Fulfillment is the realization of some event or prediction. In the case of Scripture, fulfillment relates not to the future, but to the past. As we have learned, the New Testament cannot be truly and fully understood without the knowledge of patterns and themes throughout the Old Testament. As such, the Old Testament can be described as a template for all of God’s works and what He may do in specific situations in the future. As situations “repeat” themselves in terms of similarity to past events, so to do we expect God’s actions to parallel those that he enacted in the past. By realizing and witnessing these “predicted” outcomes of God from new scenarios, closely related in nature to ones observed in the Old Testament, we can say that the situation and event has been fulfilled. The expected outcome has come to pass. Hosea speaks of a return to the Land, a fulfillment of God’s promises, “that what the Lord said through the prophet might be fulfilled: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’” (Mt 2:15). As Moses had led the Israelites out of Egypt and towards the promise land, so too will Joseph lead the people across the Jordan into the Land. This would be considered fulfillment of what the prophets had said. To clarify, it is not the fulfillment of the past strictly speaking, but the analysis of past moments and divine pattern in anticipating God’s providence to come. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). Fulfillment, like the renovation, the re-establishing of the ‘new’ covenant, brings about the new from the old. It is not a new relationship per say between the people and God, but a continuation, albeit slightly different, but with the same foundation. Fulfillment is the same. It is the continuation of God’s divine love and actions from patterns in the past translating to the present and future.

The people were never satisfied and grew restless with their lives out of Egypt. That is why when the people Moses sent to explore came back and said that the valley was overflowing with milk and honey, the people of Israel rebelled to try to reach this land. Because they tested the Lord’s anger, they are condemned to never see the promise land; that is, except Joshua and Caleb. “Who disobeyed me and tested me ten times— not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their ancestors” (Numbers 14). Despite this, the assembly attempted to enter the promise land and were defeated by the Amalekites and the Canaanites because God was not with them. Additionally, while in Shittim, there were those that worshiped other Moabite gods which angered God because it went against the covenant they had made with each other. However, Moses did not handle the spies incident very well either so God was not quite pleased with him and therefore would not let him cross the Jordan. “You did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. Therefore, you will see the land only from a distance; you will not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel” (Deuteronomy 32). Much of this situation arises due to the fact that the people engaged in idolatry. God is described as a jealous god and clearly stated that this was forbidden. Perhaps Moses’ death ended the Pentateuch because he was the first true servant of God and the only prophet that was able to perform works of God and all the feats through Him like bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt. In considering how Deuteronomy 34 can guide our reading of the book of Joshua, we can assume it serves as a sort of transference of God’s elect status to Joshua. We see the people accept Joshua as the ‘new’ Moses and for a time obey his actions. Like with Moses, God makes promises to Joshua of such things like land. The generation of Moses was the generation that was raised up, yet they were also the people that disobeyed God and broke covenant with him. While God tried to bring the people closer to himself and purify them so that they may engage with his divinity, they instead turned away, moving away from the ‘Eden’ that reunion would bring.

As stated by Mary Douglas, “dirt is essentially disorder” and hygiene is a good indicator and reason why there are so many rules. In such a way, burning the carcasses is a cleansing action. Since cleanness is order, burning offerings is a path to purifying. Impurity is the lack of order. Everything from the beginning of the Bible, starting in Genesis revolves around the central theme of chaos to order, sin to forgiveness. Purifying is seen as an act of atonement for sin. If sin is to go against order and God’s natural organization, then it stands to reason that to try to re-establish order through hygiene and purifying is to try to seek forgiveness and be welcomed back into communion with God. It is “only by exaggerating the difference… that a semblance of order is created.” There must be systems in place that are comprehensible and more or less black and white so order can be maintained. The system needs to be established so that the people have a clear layout of right or wrong and no ambiguity about what is acceptable and what is not. The detail specificities of the laws, I believe are simply to remove any questions and provide a pattern for which people can follow. This is potentially why there are so many rules that God establishes concerning actions that purify and what is unclean. It establishes order. With highly established social systems being implemented, we see the idea of pollutants in certain food types over others. However, as stated in Secular Definlement these systems are largely symbolic. To sum things up, “if uncleanliness is matter out of place, we must approach it through order. Uncleanliness of dirt is that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained. However, in the footnote, we see that others argue that the purpose of the purity laws is linked to death. We see the loss of blood and blood in general as impure as a loss of blood would signal death.

Who is God? Perhaps the real question that concerns us is who is God concerning man?

Ratzinger says some interesting things about how we define God and how He, the idea, the concept, the word fits into our vocabulary. Ratzinger describes ‘God’ as something we use to “fill the gap” of our own power limitations. It’s not quite so simple as he goes on to explain that by giving a meaning to such a word, you can thereby receive meaning. God is tied completely and wholly to our existence and everyday reality. He fills loneliness so that through belief in Him, we are never alone. He is the creator of everything, all of earth and creation. However, other religions define not a single God, but multiple. Despite these differences, ‘God’ or ‘Gods’ still carries the name implicit meaning and similar held value in our lives. It means a type of unity or oneness. Even in atheism there are still aspects of ‘oneness’ and unity to be found. It is coming to understand love and closely held values. As Ratzinger says, God perhaps can be defined in the I-and-You relationship. At least in the sense where we as individuals define ‘God’ we often do so in the word’s relation to ourselves and all the connotations, meaning and attributes that go along with that. In Exodus 3, God says to Moses “I am who I am” as He does not need to explain or give a name for Himself, as an all-powerful existence. However, after insistence from Moses for what to say to the Pharaoh, the tells him to call Him “Lord.” As stated in Exodus 6, I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LordI did not make myself fully known to them.” He names himself to Moses where he did not for anyone previously. He has established himself as a figure to be worshipped and looked up to as implied by the connotations of calling someone ‘Lord.’ But, ultimately, how can we define God? How can we put into words who He is? Just as you cannot define any person, friend, or family member with any amount of words to do them justice, the same can be said of God.

Joseph’s planting of the silver cup, I believe stems from the original situation when his brothers sold him into slavery. He obviously cares for his brother Benjamin as described throughout Genesis 37-50 like when “Benjamin’s portion was five times as much as anyone else’s.” So why then did Joseph plant the cup in Benjamin’s sack? It seems as if Joseph intended this move as a means for determining if his brothers had changed. If they had not changed, surely they would leave Benjamin as a slave to Joseph, just as they had sold Joseph as a slave to the Egyptians. However, as it so happens, Joseph’s brothers expressed remorse and Judah professed “please let your servant remain here as my lord’s slave in place of the boy, and let the boy return with his brothers.” The willingness and desire to preserve their brother showed Joseph that they had changed from the boys they used to be. They passed the test.

This situation closely parallels that of Joseph himself. Both Joseph and Benjamin held the status as the beloved son of Israel. When first confronted with the situation, the brothers responded by selling Joseph into slavery. However, when presented with a similar situation several years later, the brothers did not choose to let their youngest and the favorite son of Israel go into slavery. Anderson brings in an interesting connection in his essay between the story of Joseph and that of Isaac. Both were the “beloved son” and had to ‘die’ in a sense of the word. The sending of Benjamin is paramount to the ‘sacrificing’ of Isaac. Thus, again and again we see a theme of death and resurrection as both are thought to be dead and then are miraculously returned or spared. Jacob though Joseph dead from an animal and believed his son Benjamin never to return again. These themes recur over and over establishing the connection and cycle of sin and forgiveness, division and reunion.

Jacob’s story follows many of the same patterns we see in the story of Abraham. The theme of taking versus receiving plays an equally important role with each as with the idea of death and rebirth; God giving blessings to his “elect”. In Jacob’s story in Genesis, his father, Isaac, in old age says he will bless his eldest son Esau if he brings back game and cooks a meal to his likeness for him to eat. Overhearing this, Jacobs wife who favors the youngest son, Jacob, helps him to deceive his father and take the blessing for himself while pretending to be his brother. Ultimately, he “came by fraud and took [his] blessing” instead of freely receiving it by the giver (Genesis 26). Additionally, just like Abraham sleeps with Sara’s slave, Isaac sleeps with Bilhah, the slave of Rachel. This could be considered an act that displays mistrust in God’s blessings and promises that he will have many descendants; a situation that closely parallels that of Abraham and God and their eventual covenant.

Analyzing the ‘Jacob’s wrestling’ I would argue that it is a symbolic struggle with his inner self and that of God. Before this scene, Jacob had performed acts of trickery and deception, yet he prayed and asked God for help. His struggle in admitting his faults and weaknesses and in embracing a relationship with God is described through the wrestling match. Through a single touch to his hip socket, God causes Jacob to surrender himself over to God and accept his need for Him. Both sides win in reality because God helped Jacob overcome his past self to embrace a new identity filled with God’s blessings. As seems to be a developing trend, God gives Jacob a limp, much like the circumcision of Abraham, as a reminder that he holds control. Jacob’s true opponent was with himself and his past, but through surrendering himself over to God, he becomes a new man. He is even given an entirely new name, Israel to solidify the idea that he has become a whole new person, accepting God’s blessings and leaving his past self behind.

If theology is defined as the study of God, then religion perhaps is the study of God’s (or divine beings) teachings and practicing the outlined virtues. Religion then can be said to be a means by which we seek self-enlightenment and connection to a greater purpose in life. It is a way to find meaning in our lives and in this existence. We try to find a deeper level of self and relationship with the earth and all the life found upon it by having faith in a belief or idea that may not be able to be explicitly explained with evidence. Religion can therefore come in many shapes and forms. It is unique to everyone because everyone will have their own personal connection with its teachings and how it fits into their own life. However, if we must define religion within some sort of parameters we can look to our reading for today. According to Cavanaugh in “Violence, Religion and the State” religion must consist of five things. It has to focus on our ultimate concern, build community, appeal to myth and symbol, be enforced through rites and ceremonies and it must demand certain behaviors from its adherents. I personally think these five categories are very fitting and can successfully encompass the wide range of religions in the world today. I cannot think of a single religion that does not engage in or exhibit all of these five characteristics. However, what these five things do not take into consideration is the personal connection and relationship that an individual develops with the teachings and practices of their religion. For something to be considered a religion it must have the power to affect a person, even just one single person, on a deeper level. This level of transcendence and connection to a belief is vital. Religion is “bearing witness in some way to values such as social justice, equality, and inclusiveness” (1 Cavadini). It is not something that solely comes from a text or religious script, but from the relationship and self-reflection of individuals who come together in a community.

Wilken, the author of “The Reasonableness of Faith” draws on the philosophy of Augustine to explore the topic that belief and faith play in religion. For many people, seeing is believing and there must be concrete evidence to support an idea. We rely on witnesses to accurately depict events. But how can we trust the words and authority of these individuals. This is one of the arguments that Wilken presents when confronted with questions concerning the legitimacy of the bible and its authors. As Wilken puts it: “Historical knowledge requires witness, and witness invites faith, or confidence in the word of the one who bears witness” (170).  Just like historical events it cannot be established without a shadow of a doubt that the events of the Christian faith took place. We instead rely on the authority of the person teaching us the information. We trust in their capability and integrity to establish the truth. This is how faith comes into religion and why it is unavoidable. Just like we trust the authority of the words of those relaying historical accounts, we must trust the authority and put our faith in the words of the bible and the teachings of a religion. There can be no knowledge of God without faith, for faith is the distinctive way we know God” (179). We cannot hope to progress and learn anything at all in life if we retain an infinite amount of skepticism in the authority of our teachers. “Faith is not only a matter of trust or confidence: it has to do with the knowledge that draws one deeper into what is known” (184). While we must have confidence that the authority of our teachers (of religion) we at the same moment elevate our understanding and connection with the said religion by establishing an intimate relationship with its teachings, trusting it entirely. In this way, faith is exceedingly beneficial because it allows such a relationship between an individual and their faith to grow and mature. A deeper knowledge and connection occurs.

Genesis 22 tells the narrative of a test given to Abraham involving a order from God to sacrifice his only son with Sarah, Isaac. Abraham agrees because he has interacted with God and knows of the blessings and wrath that He can inflict, as was observed in the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19. Abraham is in covenant with God and therefore obeys His commands in return for blessings and gifts. Abraham obeys and is on the verge of complying “to kill his son” (Genesis 22:10) when the angel of the LORD told him to stop. This had been a test from God to see if Abraham feared God and would obey him. In lines 22:5 and 22:8, it seems as if Abraham lies to his men and to his son, but on closer consideration, Abraham’s words can actually be interpreted as the truth. Abraham says to his men that “the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.” To his son, he says “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering” for it is true that God gave Isaac to Abraham through blessing fertility on Sarah and that Isaac is a ‘lamb of God’ per say. It may not be the most direct and unquestionable answer, but it has a kernel of truth behind it. In this sense, Abraham never truly lies outright, but uses his words artfully to conceal his true intentions. I guess it could be argued that this is essentially lying, but still, you get my gist. Since Abraham passed God’s test, he receives blessings from God. Is Abraham praiseworthy? It’s hard to say. He followed the word of God, but in doing so almost broke a commandment and killed his own child. Is this justified? I don’t really have a clear answer myself. As the saying goes “God acts in mysterious ways” and this test was just another one of those situations that required blind faith. Abraham seemed to know this and put his faith and his trust in God. Looking at this scenario in this light, God is praiseworthy for his blessings upon Abraham, a true follower and servant, for God gave Abraham everything he has and has the power to take it all away again.

The account of Noah furthers the accounts of the sins in Genesis 3, the original sin of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge. This act made man “God-like,” yet not quite God, and therefore reinforced the notion that man was made in God’s image. This first sin starts the ball rolling for humanity, now exiled from the garden to continue sin. God sees man and “repents” his creations and all the evil that is now occurring generations later on earth. However, at the end of Noah’s narrative, God proclaims that “never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:11). Eating from the tree of knowledge in effect gave humans the capacity to sin; the capacity to know what is good and what is evil and yet make wrongful judgments and actions despite of this. Because while man and woman we created in the likeness of God, they do not contain the capabilities or the values to accurately grasp their labeling of good versus evil. In the narrative of Noah, God sympathizes with Noah and chooses to save him, his wive, his sons, their wives and pairs of every creature on earth while he floods the world and destroys every other living thing. In The Beginning of Wisdom, Kass reflects that it is perhaps due to the fact that Noah was born after humanity discovered that they must die, that he is able to win God’s favor. Since he was born knowing he must die and did not have the anger or recklessness of those before who learned of their newfound mortality, he did not fall prey to a life full of sin and violence. For me, the flood seems to exhibit God’s cleansing of the earth and of humanities current evil, all of which stems back to the original sin: the eating of a fruit from the tree of knowledge. Perhaps it was the first of sacrifices to come for attempting to rid humans of sin. It was like a fresh start, or a clean slate.