Jesus says that he has not come to abolish the Law (Mt 5:17) and yet, no Christian keeps the Law as would a faithful Jew. Using the biblical texts assigned and the two accompanying readings which I wrote, please explain this seeming contradiction.

That Jesus says he has not come to abolish the Law, yet no Christian keeps the Law like a faithful Jew, seems a bit contradictory. Based on the readings, it is clear that Jesus does not mean to abolish the previous Law. He is the anti-type of the Law, which inherently means he is its fulfillment, not abandonment. According to the “Sermon on the Mount” reading, the Law is often “adjusted” to fit the context of a particular time or a particular people. Perhaps in modern times, the version of the Law from the Old Testament is deemed not as relevant in our modern world or cultural context. So, this could explain (not fully, however) this difference between Judaism and Christianity.

Jesus’s identity as Jewish seems to make this a bit more complicated, though. If Jesus is Jewish and therefore acts according to the Law, why is the way in which Christians follow the ways of Jesus different from the Laws given in the Old Testament?

Another possibility is that the Jewish interpretation of the Law is more strict and literal, whereas the Christian interpretation, in light of the presumably more important teachings of Jesus, is more metaphorical. In this case, the Law could be used as more of a guide to understanding the nature of God rather than a necessary set of actions for an individual or a people to take. The innate difference in this case would be that Christian interpretation focuses most heavily on Jesus and his life, instead of the Jewish tradition which still heavily adheres to the Law in its given form.

By “fulfillment,” Scripture does not mean to paint an exact image of the future, but instead “present the abiding form of God’s providence.” In this way, past events in the Old Testament can be turned too in the New Testament as a foretelling of things to come. To cite Hosea, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus flee to Egypt to escape the persecution of King Herod; they then return to the Land in a way that parallels God bringing the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and into the Land. In this way, Jesus is the direct fulfillment of past events and promises of God.

Further, “Israel, in times of crisis, looked to past moments of God’s providence and saw in them the pattern of divine love to come.” So God’s actions of the past set forth a precendent of His divine love and, with it, an expectation that He will act with such love again. Thus, any fulfillment of prophecy is not necessarily a repetition of past events or literal fulfillment of prophecy, but rather a general motif that allows us to anticipate the nature of God’s actions through those of the past.

As God promised previously, Jesus is a descendant of the house of David. The name “Emmanuel” also means “God is with us,” which fulfills the renewal promise of the covenant which said “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts….No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer 31:33-4). Jesus is now within the people in human form, and all are capable of knowing Him not simply through the prophets, but by knowing God Himself.

The wilderness generation is led to comdemnation because of their inability to see God’s grace given to them and their constant refutation of His will. They complain incessantly and do not listen to Moses. Their ungratefulness leads to their condemnation. Moses’ downfall is questioning God and trying to bargain with Him and getting caught up in the “red tape” of how society is structured. For example, God says He will destroy the people Moses led out of Egypt due to their unfaithfulness, and Moses counters by telling God why He shouldn’t do that, but instead should destroy the people not all at once. By doing this Moses is questioning God and telling Him how to act. Moses also becomes disheartened and asks God to end his life and duty to the Israelites, so in this way he is not being his brother’s keeper, so to speak.

I think the Pentateuch closes with the death of Moses outside of the Promised Land as a symbol that man lives by God’s will alone. Moses was God’s elect chosen to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land, but Moses did not complete this task single-handedly. It was only through God that the Israelites were led to the Promised Land, and God completes this point by ending Moses’ journey before entrance into the Promised Land.

Joshua is like Moses in that he leads the Israelites and carries out God’s will to bring this group into the Promised Land. God also appears to Joshua, and much like Moses, tells him to remove his sandals because he stands on holy ground. Deuteronomy 34 prefaces the happenings in Joshua by saying that “Joshua son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands on him…” (34:9). This phrasing indicates that Joshua becomes wise as a successor of Moses only due to Moses’ blessing. God works through Moses and also through Joshua, but Deuteronomy 34:10 states that “Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face….” This sets up our reading of Joshua by saying that while Joshua was very important and also leads the Israelites into the Promised Land, he is not on the same level as Moses, with whom God interacted with face-to-face.

Purity is holiness that is a whole and complete. Much of Leviticus deals with physical perfection, as the physical body was thought to exemplify one’s wholeness/act as a “perfect container” (53). Further, in a social context, “mixing” between social classes insinuated a confusion of order. Therefore, such mixing could be seen as a lack of wholeness or impurity because it disturbed the order which God instructed His people to keep. I think the context of “social classes” here is important, though, because I would think (and hope) it is more of a distinction between God’s people vs. pagans, for example, not classes delimited by wealth.

God requires the maintenance of purity not simply as a contruct, but because the laws regarding purity reveal a deeper truth about how God created us to live. Regarding hygiene, for example, as Douglas puts it, “Dirt offends against order. Removing it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organise the environment” (2). This relates to God’s prescribed duty for us — creating and ordering. The laws regarding cleanliness are not like those of a primitive religion, where acts of bathing and cleaning are done to ward off spirits (33). However, it can also be said that our western practices of hygiene are not purely a means to reduce dirt/germs based on medical knowledge/aesthetics; they are just as symbolic as cultural practices in Japan that involve removing leather sandals and washing the feet before entering a temple or house. Our standards of hygiene and beauty revolve heavily around social norms, which are engrained in our pysche from the time we are born. Adhering to a certain hygienic norm is a symbol of the culture in which one lives in this way. Therefore, it could be considered a sign of holiness and worship to adhere to the purity laws which God puts forth.

So, the logic of the laws we encounter relating to purity is that they are a social regulation the embodies God’s will to His people on Earth. In this way, followers of God are keeping His will as well as distinguishing themselves from non-believers through their actions.

Who is God?

God is, in the most general sense, the unity and oneness which humans strive towards. As Anderson points out, this notion is not limited to monotheism. Polytheism and atheism also agree that the “absolute” is united and unique, though each differs in the belief of the manner in which humans and the absolute are in relation. For polytheism, there is one Being that stands behind a multiplicity of Gods, and for atheism, all being is united in that it is matter. Humans, by our very nature, strive for a being-in-relation with an absolute, and that absolute is God.

From the reading in Exodus and Anderson, God is established as “I am who I am.” Although this can seem almost like a refusal to answer and reveal His identity, it is in fact much more profound. By using the verb “to be,” God then becomes not something that can be pinned down with an encompassing name, so to speak, but more of a concept that is not to be defined explicitly. Further, as Anderson explains, the word “am” functions as a negative theology by “[cancelling] out the significance of the name as a name…. It dissolves the name into mystert, so that the familiarity and unfamiliarity of God, concealment and revelation, are indicated simultaneously” (128).

The “El” in Isra-el tells us that God is a personal god, that is, “He is not anywhere in particular; he is to be found at any place where man is and where man lets himself be found by him” (123). In this way, God is established by His relationship with us, His creation, which makes sense given that humans are inherently social animals. Further, the “being” of God is not left at just “being,” but it instead is a “Being for” (129). God unmistakenly establishes himself in loving relationship with us, and this is brought to fruition in the person of Jesus. Thus, the name “I am” becomes a person, and further, He becomes one of us, “standing in coexistence with us” (135).

Joseph plants the silver cup in Benjamin’s bag as test for his brothers. He wants to ultimately see if their hearts have changed from when they sold Joseph, the favored son of Jacob. In a similar situation, Benjamin is Jacob’s favorite of the sons, and when faced with the same opportunity to ride themselves of the favored son out of spite and jealousy as they did with Joseph, they choose to stand by Benjamin. In fact, Judah even says that the brothers cannot return to Jacob without Benjamin, and they will only return home with Benjamin. Here they are acting not for their own interest, but that of their father and family community, and hence, common good.

Jospeh’s story follows the familiar narrative of death and resurrection. His death is being abandoned, and he is resurrected though providing for himself and being righteous instead of allowing himself to be consumed by hatred or the desire to seek revenge.

This relates to Joseph’s status as the beloved son because he values virtue (selflessness) and is forgiving. Especially given that his brothers abandoned him, he could have acted out of spite and punished them, but he instead chose to test if they had changed and then forgives them for their wrongdoing, even though they do not ask for this forgiveness.

I believe that in the account of Jacob’s wrestling, he is wrestling God or an angel of God. As Kass points out, this is the only time since the beginning of Genesis in the Garden of Eden that a character is said to be “alone,” which could mean that Jacob was alone before God. I think this encounter signifies Jacob being tested to be worthy of being called God’s elect. After his trial, Jacob is rename “Israel,” and as we have seen previously, renaming signifies an important change in that person, such as Abraham’s transformation from Abram. Perhaps as a result of being challenged and persevering, Jacob is blessed and therefore his name is changed and he is worthy of being blessed by God. In this sense, I believe it is Jacob who wins, but the thing won is not simply a wrestling match, but God’s blessing.

What is religion?

Dictionary.com defines religion as “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

I think this definition hits on the main points of the traits that characterize religion: a belief system and moral code, usually including a deity of some sort, and dealing with the nature of creation/purpose of the universe. I, admittedly, have previously not given a whole lot of thought to the defining religion. I guess you could say I had a similar viewpoint as mentioned in the William Cavanaugh reading of Charles Kimball: “we all know it when we see it.” But what this reading brings to light is the importance of distinguishing religion from different, otherwise similarly set up, belief systems.

Other definitions of religion found online vaguely state that religion is a set of beliefs agreed upon by a group of people. I think a definition such as this is rather shallow, and as is the grievance in the reading by William Cavanugh, this base definition could be applied to any number of things, including a locale’s laws or the concept of nationalism. So, religion is more than simply a set of beliefs agreed upon by a group, even including rituals and written documents. As the reading points out, political systems also have written laws and political rites.

The difference of religion is that the subject matter with which it deals is often of a mystical or spiritual nature, and it usually relates to either creation and purpose of the universe, human purpose (such as attainment of an enlightened state, communion with God, etc.), or both. Even in saying this, though, it is important to note that perhaps any definition of religion will not be all-encompassing, and some traits of religions may be shared with non-religious belief systems. I do not think there is any singular definition that will fit “religion,” as a concept, neatly into a box.

According to Wilken, faith is unavoidable because all knowledge requires faith. Considering faith and belief are essentially synonomous, knowledge of any sort requires belief, and therefore, faith. Wilken argues that “the knowledge of an event that happened in the past, as well as of an event that takes place in one’s own time at a place distance from oneself, is always indirect and dependent on someone else’s word” (169). This also suggests that knowledge, with faith and belief, is dependent on trusting the source of given information. In the time of Augustine, the word authority captured the connotation of one who guaranteed the validity of a legal document, or one who could ensure authenticity of information. This is why encouragement of accepting authority is prevalent in older texts, though the connotation of the word has changed today, causing some to rebel against “authority” as a restrictive entity.

In the same vain, faith is beneficial because a world without faith/belief in authority “not only severs the fragile bond of trust that binds people together, it makes learning impossible” (171). A world without faith descend relatively quickly into anarchy. Further, those who advocate for reason at the expense of faith overlook the important fact that all information for learning is passed from teacher to student, which requires the student’s faith in his or her teacher. Openness to learning through faith, not autonomous reason, is the way to establish a more encompassing knowledge, not just in a theological sense, but in a general sense as well.

I think Abraham agrees to the request made of him by God, namely, to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, because he is trusting in God. God has promised to make Abraham’s descendants numerous, and Abraham believes Him, as he has been taught multiple times throughout preceding chapters in Genesis to not try to take God’s plan into his own hands, but trust God and He will deliver. An example of this is when Abraham decides to have a child with Hagar as a result of God’s promise for children, yet God must reiterate that Abraham will have a child with his wife, Sarah. God delivers on this promise, thus Abraham learns to trust God without interfering with His plan. I think this is the reason Abraham follows through when God requests he give Isaac as an offering.

At first glance, it does appear that Abraham is lying in 22:5 and 22:8, but perhaps there is something more to this. Maybe Abraham believes that God will spare his son, or maybe he is speaking in metaphors to indicate that God will provide for us. The text, as written, does not give the reader a glimpse into Abraham’s thought process. He is likely agonizing over this decision, but this information is not given.

I think God’s intention with making Abraham go through with this ordeal is to test the strength of his belief in God’s promise. God gave Abraham his son, and Abraham should view Isaac as a gift from God; it would be beyond his realm of control to try to prevent God from acting on His will. God is ensuring that Abraham has not lost sight of his dependence on God.

I believe Abraham is praiseworthy in his following of God’s command without flinching. Although it is difficult to say he is praiseworthy in attempting to sacrifice his son if the text is taken at face value and interpreted literally.