ROMANS 10:18-21:

A RESPONSE TO THE INCLUSIVIST ARGUMENT

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. John Taylor

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for NEWTS 7204 A

__________________

by

Jonathan M. Crosby

December 5, 2008
 RO
MANS 10:18-21: A
RESPONSE TO THE INCLUSIVIST ARGUMENT

The thesis of this paper is that Paul in Romans 10:18-21, contrary to the claim

of Christian inclusivists, teaches the necessity of the preached Gospel for the salvation of

sinful humanity, and that this Gospel should continue to be preached even among

peoples, such as the Jews, who have been resistant to the Gospel. Proponents of Christian

inclusivism argue that the hearing of the Gospel is not essential for salvation in light of

teaching found in Rom 10:18-20. Exclusivists, on the other hand, have maintained the

necessity of the preached Gospel for salvation, while failing to demonstrate the crucial

role Gospel proclamation plays within Rom 10:18-21. First, therefore, this paper presents

the inclusivist interpretation of Rom 10:18-20 and shows how exclusivists have ignored

the passage. Second, a proper interpretation of Rom 10:18-21 reveals the weakness of the

inclusivist’s claim upon these verses. Finally, there is a discussion of the missionary

implications of the Rom 10:18-21.

Romans 10:18-21 and the Argument of Inclusivism

Inclusivist proponent Clark Pinnock writes that “because of cosmic or general

revelation anyone can find God anywhere at anytime.”1 Pinnock suggests that the Psalm

19:4 citation in Rom 10:18 supports salvation via general revelation so all people can

respond in faith to God regardless of whether or not they hear the Gospel. Terrance L.

1
Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of
Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 104.

1
 2
Tiessen extends the inclusivist argument to include Rom 10:19-20 writing that since

Israel ignored the Gospel foretold in its Scriptures “Paul is not making a statement about

whether they would have been guilty of unbelief if they had not heard the gospel.”2 For

Tiessen, if Israel had not heard the Gospel eschatological wrath could still have been

avoided by responding in faith to whatever revelation was available to them.

John E. Sanders believes exclusivist missionaries misunderstand Rom 10:14-

15. He suggests that these verses claim no person can be saved apart from the atoning

work of God in Christ, but one does not have to hear of Jesus in order to be saved.

“Those who say the unevangelized will not be saved claim that the proposition can be

converted to say, ‘All who do not receive Christ in this life are lost.’”3 His argument is

that while hearing of and trusting in Christ assures one of salvation, it is not equally true

that not hearing of Jesus excludes one from salvation.

Dale Moody correctly accuses exclusivists of ignoring Rom 10:18-20 while

promoting their soteriological position.4 For example, consider the late exclusivist

missiologist George W. Peters, who stressed that Rom 10:8-17 teaches the necessity of

hearing the Gospel for salvation. In A Biblical Theology of Mission Peters writes that

Paul believed salvation only comes by hearing the Gospel and confessing Christ as Lord.5

2
Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World
Religions (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 268.

3
John E. Sanders, “Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation?,” The Evangelical Quarterly 60
(1988): 244.

4
Dale Moody, Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 61.

5
George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 149; Peters
serves here as a representative of the exclusivist camp who refer solely to portions of Rom 10:8-17 and
neglect 10:18-21; also see Herschel H. Hobbs, The Baptist Faith and Message, rev. ed. (Nashville:
Convention Press, 2002), 94. Piper rejects the general revelation view of 10:18 against Pinnock and
Sanders, but neglects to discuss their views on 10:19-21; John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! The
Supremacy of God in Missions, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 114, 143-47.
 3
However, he fails to address the missiological teaching of Rom 10:18-21 and the claims

made upon the passage by inclusivist proponents.

Exclusivist apologists R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips defend the

exclusivist view by referencing Rom 10:14-15. They argue that calling on the name of the

Lord (Rom 10:13), specifically Jesus, is required for salvation. “The most natural

assumption to make about this passage is that apart from the fruitful labor of the human

evangelist the unbeliever will have no opportunity to hear that which must believed in

order to be saved.”6 Again the problem is that while accurately bringing out the meaning

of what Paul writes in Rom 10:14-15, they ignore Rom 10:18-21, which inclusivists

claim calls into question the exclusivist position.

Romans 10:18-21: Israel’s Rejection of the Gospel

In Rom 10:14-17 Paul seems to clearly teach that the sending out of preachers,

the hearing of the Gospel, and the calling on of Jesus as Lord are essential steps for

salvation. However, Rom 10:18-21 must be evaluated in order to see whether or not Paul

maintains this teaching or if, as the inclusivists claim, he has simply been teaching up till

this point in the letter that hearing the Gospel is beneficial but not necessary for salvation.

Romans 10:18: Israel Heard the Gospel

Paul writes in Rom 10:18a, ajllaV levgw, mhV oujk h[kousan;

menou'nge.7 Paul poses the question as to whether or not Israel heard the word about

6
R. Douglas Geivett and W. Garry Phillips, “A Particularist View: An Evidentialist Approach,”
in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 236.

7
All references in this paper to the GNT are taken from Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, J.
Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. Metzger, The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. rev., United Bible
Societies (Stuttgart, Germany: Biblia-Druck, 1983).
 4
Christ (Rom 10:17); examining a possible reason why his fellow Jews have not believed

the Gospel. A question beginning with a mhV expects a negative reply, but when the

main verb is itself negated an affirmative response is expected.8 Also, Paul’s used

emphatic conjunction menou'nge as a corrective9 to those in Israel who would argue

that their unbelief resulted form not hearing the Gospel.10 So the intended answer to

Paul’s rhetorical question is, “Yes, Israel heard the Gospel so not hearing is not the reason

for their unbelief.” Paul then supports this assertion with an OT citation.

Rom 10:18b contains an exact citation of Ps 19:4 (18:5 LXX): eij" pa'san

thVn gh'n ejxh'lqen oJ fqovggo" aujtw'n kaiV eij" taV pevrata th'"

oijkoumevnh" taV rJhvmata aujtw'n. In its original context Ps 18:5 LXX refers to

general revelation as there the antecedent of aujtw'n is oujranoiV (heavens) in Ps 18:2

LXX. Inclusivists believe, therefore, that general revelation is sufficient for salvation for

two reasons: One, this interpretation would show Paul using the OT in its original

context. Two, as Romans commentator J. C. O’Neill suggests, since Christian preachers

cannot possibly reach all people with the Gospel, general revelation can lead people to

salvation if they respond to it in proper faith.11 Thus, hearing of the word about Christ is

8
F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 427.

9
Ibid., 450.4?; Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur
Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 630.

10
Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1949), 385.

11
J. C. O’Neill, Paul's Letter to the Romans (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1975), 182; O’Neill
follows Calvin who believed Ps 19:4 should be understood literally as general revelation: see John Calvin,
The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 8,
trans. Ross Mackenzie, ed. D. Torrance and T. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 234.
not essential for salvation.12 However, a careful examination of 10:18 shows that Paul is

describing the proclamation of the Gospel and not the possibility of salvation via general

revelation.

First, O’Neill’s interpretation ignores Paul’s words regarding general revelation

in Rom 1:18-32. Paul teaches the existence of a revelation of God through the created

universe (Rom 1:20), but he does not affirm that the content of this revelation is salvific,

equivalent to the hearing of Gospel. In fact, he describes the inability of general

revelation to overcome sin. The problem is identified specifically in Rom 1:25 where

Paul writes, oi{tine" methvllaxan thVn ajlhvqeian tou' qeou' ejn tw'/ yeuvdei

kaiV ejsebavsqhsan kaiV ejlavtreusan th'/ ktivsei paraV toVn ktivsanta . So

according to Paul, general revelation displays the greatness of the Creator (Rom 1:20),

but humans have rejected the truth of God contained within that revelation for a lie (Rom

1:25). Witherington comments that “the issue in Rom. 1:18-32 is not so much what is

known through examination of the creation as what fallen persons do with that

knowledge.”13 Therefore, accepting Rom 10:18 as support for salvation via general

revelation dismisses the seriousness of sin emphasized by Paul in Rom 1:18-32;14 Paul

does not state that sin can be overcome through the knowledge available in creation.

12
Inclusivsts do not all agree on what exactly must be believed in order for the unevangelized
to be saved. However, most inclusivists agree that saving faith includes repentance and faith in God the
Creator; see Sanders, “Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation?,” 259; Millard J. Erickson, “Hope for
Those who Haven't Heard? Yes, but…,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 11 (1975): 125; O’Neill, Romans,
182.

13
Ben Witherington III, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004), 68.

14
The NA27 notes a parallel in content between Rom 1:20 and Ps 19:1. This identifiable
connection adds support to the fact that Paul does not ascribe salvific power to the description of general
revelation in Ps 19:1-6. Such a view would suggest that Paul’s teaching was contradictory, seeing general
salvation as insufficient for salvation in Rom 1:18-32 but salvific in Rom 10:18.

5
 6
Second, Paul’s vocabulary shows that rJhvmato" Cristou' (Rom 10:17) is the

intended object of h[kousan in Rom 10:18a,15 not general revelation.16 There is a

cognate connection between ajkouvw (Rom 10:14 and 18) and ajkohv (Rom 10:17) and

then between rJh'ma (Rom 10:8), rJhvmato" (Rom 10:17b), and rJhvmata (Rom

10:18b). In Rom10:14b-c Paul stresses the need of hearing from and believing in Christ

for salvation: pw'" deV pisteuvswsin ou| oujk h[kousan; pw'" deV ajkouvswsin

cwriV" khruvssonto"; In Rom 10:14b Paul uses h[kousan with the genitive relative

pronoun ou| to identify Christ as the speaker. Morris notes that ajkouvw usually takes

the genitive to denote the person who is heard; so the translation here being “how can

they believe in him whom they have not heard?”17 The point then is that Christ speaks his

word for people to hear through the Christian preacher (khruvssonto"). In Rom 10:17

Paul writes that faith comes from hearing (ajkoh) the word of Christ (rJhvmato"

Cristou'). The noun ajkohV in 17 can mean either “hearing” or “message,”18 but it is

15
For this view of Paul’s vocabulary see James D. G. Dunn, Romans9-16, Word Biblical
Commentary [CD-ROM] (Waco: Word, 1988), 10:14; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary,
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 642-43; Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans: A Commentary,
trans. H. A. Kennedy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), 92; Grant Osborne, Romans, The IVP
New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 276-7; Adolf Schlatter,
Romans: The Rightousness of God, Trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995),
217; William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1981).

16
Calvin and O’Neill claim that rJhvmata aujtw'n stand for the voiceless words of creation.
See O’Neill, Paul's Letter to the Romans, 182; Calvin, The Epistles of Paul, 234. However, their argument
is flawed by the fact that niether of them discuss the Greek text and notice Paul’s word play with rJh'mav,
which as will be shown is crucial for understanding Paul’s emphasis on hearing the word about Christ.

17
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 390; for same view see William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980),
296; Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 1980), 294; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on
the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 663; Dunn, Romans9-16, 10:14; Schlatter, Romans,
216.

18
Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 36.
 7
best to understand ajkohV as “hearing” for this would parallel h[kousan used in 10:14b

and 18a.19 Paul identifies the word that must be heard as the word about Christ. The

phrase rJhvmato" Cristou' in Rom 10:17b recalls Paul’s use of rJh'ma in Rom 10:8-10

where he uses the word in reference to saving faith in the death and resurrection of

Christ.20 Paul does not indicate that rJhvmata takes on a different meaning in Rom

10:18b. Therefore, it best to understand rJhvmata in 10:18b as also referring to the

necessity of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul’s vocabulary in Rom 10:14-

17 indicates that hearing the word about Christ is necessary for salvation and that Israel

in Rom 10:18 heard it, not the voiceless word of general revelation, preached.

Third, Paul quotes OT texts in Rom 10:15, 16, and 18 to show that the word

about Christ has been preached to the Jews and so a lack of hearing the Gospel is not the

reason for their unsaved condition.21 In Rom 10:15a the subject of Paul’s rhetorical

questions in Rom 10:14-15a switches from referencing nonbelievers in Rom 10:14 to

Christian preachers in Rom 10:15a, indicating the need of preachers to be sent out: pw'"

deV khruvxwsin ejaVn mhV ajpostalw'sin; Paul then in Rom 10:15b cites Isa 52:7a,

wJ" wJrai'oi oiJ povde" tw'n eujaggelizomevnwn (taV) ajgaqav . The accepted

eschatological nature of Isa 52:7 in Second Temple Judaism is evident from its reference

in 11QMelchizedek, which describes the end of days and the annihilation of Belial;

19
Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer: Rom 6-11 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1980), 229.

20
Raymond R. Rickards, “The Translation of dia rhematos Christou in Romans 10:17,” The
Bible Translator 27 (1976): 447; Thomas Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992), 567; Jewett, Romans, 642; Moo, Romans, 666;
Dunn, Romans, 10:17.

21
J. W. Aageson, “Typology, Correspondence, and the Application of Scripture in Romans 9-
11,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 59-60.
 8
events brought about by a heavenly figure named Melchizedek.22 Specifically, Isa 52:7 is

used in 11QMelchizedek 2:15-19 to describe the messenger who will bring the good

news of peace that comes at the final judgment of Belial. Here in Rom 10:15b Paul

indicates that Isaiah’s prediction has been fulfilled in the preaching of early Christian

evangelists by changing the singular eujaggelizomevnou of Isa 52:7a LXX to the

plural eujaggelizomevnwn.23 The point of Rom 15b is that the expected peace of

God that was predicted in the words of Isaiah have been fulfilled in the preached message

of the early Christian preachers.

Next, Paul writes in Rom 10:16, jAll= ouj pavnte" uJphvkousan

tw'/ eujaggelivw/. jHsai?a" gaVr levgei: kuvrie, tiv" ejpivsteusen th'/

ajkoh'/ hJmw'n; To whom does the pavnte" refer? It is best to see this

as reference to the Jews for a couple reasons.24 One, the larger context

of Rom 9-11 deals with Jewish disbelief (Rom 10:1-4, 21; 11:1). Two,

Paul indicates that Gentiles have responded positively to the Gospel

(Rom 9:24-26, 30; 10:19; 11:11-12, 15, 17, 19, 24-25, 30), while the

number of believing Jews is only a remnant (9:27-29, 31-33; 10:2-4;

11:1-10, 25, 30). Schreiner writes, “There is no evidence in Rom. 9-11

that the current unbelief of Gentiles distresses Paul.”25 The Isa 53:1
22
Florentino Garcia Martinez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude,
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Qumran Cave 11, vol. 23 (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1998), 222-30 ;
Martinez indicates that the text most likely dates around 75-50 BC.

23
Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the
Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 140.

24
Johannes Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11, trans. Ingeborg
Nixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 92-93; Osborne, Romans, 276; Moo, Romans, 664; Sanday and
Headlam, Romans, 298; Bruce, Romans, 208-9; Schreiner, Romans, 569.

25
Schreiner, Romans, 569.
 9
LXX quotation in the second half of the verse supports Paul’s point that

the Jews did not obey (uJphvkousan) by not believing (ejpivsteusen)

the good news that was preached to them. Jewish unbelief is not a

result, says Paul, from not hearing the Gospel, but from their

disobedient disbelief of it.

Lastly, Paul quotes Ps 19:4 in Rom 10:18, eij" pa'san thVn gh'n

ejxh'lqen oJ fqovggo" aujtw'n kaiV eij" taV pevrata th'" oijkoumevnh"

taV rJhvmata aujtw'. Through this citation Paul drives home the fact that the Jews

did not remain in disbelief due to a lack of hearing the Gospel because it had been

preached widely by Christian evangelists. But as noted earlier, inclusivists believe that

the Ps 19:4 citation in Rom 10:18b supports salvation via general revelation for a couple

of reasons. One, it would allow Ps 19:4 to be kept within its original OT context. Two,

Paul says that the rJhvmata has gone to the ends of the earth; yet, the Gospel had

clearly not been preached to the whole earth. Inclusivists claim that only through the

witness of general revelation could Paul make such a claim. However, both of these

arguments lack Scriptural support.

First, it can be shown that Paul contemporized Ps 19:4 so that it applied to the

preaching of the Gospel, which was taking place in his day. Ellis writes, “In the use of the

Old Testament by the New, implicit midrash appears in double entendre, in interpretive

alterations of the Old Testament citations and in more elaborate forms.26” Consider, for

example, Rom 10:11, levgei gaVr hJ grafhv: pa'" oJ pisteuvwn ejp= aujtw'/

ouj kataiscunqhvsetai. In the LXX the word pa'" is not included; “It is Paul’s

26
E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1978), 152.
 10
interpretation woven into the citation and fitting it better to his argument (10:12f.).”27 As

noted earlier, Paul also alters Isa 52:7a LXX when he cites it in Rom 10:15, changing the

singular eujaggelizomevnou in the former to the plural eujaggelizomevnwn in

the later so as to reference the Christian evangelists preaching the word about Christ. This

alteration by Paul in Rom 10:15b has direct implication for Rom 10:18b. In the OT

context Ps 19:4 aujtw'n did reference the oujranoiV (heavens). However, in this

Romans context the closest referent is eujaggelizomevnwn in Rom 10:15 and Paul

does not give any indication that the referent has changed.28 Therefore, through the use of

implicit midrash Paul has contemporized Ps 19:4 (Ps 18:5 LXX) to describe his current

situation, which included the preaching of the Gospel by Christian evangelists.

Second, the worldwide nature ascribed to the word of Christ by the Ps 19:4

citation does not support the inclusivist’s view; rather, it demonstrates Paul’s use of

hyperbole.29 Paul uses hyperbole as he does earlier in the letter at Rom 1:8 when he

writes to the Romans, o{ti hJ pivsti" uJmw'n kataggevlletai ejn o{lw/ tw'/

kovsmw/. Everyone in the world did not know about the faith of the Romans; Paul

simply wanted to compliment the well known faith of those in the Roman church. Other

uses of hyperbole by Paul in a similar occur in 2 Cor 2:14 and 3:2, Col 1:6 and 23, and I

Thess 1:8.

Finally, who is the intended subject of Rom 10:18a? Gaston believes it is

Gentiles since Paul quotes of Ps 19:4, which refers to the message of God reaching “into
27
Ibid.

28
Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of
Paul (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 162.

29
Franklin Johnson, The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old (Philadelphia:
American Baptist Publication Society, 1895), 164-65; see also Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 162; Dunn,
Romans, 10:18; Moo, Romans, 667; Aageson, “Typology,” 60.
 11
all the earth.”30 Johnson argues against Gaston writing that “the very inclusiveness of

10:12-13 forbids such a reading.”31 She suggests both Jew and Gentiles as the subject of

the opening question and they have both heard the Gospel preached. Johnson is correct to

see both Jew and Gentile as the subject of Rom 10:12-15, 17. In those verses Paul

describes the necessity of hearing the word about Christ and believing in him for

salvation, facts that apply to both Jew and Gentile. However, it is best to see the subject

of 10:18 as the Jews for a couple of reasons. One, Rom 10:18, like 10:16, is part of Rom

9-11 as a whole where Paul is primarily addressing the problem of Jewish disbelief.32

Two, Rom 10:18 and 19 both address the issue of Israel’s unbelief and this is

demonstrated by the parallel introductory formulas of the questions (ajllaV levgw)

along with the direct identification of Israel in 10:19a.33

In summary, Paul does not teach the possibility of salvation via general

revelation in Rom 10:18. Rather he teaches that Israel cannot blame their unsaved state

on a lack of hearing the word about Christ because it had been widely preached.

Romans 10:19-21: God’s Salvation Plan

30
Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987),
149.

31
E. E. Johnson, The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9-11, Society
of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, ed., Charles Talbert, no. 109 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 199.

32
As noted earlier in the paper, the following reasons suggest Paul is
concerned with Jewish, not Gentile, disbelief in Rom 9-11. One, the larger context of
Rom 9-11 deals with Jewish disbelief (Rom 10:1-4, 21; 11:1). Two, Paul indicates that
Gentiles have responded positively to the Gospel (Rom 9:24-26, 30; 10:19; 11:11-12,
15, 17, 19, 24-25, 30), while number of believing Jews is only a remnant (9:27-29, 31-
33; 10:2-4; 11:1-10, 25, 30). Therefore, while Rom 10:12-13 teaches that the
universal nature of the Gospel, the problem in Rom 9-11 is that many Jews have
rejected it.

33
Ross J. Wagner, Heralds of Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to the
Romans (Boston: Brill, 2002), 180.
 12
Terrance L. Tiessen accepts the fact that in Rom 10:18 Paul is describing the

widespread Gospel by Christian evangelists, but does not believe Rom 10:19-20 shows

the necessity of hearing the preached Gospel. He suggests that these verses teach the

following: 1) The Gentiles who are a no-people have believed the Gospel, so it cannot be

that Israel has not heard. 2) Israel is guilty of unbelief because they rejected the Gospel

preached to them and ignored their own Scriptures that predicted the inclusion of the

Gentiles into the people of God. 3) Paul in Rom 10:19-20 addresses the unbelief of Israel,

those who have heard the truth, not the eternal fate of those who have not heard the

Gospel. 4) Therefore, Rom 10:19-20 in no way teaches that hearing the word about Christ

is necessary for salvation; rather, it teaches that people are responsible to respond in faith

to whatever revelation God makes available to them.34 He writes, “The basic principle of

salvation by faith, which comes by hearing the ‘word,’ applies to all forms of

revelation.”35 An examination of Rom 10:19-21, however, reveals that the preaching of

the Gospel is considered by Paul to be an essential role in the salvation process of both

Jew and Gentile.36

Before evaluating the OT citations in Rom 19b-21, it is necessary to note the

syntactical continuity between these verses. First, Paul’s use of prw'to" in 10:19b

indicates he is introducing the first of two witnesses, Moses then Isaiah in Rom 10:20-21,

to support his thesis that Israel knew the Gentiles would be part of God’s people. Ellis

notes that this combination of quotations “perhaps exemplify the principle in Dtn 19,15

34
Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?, 268.

35
Ibid.; The Italics in the quote are Tiessen’s own.

36
Tiessen does not mention Rom 10:21, but it is addressed in this section of the paper because
it is structurally and exegetically connected with Rom 10:19-20.
 13
that two witnesses establish a matter,”37 which would give Scriptural authority to his

teaching. Second, the connective conjunctions deV …. kaiV are used at the beginning of

Rom 10:20 and should be translated as “but also” or simply “and,” since deV as a

connective conjunction may often be left untranslated.”38 Therefore, in Rom 10:19a Paul

states his question and then provides the answer to that question via OT quotations in

10:19b-21.

A correct understanding of 10:19b-21 hinges on a proper understanding of the

question in 10:19a: ajllaV levgw, mhV jIsrahVl oujk e[gnw; As in 10:18a Paul’s

use of mhV and oujk indicates that he expected an affirmative answer,39 “Yes, Israel

knew.” Paul does not state explicitly what it is Israel knew, which has led to various

interpretations of Paul’s question. The three major interpretations include: 1) Did Israel

not know the Gospel, the word about Christ?40 2) Did Israel not understand the Gospel?41

3) Did Israel not know that the Gentiles would be included in the saving purposes of God

and that Israel would resist his saving work?42

37
Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic, 150.

38
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 671.

39
Blass, A Greek Grammar, 427.

40
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Columbus: Wartburg
Press, 1945), 672.

41
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New
Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963; reprint 1980), 207; C. E. B. Cranfield, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2., The International Critical
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 539;
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 213.

42
William G.T Shedd., A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the
Romans, Limited Classical Reprint Library (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1978), 321; Brendan
Bryne, Romans, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 6, ed. Daniel J. Harrington ( Colllegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1996), 326; Schreiner, 573, Moo 668; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 101.
 14
The first option above sees Paul emphasizing the fact that the Jews heard the

Gospel because the question in 10:19a runs parallel to the question in 10:18a, making the

former a repetition of the thought found in the latter. However, this interpretation can be

rejected for a couple of reasons. One, Paul’s use of the contrastive conjunction ajlla43 at

19a suggests that the second question requires a different answer. This can be compared

to Paul’s use of the connective conjunction deV at the start of Rom 10:20-21, which is

used by Paul to show that the verses continue to address the question in Rom 10:19a.

Also, the citations of 19b-21 seem to provide the answer to a different question.

The second option above can be rejected based upon what Paul writes in Rom

10:2-3: marturw' gaVr aujtoi'" o{ti zh'lon qeou' e[cousin ajll= ouj kat=

ejpivgnwsin: ajgnoou'nte" gaVr thVn tou' qeou' dikaiosuvnhn kaiV thVn

ijdivan (dikaiosuvnhn) zhtou'nte" sth'sai, th'/ dikaiosuvnh/ tou' qeou'

oujc uJpetavghsan. Concerning these verses Schreiner writes, “Israel was ignorant

that God’s saving righteousness was a gift of God’s grace, and thus instead of trusting

God in Christ for their righteousness they sought to establish their own righteousness.”44

Although Israel heard the Gospel (Rom 10:18), apparently not all Israel understood the

content of the Gospel and Paul in Rom 10:19a is discussing what they do know. Also, like

the first option the citations of 19b-21 seem to provide the answer to a different question.

Having shown the deficiencies in the first two options, the third option should be viewed

as the best possibility as will be shown through an evaluation of Paul’s OT citations from

Deut 32:21 and Isaiah in 65:1.

43
Wallace, Grammar Beyond the Basics, 671.

44
Schreiner, Romans, 543; Dunn, Romans, 10:19; Dunn, a representative of the New
Perspective view of which Schreiner is not, sees in Rom 10:2-3 an expression of “covenantal nomism.”
However, both agree that Israel misunderstood what God required of them for salvation.
 15
Paul begins in Rom 10:19b, prw'to" Mwu>sh'" levgei: ejgwV

parazhlwvsw uJma'" ejp= oujk e[qnei, ejp= e[qnei ajsunevtw/ parorgiw'

uJma'". The OT citation is taken from Deut 32:21b LXX. The citation corresponds with

Deut 32:21 LXX, except that Paul twice substitutes uJma'" for aujtouV".45 As already

noted, the prw'to" signals that Moses is Paul’s first witness to support his thesis that

God would include the Gentiles as part of his people in order to make unbelieving Israel

jealous. Paul accepts Deuteronomy 32:2146 as an eschatological prophecy and recognizes

in it the Gentile mission.47 In Deut 32:21a the Lord describes Israel’s apostasy, their

provoking of God to jealousy and anger by the worshiping of idols, no-Gods. Deut

32:21b “contains a specific prediction in which Israel would be stirred to jealousy by a

foreign people, which is identified by Paul with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the

people of God.”48 Israel knew from its Scriptures that it would turn away from God and

that God would in return provoke them to jealously by calling the Gentiles to be part of

his people.

Paul’s use of parazhlwvsw here in Rom 10:19b foreshadows Paul’s words in

45
Koch suggests the change in the person of the pronouns clarifies that Israel is now being
discussed since the third person pronoun aujtw'n was used in Rom10:18/Ps 19:4 in reference to Christian
evangelists; see Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeug des Evangeliums (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1986), 110. Stanley notes, however, that Paul has already signaled an object change with the mention of
jIsrahVl in 10:19a so another reason for the change in person is needed. “In verse 19, the focus of Paul’s
argument shifts from the universal availability of the message of salvation (10.5-18) to the contrasting
response of Jews and Gentiles to the Gospel message (10:19-11.36).” Due to this shift in focus by Paul, it is
best to see Paul’s substitution of uJma'" for aujtouV" as his way of stressing the sinful disbelief of
Israel; see Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 143.

46
Deuteronomy 32:21 LXX: aujtoiV parezhvlwsavn me ejp= ouj qew'/
parwvrgisavn me ejn toi'" eijdwvloi" aujtw'n kajgwV parazhlwvsw aujtouV" ejp= oujk
e[qnei ejp= e[qnei ajsunevtw/ parorgiw' aujtouv".

47
Dunn, Romans, 10:19; The future tense verbs emphasize the force of the prophecy; see also
Wagner, Heralds of Good News, 188; Osborne, Romans, 279; Moo, Romans, 668.

48
Schreiner, Romans, 573.
 16
Rom 11 concerning Israel’s role in God’s salvation plan. Paul writes in Rom 11:11b,

ajllaV tw'/ aujtw'n paraptwvmati hJ swthriva toi'" e[qnesin eij" toV

parazhlw'sai aujtouv". First, it was through Israel’s “paraptwvmati/trespass”

that salvation went to the Gentiles. Israel’s trespass was their disbelief

in the message of Christ (Rom 10:16), which led the turning of the

early Christian evangelists to the Gentiles (Acts 13:45-48, 18:6, 28:24-

28).49 Second, the salvation of the Gentiles was intended to provoke

Israel to jealousy, which would lead to Israel’s salvation. Paul makes

the salvific intention of parazhlwvsw clear in 11:14 by writing, ei[ pw"

parazhlwvsw mou thVn savrka kaiV swvsw tinaV" ejx aujtw'n. Paul hopes

that many Gentiles will be saved through his ministry, which in turn will lead to the

salvation of his own “savrka,” Israel. Through the Gentile’s new relationship with God

by faith in Christ unbelieving Israel will be reminded of their severed relationship with

God (Rom 11:17, 20-21),50 which they lost by pursuing their own righteousness (Rom

10:2-3), and seek a new Christ based relationship with God. Bell writes, “Israel has failed

to be the light: the Gentiles are now a light to Israel.”51 Therefore, the goal of God’s

provoking of Israel to jealousy in Rom 10:19 is the salvation of both the Gentile and the

Jew.

Paul’s purpose in using the Deut 32:21 citation in Rom 10:19 is twofold. One,

Israel cannot claim it was ignorant that God’s saving purposes would include the

49
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 321; Schreiner, Romans, 594; Dunn, Romans, 11:11; Bell,
Provoked to Jealousy, 110; Moo, Romans, 687; Osborne, Romans, 292.

50
Osborne, Romans, 292.

51
Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 199.
 17
Gentiles. Israel knew from its Scripture that the Gentiles would be part of God’s saving

purposes and that it would be provoked to jealousy as a result. Therefore, Israel should

have recognized the activity of God in the proclamation of the Gospel. The large number

of Gentiles responding to the Gospel should have provoked Israel to seek to understand

the word about Christ, which Paul still envisions happening (Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14).

Israel may not have totally understood the content of the Gospel (that it was by faith not

works; see Rom 9:30-32), but they should have recognized the saving activity of God that

was at work among the Gentiles, who by the preaching of the Gospel were turning to God

in faith (Rom 10:20).

Two, the word of God is proven faithful. What God said concerning Israel’s sin

and the Gentiles role in his universal salvation plan came to realization in the preaching

of the Gospel.52 Paul returns to the theme of jealousy in Romans 11:11, 14 to show that

God has “turned Israel’s unfaithfulness into a means of saving the Gentiles and,

paradoxically, has thereby ensured the ultimate deliverance of Israel as well.”53 As Paul

stated earlier in Rom 9:6, the word of God has not failed. All those, Jew and Gentile, who

place faith in Christ can be assured of the promises of God in Christ; such as those

referenced in Rom 8:31-39.

Paul begins in 10:20a, jHsai?a" deV ajpotolma'/ kaiV levgei.

Ajpotolma, occurring only here in the Greek NT, indicates the boldness underlining

“the astonishing nature of what is said in Isa 65:1a” 54 rather than the psychological

52
Wagner, Heralds of Good News, 194-98.

53
Wagner, Heralds of Good News, 198.

54
Cranfield, Romans, 540.
 18
condition of the prophet.55 Next, Paul cites the LXX, but reverses the word order of

ejmfanhV" ejgenovmhn and euJrevqhn, which results in Paul’s version of the OT

passage: euJrevqhn (ejn) toi'" ejmeV mhV zhtou'sin, ejmfanhV"

ejgenovmhn toi'" ejmeV mhV ejperwtw'sin.

Oringially, Isa 65:1-2 was addressed to rebellious Israel, but Paul divided the

prophecy by applying 65:1 to Gentiles and 65:2 to Israel. The wording of Isa 65:1 recalls

Rom 9:30 where the Gentiles obtained righteousness despite not pursuing it.56 Paul’s use

of Is 65:1 drives home his point from Rom 10:19 that the Gentiles would be included in

the salvation plan of God.57 The Gentiles, in contrast to much of Israel, “not only heard

the gospel but responded to it in faith following the 10:17 principle, and thus are assured

of having encountered God.”58

The phrase ejmfanhV" ejgenovmhn, “I became manifest or revealed,”

begs the questions, “How and why did God become revealed?” The answer to Why is

addressed in 10:19 and 11:11, 14. As already discussed, Paul writes there that God

revealed himself to the Gentiles so to provoke Israel to jealousy, which would eventually

bring about the salvation of both Gentile and Jew. God’s universal salvation plan includes

the Gentiles, those who were not part of God’s people.

The How question, however, recalls Rom 10:14c-15a where Paul gives the final

two steps that lead to the opportunity for salvation. In 10:14c Paul writes, pw'" deV

55
Origen, and Thomas P. Scheck, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Books 6-10, The
Fathers of the Church (Washington D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2002), 150.

56
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 669.

57
Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 105; Schreiner, Romans, 574; Dunn, Romans, 10:19.

58
Jewett, Romans, 648.
 19
ajkouvswsin cwriV" khruvssonto"; Paul highlights the fact that God has chosen

men to be his agents for the revealing of his Gospel to men. In Rom 10:15a Paul writes,

pw'" deV khruvxwsin ejaVn mhV ajpostalw'sin; The subject of this last

question is the preacher of the Gospel, khruvssonto", of the previous Rom 10:14c.59

Once preachers are sent to proclaim the Gospel, people have the opportunity to believe

and confess Jesus as Lord. Fitzmyer writes, “The message of God’s gospel must come to

human beings from outside of them” and “Authoritative preaching… presupposes a

mission from God.”60 The preaching of the Gospel led to the salvation of the Gentiles,

those who were not part of God’s people.61

Before disucssing Rom 10:21, several reasons should be noted for rejecting

Tiessen’s inclusivist argument concerning 10:19-20 based upon the previous evaluation

of those verses. First, Tiessen ignores the significance of the Gentile mission revealed in

these verses, which includes the proclamation of the Gospel. There is no indication by

Paul that Gentiles existed without faith in Christ with a relationship with God. Paul sees

Christian Gentiles as those who were outside the people of God and had to be found and

grafted into the people of God (Rom 10:19-20; 11:17). This is contrary to Tiessen, who

believes that people can be part of the people of God by responding in faith to whatever

revelation is available to them. It was through the preaching of the Gospel by Christian

evangelists, such as Paul (Rom 11:13), that the Gentiles had the opportunity to become

part of the people of God (Rom 10:20).

59
Richard N. Garrett, “A Syntactical Analysis of Romans 9-11” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University,
1982), 66.

60
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The
Anchor Bible (New York: Double Day, 1992), 596.

61
Martin Luther, Luther: Lectures on Romans, trans. Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1961), 302.
 20
Second, as a corollary to the argument above, Paul’s teaching that the faith of

the Gentiles leads to the salvation of Israel demonstrates the necessity of the preached

Gospel for the salvation of the Jews. According to Paul, the faith of the Gentiles leads to

salvation of the Jews (Rom 10:19: 11: 11, 14). However, if Tiessen is correct and the

Gentiles can place their faith in something other than Christ for salvation, then there is no

example for the Jews to follow whereby their relationship with God can be restored. But

if the Gentiles hear the Gospel, they can respond in faith to Christ and be a light to Israel

as well. Therefore, the preaching of the Gospel is necessary for the salvation of both

Gentile and Jew.

Third, Tiessen argues that Romans 10:13-20 should not be used to teach the

necessity of hearing the Gospel for salvation because “Paul was not addressing that issue

at all.”62 Certainly, Romans 10:14-21, even Romans 9-11, was not written with the sole

purpose of teaching Christian exclusivism. However, in the midst of his teaching on

Jewish unbelief and the faithfulness of God, Paul does lay down basic principles of

salvation that apply to all people, which includes the hearing of the Gospel. Also, while

accusing exclusivists of wrongly using 10:14-15 as a proof text, Tiessen is guilty of using

proof texts to support his argument from Rom 9-11. He uses Rom 10:19-20 to argue that

Israel’s unbelieving state teaches that people should are responsible to respond to God by

any means available to them; which, as has been shown, is not the point of these verses.

Fourth, Tiessan’s argument is based on assumption. Paul does not say in Rom

10:19-20 that the Jews could have been saved from the wrath of God if they had not

heard the Gospel; nor does he suggest that another form of revelation besides the hearing

of Christ leads to salvation. Also, Tiessen gives no proof given to support this inclusivist
62
Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved, 269.
 21
position. Such an assumption cannot be accepted in the midst of a passage where Paul has

stressed the hearing, believing, and confessing of Christ as Lord for salvation (Rom

10:14-21). Simply, Paul in Rom 10:19-20 is not teaching that people should respond in

faith to whatever revelation is available to them. Rather, he is teaching about the Jewish

Scriptures by Israel and the essential role of the Gentile mission for the salvation of both

Jew and Gentile; a mission that includes the preaching of the Gospel.

Now consider Rom 10:21: proV" deV toVn jIsrahVl levgei: o{lhn thVn

hJmevran ejxepevtasa taV" cei'rav" mou proV" laoVn ajpeiqou'nta kaiV

ajntilevgonta. The proV" should be translated as “with reference to,”63 in order to

pinpoint Israel as the “disobedient and obstinate people.” The translation, “But to Israel

he says,” leaves the phrase laoVn ajpeiqou'nta kaiV ajntilevgonta more ambiguous

than the translation, “But in reference to Israel he says.” Also, the deV indicates that Paul

has transitioned from discussing those Gentiles who have been found by God in Rom

10:20 to Israel in Rom 10:21 who remain separated from God due to their disobedient

disbelief.

The Isa 65:2 quotation by Paul in Rom 10:21 remains closer to Isaiah’s original

context than Isa 65:1 in Rom 10:20. Paul applies the words to Israel the same way Isaiah

does rather than switching the focus to the Gentiles. Wagner stresses the importance of

keeping the whole of Isa 64-66 in mind in order to gain a proper understanding of

10:21.64 In the OT text Israel accuses God of “keeping silent/ ejsiwvphsa"” (Isa

64:12/64:11 LXX) as they foresee the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. God
63
Bauer, Greek English Lexicon, 875; BAGD notes that Paul’s use here of proV" can be
understood as with reference to Israel’s perversity, comparable to its use in Matt 19:8 and Mark 10:5; for
this use of proV" refer also to H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927; reprint 1955), 110.

64
Wagner, Hearalds of Good News, 214.
 22
responds that he has not been silent but continually pursued Israel with outstretched

hands (Isa 65:2). The problem was not God’s lack of concern for the Israelites but Israel’s

disobedient and obstinate attitude. Therefore, the citation of Is 65:2 emphasizes the theme

of Israel’s unfaithfulness. What the Lord predicted in Deut 32:21 (also v.19) has come to

pass as is evident from Israel’s disobedience.65 “Specifically in Paul’s context they have

been disobedient and obstinate by seeking to establish their own righteousness instead of

accepting the righteousness from God found in the word of Christ (10:1-4, 17).”66

Hendriksen believes “v. 21 leaves the impression of gloom and not cheer.”67 He

emphasizes Israel’s earned judgment from disbelief and disobedience while neglecting to

stress the patience of God. Certainly, Paul describes the sin of Israel’s disobedience, but

he also shows God’s patience and mercy. Paul reverses the phrases o{lhn thVn

hJmevran and ejxepevtasa taV" cei'rav" mou as he quotes from Is 65:2 in the

LXX, which places the former in the primary position in sentence.68 This change in word

order by Paul stresses the continual patience and mercy of God.69 God’s desire to be in

fellowship with Israel displayed in this verse relays the message of hope for Israel that

Paul discusses in chapter eleven (11:11, 14, 26).70

65
That Paul views disbelief in the Gospel as disobedience was made clear in Rom 10:16 where
he writes, jAll= ouj pavnte" uJphvkousan tw'/ eujaggelivw/. jHsai?a" gaVr levgei: kuvrie,
tiv" ejpivsteusen th'/ ajkoh'/ hJmw'n; For more information on Rom 10:16 refer it its
discussion earlier in this paper.

66
Douglas A. Oss, “Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Its Place in His Theology with Special Reference
to Romans 9-11” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992), 93.

67
Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 353.

68
Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 146.

69
Johnson, Function and Apocalyptic, 159; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 105; Fitzmyer,
Romans, 600

70
Carlos Osvaldo Cardoso Pinto, “The Contribution of the Isaiah Quotations to Paul's
Argument in Romans 9-11” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003), 201-02.
 23
Finally, there is a balance of divine initiative and human responsibility. The

picture of God holding out his hands represents the divine invitation of God.71 It is God

who pursues rebellious humanity and offers forgiveness. The speaker continues to be

God, demonstrating his concern for Israel. “It is no accident that all three of the

concluding OT quotations are indirect speech of God and indeed in first person

language.”72 Yet, despite God’s gracious invitation Israel rejected the Gospel and

remained in disobedient disbelief.

In summary, in Rom 10:18-21 Paul does not teach the possibility of salvation

outside the hearing of the preached Gospel. Paul in Rom 10:18 teaches that Israel’s

unsaved condition is not because they have not heard the Gospel because the Gospel has

been preached widely by Christian evangelists. Then in Rom 10:19-21 Paul writes that

Israel can not claim that they did not know that God’s saving promises included the

Gentiles because the Lord had foretold them of this event via Moses and Isaiah. The

problem in Rom 10:18-21 is Israel’s disobedient rejection of the word about Christ. The

fact that Israel heard the Gospel and rejected it does not support inclusivism because Paul

views the preaching of the Gospel as pivotal to the Gentile mission, which leads to the

salvation of both Jew and Gentile. Rather, Israel’s disbelief teaches that hearing the

Gospel does not guarantee a faith in Christ by the listener due to the reality of sinful man.

Mission Implications of Romans 10:18-21

In Rom 10:18-21 Paul addresses the issue of Israel’s disbelief in the Gospel

and the essential role of the Gentile mission in God’s universal plan of salvation. From

71
Fitzmyer, Romans, 600.

72
Dunn, Romans, 10:21.
 24
these verses certain missiological implications are evident: 1) Israel’s rejection of the

Gospel reveals that disbelief is not always due to a lack of hearing the Gospel. 2) God’s

continual invitation to Israel and his overall plan for their salvation shows that

missionaries should continue to evangelize the Jews and other resistant people groups. 3)

The Gospel had to be preached to the Gentiles in order for them to have the opportunity

for them hear from Jesus, confess him as Lord, and become part of the people of God.

Reaching the Resistant for Christ

Rom 10:18-21 portrays Israel as a resistant people,73 which missiologists

define as “those who have or are receiving an adequate opportunity to hear the gospel but

over time have not responded positively.”74 In Rom 10:16, 18-21 Israel remains in a state

of sinful disbelief not because they have not heard the Gospel (Rom 10:18), but because

of their disbelief in the word about Christ (Rom 10:16, 21), which has separated them

from God (Rom 11:17).

However, despite Israel’s rejection of the Gospel, Paul’s teaching in Rom

10:19-21 and Rom 11 reveals that Israel remains part of God’s universal salvation plan.

Recalling the earlier discussion of Rom 10:19-20 and Rom 11:11, 14, God’s plan of

salvation includes the provoking of Israel to jealousy, which will lead to their coming to

faith in Christ. God’s concern for Israel’s salvation even in light of their sinful disbelief

demonstrates his love for resistant peoples and encourages missionaries to continue

preaching the Gospel to peoples who have habitually turned a deaf ear to Christ. Paul, the

73
Ronald E. Watters, “John E. Sanders and Wider-Hope Theology: A Theological Investigation
of Evangelical Inclusivism and the Destiny of the Unevangelized” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 2003), 254.

74
Michael Pocock, “Raising Questions About the Resistant,” in Reaching the Resistant:
Barriers and Bridges for Mission, ed. J. D. Woodberry (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), 5.
 25
apostle to the Gentiles, went first to the Jew with the Gospel (Rom 1:16-17) and hoped

his ministry to would lead to their salvation (Rom 11:14). Paul’s words in Rom 10:19;

11:1, 11, 14 teach the that some from even the most resistant peoples will one day place

faith in Christ.

Some New Testament theologians and missiologists bay believe that Israel’s

resistance is unique, a special case that cannot be compared with that of resistant Gentile

peoples. It is true that Israel has a spiritual blindness different from that of Gentiles. Paul

writes in Rom 11:25b, o{ti pwvrwsi" ajpoV mevrou" tw'/ jIsrahVl gevgonen

a[cri ou| toV plhvrwma tw'n ejqnw'n eijsevlqh/. From these words about

divine hardening some Christian teachers have concluded that Jewish evangelism is

unnecessary. For example, Chuck Smith, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, CA,

states, “I don’t have a great burden for Jewish evangelism. I believe God will evangelize

them when He is ready. I really feel that for the most part Jewish evangelism is a waste of

church finances that can be better used to evangelize the Gentiles at this time.”75

Smith’s attitude towards Jewish evangelism does not comply with what Paul

says in Rom 11:25. In that verse Paul does acknowledges a spiritual hardness to the

Gospel, but that hardness is partial. In Rom 11:5 Paul states that a Jewish remnant of

believers exists (“lei'mma kat= ejkloghVn cavrito" gevgonen/remnant

according to the election of grace), which is substantiated in the conversion of Paul

himself in Rom 11:1. This means that even though the number of Jews who accept Christ

may be low, the Gospel must be preached to them in order for those few to know the

salvation of Christ. To assume that Israel’s divine hardening means all Jews are separated

75
Chuck Smith, radio broadcast transcript, KFAX-AM 1100, 30 December 1992, quoted in
David Brickner, “Encountering Jewish Resistance,” in Reaching the Resistant: Barriers and Bridges for
Mission, ed. J. D. Woodberry (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), 83.
 26
from God and Jewish evangelism should be abandoned is to misunderstand Paul’s

teaching.

Israel does have a role in salvation history different from that of the Gentiles,

but Paul does not say either in Rom 10 or 11 that the divine hardening of Israel excused

them from the judgment of disbelief.76 The ultimate cause of disbelief for both Jew and

Gentile is sin. Paul writes that all people are rebellious and resistant to the Gospel; all

people sin and do not seek God (Rom 3:10-18, 23). David Brickner, Executive Director

of Jews for Jesus, writes that “the most pressing reasons to resist the gospel are spiritual.

This is true for Jews and Gentiles alike. Humanity’s sinful condition is what made the

gospel necessary, and it is also the condition that causes people to resist the gospel.”77 All

people are sinful and must confess Jesus Lord for salvation (Rom 10:8-10; 17-18).

Missionaries struggle to understand why certain peoples continually refuse the

Gospel; mostly attributing the unbelief either to a lack of missionary effort or to

inadequate missiological methods and strategies.78 These answers, however, are

insufficient. Missionaries often labor selflessly for years using culturally appropriate

methods among a resistant people and see no conversions to Christ. Certainly,

missionaries must evaluate their evangelistic strategies in order to secure that the Gospel

is communicated biblically in an understandable and culturally appropriate fashion.

However, as Rom 10:18-21 demonstrates, sin is at the heart of Gospel resistance.

Donald McGavran, father of the Church Growth Movement, believed that

76
Elliot Neil, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's
Dialogue with Judaism, (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990), 268.

77
David Brickner, “Encountering Jewish Resistance,” in Reaching the Resistant: Barriers and
Bridges for Mission, ed. J. D. Woodberry (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), 81.

78
Gary Corwin, “Revising Assumptions About the Resistant,” in Reaching the Resistant:
Barriers and Bridges for Mission, ed. J. D. Woodberry (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), 12.
 27
missionaries should not abandon resistant peoples, but that the majority of missionaries

and resources should be utilized among those who are most responsive to the Gospel.79

David Garrison, missionary among resistant Hindus in India, argues that current

missiological study shows church planting movements most often occur among the least

expected peoples who have been overlooked by those looking for responsive peoples.80

However, it is essential that neither the resistant nor the responsive be neglected in the

missionary task. Rom 10:20 depicts God’s self-revelation to the Gentiles, those who have

more numerously placed faith in Christ, and 10:21 shows God’s continual invitation to

Israel, a people who have only marginally placed faith in Christ. Missionaries should,

therefore, follow the Lord’s example and seek to offer a continual, balanced witness to

both the resistant and the responsive.

Salvation Requires Hearing the Gospel

As shown in the previous section of this paper concerning Rom 10:19-20 and

11: 11, 14, the salvation of both Jew and Gentile is brought about by the Gentile mission,

of which the preaching of the Gospel is an essential element. The Gospel must be

preached in order for “no-peoples,” those not part of God’s people, to have the

opportunity to become part of the people of God through hearing and believing the word

about Christ (Rom 10:17-20). It should be recalled that in 10:14c-15, 18, and 20 God is

shown as revealing himself through the preaching of the Gospel, not general revelation.

Preaching the Gospel and conversion must remain top priorities of Christian missions.

79
Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1970), 216; McGavran recognizes that receptivity can change dramatically over time so missionaries
should remain in small number among the resistant to share the Gospel when the opportunity arises.

80
David Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How God Is Redeeming a Lost World
(Bangalore, India: WIG Take Resources, 2004), 25.
 28
The inclusivist argument holds that the goal of preaching of the Gospel is not

always conversion, but sometimes simply the informing one of his or her already saved

state. Karl Rahner writes, “no matter what a man states in his conceptual, theoretical and

religious reflection, anyone who does not say in his heart, ‘there is no God’ but testifies to

him by the radical acceptance of his being, is a believer.”81 For inclusivists, Christians are

those who have responded in faith to the preached Gospel; believers are those who have

not heard the Gospel but have responded positively to whatever revelation was available

to them. Even pluralist John Hick recognizes how this weakens Christian mission writing,

“The attraction (to those who hold it) of this inclusivist position is that it negates the old

missionary compulsion.”82

Thomas Guterbock, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia,

surveyed Christian relief and development agencies to evaluate the way in which the

theology of its workers influenced their ministry. Guterbock documents that where

Christians within their agencies do not believe in the necessity of the lost hearing the

Gospel “the imperative to evangelize is weakened as a logical result.”83 Exclusivists, on

the other hand, focus more on Gospel proclamation than social work. Exclusivist mission

work certainly includes community development and relief, but the top priority of

exclusivist mission groups is the proclamation of the Gospel. 84

Unity among Christians remains an essential part of the missionary task (John
81
Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations: Concerning Vatican II, trans. Karl and Boniface
Kruger (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1968), 6:390.

82
John Hick, Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1993), 143; parenthesis in quotation is Hick’s.

83
Thomas Guterbock, “What Do Christians Expect from Christian Relief and Development,”
Stewardship Journal 2 (1992): 20-32.

84
The ultimate goal being the glory and praise of God (Rom 11:33-36).
 29
17:20-24). However, inclusivists and exclusivists are incompatible for Christian

missionary service. As the comparison of the two group’s interpretation of Rom 10:18-21

has shown, they hold opposite views about biblical interpretation and the necessity of

preaching the Gospel for conversion, which are both essential parts of planning

missionary methodology and strategy.

Using Scripture without careful consideration of the text and surrounding

verses leads to a weak missiological position. Inclusivists Pinnock, Sanders, and Tiessen

do not refer to the Greek text or seek to properly understand Paul’s use of the OT in their

inclusivist argumentation. Also, inclusivists make assumptions about the biblical text.

They assume that because Paul is addressing Israel’s disbelief in the heard Gospel that

those who have not heard are not condemned. However, Paul never says this in 10:18-21.

What Paul does say is that despite God’s continual invitation for Israel to repent and

believe they remained in disobedience (10:21). People are not condemned for not hearing

the Gospel; they are condemned because of their sin (Rom 3:23).

Also, biblical interpretation should not be grounded in experience. Millard

Erickson wrote a journal article stating his rationale for supporting the inclusivist

position. Interestingly, Erickson begins his argument by recalling the time when his

daughter asked what happened to people who never hear of Jesus?85 Erickson’s starting

position for theological pursuit was not the text of Rom 10:18, but the experience of

sadness that comes from the idea that those without the Gospel perish. The result is that

he accepts Rom 10:18 as support of salvation via general revelation. This is a very real

concern for missionaries who serve among resistant people. Missionaries who witness

85
Millard J. Erickson, “Hope for Those who Haven't Heard? Yes, but…,” Evangelical Missions
Quarterly 11 (1975): 122.
 30
among Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist groups, for example, may not see conversions to

Christ and this can lead some to lean away from the exclusivist position. In the midst of

Gospel rejection missionaries must remain committed to the teaching of Scripture.

Conclusion

The inclusivist argument that Romans 10:18-20 teaches the availability of

salvation via general revelation for those who have never heard the Gospel cannot be

supported from the biblical text of Rom 10:18-21. This passage addresses Israel’s sinful

rejection of the Gospel and the role of the Gentile mission in God’s universal salvation

plan. God desires for the word about Christ to be preached throughout all the earth so that

all, Jew and Gentile, who remain without hope in sin may receive forgiveness and new

life Christ. The Christian preacher as God’s chosen instrument for spreading the Gospel

must remain committed to the missionary task set before him, trusting ultimately on God

in prayer rather than human experience, intellect, and strategy. Preaching the Gospel does

not guarantee faith in Christ, but it is does make the opportunity possible.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aageson, J. W. “Typology, Correspondance, and the Application of Scripture in Romans

9-11.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 51-72.

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C.M Martini, and B. Metzger. The Greek
New Testament. 4th ed., rev. United Bible Socities. Stuttgart, Germany: Biblia-
Druck, 1983.

Bauer, Walter, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bell, Richard H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in
Romans 9-11. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994.

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Brickner, David. “Encountering Jewish Resistance.” In Reaching the Resistant: Barriers

and Bridges for Mission, ed. J. D. Woodberry, 79-106. Pasadena, CA: William
Carey Library, 1998.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale
New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1963; reprint
1980.

Bryne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina Series vol. 6. Ed. Daniel J. Harrington
Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996.

Corwin, Gary. “Revising Assumptions about the Resistant.” Reaching the Resistant:
Barriers and Bridges for Mission (1998): 11-21.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,

vol. 2. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9-16. Word Biblical Commentary [CD-ROM] Waco: Word,
1988.

Ellis, E. Earle. Prophecy and Hermeneutic. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1978.

Erickson, Millard. “Hope for Those Who Haven't Heard? Yes, but….” Evangelical

31
 32
Missions Quarterly 11 (1975): 122-26.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The
Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Garrett, Richard N. “A Syntactical Analysis of Romans 9-11.” Ph.D. diss., Baylor

University, 1982.

Garriosn, David. Church Planting Movements: How God Is Redeeming a Lost World.
Bangalore, India: WIG Take Resources, 2004.

Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press,
1987.

Geivett, R. Douglas and W. Garry Phillips. “A Particularist View: An Evidentialist

Approach.” In Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L.
Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips,213-46. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1995.

Guterbock, Thomas. “What Do Christians Expect from Christian Relief and

Development.” Stewardship Journal 2 (1992): 24.

Hendriksen, William. Expostion of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1981.

Hick, John. Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1993.

Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Johnson, E. E. The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9-11.

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, ed. Talbert, Charles, no. 109.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Johnson, Franklin. The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old. Philadelphia:
American Baptist Publication Society, 1895.

Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1986.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Columbus:

Wartburg Press, 1945.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans. Translated by Wilhelm Pauck. Philadelphia:

The Westminster Press, 1961.

Martinez, Florentino Garcia, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude.
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Qumran Cave 11. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1998.
 33
McGavran, Donald A. Understanding Church Growth. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 1970.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Moody, Dale. Word of Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman and

Holman, 1995.

Munck, Johannes. Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11. Translated by

Ingeborg Nixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Neil, Elliot. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's
Dialogue with Judaism. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen.

Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949.

O’Neill, J. C. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1975.

Origen, and Thomas P. Scheck. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Books 6-10.
The Fathers of the Church. Washington D. C.: Catholic University Press, 2002.

Osborne, Grant. Romans. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Oss, Douglas A. “Paul's Use of Isaiah and Its Place in His Theology with Special
Reference to Romans 9-11.” Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992.

Peters, George W. A Biblical Theology of Missions. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of
Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Pinto, Carlos Osvaldo Cardoso. “The Contribution of the Isaiah Quotations to Paul's
Argument in Romans 9-11.” Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003.

Pocock, Michael. “Raising Questions about the Resistant.” In Reaching the Resistant:
Barriers and Bridges for Mission, ed. J. Dudley Woodberry, 3-10. Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library, 1998.

Rahner, Karl. Theological Investigations: Concerning Vatican II. Translated by Karl and
Boniface Kruger. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 19868.

Rickards, Raymond R. “The Translation of dia rhematos Christou in Romans 10:17.” The
 34
Bible Translator 27 (1976): 447-48.

Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980.

Sanders, John E. “Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation?” The Evangelical
Quarterly 60 (1988): 241-59.

Schreiner, Thomas. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

Shedd, William G. T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to
the Romans. Limited Classical Reprint Library. Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock,
1978.

Smith, Chuck. Transcription of a radio broadcast, KFAX-AM 1100, 30 December 1992.

Quoted in David Brickner, “Encountering Jewish Resistance,” in Reaching the
Resistant: Barriers and Bridges for Mission, ed. J. D. Woodberry (Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library, 1998), 83.

Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters
of Paul. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004.

_________. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline
Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992.

Tiessen, Terrance L. Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World
Religions. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to
the Romans. Boston: Brill, 2002.

Watters, Ronald E. “John E. Sanders and Wider-Hope Theology: A Theological

Investigation of Evangelical Inclusivism and the Destiny of the Unevangelized.”
PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2003.

Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Romer: Rom 6-11. Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1980.

Witherington III, Ben. Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.

Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004.