The real meaning of fulfillment can at first be hard to identify on surface level when one reads through the Scripture. When we read Matthew’s citation of Hosea in which he describes that “Out of Egypt I have called my son” I think fulfillment is conveyed in the form of this son: Jesus. Like described in ‘Scribes of the Kingdom‘, these words from Hosea announce the arrival of Jesus as the beginning of a new exodus; essentially, Jesus will lead Israel to fulfillment. This fulfillment is also displayed in his name when the angel appears to Joseph to tell him that “the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”(Mat 1:23), Immanuel meaning “God with us”.

Given that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament, it makes sense that one is able to find links and allusions between them. One of the first connections I found was also underlined in the reading ‘The Genealogy of Matthew‘. Genesis 12 describes the first elements that are given to Abraham- land, descendants and blessing- and ‘as seen already in Abraham, the vocation of Israel is universal in scope, and in Jesus it finds its realization‘. Another similarity between the Old testament and the New testament are the dreams. In Genesis 37, Joseph dreams about how he will rule over his siblings, and even though the dream described from Jesus’ father Joseph on Matthew 1 has is not about him ruling over his siblings, he does dream about the child Mary is carrying. The similarity in here relies on the fact that both dreams are a way through which they are receiving messages from and through which they are looking into the future; in both cases, divine revelation is displayed through a dream.

After reading the different chapters in Numbers, one can easily perceive the people’s inability to remember all that God has done for them in the past. In Num 11, people complain about the lack of better food, specifically meat, and compare this to when they used to be in Egypt; they are dissatisfied with their new living condition, which I think is ironic given the enslaved condition in which they found themselves before Moses’ rescue. As a result, God sent the meat they longed in the form of quails for a month, but this was followed by a plague. Num 13-14 also shows a scenario in which the wilderness generation pose God’s words into question when they find they aren’t the first ones to get to the promised land; and again, God hears and condemns this generation by prohibiting anyone older than twenty from being able to enter the promised land. The book of Numbers clearly outlines the people’s constant questioning of God and I think that through the punishments God sentences and condemns the corrupt ant contaminated spirit of the wilderness generation who not only doubt His intentions but also forget what he has already done for them.

I think that the fact that Moses dies when he sees the promised land emphasizes the fact that his job was done; he had to save Israel from slavery and lead this one to the promised land, and this task is fulfilled when he sees the promised land. Moses’ death of highlights the end of a journey and the beginning of a new era of worship and devotion to God. Even though I do think it is sad that Moses doesn’t get to experience living in the promised land after all of his hard work and long and hard journey through the desert, I do think that Moses belongs to a different period and when this period (the journey) is over, it does make sense that Moses has to come to an end as well.

Even though I didn’t expect this ending, Deuteronomy 34 ends with Moses’ death right after he sees the promised land. I think that this guides our reading to all that takes place in the Book of Joshua as it clearly separates all that Moses did and differentiates it to what is going to come in the future. Joshua will be the new leader, and similarly to Moses, he will guide the Israelite community with the help and the instruct of God.

Even though purity is defined as the condition or quality of being pure and therefore free from anything that pollutes or contaminates, I think that that the definition of purity goes further when this one is analyzed in the religious context that Leviticus provides. In my opinion, what Lev 1-11:19 defines as purity is the concept of cleanness and almost disinfected conditions to be met in order to be able to interact with God. This extract of Leviticus describes the five different offerings that can be taken into practice if an impure behavior has been carried out. Impurity is almost described as a disease, as it is unclean and contagious and has to be treated to be fixed.

I think that the reason why this maintenance of purity is required by God and therefore given so much emphasis, is to underline the magnitude of God’s glory and our duty to acknowledge it. By making sure our souls are clean and purified, we are not only becoming closer to God and enabling interaction with Him, but we are also acknowledging that He is the one and only Lord. And this links to the third question on the logic of the laws we encounter and how these are related to purity. Above, I mentioned that Leviticus describes five different offerings, but it also outlines a series of specific food laws that also build up in determining whether one is clean or not. In the recommended reading, Mary Douglas points out that “the process of eating is potentially polluting, but the manner determines the amount of pollution” and I think this reinforces the idea of worthiness of interaction with God. Overall, like cited in Lev 11:44; “I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. […] I am the Lord, who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.“

The readings of Exodus one through eighteen narrate multiple events in which both Moses and Aaron have ‘direct’ interactions with God and through which the reader obtains a more close-up understanding and vision of God. These extracts of Exodus follow Moses from the moment of his birth and rescue in the Nile, to his unexpected encounter with God and later behavior as the elect. The Israelites are unfairly suffering in Egypt and Moses’ objective will be to free them from Pharaoh’s reign. 

However, Exodus is not only another Bible story on elects and God’s selections, Exodus is a deeper chance for the reader to try to answer the question of who God is. Because of this, I think it is completely understandable when Moses claims that no one will believe him when he says he has seen and talked to God, who would? Not only they would not believe him but how is he supposed to give an answer to that question? Even though God answers this question, when Moses asks Him what he has to answer when the Israelites ask “What is His name?” in Exodus 3, we don’t get much closer to finding the answer to the question. 

‘Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh‘ is the answer Moses obtains, meaning I AM WHAT I AM, and even though at first it may seem like it doesn’t really clarify things for Moses, I do think it draws the reader a bit closer. If God is what He is this means He is his people, He is the plagues and He is their protector. God is like us, God is with us and God is supernatural. The story of Moses leading and saving the Israelites highlights God as the merciful, all-knowing and all-powerful divine being that he has proved to be throughout all of Genesis.

After everything Joseph has been through as a result of his brothers’ jealousy, I think it is more than understandable that he will want to test if they have changed or not when he sees them again in Egypt. Like it is described through Gen 37, Joseph is “clearly favored over [his] blood brothers” (Gary Anderson) and even though Joseph’s brothers decide to fake Joseph’s death, they all initially attempted to kill him. Joseph is thrown into a pit with no food or water whilst his brothers watch and eat from above, and despite the fact that Joseph doesn’t physically die, I agree with Gary Anderson’s claim that it appeals to death in the sense that throwing him to a pit not only humiliates him but basically reinforces the concept of sacrifice that is currently alluded throughout the Bible, as “entrapment in a pit is strongly associated with entering the underworld”. 

Regardless of Joseph being sold to a caravan as a slave and being taken to Egypt, he eventually manages to escape slavery and become a very influential figure in Egypt; this is taken to the extent where he becomes “the provisioner not only of his family in Cannan but of the entire known world” during the seven year famine that the world is suffering. His brothers eventually come to Egypt to seek Joseph’s help, and even though they don’t recognize their brother, Joseph does, and he decides to test them. Joseph commands that they fill all his brother’s sacks with food, and put Joseph’s silver cup in Benjamin’s sack. I think that whilst this can be an act of vengeance from Joseph’s side, deep down it is a test that will prove whether his brothers are still the jealous brothers who threw the favorite son to the pit or not now that Benjamin is the favored son.

When Benjamin is discovered with the silver cup, Judah offers his life in exchange for his brother’s and it is at this point that Joseph reveals his true identity and forgives them. Overall this story suggests a parallelism with all of the Genesis stories of the beloved son, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Joseph not only is able to accept the cost of election, but he also shows love and forgiveness to those who betray him. 

When one reads the passages of Genesis 24 to 36; the reader observes Jacob’s life from beginning to end.  We see how he is “mostly on his own, relying on his own powers and devices” and one can relate to him in a more human way. In Genesis 32 and near the end of this reading, it is described how Jacob wrestles with a stranger and even though this might not seem important; the symbolism behind it suggests much more depth than what one might first perceive. 

So, who does Jacob wrestle against? Who wins? Why do they wrestle in the first place? All of these questions have been open to debate and discussion and offer a wide range of possible answers that don’t lead to a right or wrong one. At first, I thought the whole wrestling scene was a dream in which Jacob had an inner debate with his feelings and emotions. I thought that the wrestling was a symbol to portray his feelings of guilt for who he was in the past, and like described by Kass, Jacob is “compelled to confront his previous being, to describe his character in an act of declaration”. 

However, the fact that he says his name when asked by his opponent made me change my mind. I agree with Kass when he mentions how saying your name conveys a sense of acceptance of who you are and therefore your sins and background and I think that because of this, Jacob is not only wrestling against his sins, but he is also wrestling against God to make himself “eligible for renaming and for receiving the blessing”. 

In the end, not only he is blessed but he is also renamed. So, who wins? I think that the fact that he recognizes who he is and the fact that he walks away from the place as a new man conveys a re-birth making Jacob the winner, and this re-birth is underlined with his new name and with the start of the new day. 

For centuries, the question of what the definition of religion is is one which has provoked deep and intellectual debate, and one which scholars still try to find the answer to today. For me religion is a way of knowing; it is a guide to life and purpose. I think that regardless of the importance of evidence as a source of information as a source of knowledge, sometimes there are life mysteries that go beyond evidence and that we aren’t able and never will be able to explain. Answers to questions like what happens to us after death, how the world was created or why we were created cannot be and will not be answered through the science branch of knowledge but rather rely on faith in God and religion. 

Through the draft “Violence, Religion and the State”, William Cavanaugh references the author Martin Marty’s book to try to define religion. His list of 5 features helped me to gain a better interpretation of religion not only as a way of knowing and a way of seeking understanding, but as a means to community building and teaching. One of these elements is that religion consists of many ceremonies and rituals. Religion not only unites families, people and friends through in Holy celebrations such as Christmas, but it also offers support and guidance in difficult situations like grief. Religion teaches and educates; whether this is in a classroom or a church environment, religion cultivates and encourages thinking and rumination across the world through the encouragement of openness to conversation. It seeks answers through the lens of trust and love, and like I mentioned above, there are “mysteries too great for words” to explain. For me, I truly believe in religion as not only a way of knowing but also as a way through which I can flourish and grow. 

Through Agustine’s works, Wilken argues and defends the position that faith is unavoidable and beneficial. Through the reading, it is clearly emphasized how faith is key to seek out knowledge, and how believing and trusting witnesses is essential to this. Wilken starts of by citing Saint Augustine to argue that “nothing would remain stable in human society if we determined to believe only what can be held with absolute certainty.”; and I really agree with this statement. I agree as it links to the fact that humans are born with the “desire to know the truth” and we are encouraged to question everything; we seek knowledge and faith is a very important source of knowledge that many question. One very good example that emphasizes trust and faith is the one in which Wilken describes the fact that “a child cannot know with absolute certainty who his father is unless he believes what his mother tells him”. The child chooses to believe and trust the word of this authority, and this happens in the same way when we choose to trust and have faith in what we are taught about God and through the Bible. 

Although the religious faith is a different kind of faith, the same thing happens with historical events, events which you “cannot run an experiment to verify” and events that we choose to believe. Faith is a “constituent part of historical knowledge” as we cannot provide witnesses for every historical event nor physical and malleable proof; in the same way that you can’t see love but you do know and trust that feeling, you cannot see faith either. And this perfectly exemplifies the unavoidable nature of religious faith as, like Wilken describes, we “trail our thoughts behind the truths of others.”

I think it is beneficial because everything relies on faith, like I mentioned above, if we decided not to trust our mom on who are father is, or if we decided not to trust history everything would be more complex and life would become hard to live. By choosing to trust I think that we open our hearts to each other and this brings us together as a community and as a whole.

Genesis 11-22 explains how nine generations after Shem, God calls on Abraham to make a covenant with him. In this pact, the Lord tells Abraham to “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that [He] will show thee”, and that He will also “make of thee a great nation”, and it’s because of this that Abraham agrees to the request made by God. Afterwards, not only he keeps doing what God says but he is also rewarded, and a trusting relationship towards God is built to a point in which Abraham’s infertile wife is even given a child at the old age of 90.

I think that in Genesis 22:5-8, Abraham does not lie. I think that he is softening his language, and as any father would do, he is trying not to frighten his son. Also, Isaac’s sacrifice is an arrangement between Abraham and God, and this means that it is not Isaac’s nor any of the servants business. In the case that Abraham were lying, I would argue that this would be to avoid Isaac from running away or the servants from stopping him from killing Isaac; and this way making sure that he is carrying out God’s commands without barriers. 

God’s intention in making Abraham go through with this ordeal is to test if, after all this time, Abraham is still loyal to him in the way he used to or if he has become another corrupt human being now that he has obtained everything he wanted to achieve in life. Abraham ‘quietly resolves to obey God’s commands even though it was his favorite son and even though it had been so hard for them to have children in the first place – he was basically killing everything he had asked for. Regardless of the situation, Abraham passes the test as he has not “withhold his son” and “favored God”. 

Overall I think both Abraham and God are praiseworthy; first of all, when Abraham puts God above his favorite son and is indeed ready to sacrifice his son, God proves to be merciful and stops him from doing so. Abraham shows absolute devotion to God and God pays him back by saving his son; and I think that the pure goodness is was makes them praiseworthy.

From the very first chapter of Genesis (1:1) and up until 11, the Bible seems to tell us about how humans have kept on disappointing the Lord and how we have not been able to meet His expectations on the world he created for us. The first sin of Genesis reflects the first mistake, of many, that human beings will make in the land of God; Adam and Eve ate from the tree they weren’t supposed to eat from, but were later punished and given a second chance. Similar to this, after Cain’s jealousy leads him to kill Abel, mankind is given a second chance with the birth of a third son Seth. 

Genesis 5 outlines the immortal generations that follow Cain and Seth and it is inevitable to see how after generations it is a member of Seth’s line, Noah, who will be given a second chance to purify mankind and warn humans about their corrupt behavior. During this time, the image of women has shifted to that of a trophy, and directly related to this, wars and violence between neighboring tribes arise.

It therefore makes sense that Genesis 6-9 portrays story on how a cleanse of the earth for ‘a new world order’ is ‘necessary and fitting’. God made man in his image and likeness and it looks like at that time, Noah was the only one that represents this statement. He was ‘divinely favored’ for his ‘righteousness and his simplicity and for walking with God’, and it is this that humanity should mimic and look like and provide hope for the future. Overall, God shows mercy with Adam and Eve but after so much desire to possess women and the corrupt and violent behavior of men, destroying the world seems like the best option from the eyes of the creator.