What does Scripture mean by “fulfillment”? 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.

---

When we naively think about what it means to be a prophet, it’s easy to think of prophets as those who are able to predict/expose the events of the future, through which they reveal God’s integrity.  Instead, it is almost always the opposite.  Most of what the prophets have to say concern the past or near future, and it isn’t until later that these words are ultimately fulfilled.  Such is the case in Hosea, where God says “Out of Egypt I called my Son.”  At the time, these words referred not to the distant future, but to God’s lamenting of Israel’s faithlessness in the years of Exodus under Moses.  However, these words are eventually fulfilled in Matthew, where Jesus, Mary, and Joseph return from Egypt after King Herod’s death.  As such, the prophets help us to view the past events in the Old Testament as events awaiting fulfillment.

Moving on to the New Testament, we can already begin to see these fulfillments take place.  Much of Matthew 1 is spent deriving the lineage from Abraham to David to Jesus, establishing Jesus as the successor and son of David.  Similarly, Luke explains that “the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”  With Jesus renewing the kingship over all of Israel, even those who have been lost will soon be reunited.  Similarly, Luke describes John the Baptist as someone who  “will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God.”  Already, with the coming of Jesus, we can see that the New Testaments begins to tie many of the loose ends of the Old Testaments.

(1) 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’?

Up to and including the account in Numbers, we repeatedly see the Israelites disobey, distrust, and complain about God’s plan for them. For some time, God, despite being angered by their distrust, begrudgingly satisfies their requests. Ultimately, when the Israelites respond to the report of Canaan (the promised land) with their own apprehension, God essentially decides that He’s had enough. He condemns them, revealing that no one that has treated Him with contempt may ever enter the promised land. Even Moses, who was chosen to lead the Israelites, is given condemnation. I suspect that this is due to his continual distrust in God’s plan, shown when he repeatedly asks God why he is chosen and ultimately when he questions God’s decision to forbid the Israelites from the promised land. Furthermore, it makes since that the one who will lead Israelites to the promised land be among the next generation of people, and not among the generation who has been banished from it.

(2) 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?

The Pentateuch likely closes with the death of Moses as a way to separate everything that takes place before entering the promised land and everything that takes place after. With the death of Moses, the generation that had distrusted and disobeyed God is replaced with the new, led by Joshua. In a way, the promised land shares parallels with the Garden of Eden in the creation story. In each case, the people of God are given land, which is promised to be good, and are given command to follow His rules, such that they may remain in His communion. As such, it is a new beginning for the Israelites.

(3) 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?

The closing passage in Deuteronomy mainly exists to show the passing of the torch from Moses to Joshua. With Joshua at the helm, the Israelites may now enter and take control of the promised land, ultimately completing what Moses and his generation set out to achieve.

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?

---

The concept of purity is closely related to the idea of completeness. In Leviticus, God outlines a strict set of rules governing what must be done in preparation for sacrifice and for consumption (among other things). These guidelines help to establish what it means to be complete/pure. In her account, Mary Douglas describes our efforts towards purity in relation to the avoidance of dirt. More than the actual physical embodiment, dirt can be defined as disorder or as Douglas defines it “matter out of place”. Our avoidance of dirt involves a positive reordering of our environment and a movement to create unity in experience. In essence, we are building upon the goodness of creation while also developing our relationships with each other and with God. Furthermore, by ridding ourselves of “dirt”, we are actively seeking to be more complete, making us more holy in God’s eyes.

As such, God requires us to seek purity as a means to Him. As He describes in Leviticus, God will only accept that which is pure. By remaining pure, we maintain the order of creation and preserve it from pollution, which is our responsibility as a result of the ongoing nature of creation. In addition, remaining pure for God reveals an act of obedience towards Him. The act of purification is a way for us to differentiate from those who are impure, revealing our willingness to be in communion with God.

Going along with the idea of pollution, God gives us laws related to purity, specifically those relating to food, to guide us away from pollution. It is of note that proper hygiene happens to coincide with these laws. Following these laws, we are able to prevent the spread of pollution and the disruption of order.

“Who is God?”

---

The concept of God, whether in a theological or philosophical context, is a complex idea that is continually debated and fought over. Although Ratzinger seems to suggest that each of the three core belief types (monotheism, polytheism, and atheism) all share some sort of commonality, the differing viewpoints on the topic of God have been the basis of many intellectual arguments, disputes, and even wars. This, of course, leads us to the question: Who really is God?

In Exodus, we read about a singular God who is protective of his people. When the Pharaoh enslaves the Israelites, God works through Moses to release a series of plagues on the Egyptians, then guides the Israelites throughout their escape, supplying manna and water along the way. Throughout this, God maintains a close relationship with Moses, revealing His name as “Yahewh” or “I am who I am.” Ratzinger notes the significance of this name in that it emphasizes God’s being, without explicitly settling on a given name. This also establishes God as a personal god, or as Ratzinger explains “the god who is concerned with man and is himself personal and person-centered.” God also identifies himself as the God of our Fathers, which in turn removes any physical boundaries limiting his reign. Without being restricted to one place, he is able to be, as Ratzinger states, “wherever man lets himself be found.” This, in turn, puts the responsibility of salvation on us. God is there for us when we need him. This isn’t to say that God is an escape, only present in times of necessity. Instead, Ratzinger says that we “should find God amid the fullness of earthly life”, thereby demonstrating our need for him without using him merely as a resource.

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 article from Anderson in your answer?

---

Early on, Joseph earns a bitter jealousy from each of his brothers. For one, he is a clear favorite of his father Jacob. In addition, he begins describing certain dreams he is having, where his brothers, among others, are bowing down to him. In response, the brothers plot to kill him, but eventually settle on selling him as a slave. Years later, Joseph works his way into power in Egypt, and we see his dreams from earlier play out. Without recognizing him, Joseph’s brothers bow down to Joseph, asking for food during a drought. Joseph gives them food, but keeps Simeon. With Simeon in his control, he requests that the brothers return with their youngest brother Benjamin. Once they do, Joseph holds a feast and leaves them with bags of food. However, before they leave Joseph plants a cup in Benjamin’s belongings. He does so as a test of their will. The brothers are now in a very similar position as they were with Joseph. Do they abandon Benjamin and once again return to their father without his beloved son? Instead, Judah offers to take Benjamin’s place, revealing a selfless and protective heart in a direct contrast from the one which sold Joseph as a slave. In turn, Joseph reveals himself and asks that his brothers return to Canaan to tell Jacob, who believes that Joseph is dead, the news.

Once Jacob hears the news, he is overjoyed and plans to travel to Egypt, to see his son. With that, Joseph completes his arc as the beloved son. Anderson compares this arc to that of Jesus, specifically with regard to Jesus’ death and resurrection. From the perspective of Jacob, Joseph “dies” after being sold a slave but is “resurrected” after earning a new life and reappearing back to Jacob as a new man, one with the power to save his brothers and father from famine.

Consider the scene of Jacob’s wrestling and answer two simple questions. Who wins, really? And who is his opponent?

---

The story of “Jacob’s wrestling match with an angel” is definitely a mysterious and interesting one. It begins in the wake of Esau’s anticipated encounter. One night, as Jacob and those with him cross the Jabok, Jacob stays behind, leaving him alone with a mysterious man, who initiates a wrestling match. The identity of this man is neither known nor given, so we must interpret. Kass suggests that it might be a stand-in for Jacob’s antagonists, one of Esau and Isaac. The wrestling match therefore represents an intimate entanglement of each other, where Jacob ultimately conquers his opponent, fulfilling his tendency to take yet another thing. Regardless of the opponent, the story reminds us of Jacob’s taking of Esau’s blessing in Genesis 27. Both stories occur in the dark in hurried anticipation of Esau’s arrival, and both end in a victory for Jacob. One distinction is that in the former story (the taking of Esau’s blessing), Jacob lies and identifies himself as Esau, whereas in the later (wrestling match) he correctly identifies himself as Jacob. With the later story, Jacob is then ultimately given a new name, Isreal. To go along with this recurring theme of giving things/people names, we can interpret this act of naming as a newly established connection between Jacob/Israel and God. Now, after prevailing against adversity and being blessed with a new name, Jacob may pass on and create the diverse lineage promised to Abraham.

One thing of note about this wrestling match is who the winner truly was. Strictly speaking, Jacob overpowers his opponent, who submits only after injuring Jacob’s hip. Jacob is now left with a limp, which effectively functions as a mark of his encounter. However, if we imagine the opponent as either God or a manifestation of Him, it would seem that God was the true winner of the match. This is because, God, through this match, forces Jacob to confront his own actions and prevail over them. After, Jacob is left with a mark of the encounter so as to commemorate his turning point.

What is religion?

---

There are a variety of things we as humans can know. For example, we know that we must eat and drink to survive, that the sky is blue, and that 2+2=4. However, we do not know (and inherently can’t know as well) why or how humans came to be. At its core, theology is the attempt at understanding this, among the rest of what has been given to us. As St. Anslem famously put it, theology is “faith seeking understanding.” Namely, theology begins with a belief in God’s self revelation and ultimately leads us to seek a better understanding of what it is He has revealed. Who God is and why He created us is also under this umbrella called theology. This is also where many religions disagree. Some religions believe in many gods, while others may believe in one. Furthermore, each religion’s god may be different. So how do we decide? For Catholics, as Cavadini describes, God is revealed not only by “what is in Scripture”, but also by the “apostolic tradition of the church.” Both parts build upon and complement each other to ultimately culminate in the level of understanding humans constantly strive towards.

If we take a step back and examine religion in a more anthropological context, such as in the case of Martin Marty in our reading, we can see religion/theology in a different, but also complementary light. In the book Politics, Religion, and the Common Good, Martin Marty lists his five defining features of religion. One of the more interesting features of religion is his last: that religion, like politics and government, “demands certain actions from its adherents.” Admittedly, while reading the Bible, it can sometimes be easy for me to see religion through this lens. In certain verses, it almost appears that the Bible is merely disguising a persuasion towards certain actions or ways of living under the authority of God’s command. For example, when God says that every man must be circumcised, I can see how this could also function as a way for the writers of the Genesis to get men to be circumcised as a health precaution, rather than doing it as a sign of God’s covenant. Regardless, it is certainly a possibility that religion is more than just a means to an understanding of God, but also an avenue to human well-being and possibly even comfort during difficult times.

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

---

Within his argument, Wilken quotes a text from Oregen, an early Christian thinker, who wrote “a desire to know the truth of things has been implanted in our souls and is natural to human beings.” We humans constantly year for an understanding of the unknown. We may ask ourselves anything from “Did the moon landing really occur?” to “How did we humans get here”? The answer to these cannot merely come from an objective way of knowing. For example, we can know that 2×2=4, but we can’t really know that Buzz Aldrin and Lance Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969. Instead, we demonstrate a belief that is based on evidence and trustworthy witnesses. Wilken goes as far as to say that “[belief] is a constituent part of historical knowledge”, meaning that regardless of how well we think we may know something occurred, we can only have faith that it did occur. Belief, therefore, is inevitable before we can know. As Wilken says, “nothing would remain stable in human society if we determined only to believe what can be held with absolute certainty.”

Beyond acting as a portal to knowledge, faith can be beneficial in a variety of ways. For one, it can be used to demonstrate our acknowledgment of authority. Wilkens uses the example of a student learning a foreign language. Not only must the teacher know the foreign language them-self, but the student must acknowledge that in order to learn. Likewise, by demonstrating our faith in God, we reveal our love and trust in him.

(1) Why does Abraham agree to the request made of him by God?

Why exactly God chose Abraham to begin a new family in Canaan isn’t totally clear. However, we do know that God caught Abraham in a time of discontent. Abraham, while able to love a beautiful women who was barren, was likely longing for roots, home, children, and settled ways. As a result, God’s offer of children and a new life in Canaan was a good alternative, so he took it. There, after Sarah had miraculously born their only son, God commands Abraham to offer him up as a sacrifice, which leaves Abraham with an extremely tough decision. Does he trust God, who has given him a new life and a son, or does he reject God’s command, and keep his only son for himself? Ultimately, Adam puts his faith in God, and agrees to head to the mountain to offer his son as a burnt offering, revealing his dependence and servitude towards God.

(2) Is Abraham lying in 22:5 and 22:8?

Abraham isn’t necessary lying as much as he is avoiding the truth. The truth is that he is going to the mountain to sacrifice his son. In Genesis 22:5 and 22:8, he sort of bends this truth without fully revealing his intentions, likely to avoid any intervention as he submits to God’s will.

(3) What is the God’s intention in making Abraham go through with this ordeal?

After putting Abraham through one of the biggest tests any father receive, it seems as though God wants to make sure Abraham’s heart is in the right place. It’d be easy for Abraham to reject God, since God has already given Abraham everything he could have wanted. As a result, it’s even more praiseworthy that Abraham held through.

(4) Is Abraham praiseworthy? Is God?

While at the surface it seems borderline psychopathic for a father to be willing to burn his son as a sacrifice, Abraham’s intentions are what make him praiseworthy. It is because of his faith in God that he was given a son, so he honors that faith once again when given a command to sacrifice his son. As for God, I’m not completely sure how to feel. On one side, I understand that God wants to make sure Abraham can be trusted, and one way to ensure this is to put him through a test. In addition, he didn’t actually allow Abraham to kill Isaac, further confirming that God was merely looking for Abraham’s intent. However, doesn’t this seem like a little much? Imagine the trauma a young child like Isaac might be put through after seeing his father go through all the steps of sacrifice until the very end. It seems like there ought to be a better way.

Drawing on what Kass has to say (and aware that your classmates will read and respond to what you write!) 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.

---

From the offspring of Adam and Eve, two main lineages are derived–one from Seth and one from Cain–and much of Genesis 4-11 is used to describe this. Admittedly, these lengthy descriptions of offspring seem unremarkable and perhaps even unnecessary to the narrative Genesis presents, but, as Kass notes, they may be more than what they seem. By aggregating the time spans of the offspring lineage, we can see that Abram is the first man born after Adam’s death. As such, he is the first person born with the knowledge that he will eventually die. For others, this realization of mortality was a lot to handle. Many sought escape from their inevitable reality in a source of comfort: beauty. Kass explains that beauty acted as a “haven for the ugliness of disintegration.” This lust for beauty, which parallels Adam and Eve’s lust for knowledge despite God’s command, eventually triggered the onset of mankind’s downfall. As the god-like descendants of Seth mixed with the artificial human-like descendants of Cain, the result was corruption, violence, and selfishness. God responded with a flood, to wipe out all of mankind as a sort of new beginning. God does however spare Noah, as well as his wife, sons, and the rest of Earth creatures. This can be explained by Noah’s virtue. Unlike others at the time who sought beauty and Adam and Eve who sought to be god-like, Noah accepted his mortality and domesticated his sexual urges, which pleased God.