In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says “Do you think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” What exactly does fulfill refer to? It refers to the prophecies of the past made true by the events of the present. After the Babylonian Exile and the dominion of the Persians over the Israelites, prophets appear from among the population in despair in order to provide hope for God’s people. The prophecies of Old Testament books like Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Hosea gave hope that a Messiah would arrive to free them from their suffering and return Israel to its former glory. The prophets even went so far as to predict the conditions of the Messiah’s arrival, so that Israel could anticipate and prepare for this event. Therefore, when Christ began his ministry, it was important that he established his role was not to contradict these prophecies but to make them present.

Since Christ’s main significance as Messiah is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, any inconsistency with their predictions would contradict the legitimacy of his role. In Hosea 11:1, the prophet says “Out of Egypt I called my son.” This could be viewed as a point of contention because Christ was born in Bethlehem, not Egypt; however, Egypt has a significant role in Christ’s nativity story. Following his birth, Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt in order to escape persecution by King Herod. This exodus to Egypt parallels Moses’s exodus in the Old Testament. When Joseph and Mary are called to return to Jerusalem, they do so and, thus, Christ is called out of Egypt. The New Testament pours careful detail into the genealogy and life in order to fulfill the conditions set for the Messiah by the prophets. In doing so, the Gospel narratives attempt to legitimize the role of Christ as Messiah.

Not only did the Israelites doubt that God was capable of satisfying their craving, they believed that, if it wasn’t for God, they would have been able to satisfy it on their own. They would’ve still been in Egypt, in luxury, if it wasn’t for their trust foolishly placed with God. Moses, too, has his doubts in God when he asks “Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them all?” God replies with another question, “Is the Lord’s power limited?” Just like the ritual of circumcision with Abraham, God’s punishment of the wilderness generation serves to remind them that everything that have obtained is not the product of their own strengths but the strength of God alone.

Moses, as punishment for exercising his own strength and failing to trust in God’s strength, is forbade from entering the Promised Land. I’d argue that this is unfair, to punish Moses harshly for decades of relentless to service to God; however, it is a necessary evil. To allow a member of the unfaithful generation to enter the Promised Land would be equally unfair. It would be unfair to the thousands of Israelites that remained faithful. It would set a precedent that could enter the Promised Land on one’s own strength and not God’s strength. By forbidding Moses to cross the Jordan with the rest of the Israelites, God reminds His people that they are only given this gift by his mercy. The Pentateuch concludes with the expectation that the Israelites’ new leader will be just as great as his predecessor, not with his own strength but God’s.

Part of what made Moses’s task so difficult was the absurdity of God’s orders sometimes. “Trust me, bread will rain from the sky.” “Trust me, I’ll send enough meat to feed 600,000 Israelites.” And even more difficult was the task of convincing the Israelites that they could trust in God, even though they were experiencing hardship and the only solution seems impossible. Distrust and animosity ran rampant among the weary travelers and it was Moses’ job to keep these feelings in check. Joshua does well in following Moses’ legacy. He may not match the wonders and “terrifying displays of power” that Moses produced, but he does an excellent job of facilitating the works and orders of God. As seen in the Battle of Jericho, he carefully follows God’s instructions for the siege, no matter how bizarre they may seem, and commands the Israelites to follow without disobedience. Up until his death in Judges, Joshua keeps the Israelites faithful to God and His covenant.

The passages in Leviticus mention the phrase “without blemish” thirteen times. This concept of purity is not exclusive to Leviticus either. Its significance is reiterated throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. In Genesis, the conflict between Cain and Abel is partially characterized by the quality of the gifts they offered to God. The gifts Abel offered were of a higher quality, requiring effort, while Cain’s were effortless. Additionally, one can argue that Cain’s offerings were blemished by his selfish intentions to claim glory for himself, making his offerings less desirable in the eyes of the Lord. Furthermore, in the Gospels, Jesus Christ is described as an unblemished lamb meant to be sacrificed for the sake of humanity. Suffice to say, purity is a quality that is incredibly important to God. This begs the question, what is purity and what sets apart something that is pure from being impure?

As discussed by Mary Douglas, there are certain characteristics that are associated with purity and impurity that are consistent throughout the Bible. Wholeness, integrity, and cleanliness are associated with purity, while perversion, hybridization, and filthiness are associated with impurity. Why would we want something to be pure? This does not seem to be asking for a lot. When we go to a grocery store and pick out a hamburger patty, we hope that our purchase is not rotten or diseased. It is common to expect that the product in which you are investing is top quality. It is a similar case with God. Humanity is made in the image and likeness of God; therefore, it is expected that they will maintain the same standards of quality as Him. Humanity offering sacrifices to God is like God’s investment in humanity paying off. If his investment returns in less than ideal conditions, it is a poor investment.

In the BBC series Doctor Who, one of the central mysteries of the show is the name of its namesake protagonist. Who is “The Doctor”? This question may never be answered for the audience because unveiling this mystical name would shatter the universe itself, but in its place, the expression “Doctor Who” provides a clear picture of the character’s identity. Despite being a mystical being, he assumes the role of a doctor and becomes closer to mankind, yet the “who” keeps his purpose in the world a mystery for mere humans who could not hope to understand it. This simple phrase… these two simple components, are the perfect summation of The Doctor’s identity.

Similarly, in Exodus, God reveals his name to Moses as “Yahweh,” which of course is not his real name. God’s real name is beyond the comprehension of mankind and so it would not be so easily revealed. Like “Doctor Who,” the name Yahweh when broken down into two components forms a perfect summation of God’s identity. The name translates from Hebrew to English as “I am who am.” The “I am” component of this statement represents an “idea of Being,” according to Ratzinger. It is a profound statement that implies that God created everything and is everything. This transcendent aspect of God is intimidating for mortals. How could we call upon existence itself for help? This is why God follows this powerful “I am” with a more humble “who am.” The second component of God’s name is intended to draw attention to the ways in which God has worked closely with mankind. Who is he the God of? He is the God of our fathers. He is the God of Abraham, Israel, and Joseph. He is among the people of this world just as intimately as He created them.

Together, the two components of God’s identity, “I am” and “who am,” establish God as a being that is both transcendent in purpose and intimately close to humanity.

In many ways, the Bible is intended to be model for how Christians should act. Family relations is not one of these ways. In Genesis alone, fraternal relationships leave a lot to be desired. Cain kills Abel, leading to the first murder and fratricide. The descendants of half-brothers Ishmael and Isaac are at war with each other. Jacob manipulated and stole from Esau and Esau intended to murder his brother. And last but not least, Joseph’s 10 brothers sell him into slavery and convince his father that he’s dead. Siblings just have a unique way of expressing their love obviously.

The source of this fraternal conflict is the unequal distribution of power among siblings. Traditional social structures assert that the firstborn son is the offspring entitled to the most wealth and inheritance. However, Anderson comments that this may be the custom of man but God has other plans. God intentionally “elects” people that would have ordinarily been meaningless specs in their family tree and gives them greater purpose. While they may not have the same short term payments as their firstborn brother, in the long term, they are much better off. For Joseph, his brothers recognize that he fits the role of “beloved son,” even though, to them, he doesn’t appear to be very special. Tension heightens whenever he relays his dreams of becoming superior to them, which makes his brothers perceive him as a threat.

The conflict isn’t resolved until the end of the narrative when the role of “beloved son” is no more. Joseph is presumed dead by his father and Israel has another child to which he can call beloved. Now that the role has been assigned to someone else, Joseph and his brothers can converse as equals. There is a sense of poetic justice that comes from Joseph’s entrapment of his brothers. Just as they delivered him to slave traders for silver, they are delivered to him for silver. It is a test to see if this silver will bring out the worst of his brothers, just like before. When they rush to protect the beloved son Benjamin instead of sacrifice him, it becomes clear that they have seen the error of their ways. The pass the test and Joseph welcomes them again as family.

In this passage, we discover the founding of the Israelite people, who throughout history, are characterized by violence. However, this violence is rarely represented in the “taking” sense. Violence is rarely used by the Israelite people in order to take something they were not meant to have. Instead, violence is a tool to “receive.” God presents a blessing (be it land, progeny, etc.), but in order to receive it, the Israelite people must use violence to prove themselves worthy. The intention of these actions to receive rather than take from God is what separates vice from virtue.

We see this in the encounter between Jacob and the unidentified assailant. God wants to give Jacob the fruit of his covenant with Abraham (the land, the progeny, and the blessing), but in order for Jacob to receive these gifts, he must prove himself worthy. And Jacob is not worthy. After deceiving his father, stealing from his brother, and abandoning his family out of fear, he has a lot he needs to prove in order to be rewarded in this scenario. That is why God gives Jacob an opponent that is virtually impossible to defeat: Himself. The unidentified figure that Jacob wrestles is God. Though not confirmed, there are a few details that lead to this conclusion. One thing that is consistent about the many appearances of God in the Old Testament is that no one has seen his face. Even Moses, God’s closest prophet, was blinded by the appearance of God and deemed not worthy to see his face. Similarly, Jacob is not able to see his opponent’s face throughout the entire combat. The person is overly eager to leave before the morning sun rises, suggesting that he is trying to prevent his appearance from being revealed by the light. The unidentified assailant’s appearance may be sacred and unviewed by mortals, just like God. Another indication is when the figure changes Jacob name to Israel. First, who besides God has the ability to change other’s names with meaningful derivation? Think back to Abram becoming Abraham because this is clearly reflective of that encounter. Second, there is significance behind the name Israel itself, which translates roughly to “he who has prevailed against God and man.” We know that Jacob prevailed against man when he deceived his father and took his brother’s inheritance. Where does the God part come from? It comes precisely from that night, where he wrestled with God and won. God is not used lightly in the Old Testament. If it were an angel that Jacob fought with, it would not use such an almighty word. It is clear that God Himself fought Jacob, and that Israel prevailed.

When trying to develop a formal definition of religion, a common problem is that it brings in practices that most people would not recognize as being inherently religious. For example, we all know that nationalism is not the same as religion, but what makes it different? When you break both concepts into their fundamental components, one notices shocking similarities. Both nationalism and Catholicism appeal to higher powers, frequently use symbols and imagery (like flags or crosses), involve ceremonies and celebrations, form communities around their beliefs and so on. Yet there is some feeling inherently unique to Catholicism that can instantly identifies with the term religion. This feeling is hard to recreate with other expressions of belief, like nationalism, and so we simply refuse to define them as religion. It is hard to fully encapsulate what this feeling is in words, but I would argue that it is founded in understanding. Religion, at its core, is about developing a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world (consisting of natural and spiritual elements). Other expressions of belief concern themselves with things that are known. Nationalism, for example, expresses dedication and appreciation toward the known deeds, accomplishments, and spirit of a country. What the belief finds value in is exclusively what is known. Religion differs in that it derives value in both what is known and what is not known. Catholicism finds value in everything that is present, was present, and will be present because it is made by God. At the same time, it recognizes value in the mysteries of the world that are yet to be answered because it provides meaning to seek these answers and develop our understanding of the world further. When we reach these answers, this information is added to the bubble of what is known, and so it is understood to be valuable because it is made by God.

Faith is unavoidable because it is impossible for everything to be known about anything. Augustine states, “Nothing would remain stable in human society if we determined to believe only what can be held with absolute certainty” (Wilken, 171). It is impossible to have certainty in the world when there are things that are unknown. However, we do not like the idea of things being unknown, so we fill this empty void of knowledge with theories of what it might contain. These theories are no different than faith. Even science, which is upheld as the ultimate standard of fact in society, cannot be proven truth, only proven false. We place our faith in statements like “the sun revolves around the sun” until newer evidence appears and falsifies our faith. Only then, can we make a more informed assertion like “the earth revolves around the sun” and reinstate our faith in science. Faith is beneficial as a placeholder for knowledge that is yet to be discovered. It gives certainty in response to the uncertain and fills a void that would otherwise drive humanity mad. Life is filled with unanswered questions. How did life begin? What is the meaning of life? What happens after life ends? These are all questions that scientific thought is unable to answer. Religion responds to these voids in understanding and fills them with concepts like heaven and reincarnation. These answers comprise faith and provide comfort to people who fear the unknown.

Before sacrificing Isaac, Abraham addresses the young men he brought with him. He orders them to stay at the foot of the mountain while the ritual happens, though he reassures them, saying “we will return.” This implies that both him and Isaac will return from the summit, not just Abraham. This suggests that maybe Abraham did not fully commit himself to the plan of killing his son. It’s technically not lying because he does return with his son, but, at that moment, it is uncertain whether Abraham intended to lie or to keep the option of sparing Isaac available. A similar interaction happens later in the narrative when Isaac becomes suspicious on the journey up and notices the obvious lack of a sacrifice. Abraham responds that God will provide the sacrifice, which is blatantly a lie to Isaac. He knew that God was making him go through with this difficult test and that there was only one way to pass. The intention behind this statement was not to delay the inevitable, but the deceive his son and further his task.

What stands out most in this narrative is the absurdity of God’s request from Abraham: kill your son, the gift God has promised you for your devotion. Why would God gaslight his most devoted follower? Because he can. The preceding passages of Genesis describe God’s relationship with a very ungrateful humanity. Despite everything he has given them, they still desire more and desire to take it for themselves. God wants to avoid this scenario from happening again, so, as a countermeasure, he tests Abraham to see if his devotion to God is dependent on God or on what God has given him. By taking away Abraham’s closest possession, He wants to see what Abraham truly values. Abraham agrees to the request because he is exactly what God is looking for, someone who values God more than any earthly reward. By following orders faithfully, he is praiseworthy. The same cannot be said for God because of the inherent nature of the test he constructed. It is both deceptive and negatively-biased, reflecting a mindset of guilty till proven innocent instead of innocent till proven guilty. In this interaction, God demonstrates his distrust of humanity. However, Abraham’s faithful actions may have restored this trust at the current time.

by Austin Wyman

The problem of “original sin” is often misunderstood in Genesis 3. Despite God’s explicit warning, Adam and Eve’s sin is not consuming the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Behind their action of disobedience against their creator is the intention of selfishness. The first two humans were motivated by self-interest and that is what ultimately led to the downfall of humanity. From there, Genesis becomes a social commentary on how society has digressed as a result of humans’ motivation by self-interest. Cain killed his brother Abel in order to advance his position with God. Thus, the first example of human murder is the fault of self-interest. The sexual promiscuity between humans and the Nephilim is the product of self-interest and is looked down upon by God. Kass describes self-interest has become the natural instinct of human civilization, as families begin to separate and tribes begin to form in order to sustain individual priorities. Finally, the Noah narrative demonstrates God’s attempt to put an end to this trend of selfishness among the human species by wiping them from the earth. Noah is seen as someone who is righteous and exceptional to the nature of humankind. Noah does not demonstrate the same selfish tendencies as his kin, which is why God chooses him and his family to survive alone. He sees Noah and his family as the best chance to restart the world and begin human nature anew, with Noah’s selflessness as an example for other generations to follow. If this was the plan, then why does wickedness still persist? Aside from the obvious answer that this story was not meant to be taken literally, the major character flaw of humanity persisted within Noah’s line, despite him being a righteous man. His youngest son Ham saw an opportunity in exposing his father’s nudity, for which Noah cursed his son’s children to be punished. Thus, the trend of pursuing self-interest persists as humanity’s primary flaw.