Romans 9–11: The Place of Israel in Salvation History (Part 4): Israel Rejects the Gospel

“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:14-17, ESV).

The Requisite of Gospel Obedience

The evangelistic pattern leading to salvation involves sending out proclaimers who proclaim the good news, hearers receiving and believing the message, then calling on the Lord’s name, a pattern consistently documented and described with more detail in the book of Acts <see previous post>.¹ Paul then employs the words of the prophet Isaiah (52:7; 53:1), noting that “feet,” representing a person in motion (BAGD 696), are “beautiful” when used to carry and “preach the good news” (cf. 1:15; 15:20). But what a tragedy when the saving message is rejected by unreceptive hearers: “they have not all obeyed the gospel.” 

The phrase “obey the gospel” occurs only three times in the NT, all in reference to those who do not obey.² In the positive sense, comparable expressions include “obedience of faith” (1:5; 16:26), “obedience unto righteousness” (6:16), “you have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted” (6:17), “to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed” (15:18), and “obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). 

Note the interplay of words in this section of Romans: the verbal πιστεύω (“believe,” vv. 4, 9, 10, 11, 14[x2], 16) and noun πίστις (“faith,” vv. 6, 8, 17); the verbal ἀκούω (“hear,” vv. 14[x2], 16, 18) and noun ἀκοή (“hearing,” vv. 16b,³ 17[x2]), and the noun ὑπακούω (“obey,” v. 16a). Just as “believing” involves more than a mere intellectual assent, “hearing” involves more than just receiving audible sounds.⁴ The initial response to the gospel is described in Galatians 6:2 as “hearing of faith,” while the comparable expression in Romans 1:5 and 16:26 is “obedience of faith.” Both ἀκοή and the compound ὑπακοή (ὑπό [“by”] + ἀκοή[“hearing”] = to give ear, hearken, obey) reflect the Hebrew sense of shema.⁵ It is receptive “hearing”⁶ that engenders responsive “hearing.”⁷

In a predominantly oral and aural culture (cf. 2:13), to have and maintain saving “faith” the receptive and responsive hearing must be initiated and sustained through the “word of Christ” [ῥήματος Χριστοῦ] (NA²⁸/UBS⁵) or the “word of God” [ῥήματος θεοῦ] (BMT). In the book of Romans, only in this chapter does ῤῆμα (“word”) occur, previously qualified as “the word of faith” (v. 8) and later unqualified (v. 18). While the majority of extant Greek manuscripts contain the “of God” reading, older manuscripts have the “of Christ” reading. In 9:6 Paul speaks of “the word [λόγος] of God,” which is his customary phraseology.⁸ But since this is the only NT text where “word [ῥήματος] of Christ” is found,⁹ most text critics regard it as more likely to have been subject to scribal emendation.¹⁰ In view of Paul’s high Christology (cf. 9:5), the mainstream opinion of modern text critics is plausible, although both readings convey the same truth. 

Israel’s Defiance

“But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.’ But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, ‘I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.’ Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, ‘I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.’ But of Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people’” (Rom. 10:18-21).

The people of Israel cannot make the excuse that they have not heard or understood (cf. v. 8), a fallacy preempted by successive scripture citations that reaffirm the first three chapters of this letter. Paul quotes Psalm 19:4, a poetic description of the global dissemination of natural revelation (vv. 1-6), while also extoling God’s special revelation (vv. 7-11). Next is Deuteronomy 32:21 and Isaiah 65:1 prophetically confirming the Lord’s intention all along to include Gentiles in his overall plan. Finally, Isaiah 65:2 is a reminder of Israel’s sordid history of defiance as a “disobedient and contrary people.” Such a sad state of affairs is “not because of God's unfaithfulness or injustice, not because of want of opportunity, but because they are a rebellious people—a people who refuse to be taught, who choose their own way, who cleave to that way in spite of every warning and of every message.”¹¹

Conclusion

Paul’s sincere desire is for Israel’s salvation (9:1-5), but for the most part they have stubbornly rejected God’s plan through Christ (9:6-32). Like all others in need of divine grace, Paul’s ethnic kinsmen must believe and confess Jesus as Lord in obedience to the gospel (10:1-17). They have been afforded sufficient opportunity and are without excuse (10:18-21). But such a regrettable situation does not have to be final, as explained in the next chapter.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” Moore Perspective (30 Jan. 2015), <Link>.

     ² Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17; cp. Heb. 4:2, 6.

     ³ Rendered “report” (ASV, NASB, N/KJV) or “message” (CSB, NIV), ἀκοή in this passage refers to “the announcement heard.” Cf. John 12:38.

     ⁴ Cf. Matt. 13:13-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Jas. 1:22-25.

     ⁵ Cf. Ex. 24:7; Deut. 6:4; 31:11-13. See W. Wilson, OT Word Studies 211-12.

     ⁶ Cf. Mark 4:23-24; Acts 2:22, 37; 3:22.

     ⁷ Cf. Eph. 4:21, 29; Phil. 4:9; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29.

     ⁸ Only one other time employing ῥῆμα (Eph. 6:17); most often λόγος (1 Cor. 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; Col. 1:25; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:9; Tit. 2:5). 

     ⁹ Elsewhere Paul speaks of “the word of Christ” [ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ] (Col. 3:16) and “the word of the Lord” [ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου] (1 Thess. 1:8).

     ¹⁰ See B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary 525. 

     ¹¹ W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 293.

Related Posts: Rom 10:12-13, Rom 11:1-15

Was Jesus “the Son of God” Prior to His Incarnation?

     The apostle Paul affirms: “but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, having been born out of woman, having been born under [the] law” (Gal. 4:4).¹ Does the fact that “God sent forth his Son” suggest Jesus was the Son of God prior to his incarnation? R. Y. K. Fung argues: “It is to be observed that Christ was already Son when God sent him, that it was not the sending which made him the Son of God; in other words, his Sonship is to be understood not merely in a functional sense but in an ontological sense” (Galatians [NICNT] 181-82). But is this a valid inference, and is it consistent with overall biblical teaching? 

     There are only three references in the OT to Jesus as “Son” (Psa. 2:7, 12; Dan. 7:13), all of which are predictive messianic prophecies. The formal title “the Son of God” does not occur in the Hebrew scriptures.² There are eleven verses in the OT alluding to God as “Father” (Deut. 32:6; 2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:14; Psa. 89:26; Isa. 9:6; 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 31:9; Mal. 1:6; 2:10), though not as the Father of a Son but of the nation of Israel.³ And one of these passages (Isa. 9:6) is actually a messianic prophecy applicable to Jesus Christ!

     Paul connects the sending forth of God’s Son with the occasion of “having been born of woman.” In Luke’s account of the birth narrative, the angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary: “And behold you will conceive in [your] womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. This [one] will be great and will be called Son of [the] Most High …. [the] Holy Spirit will overshadow you; therefore also the holy [one] being born will be called Son of God” (Luke 1:31-35, emp. added). The future tense of this proclamation indicates that Jesus was recognized as “Son” in conjunction with his human conception and birth, not before.

     The fact that “Jesus Christ” is said to have been “sent” (John 17:3) does not mean that he was known as “Jesus Christ” prior to the incarnation (cf. Matt. 1:21). The expression “God sent forth his Son,” therefore, does not necessarily imply previous recognition as God’s Son. To speak of “the Son of God” being “manifested” (1 John 3:8) is comparable to saying that “Jesus Christ” was “manifested” (2 Tim. 1:9-10; 1 Pet. 1:13, 19, 20), neither of which imply prior existence as either the Son of God or as Jesus Christ.

     Paul appears to be making a proleptic statement, i.e., using current language to describe something in the past. For example, Moses speaks of “Bethel” as he records Abraham’s entrance into the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:8), even though the place was not actually named Bethel until several decades after the arrival of Abraham (Gen. 28:10-19). At the time the historical narrative was transcribed, the place was known as Bethel and thus so designated in the text. In John 11:1-2, in the account of Lazarus’ illness and subsequent death, Mary is described as the one who anointed the Lord’s feet (an act for which she was known at the time of writing), although chronologically this did not occur until a few months later (John 12:5).

     Paul’s employment of the term “Son” to designate the one sent forth from God “resonates with the surrounding verses, in which he states that believers are also ‘sons of God’” (L. A. Jervis, Galatians [NIBC] 109). In relation to God, the significance of the designation “the Son of God” is twofold, suggesting: (a) subordination of role or position (cf. John 14:28); and (b) equality of nature and essence (John 5:17-18; 10:24-33; 19:5-7). While the latter was in place prior to the incarnation, the former was not (cf. Phil. 2:5-7).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² When Nebuchadnezzar said “the appearance” [wə-rê-wêh] of the fourth person in the furnace “is like” [dā-mêh] “a son” [lə-ḇar-] “of gods” [’ĕ-lā-hîn] (Dan. 3:25, cf. ESV, N/ASV, etc.), it is highly unlikely that the pagan king had any concept of “the Son of God” (N/KJV) in the NT sense. The pre-incarnate Christ would not be manifested as the Son of God for another six centuries. Nebuchadnezzar was simply trying to explain what he saw as “a divine being” (ISV), perhaps an “angel” (3:28). Elsewhere in the book of Daniel the same terminology is used with reference to pagan “gods” (2:11, 47; 5:11b; cf. most translations of 4:8, 9, 18; 5:11a, 14).

     ³ An apparent exception is 2 Sam. 7:14 and the parallel account in 1 Chron. 17:14, where David is reassured that after his death God will take his place as Solomon’s father, in the sense of exercising special care for him. In addition to the fact that the Davidic king represents the Davidic kingdom (i.e. the people of God), this passage seems to have messianic implications, as it is later quoted in Heb. 1:5 to discount angels from the role of divine sonship, establishing Christ’s superiority over them. In the OT “fatherhood” is just one of several metaphors describing God’s relationship with his people; cp. “husband” (Isa. 54:5; Hos. 2:16), “shepherd” (Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:10-11), “vinedresser” (Isa. 5:1-7), “shelter” (Psa. 61:3-8), etc.

Related Posts: Jesus Christ: the Son of God 

Image credit: https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-print-models/art/sculptures/jesus-prayer