As discussed in the last class, there are two things that one may refer to when talking about “fulfillment” in the Bible.  The first, which makes up a very small fraction of Scripture, refers to the Old Testament essentially announcing what is to come in the future.  Usually, though, the concept of fulfillment involves discerning the patterns of God’s actions, which in turn defines the shapes of things to come.  This idea is demonstrated when looking at the words of Hosea, who says “that what the Lord said through the prophet might be fulfilled” ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’”.  While some may interpret this “fulfillment” as a future prediction that is manifesting itself as Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt to escape Herod, that is not what the fulfillment is referring to.  This type of fulfillment comes from this sort of repeating pattern of Exodus that we can see if we look back at the past. In the “first” Exodus, we see the Israelites coming out of Egypt. In the “second” Exodus, we see the Israelites coming out of Babylon.  Ultimately, this third Exodus in Matthew will result from us coming out of the reigns of sin and death. This continuous pattern of God’s people consistently being delivered illustrates God’s divine love and the patterns with which he acts. In the opening chapters of Matthew and Mark, there are quite a few examples of fulfillment in relation to the elements within the Old Testament.  In Luke 29-33, the promise of David’s heir taking over the throne comes through with the birth of Jesus. In Luke 69-79, the prophet Zachariah mentions Israel’s “deliverance from [their] enemies”, “mercy to [their] fathers, and the ability to “worship him without a care in the world”. These elements address the aspect of judgement on enemy nations and come together to live out God’s covenant.  These verses in Luke show very strong parallels to the past covenants in Scripture, thereby establishing the pattern of fulfillment that is continuous throughout the Bible.

I think that the wilderness generation is condemned for their lack of faith and trust in God.  Throughout the chapters in Numbers, we hear the wilderness generation complaining about the various things that they lack, such as the lack of meat.  The questioning thoughts continuously develop as the wilderness people begin to question whether or not they even should have left Egypt, wishing that they had died in the process.  Though Joshua tries to convince them to have trust in the lord, and to do as he says so that they can reach the promised land, the wilderness people are not receptive and all, and instead threaten to respond violently to his action.  This generation’s condemnation is due to the fact that they lose trust in God and the fact that he is working for their good and in their best interest. Moses has to deal with the complaints of the people, and does his best to advocate for God, but we see Moses questioning God and his actions, asking why his people are going through what they are going through, which may be why there is a sort of condemnation of Moses.  It also may be due to the fact that the people are not responding and listening to God’s teachings, so maybe Moses’ condemnation may have something to do with a sort of frustration at the people of Israel’s lack of reception. I think that the Pentateuch ends with the death of Moses because it signifies a new sort of transfer of responsibility onto the people of Israel. Moses clearly and explicitly states the important laws and teachings that the people of Israel need to follow, and their corresponding responsibilities.  In addition, God fulfills his promise and brings the people of Israel to the land. Moses was the first person with whom God truly had direct contact and communication with him, and Moses did his duty to transfer the message of God. Now that the foundations are established, the starting of a new section may signify what the Israelites will actually do with this knowledge. I think that the closing passage of Deuteronomy illustrates just how impactful someone like Moses who had direct contact and demonstrations of power are for the Israelites.  The passage in Judges talks about how after Joshua dies and those who did not ever witness the contact and power of God, disobeyed all of his orders. I think it might say something about the nature of humans and our inability to truly comprehend and obey things that we don’t have a more direct connection or a relationship with.

I interpreted the concepts of purity and impurity as ideas that help to maintain the holiness of God and the ways in which we worship him.  The reading that was assigned talked about the root of holiness, meaning to be “set apart”. As a transcendent and omniscient being, God is somewhat set apart from the rest of humankind.  However, we as human beings still owe everything to God, and all of our greatest blessings come from him. He creates things, and establishes a sense of order, as we established in the early chapters of Genesis.  By following the ceremonial rituals and laws that are ordained by God, we are fulfilling our place in the order of creation, avoiding any confusion or mixing that challenges the divine order. The various laws relating to the animals are an example of this – the law specifies that cattle should not mate and intermix with each other.  By mating within one’s own breed, they are fully committing to their place in the order of creation. The maintenance of purity illustrates a sense of respect and reverence for God, and one that can be translated to mankind. I think that God requires us to maintain purity because it illustrates a sense of restraint and submission to the rule of God.  By being willing to follow the commands of God, we are adhering to the order that God wants to impose on his creation. It is this idea of maintaining the holy order and the concept of holiness that the logic behind the food laws comes from. There are such strict restrictions on what types of livestock we are supposed to allow to breed and to consume, and certain purity restrictions on certain bodily parts, such as the blood and the fat.  By following these food laws, we are making a sacrifice in order to maintain the social order and avoid unnecessary confusion amongst other items of creations.

As discussed in Ratzinger, there seems to be two elements or components of God.  God is a very powerful, omniscient being. He is capable of so many things, as we learn about from Exodus.  He brings about the many plagues in Egypt through his elect, Moses. He knows and controls what is going to come about.  For example, in communicating with Moses about how to deal with the Pharaoh, he directs him with exactly what to do, and states that the Pharaoh will harden his heart, which happens several times as Moses attempts to reason with him by the name of God.  The fear that he instills in so many individuals that lead them to follow his commands demonstrates his shear omnipotence and his real godliness. With his “name” in Exodus which translates to “I am who I am”, it shows how truly transcendent our God is. He is present in all aspects of life and it is difficult for us to even conceptualize him as a being.  However, in Exodus, we also see evidence that God is not solely a higher, distant, all-powerful being who simply does as he pleases independently of his very creations. God reveals himself to Moses in the bush, and this was one of the first times that God seems to have some sort of direct interaction with one of his followers. As broad as the name that he gives himself is, it does represent a sort of effort for the Israelites and other humans on Earth to be able to call upon God and make some sort of connection with him.  By making and following through on covenants with his children, God demonstrates a care and desire to establish trust with his followers. As distant and unrelatable as God may seem sometimes, his depictions in Exodus demonstrate his desires to be closer and establish communion with his children and those who believe in him and follow his teachings. He wants to form relationships with us.

I think that Joseph’s ultimate intent with the silver cup was to see how his brother’s have transformed since Joseph was given up for enslavement.  At the earlier chapters of Genesis, we learn that Joseph was the favored son, given that he was a child of Rachel, the wife whom Jacob really loved.  There was a sense of jealousy amongst Joseph’s other brothers, and after receiving a tunic from his father, the brothers gave up Joseph for slavery and convinced Jacob that Joseph had died.  At this point in the story, the brothers acted selfishly and tried to do harm to their favored brother, sacrificing him in their own self-interest. So, when Joseph decides to plant the silver cup on Benjamin, the newest beloved son, his ultimate aim was to see whether his brothers had truly transformed and grown since their initial wrongdoings.  Joseph purposefully planted the cup on Benjamin, knowing full well that he was the newest favored son of his father, Jacob. In spite of this, though, his brothers reacted much differently to Benjamin’s situation than Joseph’s. As Anderson mentions, the brothers had realized the wrongness of their actions. They were very anxious as to how Joseph would react if they came into contact with him, given that he had a right to be very upset with them.  In addition, though, in light of the newest development with Benjamin, Joseph’s brother, Judah, made a very admirable choice to offer himself as a sacrifice rather than allowing Benjamin to be enslaved. The fact that he was willing to give up himself, knowing and respecting his favored position with his father, demonstrated a much greater sense of love and selflessness than in the situation with Joseph. Because of the way in which he reacted, Joseph was extremely moved.  One of the points that Anderson mentioned in his article that I really enjoyed was the fact that this story becomes all the more meaningful when you compare the brothers’ actions at the beginning of the story, versus the end. Judah’s sacrifice for Benjamin at the end, for example, means much more given the fact that he had advocated for Joseph’s enslavement in the first place. I think that this just goes to show the importance of being able to ask for forgiveness and grow.  We all make major mistakes throughout our lives. However, what is important is not that we make these mistakes, but that we realize the wrongness of our actions and create actual change in our life to better follow the path of God.

There are several speculations as to who Jacob is “wrestling” with in this description in the Bible.  As described in the article, it is most likely some higher, more spiritual being rather than a simple man.  Kass speculates that Jacob’s opponent may be someone fighting on behalf of Esau. It could be symbolic of the struggle in the womb between the two twins, especially given how closely intertwined they were, making it difficult to really identify what belonged to who given that they were wrestling.  The opponent could also be a symbol of his father, given that Jacob seems to demand a blessing from his opponent, similarly to the one in which he received after manipulating his father Isaac. One rather interesting interpretation that Kass brought up which I liked though, was that the struggle was truly with God.  It could represent Jacob trying to stay connected to God. Given that God was not always as openly present to Jacob, with less direct and frequent communication compared to someone like Isaac. As Jacob accepts this confrontation, he is demonstrating a desire to engage with God in some way, and get closer to him. If this is the case, then I think that the real, true winner in the end of this situation is God.  Although it seems as though Jacob physically prevails, and is in a position of power and control to demand a sort of blessing, the fact that Jacob was so invested in the struggle demonstrates his virtues that can be channeled to supporting God and spreading his word. Jacob was not passive in the struggle; he fought long and hard. It wasn’t a fight to the death, though, as Kass emphasizes. It was one in which he was putting up a struggle, and demonstrating his perseverance.  In a way, this “wrestling” could serve extremely beneficial in God’s eyes, as Jacob’s dedication to the struggle and to getting closer to God illustrates just how driven and capable he is to spread the word of God even when he is presented with obstacles.

The concept of religion is an extremely difficult topic to define.  There are such a wide variety of established religions that exist today, ranging from Christianity to Buddhism, and religion seems to play a unique role in everyones’ lives.  Some people are extremely devoted to a specific church, while some believe in a higher power but don’t identify with an established religion. There are even some people who have no ties to any established religion, but may have other sources of motivation and guiding principles.  Given the diverse types of religion and the fluctuating role that it can play in people’s lives, religion may be hard to define. William Cavanaugh’s article discusses several attempts at defining religion. For example, he mentions the author Martin Marty, who instead of attempting to give a specific definition, listed various features that were crucial to religions. He states the need for their to be an “ultimate concern” for which one acts.  He states that it helps to build community, utilizes “myths”, “symbols”, “rites”, and “ceremonies. Lastly, it calls for certain behavior amongst the individuals that follow it. I feel that these are all reasonable elements to define a religion, but the problem with these principles as discussed in the article was that they were not specific enough to distinguish between something like religion versus politics. The article mentions David Rapoport as well, who adds on the distinction that religion is much more “timeless and universal” than something like politics.  To me, religion is a set of beliefs and principles that help to establish values, guide our actions, and define our ways of life. It helps us to find our purpose or ultimate end in life. I feel that religion means something different to everyone, and plays a different role in everyone’s lives, depending on exactly what they believe in, but I feel like religion plays at least some sort of role in everyone’s lives, regardless of whether it is through the teachings of an established church or simply discerning for an individual what it is that they take their beliefs to be.

According to Wilken, faith is unavoidable force that we encounter in our lives.  While reason can help us to come with certain answers and conclusions, it can often be difficult, like with the case of the Manichees, to answer the more difficult questions.  Faith is something that we really cannot avoid. When it comes to learning about history, for example, it is very difficult to indefinitely prove that one knows something. We have to rely on witness accounts and their stories, and even when we do so, it is impossible to ever discern what is true and what is not.  The example that Wilken gives is with Cicero. We cannot indefinitely say that we know that Cicero killed those who had conspired against him, as we were not there to witness and experience it. We must have faith in those who were able to experience it, and claim that we only “believe” it to be true. While mathematical knowledge is often something that you can prove, things that happened historically are a lot more difficult to conceptualize with the same level of certainty.  Faith is unavoidable in virtually every aspect of our society as well. Without having faith in the truthfulness and honesty of man, we simply could not function as a society. We tend to give a variety of individuals a certain level of authority, and trust in the knowledge that they pass on to us. Wilken’s example is that of a mother and her son. Especially during Abraham’s time, the only person that can truly state who a child’s father is would be his mother. The son cannot ever know for sure, but he has faith and trust in the mother that what she says is true.  We endow people who are experienced with trust all the time, such as students do with teachers. We must have faith that they are teaching us what they understand to be valid. Faith can be beneficial, especially in the religious sense, when it comes to getting closer to God. The article talks about for one to truly hear God, you must be willing to hear him first. We must have faith in the idea of God and his teachings, and be willing to try to love and understand him. When we have done so and are ready, God can begin to truly reveal himself to us.

I think that Abraham has agreed to the request made of him by God for a couple of reasons.  I think that one of them may have to do with the reason why God chose Abraham to form a covenant with in the first place.  Although we do not get a lot of details as to why God specifically selected Abraham, we do see a certain obedience in him from the beginning of Chapter 12, when we first see him first obey God’s commandments.  In addition, though, I think it also important to take into consideration, as discussed in the “Babel: Failures of Civilization” reading, to consider that Abram was without a home, roots, and a sense of direction.  God has communicated a lot with Abraham, and has made him several promises that have benefited him, such as with the birth of his son, Isaac. God has continuously demonstrated to him that He will deliver on his promises, so long as Abraham follows his commands and honors God.  That is one of many possible explanations, though, for why Abraham may have agreed to the request of God. The lines that Abraham stated were not technically lies, though they could be easily misinterpreted. It was technically true that Abraham and Isaac were going to worship God, however it was very unclear as to how that was going to be done.  In stating that the sheep were going to be offered, the “sheep” could have been referring to Isaac, himself. While his words were chosen very carefully, they also did not have the whole, clear truth clearly presented in them. I think that God’s intention in making Abraham go through this ordeal was sort of a test. By challenging Abraham to give up the thing whom he cared about most showed a true sense of dedication and loyalty to the Lord God.  I think it also demonstrates a sort of trust in the Lord, and shows that whatever happens, the Lord knows what is best in the long run and will guide it, challenging the moral isolationism that we see in the original sin. I personally don’t think that in this situation, Abraham or God were very praiseworthy. While it does show such a strong trust and allegiance to God, it does not seem honorable to take the life of someone who doesn’t deserve so.  The fact that God asked this of him, even though it was a test, seems unjust in the first place. It is difficult for me to grasp how that would be considered morally right, even if it was a sacrifice for the Lord. I think that there are other, more appropriate ways, that are more praiseworthy to demonstrate a commitment to one’s religion than to harm those around us, which seems to challenge the strong community emphasis that is engrained in our human nature.

I feel as if there is a pretty distinct connection between the first sin in Genesis 3 and the narrative about Noah in the later chapters.  The first sin, in which Adam and Eve consumed fruit from the tree of knowledge, was an act of disobedience. Despite the fact that they are given explicit instructions not to eat from the tree of knowledge, Eve decides that eating from the tree seemed as if it would bring about good consequences and chooses to disobey an order from God.  This theme of obedience is extremely prominent in Noah’s narrative as well. Noah and his family are chosen to be spared when the Lord decided to flood the Earth. The extraordinary aspect about Noah in this narrative is his unquestioning adherence to God’s commands. He is obedient and “simple”, as Nass states in his article, while the other members of mankind living at his time seem to have other, more individualistic priorities.  In the earlier chapters of Genesis, when Eve chooses to eat from the tree, we see her acting on behalf of her own good, rather than taking into consideration the general good of all. She sees that the tree looks desirable, and could potentially make her more God-like, but made her judgment contrary to the orders of God.  We see a very similar self-interested outlook regarding the other individuals in Noah’s narrative.  As Nass mentions, many of the men in the story treat women more as objects, considering more of their appearance than their actual moral character.  In addition, they commit acts of violence in order to establish a sense of glory, acting only for themselves and their legacy rather than for the good of others.  The selfish nature of men who do not follow the word and orders of God is another consistent theme throughout Genesis.