By using the word “fulfillment,” Scripture is referring to the pattern of completion of something that was referred to in the past, or in the Old Testament, that is being finally realized. The article entitled “Scribes of the Kingdom” explains this by starting with this encompassing notion: “the Scriptures present the abiding form of God’s providence, and if Jesus is their fulfillment, he is so because he realizes in himself the whole of God’s work in Israel.” Jesus is the fulfillment of many aspects of the Old Testament. One example of this is in Matthew’s reference of Hosea, in which he says, “Out of Egypt, I called my son,” (Matthew 2:15). The actual line from Hosea is “When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the father they went from me, sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols,” (Hosea 11:1-2). These lines can be seen as referring to Exodus, with all of Israel in exile. In the New Testament, additionally, they can also be thought of regarding Jesus as the final Exodus, a son called out of Egypt, just as Israel was called out of Egypt. Although it took place in the past, Exodus is “fulfilled” by Jesus, which shows that more fulfillment is to come from him.

In Luke 1, there is a parallel of Zechariah to several people in the Old Testament, some of whom are Abraham’s wife Sarah and the people of Israel during Exodus and Numbers. Zechariah doubts the Lord’s ability to deliver him and his wife a child as they are so old, and therefore the Lord takes his ability to speak. Sarah also doubts that the Lord can give her a child, mirroring Zechariah, and the people of Exodus doubt God’s ability to bring them to the land of milk and honey and sin by selfishly asking for quail. Additionally, the marriage of Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1 could be compared to the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, as both Ruth and Joseph marry Boaz and Mary because either they were told to by the Lord or in line with Israel’s Law. They are putting aside their own desires to do as the Lord wishes.

Based on Numbers 11, 13-14, and 25, it seems that God condemns the wilderness generation because they do not believe in his power or his ability to bring them to the true “land of milk and honey.” In Numbers 14, the people claim that they wish they had died in Egypt or in the wilderness because they think God has deceived them: They received reports of strong and powerful enemy descendants that dwell there, and they are afraid that they will die and their wives and children will be taken. Additionally, in Numbers 11, those who desire meat are killed in a plague. It is their selfishness that God condemns. Moses is condemned because he questions the Lord’s power, decisions, and requires the Lord to distribute the Spirit to others. In Numbers 11, Moses, questions if God could actually bring meat to the men for a month, to which God replies, “Is the Lord’s arm too short?” (11:23). The distribution of the Spirit from Moses seems to show the Lord that in some ways, he is not fit to be an elect. He dies then, but it is unclear if he resurrects as the elects do.

I think that the Old Testament ends with Moses’ death for two reasons. One harsher reason is because Moses can be interpreted as a kind of martyr or Christ figure, as he is dying because of the sins the Israelites have committed. In Deuteronomy 4:22, he says, “I will die in this land; I will not cross the Jordan; but you are about to cross over and take possession of that good land,” but then goes on to remind the people not to forget the covenant with God. This leads to the second reason the OT ends with Moses’, which is that in the end of Deuteronomy, he lays every ground rule that God has set. It is essentially a rule book for the people to follow. The authors structured it in this way so that the takeaway is at the end.

The end of Deuteronomy 34 says that after Moses, there would be no prophets who knew the Lord face to face. This translates onto Joshua, who is similar to Moses, but without the same connection to God. God is with Joshua in Joshua 1-5, commanding him to do certain things and command others, but Joshua never responds to God as Moses did. He does what he is told without and pushback. This could be seen as a more pure generation of people, as they mainly follow the rules that Moses spoke without complaint.

Mary Douglass defines dirt, or impurity, as “matter out of place,” (p. 36). It follows that impurity means disorder within a community of within society. Purity, then, is a system or a society in which every aspect is in its right place, that place being as God commands it. We can recall that God took dirt in Genesis and made it into the first human, Adam. The definitions of purity and impurity follow God’s original actions and commands of making things and ordering things. He made humans from dirt, and he expects them to be ordered, or pure. Douglass also says, “Dirt is the byproduct of a systematic ordering and classification of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements,” (p. 36). Impurity, by this claim, occurs when people do things wrong, or don’t follow God’s commands.

God requires that humans follow purity laws and to maintain their purity as a method in which to strengthen the covenant and maintaining or reentering into communion with God. Disorder is the last thing that God wants. According to Genesis, he created the world out of disorder, and wishes to maintain that order. Requiring humans to follow such painstaking and detailed rules ensures that none of them will fall out of order.

Regarding the laws relating to purity, specifically the food laws, Douglass claims that, “The dietary rules merely develop the metaphor of holiness on the same lines,” (p. 55). That holiness, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, is completeness and wholeness. Douglass mentions that the human body is a temple. God did make humans in his own likeness, and it is respectful to follow rules involving what humans put into their bodies to maintain that completeness and purity. We are meant to see the body as a symbol of society; if we do not take care of it, society and order will collapse.

In the Bible, God is a creator. He is a mysterious supernatural force, described as all good and omnipotent. God is a superior force above humans, and humans must obey him or be classified as wrong or as sinners. Many actions and ideas God displays in the Bible could be considered harsh or chauvinistic, and I do agree that some of these actions should be taken that way, but God is mostly interpreted as loving all humans and attempting to use his elects to bring that love to them. Ratzinger claims that, by having a name to call upon, God is purposefully involved with human affairs, “Thus the name signifies and effects the social incorporation, the inclusion in the structure of social relations,” (p. 134). This categorized God as a being who intends to be involved with his creatures, and contributes to the notion that he wants them to succeed and receive love. Because God is all good, his interactions serve to benefit the people who serve him. Ratzinger also brings up the conflicting views of monotheists, polytheists, and atheists. It is difficult to place one specific definition on God, since many people believe many things, and it is impossible to say if one is right or wrong. I think that God can be whoever the people want him to be, as long as that is wholly good and brings them comfort instead of distress. In Exodus, God responds to the cries for help from the Israelites, as they are being oppressed by the new Pharaoh. However, it is difficult for me to define this God as all good, because he attacks the Egyptians, who, apart from Pharaoh, seem to have done little wrong. It appears discriminatory and similar to a genocide for little reason.

Joseph plants his silver cup in Benjamin’s bag as a way to get his brothers to return to him and to test if they had truly changed from the people that sold him into slavery. He does this for several reasons. Benjamin is the only other son that Rachel bore, and Joseph learns that Benjamin is favored by his father Israel, just as Joseph was the favorite son before his brothers sold him. Israel’s favoritism of Joseph is what motivated his brothers to get rid of him in the first place, so this is an excellent test of his brothers’ changed or unchanged natures. They decide to accompany Benjamin back to Joseph’s house, choosing not to leave him to an uncertain fate as they did when they left Joseph. Judah, the one who original proposed to sell Joseph, fights for Benjamin, saying, “For how shall I go up to my father if the lad is not with me, lest perhaps I see the evil that would come upon my father?” (Genesis 44:34). It is clear that Judah loves his father so much that he would not dare betray him, and offers his life to Joseph in the place of Benjamin’s, as Anderson illustrates, “But in this case, Judah…recognized and chooses and option that requires him to make the supreme sacrifice. He insists on pledging his own life in the adored child’s stead,” (p. 208). This positive change in mindset moves Joseph to tears and shows that his test with the silver cup was successful. Although the brothers have still committed great acts of hatred and regarding Joseph, according to Anderson, “Those who are wronged have every right to expect justice in the end [from God],” (p. 211), their intentions and desires changed.

In the story, “Jacob Wrestles with God,” Jacob purposefully makes himself alone in the camp. A mysterious man comes to him and they wrestle until daybreak. In the process, the man touches the socket of Jacob’s hip, possibly permanently wrenching it. The man cannot overcome Jacob, and requests that he let him go, but Jacob enforces that he will not until the man blesses him. The man does bless him with a new name, Israel, meaning that Jacob has struggled with God. This seems to indicate that the mysterious man is God in some shape or form, or possibly a messenger of God. Kass says that generally, this man has been considered an angel, but I think that the text clearly points to him being God. The story is literally called, “Jacob Wrestles with God,” and Jacob claims that he saw God face to face. Additionally, Jacob asks for the man’s name, to which the man responds, “Why do you ask my name,” (Genesis 32:29). This could be interpreted as the man claiming that Jacob already knows him, being God. Either way, it is clear that in some way, this man is the voice of God.

In the end, Jacob does get his blessing, but it is unclear if he did actually win or not. Jacob is left with a limp. This, in some way, could be similar to God’s covenant with Abraham, which requires circumcision. Jacob is left with a mark that shows God’s power and superiority. Jacob is blessed, but is left with a limp that will force him to remember that God gave him that blessing. Additionally, Jacob, after having a past of concealing his name to others, reveals his name to the man. In a way, this could be a loss for him. He is submitting himself, and in that way is subordinate.

Theology, John C. Cavadini explains, is defined as the study of God. If theology is the study of God, then religion should be similar but involve belief. Religion, point blank, is, “belief in or worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods,” according to Oxford Dictionary, but it goes beyond that. William Cavanaugh describes religion as something that, beyond being something we contribute to, is something that gives back to us. Cavanaugh says that religion “focuses our ‘ultimate concern, ” (p. 2). This means that religion can help you discover what you most deeply care about or desire. It asks what we would sacrifice ourselves for and that tells us some of the most important things about ourselves. Religion also builds a large and close community. The action of going to mass in a church puts many into one space with one mindset, and can help people feel connected and as if they are not alone. Because of this strong community, Cavanaugh and Marty explain, there can be a tendency toward violence, both by the religious group and against it. It can create a significant “us versus them” mindset. Assimilation was something considered acceptable back when North America was being colonized, but we now can see that the act was forceful and unacceptable. The act of having a religion, however, is more pure in its essence. I believe it revolves around community and having a common mindset, as well as providing people with hope and love for each other and for God.

As an atheist, I find it difficult to have faith in something like Scripture that describes how holy beings like God exist. The word “faith” itself is has somewhat negative connotations, as it sounds as though one who has “faith” in others is giving up their reasoning and blindly following. In “The Reasonableness of Faith,” Wilken points out that we rely on faith every day for various reasons. Wilken cites Augustine, who says, “In practical life, I cannot see how anyone can refuse to believe altogether,” (p. 171). He is describing how we rely on the information of witnesses constantly. For example, ignoring modern DNA testing, “A child cannot know with absolute certainty who his father is unless he believes what his mother tells him,” (p. 171). Also, with general history, we believe what witnesses tell us in books and though letters, despite not witnessing historical events ourselves. We rely on and choose to believe in authorities, whom Augustine describes as not those to whom we bend the knee, but those who have the qualities “that makes it possible to act on the basis of what someone has said,” (p. 171). Religion has power through faith, and faith is necessary for it to work. Just as we believe witnesses about things like the Boston Tea Party and the French Revolution, we must have faith in the witnesses of God and the Word of God to believe. Wilken describes faith as beneficial because in practice it enriches one’s life, just as learning a new skill or hobby does, and it takes time to master the entire practice. “…one does not learn to love God in an exuberant moment of delight,” (p. 172). To have faith in God is to become an apprentice to his love, which takes time, but is rewarding. Wilken quotes Richard of Saint Victor, who said, “‘Where there is love, there is seeing.’ Faith is then by way of reason,” (p. 184). In this way, there is truth in loving and believing in something that seems so abstract. This is why faith is both necessary and beneficial.

In Genesis 22, God commands Abraham to bring his son, Isaac, to a mountain and sacrifice him there as a burnt offering. It seems like a strange request, as Isaac required a miracle to come into existence and seems to have done nothing wrong. However, Abraham obliges without any hesitation, despite his love for his son. One reason why he possibly could have done this with the intention of sacrificing his son is because Abraham had met with the Lord on many occasions and had seen him to be trustworthy. God had given him so much, so he knows from his past experiences that following the Lord’s will is the best way to live. Abraham could’ve also thought that since God is omnipotent or, at least, is said to be, that Isaac could be brought back from the dead, once Abraham had proved himself loyal to God.

In Genesis 22:5 and 22:8, it does appear that Abraham is lying because of his words. If Abraham had no previous knowledge that God would stop the sacrifice, then he would, in fact, be lying to prevent conflict and to complete his duty to the Lord more efficiently. If he had known or believed that God would intervene, however, then he would not be considered lying, as God does provide the sheep for the sacrifice.

By asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God’s intention was most likely to test Abraham to see how far his loyalty would extend. After having so many humans turn their backs on God and turn to sin, it is reasonable that God would want to confirm Abraham’s loyalty and trust. Another possibility is that God, after appearing many times to Abraham, believed that he needed to reestablish his status as a dominant figure, and executed this by asking Abraham to do such a rash deed.

I personally do not believe that God or Abraham are praiseworthy solely because the deed, if executed, would have been so extreme for no positive effect. However, I can understand how others would consider them praiseworthy, because God gives the humans so much would expect compensation, and Abraham is showing severe loyalty, which is a positive quality.

Noah is described by Leon Kass in The Beginning of Wisdom and in Genesis as being righteous and simple, and is also known to have walked with God. Noah finds grace in the eyes of God because he avoids the sins of others. After discovering their own mortality following Adam’s natural death, the humans are enraged and shocked, and proceed to carry out many acts of wickedness and evil, giving into temptations of lust and heroics. In particular, the humans sin by taking wives based on their beauty and appearance. Noah is not attracted to any of these evils, and for that is favored by God. Noah’s narrative clearly related to the first sin of Genesis. Adam and Eve are instructed not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempts them to eat from the tree, and they give in, learning the ambiguous knowledge of all good and evil. This moment of the two humans eating the fruit and gaining knowledge can be compared to the moment in which Adam dies of old age and the rest of the humans learn that they are mortal. It differs in that it was not the human’s choice to “eat the fruit,” or to learn of their mortality, but nevertheless it is a similar situation.

Another way in which the concerns are furthered by Noah’s story is in his simple mindedness. Kass reasons about why Noah is put on such a high pedestal by God, and muses that, “…we suspect that Noah’s righteousness may be related to his simplicity, “(p. 163). This can also be compared to Adam before the first sin. Adam does not have the knowledge of good and evil, and is instead simple minded and innocent. He does not make any move to eat from the tree until the serpent appears. Noah is the same: He is also simple minded and uninterested by temptations. Where the two differ is that Noah is not innocent to the realities of the world. He is aware of his mortality and of the lust of others and does not give in to it, making him a mentally stronger and more virtuous human than the rest.