# Whom they have not heard - Rom. 10:14



## Scott (Oct 5, 2006)

The NASB translation of Rom. 10:14 reads: "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him *whom they have not heard*? And how will they hear without a preacher?"

The NIV and, with respect to the bolded clause, most other translations (KJV, NKJV, ESV) reads: "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one *of* whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?"

The key difference is the "of." There is a difference between hearing someone and hearing "of" someone. Protestant exegetes have long said that there is no "of" in Romans 10:14 and use the absence of "of" to make the case that the preaching of the Word is Christ Himself speaking through the preacher. It is one reason that preaching is so important. 

Why do nearly all translations include "of?"

BTW, here is an excerpt from an article on preaching by Joe Pipa that makes the case from Rom. 10:14. 


> More to the point, when a commissioned, ordained preacher proclaims the word of Christ it is Christ who speaks through him. Calvin says, "[H]e [God] deigns to consecrate to himself the mouths and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them."
> 
> Paul teaches this concept clearly in Romans 10:14. "How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?" Note it is not of whom they have not heard but whom they have not heard. How shall they hear (i.e., hear Christ) without a preacher? When the lawfully ordained preacher proclaims the word, Christ speaks through him. Marcel points out that "He makes it a point to affirm that when they proclaim the good news it is as if he himself, the Christ, proclaimed it in person. It is and remains the word of God; it retains its same power and effectiveness." Thus the preached Word becomes the living Word.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 10-5-2006 by Scott]


----------



## Archlute (Oct 5, 2006)

> The key difference is the "of." There is a difference between hearing someone and hearing "of" someone. Protestant exegetes have long said that there is no "of" in Romans 10:14 and use the absence of "of" to make the case that the preaching of the Word is Christ Himself speaking through the preacher. It is one reason that preaching is so important.
> 
> Why do nearly all translations include "of?"




Scott,

The word "of" in our English translations is merely a way to denote a noun being used in a genitival manner, that basically means in some kind of adjectival relationship (a basket of apples/an apple basket; the way of the Jedi/the Jedi way, etc.); there is no distinct particle for it in Greek as far as I know.

What you find in the Greek text of Romans 10:14 is a masculine singular relative pronoun (translatable as who, which, that, etc.) used in the genitive case. What that means is that it can be translated _either_ as "whom" or "of whom" semantically, it does not always default to one reading or the other, and its use must be determined by other factors. I personally prefer the reading of "whom", but another would have legitimacy in arguing otherwise. 

Dr. Pipa doesn't really explain this option in that passage, probably to keep from sidetracking the thrust of his message. I'm sure that he knows about it, but as they teach us in our preaching classes, you don't stand there to give a list of exegetical options to your audience, rather, you study hard, come to your own conclusions, and preach them with conviction. Humility, yes; confusion and wavering spine, no.

John Murray's commentary reads it as in Pipa, but does not mention the other option either. 

Doug Moo's fine work of scholarship in the NICNT series does mention both views, and lists other commentators who hold to those respective positions. He, however, holds to the reading "of whom" based on his opinion of the relative pronoun in context with the following three verses; just some food for thought.

So, in conclusion, if you come across any protestant exegetes who say that there is no "of" in this passage (nor could there ever be), then kindly tell them to return to their basic Greek grammar studies and work on becoming a better protestant exegete...

Hope that helps to clear up some of the confusion.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Oct 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...
> BTW, here is an excerpt from an article on preaching by Joe Pipa that makes the case from Rom. 10:14.
> 
> ...



This is as good a reason as any as to why sermons that are faithful to the word of God are to be received. We in America have far to go with this, especially in the reformed community.


----------



## Scott (Oct 6, 2006)

Thanks guys


----------

