Typically, we see the past as giving meaning to the future. Hosea, however, corrects this widely accepted view. Rather, he asserts, that the past is awaiting fulfillment in the future. Jesus and his life is not given a greater meaning because it aligns with the prophecies; his life gives the past greater meaning. In fact, we must use this lens of the future to reevaluate how we interpret the past.In the articles’ words “it is like reading backwards.” For example, the Exodus is fulfilled by looking to what Christ promises for the future life of Israel. In other words, fulfillment is so much more than the past repeating itself or the words of the prophets being fulfilled. The Old Testament was awaiting this fulfillment: it was an open ended story that Christ then offers himself as a solution to. That is why when reading the opening of Luke and Matthew, we immediately see the elements of the Old Testament addressed. The most obvious is the addressing of kingship. Just as in the Old Testament, the Lord assured that he would rule with David and his dynasty hand in hand, this is giving more meaning through Christ. Jesus’ father, Joseph, is descended from the Davidic line. But God offers a more meaningful kingship now, one whose empire will last forever. Another element of the Old Testament is how the enemies of Israel will be destroyed yet the other nations will simultaneously become members of the cult. The gospel alludes to how Christ will deliver Israel from its enemies and put the top on the bottom and the bottom on top. The top is Israel’s enemies as non-Israelites are just those who act in a “non-Israelite” way such as being part of the ruling repressing class. However, although the Old Testament was vague on how the nations will be integrated into Israel, the gospel makes it clear: Israel will be a blessing to the nations through Jesus offering salvation to all. Lastly, in the Old Testament, the prophets say that God will give Israelites a new heart to follow the law always–again, how this will go about is ambiguous. However, Christ gives this prophecy meaning when the gospels allude to how Christ will free Israel able to serve God  with holiness and justice their whole lives. It will be written within them from Jesus, who rightly so, is born under the law.

– Numbers 11; 13-14; 25: As we read earlier in Genesis, obedience and trust in God is key. Humans, though God-like in the sense that they can make judgements, misplace their judgments. In Numbers, we see this when the Israelites think they are being wise in wanting to avoid the Promised Land therefore also avoiding the strong current residents. However, their judgment is misplaced: rather, they prevent their whole generation from entering a type of paradise promised to them. Not only do they misorder their judgement, they illustrate their lack of trust in God and his power. They feared the current residents in the promised land more than they feared God even after seeing his work in Egypt. Even more insulting, they wish to be put back into slavery, undoing all the good God did for his chosen people. There yet another offense, maybe the worse one: the most important commandment God gave the Israelites only so recently was to love your God. Yet, they start worshipping a god Baal. While the Israelites faults are prominent, Moses is also condemned. Moses also undermined God’s authority and usurped it with his own judgment when he changed God’s punishing command. This, a sign that he sees himself as wiser than God. Because of these grievous faults, it seems God feels that the Israelites have to suffer death (a whole generation dying) before they can receive the gift of resurrection (entrance into the Promised Land).

– Deuteronomy 1–6; 27–34

Keeping with the overarching theme of death and resurrection in the Pentateuch, it seems only natural that the Pentateuch ends with a death looking forward to the resurrection. This parallels our expectation and hope waiting for the resurrection. But while we look forward to the resurrection, entering the Promised Land in this situation, Moses also draws us to the past with his song relaying the history of the Israelites. This indicates that we the reader should learn from the past to prepare for the future with God. By ending it with Moses’s warning song and death, it is indicating that we, the reader, should, before looking to the future (reading about the Promised Land), learn and understand the past (the earlier passage of the Penateuch).

– Joshua 1–5 AND Judges 2

Although it seemed a sad ending to Deuteronomy when Moses died, Joshua is a resurrection of Moses and his obedience. Joshua, like Moses, is given the authority to guide the Israelites. There are many obvious parallels: just as Moses guided the Israelites over the Red Sea, Joshua guides them over the Jordan River. However, Moses was much more a direct mediator with God having than Joshua who never directly communicated with God. Just as Joshua was a form of resurrection, these new Israelites are somewhat resurrected as they promise this time to follow Joshua and God’s commands. However, just as predicted in Moses’ song, the Israelites continue their past habits of disobeying/distrusting God, being punished, re-entering into God’s trust only to return to disobedience again. The Israelites are cyclical people and the events of this generation is a reflection of their past and the importance of their history and memories in their relationship with God. If they had looked to the past–specifically kept their fear and trust in God through their memory of the events of Egypt–they would avoid many of their problems through their journey and arrival to the Promised Land

Purity and impurity has often been associated with health concerns in our society today: something is impure if it spreads disease or pollution. While this is a part of the definition of impurity, more accurately impurity is something that cannot be ordered. In Genesis we read that God created things with purpose, goodness, and most importantly order. So when things lack this order, they imply almost a rejection of God’s power–the foundation of why God asks that we follow purity laws. Everything should be able to be ordered and when there is ambiguity or unclearness in this, it is disturbing to us. We try to create a new pattern where it fits, mostly by rejecting said impure item. Purity is associated with order, a truth that applies to society. Laws and regulations on purity often preserve culture because they standardized values of people in that society. To make a law on something impure signals that something is out of order. For example, incest is declared impure because it violates the natural order of family’s role–the siblings do not conform to their given role. In an ideal society, there should be no contradiction between what a thing seems to be and what a thing actually is. This is the origin of certain food laws. While there is a health aspect–no consumption of blood because it circulates disease and of animals liable to parasites– this health aspect would not explain the designation of pigs as impure. However, pigs are ambiguous: they have cleaved fit yet don’t spit out their food to re-digest, it raises the question of what is pure or not. Additionally, lobsters, another impure food, don’t contain scales like fish though it resides in water. This ambiguity paints it as impure. This designation of purity and impurity stems from humans’ natural desire to form a hierarchy and order. However, on an ending note, it is important to note life is full of contradiction and as much as we desire for it to be clear, it isn’t. This forced pattern of purity can lead to hypocrisy, discomfort, and contradictions in life.

Much of our identity and purpose can be found in a name; after all, to name something is to know something. So in order to reflect on the question, “Who is God?” one should look to his name. But here is the tricky part: if you have ever read the Bible or attended mass, you will know that God is referenced to and addressed by many names like God the Redeemer, Shepherd, God the Father, King, and even God the Son. But most frustrating of all these names is Yaweh or “i am who I am”. What makes this name so frustrating is the how this answer to the question of name just leads to another question: well what are you? But as frustrating as this answer is, it really exemplifies Him as a being. By clarifying that he doesn’t have to answer to us, mere humans, he is putting himself above us as an absolute. He doesn’t even have to identify which god–he is “I,” the default. Yet his assertion of his absolutism doesn’t isolate him from us: he still gives himself a name so that he can be called upon by us. He actually is both more divine than us and one of us. He is a dual character, one who thought reveals his name, just pushes him back further into mystery. How can one be formed of such a dichotomy? Yet another duality arises in God’s name: the fact that he allows all to know this name makes clear this is he as much as another person’s god as our god. Yet, God is also personal and with man as man, one on one. There is so much more I could write about who God is: he is hope for the future, he is man, he is above all. But to fully explore that question would be to dedicate a life’s work as God is so rich with identity and meaning.  In conclusion, while God’s names reveal much about himself, it only makes us have to more fully explore his contradictory nature—yet another step in our endless quest for knowing God.

It is significant that Jospeh planted the silver cup as this false accusation of thievery parallels the false accusation of rape posed against him while working for the people his brothers sold him to. He wanted to find justice through letting them experience the fear he felt. But more importantly, he planted the silver cup as he ultimately wanted to test his brothers’ solidarity with Benjamin. Through their reaction to this accusation, he would know if they truly had changed or still felt guilt for what they did to him. This is because Joseph and Benjamin are both very similar to each other: both are the only sons of Rachel and are the beloved sons. The brothers could’ve perceived this accusation as the work of a higher power, after all, Benjamin’s imprisonment or death would solve the problem of Jacob’s favoritism and threat to their birthrights. However, they rather endanger themselves and beg to keep him. Judah, the most guilty in the selling of Joseph, even redeems himself further personally offering himself in the place of Benjamin. Not only are they demonstrated solidarity with their brother merely because he is their brother, a grace they failed to offer Joseph, they demonstrate their newfound compassion for their father. Jacob didn’t want to give up his remaining son and claims that he would die if anything were to happen to him. But Joseph, or who they thought at the time was the viser, demanded the youngest brother or they “would not see his face again.” (A line which has two meanings: one of Jacob would not meet them again until they brought Ben and also that they would not recognize him until they time again in which they bring Ben). So they were forced to bring Benjamin although cautiously. Now they acknowledge the pain they would inflict on Jacob if his beloved son were lost, a fact that they ignored for their own personal gain when betraying Joseph. When Joseph  sees how they now have evolved in their handling of the beloved son based on the way they treat the second beloved son, he forgives them. He forgives them because they now are “like people with a new heart and spirit.” This ties into the overall characterization of the Old Testament: the theme of death and resurrection. The brothers suffered a kind of death, the betrayal of family and a plaguing of guilt and the witnessing of the grief of their father, and now are resurrected through their treatment of Benjamin and Joseph’s forgiveness. In conclusion, the silver cup passage not only highlights the significance of the beloved son it also ties into the larger theme of death and resurrection.

Although this story holds one of the most mysterious figures throughout the Bible, Jacob’s wrestling opponent, it can be inferred that this opponent is God. It is misleading because in the beginning of the story they refer to the opponent as a man; but as demonstrated in the New Testament, we see that both man and divine can intersect. Despite this misguided lead, we can still deduce that is God because of the numerous other evidence. The most obvious is the fact that Jacob recognizes his opponent as God. Not only does he marvel at the fact that he saw divine and survived, he even names the place “Peniel” which translates to “I have seen God.” Some of the clues are more subtle though, such as how God names Jacob, an action that one can only do if they have a deep understanding of a thing, in this case: his own creation. Not only that, but when Jacob asks his opponent for his name, his opponent scolds him. That’s because to ask for one’s name is to imply a level of understanding of God that is impossible for humans to possess. Lastly, when Jacob requested a blessing, he was demonstrating that he recognized the power of his opponent–a power only God could possess. So while it will never truly be known who Jacob’s opponent was, we can reasonably infer that it was God himself. 

Many when first reading this story think that Jacob wins the wrestling match simply because he has the advantage in the end; however, although he wins, he wins for completely different reasons. Once again we can see the intersection of both justice and mercy in God’s actions: although Jacob rightfully ends with a limp after asking for  a blessing from God, the limp is actually a gift. Just because God blessed, he establishes through a limp that Jacob is still dependent on him–it was not through Jacob’s own doing that he received the blessing but rather God gave it to him. God also did something similar to that when he grabbed him by the groin: he was reminded him of his progeny and how it was made possible through God (Jacob is the son of Isaac after all). Both of these seemingly harmful actions actually prevent Jacob from isolating himself away from the power of God and being too convinced of his self sufficiency. Additionally, God gifts Jacob with the new name “Israel” in a new kind of resurrection—a resurrection which allows Jacob to claim his new birthright.This birthright is reinvented because no longer does brother have to be against brother once they marry: now they are equal in the eyes of God, not property of birthright. This account really highlighted how many subtleties and continuities within the Bible there are, even when many perceive it as a simple and crude book.

I have to admit that I was very threatened when I first saw that this was the prompt I was assigned to blog about today. Although we at Notre Dame mention religion almost every day, I still cannot provide a clear definition of it or fully comprehend it—if it’s even meant to be comprehended. However, in today’s reading Marty attempts to boil down the complexity of religion to six straightforward qualities: 1. Religion grasps people and demands complete expressions of loyalty, 2. Religion focuses on our ultimate concern, 3. Religion builds community, 4. Religion appeals to myth and symbol, 5. Religion is enforced through rites and ceremonies, and lastly 6. Religion demands certain behaviors from its adherents. However, the confusion of what religion truly is emerges when Marty highlights that all these five qualities of religion are also found within political sphere and advocates. So what differentiates politics from religion? Religion, unlike politics, seeks to answer truths about the human condition or the world around us that science or facts cannot explain. Although the end goal of politics is to reach answers that can be implemented into policy, religion simply seeks a better understanding of ourselves, not our role the international or national politcal sphere but our role and meaning in life. Even though politics does meet the five qualities of religion, but it also answers so much more and less. This is a search for understanding that religion recognizes is never-ending. Never can we reach total self revelation but we can gain insight in attempting to do so. There are no definites but belief drives us towards further exploration and to know religion is to know oneself: it is ultimately self revelation. The practice it isn’t unreasonable despite requiring faith–to have faith is to reason the most. Religion ultimately is important in our own intellectual lives filling a space of restlessness and questioning: it allows a community of people to reflect upon our own unanswerable questions to better understand ourselves through myth and symbol, both essential to religion as simple facts could not reveal any truth as deeply.

Faith ultimately is unavoidable due to our restless human condition in which we are constantly searching for answers. As Origen states: “our mind burns with desire to know the design of things we think have been made by God. Love of truth cannot be satisfied.” So when self proclaimed reasonable anti-religion sects, like the Manichees, claim they have an answer for each internal question we ask ourselves in pursuit of the truth, we remain restless, especially when it ignores God. That is because there will never be an end to this search–it’s inherent in our nature to be constantly re-evaluating our beliefs. Because there will never be a definite answer, we do not accept definite answers and must utilize our faith. There are many truths we just cannot quantify or answer with definite facts. But although today in our factual and science based society we perceive the word “faith” as simple and negatively, faith is beneficial. Wilken makes the point that much like history, in theology we must have faith in past witnesses and their judgement and integrity to reach what we accept as true. We must have faith to pursue our search: one cannot arrive at truth without faith. Additionally, having this faith can actually make one more receptive to receiving the truth: “if you believe you will understand.” Becoming more faithful is a process where we practice our love, knowledge, patience, and other virtues. So by fulfilling our natural human nature, we actually becoming better humans. According to passage 5, “The obedience of faith is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals.” When discussing Genesis, we discussed how obedience to God is good as he correctly judges things for us. Faith is just a form of obedience to God’s message and when we do his will, God reveals some truths to us. So while many people get frustrated that to truly start reaching truth you must have faith, the reality is that our human condition is fulfilled through faith.

In earlier passages in the Bible we have focused on the disobedience of the people. That is why all throughout Abraham’s narrative his obedience is so prominent to us. Although this obedience is admirable, a modern reader may struggle with seeing Abraham’s seeming intent to sacrifice his as being anything close to praiseworthy. However, it seems as though Abraham was aware of the fact that in being obedient to God, he wouldn’t actually have to sacrifice his son. In Genesis 21:12, God promises Abraham that Isaac’s offspring shall be named for him. So Abraham already knew that God intends to keep Isaac alive for future plans. When God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham knows that Isaac will be kept alive because earlier God told him so. So when Abraham tells the others that both of them will come back and that God will provide a sacrifice, he isn’t lying. His faith in God is so much that he trusts Him to keep Isaac alive. This interpretation allows most of us to view Abraham as more praiseworthy because Abraham wasn’t intending on killing his son. Additionally, his accepting of his own flawed humanity and trusting God’s judgment of his own is almost a recreation of humanity is something to be emulated. But many of us question why God would make him sacrifice his own son when Abraham has already proved his obedience time and time again. But this is the ultimate test of Abraham because Isaac was his long waited for son who was created out of obedience and trust in god: although logically Sarai could not have a child because she was old and barren, Abraham listened to God and laid with Sarai. God was merciful and good to Abraham giving him a son with his wife; however, God wanted to ensure that this gift did not make Abraham believe his own self as powerful and godly enough to do this. This is because in the past, humans, when receiving a gift like apparent eternal life, start believing themselves as above God and abusing it. However, Abraham proves that he knows that God is his commander and he is just his servant to do his will. Abraham avoids the fatal human flaw of placing human judgement and ego above God’s present from Eden. So through obedience more obedience is shown and he reaps great mercy and reward in the eyes of God.

Really, all the genesis creation accounts all revolve around one word: obedience. This is especially highlighted in Genesis three, as we read about God’s shame in his creation of humanity. This shame stems from humans acting against both their own and God’s judgement. Even though, as we read in Genesis 3, humans possess knowledge of judgment however they lack the tools and virtue to carry out what they know as good. They are obedient to their own judgment. Because previously only God had this knowledge, they became more godlike; yet they are still inflicted with the flaws of humanity. In other words, they have the tools to do right but not the ability. The problem with corruption of godly qualities with humanity is continued throughout Genesis. God is ashamed with his creation of humanity and wishes to destroy it because they lack obedience. One of the reasons they lack this virtue is because the more “God-like” line of Seth mixed with the more humanist line of Cain. As said earlier, this combination always leads to sin. Although God wanted to destroy the Earth, he was given hope when he saw Noah, an obedient and godly man (so he is good). He is different because he did not perceive himself at divine. The other humans expected eternal life and this expectation almost made them perceive themselves as god-like. However, when Adam died, this perception dissolved and instead of using this to improve their ways, they became bitter. In the other Genesis account it was established that though humans gained knowledge they would ignore this judgment. Noah however, was favorable in God’s eyes because he was obedient to God and built the ark and was fruitful and multiplied. The story of Noah and the ark is also interesting because like Genesis one, it imitates the Enuma Elish. Like Genesis 1, it is almost a protest to the Babylonians highlighting how their religion is better because God is in control and he destroyed the world without conflict. So in conclusion, although this is a different account of creation, it continues the theme of obedience, it also illustrates a new truth about creation and ourselves.