Chapter # 10 Paragraph # 3 Study # 4
September 23, 2018
Humble, Texas
(078)
1769 Translation:
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [
them that are] no people, [
and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
1901 ASV Translation:
18 But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did Israel not know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you.
20 And Isaiah is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me.
21 But as to Israel he saith, All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
- I. There Is, Yet Again, The "Whiplash" of Strong Contradiction.
- A. The adversative conjunction found here is used by Paul in 68 verses in Romans alone (out of 602 in the entire New Testament).
- B. This is the "adversative" that brings something pretty much unexpected into the thoughts being presented.
- II. Paul's Argument.
- A. According to the logic of the "chain" that runs from a "Sender" to "salvation" found in reverse order in 10:14-15, the general disbelief of the nations in general and the gross disbelief of Israel in particular "suggests", perhaps, a breakdown in that chain somewhere between the idea of "No Sender" to the idea of "No Hearing".
- 1. In the order of the chain, there is first a "Sender" who is "The Lord" Who grants salvation to anyone who calls upon His name. Clearly, if the atheist is right, there is no such "Sender" and, thus, no "salvation".
- 2. But, atheists are as rare as hen's teeth among the inhabitants of the world (one has to be extremely "foolish" to be such: Psalm 14:1 and 53:1).
- 3. Thus, the "breakdown" in the chain has to be found somewhere within the chain and not at its beginning.
- 4. Since the feet of those who bring good news of good things are "beautiful" (i.e., highly desirable), no one with any sense would walk away from the "good things".
- 5. But Paul says "not all" were interested in submitting themselves to the "good news". Thus, a "reason" (if there could even be such -- no one with any sense would walk away from the "good things") must be found for the disinterest (which has proven to be so strong as to be militantly opposed to the message of good things; a militancy that even opposes the interest by "others").
- 6. Paul suggests a "possibility": the "breakdown" is to be found in the "messengers" who failed to "herald forth" the "good news"; there might have been a majority of "Jonahs" out there who received the commission, but fled from its responsibilities. No one will "hear" if the message has been squelched.
- 7. But Paul immediately rejects that "possibility": the "problem" is not that the message has been squelched so that people have not heard.
- a. He asks, "Have they not heard?" as a matter of basic theology ( legw used to indicate basic doctrinal truth). The text pointedly declares that the person Paul is contradicting in his theology is the person who declares: "they have not heard".
- b. He answers emphatically: that is not the case (translated by the Authorized Version as "Yes verily" and by the NASB as "Indeed they have"). These translations are rooted in the way Paul's suggested possibility is framed by the translators: "Have they not heard?" The Logos Library System, however, says Paul's word is an "emphatic particle" that means "nay rather". This makes it necessary for us to reframe the translators' choice. Instead of "Have they not heard?", a perfectly legitimate linguistic alternative is "But, I am saying, 'They have not heard?'". In other words, "Am I saying 'they have not heard'?" And his answer is in accord with the "nay rather" translation option. His reasoning is this: Am I saying that the fault is to be found in the absence of a hearing?; "nay rather". The "hearing" has always been within the grasp of everyone; all the nations. Thus, we have to look somewhere else for the "breakdown" in the chain.
- B. Paul's Supporting Text.
- 1. The words following Paul's denial (that it is a lack of "hearing" that has resulted in the rejection of the "good things") are his "support".
- 2. These words are a verbatim quote of the Septuagint's version of what is, in our Bibles, Psalm 19:4. The Septuagint version has it as Psalm 18:5, but that is of no significance to our considerations since Paul simply wrote the quote without saying whence it comes. [The Septuagint varies in many places from the chapter/verse designations of our English translations.]
- a. The context is the Psalmist's (David's) claim that "natural revelation" makes "day unto day" and "night unto night" statements about "the glory of God". The claim is, ultimately, that this revelation reaches everyone (in our current context, both Israel and the nations) and that there is "nothing hid from its impact". This is not to say "there are no truths about God's glory that are hidden", but, rather, "there is no one on the planet that does not possess an experience of that glory and its impact".
- b. This is Paul's "point": the absence of a "hearing" does not exist for anyone. Unbelief in the good news about good things is not to be rooted in a lack of "hearing".
- 1) His verbatim claim is that "the sound went forth into all the earth" (emphasizing the "hearing") and that "the words reached unto the limits of the inhabited world" (emphasizing the "content").
- 2) Though not referenced with a "verbatim quote", this is the same truth that undergirds Romans 1:19-20.
- a) In this text, the content of the revelation is said to be "...what may be known of God..." and "...the invisible things of Him...".
- b) The specifics of this revelation are nailed down: "...His eternal power and Godhead...".
- c) The argument is potent. The basic issue, in the Romans 10 text, is "good news of good things". Paul argues that "eternal power" pushes for a recognition of this basic issue and he argues that "His Godhead" pushes the same result. It is ironic that men have consistently used the empty "problem of evil" issue to detract from this witness because it is far harder to explain the existence of "good things" in an evil creation than it is to explain the existence of "evil things" in the creation of a "good" God. It is the nature of "evil" to destroy all good, but it is not the nature of "good" to destroy all evil. "Good's" toleration of some levels of "evil" is a testament to its "goodness" (who would deny that grace, mercy, patience, long-suffering, etc. are not "good", even though those "good things" are only recognizable in the face of evil?). It is the testimony of Scripture that the Good God is never going to completely eliminate all "evil" from His "good" creation, for "the smoke of their torment will ascend forever and ever" (Revelation 14:11). Interestingly, "good" cannot be forced to serve evil goals, but "evil" can be forced to serve "good" ones (Romans 8:28).
- III. Has Paul Defeated His Own Argument for His Apostleship By Declaring This Universal Understanding?
- A. Paul's argument is that The Sender "sent" him as a herald so that those who "heard" him could be saved by calling upon the name of the Lord.
- B. That The Sender had already "sent" heralds in the form of "the heavens and the firmament" as per David's claim in Psalm 19, does not contradict Paul's claim of his own "sending" for one particular reason: it has always been the habit of The Sender to "send" again and again (it is impossible to read Jeremiah or Lamentations and not come to this conclusion). Since it has always been the habit to send and send again, Paul's "apostleship" (indeed, anyone's "apostleship") stands clearly within that tradition. Even Psalm 19 argues that even though the heavens and the firmament clearly establish an "inexcusable" status for all humanity, Yahweh additionally gave His "word" (this structure of saying Psalm 19:1-6 is a declaration of significant "revelation" and then turning right around and saying Psalm 19:7-14 is a declaration of even more significant "revelation" reaffirms the pattern of God's "sending and then sending again").