The Gospel of Matthew alludes to the Old Testament several hundred times. Jesus is indeed the fulfillment of what is cited, although not directly. Much of what Mathew references was not intended as a cosmic prophecy for several generations in the future. For example, the Gospel of Matthew quotes the words of Hosea “Out of Egypt I have called my son” (Mt 2:15). The Gospel proclaims the return of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph from Egypt as the fulfillment of the words of the prophet, however, these words did not foretell the coming of the messiah. In actuality, they are not a proclamation of the future, but rather a lament of the past when the people of Israel were not faithful to the Lord during the Exodus. When placed in context, we may thus think that Matthew was mistaken in relating these words to the return of the Holy Family. However, it is still a fulfillment of these words, just not in the original and  obvious sense. While this proclamation references Exodus of the past, Jesus is the fulfillment of these words because a “fuller and final exodus remained—not from any political oppressor but from the one power which really enslaved: sin and death” (Scribes of the Kingdom). The opening chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke address many elements of the Old Testament that we discussed last class, such as Isaiah 40. In Isaiah 40, God comforts his people and tells them “do not be afraid.” Gabriel likewise tells Mary “do not be afraid” in Luke 1. Mary’s song of praise also echoes much of what is said in Isaiah, such as proclaiming God’s strength and mercy towards Israel.

God condemns the people of Israel because they do not trust Him and are ungrateful. At every difficulty, they grumble against the Lord and want to give up. After learning the land they wish to inhabit is populated by many strong tribes, they immediately lose all faith and beg to return to Egypt. In Numbers 14:11, God says to Moses “how long will they have no faith in Me despite all the signs that I have performed in their midst?” They do not appreciate or praise the Lord for rescuing them out of slavery in Egypt, but rather actually profane His kindness by begging to return. They lack faith that they will prevail even though they have the power of God backing them in their endeavour. Moses too is punished on their account, but he too loses faith at times, although not to the same extent. Moses’ death could also signify that Israel will need a new kind of leader as they transition out of the wilderness and into the promised land.

The Pentateuch closes with the death of Moses because his death marks the end of the wilderness generation. The death of that sinful generation means that Israel may be resurrected. The people can start anew in upholding their covenant with God in the promised land finally.

The closing passage of Deuteronomy 34 foreshadows what is to come in the book of Joshua. We are told that no prophet will be as great as Moses, which incites doubt in Joshua’s ability to lead israel. However, the closing passage still provides hope that Joshua will not fail since he was filled by Moses’ spirit of wisdom.

Purity and impurity are not just related to physical hygiene, but rather mean living in harmony or opposition to God. Purity means being free from immorality and contamination. Living in a state of impurity is not permanent, rather the rituals provide the means to gain forgiveness for sins and regain a state of purity. Mary Douglas explains that the primary purpose of the purity laws can be interpreted as creating unity in experience and order in society. A shared set of rules creates community and social pressures cause people to force each other into good citizenship as Douglas puts it. She writes that ideas about purity “have as their main function to impose system on an inherently untidy experience. It is only by exaggerating the difference… that a semblance of order is created” (p. 4). I had always wondered why there are such strict and seemingly arbitrary designations between what is pure and what is impure, but Douglas’ point sheds some light on why that is necessary. The purity laws create a distinct identity for the people of Israel and the observance of the same rituals and traditions serves to bind them together as a community. The reasoning behind the food laws is more obscure, since it cannot be explained solely by applying modern knowledge of bacteriology we have today. Such a complex and comprehensive system of food regulation may exist to protect the health and progeny of the Israelite people. Another explanation is that the food regulations are ethically motivated. Humanity is responsible not just to God, but also to the animals they were given dominion over in Genesis. The food laws can be interpreted as detailing the covenant between humanity and the  rest of God’s creation.

God is a paradox. Ratzinger classifies the biblical depiction of God into two components: the personal and the ultimate. Continuously we see a contrast between a God bound to us, and a God bound to nothing. Ratzinger writes that Scripture depicts a “personal and person-centered God, who is to be thought of and found on the plane of I and You.” Somehow, God is present to every individual, and yet, Ratzinger then immediately begins writing about how God stands above everyone and everything else as the embodiment of all power. God is simultaneously near at hand, while also so removed from our level and understanding as human beings.

Ratzinger points out that God’s conversation with Moses at the burning bush can be interpreted as a refusal to give a name, a refusal to define Himself. This instance of revelation emphasizes the mystery of God, making God revealed and concealed at the same time. God becomes present to Moses and makes His continuous presence and protection of the Israelites clear while also being so distant from them. The etymology of Yahweh cannot be clearly traced but the concept behind the name is not as important as the fact of the name. God naming Himself establishes His coexistence with humankind. As we spoke about in Genesis 1, naming is extremely significant because it establishes a relationship. The story of the burning bush shows the Israelites that God is present and that God is one of them, one of us.

It is also important to consider the polytheistic backdrop on which Scripture was written. Other faiths in the area believed in numerous gods, all of whom represented something specific and easily definable. In contrast, the God of the Hebrews cannot be defined in that He is a universal and absolute Being. Ratzinger writes that “Yahweh rises simply, needing no commentary, in the expression “I am,” which describes its absolute superiority to all the godly and ungodly powers of this world.”

When the silver cup is found in Benjamin’s bag, the situation that arises immediately reminds the reader of the beginning of the story of Joseph. Once again, Joseph’s brothers are presented with a moral dilemma. Joseph planted the cup in Benjamin’s bag because he wanted to give them the opportunity to redeem themselves and earn his forgiveness by doing the right thing this time around. Instead of once again abandoning their younger, favored brother, the brothers state that “Here we are, then, slaves of my lord, the rest of us as much as he in whose possession the goblet was found.” Even though Joseph demands only Benjamin since he was found in possession of the goblet, the other brothers refuse to forfeit him. This is in stark contrast with their abandonment of Joseph at the beginning of the story, thus showing their moral development. Joseph did not actually intend to hold Benjamin captive and further break the heart of his father, rather, he planted the cup to give his brothers an opportunity to right their previous wrong and redeem themselves. Anderson draws many interesting parallels between Joseph and Jesus Christ when he refers to him as the beloved son. This term does not simply refer to Jacob’s favoritism of Joseph over his other sons. Anderson points out that Joseph is “a man sold by his own who redeemed his own from death.” In planting the silver cup in his brother’s bag, Joseph, like Jesus, offers redemption from death. Joseph not only saves the physical lives of his brothers by providing them with food during the famine, even after what they did to him, but also saves them by enabling them to repent their previous decision and prove their worthiness of forgiveness, both in the eyes of Joseph and God.

Jacob’s wrestling opponent is widely viewed as an angel or another form of divine intervention, if not God Himself. The text refers to Jacob’s opponent as a man, but it is not clear whether Jacob sees through this disguise to begin with. However, it seems that he realizes that he is wrestling more than a man since he demands a blessing from the man and declares that he has seen the face of God. God has communicated with Jacob through angels before so it makes sense for God to use this medium of communication again. Jacob’s wrestling opponent could be considered an embodiment of his brother Esau. This being Esau’s guardian angel is indicated by Jacob’s fear of his brother’s rath and their impending confrontation. Jacob and his opponent are almost perfectly matched in their fight, which could be explained by the fact that they are twins. Jacob’s opponent may also represent his struggle against his deceptive and individualistic tendencies and instead joining in communion with God.

His opponent initiated the conflict it seems, but Jacob ends in the position of power. Although Jacob sustains an injury that leaves him limping, he receives a blessing from the encounter and it ends with his opponent begging for him to yield as daybreak approaches. Jacob is also rewarded with a new name, Israel. It sounds strange that Jacob is rewarded for struggling against God or a manifestation of God since unwavering obedience to the Lord is typically emphasized. However, in this case Jacob is rewarded for his perseverance and endurance, virtues that God requires of Jacob to transmit His word to the rest of the world. This encounter reminds the reader of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, however, Jacob receives the blessing out of these virtuous qualities, rather than deceit and declares his true identity as Jacob in this case.

Religion is of course impossible to find an all encompassing but simultaneously specific definition for, as Cavanaugh established in “Violence, Religion, and the State.” Cavanaugh points out that many ideologies, such as nationalism, capitalism, or liberalism, have the characteristics of religion but are not defined as such. It is true that these political and economic ideologies focus on an ultimate concern, build community, appeal to myth and symbol, are enforced through rites and ceremonies, and demand certain behavior. I agree with Cavanaugh that while these five qualities put forth by Marty are a starting point, they provide too broad a definition in which people can pick and choose what they do and do not consider a religion depending on the argument they are trying to make. I think that one element that is missing is faith in a supreme power, whatever shape or shapes that takes. Faith is not synonymous with religion, but I believe it is implicit in it. As Cavidini wrote about in “Why Study God? The Role of Theology at a Catholic University” and as we spoke of in class, fides quaerens intellectum, or faith seeking understanding, is how we might define the study of theology. I think that is an absolutely central aspect of the objective of a religion. This differentiates the ultimate concern of secular ideologies with the concern of a religious follower. A religious follower strives to deepen their understanding of the divine power and this quest requires some element of faith because the divine can never be fully understood. This contrasts with a political or economic ideology in which their is no mystery that cannot be proven or quantified, although of course disagreements within those ideologies over their beliefs still arise.

It is a frequent misconception that religious faith and reason are mutually exclusive, that to commit to one requires the surrender of the other. To illustrate the unavoidable nature of faith, Wilken uses the example of when Augustine was a follower of the Manichees. Augustine is intrigued by their claims of being able to “put aside all awesome authority, and would by pure and simple reason bring to God those who were willing to listen to them.” However, he realizes that without any reliance on faith, the Manichees cannot answer the difficult questions that arise from religion and focus much more on ridiculing other religions, rather than explaining their own beliefs. Wilken also illustrates the impossibility of living according to reason alone when he says that “belief, that is, faith, is a constituent part of historical knowledge.” Events of the past, even if witnessed by others, cannot be demonstrated so as to prove that they really did happen. People must instead make a judgement and choose whether to believe the word of the witness or not. It would be absurd for people to only trust information that they can prove for themselves, such as the example Wilken provides of trusting your mother’s word that your father is your father. Having faith of course does not simply apply to a belief in God, but rather is something we exercise in all aspects of our lives. Everyday we are required to rely on the authority of others and place our faith in them, whether that be in studying calculus or scripture. Learning in any capacity is made possible through trusting the instructions of another, through which we exponentially expand our knowledge potential as opposed to what understanding we could have achieved on our own.

Abraham does not simply agree to the requests made of him by God, but does not even question them in the slightest. Firstly, in The Call of Abram in Genesis 12, Abram does not even know it is God that speaks to him but he still agrees. He agrees because as Kass writes, “the promise answers Abram’s longing for land, seed, and a great name.” Abram is not just seeking glory, but instead knows that this must be the request of the Lord because it fulfills his deepest longings. In The Command to Sacrifice Isaac, we see no internal battle in Abraham over the issue, nor does he beg the Lord to spare his son. I believe that this is not intended to make Abraham look unfeeling or cruel, but instead shows his trust that God would eventually intervene. God promised Abraham that he would have countless descendants through Isaac and Abraham knows that God would not break his covenant with him. In 22:5 and 22:8 Abraham tells his servants that he and his son will go worship and return to them and tells Isaac that God will provide the offering. I do not think that Abraham was lying, but instead trusted in the Lord that his son would be spared. The story is meant to also communicate God’s disapproval of human sacrifice. Abraham already knows this, which is why he goes through with the request. This story often sparks outrage or horror in readers, however, Isaac’s death was never even seen as a possibility for Abraham nor God. The Judgement Pronounced on Sodom in Genesis 18 exemplifies both God and Abraham’s utmost value of human life; “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” The major virtue communicated by the story is not blind obedience, even if that means murdering one’s own son, but instead complete faith in God’s love of humankind, which proves both God and Abraham to be praiseworthy, rather than the horror sparked by a first reading of the story.

Perhaps the greatest overarching theme between Genesis 3 and the story of Noah is the acceptance of mortality. Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, mortality has become synonymous with the human condition. Noah is the first man born after the death of Adam, and thus the first man born into a world where death is already present. For Noah, death is an accepted and inescapable reality. Noah does not attempt to escape his mortal fate by waging wars in pursuit of glory, unlike the rest of creation who seek immortality by living on in infamy through heroism. Additionally, Kass’ point that “appreciation for beauty is one thing, the desire to possess it is another” reminded me of Eve’s appreciation of the beauty of the tree of knowledge. This alone is not a sin since the tree itself is not bad, rather, the sin occurs in her act of disobedience, when Eve tries to take what only God can give. This parallels the temptation that the sons of God fail to resist by forcibly taking the daughters of man. Noah regains God’s trust in humanity that was lost with Adam and Eve. In contrast to them, Noah follows God’s commands exactly, which establishes the ultimate virtue of obedience to the Lord. The story of Noah is also another response to the Mesopotamian stories of the time. The story of Noah and the creation stories all establish God as the one true god, as opposed to the conventional belief in polytheism in the region. Additionally, both show that the God of the Israelites is not rash nor unnecessarily cruel, but instead intentional and benevolent. God does not cast out Adam and Eve for nor reason, nor does He cast the flood for no reason, rather His actions are both in an attempt to restore the communion between God and humanity.