Friends, there is a branch of modern biblical interpretation called "Literary Criticism," and it tries to understand the Scriptures from the perspective of literature, as opposed to simply history. This approach recognizes that the writers of Scripture had the freedom to use literary devices like figures of speech, rhetoric, irony, etc. to convey the message of Scripture. While this is universally acknowledged today, I have sensed that it is only partially and haphazzardly applied. As a result, there has been much misinterpretation, or at least misunderstanding of Scripture. Let me give an obvious example, and then ones not so obvious.

In Romans 6:1, we read, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" If we stopped there, we would think that Paul seriously entertained the possibility that believers should sin so that God might show more of His grace. However, immediately following this, he writes, "Certainly not!" Paul used a literary device that we refer to today as the "rhetorical question."

Here's a tougher one. In Romans 3:7-8 we read,

For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

Paul "plays the devil's advocate" in order to dispel the false logic of those that would criticize the justice of God. Note that, even though he uses the first person pronoun "I" the objections are not his own but those of others.

In today's reading, we have an even tougher reading. Paul writes in Romans 10:14-15,

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

It's tougher because Paul does not immediately respond to the question, and he even includes a Scriptural reference, which may make us automatically assume that what is written is Paul's perspective.

The key here is that Paul made his point in the immediately preceding verse, Romans 10:13, where he writes, "For 'whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." What follows are objections to his point. And rarely if ever are the objections his own, but they are those of others. Another reason we know that these are not his objections is that in Romans 10:16ff he responds: "But they have not obeyed the gospel..."

So, it is the Objector who is asking, 'Can people be held accountable for faith since no preacher was sent to preach the gospel to them?' And Paul responds to the objection by saying that even when a preacher was sent, they did not believe (Romans 10:16-17).

Why is this significant? When Bible interpreters fail to see this literary technique at work, they presume that the objections and the response are one and the same; thus, the objections cease to be objections and the response ceases to be a response. So, they misinterpret a key verse like Romans 10:17 into meaning that faith comes when preachers preach the Gospel. No! It is just the opposite. Paul is making a contrast between the word of a preacher versus the "word of God." Faith comes by God's design, His plan, and His will, which is in keeping with Paul's thesis of God's sovereignty in these chapters. Even when the preacher preached the Word, people did not believe. But God's Word always accomplishes it's purpose, which is attested also by Isaiah, whom Paul will quote frequently:

So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11). 

In fact, having this perspective, when we go back and reread Paul's somewhat nebulous words in Romans 10:6-8, it makes much more sense:

But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down from above)  or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):

Paul writes about the righteousnes of faith in contrast to "the righteousness which is of the law." One requires perfect compliance to what is seen, namely the commands of the Law. The other is unseen. As Jesus said to doubting Thomas, "Blessed are those who believe but have not seen." This faith does not require a visible sign of Christ's descent from heaven nor of His ascent from the grave. The "word of faith" which Paul preaches is one that God has put in their mouths and in their hearts. This is the meaning of the Scripture "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart." This, of course, is also in keeping with the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:33-34,

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. 

No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

God sovereignly and supernaturally puts "the word of faith" into the hearts of people so that they might believe. As Jesus told Nicodemus, "Unless a man is born again (or "born from above"), he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). It is by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that people believe and are saved.

Now, please jump down to Romans 10:18. After Paul responds to the objection that people cannot believe unless preachers are sent to preach the gospel to them, he then responds to the objection that people cannot believe unless they hear. He writes in Romans 10:18,

But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
“ Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

I confess that when I first read this as a young seminary student, I had no clue what this meant. And no one at the time could explain it to me. Also, I was not satisfied with anything the commentaries had to  say. Everyone seems to recognize that Paul's question, "Have they not heard," is a rhetorical one, particularly since he answers "Yes indeed."

However, the passage he quotes to support his response is from Psalm 119:4, which talks about God's general revelation in creation, which comes short of what is necessary for salvation, namely, faith in Jesus Christ. So, why would Paul make this citation? The knowledge of God's general revelation in creation would only serve to condemn rather than save. It would point to a sovereign God, who has power over creation; however, it is not the "Gospel." It is only in the second half of Psalm 119 (starting in verse 7) that David writes of the virtues and blessedness of God's specific revelation in His Word.

So how is Paul responding to the objection that people must hear in order to believe? He is saying that they have heard enough, or have enough awareness that there is a sovereign God, who is just to both condemn and save. His response here is much like his response to the objector in Romans 9:19-20,

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Paul reminds the objectors that God is the Creator, and His sovereignty over what He has made gives Him the freedom to act according to His own glory, even if that means to only save some and allow the rest to be self-condemned (cf. Romans 1:18-32).

Coming back to Romans, in Romans 10:19 Paul continues in his response to the objections. He next responds to the objection "How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?" Paul answers with another rhetorical question: "But I say, did Israel not know?" (Romans 10:19). The expected answer: Yes! Then, he goes on to give three Scriptures that point to what God has done.

First, he cites Deuteronomy 32:21, where Moses prophesied what would happen in light of Israel's stubborn rebellion against God. God would judge them severely, even to the extent that they would be jealous and angry because God has removed favor from them and given it to the Gentiles. This is consistent with the theme Paul would more fully develop in Romans 11.

In the next two citations Paul quotes from Isaiah 65:1-2, which reveals what God has done and why God has done it. He has made Himself known to those that did not seek Him, namely, the idolatrous Gentiles. Why? He has done this in light of the stubborn disobedience of the Jews.  Again, Paul would develop this in Romans 11, where he would argue that the disobedience of the Jews has made a way for the Gentiles to know and obey God.

As an aside, Romans 10 is often used in Gospel tracts to speak of the universal salvation message; however, that is not the context of the chapter. It is primarily addressing the Jewish people. After all, that is how Paul introduced the chapter:

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israelis that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

The objections, therefore, come on behalf of Israel. And this is also why, Paul's final response is directed pointedly to Israel: "But I say, did Israel not know?" (Romans 10:19).

Just as in the previous chapter, Romans 9, Paul makes two significant points.  First, the Jews, along with all peoples, are guilty of their own sinfulness and are justly condemned by God for their unbelief. But second, apart from the law, apart from visible manifestations, apart from the preaching of preachers, God has sovereignly put His Word, even the Gospel, in the hearts and mouths of a chosen group of people, such that these would in turn call on the Name of the Lord and be saved.

Several of you have told me that this matter of election is not important to you because it does not make any practical difference. You say, we still have to evangelize the lost. Yes, but let me remind you that in the time of the Judges people worshipped idols even while they worshipped the LORD. What's the problem here? Both groups are worshipping. In the time of the Divided Kingdom, Jeroboam of the Northern Kingdom told Israel to worship the LORD in Dan and Bethel rather than in Jerusalem. What's the problem here? They still worshipped the LORD. The place shouldn't matter, right? In both instances God brought severe judgment on Israel for this disobedience.

The matter of sovereign election, namely, that God chooses some for salvation, may be relatively less important than the central message of "salvation by grace through faith"; however, it is still a weighty issue. Your view of election will reveal your attitude toward God, your perspective of man, as well as your approach to Scripture. Your view of election will guide your witness and define the basis of your eternal security. Without a proper view of election, you will inevitably misinterpret many passages of Scripture, and thus, cause you to provide misleading counsel to other believers. Thus, this matter of sovereign election is quite important.