Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Leithart

Home
Evangelical
Romans 9

Romans 9

Last updated on: September 7, 2017 at 12:02 am by Peter Leithart

Romans 9 2017-09-07T00:02:57+06:00 Peter Leithart

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Some of this repeats notes from last week, but then moves beyond.

WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL?
The ringing affirmations of chapter 8, that those who are in Christ cannot be lost to Christ leads directly into Paul?s discussion of Israel in chapter 9. He is not beginning a new topic. He has said that nothing can separate us from Christ, that God will never forsake His elect. But similar promises were also given to Israel. In fact, as Schreiner points out, all the promises that Paul speaks of in Romans 8 were initially given to Israel ?Ethe Spirit, resurrection, sonship, a future inheritance, election by God (cf. 9:4-5). And Yahweh had said that Israel should be confident in His unchanging love for her: ?Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them, for Yahweh your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you?E(Deuteronomy 31:6). But, as Paul says in anguish at the beginning of Romans 9, this same Israel, ?to whom belongs . . . the promises?E(9:4) is not sharing in the fulfillment of these promises through the Messiah.

The defection of Israel from her Messiah raises two related problems. First, there is the problem of theology proper: What kind of God are we dealing with if Israel is abandoned? How can anyone rely on this God to keep His promises if He hasn?t kept His promises to Israel? Second, there is the problem of assurance: How can we really believe that we cannot be separated from the love of God in Christ when that appears to be what has happened to Israel? How can we be sure that the adoption and the glory and the promises are ours forever when they earlier belonged to Israel yet were lost?

Paul?s answers to these questions occupies him throughout the following three chapters. Let me note several overall perspectives on these chapters. First, the way that Paul constructs the argument of these chapters is striking. As Philip Esler points out, ?A striking feature of chapters 9-11 . . . is that 39 percent of the text consists of scripture quotations, with such frequency being approached nowhere else in the Pauline corpus. In addition, 51 of the 89 scripture quotations in Paul?s letters occur in Romans.?E A number of scholars (notably Hays and Watson) have demonstrated that Paul is fundamentally a theologian of Scripture, and these chapters are among the most thoroughly Scriptural chapters in Paul?s letters. That is no doubt due largely to the topic, which has to do with the question of Israel.

Along similar lines, the tone of these chapters is crucial to note. Paul?s rhetorical stance is very personal. Paul ultimately talks about Israel, or at least some in Israel, as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, hardened as Pharaoh was hardened at the exodus. But that does not prevent him from anguishing over the apostasy of his people. Esler notes that this personal dimension is stressed not only in the opening verses of chapter 9, but also at the beginning of chapter 10 (?Brethren, my heart?s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation?E and of chapter 11 (?I say then, God has not rejected His people, has he? May it never be!?E. In the middle of chapter 11, in what is one of the key moments in the discussion, Paul again refers to his own ministry (vv. 13-14). This chapter is not a piece of dry and impersonal theology. Paul freely describes his own pain and pity for the nation of Israel. In this, Paul is like Moses and like Jesus. Moses affirmed the justice of God?s punishments of a stiff-necked people, but also pleaded passionately for mercy. Jesus knew that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed, and that the blood of all the martyrs was going to be reckoned to Jerusalem?s account. Yet, that did not prevent him from weeping over the city.

Second, it is important to notice that Paul is dealing with a turn of events in the history of ancient Judaism. He is not talking about a defection from God that would happen many centuries later. And that suggests the likelihood that his answers to the problem of this defection have to do with things that were happening in his time. This is specifically evident in the role of ?jealousy?Ein this passage. Part of his answer to the question of what God is doing to Israel is in terms of Deuteronomy 32. He says that ?by [the Jews?] transgression salvation to the Gentiles, to make them jealous?E(11:11). This is sometimes interpreted as a jealousy that would develop among Jews after centuries of Gentile prosperity. But Paul makes it clear that his own first-century ministry already intends to provoke the Jews to jealousy (11:13-14). In short, these hints suggest that the prophecies he makes here about the Jews pertain to the first generation of the church and not to a conversion of the Jews that is still future to us.

Third, chapter 9 is a classic chapter in Reformed theology, stressing God?s absolute sovereignty over salvation and damnation, over hardening and softening of hearts, over the clay with which He makes His human pottery. Reformed theology is right to come to this passage to meditate on those issues. But we shouldn?t come to chapter 9 as if it were a piece of systematic theology. It is part of Paul?s preaching of the gospel, and his explanation God?s dealings with Israel in the first century. If we come to this passage and formulate a doctrine of decrees without recognizing that Paul?s concern is rooted in events of history, we?ll distort the passage and the doctrine.

ROMANS 9:1-5
Paul makes an apparently abrupt transition at the beginning of chapter 9. Certainly, it is an abrupt transition in tone. From the ecstatic confidence of chapter 8, he moves to the anguish of chapter 9. It is a new and melancholic movement in the symphony that is Romans.

One of the oddities of these opening verses is the lengths to which Paul goes to assure the Romans that he is being truthful about his anguish for the Jews. The first word of the chapter is ?truth?E(Gr. aletheia; literally, ?truth I say?E, and he reiterates the positive claim that he is telling the truth with the negative claim that he is not lying. The phrase ?in Christ?Ewithin this context takes almost the form of an oath ?Ehe is speaking in Christ, in the name of Christ. Commentators point out that Paul often speaks of the Spirit and occasionally of the conscience, but nowhere does he bring them into such close proximity to each other, so that they become ?co-witnesses?E(Gr. summartyreo).

Why does he need to stress this so much? A number of possibilities present themselves. First, he is no doubt responding to the explicit or implicit charge that his ministry among the Gentiles means that he has lost interest in Israel. He is accused in Jerusalem of preaching ?to all men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this place?E(Acts 21:28), and he makes the most dramatic and solemn response that he can to that false charge. He is not anti-Jewish. He is, as he claims elsewhere, the advocate of true Judaism (cf. Romans 2:28-29). It?s also possible, as NT Wright suggests, that the Roman church experienced an influx of Jews after the death of Claudius in 54 AD (Claudius had driven all Jews from Rome, Acts 18:2). With the Jews returning, Jewish/Gentile tensions within the church might have begun to heat up (this might be in the background of ch. 14). Further, the presence of Jews might well have concerned Gentiles because of the rising tension between Jews and Romans in Palestine. Wright notes: ?by the late 50s there was increasing tension in Judea and Galilee. The crisis over Gaius?s plan to set up his statue in the Temple had passed, but revolutionary fervor had not waned, and successive governors seemed to go out of their way to provoke rebellion. Any Jew hearing news of this would feel involved, even hundreds of miles away across the Mediterranean. Any Gentile Christians in Rome . . . would be eager to distance themselves from any sense of complicity with the impending revolt?E(Romans,
p. 623). This is of course speculative, but seems a plausible construction of things, particularly if the ?birth pangs?Ethat Paul has mentioned in 8:22 are the same as the birth pangs mentioned in Jesus?EOlivet Discourse.

That?s one oddity. There is another. Paul goes to great lengths to establish the truth of what he says, and he expresses himself in intensely emotional terms, but he never actually tells us what it is he?s in anguish about. He moves from describing his own anguish into expressing his wish to be accursed for the sake of Israel into a description of Israel?s privileges, without once telling us what has provoked his anguish. The answer is obvious, and his anguish is made all the more evident by its absence. It is as if the reality is too painful for him to state, though he does raise the question directly at 11:1.

His anguish is such that he ?could wish?Ethat he himself were ?anathema from Christ?Efor the sake of his fellow Jews. ?Anathema?Eis used in the LXX to translate ?herem,?Ethe Hebrew word describing a war of total destruction or something totally dedicated to Yahweh (Leviticus 27:28; Deuteronomy 7:28; 13:17; Joshua 6:17; 7:11). Something ?devoted?Ecould be devoted to Yahweh?s use, but Paul uses the term negatively (so Schreiner, citing 1 Corinthians 12:3; 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9). Like Moses on the mountain, Paul offers himself in the place of the rebellious people, the people who have begun to sport with idols while Moses is detained on the mountain. Imitating his Lord Jesus, Paul ?could wish?Ethat he would be cut off from Christ if that would be sufficient to save his brothers.

Paul lists the privileges that Israel has received throughout her history. They are ?Israelites,?Ewho bear the name of Jacob their father. And as Israelites they share in multiple privileges. There are 8 items in the list, culminating in the ?eighth,?Ethe Messiah. Interestingly, nearly every one of these items has been already mentioned in Romans, but as gifts to those who are in Christ and not gifts to ethnic Jews. Paul has just finished talking about the adoption given to those who receive the Spirit (8:15, 23), and the glory that will be bestowed on those sons (8:21). This is the first use of the word ?covenant?Ein Romans, but certainly the promises of God are said to be given over to those who are of the faith of Abraham (ch. 4). The Law was given to Israel, but did them no good; rather, those who receive the Spirit and walk in it fulfill the requirement of the law (8:4). Abraham is not father of the circumcision only, or of all the circumcision; he is the father of those who imitate his faith, and Christ of course belongs to those who are in Him.

Schreiner raises the question here and throughout his exposition of whether Paul is talking about historical privileges for Israel or whether Paul is talking about Israel?s eschatological salvation. He answers that ?What torments Paul is that so many of his fellow Jews are unsaved.?E While ?some scholars claim that Paul is concerned only about the historical destiny of Israel in 9:6-23,?ESchreiner stresses that ?the historical destiny that concerns Paul relates to the salvation of Israel. The wording used in 9:6b-29 confirms that the issue at the forefront of Paul?s mind in these verses relates to salvation, not merely to historical destiny?E(Romans, p. 481). It is certainly true that Paul is concerned about something more than the survival or prosperity of an ethnic group, but I think Schreiner?s question is badly framed. The promise to Israel had always been that Yahweh would act to restore humanity within history, and that salvation would involve the transformation of a ruined world into a garden. Paul?s concern (to adopt Schreiner?s language) is not merely that the Jews will not enter the new Jerusalem at the final judgment; he is distressed because now in the present many Jews have failed to embrace what they had been promise and have failed to participate in the great renewal that was accomplished and was being accomplished in Christ.

A great deal of debate has focused on the last part of verse 5, questioning whether Paul here identifies Jesus as God. I can?t enter into the exegetical details, but I agree with Schreiner that many of the objections come down to the objection that Paul never elsewhere calls Jesus God so directly, and therefore he cannot here either. That is a highly tenuous line of argument, and inclines me to think that Paul does refer to Jesus as God. Whether or not he does here, it is clear elsewhere the Paul does believe Jesus to be Yahweh in flesh.

ROMANS 9:6-13
A. Katherine Grieb points out that Paul?s argument in the remainder of Romans 9 tracks the history of Israel, showing that a consistent pattern in dealing with Israel throughout her history. He moves from the patriarchs (vv. 9-13), to the exodus (vv. 14-18), the exile and return (vv. 24-28), and the coming of the Messiah (v. 29). In Grieb?s outline, verses 19-23 are left out, but the use of clay and potter imagery perhaps hearkens specifically to Jeremiah 18, and thus alludes to the immediate pre-exilic period.

Paul reflects on two main situations in the patriarchal period: first, the two sons of Abraham (vv. 6-9), and second the two sons of Isaac (vv. 10-13). Paul?s point in the first instance is to clarify that not everyone who is a ?child of the flesh?Eis a ?child of God?E(v. 8). This is evident in the fact that Abraham had two sons, and only one of them was a ?child of God?Eand a ?child of the promise.?E There is thus a distinction within the fleshly children of Abraham. Paul is dealing with a particular question, namely, the question of physical descent. This is the connotation of ?flesh?Ein verses 3, 5; it is the force of ?ex Israel?Ein verse 6; and it is the meaning of the ?flesh?Ein verse 8. The question is whether everyone who is a ?brother according to the flesh?Eis necessarily part of the group of ?children of God.?E

This line of argument is somewhat obscured by the translation of verse 7a. The NASB has ?neither are they all children because they are Abraham?s descendants” (“seed,” Greek sperma ). This implies that Abraham has ?seed?Ethat are not ?children.?E But the point is really the opposite, and the Greek can be translated: ?neither are they seed of Abraham [which are] all children.?E Paul clearly uses ?seed?Eas interchangeable with ?children of promise?E(v. 8b). Thus, Paul is arguing that not all the children of Abraham count as ?seed?Ein the weighty and near-technical sense that Genesis uses that word (=recipient of promise, bearer of covenant). (There is a similar translation difficulty in verse 6b. The NASB has ?they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.?E But the Greek instead places the ?descent?Efrom Israel at the beginning of the sentence: ?for not all those who are [descended] from Israel, these [are] Israel.?E This at least affects our grasp of the emphasis of the statement; the issue for Paul is that physical descent is not a guarantee that one receives the promises. The question he?s addressing is whether the fact that his ?brothers according to the flesh?Edon?t share in the fulfillment of Israel?s privileges is evidence that the word of God has failed.)

Another crucial issue needs to be kept in mind here as well. The two sons of Abraham are separated in time. Ishmael is the first son, born more than a decade before Isaac. The text often gets spatialized, and Paul is interpreted to be saying that the household of Abraham was a mixed multitude, made up of saved and unsaved. Paul is taken to be describing a static map of the household of Abraham, divided between the Ishmaelite unbelievers and the Isaacite believers. Abraham?s household was no doubt a mixed multitude, but that?s not the story in Genesis. As soon as Isaac is weaned, Ishmael is cast out of the household (Genesis 21). There was barely a time when Abraham?s house contained both Ishmael and Isaac. Paul is making a point about temporal sequence
, not about spatial mapping. He is saying, as he does elsewhere, that the first son of Abraham was displaced by the second son, and that this second son was the bearer of the promise. In that sense, not all who are descended of Israel are Israel.

At this point, it does not seem that the distinction is one of salvation and damnation. Ishmael was not the carrier of the covenant promise, and he was forced to leave the household of Abraham. But God gave him promises and Genesis 21:20 says ?God was with the lad.?E In fact, as James Jordan has pointed out, Ishmael?s story is a preview of the story of Israel: He leaves his father?s house, goes into the wilderness and nearly dies, receives water in the wilderness and a promise of blessing, and then goes on to have 12 sons (Genesis 21:8-21; 25:16). In Genesis, the distinction of Isaac and Ishmael is not between ?elect to eternal salvation?Ev. ?reprobated to eternal damnation.?E The distinction is between the first and second son, between the first ?Israel?Eand the second ?Israel,?Ethe ?fleshly?EIsrael and the ?spiritual?EIsrael. This is also the way Paul tells the story in Galatians 4, where Ishmael stands for Judaism and Sinai and Isaac stands for the church and the heavenly Jerusalem.

Thus, Paul?s argument with regard to Isaac and Ishmael is that the promises belonged specifically to the second son, Isaac, the son of the promise, the ?resurrected?Eson (cf. Romans 4). ?Israel?Ewas never defined simply as ?descended from Abraham.?E The recipient of the promise was not from the “flesh” but from the promise, the child of the Spirit. To put is another way, the question is, Who is the ?seed?Ethat receives the promise (v. 8)? And Paul?s answer is: Isaac, the second son, the son born not of flesh but of promise (a fact symbolized by his being born after Abraham cut off the ?flesh?Ein circumcision). Thus, the word of God has not failed (v. 6a), because the ?word of promise?Egiven to Sarah (v. 9) comes to pass. Abraham has a miracle child, born by the life-giving word of promise and not by the flesh.

How does Paul want to apply this to the first-century situation? How does this help? Clearly, he is lining up his brothers according to the flesh with Ishmael, the child of the flesh. Just as Ishmael was not a recipient of all the privileges of Israel (adoption, glory, covenants, law, temple, promises, etc) simply by being a fleshly descendant of Abraham, so the ?brothers according to the flesh?Ecannot hope to share in these privileges by virtue of fleshly descent. They share in these promises by being joined to Christ, the true Seed, and being indwelt by the Spirit. God?s promise has not failed because it is clear from the beginning (if we read the Abraham narratives ?allegorically,?EGal 4) that God gives promises not to fleshly children but to children of promise. Paul thus immediately dismisses the possibility that God has somehow failed in His promises. His promises were always directed at a second son, and He has kept the promises He made through a new and greater Isaac, the true Seed of Abraham.

Paul is making a somewhat different point in his second patriarchal example, that of Isaac?s sons Jacob and Esau. He stresses that the two boys were fathered by the same man, and we know from the story that they were twins (though this is not in the Greek text) so that they shared the womb of Rebekah. This is in some respects a different situation from that of Abraham; he was a single father, but his two sons were from different mothers. There was thus, in a sense, a ?fleshly?Edistinction between them, a difference of parentage. That is not the case for Jacob and Esau. They have the same parents. In terms of ?flesh?Ethere was no distinction whatever.

Yet, there is a distinction. What makes the distinction between them, then? Why is one ?seed?Eor ?child of promise?Eand the other merely ?child of flesh?E There is no difference in parentage, no difference in accomplishment (since neither has done either good or bad). What distinguishes the two brothers is only God?s purpose and choice and call (v. 11).

What kind of distinction is in view here? Verse 12 indicates that the choice is in part the choice of which of the two brothers is going to be preeminent, which, to put it into context of the previous verses, is the carrier of the promise, the ?seed.?E But verse 13 takes this further: It is not merely that the older will serve the younger, but rather that God counts the older as an enemy and counts the younger as a son. This clearly applies to Paul?s situation in the first century. The distinction within the flesh of Israel is a distinction between those who are sharing in the fulfillment of God?s promises to Israel and those who do not. And this distinction is not dependent upon the works. It is dependent on God. He is a discriminating God, who distinguishes according to His purpose, His choice, His call.

Bible - NT - Romans

Previous Post

May 21, 2005

No God in Israel?

Next Post

May 22, 2005 Exhortation, May 22

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 1 Corinthians 1-2 Samuel 1968 Abelard Abortion Abraham Acedia AD 70 Adam Smith Addiction Advent Advertising Aeneid Aesthetics Africa African Christianity African Church African religion Age Aging Agriculture Airline industry Alabama Alasdair MacIntyre Albania Alcohol Allegory Alms Alternative Medicine Ambrose America American Christianity American culture American economy American Evangelicals American Foreign Policy American history American Literature American Military American Politics American Religion American Revolution Anagogy Analytic Philosophy Anamnesis Ancient Egypt Ancient Greece Ancient history Ancient Near East Ancient Religion Angels Anglican Church Anglicanism Animism Anointing of the Sick Anselm Anthropology Anthropomorphism anti-Catholicism Antiquities Antonio Lopez apocalypse Apocalyptic Apocalyptic language Apostles Creed Aquinas Archeology Architecture Arianism Aristotle Ark of the Covenant Art Art History Ascension Aseity Assurance Athanasius Atheism Athens atonement Attention Attributes Augustine Austin Farrer Authority autonomy Avant-garde Awe Bach Ballooning Balzac Banking Bankruptcy Baptism Baptists Baseball Basketball Bavinck Beatitudes Beauty Behavioral Economics Being Benedict XVI Benjamin Benjamin Franklin Beowulf Berkeley Bernie Sanders Bertrand Russell Bestiary Bible Bible - criticism Bible - NT Bible - NT - 1 Corinthians Bible - NT - 1 John Bible - NT - 1 Peter Bible - NT - 2 Corinthians Bible - NT - 2 Peter Bible - NT - Acts Bible - NT - Colossians Bible - NT - Ephesians Bible - NT - Galatians Bible - NT - Gospels Bible - NT - Hebrews Bible - NT - James Bible - NT - John Bible - NT - Jude Bible - NT - Luke Bible - NT - Mark Bible - NT - Matthew Bible - NT - Paul Bible - NT - Philippians Bible - NT - Revelation Bible - NT - Romans Bible - NT - Thessalonians Bible - NT - Timothy Bible - OT Bible - OT - Amos Bible - OT - Chronicles Bible - OT - Daniel Bible - OT - Deuteronomy Bible - OT - Ecclesiastes Bible - OT - Esther Bible - OT - Exodus Bible - OT - Ezekiel Bible - OT - Ezra-Nehemiah Bible - OT - Genesis Bible - OT - Habakkuk Bible - OT - Hosea Bible - OT - Isaiah Bible - OT - Jeremiah Bible - OT - Job Bible - OT - Joel Bible - OT - Jonah Bible - OT - Joshua Bible - OT - Judges Bible - OT - Kings Bible - OT - Lamentations Bible - OT - Leviticus Bible - OT - Malachi BIble - OT - Micah Bible - OT - Nehemiah Bible - OT - Numbers Bible - OT - Pentateuch Bible - OT - Proverbs Bible - OT - Psalms Bible - OT - Ruth Bible - OT - Samuel Bible - OT - Song of Songs Bible - OT - Torah Bible - OT - Zechariah Bible - OT - Zephaniah Biblical Law Biblicism Billy Graham biography Biology Biololgy Biotechnology Blasphemy Blindness Blog news Blogging Blogroll Bloomsbury Group Bob Dylan Body Body symbolism Boethius Boko Haram Bonhoeffer Book of Common Prayer Books Botany Boundary Brexit Britain British History British Politics Bruce Springsteen Buddhism Bureaucracy Burial Business C. S. Lewis C. S. Peirce Calendars Caliphate Calvin calvinism Camille Paglia Canon Capitalism Cappadocians Carl Schmitt Catholic Social Teaching Catholicism Catholicity Causation cemeteries Cervantes Charism Charismata Charity Charles Dickens Charles Hodge Charles Simeon Charles Taylor Charles Williams Chaucer Chermistry Chess Chesterton Chiasm children China Chinese Exclusion Act Chivalry Chopin Chretien de Troyes Christendom Christian Democracy Christian reconstruction Christianity in Britain Christianization Christmas Christology Chronology Church church and state Church architecture Church Calendar Church history Church of England Church Year Cicero Circumcision Cities City of God Civil Religion Civil Society Civil War Civility Classical Theism Classics Climate Change Clothing Coleridge Colloquy of Marburg Colonialism Color Comedy Comenius Commodity Communio Communism Community Comparative religions Computer Science Confederacy Confessionalization Conflict Congregations consciousness Consecration Conservatism Constantine Constitution consumerism Contra Faustum Conversion Coriolanus Cormac McCarthy Cosmology Cosmopolitanism Council of Trent Counter-culture Counter-insurgency Courage Courtly love Covenants Crafts Craftsmanship Cranach Creation Creativity Creator-creature Credit Crime Crime and Punishment Crisis Critical scholarship Criticism Cross Cubism Cultural theory Culture Culture War Dance Daniel Dennett Dante Darwin Dave Eggers David David Foster Wallace David Hume David Jones Deadly sins Death Debt Dechristianization Decolonization Deconstruction Defoe Deja vu Democracy Denis de Rougemont Denominationalism Derrida Descartes Developmental psychology Devils Diocletian Discipleship Disenchantment Disgust Diversion Diversity Divine energies Divine Impassibility Divine Simplicity Divine Warrior Doctrine dogma Dominion Donald Trump Dostoevsky Douglas Campbell Douglas Farrow Dreams Dualism Durkheim Dystopia E.M. Forster Early Christianity Early Modern Europe Easter Eastern Europe Eastern Orthodoxy Ecclesiology Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Eden Edgar Allan Poe Edmund Spenser Education Egypt Election Elites Emergence Emma Emotion Empire England English History English Reformation Enlightenment Entertainment Entrepreneur environmentalism Envy Epic Epiphany Episcopals Epistemology Epistles Equality Erasmus Ernst Kantorowicz Eros Eschatology Eternity Ethics Eucharist Europe Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Catholics Together Events Evil Evolution Exile Face Fairie Queene Fairy Tales Faith family Family and Marriage Fantasy Farming Fashion Fasting Fatherhood Fear Femininity Feminism Fertility Fetishization Feud Feudalism Feuerbach Fiction Figs Film Finance Finland Fire Flag Flags Flannery O'Connor Flood myths Folly Food football Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Foreknowledge Forgiveness Foucault Fracking France Francois Mauriac Franz Rosenzweig free will Freedom Freedom of God French Revolution Freud Funerals Future G. K. Chesterton Gambling Gaming Gay Marriage Gender gender identity Genealogy Geography George Berkeley George Eliot George Herbert; Poetry George Romanes Gerald Manley Hopkins Germany Gethsemane Gift Gifts Giorgio Agamben Global Christianity Global economics Globalism Globalization Glorious Revolution Gnosticism God's sovereignty Gods Goethe Golf Good Friday Gospel Gospels Gothic Gothic architecture Grace Grammar Gramsci Gratitude Greek Literature Greek Philosophy Greek Religion Greek Science Gregory of Nyssa Guillermo del Toro H. Richard Niebuhr Haiku hair Hamann Hamlet Handicap Handles Hands Hans Urs von Balthasar Happiness Harold Bloom Harper Lee Harvest healing Heaven Heavenly treasure Heavenly treasure Hebrew Bible Hebrew language Hegel Heidegger Hell Hellenism; Judaism; Revelation Henri de Lubac heresy Herman Dooyeweerd Hermeneutics Herod Heroic Heroism Hesiod Hidegard of Bingen Hierarchy Hieronymus Bosch Historicism Historiography History History - Early Modern History - Middle Ages Hoaxes Hobbes Holiness Holy Saturday Holy Spirit Home Homeless Homer Homosexuality Honor hope Horror Hospitality Housing Hugh of St. Victor Human Rights Humanism Humor hylomorphism Hymns Hypocrisy. Iago Iconoclasm Identity Ideology Idleness Idolatry Iliad Images Imagination Immigrant churches Immigrant Religion Immigration Imperialism Improvization Imputation Incarnation Incest India Individualism Indonesia Inequality Inerrancy Infant Baptism Infant mortality Infanticide Ingratitude Innovation Inspiration Institutions Insult Intellectual History Intellectuals Intelligent Design International Politics Internet Intimacy IQ Iran Iran-Iraq War Iraq Ireland Irony Islam Islamic State Islamism Ismail Kadare Israel Ivan Illich J. Gresham Machen J.N. Figgis Jacob Jacques Lacan James Bond James Jordan James Joyce James KA Smith James Wood Jane Austen Jane Jacobs Jealousy Jed Perl Jeff Koons Jeroboam Jesus Jewish War 66-70 AD Jihad Johann Georg Hamann Johannine Epistles John Ashbery John Behr John Bunyan John Calvin John Donne John Frame John Howard Yoder John Knox John Milbank John Milton John Owen John Rawls John Ruskin John Stuart Mill John the Baptist John Webster John Wesley John Williamson Nevin Jonathan Edwards Jorge Luis Borges Joseph Conrad Joseph Ratzinger Journalism Joy Judaism Judaize Judgment Judith Butler Jurgen Moltmann Justice Justification Kalevala Kant Karl Barth Karl Marx Karl Polanyi Karl Rahner Kazakhstan Kazuo Ishiguro Kenneth Lonergan Kierkegaard King Lear Kingdom of God Kitsch Knighthood Knowledge Korea Labor movement Lactantius Lamech Lament Landscape Language Latin America Laughter Law Law and Punishment Leftism Lent Les Murray Levi-Strauss Levites Leviticus Liber Mundi Liberal arts Liberal Theology Liberalism Light Lighthouse Linguistics LIstening Literacy Literary structure Literature Liturgics Liturgy Locke Logic Love Luther Lutheran Lutheranism Lying Lytton Strachey Macbeth Machiavelli Machines Madness Mainline Manhattan Manicheanism Manners Manufacturing Manuscripts Mao Zedong Maps Marcion Marilynne Robinson Marketing Marriage Martha Nussbaum Martin Bucer Martin Chemnitz Martyrdom Marx Marxism Mary Mary Douglas masculinity Mass Materialism Mathematics Maundy Thursday Max Weber Media Mediation Medication Medicine Medieval Church Medieval exegesis Medieval Literature Medieval theology Medieval Thought Medievalism Memory Merchant of Venice Mesopotamian Religion Messianic Metaphor Metaphysics Methodist Mexican-American War Michel de Montaigne Michel Faber Middle Ages Middle East Midwifery Mikhail Bulgakov Military Millennium Mind Miracles Miscellaneous Mission missionaries Mixed constitution Modern self modernism Modernity monasticism Monotheism Monroe Doctrine Monsters Montaigne's Essays Moral philosophy Mormonism Moses Mother Teresa Motherhood Motive Mount of Olives Movies Multiculturalism Murder Music Musicals Mutability Mutability Mystery Mysticism myth N. T. Wright Narrative Nation-State Nationalism Natural Law Natural-Supernatural Nature Nature and culture Nature and Grace Nazi Nazirite Necrophilia Nero Nestorianism Neuroscience Nevin Lectures New Atheism New Testament New York City Newbigin News NGOs Nibelungenlied Nicholas of Cusa Nicholas of Lyra Nietzsche Nigeria Nihilism Nobel Prize Nobility Nominalism Norbert Elias Norman MacCaig nostalgia Novels Numerology Obama Objectivity and subjectivity Occasionalism Odysseus Oil Old Testament Oliver O'Donovan Ontology Origen original sin Orthodoxy Othello Owen Barfield Pacifism Pactum salutis Paedocommunion Paganism Pain Painting Paleoconservatism Palm Sunday Pannenberg Parenting Pascal Passions Passivity Pastoral Care Pastoral theology Patrick Modiano Patristics Patronage Paul Peace of God Peace of Westphalia Penal substitution Pentecost Pentecostalism Perichoresis Pericles Persecution Person Peter Peter Enns Petrarch Philip K. Dick Philip Melanchthon Philosophy Philosophy of Action Philosophy of History Philosophy of language Philosophy of science Phone booth Photography Physics Pictures Pierre Bourdieu Place Planned Parenthood Plants plato Play Plot Plotinus Pluralism Pneumatology Poetics poetry Poetry & Stories Poland police Political Philosophy Political theology Political Theory Politics Pop Culture Pope Francis Popular Culture Populism Pornography Porphyry Post-Colonial Theory Post-Structuralism Postmodernism Postmodernity Potential Poverty Power Practice Pragmatism Prayer Preaching Predestination Prediction Prehistory Premillennialism Presbyterian Priesthood Prince Charles Prison Reform privacy Private Prodigal Son Progress Progressivism Property Prophecy Prophet Propitiation Prosperity gospel Prostitution Protectionism Protestantism Providence Prudentius psalms Pseudo-Dionysus Psychological Warfare Psychology Public intellectual Public Life Public Philosophy Public Theology Publishing Punk Rock Pure nature Puritanism Purity Pushkin Putin Pythagoreanism R.J. Rushdoony Race Racism Radical Orthodoxy Rape Rationality Reactionary reading Realism Reason Red State Blue State Reformation Reformational Catholicism Reformational Philosophy Reformed theology refugees reinhold niebuhr Relationality Relativism Relics Religion Religion and science Religions Religious Freedom Religious Liberty Religious Right Renaissance Rene Girard Republican Party Resurrection Resurrection. Revelation Revelations Revenge Revivalism Revolution rhetoric Richard Flannagan Richard II Richard III Richard Wagner Richard Wilbur Righteousness Ritual Robert Frost Robert Herrick Robert Jenson Robert Mugabe Robert Spaemann Robinson Crusoe Rock n' Roll Rod Dreher Rodin Roman Catholicism Roman Empire Roman Religion Romance Romanticism Rome Rootedness Rosenstock-Huessy Rousseau Rowan Williams Rural America Russia Russian literature Russian Orthodoxy Rusty Reno Rwanda S. Y. Agnon Sabbath Sacrament Sacramental theology Sacraments Sacred Sacred Space Sacrifice saints Salt Sam Harris Same-sex marriage Sanctuary Satan Satire Saudi Arabia Scapegoat Scarcity Schism Schleiermacher Scholarship Science Science and Theology Science Fiction Scopes trial Scotland Scott Adams Scott Cairns Scottish Reformation Scotus Scripture and tradition sculpture Sea Second temple Secularism Secularization Self-Help Self-trust Semiotics Semper reformanda separation of church and state Sermon on the Mount Sex Sex Trafficking Sexual abuse Sexual Politics Sexual Revolution Sexuality Shakespeare Shame Culture Shema Sherlock Shopping Silence Simone Weil Simplicity Simpsons Sin Sincerity Sixties Skepticism Slavery Slavoj Zizek Sleep Sloth Social capital Social change Social Imaginary Social Science Socialism Socialization Sociology Sociology of Knowledge Sociology of Religion Sola scriptura Sonnets Sophocles Soteriology Soviet Union Space Spain Speculation Spinoza Spirit Sport Sports Star Trek State State-formation Stephen Masty Steven Bannon Strangers Structuralism structure Subject-object Substitution Suburbs Suffering Suicide Super-Rich Superheroes Supersessionism Supplication Supreme Court Surveillance Symbol Synagogue Taberancle Tabernacle Tax Taxes Tears Technology Teens Teleology Television Temple Ten Commandments Terence Terrence Malick Terrorism Thanksgiving The South The West Theodore Roosevelt Theogony Theological Education Theological Language Theology Theology - Anthropology Theology - Christology Theology - Covenant Theology - Creation Theology - Ecclesiology Theology - Eschatology Theology - Liturgical Theology - Pneumatology Theology - Soteriology Theology - Trinity Theology proper Theopolis Theopolis Institute Theosis Theresa May Thomas A. Clark Thomas Aquinas Thomas Carlyle Thomas Mann Threshing Thucydides Time Tocqueville Tolerance Toleration Tolstoy Tom Wolfe Tools Torah Torture Toscanini Totalitarianism Trade Tradition Tragedy Transhumanism Translation Transubstantiation Travel Trees Trinitarianism Trinity Trinity House Tristan Troilus and Creysede Trump Trump Truth Turkey Twelfth Night Two Kingdoms Typology Ukraine Ulysses Uncanny Uncategorized Uniform Union with Christ United States Unity University Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Value Vatican II Vengeance Vico Victorian Age Victorian Literature Vienna Violence Virgil Virgin Birth Virginia Woolf Vladimir Nabokov Vladimir Solovyev Vladimir Solovyov W.H. Auden Walls Walt Disney Walt Whitman Walter Benjamin Walter Lippmann War Wars of Religion Washington DC Wealth Weddings Will William Carlos Williams William Gilpin William Golding Wine Wisdom wonder Word of God Wordsworth Work Works World Council of Churches World History World War I World War II Worldview Worship Wrath Writing Youth Youth Ministry Yuja Wang Yves Congar Zimbabwe Zwingli Zygmunt Bauman

Select a Month January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the Hebrew word 'Ruach' mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Fire Strength Water Spirit/Breath