Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 3
Bercot said early Christians read the “opponent” in Romans 10:18 as making an assertion (“they have not heard”), not a question—how does that change the force of Paul’s rebuttal, and what does it suggest about Paul’s view of culpability versus excuse-making in unbelief?
Another way to ask: If Romans 10:18 is read as “they have not heard” (a claim) instead of a question, how does that make Paul’s answer stronger? What does it show about whether unbelief is a real excuse or something people are responsible for?

Direct Answer If the opponent is asserting “they have not heard,” Paul’s response becomes a sharp contradiction of a false excuse, not a gentle answer to an honest question. It suggests Paul views unbelief as culpable because Israel had ample exposure to the gospel, and the “lack of hearing/knowing” argument is treated as excuse-making.

Support from Transcript:

  • “Our English Bibles…translate…as a question,” but “the early Christians understand the opponent to be making an assertion.”
  • The opponent is “once again complaining that the Jews have not heard.”
  • Bercot: “This is so blatantly false that Paul immediately contradicts him.”
  • Paul’s rebuttal: “Indeed they have, for their sound went throughout all the earth.”
  • Chrysostom: “Why the evangelists lived for such a long time right among you…they were from your very land.”
  • The flow of excuses continues: “The opponent keeps insisting that Israel should be excused…Paul replies, ‘By no means.’”
Discussion Follow-ups What “respectable” excuses for unbelief do Christians sometimes accept today that Paul would challenge? How does this affect how we speak about responsibility without becoming harsh?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next