Throughout the Old Testament there are discernable patterns to which all lead to the culmination of God’s promises with the birth of Jesus. While they are instances where direct prophecies are announced, most of scripture shapes what is to come. They are open-ended templates for fulfillment. As with Matthew’s citation of prophet Hosea, “Out of Egypt I have called my son,” they are in anticipation of divine intervention. With the knowledge of the Old Testament intertwined throughout the New Testament, there is a sense of deferral. Read in the shadow of the Exodus out of Egypt, there is a build up to another Exodus: one from sin and death. 

Just in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew alone, allusions to the Old Testament support this new deliverance. Just as in the closing of Deuteronomy with the death of Moses, there is mention of another prophet who once again will know God. In Ezekiel 25 it is prophesied that idolatry will be eliminated as there will only be rule under God. As Jesus is born under the name Emmanuel meaning “God with us,” the promises of the past conclude within him- and stretch beyond him. As his genealogy is listed starting with Abraham, there is a sense of finality with Jesus as “there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah” (Mt 1:17). All of those prophets, and their corresponding declines, are ingrained in the son of God alone as he acts as the redeemer. Therefore as the birth of Christ is chronicled, we are forced to look back on the past as well as what is to come through his presence.

Numbers is a brash example of how God intends to make Israel into a great nation- at great expense. Despite raising the Isarelites out of their slavery in Egypt in Egypt they take it for granted, complaining before the Lord. Mundane aspects of everyday life, like eating manna, are despised. The people do not listen to the word of Moses and question his leadership, directly questioning God’s word. When God instructs Moses to speak to a rock and then hit it with his staff to produce water, he does so frustrated. That is why Moses, along with those he originally drew out of Egypt, must die before entering the Holy Land. 

The whole of Israel must start a new through Joseph Only when God stops his wrath when people express their zeal, such as when Aaron runs into the crowd as penance. It is in God’s mercy that his love is shown. Moses has done what God required of him, and instructs the Israelites: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:6). Joshua, like Moses, must lead the people into the new land past other conquerors and hurdles. He carries on the Lord’s laws as a constant reminder to trust in the Lord. As Deuteronomy closes, it is said that no other prophet since had ever seen God “face-to-face.” The death of Moses is the death of the lineage of the original elected sons of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Joshua will be different, fearing God in a way that is unlike his predecessors while Israel enters the Holy Land. While Israel will always remain God’s state, they will constantly struggle before finding His grace. 

Purity is being in accordance with the natural order. The idea of purity stretches beyond that which is clean- to a coherence with social standards. As Mary Douglas writes in Purity and Danger, dirt is “matter out of place… it is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter, insofar as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements” (36). Humans were created with the intention of carrying on God’s work, done through naming and ordering over his dominion. For something to not be pure then it is in violation with our God-given task. Purity is guiltless and innocent. Therefore, treating your body under the standards of purity, it is abiding by order. God requires the maintenance of purity as it corresponds with one’s worship. There is a deliberate care when one eats food, that is done under God’s blessing. Part of reestablishing the Eden of Genesis 1 is walking along with God and his creatures. It is also respecting His creation and the rules he set- an act of trust. So when God establishes the specific eating rituals, it is an extension of following his lead. 

The food laws prohibit the consumption of foods that do not abide by the natural order. For example, we are not to eat the “various winged insects that walk on all fours” (11:20). As each category is described, it is followed by banning the anomaly to the group. While eating these foods do not directly pollute the person, it is their action of proliferating “dirt” and disorder. Douglas writes that “eliminating [dirt] is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organize the environment” (2). Following the food laws is acting with the intention to act within the social order, and God’s natural order.  

The term God can be used through more than one context. When Moses is told in the burning bush scene to spread His word and bring the Israelites out of Egypt, he is left with God saying, “I am who I am… I am who sent you.” In this passage of Exodus 3, God is a localized entity- a personal God. He does not require more of an explanation as designating Him with a name confers the meaning of the name. God thereby cannot be encapsulated in a singular term, therefore giving this ambiguous rebuff to Moses’ question. Here God is set apart from “Gods,” as a lone, omnipotent deity. As Foster says of His answer, “it dissolves the name into mystery, so that the familiarity and unfamiliarity of God, concealment and revelation, are indicated simultaneously” (128). 

Here is a disjunction between how our relationship with God could be perceived. In God’s dismissal of giving a name He sets himself apart, separate from those who he created in his image. But he also maintains himself as “The Lord, the God of your fathers- the God of Abraham, the God of Issac and the God of Joseph.” He is the universal father to which all others blessings have been received. There is a certain intimacy in naming the elect and drawing His name at a parallel. God enters into a “coexistence with them; he puts himself within their reach” (134). Entering into this relationship moves God away from being untouchable to something attainable- there is a hope that each person can one day understand the scope of what God means. God is above us and at the same time a part of us. He has the ability for immense sorrow and immense joy, yet is an unyielding constant presence in each of us.

Joseph plants the cup inside the bag of Benjamin as a test to the rest of his brothers. In the loss of Joseph, his maternal brother Benjamin, took on the full adoration of their father prizing the youngest born once more. Joseph who notices his brother’s absence concludes that his father has passed on this protection. The brothers would seemingly have the same level of resentment for Benjamin, the one who inherited their father’s love. That is why Joseph puts them in the same predicament that they were in twenty years prior: either desert a brother or act as one. Yet, reminded of the sin that launched their father into such dismay, Judah steps in. He offers himself up in the place of Benjamin, an act of selfless giving. Judah takes on the role of their father. It is in this act that Joseph begins to “weep” at the rekindling of his family. 

Joseph holds no resentment towards his brothers, he merely forgives as “it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you.” Similar to the other patriarchs in Genesis, Joseph is resurrected out of God’s divine will. Joseph was the elected; a choice not following along the traditional birth order. Joseph himself was astonished when Jacob, blind (similarly to Issac), asks to bless Ephraim alongside Manasseh “crossing his hands.” But just as Joseph was elected as the “son of his father’s old age,” and seemingly divine intervention, there comes a cost. As Anderson writes, “Joseph must die as a result of such favor.” God does not bestow his favor on everyone, as not everyone could endure the cost. Their destinies are god-willing; often placing them into either mental or physical isolation. That is how God resurrects them through their sacrifice.

Jacob, weighed down by the forthcoming confrontation with Esau, first forces himself in isolation on the night of his wrestling. He sends away his loved ones while he remains “left alone.” Jacob intentionally makes himself further forlorn- a choice of autonomy before he begins his struggle. Yet, out of the darkness, appears “a man,” purposefully left ambiguous as to his identity. The odd contrast between apparent isolation whilst being among the presence of this so-called man further hints at a mystery. Jacob never was truly alone, as God is always with him. That leads me to believe that the man was more than a representation of Jacob’s own demons or a fractured self; instead a apparention of the Lord. 

Then Jacob’s battle ensues. They “wrestled” until the day came. Wrestling as a form of combat provides an intimate encounter between the two. As Kass remarks wrestling “engages Jacob’s entire being, psychic as well as physical” and “simultaneously seeks closeness to and control over.”  The battle is much more than a contest of strength- persisting all night- it is a contest of will and mental endurance. Jacob and his adversary are equally matched after the man touched Jacob’s hip socket, impairing him. It is only until the man declares that it is daylight that the fight halts. Kass draws the parallel between Jacob and Esau’s birth and the rival’s want to be separated from Jacob, since “closeness goes with ignorance (or darkness), knowledge (light) requires separation.” 

While Jacob permanently limps after the battle, he gains a new name as a blessing after the fight. Given a new name, finding God’s grace, I would posit that Jacob ultimately wins. He emerges a more complete being- one that now has the ability to see Esau and ultimately forgive. Jacob was never alone, as God always was overseeing Jacob. Jacob saw God “face-to-face,” an intimate portrayal of God’s connection with this one man- a man created in His divine image.

To preface, this is my understanding of religion, one which cannot fully encapsulate the scope of all religious practices nor address every element of its worship. Religion- in a basic premise- is rooted in the belief that there is a divine entity, one that is deserving and worthy of praise. Religion implies a faith in that which can never be certain. It is a matter of driving one’s life according to a specific set of practices and praise, often outlined in scripture or holy texts. Religion governs a person’s being while also encouraging a sense of community. 

I believe that religion often is grounded in some form of reason. Professor Cavadini cites in his article “The Role of Theology at a Catholic University,” John Paul II’s description of the Catholic quest of seeking meaning as “Integration of knowledge is a process, one which will always remain incomplete.” Religion is specific to each individual- yet requires a general understanding that has been compounded by religious practices and interpretations over time. Merely believing in something larger, without proper intuition of its history, is where fanaticism, nationalism, and more can fall under religion’s umbrella. I agreed with Cavanugh’s idea that “faiths are any more inherently absolutist and violent than supposedly secular ideologies.” Although religion as a justification for violence is often proliferated throughout the media, there are many other environmental factors at play. Politcal factos, such as ending occupation of a homeland or capturing state rule often contribute to terrorism. 

Religion often comes down to each person’s own inquiry into problems that do not have a solution. It is an “attempt to this goodness as well as it can be understood, and to arrive at a notion of justice that flows from it.” Religion constantly evolves, while always being grounded in something beyond us.

Faith is unavoidable as faith attempts to answer the questions that perplex the whole of society. Humans inherently seek solutions, to feel as though they can reason and use logic to understand what confronts them. As Wilken’s describes with Augustine, there is a difference between the act of knowing and believing. No one can know for certain the events of the Bible, yet people have the ability to trust in it. Faith confers a trust in authority that was handed down through the actions of Abraham and onto the disciples. Trust is necessary as without it the “sacred bond of the human race would be shattered” (171). Human beings were made in communion- made not to just exist alongside one another but to depend on each other. Therefore, some level of trust is required as the feelings and words of another person can never be felt with absolute certainty. 

Faith, not being something concrete, must be developed and tended to just like any other form of knowledge. God does not immediately enter one’s heart fully and completely. There are inevitably points of doubt and points of exuberance. Our relationship and knowledge of God “sinks into the mind and heart slowly and hence requires apprenticeship.” The apprenticeship goes against blind faith, rather a trust in the love of others that in turn reveal God’s own love. It is not sudden or simple, nor should it be. Just like with any skill, faith requires constant tending to and a sense of hope to bind to. Loving goes beyond what is told. Wilkens explains it was through the coming of Christ that “the eye sees what the eye cannot see and the heart love what is not seen.” When the heart loves that which is not seen- that is faith- as it loving and trusting in the “mystery of God” (184).

God made the seemingly abhorrent request of Abraham- to sacrifice his son Issac- as the final test of his worship. Abraham follows his request up until the point where God himself shows mercy, allowing an animal to be sacrificed in the place of his “loved” son. Although the request appears brutal, God- and God alone- ultimately holds domain over the sanctity of human life. Had any other person issued the request or Abraham acted alone than there would be little separating him from that of Cain. In God’s initial address to Abram he declares, “I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth” (Gen. 13:14). God raised humanity from the dust and has the ability to return them to the ashes. Abraham, after establishing the covenant, is also reminded of God’s omnipotence after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But through the catastrophe, God once again shows mercy to those in kinship to Abraham as he saves Lot. Abraham, after observing God’s will and similar mercy, then obliges to the sacrifice with full understanding that God’s intentions are not his to judge. 

Then as Abraham goes up the mountain with Issac, he utters that they both would return and tells Issac that God will “provide the lamb” for the offering. If Abraham were to not say these things, then Issac could have run off or his servants prevented the sacrifice. Yet Abraham knows that God’s request cannot be judged under his own moral eye, therefore does what he must. Saying that they both would return, Abraham knew God would allow for a way that Issac would come back with him- rather in spirit or in body is left ambiguous. God is the only one that can proclaim what Abraham said a lie, and as he was acting in accordance with his command, Abraham’s comments were not in vain. After complying with God’s ultimate request, Abraham is once again shown mercy. Abraham and the Lord remain praiseworthy as God has no direct intention for Abraham to indeed kill his son and Abraham is acting in accordance with God’s will – with an unrelenting knowledge that God will find a way for them both to still prosper.

The creation story detailed in Genesis 1-3 continues on, plaguing the human race, continuing into Noah’s story of the ark. When Eve deliberately defies God, humans lose the inherent sense of innocence that God created them with. A fissure between God and the human race begins to widen with the story of Cain and Abel. Cain embodies evil with his action- acting alone just as Eve did. Eve broke the communion between her and Adam while Cain broke the relationship between him and his kinship. Therefore, as Cain’s offspring begin to populate God’s world, the evil he bred does as well. 

The story of Noah, however, more closely parallels the creation story of Genesis 1. Where the world was born out of water, God is cleansing the world in a flood. God’s creation- the birds and animals- are there cohabitating the world alongside humans. With the two of each animal, they are preserved beside Noah and his kin. Noah additionally embodies the pureness of Adam- before his corruption from eating from the Tree of Knowledge. He is described as a “righteous man” who “walked faithfully with God.” As Kass mentions in The Beginning of Wisdom, God specifically chose Noah instead of creating another race from scratch. Noah possessed the knowledge of death that Adam and his offspring did not- a knowledge that contributed to violence among men. 

The main difference between the new world order and the one of creation is Noah remains mortal. Noah is God’s servant on Earth, designated to carry on his commandments through his offspring. He does not seek to overcome God’s will- merely to live by it. The story of Noah offers optimism that mankind can now live under God’s rule while simultaneously demonstrating his omnipotence to punish those who defy him.