See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328176119

An Overview of the Pentateuch

Article · October 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 4,732

1 author:

Bon Ha Gu
Biola University
8 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Some Philosophical Objections to Paul Draper’s Evidential Problem from Pain and Pleasure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bon Ha Gu on 16 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Introduction
Commonly attributed as the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus,

Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), the Pentateuch (or Torah in Hebrew and Judaism) was

among the earliest corpus designated the status of “Scripture” within the Jewish Orthodox

tradition.1 The compilation hosts a diversity of material, which includes creation history,

genealogies, Patriarchal narratives, and nation-state sagas, rendered in a tapestry of thematic and

literary forms and stylizations. The Pentateuch’s being the first corpus within the canon prompts

its natural and novel founding of the first principles and foundational beliefs of biblical theology;

it is considered the foundation document of Israel. Furthermore, although the books in the

Pentateuch contain materials from different origins, the five separate accounts nevertheless share

a unifying vision. Taken as a whole, the Pentateuch constructs a theological prelude to God and

His nature, sin, and the nature of humanity demonstrated in Yahweh’s gracious creation and the

election of His people.

Interpretive Conventions of Law, (Ritual), and Narrative

A primary hermeneutical task when perusing the Pentateuch is discerning the use of law

as a literary genre, and particularly its usage as Near Eastern covenant, as the Pentateuch

includes vast legal contents of ordinances, statutes, and commandments throughout its five books

(primarily in Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 33). Law as covenant was not exclusive to Pentateuchal

literature, and various permutations of covenant are found within Mesopotamian, Babylonian,

and Sumerian traditions. The covenant code (Exodus 20-24) and the book of Deuteronomy

analog ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties, wherein a vassal submits to the stipulations

spelled out by the more-powerful suzerain, to acquire auspicious provisions like protection and

1
Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. (3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub.
House, 2009), PDF, 68.
safety, and the suzerain’s honoring of its territorial boundaries and trade relations.2 As Hill and

Walton muse, “The means by which God establishes relations with humanity is through a series

of covenant enactments.”3 The Pentateuch exhibits a comparable binding indenture between

Yahweh and Israel, where Israel—by observing Yahweh’s covenantal conditions (i.e., the

Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants)—are granted blessings and prosperity. The

Pentateuch’s modeling off suzerainty (covenant) serves as an effective method of introducing

Yahweh and His nature to both Israel and readers. Foremost, the treaty functions as a foundation

or preamble document—inaugurating Israel’s theological identity (Exod 19:6: “…you will be my

kingdom of priests, a holy nation”) and their pertinence in the world in relation to Yahweh (Exod

20:2: “I am the Lord, your God”);4 it also attests to the historical dealings of the suzerain

(Yahweh) on behalf of the vassal or Israel (Exod 20:2: “Who brought you out of Egypt, out of

the land of slavery”), demonstrating what the suzerain has done for the vassal, and so legitimizes

the vassal’s allegiance; and the explicit spelling out of prescriptions and prohibitions (Exod 20:

3-17) help construct judicial and moral standards of rightness and wrongness held liable by the

vassal.

It is another hermeneutical task, however, to discern the applicability (or their lack) of

these covenantal stipulations in light of the New Covenant or in the life of the Christian.

Traditional approaches to Old Testament law cluster the stipulations broadly into three

categories: civil, ritual, and ethical or moral laws:5 Civil laws appear interspersed throughout

2
Meredith Kline. "Suzerain Treaties & The Covenant Documents the Bible.” Dr. Kline’s Presentation at the
Westminster Theological Seminar. Accessed April 06, 2017. http://www.fivesolas.com/suzerain.htm. & Hill and
Walton, Survey of the OT, 75-76.
3
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 1098.
4
John Barton and John Muddiman. The Oxford Bible Commentary: The Pentateuch (New York, NY: Oxford
University Press). 55.
5
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All its Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2014). 166.

1
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 22:5; 19:14; Lev 25; 20: 1-20) and

involve legal specifications when dealing with dispute and crime in Israel; ritual or ceremonial

laws outline Israelite instruction on proper worship and formation of liturgy, and methods and

objects of sacrificial offering; and ethical or moral laws are ordinances that relate to God’s holy

nature, and involve regulations of justice, respect, sexual conduct, and the blessing or penalty

associated with their adherence or failure.

Modern views hold that the present continuity of Old Testament law is predicated on

either the law’s reappearance in the New Testament (or at least in some shape or form) or its

morally binding nature.6 Civil and ritual laws, according to Fee and Stuart, stand collectively in

opposition to this principle and are thus no longer incumbent upon the Christian to follow and

practice (e.g., the ritual law of shedding of blood from animal sacrifice for one’s absolving of sin

is no longer necessary).7 Hill and Walton, therefore, write, “[Only] the undergirding theological

principles of Old Testament law remain intact apart from the functional abrogation of aspects of

the civil and ceremonial law by New Testament teaching.”8 As such, only aspects or elements of

certain ethical laws seem to be fittingly justified by this approach. For example, Leviticus 19:2

which writes, “You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God am holy” (reiterated in Peter 1:16)

and the entirety of the Decalogue (Matthew 5:17-48), demonstrably exhibit God’s divine moral

character and are therefore actively binding for the Christian. Deuteronomy 10:13 also shows

Moses summarizing one cardinal requirement, “to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees,”

which parallels Jesus’ later teachings, “If you love me, you will obey my command” (John

6
I am aware that this explanation only caricatures the immense complexity of the applicability of Old Testament
law for the Christian. This issue is lively discussed in books like Greg L. Bahnsen’s Five Views On Law and Gospel
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), which offers theologically-informed points and counterpoints of law and its
modern Christian relevance. Space does permit my further elaboration of this topic here, however.
7
Fee and Stuart, For All its Worth, 166-167
8
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 87.

2
14:15).9 Moreover, Jesus’ ground rule in Matthew 22:37: “Love your Lord your God with all

your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” has its origins in Deuteronomy 6:5

(“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind”) and Leviticus 19:18 (“Love your

neighbor as yourself”; cf. Deut 10: 12-13), which furnish ordinances that transcend time and

place, and together point to the fallen state of man as well as to the goodness of God’s moral

nature.10

Similarly, it is argued that from these two basic commands (Deut 6:5 & Lev 19:18)

derive the principal and detailed rule of applicability of the Old Covenant.11 As Jesus articulated

in Matthew 5:17-22 and exemplified in verses 27-28; 33-34; and 43-44, He raised an even higher

standard of righteousness and holiness than ever previously envisioned and imposed by the

law.12 Fee and Stuart state:

Jesus thus excerpts some Old Testament laws, giving them new applicability … and
redefining them to include more than their original scope … it is only the aspects of those
laws that fall directly under the command to love God and neighbor that constitute a
continuing obligation for the Christian…13 [therefore, Old Testament law is] … a reliable
guide with general applicability—not a technical description of all possible conditions
one could imagine.14

The law hence functions to illuminate what being obedient to God assuredly entails, not in a

pharisaical sense or as an exhaustive catalog of dos and don’ts, but in its binding nature in spirit

(or of the contrite heart). Thus, what Jesus meant by his act of fulfilling (and not abrogating) the

law is this: through His display of salvific atonement, He granted us grace, and in hand, our

ability to renunciate our earthly selves in our efforts to follow Him (Matthew 16:24). And this

9
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 1101.
10
Fee and Stuart, For All its Worth, 168.
11
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 86.
12
Fee and Stuart, For All its Worth, 170.
13
Ibid., 168.
14
Ibid., 170.

3
grace, as Paul elsewhere laconically remarked, proves that we are not without excuse; grace does

not provide amnesty to the strictures of the law; rather, it positively removes our ability to

vacillate in rapprochement with God through Christ—therefore superseding our parochial Old

Testament understanding of law; it seems abundantly clear that Old Testament law demonstrates

biblical precedent of Jesus’ teachings. This approach to understanding law hence portrays law

not as a defunct piece of ancient wisdom, but as useful instruction (2 Timothy 3:16) and one that

humbles and self-condescends mankind its unattainableness.15 As expounded by Paul in Romans

3:19-20, the nature of the law demonstrates the impossibility of meeting God’s righteous and

holy standards by our own volition and self-sufficiency, and is penetratingly evocative of our

deprivation and need for divine redemption; as Romans 3:23 proclaims, “For all have sinned, and

come short of the glory of God.”

Moreover, and equally significant to our understanding of law is the appreciation of prose

narrative, which comprises the vast majority of the Pentateuchal literature, in which third-person

accounts, variegated with poems, speeches, and prayers (and other genres), give a simple but

lucid chronicle of events.16 Fee and Stuart outline three interdependent tiers of biblical narratives

that help readers understand the genre: top, middle, and bottom.17 The top—or the central or

ultimate narrative—deals with the principal plot and includes God’s initial creation and His

divine intervention into the world; the middle centers primarily on Israel—establishing the

Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt; and the bottom

involves individual events that when compounded together constitute the previous two tiers, and

15
Peter T. Vogt. Interpreting the Pentateuch: An Exegetical Handbook. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
2009). 169-172.
16
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 71-72.
17
Fee and Stuart, For All its Worth, 86-87.

4
include events such as Joseph’s being sold into slavery and the Yahweh’s parting of the Red

(Reed) Sea. A proper reading strategy includes awareness of this hierarchical structure (i.e.,

individual narratives funneling into a major narrative, which in turn amalgams into a part of an

ultimate story), and the vigilant ability to distinguish the forest from the trees18—as the

individual strokes of Van Gogh’s The Starry Night is elegant insofar as its depiction of the Saint-

Remy-de-Provence is adequately illustrated. Hill and Walton argue that D. J. A. Clines

conceives of the Pentateuch in two major divisions (Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-Deuteronomy):

the former poses the question, “How can man’s broken relationship with God be restored?” and

the latter attempts to provide a response.19 Here, one who perfunctorily replies “Israel’s forty-

year sojourn in Egypt towards Canaan,” has missed something profound in addressing this query.

Although a key event may be central to a plot point, it nevertheless comprises only a small

fraction of an author’s final and majestic baroque design.

Additionally, it is important to recognize the use of narratives as a literary genre and to

adopt an interpretive approach associated with it. For one, narratives by their very conventional

nature give a selective and incomplete account of an event and are therefore limited in

exposition. The Pentateuch is a mise-en-scène that annals only the necessary details—determined

by the author and the influence of the Holy Spirit—that elucidates a particular theological

perspective. Further, one must recognize the biblical narratives being ethically and morally

neutral—the biblical accounts are intended to detail what happened in a situation and not what

ought to have transpired or that what transpired should be cheerily endorsed. For example,

Sarah’s implementing her handmaid Hagar to bear for her the descendant of Abraham does not

18
Ibid., 88-92.
19
D. J. A. Clines. The Theme of the Pentateuch. JSOTSS 10. 2nd ed. (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1999).

5
indicate the bible’s condoning the use of concubines. Additionally, Pentateuchal narratives (as

opposed to the more common form of teaching explicitly or direct teaching) normally engage in

indirect teaching or instruction; though readers may associate vicariously with an event in say,

Exodus or Leviticus, the lessons he or she gleans may not have a direct versual reference. For

instance, Joseph’s account of absconding from the seduces of Potiphar’s wife’s does not

correspond to a specific statement in the narrative that writes: “Do not be seduced and do as

Joseph did,” and yet, the allure of sexual temptation and the correctness on the part of Joseph are

suggestive.

It is also critical to consider what narratives are not. For one, they are not theological

disquisitions, and should not be perceived as one. Though many theological questions may be

discussed (or even answered) within a labyrinthine thread of a narrative, biblical narratives were

not written with the intent of resolving myriad doctrinal questions one might have; this approach

to reading biblical narratives would lead to an imprudent form of exegesis and be potentially

eisegetical.20 Lastly and perhaps most vital is to be conscious of God’s primacy and centrality

within the Pentateuch. In all five books, God is the triumphant protagonist without equal (“Know

therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth

beneath; there is no other” (Deut 4:39); it is His sustained (and for that reason gracious) presence

that permeates the entirety of the metanarrative of the Pentateuch. According to philosopher John

Hick:

God was known to [the Israelites] as a dynamic will interacting with their own wills, a
sheer given reality, as inescapably to be reckoned with as destructive storm and life-
giving sunshine… They did not think of God as an inferred entity but as an experienced

20
Fee and Stuart, For All its Worth, 92.

6
 reality. To them God was not … and idea adopted by the mind, but an experiential reality
which gave significance to their lives.21

And it is via the genre of narratives that Yahweh’s providential interventions and variegated

qualities are vividly illustrated and come to the fore.22

The Historical and Cultural Contextualization

The historical chronology of the Primeval history of Genesis is best regarded as an

“undated mystery,” as best estimates of the account range anywhere from tens of thousands to

billions of years.23 A more interesting question, therefore, centers on the narrative’s cultural and

literary parallels of the ancient Near East; as Hill & Walton adumbrate, “…the ancient Near

Eastern material needs to be used to help us gain an appropriate perspective on the Israelite

literature preserved for us in the pages of Scripture.”24 This juxtaposition demonstrates several

gleanings present throughout Genesis through Deuteronomy: first, an examination of ancient

theogony and cosmogony emphasizes Yahweh’s being categorically distinct from all other Near

Eastern deities; and second is the notion of imago Dei conveyed in Israelite theology, which defy

traditional ancient Near Eastern understandings. Walton, in his assessment of the Egyptian and

Mesopotamian mythos, comments that the cosmic dimension of the ancient Near Eastern divine

all reference procreative theogony—or the ontological coming into being of the gods by the

direct cause of subsequent gods, by separation from one god, or by being functionally-oriented to

an element or attribute.25 The notion of origins, therefore, in the ancient world is inextricably

bound by some previously existing physical state (which fall victim to the problem of infinite

21
John Hick. Faith and Knowledge: A Modern Introduction to the Problem of Religious Knowledge. 2nd ed.
(Eugene, OR: Wipe & Stock, 1957). 209.
22
Fee and Stuart, For All its Worth, 101-102.
23
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 77.
24
Ibid., 104.
25
John H. Walton. Ancient Near Eastern thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the
Hebrew Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). 87-90.

7
regression) or to attributive operations: for instance, the birth of Ra is equivalent with the cosmic

origin of the sun, and hence, cosmogony, or the creation of the elements, is closely intertwined

with theogony.26 Theogony, however, is a foreign issue to both contemporary Christian and

Jewish theology, as Primeval history offers no comparable indication of Yahweh’s ontological

inception but presupposes it. Throughout Genesis (but also in Exodus – Deuteronomy) the

functionalizations of the universe are mere adornments in which Yahweh uses to establish and

maintain order and sovereignty; the singularity of Yahweh’s ontology is also displayed by the

lack of splitting of jurisdiction or power allotted to any other being or deity; it is also revealed in

Yahweh’s decision to create the heavens and the earth (Hebrew: bara) ex nihilo (out of nothing),

and His issuing the morally binding and transcendent legal code.27

Moreover, ancient Near Eastern cosmogony specifies the pantheon of deities as being

physically bound by the parameters of space-time. Walton writes:

The sun is the manifestation of the god and the expression of the god’s attributes. The
god is the power behind the sun. Because of this, we might also conclude that our
categories of cosmogony (origins of the cosmos) and cosmology (operations of the
cosmos) are artificially distinguished with regard to the ancient world (similarly,
theogony and theology).28

Whereas the ancient Near Eastern gods operate within the cosmos—their capacities explicitly

delimited and positivistic—Yahweh is wholly responsible for the attributes comprising all of

nature in the Pentateuch (e.g., the burning bush, the judgment upon Egypt, the pillars of cloud

and fire, etc.). And so, it seems to be the case that the God of the bible and the manifold deities

of the ancient Near Easter differ at least in origins, level of supremacy, and partly in ontology; as

H. C. Brichto insightfully notes: “Biblical religion not only removes the One God from the

26
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern and the OT, 68.
27
Ibid., 91-96.
28
Ibid., 97.

8
domain of mythology, but as often noted, it demythologizes creation itself, and this even while it

echoes with the constructs of pagan mythology.”29

Inextricably tied with Israelite cosmogony and theogony is also the issue of man’s

created imago Dei (Genesis 1:26-27), which belongs almost exclusively in Judeo-Christian

traditions. The use of image does not correspond to man’s corporeal resemblances to God, but

holds to a conceptual depiction of identity relating to the values and characteristics instilled by

the image (in this case, Yahweh).”30 This representation of imago Dei, therefore, becomes

significant as Genesis unfolds and Yahweh progressively self-discloses. For example, the golden

calf incident in Exodus 32 shows Aaron and company erroneously imbuing the golden calf with

Yahweh’s image, to permit the image to possess Yahweh’s likeness, “utilize it as a mediator of

worship, and serve as a visual indicator of His presence.”31 What is noteworthy about imago Dei

in traditional ancient contexts is the equating the image of the deity with doing work its work on

the earth. Yet, the Israelite usage goes one step further and portrays that the people are

themselves images or agents of Yahweh—it is Israel who exemplifies Yahweh’s qualities and

carries out His work; as reflected most conspicuously in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, they are

called to be living symbols of Yahweh’s presence called to thrive in righteousness and

consecration.32 The idea of man’s as a cursory creation or as an afterthought common to

Mesopotamian mythology, therefore, runs counter to this conception of imago Dei, as the

Israelite view implants a greater commitment to humanity and its relationship with the divine. In

29
H.C. Brichto, The Names of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 60-61. As cited in Walton, Ancient
Near Eastern and the OT, 98.
30
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern and the OT, 212-214.
31
Ibid., 212.

9
this sense, the Israelites rightly boast a human identity that is unreservedly unique and divinely-

anointed.

Hill and Walton’s excursus of the Pentateuchal history from the Patriarchs and beyond

suggests two principal concerns with respect to its chronology: first, scholars aim to interpret the

historicity of Scripture with a literal approach (based on a verbatim reading of the numerology of

the bible), or one driven by archaeological and ancient comparative and literary study. Although

dating interpretations abound, Hill and Walton suggest that, generally, the Patriarchal period—

from Abraham to Moses—takes place against the backdrop of the Middle Bronze I era (ca. 2000-

1900 BC) and Middle Bronze IIA (ca. 1850-1750 BC) to the Late Bronze epoch.33 The

archeological data of Palestine during this era corroborates a trend of civilization moving

progressively from a rural (less densely populated and settled) society to a more urban one (more

populated and fortified cities), which is very much in line with the biblical records.34 Second, the

dating of the Hebrew exodus enjoys lively debate in contemporary biblical historicity studies, as

pinpointing an actual date of the events of Israel’s enslavement in Egypt and subsequent

departure presents a major quandary to scholars. The debate has spawned two basic positions:

one view that advocates for an Early Date of Exodus, and one that entrusts an Old Date. Largely,

this period is taken to date around 1500 to 1200 BC, against the backdrop of Middle Bronze

Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty, either when Thutmose III and Amenophis reigned (Early),

or when Rameses I, Seti I and Rameses II were incumbent;35 the crux of the debate, as prefaced

earlier, lies in the interpretation and prioritization of the biblical and extra-biblical data: Early

Daters appeal to biblical numerology in its (perhaps most natural) literal form, and selectively to

33
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 106.
34
Ibid., 106.
35
Ibid., 141-144.

10
archeological confirmations, while Late Daters emphasize the role of archaeological evidence

and employ a symbolic reading of the biblical numbers.36

Hill and Walton suppose that best approximation of an early dating of Exodus suggest the

Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BC) as comprising the events elucidated in Leviticus, while a late

date averages the book around the thirteenth century BC. In Leviticus, the similarities and

differences of ritual sacrifice and temple worship in ancient Near Eastern and Israel are

particularly noteworthy. Resemblances include the specifications of the formation of ritual

sacrifices (certain roles assigned to the priestly class), and the significance of the temple (being

representative of the deity’s abode) and its functions. The underlying ideology of the roles of

ritual is also commonly ascribed in both ancient Near Eastern and Israelite thought. For example,

sacrifices were considered means of submitting oneself into gratitude and to appeal to the gods,

and ceremonial worship was considered a cardinal form of expression (particularly in Near

Eastern rituals). However, the differences are more nuanced. As recorded in Psalm 50 (“I have

no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens…”), Yahweh is neither in need of

sacrificial sustenance nor unhoodwinked by false rites from His people. Additionally, as Walton

perceptively indicates:

The shape of one’s belief was less significant in the ancient world. It was not belief that
counted, but the performance of the cult. In Israel, it was not the performance of the cult
that was the essential expression of belief, but adherence to the covenant, which includes
cultic performance but was not dominated by it.37

36
Ibid., 142.
37
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern and the OT, 132.

11
Ancient Near Eastern ideologies stressed outward performance during rites and oblations, while

Hebrew theology viewed these practices as rote or hollow without the superseding internal

affirmation of confidence in Yahweh.38

Frequently referred to as the period of the wilderness, the Pentateuch internally attests

Numbers as spanning thirty-eight years and nine months, although an accurate dating (in BC) is

harder to discern.39 Hill and Walton’s estimates average around 1400 BC for an early date and

1200 BC for a late date. Numbers is particularly well known for its citing a slew of ancient

geographies, including cities in Palestine, Negev, and the Transjordan,40 and detractors to its

historicity maintain that the dearth of archeological corroboration in these areas serves as proof

positive of the book’s inauthenticity. Fascinatingly, Numbers’ central theme of God’s constancy

and steadfastness is contrasted with the needs and whims of the deities of the ancient world.

Ancient Near Eastern literature shows gods needing to be satisfied or sustained by the practices

and activities of their devotees. Proper worship and praise, which revolved around the deity’s

image, were only developed over grueling episodes of trial and error, as delineations on decorum

and formality by the deity were lacking. Uncertainty, therefore, was faced abundantly by

adherents, as the intentions of the deities were considered indiscernible.41 Likewise, the sardonic

notion of the deities’ being easily offended was also hazily apparent from a cause-and-effect

standpoint (answering what caused the gods to be angry was not always forthcoming). Inversely,

Yahweh is not shown not having needs all throughout the Pentateuch, and the accepted Middle

Eastern notions of reciprocity and mutual dependence between man and deity are absent. As

38
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern and the OT, 131-133.
39
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 205.
40
Ibid., 206.
41
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern and the OT, 69, 90.

12
Walton writes, “…[Israelite] religion highlights the needs of the people more than the needs of

Yahweh.”42 Additionally, Yahweh does not exhibit emotional caprices, and His veneers of wrath

and anger are justified by the biblical characters themselves, or are resolved philosophically by

His being maximally just.

Deuteronomy depicts the culmination of the stipulations hitherto revealed by Yahweh’s

covenant.43 By renewing the Abrahamic covenant, Deuteronomy “emphasizes [again] that there

is one God, one people of God, one sanctuary, and one law.”44 To repeat what should now be a

truism, ancient Near Eastern suzerainty serves as an incisive tool for understanding biblical

covenant. Additionally, however, the legal material from contemporaneous Near Eastern cultures

further enhances our understanding of Deuteronomy. For example, Vogt, in his assessment of the

Code of Hammurabi, Middle Assyrian Laws, and additional ancient Near Eastern legal codes

states that both Near Eastern and biblical laws foster the well-being of society (Deut 4: 5-6) and

emphasize the notion of social justice, in the sense that the decrees serve as exemplary paradigms

illustrating correct or incorrect behaviors.45 However, their differences are stark. Foremost, Near

Eastern legal codes are not grounded in the character or morality of deities, and ethics, therefore,

become largely loosened as the models of justice, unlike Israelite paradigms, remain derivative

and ontologically subjective. As Vogt writes, “Indeed, the portrayals of the gods in the ancient

Near Eastern cosmologies do not provide much of a basis for seeing the morality of the gods as a

function for human conduct since they are consistently depicted as capricious, vengeful, jealous

and manipulative.”46 Second, biblical laws precluded commutation (or the conversion of a

42
Ibid., 140.
43
Barton and Muddiman, The Pentateuch, 200-210.
44
Hill & Walton, Survey of the OT, 230.
45
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 104
46
Ibid., 108.

13
greater sentence with a weaker one) due to law being fixated on God as the offended party. As

the locus and paradigm of justice, Yahweh is considered the source of morality, and hence the

only Being capable of altering punishment or providing amnesty to the offender.47

Themes
The book of Genesis, consisting of the primeval, Abrahamic, and Patriarchal Histories,

establish, among others, three cardinal themes, two of which can coalesce into one: the need for

and the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant, and the sovereignty and supremacy of

Yahweh. In Genesis 3-11, and similarly throughout the Pentateuch, humanity’s sinful

shortcomings are recurrently illuminated, and man incurs God’s judgment, wrath, and

punishment, and is thereby left without recourse (man’s need for covenant). In the act of divine

grace and love, God provides man with the solution to come to reconciliation with Him via the

instrument of the Abrahamic covenant. The corollaries to the Abrahamic covenant or covenantal

promises (i.e., Yahweh’s promise of land, choosing of Abraham’s descendants, and blessing,

protection, and redemption of Israel, and also the counter-theme of covenantal retribution for

indiscretion) demonstrate Yahweh’s gracious election and willingness to re-establish righteous

relationship with man. From Genesis 1-2 (God-Adam’s covenant) onward to Genesis 26 and

beyond (covenants with Isaac and Moses), each covenantal formation marks God’s merciful and

benevolent intercession within human history, to rectify humanity’s state of affairs.48 This

covenant—initially inaugurated by Abraham (and subsequently by Isaac, Jacob, and Moses)

enjoys thematic centrality in the Pentateuch, as its gradual unfolding and renewal within

47
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 108.
48
John Sailhamer. The Pentateuch As Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1995). 100.

14
generations continue to elucidate God’s utmost greatness and incommensurable love and grace,

and contrasts them with man’s limited human nature.49

Moreover, the prominence of Yahweh’s sovereignty and supremacy, which is reinforced

by the first theme, is also discordant to Near Eastern and Pagan thought: Genesis recounts

explicitly (Genesis 1:1) who (Yahweh) and how (ex nihilo and volitionally, through His

command “and God said…”) the universe was conceived, and Yahweh’s unparalleled character

of aseity. The creation account in the opening lines of Genesis is a polemic to Near Eastern

theology; it insists—unlike Near Eastern tradition, which views creation emanating from the

activity of many deities—that all creation originated from a singular God and that creation is

materialistically distinct from Him. 50 Additionally, God’s being referred to in Genesis 2:4 as

Yahweh, the God of Israel, (and later in Exodus 3:14 as “I Am Who I Am”) only accentuates His

individuality and uniqueness; the implied devaluing of all creation in relation to Yahweh

(Genesis 1:16) also situates the Judeo-Christian God on a status that far exceeds any other

ancient Near Eastern deity;51 and Yahweh, as the self-sustaining designer of creation, enjoys

certain prerogatives in the Pentateuch. For instance, He functions as the arbiter of matters of

good and evil, sin and righteousness, and life and death. Similar to its themes, the central

message of Genesis is to show how and why Yahweh came to choose Abraham and his family.52

His creation and establishing covenant with His people highlights His gracious intervention in

human history, thereby introducing readers to a loving and mercifully unique God.

49
Ibid., 149-152.
50
I think an important disambiguation to make here is this: unlike pantheistic and polytheistic theologies, creation in
Judeo-Christian contexts is neither a part of God nor extensions of God. God, in traditional Judeo-Christian
understandings, creates the universe ex nihilo in this sense that God is both “materialistically” distinct and outside of
physical creation.
51
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 62-63.
52
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 108.

15
 In Exodus, the supremacy of Yahweh continues to be further developed but is also

coupled with the theme of God’s deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt and His continued

presence during Israel’s post-exodus sojourn to Canaan. First, Yahweh intervenes on Israel’s

behalf and behest, and in an attempt to emancipate them from their perpetual plight, Yahweh

sends judgment onto the Egyptians. The narrative of the plagues signifies a divine confrontation

of sorts between Yahweh and the manifold, nature-imbued deities in Egyptian and Near Eastern

religions.53 The significance here lies in the notion that theses pagan deities—their power and

influence—which were attributed only to a designated element or territory (e.g., the Nile river,

the Sun, etc.), were left decisively powerless against Yahweh.54 As revealed as a theme in

Genesis, the sui generis authority and power of Yahweh is, once again, reaffirmed. Second,

Yahweh’s instituting the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), and the

timelessness of these commands are indicative of God’s holiness and eternally moral

character.5556 The Yahweh-Israel relationship leads, not only to Israel’s greater understanding of

the nature of God, or God’s desire to establish a proper relationship with His people, but also

establishes proper relationship that ought to manifest among the Israelites themselves. God’s

eternally moral character is moreover not challenged by claims of these stipulations beings

stochastic or modish, as “[these stipulations] are given for the people’s good by the one who

knows, by virtue of being the sovereign creator God, what is good, best and right for [the

53
Hill & Walton, Survey of the OT, 65-66. & Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, 252-259.
54
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 65-67.
55
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 159.
56
As discussed previously, the Decalogue, as law, delineate covenantal stipulations and share characteristics of the
Near Eastern suzerainty-vassal treaty. God, sets methods, behaviors, and modes of governances for proper living, as
the suzerain or “Great King,”—whom desires a righteous and personal relationship with the Israelites (or the vassal
or lesser king), and by doing so is capable of conveying what is in accord with or against His law, and what is
expected of the vassal.

16
Israelites].”57 The message of Exodus is achieved by God’s self-disclosure to His people.

Yahweh functions as both judge and deliverer and confers Israel with an unambiguous

theological identity via the stewardship of His creation and the mediating of His covenantal

provisos. The burning bush and Mount Sinai theophanies, plagues of judgment, and

specifications on His tabernacle exhibit Yahweh’s mercifulness—His delineations on how Israel

could stand in righteousness with Him (via Torah), and how they can maintain His holy presence

(via ritual and sacrifice).58

Heavily building on the themes of Genesis and Exodus, the central theme of Leviticus is

God’s holiness (or proper and righteous theological fixation to Yahweh) and the preservation of

His presence within His people, which can be most aptly grasped in the command “consecrate

yourself and be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:44-45). Contrary to common understanding, the

first seven chapters of Leviticus—which establishes the sacrificial system and sin offering—adds

substantively to God’s holiness, relational tendencies, and our understanding of His moral

justice:

…the sacrificial system was designed to maintain a relationship with God and his people
that would allow him to continue to dwell in their midst, but it was never intended to
determine their eternal destiny [or be salvific, therefore] …ritual sacrifice was didactic in
that the enactment of symbolic atonement was designed to instruct the Israelites in the
principles of God’s holiness, human sinfulness, substitutionary death for the covering of
human sin, and the need for repentance leading to cleansing and renewed fellowship
within the community of faith and with God.59

Most notably, the sacrificial system was formed as an instrument to carry out atonement, or an

approach to reconciling human failure and sinfulness with the need for repentance and

57
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 67.
58
Ibid., 83-95.
59
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 1103.

17
substitutionary death.60 Positively distinct from neighboring Near Eastern cultures, which

utilized these systems for corrupt ulterior motives and encouraged even human and infant

oblation, the Levitical, sacrificial system is an extension of God’s divine justice and generous

gift to Israel.61 As Hill and Walton write, “The external act of ritual sacrifice was symbolic and

representative of the internal attitude and disposition of the heart. Psalmist, sage, and prophet

reiterated the truth that God does not desire sacrifice, but repentance leading to obedience.”62

The overarching teachings of Leviticus (namely, specific instructions on holy worship and

proper living) warranted utilization of the sacrificial system and the observing of the purity laws,

which would legislate Israel’s reverence for Yahweh’s ordinance and sanctuary; obeying God’s

commands was considered both a means and ends to consecration and holiness. Appended with

the very act of God’s meticulous instruction and categorization of Israel’s everyday practical

lives, puts forward the message of Leviticus: both holiness and obedience are offshoots of a

deeper understanding of Yahweh: it is from an understanding of His holiness, graciousness, and

guiding presence that leads ultimately to one’s separation from the mundane; as Leviticus

reaffirms, “You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from

the nations to be my own” (Leviticus 20:26). However, it is imperative to note that sacrifice was

not in itself an effectual instrument of salvific means. Rather, “…the removal …and forgiveness

of sin were accomplished through confession and the petition and intercession of prayer to the

gracious and merciful Lord” (as evinced in Exodus 32:11-13 and Isaiah: 5-7).63

60
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 67.
61
John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1992), 273-74. As cited in Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 67.
62
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 186.
63
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 186.

18
 In an elaboration of the laws given in the previous books of the Pentateuch, Numbers

delves into Yahweh’s faithfulness and Israel’s faithlessness and sinfulness in the wilderness.

Despite having been witnesses to God’s divine and miraculous interventions, the Israelites

continue their resentment and protest in the face of hardship and misfortune. Their clear

proclamation in Kadesh Barnea—of being in fear and thereby being unable to conquer Canaan’s

inhabitants when instructed by Yahweh—results in the first generation’s justified comeuppance

of estrangement from Canaan. Further exacerbation is manifested with Israel’s belated attempt at

this conquest—though not instructed by Yahweh—which leads similarly to their defeat and

accentuates the dire consequences attached to covenant disobedience.64 Numbers 20:2-13 also

records, regrettably, Moses’ disobedience and foil amidst Israel’s quarrel and their demand for

water. In his frustration and fear, Moses contravenes Yahweh (he strikes the rock twice when

providing water to the people) and, as the privileged representative of Yahweh, impugns His

name by acting inconsistently with Yahweh’s divine character.65 Conversely, Yahweh is

unconditionally faithful throughout Numbers fore and aft. In response to Israel’s unjustified

protests, Yahweh is appeased by Moses’ proposal and relents His anger, and specifically, in the

prophetic Balaam-Balak narratives, Yahweh is also seen interceding directly within the physical,

human realm to prevent His people from being cursed, all the while commanding only blessings

from Balaam to Israel—pointing to Yahweh’s ability to influence human affairs providentially as

well has His enduring patriarchal promise and commitment to bless, nurture, and protect His

people.66 Numbers therefore attempts to demonstrate Yahweh’s unparalleled patience and

faithfulness to the covenantal promise and His wanting to transform Israel into a kingdom of

64
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 74-75.
65
Ibid., 77-78.
66
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 208.

19
priests (census taking, tribal marching and camping arrangements, the cloud of guidance, and the

legal allocation of land) despite Israel’s incompetence to do so, indubitably highlighting

Yahweh’s austere holiness.

The central theme of Deuteronomy, or the renewal of the Mosaic covenant for the second

generation of Israel, is accomplished by God’s instituting law (or Torah and the Decalogue

which is elaborated further), or the furnishing of a more detailed and concrete spelling out of the

legal covenantal material. Deuteronomy inducts Israel into a clearer picture of covenant and

fleshes out ways of coming into obedience and alignment with God and His laws. This is most

conveniently summarized in Deuteronomy 10:12-13: “And now, O Israel, what does the Lord

your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve

the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the Lord’s

commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?”—the law is an ultimate

display of clemency and grace on the part of Yahweh. Contrary to the capricious nature of deities

in Near Eastern religions, God had revealed Himself to His people to delineate specifically what

is expected of them, and what would lead to righteous living. And akin to Exodus, Deuteronomy

recurrently reveals the supreme and sovereign character of Yahweh; it is through His giving of

Torah that God is righteous, gracious, and unconditionally loving: He is the sole arbiter of proper

living by virtue of His being holy and sovereign. The Israelites were given the mandate to live

differently, to distinguish right behavior from wrong via the covenantal stipulations, and to

distinguish one another from neighboring regions and cultures by their relationship with

Yahweh. These specifications were not taken as restrictions on autonomy but as pleasures or

freedoms of revelation. The message of Deuteronomy, therefore, portrays that pious and

righteous living begins with the fear of the Lord (a greater apprehension of God’s nature and His

20
covenant/stipulations) and that both the external demonstration and kindling of the internal spirit

of Torah are quintessential.

Modern Applicability of Pentateuchal Themes

Although various themes are represented in the Pentateuch, three overarching ones are

repeatedly affirmed: the sovereignty and supremacy of Yahweh, His merciful and gracious

nature, the consequences of sinful transgressions.67 One can evidently see how a greater

understanding and convening of these themes can add coherence to the Old Testament as a

whole. A common misinterpretation even within the church, and one that was historically

promulgated by Marcion is the alleged ontological dissimilarity of Yahweh in the Old and New

Testaments. Marcion affirmed that compared to the God in the New Testament, Yahweh in the

Old Testament was a lesser and morally reprehensible deity.68 The nub of this claim lies in the

outwardly austere and insular applicability of Yahweh’s instruction to the Israelites, which, at

least at face value, purportedly exhibit only sentiments of criminality and punishment and not

adherence leading to righteousness.

This ignorance, however, is amended when one takes into account the immutable model

of rectitude demonstrated by Yahweh in all five books of the Pentateuch: against the reprobate

backdrop of Near Eastern society, Yahweh—who is portrayed as enduringly holy and just—

provides covenant, purity laws, and sacrificial systems to His people. In this unprecedented

display of self-disclosure, amnesty and condescension, Yahweh deliberately chooses to reveal

Himself to the Israelites and to provide unambiguous teaching on proper living—and not

haphazardly proper, in the sense that He defines what is right or wrong whimsically, but through

His being ultimately all-knowing, instructs what is the good and what will lead to objectively

67
Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 61-85.
68
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 84.

21
righteous living. Through these unmerited gifts, the Israelites can confide in righteous devotion

and become privy to Yahweh’s eternally moral and holy character. And while fealty to Torah

leads to Yahweh-oriented living and prosperity, its renunciation merits punishment.

Unsurprisingly, since sin runs counter to Yahweh’s design for order in creation and with His

moral nature, God’s wrath reflects His logical inability to leave sin unaddressed, and the sinner,

unpunished; hence, Yahweh’s moral status is never debased, and He remains philosophically the

same throughout both Testaments.

Furthermore, and contrary to common understanding, the giving of the covenantal

stipulations corroborates our visualization of sin and its repercussions, and are didactic of God’s

pronouncements of grace. Covenant is used as a vehicle to expose man’s impotence in sin and

need for remedy from God’s wrath. God’s superlative nature is established by means of the

Torah—it points towards an unattainable ideal. Torah, therefore, alludes to the theological

concept of the Christocentric vision—or the notion of the Messianic fulfillment of law—which is

readily apparent in the New Testament, and one that can, albeit more difficulty, be traced back to

the Old. A prudent appraisal of the OT demonstrates law and its fulfillment as gospel by the

personhood of Christ as consistent with Yahweh’s overarching providential plan for human

redemption. Hill and Walton summarize:

… That the Old Testament was ‘internal’ every bit as much as it was ‘external’ is seen in
Jesus’ summary of the commandments: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart…
Love your neighbor as yourself’ (Matt 22:37; Deut 30: 1-10) [and that] [these demands]
of Old Testament law foreshadowed the New Testament gospel: justification by faith in
Jesus Christ; [and therefore,] … all [Christians] are obligated to be holy even as God is
holy because they now constitute a royal priesthood in Christ Jesus.69

69
Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 87.

22
As accorded specifically in Deuteronomy 30:6,70 the legal tradition of the Hebrews culminates in

the good news, as law and gospel point jointly to the prime importance of one’s inward

confessions of God’s lovingkindness, which are to be used as touchstones for righteous,

Christian living.71

Hence, a clearer enunciation of these Pentateuchal themes lends greater theological

clarity for the Christian: they eradicate misunderstanding of the disparate nature of Yahweh/God

and Christ/God and show that Torah and its practical comprehensiveness point unequivocally to

God’s magnanimous nature throughout both Old and New Testaments. Aside from their

relevance in exegesis and hermeneutics, a more detailed grasp of these themes functions as a

necessary first step for the Christian. Since theological doctrine, the proper formulation of

liturgy, Christian livelihood, church policies, fellowship, preaching and pastoring, spiritual

formation, and evangelism are all contingent on an accurate portrait of God or on correct

theology72—and one that consistent with the biblical and hermeneutical data—it seems only

obvious that all else are corollaries to how one conceives of God. As a result, these themes are

enthusiastically pertinent to the Christian in his or her daily walk.

70
Deut 30:6: “The Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may
love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”
71
Ibid., 86.
72
This may start with one’s answering the fundamental questions: “Does God exist? Who and what is God? What is
God’s nature like? Has God revealed Himself to man? And how does God want us to live and is He to be
worshiped?

23
 Works Cited
Barton, John, and John Muddiman. The Oxford Bible Commentary: The Pentateuch. (New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2010). 55, 200-210.

Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2011).
As cited in Hill and Walton, Survey of the OT, 69.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All its Worth (Grand Rapids,
MI, MI: Zondervan, 2014). 86-87, 92, 101-102, 166-67, 168, 170.

H.C. Brichto, The Names of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 60-61. As cited in
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern and the OT, 98.

Hick, John. Faith and Knowledge: A Modern Introduction to the Problem of Religious
Knowledge. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipe & Stock, 1957. 209.

Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Pub. House, 2009), PDF. 65-66, 68, 69, 71-72, 77, 84, 86, 87, 98, 104, 106,
108, 142, 141-144, 159, 186, 205, 208, 230, 1098, 1101, 1103.

John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1992), 273-74. As cited in Vogt, Interpreting
the Pentateuch, 67.

Meredith Kline. "Suzerain Treaties & The Covenant Documents the Bible.” Dr. Kline’s
Presentation at the Westminster Theological Seminar. Accessed April 06, 2017.
http://www.fivesolas.com/suzerain.htm.

Sailhamer, John. The Pentateuch As Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. (Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995). 100, 252-259.

Vogt, Peter T. Interpreting the Pentateuch: An Exegetical Handbook. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications, 2009). 62-63, 65-67, 74-75, 61-85, 104, 108, 169-172.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
conceptual world of the Hebrew Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). 68,
69, 87-90, 91-96, 131-133, 132, 205.

24

View publication stats