What does Scripture mean by “fulfillment”? (Use the citation from Hosea as an example in your answer.) Second, identify anything you can see in these opening chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that addresses the elements of the Old Testament narrative that we discussed last class.

In terms of scripture, it is easy to think of fulfillment as the meeting or satisfying of something foretold to come in future tense, but it is rather the case that fulfillment is the re-occurrence and discernment of a pattern, namely that of God’s actions, throughout history. It is not to be mistaken, however, as history repeating itself, rather as God persisting in his will to deliver in a form whose shape we are able to recognize. An example of this is found in Hosea, fulfilled by Matthew, in which during the exodus, where “out of Egypt,” God’s son was called, God’s son was called out of Egypt once more (Hos 11:1-2). It was not necessarily the case that the Exodus hinted that God’s deliverance would occur via Egypt, rather that God saving Mary, Joseph, and Jesus from Herod orchestrated in a fashion that followed the shape of what had already happened. With this in mind, it is important to say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of the old. As it is even said in Matthew, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). Looking at the old testament with the new, and many of the promises we can start to see many things becoming parallels. Jesus, legal son of Joseph, a descendant of David, is a fulfillment of the promise that God made to David of building him a house with an heir on the throne. Jesus is the “king of the Jews” (Mt 27:37), a blessing to the nations, and the fulfillment of the promise made to not only David, but to Abraham. The same is seen for the exile of the Israelites on their way to Babylon where it is said that a highway would be made straight for God in the wilderness (Is 40:3) where that passage comes to fulfillment through the parallel of paths being made straight on the way to John the Baptist, where many people of Israel were brought back to the Lord their God in both instances. What can be taken from this is not only that God’s providence is something that can be look to, but also that things in the biblical past can be looked as things open to becoming fulfilled.

By your reading of the chapters in Numbers, what would you say it is that leads to the wilderness generation’s condemnation? What is it that leads to Moses’? Given that the compilers of the Hebrew Bible could have ended the core unit of the OT in any place—e.g. after the conquest of the Land—why is it, do you think, that they closed the Pentateuch (i.e. the first unit of the Bible that is comprised of the first five books) with the death of Moses? How might the closing passage of Deuteronomy 34 guide our reading of all that takes place in the book of Joshua? What does the text really mean to say about the events of his generation?

Stated simply, the unwillingness of Israel to be patient for the lord to fulfill his promises and their lack of faith and trust in the Lord led to their condemnation. The exodus of Israel out of Egypt was riddled with constant complaining and constant references about the ifs, and about all of the hardships they would not be facing, had the lord not brought them out of Egypt. It was by the Lord’s mercy that in the first place God made a promise to Abraham of land, progeny and blessing, but was by no means something that the Lord was obligated to do. “Despite all the signs that [the Lord] performed in their midst,” out of nothing but to deliver his creation to a promised land where they could worship him and fulfill the human longing, they whined before Him and rejected the lord. While the lack of faith, trust and patience was by no means present to the same degree with Moses, what led to his condemnation was his inability to work to obtain the faith of Israel for God and his deliverance. Despite this however, in the context of the formation of the Pentateuch, it is evident that Moses is a significant figure whose death symbolizes a transition. It was made very clear in the Bible that there never again arose “in Israel a prophet like Moses-whom the Lord singled out, face to face,” meaning that following Moses, the form in which God would find Israel to be worthy of the promises of Abraham would be fundamentally different. It is worth distinguishing all of these books as a singular narrative because they share the common theme of God electing the righteous out of created people do do his work as prophets. Post-Moses it is about how the select few of the rest of Israel who died continue to fulfill God’s promise and follow his laws. Despite all of this, however, there are many similarities. “Just as Moses led a miraculous crossing of the parted waters of the Red Sea,” Joshua undergoes a similar experience, and to an extent it can be said that there is another exodus. The text comes to show us, especially after Moses, that the pattern of the generation of Joshua is to fall short of the ideals of God’s covenant. They followed other Gods, worshiped and bowed down to them, and did not change their ways, and as a result would come to incur a different side of God that is seen in the Pentateuch.

Tell me what the function of the purity laws in Israel are. Answer the following: (1) What is purity / impurity? (2) Why does God require the maintenance of purity? (3) What is the logic of the laws we encounter related to purity, specifically the food laws?

Deriving an understanding from what I have read, one can take purity to be defined as the lack of impurity. Speaking symbolically, and in terms of definitions which are not mere restatements of the same thing that provide no clarity, it is easier to define impurity, and define it as having been tainted, especially away from an initial state. In the context that is especially relevant to theology, and to God, purity represents the state of God’s creation, and impurity is that which represents a deviation from what God’s creation symbolizes, which is good, order, and communion. God created the world out of watery chaos, through a process of making, ordering, and deeming it good. We see that impurity is therefore not only deviating from the purity that is God’s creation, but that in a harsher sense, it is a direct threat to the good of God’s creation. Considering the state of the human condition and what has been fractured by sin, and how the human person is fundamentally incomplete until communion is restored, now that our goal is that very thing, the most natural route is the pursuit of holiness through living in and embodying the purity of God’s creation. The preservation of purity is not to forbid Israel from certain behaviors so as to assert God’s dominance, but rather to keep them on the path that will lead to them entering into communion with God, something that is ultimately good for the human person, and what the human person longs for. Given the mutually exclusive relationship between impurity and purity, order must “inherently [involve] rejecting inappropriate items, ” and also involve fundamentally seeing impurity as “destructive to existing patterns” (Douglas). With this comes the logic which exists behind the food restrictions given in Leviticus which pertain to purity, though appear to have many similarities with hygiene. Much like everything else outlined in Leviticus, the food laws are to prevent impurity from what was thought to stray God’s order, evidenced by the prohibition of animals such as those who crawl, and those who dirty. As pointed out by Douglas, such animals either exist in an intermediate state of anomaly; a state where they traverse what seem to be orders of nature, and therefore go against God’s order, or are forbidden for their “habits and food” being “dirty and loathsome” (Douglas). Behind all of these laws and their understanding involves to a significant degree a consideration of their symbolic efforts at preserving purity, mainly through the prohibition of food, actions, and behaviors that lead humanity astray from the good og God’s creation and communion.

Who is God?

God, in certain schools of thought, is perceived to be the representation of what is divine and what is supreme. For us, he is the creator of all and the object of our faith for everything we’ve been entrusted to. To many God can be the answer to many questions that arise at the terminus of our understanding, capacity, or ability to know and understand. As Bonhoeffer points out, it is easy and common for got to be someone “whom we insert to fill the gap at the limit of our own powers,” and someone who we come to when we need or do not know (Ratzinger). For many reasons, it is challenging to answer the question of what is God, let alone who. God can be many people, God can be one person, or God can be nobody, but for all intents and purposes, God is the quintessence and ultimate expression of the divine. Without saying who God is, there is substance in just a name, and there is a lot to say about the God who names himself the one who is. He exists on a level that is personal, the plane of “I and You,” and not on “the plane of spatial” (Ratzinger). Despite such divinity and the fact that God’s power is boundless, He can be accessed at any place wherever he is let to be found. A belief in Him entails the “courage to entrust oneself to the power that governs the whole world without grasping the divine in one’s hands,” adding to the component of the fact that his divinity can only be understood to a certain extent (Ratzinger).

Why does Joseph plant the silver cup? What is the ultimate aim of such a move? How does this relate to his status as the beloved son? Appeal explicitly to the story as a whole (i.e. Gen 37-50) and to the article from Anderson in your answer?

Prior to reading Anderson, and basing my thoughts off of what one would expect from someone in the situation of Joseph, it would not a surprise for an ordinary man, unlike one who the Lord is with, for the act of placing of his cup in Benjamin’s bag to be the manifestation of a grudge and resent for how he was mistreated in the past by his brothers. Understanding Anderson, we see that it is quite the opposite. Comparing the situation presented by how Joseph could respond to finding the cup in Benjamin’s bag, and how his brothers responded to Joseph in the pit, a stark contrast is demonstrated by Judas’ willingness to sacrifice himself for the favored son (Anderson 207-208). The fact that such a gesture of love brought Joseph to tears, and that Joseph furthermore acted with mercy shows that his intent with placing the cup was to test his brothers, and ultimately see the “envy” within the “brothers [be] dissipated” (Anderson 208). Much like how in Joseph’s story, he was the preferred of his brothers despite being the youngest, Benjamin now as the youngest in a situation where the other brothers have the choice to act to rid themselves of a favored sibling to save themselves shows the evolution of the brothers as a product of mercy. As Anderson excellently capitalizes on, we reject the one who is elect of Israel, but in return, He does not reject us (Anderson 214-215). Joseph experienced a death and a resurrection, and because the Lord was with him, he was risen and exalted over his brothers with all of the ability in the world to choose to not be merciful, but did despite everything his brothers did to him. Such forgiveness is a miracle ever-present in Genesis, and especially in the story of Joseph, serves to show the love of the Lord and that which is bestowed to his people.

The narrative of Jacob and Esau carries forward Genesis’ presentation of what it means to be God’s elect. As with Abraham and Isaac, we should expect some sort of “death” and “resurrection,” much as we saw in the Aqedah. To see how that pattern emerges in the life of Jacob, who himself will undergo a kind of death and rebirth, attend to what it is that Jacob takes in the story and what it is he eventually receives. (A common theme, no?) The center, of course, is his relationship with Esau and through Esau, with God. To ready ourselves for lecture, please consider the scene of Jacob’s wrestling and answer two simple questions. Who wins, really? And who is his opponent?

Much like the stories we have seen before of brotherly rivalry and greed, the same is seen with Jacob and Esau. Jacob, as a result of how he was born, lacked the title of first born, and was second to Esau as a favorite in his father’s eyes. For selfish reasons and desires of the great fortune that replacing Isaac will entail, Jacob, with his own hands, attempts to secure these by using trickery and deceit. He gets Esau’s birthright and tricks his father into giving him the blessing that was reserved for Esau, but strangely, and unlike what has been seen previously in Genesis, what Jacob took, he eventually also kept. He becomes entrusted to continuing the patriarchal promise God made to Abraham and his father, despite the means he took to arrive there, but it came at the cost of unresolved conflict with his brother, whose resolution forms the context of a wrestle between Jacob, and what is believed to be an angel. On a more metaphorical level, however, there is reason to believe that the battle could actually be an internal one, that of Jacob with his fears and everything he had to address with coming back. It is hard to say if a definitive winner exists, because while no man won, the figure made a last ditch effort and grabbed Jacob’s thigh. Even though at the end, Jacob was the one who resulted with an injury, I believe that he ended up winning the skirmish, because aside from physical damage, he emerged with a new name– one resembling God–, a blessing, and perhaps something that would resemble the resolution of his conflict with Esau.

What is Religion?

Obtaining inspiration from Cavanaugh and Marty on the definition of religion, I take it to be an entity defined by its sense of community, the sharing of a concern/priority, particular conduct and adherence to a set of behaviors, connection to mythical and symbolic elements, and brought together through practices and ceremonies. It is important to note, though, that something can still possess all of these characteristics and still not be a religion. In the context of the many things which an individual could hold against religion on the grounds of promoting violence or hatred, it is necessary to make the distinction clear. Speaking with respect to what is relevant to us and in the course of our study, religion is the application of these characteristics to God. The shared concern is loving, serving, and understanding God, the sense of community is that which is found among people addressing the above concern, and in those communities, that goal is achieved through engaging with and following God’s word. For me, religion becomes the organization of all of these characteristics into a system that people can identify with to different degrees and by different levels of commitment. As pointed out by Cavanaugh, there is a “capacity of religion to inspire total loyalties or commitments.” For this reason it is really easy to liken something to religion that is actually not, because many things such as nationalism and coordinated hatred and violence can appear to adhere to these same characteristics. There is an inherent, and perhaps undeniable characteristic of religion that can appear to be nationalistic, and for that reason it is necessary to not be too loose or too strict with considerations for religion. Of the characteristics, they almost all possess a nature that can be interpreted out of a proper context, but for the purposes possessed here to want to properly define religion, the best distinction is made clear by the possession of a unifying factor that is along the lines of a superhuman or supernatural controlling power.

According to Wilken (and Augustine from whom Wilken draws his thought), why is faith unavoidable? Why is it beneficial? Cite some passages.

Among the many points that Wilken makes, one in particular is that there is an inevitable component of faith that lies in how we live and execute our daily lives, and therefore is something that is better embraced than ignored. In the sense that faith is unavoidable, Wilken emphasizes the role that faith has in knowledge and obtaining it. Whereas it is thought that faith is something which detracts from one’s concept of ‘knowing,’ it is emphasized that it is important to consider that many things we think we know are actually things we believe. In truth, it is that faith maintains the structure of our lives and of understanding, and it is “reason [that] begins with faith” (Wilken). A lot of history and what we hold to be factual is really something that cannot be verified (according to many forms of scrutiny against scripture) unless guaranteed by an authority on the subject, but when it comes to many of the things we hold to be true, that ability to confirm validity exists equally as much as it does for matters of religion. It cannot be said, therefore, that possessing faith in the context of religion substitutes reason and facts, because there exists the same uncertainty with secular knowledge that is best supplemented faith and belief. On a level much more important than knowledge and learning, regarding life, “the sacred bond of the human race” would be shattered” without the presence of faith (Wilken). Not everything can be held with absolute certainty, and sometimes that is acceptable. In a different sense, seeing how faith is something unavoidable and present in our lives, having faith (as opposed to not having any) is something that can contribute greatly to one’s life. In a spiritual sense, “faith is the portal that leads to the knowledge of God,” but in a sense that applies to knowing and living, “faith… has to do with the knowledge that draws one deeper into what is known” (Wilken). It enables humanity to transcend and reach higher levels of knowing and being, because there is only so much that we know to be absolutely true, but so much more that we have reason to believe in.

(1) Why does Abraham agree to the request made of him by God? (2) Is Abraham lying in 22:5 and 22:8? (3) What is the God’s intention in making Abraham go through with this ordeal? (4) Is Abraham praiseworthy? Is God?

In part, there is an undeniable component of Abraham’s response to God’s request that has to do with the associated promise of making a name through the many descendants he will bear. Though this seems counter-intuitive to the very reason which distinguished Abraham from other men to be worthy of Fathering these generations, all of the difference is made by the fact it was offered by God, and not a self-pursuit. Kass suggests that Abraham may have possessed some intuition about the existence of an intelligent source, namely a God, and also suggests that the nature of God presenting himself to Abraham in the form of an intelligent and personal voice hinted that God was indeed a God was a reason for his yes.

On Abraham’s words found in 22:5 and 22:8, it is easy to claim that Abraham’s statements present themselves to be contrary to the intentions it was known were behind is actions, but in truth, when interpreting his words as coming from someone truly God-fearing and believing, it can be seen that his words actually convey trust and faith in God’s plan. Whether or not he knew that God would make him carry out that deed alters the context slightly, but it is undeniable that Abraham had faith that it was for a greater purpose.

Reflecting a theme echoed throughout the beginning of Genesis, I believe it is not incorrect to say that Abraham was chosen for this task because he was worthy of being and instrument or vehicle for the execution of God’s mercy in creating a people. God obviously saw that Abraham was unlike many other men, but did have the same needs as those men that just chose to act with more greed, and therefore appealed to that need given that he knew that Abraham would be willing and capable of serving him.

Regarding Abraham, to say the least, he is definitely deserving of praise. Especially compared relative to other men with other aspirations inspired by greed and the desire to make a name or a legacy, Abraham is unique. As Kass points out, there are many circumstances (even burdens one could say) that Abraham has placed on him that might put him in a position to want to seek glory, but even then he is “as far as possible from the self satisfied.” Answering this question while considering God is an interesting question. Taking this to be interpreted in the context of the particularly unique and slightly outrageous things he asked to be done, it is impossible to see that that should disqualify him from being seen as someone worthy of praise. It is through God that we even exist in the first place to either pursue or not pursue for self-interested reasons, and it should logically translate to an authority He should have to wish to know about the people he is wishing to bestow his mercy and goodness upon, especially because nothing requires him to do it. Despite man’s sin and imperfection, he is willing to continuously act generously, and the praiseworthy component of his actions should not be reduced to the conditions he places on the acts of mercy that he performs voluntarily.

Leon Kass’s book, The Beginning of Wisdom, is a careful literary reflection about this first book of the Bible. Drawing on what Kass has to say, please say a few words about how the narrative about Noah furthers the concerns present in the account of the first sin in Genesis 3. He doesn’t make the connection explicitly, but it is common knowledge that the so-called “primeval history” of Genesis 1-11 contains a series of narratives that are all variations on a theme. Each informs and shapes our reading of the other.

Kass, from the beginning, establishes that the narrative of Noah, as its own, can be a third creation account consisting of fragments from the previous two, echoing the theme of mankind fracturing its relationship with God through pursuit of God-like attributes inspired by greed and jealousy. The first sin in Genesis more or less originated from the desire of Adam and Eve to be more like God, specifically to have the knowledge of good and evil. The form in which their sin was committed, which was the taking of the fruit without the consent of God, illustrates an underlying corruption of humankind to exude they are deserving and great enough “to attempt to control or appropriate the divine” (Kass 229). This parallels the theme surrounding what preceded Noah, which was human greed, and what seemed like a negative deviation from what God had expected mankind to be. Descendants from the lines of Cain and Seth had lived in wickedness, and in their possession of God-like attributes had their sense of morality corrupted by obsession and pride, ultimately amounting to regret on behalf of God for having created mankind. Both of these scenarios, regardless of being distinct accounts or not, present a challenge to God’s initial creation that can be described as free from conflict and good. The first account of Genesis tells us how God made watery chaos into order and goodness, and how it was done with omnipotence and intent, and the second account reflects this beginning state of harmony and goodness, and show how mankind’s sin corrupts that harmony and forever alters life for the rest of humanity. This potential third account only continues to contribute to this pattern, that good is with God, and that moral pursuits, chaos, corruption and wickedness, all belonging to man, present a threat to that existence appearing substantial enough to God to be deserving of destruction, but later restoration. Interestingly, God’s mercy is equally echoed throughout these accounts, on top of mankind’s transgressions, as seen through God letting Adam and Eve not die completely after disobeying him, letting Cain live on and procreate, and letting existence continue to exist because of good people, like Noah, who represents God’s good creation once again.