As we have discussed in class the incidence of prophecy in Scripture is only rarely specific prediction, such as what happens in Isaiah 2, and the vast majority of the time is more about a recognition/application of the past as a template for the future. Fulfillment doesn’t mean that someone said in exact words what will happen and how, but rather it is when the whole of what has happened previously is realized within a person or event in the future. Obviously in the case of the New Testament, this person is Jesus Christ within whom the whole of God’s work in Israel is realized.

We can see this in the passage from Hosea 11:1 proclaiming “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew says that Jesus fulfilled this passage, but not in the sense that this passage was speaking directly about this specific event that was going to happen in the future. This passage in fact refers back directly to the historical event of God drawing Israel out of Egypt through the Exodus, not forward towards Jesus. And God isn’t simply repeating events. Rather, throughout Israel’s history we come to recognize that what happens once awaits a fuller and more final form. Just as the Exodus is fulfilled by the full and final deliverance from death, so Jesus fulfills this passage as being a more complete and final form of God’s son being called out of Egypt.

That being said, what are some instances in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke that address elements of the Old Testament narratives already discussed? One instance is that in the genealogy in Matthew we see that Jesus is of the line of King David, harkening back to when God promised David that he would build him a house and an eternal kingdom and his descendent would occupy the throne. Likewise, the conception of John to his barren mother Elizabeth and Zechariah calls to mind Abraham and Sarah struggling to conceive as well as Jacob and Rachel also struggling to bear a child together. Furthermore, John’s circumcision reminds us of the incorporation into the covenant established back in Genesis, and Zechariah’s proclamation outright declares that the salvation long foretold is coming soon.

I’ve never been the best with road trips. I get antsy and impatient, but I still know to never pester the driver, because they are doing all of the hard work and it’s for something good in the end. The wilderness generation didn’t seem to understand this, because they complained and complained and complained. All the steps of their journey were plagued by them doubting God’s ability to deliver them to the Promised Land and groanings that their lives were so much better back in Egypt… where they were slaves (melodramatic much?) So I think it is pretty clear why they were condemned to never see the Promised Land, they weren’t willing to trust in God. God himself puts it in pretty clear words saying:

“I pardon them as you have asked. Yet, by my life and the Lord’s glory that fills the whole earth, of all the people who have seen my glory and the signs I did in Egypt and nevertheless have put me to the test ten times already and have not obeyed me, not one shall see the land which I promised on oath to their ancestors. None of those who have spurned me shall see it.”

So that is pretty clear why they were not given the chance to enter the Promised Land, but why not Moses. I think it might harken all the way back to when God told him to strike the stone for water in the desert and in his doubt he struck it twice. I think this shows that because he also doubted, he also cannot enter into the Promised Land.

So why close the Pentateuch before they reached the Promised Land? I think this all has to do with the pattern of reestablishing Communion that is being established. It marks a cutoff from Israel’s dependence on other nations and attachments before they can fully begin the next phase of this reestablishment of communion. God has established his covenants and his laws within the pages of the Pentateuch and now it is Israel’s turn to deliver on their side of the promise.

 Finally, there are indeed many elements that relate Joshua to Moses. A river dries up for him so that they may cross, he is told to remove his sandals on holy ground, and so on. Yet Deuteronomy closes saying that “Since then no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” clearly implying that Joshua, nor anyone else, can compare to what Moses did. This may call us to look at Joshua and his generation not as new “leaders” of their destiny, but rather those called to carry out what has been set before them. They are the generation sent to fulfill the promises of Moses with the threat of a terrible curse waiting should they fail. 

What is purity/impurity? The purity/impurity of an action, object, animal, or person is determined by its/their relation to the perceived order and perfection of the world around them and how they fit into it. Douglas says “if uncleanliness is matter out of place, we must approach it through order. Uncleanliness is that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained.” She also explains that this pattern is set by culture, providing “a positive pattern in which ideas and values are tidily ordered.” This understanding of the topic means that everything pure fits within the order and wholeness of the world as defined by a culture, and impure things are those which in a way, whether through anomaly or ambiguity, are discordant with the structured pattern and order of things. Thus it is things that lay on the margins, that seem to defy specific definitions and structures that act in even slight defiance of orderliness that receive the label of “impure.”

So why does God concern himself with the maintenance of purity? I’m honestly not entirely sure. In my mind it makes sense that we are constantly trying to organize creation towards the end goal of perfection, and so God provides us the framework with which we try to order things. So it is in ordering things appropriately that we validate their “purity” and in failing to order something within that structure towards God that it must be deemed “impure.” 

The laws we encounter in Leviticus, especially for the food, seem to follow specific patterns. They involve specific types of sacrifices and their preparation, with special care taken for the blood, fat, and organs, while the sons of Aaron, the priests, are the ones to handle them. Additionally, there are restrictions set on which animals they can eat from at all. This list excludes camels, rabbits, and pigs from their diets as well as aquatic creatures lacking scales, many types of birds, crawling insects, rats, lizards, and others. These rules all seem very overwhelming, but the footnote seems to indicate that Douglas’s idea that “purity rules represent regulations of the social body” may be the correct way to think about the connection of all these numerous laws.

True to what was promised, I did indeed find this reading and Leviticus quite challenging and not in the least bit confusing. I look forward to seeing everyone else’s approach to these questions as I am very unsure about my own! ( :

Who is God? My first response to this question would standardly be, “how the heck am I supposed to even start answering that question?” My whole life I have been taught that God is knowable and at the same time a mystery, and knowing  that, I am aware that I will never be eloquent enough to even half describe who God is. That being said, I would also struggle to fully explain to you who anyone is, because there are so many different elements to a person.

Take for example my mother, Carolyn. I could describe what she looks like, what she does, how she does it, and her other physical characteristics, but that isn’t all of who she is. Additionally, I could tell you her relationships — she is a mother, a sister, a daughter, and a wife — so that you might understand who she is in relation to others, but still words can’t fully describe who she is. It is only through meeting my mother and building a relationship with her that you could even start to understand who she is. So if that process is so difficult with just one person, it is infinitely harder if you are trying to describe God.

So now that it is clear that any answer I might give is sorely lacking — here it goes. 

God is the eternal being who created the world and all its creatures and in fact is, as Ratzinger says, “the God of all people and the whole universe.” He is Being that is accepted as a person in the form of Jesus Christ and he is unbound by things such as time and definitions. He is the only God, present for all people in all places and is not confined to some local connection with humanity. He is the God who revealed himself to Abraham and his descendents and so continues to reveal himself to all of us to this day. He is present in humanity and calls us constantly into a relationship with him so that we can understand and love him more deeply.

And there is my pitiful and incomplete attempt. I believe that this question is one which doesn’t have an attainable answer, but the search for the answer serves that purpose to draw us deeper into understanding.

Honestly, the story of Joseph has always been one of my most favorite stories, within or without the Bible. I have read or watched different interpretations of it so many times, that I know its storyline much better than most TV shows or movies I have watched casually. That being said, having spent a lot of time with the story, I have also gotten the chance to reflect on its symbolism and meaning more than once. 

What Joseph’s brothers do to him is beyond terrible, effectively killing him, and against the initial odds Joseph thrives. When it seems like Joseph is about to exact the revenge that he, in Anderson’s words, “would have good grounds to seek… against those who have treated him so unjustly,” Joseph subverts our expectations and treats his brothers not only with mercy but total forgiveness — something I’m sure most of us cannot imagine doing. And the way he goes about ensuring that his brothers have truly changed and that they are deserving of his forgiveness is brilliant, as he sets a test.

Joseph clearly sets the wheels in motion to test his brothers from the moment he sees them by accusing them of being spies and sending them home to retrieve Benjamin, but also planting their money back in their bags. When they depart for the second time, it is clear that Joseph is meaning to further test his brothers as he plants the silver cup in Benjamin’s bag. But why does he do this to the one brother who has never done him wrong, whom he loves deeply? And what is his ultimate aim?

I think the key is that Joseph is aware that he was betrayed because he was favored and was able to realize that Benjamin must have taken his place as the preferred child in his father’s eyes. And so his test is to tempt his brother’s with the same choice they made earlier — to rid themselves of the favored son by allowing him to take the blame for the cup and leaving yet another brother in slavery. His test is successful as Judah, who spurred on the initial effort against Joseph, this time chooses, in Anderson’s words, “an option that requires him to make the supreme sacrifice,” and proves that he has changed into a man willing to lay down his life for a favored brother.

Just as his earlier dreams predicted, Joseph in this moment stands truly as the beloved son in both the eyes of his father and his brothers through these actions. As the favored son he bore the cost of such favoritism and by remaining just and forgiving managed to reap the rewards of that status.

(P.s. Joseph saying “Do not fear. Can I take the place of God? Even though you meant harm to me, God meant it for good, to achieve this present end, the survival of many people,” will forever be one of my favorite lines.)

Jacob is certainly a much more complicated and “fleshed out” character than we have come to expect from Genesis. He has many different facets to his personality that go beyond the driving themes of obedience and simpleness that we have come to know his predecessors for. Certainly, he seems to walk a fine line between many different aspects of human nature, such as the line between love and lust, the line between taking and receiving, and the line between reliance and self-sufficiency.

Unlike Abraham and Issac who came into their inheritance in a passive manner (although they later got the chance to prove themselves worthy), it seems like Jacob reaches out and takes his blessing and inheritance. Though this was foretold by God while Rebekah was still pregnant, it is certainly questionable why this action of taking should be favorable for Jacob instead of a reviled act of self-sufficiency on his part. He certainly took from his older brother what should have been his, and are only provided some explanation in that we are told in Genesis 25:34 that Esau “treated his right as firstborn with disdain.”

And so later in Genesis we come to Jacob’s impromptu grappling bout with a random stranger in the middle of the night. It seems, most clearly that this “man” is in fact an angel of the Lord acting as a stand in for Esau or his father (or maybe both) and this mystery man initiates the conflict. We know that Jacob has already had encounters with the divine, so when he acknowledges in the end that he has been struggling with the divine it does seem to indicate that he in fact was fighting a divine being — most likely one of God’s angels. 

In the end, even though he has been injured, Jacob wins the struggle, as evidenced by his earning a blessing and a name. He successfully holds on and prevails in something not through trickery or deceit, but rather his own strength of will and own merits. I think that perhaps Jacob by taking such an active role in attaining his birthright had to take a very active role in then earning it. He succeeds, as he is “reborn” with a new name linked to God himself. I feel like this may be another way that God reminds these patriarchs that it is only through Him that they can fully earn their inheritance. 

What is religion?

It seems like an incredibly familiar term, but when asked for a definition I (like many others) would struggle to find exact words and would instead resort to examples that I have been taught represent religion while growing up. I would probably resort to listing different faiths — Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. — but where to draw the line? 

We see that this distinction is famously tricky, and in fact unresolved. When attempts have been made to characterize what we mean by the term “religion” they seem to have drawn arbitrary lines which put some things in the group and exclude others not based around a definition, but rather a more general “feeling” as to whether they think it should be included in the group or not. Seems like we don’t really have a good idea of what we mean when we use the word.

Is it a group of believers? Well, that could just as easily encompass a moms against vaccines facebook group or sports fans who crowd together for the big game because they “believe” their team will win. So that’s out. 

Does it call followers to specific actions based upon some written or oral tradition? If that’s the case then I guess I am a part of the religion of organic chemistry, because that is exactly what my lab procedures do.

Well it must involve God in some way right? The rest of these couldn’t possibly fall under religion because they aren’t focused around a divine being. Well, for the most part hinduism is focused on bettering yourself, so would that then be excluded? 

It seems to me that the term religion is an arbitrary grouping term that is used to try to keep “religious” viewpoints out of things such as government. Because it is arbitrary, it actually creates the tension that it is trying to avoid, by allowing leaders to accept “religious” things that aren’t too “religious” while condemning the rest to be fanatics with narrow minds.

Agustine summarized in just a few words why faith is essential to human society by saying, “Nothing would remain stable in human society if we determined to believe only what can be held with absolute certainty.” 

I have certainly come across people who look down on religious people as being weak minded because they allow faith to play a central role in their lives. I have never let this bother me because I have always felt that faith and reason do not have to be opposed. However, St. Augustine is certainly capable of putting this into more eloquent terms than I am able to. 

He wrote against the Manichees idea that “they would put aside all awesome authority, and would by pure and simple reason bring to God those who were willing to listen to them.” Although they spoke all high-and-mighty he pointed out that they “fell silent when faced with hard questions”. But why?

One of the benefits of faith is that acts as a springboard for reason. Augustine explains that trusting an authority, or having faith in them, is what enables learning — in all parts of life. It is as unreasonable to expect to come to understand God through only reasoning as it is to expect us to only allow into our history textbooks what can be verified by mathematical reasoning. Rather belief, or faith, is a “constituent part of historical knowledge” which means that any knowledge of the past must depend upon someone’s word — someone’s authority.

When unified, authority and reason are what leads a soul to God. Each one informs the other, as we reason who we should believe and who’s word we must rely on. As Wilken points out, it is reasonable to begin in faith by following, but that doesn’t make faithful people weak minded “sheep”. Faith is unavoidable, because reason cannot fill specific gaps, and so faith must intercede.

We established that the Original Sin of Adam and Eve by taking what could only be given was not only an act of disobedience, but also an act in which they tried to elevate their own status up to that of God and in doing so distanced themselves from him even further. This marks the fall of humanity as we know it today. But, as Kass points out, their actions and punishment only mark the beginning of a decline that can be seen throughout Genesis 4-11.

It seems that man is now intent on taking upon himself such characteristics as only belong to God, such as immortality, in one form or another. When their mortality is finally revealed to them through Adam’s death, they seem to fight this inevitability relying on their own, as Kass puts it,  mistaken “god-like self sufficiency.” They continue to take what can only be given. In this instance wives which God has decided should not join them in union, and judging these relationships as good for them just as Eve saw the apple as good for her — both being far from the truth. The people seek immortality through fame and glory and manly acts of heroic-ness and thus they further the decline of the human condition. 

No wonder God considers just trying to start over. As a child, I could never understand why an all-loving God would want to eliminate all life on Earth. (Even the birds and the insects!) But as a more informed reader I can better understand that humanity was very close to be completely lost. But God didn’t follow through with this idea to wipe out life on Earth entirely because he found favor in Noah- in his simpleness and his piety.

Noah acts as the antithesis to the terrible traits that drive humanity’s downward spiral. He is pious, obedient, and doesn’t aspire to put himself in charge of God’s plan for saving him — he accepts his position as a builder of and a passenger and caretaker on the Ark. Just as God asked of the first humans to be a part of Creation and care for it but to not aspire to be like God, so Noah demonstrates that a human can choose to fulfill these commands.

But this does not save humanity entirely. We see with the tower of Babel that men are still prone to aspiring towards the lofty heights of God, so he confuses and scatters them. Humanity is not saved completely through Noah, the corrupted human condition is still present, but it maintains the hope of that Tree of Life in the Garden.