Responses for Foundations of Theology

The relationship between the Old and the New Testament in Scripture is one of fulfillment, as the narrative of Israel becomes fully drawn out through the person of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. A reading of the New Testament is incomplete without knowledge of the Old, or else the full meaning is lost. Similarly, a large part of what can be understood from the Old Testament depends on the fact that what happens is preparation for the future. While reading the first half of Scripture, it is important to consider “past moments of God’s providence and (see) in them the pattern of divine love to come” (“Scribes of the Kingdom” 2). Fulfillment in Scripture shows the pattern of God’s love “typified” in different, yet shared events. For example, when the Holy Family with the baby Jesus flees to Egypt, Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11: “out of Egypt I have called my son”. In this chapter of Hosea, God liberates his people while being among them, or in other words, as Emmanuel. Clearly, this passage is especially appropriate to know when reading into the significance of Jesus’ role as the Son of God and fulfiller. When examining the Gospels more closely, it becomes simple to find the references to the same elements that are present in the Old Testament. For example, the detailed genealogy of Christ shows his relationship to David and the patriarchs. Taking an ancestral view, Jesus has the “royal” lineage necessary to be king, which the Israelites had long awaited. Kingship and God’s kingdom are heavily emphasized (Lk 1:32-3) in giving legitimacy to Christ’s birth, which makes sense when considering how insistent the Israelites had been for a king previously in an effort to be like the “other nations”. In addition, Mary uses covenant language in her acceptance of her role as “favored” in the eyes of God: “May your word to me be fulfilled”, she says (Lk 1:38). God chooses Mary in a similar way to his choosing of Abraham or Moses.

Moses and the Israelites were not perfect people. There are many instances in Exodus and Numbers where they each failed to trust in God or lacked hope. For example, when Moses sends out the twelve spies to explore the land and seek out its inhabitants, ten of the twelve who returned did not think it would be possible for them to conquer the people who lived in the land with “milk and honey”. Because of their disbelief, they were banned from entering the promised land. Caleb and Aaron, the other two spies, held out hope in the Lord and as a result were allowed to enter the promised land. We see time and time again in the Bible narratives when God rewards those who trust in him despite the circumstances. Moses was condemned to not enter the promised land when he struck the rock with his staff instead of doing as God had commanded and simply allow God to bring water forth from it without striking it. This is why Moses died as a strong, healthy man on the cusp of leading his nation into the promised land. After he dies, Joshua takes leadership of the nation and the Pentateuch ends. In my opinion, the core part of the Old Testament ends here for two reasons. First, Moses was such an influential patriarch of the Israelites that the nation was fundamentally changed after his death. Second, once they entered the promised land, God’s people had a different identity now that they had a territory of their own. Deuteronomy 34 emphasizes “the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (34:12). The writers seem to suggest no leader of God’s people would become as close to God as Moses was, at least until God sent his only Son in the New Testament.

Biblical notions of purity make more sense when placed in comparison to cultural norms in place a the time of its writing, or to other primeval religions. Purity is a wholeness of being, while impurity chips away at a person and breaks them down. From Leviticus, we can take purity to go hand-in-hand with “physical perfection”, according to Mary Douglas (52). Purity signifies a lack of a single blemish and places one within a larger order. Douglas uses the example of dirt to illustrate that anywhere we see “dirt”, there is also systematic ordering in place. The laws in place in Leviticus seem especially stringent, or even unnecessary for a well-meaning individual. However, God puts these purity laws in place for a people living in sin, who need to be subject to some kind of order. They are a move toward a re-ordered creation which will eventually be restored in his Son, Jesus. This explains why, for Catholics, these ancient purity laws are no longer necessary for right relationship with God. Today, we often think of the daily practices we undertake for maintaining purity as decent hygiene. In ancient times, purity practices were strongly symbolic, and often meant to preserve class structures in society. Our understanding of medicine and disease transmission has obviously changed drastically since Biblical times, and most could argue that symbolic rituals have no place in a modern society. Heavy topics such as adultery, homosexuality, and gender relations are dealt with in much different ways than they would be discussed today. We must be able to make the distinction between moral, natural law and cultural, historical law. However, when placed in proper historical context, a reading of Leviticus helps readers of any age on their path to holiness, and allows us to understand how important it is to attain ultimate companionship with God.

The question of “Who is God?” seems simple at first: he is a divine being, apart from humanity in his omnipotence and omniscience. This understanding is basic, but fails to capture the totality of how God interacts with man and his role in our lives. Joseph Ratzinger attempts to answer this question by tracing how humans have sought out God and their motivations for doing so. He is also heavily interested in the Biblical comprehension of God, which probably represents what many people today believe about God. For example, in Exodus, when Moses directly asks who God is, God reveals himself but in a way that has raised even more questions. His reply of “Yahweh” has led people down many paths in seeking an answer to what at first appeared to be a straightforward question. God seeks interaction with the human race which he created, or in other words, is a “personal” God. The initial definition of a divine superhuman being does not convey this aspect of Him. Another important characteristic many definitions lack is God’s inherent goodness. In human language, good is an adjective to describe something that is beneficial or pleasing. However, in somewhat different terms, God is good itself, the source of all good. He is the beginning and end of good, and through him all other goodness flows. This is why when people naturally seek things that are good for them, they are demonstrating man’s necessary and inevitable search for God. Even further, this search explains why in today’s culture it is common to see people idolize things like money, power, and pleasure as God-like figures in their life. We want God, and need him, so it is critical that we are able to understand this goal we are all reaching for if we want to be successful in our journey toward Him.

The story of Joseph and his brothers is a story of jealousy, rivalry, and ultimately, egos clashing against one another. After Joseph finds a high position of power in Egypt, he struggles to forgive his brothers and instead seeks to punish them for their previous wrongs against him. By planting the silver cup inside Benjamin’s sack, he is framing him for a crime that could be punished severely. Joseph could likely enslave all of his brothers because of such a theft, but instead is moved by Judah’s pleading and show of love for his brother. In effect, Joseph seeks to take advantage of God’s mercy in bringing him out slavery and do to his brothers the same thing they had done to him. Joseph has let his status at the “beloved son” go to his head and used his power for bad. The response by the brothers is profound in that they reverse the cycle of revenge. Benjamin becomes isolated from the rest of the group because the cup is found in his belongings. At this point, they are faced with a similar decision as the one at the “beginning of the tale”, on whether or not to “rid themselves of a favored sibling” (Andersen 208). Interestingly, Judah comes to the aid of Benjamin, the same brother who first came up with the idea to sell Joseph into slavery (see Gn 37:27). Judah and the rest of their brothers have become freed of the envy which crippled their love for their brother Joseph. The relationship between Joseph and his brothers had been injured, but God shows through the story forgiveness is possible in any situation. Brother-on-brother conflict again shows itself as a prominent theme within the stories of the patriarchs, from the fratricide of Abel, to the stealing of Esau’s birthright, and finally here in the enslavement of Joseph.

The brotherly relationship between Jacob and Esau has a lot more complications than in the one between Cain and Abel. Jacob and Esau are twins, and more information is given about their feuds. Cain acts against Abel in a fit of rashness, while we learn more about the premeditation and methodical nature of Jacob and Esau’s fighting. Jacob and Esau begin to wrestle even before they are born, which in some way foreshadows Jacob’s future wrestling match with an angel. I found this passage filled with mystery and brings up several unanswerable questions, depending on one’s interpretation. For example, is Jacob making the right decision to seek forgiveness from Esau? Is forgiveness always possible? Of course, who is this unnamed angel? According to Kass, a “purely symbolic” interpretation would offer Jacob’s real opponent as “his conscience or his fears”. This is compelling, but the keen description of the real physical injuries that Jacob suffers at the hands of his opponent suggest something more. Jacob and Esau’s relationship had been an intentionally physical one from the start. For instance, Jacob had been grasping his brother Esau’s heel at birth. The physicality of their relationship brings to mind once again the physical attack Cain brought against Abel. Neither Jacob or the man he fights seems to really win in the end. Jacob, I believe, learns something about himself after the encounter and his hip injury. For us, we are taught to never go about things alone, and we know it is impossible to do much of anything at all without invoking God. The opponent could be his inner self, or maybe it is even Esau seeking revenge. In any case, Jacob comes away a changed man and he and his brother are able to make amends in the following chapter.

The question “What is religion?” is unanswerable for many scholars and adherents, according to William Cavanaugh. He finds that more often than not, people will avoid the question or provide answers riddled with inaccuracies. Cavanaugh admits that religion has “fuzzy edges”, but uses this point to give reasons for why it should not be considered inherently violent (3). He points out what religion is not more than giving an explicit definition of what it is. More than anything, he pushes us to realize that the bad things we attribute to religion, such as war and unnecessary violence, are results of other idealized institutions like American patriotism. Today, people consider religion to be many things, and usually anything that helps us answer our “ultimate” questions. Religion is the vehicle many people use to discover the deepest truths about reality. While it is true that it often takes the form of a set of beliefs, a religion is the expression of one’s use of faith and reason together. It sums up all of other inquiries under one overarching discipline. A religion gives people a reason for every other pursuit in life. In many instances, one’s religion aids them in their pursuit of God or any higher power which is outside of this world. Religion guides people’s moral compasses, and instructs them on how to make ethical decisions. For example, Cavadini explains how the Catholic Church’s “‘preferential option for the poor'” is rooted primarily in a belief in God, not particularly based in a doctrine about the poor. Religion is a problem for many people because in most cases it calls us to radically transform one’s life. As a result, society is quick to blame religion for its ills, even if other institutions should be held responsible.

In religion, faith is necessary for total belief in God, if we are taking our understanding of God seriously. Faith aids reason, and in some ways, faith fills in the gaps of knowledge. Wilken finds it necessary to define terms, and asks readers to reconsider what one really means when they use the words “knowledge” and “belief”. He argues that few instances of knowledge occur without a reliance on what many might label as faith. For example, “The knowledge of an event that happened in the past … is always indirect and dependent on someone else’s world” (169). The events of Jesus Christ and the ways God has worked in the world are mostly based on historical accounts, which always depend on witnesses. In other words, some “faith” in these witnesses is required to even claim knowledge on any historical subject. Wilken furthers his position by stating that “(i)n matters of religion it is reasonable to begin by following” (174). Faith is unavoidable for many because it is the vehicle by which many believers can even begin to search for a deeper knowledge in religion. After he identifies the importance of authority and its requirement for faith, Wilken argues “there can be no knowledge of God without faith, for faith is the distinctive way we know God” (179). Faith is beneficial for true belief because it turns one’s adherence to religion from knowing the existence of God to seeing his involvement in one’s life. Faith and knowledge are complimentary and often cannot work without the other. In many cases, one cannot foster knowledge without first grappling with faith. And even when one finds knowledge of God, the search was in vain if they do not reach even further on the basis of their faith in him.

Abraham had an unwavering faith in the Lord, who had promised him a nation of offspring and to make his name great. Like Noah, Abraham had showed total obedience to God, and was willing to follow his instructions even while unable to predict the outcome. God had rewarded Abraham by making a covenant with him, and coming to him in a dream. So when God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son in Genesis 22, the son who had been born out of a miracle of God, Abraham does not hesitate in trusting God. His decision to sacrifice Isaac is just another indication of Abraham’s ultimate trust in God which he had already shown. In 22:5 and 22:8, Abraham is unsure of what God has in mind, and so he speaks figuratively. His sacrifice will be an act of worship, to be sure, and his son is meant to be the sacrificial lamb. God is seeking to bring about a greater good with his proposal for the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Obviously, Isaac is not ultimately killed, but Abraham is able to trust in God freely, without any assurance from God of what may result from killing his son. Abraham’s exercise of trust is much more complete and fulfilling when it is done by his own free will than if God had forced him to make a sacrifice. Abraham can be honored for his virtue of obedience, and God is also praiseworthy for bringing about these virtues in us. The story of Abraham is the continuation of Noah’s, but lived out more completely. Readers see how fully committed one can be to the Lord, and the great gifts He bestows on us when we choose to follow his will. Abraham’s love for God was above anything else in his life, and his sacrifices to the Lord were genuine and freely acted.

In Genesis 4-11, God’s creation of man and the natural world shifts from fall and corruption to a rebirth through the saving of Noah. The causes that contributed to the Fall only grow larger after Adam and Eve are banished from Eden. Cain kills Abel in a sin of jealousy, which leaves two lines to continue on the human race after Adam. The descendants of Cain and those of Seth are from two distinct lines. According to Kass, Cain’s line makes up the “sons of God” while Seth’s line “carries the daughters of men” (157). When these two lines mixed, corruption ensues as the “god-like men” procreated with women. Adam and Eve sinned because they desired to be like God, and we see after the Fall this motivation continues. Humans lived extremely long lives compared to modern times, and so they perceived themselves as immortal, at least before Noah was born after Adam’s death. This contributed to the corruption of the earth and the atmosphere of lawlessness which led God to “repent” of his Creation. Men were unable to grasp their own mortality, and so they regularly committed sins of pride, lust, and greed in an effort to behave as they believed a “god” might. The story of Noah offers God’s remedy to this issue of mortality and a loss of innocence. Noah was born after the first man, Adam, died. This means he knew of man’s eventual death since birth. He was chosen by God for his simplicity and innocence, not because he was a powerful leader who was most like God himself. He was not the “hero” the men of the age would have identified, nor was Noah interested in the pursuit of beauty which consumed the proud, corrupted men. Noah was truly human, and embraced his humanity by obeying God and allowing him to restore order to the hierarchy of man and God.