.
From this passage we see several things about how God designed human sexuality. First, there was no spectrum of sexes (or one could say genders; traditionally both words are inseparable from human reproduction); rather, God designed the world such that a person was created in one of two distinct and different human sexual forms – male or female. Second, the sex of a person was not determined by a person’s subjective state, not “assigned” at birth, nor was it changeable; rather, God designed the world such that a person’s sex is an objective and fixed fact of his or her existence from conception. Third, human reproduction cannot be accomplished in a variety of ways; rather, God designed the world for human reproduction to take place when one human male and one human female have sexual intercourse. Fourth, reproduction was a main purpose for God’s creation of two distinct and different sexual forms. Fifth, the distinct and different physical and sexual characteristics and reproductive roles of human males and human females were not in need of description or definition in the biblical text, nor waiting for an academic theory to make sense of them; rather, God designed males and females, and the human capacity to observe and gain knowledge, such that these things are clear, obvious, and objectively knowable facts of human existence.
Next, in Genesis 2:4-25, God creates a man, and states that it is not good for the man to be alone, the problem being the man’s inability by himself to be the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), reproduce (Gen 1:26-28), govern the world (Gen 1:26-28), tend the garden (Gen 2:15), and be psychologically and emotionally whole, a set of things which collectively will be referred to below as the pair-bond complex. God states that a special living being he will create will resolve the problem of the man’s aloneness. God then creates animals and brings them to the man, but the man does not identify any of them as the special living being. God then makes a woman, a female human, for the man. God brings her to the man, and the man identifies her as the special living being. The narrator then says that a man will cling to a woman and that the two of them will become one flesh, and so describes a male/female relationship as one of deep attachment, and the two as fitted for each other.
This passage shows us several things about how God designed human sexuality. First, God designed the human sexual relationship to involve one male and one female, not multiple males or females, or even a “spectrum” of sexualities. Second, this male/female pair was not a social arrangement which existed temporarily or periodically; rather, it entailed a lasting and continuous bond between a male/female pair seeking to live out the elements of the pair-bond complex. Third, God designed the world such that the only pair of living beings which would be able to fulfill all elements of the pair-bond complex would be a human male and a human female. This can be seen in the phrase God uses to describe the special living being. God says that this special living being was going to be kenegdô (Genesis 2:18; “I will make a helper kenegdô”). The Hebrew word kenegdô is a compound of the particle ke, meaning ‘like,’ the word neged, meaning ‘opposite,’ and the pronoun ô, meaning ‘him.’ This special living being was, therefore, to be “like opposite him.” It is, of course, important to be cautious about defining the meaning of a compound word by looking at the meanings of the word’s individual parts. In the case of kenegdô, however, its parts reveal why the woman is the special living being. An animal cannot be the special living being because, though an animal and a man are opposite each other (that is to say, different), an animal is not like a man because it is not a human being, and so an animal and a man cannot fulfill all elements of the pair-bond complex. Another man cannot be the special living being because, though a man and a man are like each other in being human beings, a man and a man are not opposite each other, and so a man and a man cannot fulfill all elements of the pair-bond complex. A woman is the special living being because a woman and a man are opposite each other, and a woman and a man are also like each other in being human beings, and so a woman and a man, and only a woman and a man, can fulfill all elements of the pair-bond complex together.
Turning now to how the world fell apart from what God intended, this is described in Genesis 3. Here we see that God gave the man and the woman instructions for how he wanted them to live and behave in the world. God also gave them the freedom to abide by these instructions or not. Using this freedom, they violated one of the instructions. God then punished the woman and the man, punishments which carried forward in time and affected the human beings who came after them, and indeed the whole created order.
We can learn several things from Genesis 3 regarding human sexuality. First, God established a moral framework for the first two human beings to live by. Their decision to go their own way and create their own moral framework had terrible consequences for them and their descendants, who carry on the family tradition of creating their own moral frameworks, especially in the area of sexual behavior and ethics, always with terrible consequences. Second, one of the punishments God gave is that there would be difficulties in the process of reproduction (Genesis 3:16). The text refers to childbirth becoming painful for women. Surrounding that pain would be all sorts of other reproductive problems such as infertility for women and men, miscarriage, and maternal/infant death. Third, another punishment which God gave is that the male/female relationship would become troubled and characterized by struggle thereafter (Genesis 3:16).
Turning now to how the world continued on in its fallen state, this is described in Genesis 4 and in the texts which follow. Here we see several things about human sexuality in the fallen world.
First, the appearance of reproductive difficulties led humans to devise various mechanisms to deal with infertility, mechanisms such as levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) and the use of surrogates (Genesis 29:31-30:24). Although their intention accorded with God’s instructions to reproduce in the face of reproductive difficulties, these mechanisms lay outside the bounds of the creational design of a deeply bonded male/female pair of human beings.
Second, the disruption of order in the male/female relationship led to humans developing numerous configurations of the human sexual relationship which were at variance with the creational structure of a deeply bonded male/female human pair, configurations such as polygyny (1 Samuel 1:1-8), concubinage (Judges 19), and random sexual relationships (Judges 19). The disruption also led to the objectification and (ab)use of women by men, as seen in their abduction (Judges 21), their being divorceable (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), their being raped (2 Sam 13:1-22), and their being collected by powerful males (1 Kings 11:1-3) (for more on these configurations, and the reproductive mechanisms mentioned in the preceding paragraph, see here and here).
Third, the supplanting of God’s moral framework with self-constructed moral frameworks led to sexual behaviors which transgressed the creational design of a deeply bonded male/female pair. In response, God articulated laws which condemned and prohibited transgressive sexual behaviors such as the following: a human male with a human male (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13); a human male with an animal (Leviticus 18:23; 20:15); a human female with an animal (Leviticus 18:23; 20;16); adultery (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18); prostitution (Leviticus 19:29; 21:9; Deuteronomy 23:17-18).
As to why God prohibited these particular behaviors, remember that God’s creational design for the human person was for both the mind and the body of a human male to be intertwined with the mind and the body of a human female in a deeply bonded relationship. Each of the prohibited sexual interactions fails to conform to this design, and transgresses how God created and designed human bodies, minds, and relationships to work. Thus, God was using these laws to restrain prohibited behavior, but also, and more importantly, to bring into greater relief what his ideal, harmony-oriented design for sexual activity was, and to guide people back to that.
One way to appreciate more fully what God is getting at in these laws is to think in terms of the mechanics of sexual activity. Regarding this, there are two issues which these laws are concerned with:
1)  what type of body human male genitals correctly and incorrectly penetrate, and what type of male genitals correctly and incorrectly penetrate a human female body
2)  what type of body is human male semen correctly and incorrectly deposited in, and what type of male semen is correctly and incorrectly deposited in a human female body
The following diagram shows how the laws adjudicate these issues:

When the sexual behaviors which God prohibits and permits are looked at in this way, the bedrock role of anatomy and physiology in God’s design for a sexual relationship comes into stark relief. God’s design for a human sexual relationship entails a specific anatomical and physiological relationship between two human beings when they physically couple. This specific anatomy and physiology is heterosexual, and heterosexual anatomy and physiology is reproductive, and, as seen in Genesis 1, reproduction is a central purpose of the two sexual forms of human beings which God creates. Reproduction, however, is not possible in several of the prohibited sexual relationships (human male/human male, human male/animal, human female/animal), or welcome in others (adultery, prostitution). These sexual behaviors do not then comport with the fundamental physical and purposive aspects of God’s design for a human sexual relationship.
Something which highlights God’s focus on these visceral issues of penetration and deposit of semen is the absence of a prohibition against the sexual interaction of a human female with a human female. Such behavior transgresses God’s design for the female body and mind, but the genitals of a human female cannot deposit semen in the other female body. Thus, female/female sexual behavior is not topically relevant at this point in Scripture. It will, however, be dealt with elsewhere, namely, in Romans 1:26-27, where it is identified as not conforming to God’s creational design and thus as a transgressive type of sexual interaction.
But having said all of this about anatomy and physiology, that is not the only thing which has a bedrock role in God’s design for a human sexual relationship. There is also relationality. God’s design for a human sexual relationship entails a deep and lasting bond between two human beings, something which emerges from and is physicalized and perpetuated by the visceral qualities of heterosexual intercourse between them. This bond is important to the relationship between the man and the woman, but it also ensures that any offspring resulting from their union will come into the world within a structure designed to be stable and oriented to caring for them. Such a deep and lasting human male/female bond, however, is not possible in several of the prohibited sexual relationships (human male/animal, human female/animal), or welcomed in others (some cases of adultery, some cases of human male/human male, prostitution), or undistracted and single-minded in others (adultery). These sexual behaviors do not then comport with the fundamental relational aspect of God’s design for a human sexual relationship.
Two things follow these observations about the essential elements of God’s design for a human sexual relationship.
First, God’s design for a human sexual relationship does not entail solely a certain anatomy and physiology or solely a certain relationality. It entails both. One cannot have only one of the two and call the relationship good and right. Both aspects must be present for the bond to be in accord with God’s design. Thus, for example, no sexual activity between a man and woman in a structure of slavery can be called good and right; so too, a deep and lasting bond between two male sexual partners cannot be called good and right.
Second, love is not what valorizes a human sexual relationship in God’s eyes. Love, of course, is related to the idea of a deep and lasting bond between two human beings. But given how widespread the mantra “love is love” has become in valorizing various types of human sexual relationships, it needs to be mentioned separately. The rightness and goodness of a human sexual relationship is not to be found in the subjective feelings of the two human beings. Rather, it is to be found in the objective characteristics of God’s design for human bodies, minds, and relationships. If one is to find love in a sexual relationship, it will not be found in any structure of sexual relationship one chooses. Instead, it will be found by placing oneself within a sexual relationship designed by God – a deep and lasting pair-bond relationship of like/opposites who seek to live out the elements of the pair-bond complex together.
Dr. Richard Whitekettle and a Professor of Religion in the Religion Department at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, MI.
Related Posts:

The western world’s gnostic separation of the human person into a good soul and a bad body has manifested itself in the postmodern transgender movement. This radical, ultimately anti-humanistic form of dualism drives an arbitrary wedge between a person’s physical, biological sex and their so-called gender. To honor their “true” or “authentic” internal sense of gender, no matter how nebulous or confused it may be, many people today, an alarming number of them children, will hire surgeons to mutilate their body so as to bring it into conformity with their “soul.”

Most American Christians are aware that it is an ancient heresy to say that Jesus was man but not God (Arianism); less are aware that there were just as many heretics who promoted the opposite error: that Jesus was God but not man (Gnosticism). The reason Gnostics denied that God became fully man in the incarnation is that they held a low view of matter in general and flesh in particular. For Gnostics, matter and flesh were not products of a good creation that fell; the creation of matter and flesh was itself the fall.
         Although there are very few full-blown Gnostics in the church today, many Americans hold to a soft dualism that sees the soul as good and the body as bad. It is because of that theological misunderstanding that many Christians imagine that when we die, we become angels: that is, pure souls. Although Christians affirm in both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds their belief in the resurrection of the body, a suspicion of the flesh persists.
         Thankfully, this gnostic, anti-biblical demonization of the flesh was dealt a decisive blow 1600 years ago in Book XIV, chapter 3 of The City of God. Although Virgil seemed to teach, in Aeneid 6, that the body weighs down the soul, Augustine insists that the Christian
faith teaches something very different. For the corruption of the body, which is a burden to the soul, is not the cause but the punishment of Adam’s first sin. Moreover, it was not the corruptible flesh that made the soul sinful; on the contrary, it was the sinful soul that made the flesh corruptible. Though some incitements to vice and vicious desires are attributable to the corruption of the flesh, nevertheless, we should not ascribe to the flesh all the evils of a wicked life. Else, we free the Devil from all such passions, since he has no flesh. It is true that the Devil cannot be said to be addicted to debauchery, drunkenness, or any others of the vices which pertain to bodily pleasure—much as he secretly prompts and provokes us to such sins—but he is most certainly filled with pride and envy. It is because these passions so possessed the Devil that he is doomed to eternal punishment in the prison of the gloomy air. 
If flesh were the seat of evil, then none of the angels could have fallen. There are sins that rise up from the flesh, but they tend to be less wicked and corrupting than pride and envy, which rise up from the soul (see Mark 7:14-23). Indeed, it is more often the soul that leads the body astray than vice versa.
         No, Augustine explains in chapter 4, “the animal man is not one thing and the carnal another, but both are one and the same, namely, man living according to man.” In fact, he continues in chapter 5, it is wrong “to blame our sins and defects on the nature of the flesh, for this is to disparage the Creator. The flesh, in its own kind and order, is good. But what is not good is to abandon the Goodness of the Creator in pursuit of some created good, whether by living deliberately according to the flesh, or according to the soul, or according to the entire man, which is made up of soul and flesh and which is the reason why either ‘soul’ alone or ‘flesh’ alone can mean a man.”
         Those who are aware that St. Augustine played the central role in formulating the doctrine of original sin might be surprised to find Augustine here defending the body from its detractors. To be fair, Augustine, who went through a gnostic (Manichean) phase before embracing Christianity and whose pre-conversion years were marked by sexual promiscuity found it necessary to adopt a celibate lifestyle for himself and did sometimes speak in a disparaging manner of the flesh. Still, nowhere in his writings does he equate original sin with sex, nor does he treat the body as inherently fallen. Just as original sin tainted body and soul alike, so Christ’s atoning work on the cross restored body and soul alike.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.