To ready yourself for Tuesday’s class, please write a blog post on the following: 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.

The words God spoke according to Hosea were “‘Out of Egypt I called my son’,” which at first glance is just a statement spoken in the past tense. However, this is interpreted in Matthew and by the Israelites to be something awaiting fulfillment, as if it was in the future tense. Looking at what occurred in the Old Testament allows us to understand why. In the Old Testament, God called Israel from Egypt and delivered them out of the wilderness through Moses. The subsequent conquering of nations followed by the fall of Israel leaves a certain portion of this quote incomplete. Through the prophets the Israelites gained the hope that one day God would come and unite them from the countries they were scattered in so that they may be redeemed. The Israelites are in a similar position as they were in Egypt. They are in exile and are in need of God to restore them to their former glory that we once saw in their temple, in David, in Moses, etc. Therefore, this quote applies to this situation, as the same God that controlled their exit from Egypt controls what happens now, and has the same goals for them as he once did. Therefore, from this quote, Israelites hold onto hope that God will lead them from their current place of exile. The parallels of the Old Testament continue beyond Israel’s expectations of a deliverance from their situation. For example, we see at the beginning of Luke the selection of the elect seemingly at random to help God carry out his will. Elizabeth, who was seen in good eyes by the Lord, has God appear to her saying she will bear children even though she was previously unable to. This is similar to the story of Rachel in the Old Testament, who birthed Joseph in the Old Testament. Furthermore, we see a continuation in the line of David become one of the elect. Jesus is a son of Joseph, who descends from David, which fulfills the prophecy of the next king coming from the line of David. These two things taken together paints a hopeful future for Israel as the archetypal story appears to be starting over again.

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’? (2) The book of Deuteronomy presents Moses’ last discourse before his death just outside the Promised Land. Under Moses’ successor, Joshua, Israel will enter in and take possession of the Land. 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? It’s kind of a let down, no? (3) In the chapters from Joshua and Judges that we read, we seem to enter a new golden age of conquest. But … things are not so simple. Yes Joshua is much like Moses. (Can you see how?) Nevertheless, a shadow hangs over the whole of what he does. 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?

Based on my reading of Numbers, I believe that the wilderness generation’s condemnation is a result of their lack of faith in God. Even as a reader I was getting annoyed by how many times they said “Oh, why did we ever leave Egypt!” The mere repetitiveness of this phrase combined with their complete and utter lack of trust in God was annoying to me, so it must have been infuriating to God, the one who delivered them from slavery and was actively attempting to bring them nearer to him. All the wilderness generation had to do was just accept God’s covenant and they would not have ran into issues, but they were unwilling to do this. This being said, there is a big difference between their grumblings and their disobedience. When they complained that they didn’t have food, water, and then meat, God was irritated, but he showed more mercy. However, when they flat out disobeyed God by attacking or not attacking what God told them to not attack or attack is what demonstrated that they were unwilling to listen to God, and thus was not willing to enter a covenant with him.

The Pentateuch ends with Moses dying because it is the end of an era. The Pentateuch has the recurring theme of the elect being selected by God and suffering so that others may be brought closer to God and redeemed. This all culminates in Moses, who arguably suffers the most out of all of the elect. On one account, Moses even pleads with God for death. This is because the people who he is leading are not receiving the divine message he brings to them and do not obey his commands, and thus God’s commands as a result. This is very stressful for Moses and represents his role as the elect. Moses’s death can be interpreted in many ways. One is that Moses failed to make his people trust in God. However, this was not mentioned earlier in Deuteronomy when God told Moses he would not cross the Jordan River when Moses requested this of him, so I don’t think this is the case. My prediction is that this is an act of mercy by God. On nearly every other account of Moses requesting something of God, God grants Moses’s request because it was in his best interest as well as Israel’s. Therefore, Moses and Israel are better off if Moses never crosses the River. I think this is an act of mercy because God perhaps does not want Moses to see the moment when God must have vengeance on the people. Moses did everything God asked of him, and therefore allows Moses to die before he essentially reverses everything Moses worked for.

The main difference between Joshua and Moses is that Joshua had Moses as a model before him. If you think of this in a real world context, you can see why there is a shadow over everything Joshua does. Say there are two people competing for a managerial position at a company. The CEO picks one person and ignores the other until the person he picks retires, and then promotes the second option. Joshua represents the second option, because God never appeared directly to him until it was time for Moses to pass the torch. Therefore, the end of the Moses era represents a step down to a sort of second choice. Joshua was not special in any way until Moses died, and only became special when Moses placed his hands on him.

 (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?

Mary Douglas draws upon mankind’s and Earth’s creation to argue what is pure and what is impure. To her, creation is the ultimate good, and God created everything very intentionally, thereby making creation holy. Creativity thus embodies creation and holiness. The opposite of creation therefore is “matter out of place.” This is what Douglas considers to be “dirt.” If we want matter to be in place as opposed to out of place, humans must strive for organization and order within their lives. This is done through categorization of the matter in the world. Therefore, what is pure can be categorized because it is organized and demonstrates its own creation. What is not pure, on the other hand, is that which cannot be categorized or organized, which demonstrates a lack of creation that is required for holiness. It is also worth noting that impurity can be spread through pollution, which is coming into contact (literally and figuratively) with that which is impure. Through the very definition of purity and impurity, we can see why God requires the maintenance of purity. That which is holy, created, and categorized, is to be sought after for a perfect world, and that which is not, should be avoided. This is all part of God’s larger goal of renewing the covenant that he created with humans in the early chapters of Genesis. By striving again for a renewal of the perfect world through dietary restrictions and things of this matter, God is attempting to renew the relationship humans and God once had. The logic behind laws governing purity, such as food laws, has to do with pollution. In all the laws that we see presented regarding purity, it is an attempt to either prevent one from becoming impure or to prevent one from pollution. For example, God says that animals that may be eaten on land must have cloven hooves and eat chud. This is a way of categorizing animals. Any other animal is therefore ambiguous and not “ordered” as Douglas posited. This makes those animals impure and not able to be eaten. The other laws have to do with avoiding pollution. We can see that impurities can spread easily. It was even mentioned that impurity can be passed on from person to person from just sitting on the same side of a table as someone who is impure. What is important to note is that hygiene often coincides with these laws of purity and impurity, which makes it so that those who break the laws of purity will be faced with punishment through disease.

“Who is God?”

To begin, I’ll describe God as he describes himself. When he appeared to Moses in the flames of the bush, Moses asks what to call him, to which God responded “I am who I am” and proceeds to say “say this to the people of Israel ‘I Am has sent me to you.'” He later clarifies saying he is the God of Moses’s father, and his father’s father, and so on. In this way, God makes it clear that he is responsible for the existence of Moses, which can be extended to mean all the people on Earth, as he is the original creator and God of all those who descended from the original people.

It is also worth bringing up other instances of naming in the Bible. Adam was responsible for naming the other animals and the parents were responsible for naming their children, thereby establishing a dominion and a relationship with them. If you look at a name like this, then humans have no business assigning a name for God, as he is the one with dominion over us as our creator. He is the one who should be naming us, as he did with Adam and Eve. This holds true with God’s role as God the Father. This notion is also extended by looking at Genesis. When Jacob asks what God’s name is, he simply responds by asking “Why is it that you ask my name?” This again emphasizes the great mystery of God. Perhaps God doesn’t have a concrete name, but he is rather a transforming being symbolizing hope. Perhaps God is keeping his name a secret. Nobody knows. The mystery of God encourages us to continue to seek God and so that we may discover more and question more. Much like Jacob wrestled with God and became a better person for it, we should also seek out God so that we may know more about him.

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?

When you look at the complete story of Joseph, planting the cup all comes down to forgiveness and the notion of being the “Elect One of Israel.” Much like Abraham was randomly chosen to be God’s elect, Joseph became Jacob’s elect for no apparent reason causing the jealousy of his brothers. His brothers then plot to kill him and end up selling into slavery to the Ishmaelites. This represents the metaphorical death of Joseph. He loses his brothers, his father, all of his possessions, and even his freedom. The only thing he has is his life. However, if the stories we have seen thus far is any indication, we can predict that Joseph will rise out of this position, and rise out he does. With God’s favor, he essentially becomes the ruler of Egypt and is the provider of food for the entire world. This is when he meets his brothers again, except this time he has all the power, and they are dependent on him. He could very easily have them killed or worse, but instead treats them favorably in the grand scheme of things. The brothers express their regret for losing Joseph, and to determine if they do truly regret their actions and changed, he plants the cup.

The reason he chooses Benjamin is because he is favored by Jacob like he was. Since the cup is found in his possession, the brothers have the choice of leaving him to face the consequences on his own or all of them accepting responsibility. Unlike how they left Joseph alone in the past, the brothers unite around Benjamin and face their punishment together, demonstrating that they have, in fact, changed since they sold Joseph. At this point, Joseph forgives his brothers completely.

One thing I found interesting from Anderson’s article is that the brothers most likely still doubted Joseph’s forgiveness, attributing it to keeping good relations with Jacob. So when Jacob dies, the brothers fear for their lives now that Joseph doesn’t have to worry about keeping good relations. This is the point that makes it clear that Joseph is worthy of the title of the Elect One. It is his “miraculous” forgiveness of his brothers, as it is often repeated in the Elect Ones that makes him stand out in the eyes of God.

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?

Jacob is a very complex character, and one that we can relate to most in my opinion. Jacob is most like the everyday person in that he grapples with both good and evil, which is symbolized by the wrestling match. It is easy to see what Jacob takes in the story. As a youth, Jacob steals Esau’s blessing from Isaac, which is unable to be returned. This speaks to the struggles he has with the male members of his family. He struggles with his brother and his father because his father favors his brother over him. Therefore, rather than accept what God has given him, he attempts to take what God has given Esau. He then flees his home and his brother to try and find a wife all alone. This too is a complicated matter. By leaving, he betrays his family, but by finding a wife, he respects his family by continuing the lineage. Additionally, he struggles with his Uncle and his kids. Despite all of his flaws, however, God still appears to him five times in this passage, which speaks to his internal “eye” for God. He has faith and trusts in God, and struggles internally against his own flaws. This is demonstrated by the fact that he takes personal responsibility for those he cares about, as displayed by the fact that he attempts to hide his family from the supposed army of Esau and his dedication to the well-being of his new family.

This all culminates in the wrestling match he has with God or an angel, or a divine being with “the face of God. Jacob is approached by God who initiates the wrestling match. This match has many meanings. On the surface, the physical act of wrestling is more about gaining the respect of the competitor than about injuring an adversary, so the act of wrestling alone carries a certain aura of respect. He additionally asks God for a blessing, acknowledging his opponent’s higher position that is necessary to bestow a blessing and is also a sign of respect. As a result, the notion that Jacob fought with God is completely wrong. His struggle also represents his own internal struggles with righteousness and his struggles with his brothers. The new name he is given after the match symbolizes a rebirth initiated by God, which allows him to live a righteous life in the future.

What is religion?

Religion is not a word that is possible to define in a simple phrase like in a dictionary. With the extensive history behind religion and its many facets, there are many elements of religion that can mean different things to different people. In fact, countless people have tried for many years to develop an all encompassing definition, yet there is still not a widely accepted definition. Before we tackle what religion is, we can start by explaining what it is not. Religion is not a “substitute for reason.” In fact, it is built on reason as I will explain later. Religion has also been linked to nationalism in many ways. While the two share some similarities as noted by Marty, the two are in no way the same thing.

Now let’s attempt to tackle what exactly it is. As I mentioned before, religion doesn’t have a set definition, and it can mean different things to different people. For example, Marty defines religion with 5 features: what we care about, building community, appeals to myth and symbol, enforced by rituals and ceremonies, and demanding certain behaviors from its constituents. This, I believe has merit, yet does not align with my particular definition, which deals with human existence and what purpose humans have on Earth. Another more simple definition stems from the writings of Augustine and St. Anselm. It states that religion is simply “fides quaerens intellectum,” which is all one uninterrupted phrase meaning “faith seeking understanding.” This also makes sense in that religion begins with faith, which you use to seek a greater understanding of the world and the mystery of God or another divine entity. My point of outlining the different points of view is to prove that religion can mean a different thing to everyone. Everyone has a different definition of what it means and what role it plays in the grand scheme of life.

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

According to Wilken, faith is unavoidable because it is what holds civilization together. Everything we know is based off of our faith in someone’s authority as well as their honesty. To use Wilken’s example, one is never truly sure who gave birth to them, as they do not have the memory to see it. We only base it off of what our parents and others tell us. We choose to accept this knowledge due to the position of the people telling us that makes them a valid source of information on the matter as well as their trustworthiness in the matter. This same principle applies to almost everything we know. Therefore, if we didn’t have faith, the only thing we would believe are things that we see, which would in turn destroy our entire social fabric. If we think about it in the religious context, faith began with the people who God made himself visible to. These were people who “had the ears to hear,” which not taken in the literal sense, means that those receptive to God were the ones who saw or heard him. However, the phrase “saw or heard” is too simple. As Wilken noted, the Bible does not typically say that someone “saw” or “heard” God, but rather that “God appeared to him,” or something along those lines. Therefore, it takes an internal faith to feel God’s presence. Wilken provides the example of Abraham to support this point. He attributes Abraham’s ability for God to appear to him to the “eye” in his heart as well as the pureness in his soul. This is beneficial to the current believers in God, because the knowledge of our tradition becomes present in our day to day life rather than just a story passed from generation to generation. We can see the ways God appears to us in people who claim to be touched by God and like Wilken says, through our parents teaching us prayers, etc. This offers a great hope for the continuation of Christianity.

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?

To understand why Abraham agrees to the request made of him by God, you have to look at the context of the situation. In the present day, if God told someone randomly to sacrifice their son, it would seem crazy. However, Abraham has been through a journey guided by God. He left everything he knew including his hometown and father except Lot and Sarah. He truly was a pioneer led by God. Given that God has led him this far successfully, he has all the reason to trust God is benevolent and wants the best for him. God promised him many things thus far and has came through with all of them, so he has a solid base of credibility. To summarize, Abraham had ultimate faith in God that he would lead him even when things became difficult.

In 22:5, Abraham says “we will worship and then come back to you.” To me this is a very straightforward half-truth to avoid revealing the main purpose of his journey. He is 100 percent speaking the truth, as sacrificing Isaac would be an act of worship to God, but if he were truly telling the full tale of what he was going to do, it would be kind of important to note that he was going to sacrifice his son. The same thing goes for 22:8 in which Abraham says “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering.” He is completely telling the truth, as God did provide the miracle required for Isaac’s birth, however, not noting that Isaac was the lamb that God provided is leaving out a pretty important detail.

God’s intention in making Abraham go through with this is to ensure that Abraham is truly faithful to him. So far, God has fulfilled all the promises he made to Abraham, so there was no telling whether Abraham was following God for his own benefit or out of faith. Therefore, this was a sort of test. By killing Isaac, his only son, Abraham would be giving up his desire to spread his name through offspring, which is one thing God promised him. The fact that Abraham went through with the act without regard to his own interest demonstrates that he is on this journey with God for his relationship with God and not his own self interest.

I don’t really think God is praiseworthy or not praiseworthy in this case anymore than a teacher is praiseworthy or not for giving a student a test. He clearly wasn’t going to actually make Abraham go through with sacrificing his son, so he had no intent other than just making sure Abraham was faithful, which is a valid concern. The only thing I would say against this test is that it is quite deceptive. He must have put Abraham through a lot of pain all for a test. Abraham, to me, is the greatest hero in this story. To explain why I think this, I will connect this passage to the New Testament, as there are many similarities. In the New Testament Jesus is God’s only son, and he is forced to sacrifice Jesus through crucifixion much like how Abraham was forced to sacrifice his only son. In both stories the father and son went along without any disobedience. Additionally, the mountains in the two stories are the same mountain, which links the two together in a way that cannot be ignored. Therefore, Adam, by being willing to sacrifice his son, is acting very God-like in this passage.

What I got from Genesis 4-11 is a continuation of a commentary on human nature and how God reacted to it. In the first couple chapters, we see that God created humans in his image. Given that God created humans to be similar to God in appearance, he most likely expected humans to act in a morally similar way to himself, and consequently was upset with Adam and Eve after demonstrating they were not capable of living to an easy moral standard of obedience. The eating of the fruit proves that humans, while social animals, are actually ambitious and desire to get ahead and live a better life even if it is at the expense of others. This is because the two eat the fruit even though they know it will endanger their relationship with God. Consequently, God banishes them from the Garden of Eden.

The next part of Genesis details the conditions that cause God to create the flood to give the world a new beginning. Cain’s killing of Abel demonstrates that humans contain a lot of jealousy in their hearts, which prompts God to make humans mortal in hope of ridding humans of their bad attributes. Instead of achieving this hope, it actually ends up exposing another one humans’ negative attributes. Rather than acting morally and “walking with God,” they go to war and seek glory through battle and creating cities and things of that nature. This self-reliance goes against God’s message that humans are reliant on him. Therefore, seeing all these bad qualities in humans, God decides to essentially start over with one of the few righteous humans, Noah. This provides great hope for the human race, as it is an opportunity to start over with Noah serving as a step ahead of the first attempt at civilization. This also goes to show the benevolence of God. Despite the numerous failures of humans, he still tries his best to make the human race the best it can be.