Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 10:19
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.
19. But I say, &c.] Another objection is anticipated and met, (as indeed it has been already met, less explicitly,) viz., that Israel had no prophetic warning of the Gentiles’ enlightenment and their own unbelief.
know? ] i.e. “know the prospect” of the spread of Messiah’s Gospel, and their own rejection of it.
Moses saith ] Deu 32:21; verbatim with LXX. and Heb., except that “ you ” is substituted for “ them,” probably to make the reference unmistakable. The words occur in the sublime prophetic Song of Moses, so full of the mysterious future of both judgment and mercy for Israel. The point of the sentence (see the whole of the verse in Deut.) clearly is that the God of Israel would adopt other nations as Israel had adopted other gods. The clause is more strictly rendered Moses is the first to say. But the difference is not important.
no people a foolish nation ] i.e., probably, in the opinion of Israel. Israel had taken up deities despised of God; He would take up a people despised of Israel. At the same time the description would be true of the Gentiles in respect of their lack of previous privilege and revelation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But I say … – Still further to meet the objection, he shows that the doctrine which he was maintaining was actually taught in the Old Testament.
Did not Israel know? – Did not the Jews understand. Is it not recorded in their books, etc. that they had full opportunity to be acquainted with this truth? This question is an emphatic way of affirming that they did know. But Paul does not here state what it was that they knew. That is to be gathered from what he proceeds to say. From that it appears that he referred to the fact that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, and that the Jews were to be cast off. This doctrine followed from what he had already maintained in Rom 10:12-13, that there was no difference in regard to the terms of salvation, and that the Jew had no particular privileges. If so, then the barrier was broken down; and if the Jews did not believe in Jesus Christ, they must be rejected. Against this was the objection in Rom 10:14-15, that they could not believe; that they had not heard; and that a preacher had not been sent to them. If, now, the apostle could show that it was an ancient doctrine of the Jewish prophets that the Gentiles should believe, and that the Jews would not believe, the whole force of the objection would vanish. Accordingly he proceeds to show that this doctrine was distinctly taught in the Old Testament.
First – First in order; as we say, in the first place.
I will provoke you – These words are taken from Deu 32:21. In that place the declaration refers to the idolatrous and wicked conduct of the Jews. God says that they had provoked him, or excited his indignation, by worshipping what was not God, that is, by idols; and he, in turn, would excite their envy and indignation by showing favors to those who were not regarded as a people; that is, to the Gentiles. They had shown favor, or affection, for what was not God, and by so doing had provoked him to anger; and he also would show favor to those whom they regarded as no people, and would thus excite their anger. Thus, he would illustrate the great principle of his government in 2Sa 22:26-27, With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful; with the pure, thou wilt show thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavory, that is, froward. Psa 18:26. In this passage the great doctrine which Paul was defending is abundantly established – that the Gentiles were to be brought into the favor of God; and the cause also is suggested to be the obstinacy and rebellion of the Jews. It is not clear that Moses had particularly in view the times of the gospel; but he affirms a great principle which is applicable to those times – that if the Jews should be rebellious, and prove themselves unworthy of his favor, that favor would be withdrawn, and conferred on other nations. The effect of this would be, of course, to excite their indignation. This principle the apostle applies to his own times; and affirms that it ought to have been understood by the Jews themselves.
That are no people – That is, those whom you regard as unworthy the name of a people. Those who have no government, laws, or regular organization; who wander in tribes and clans, and who are under no settled form of society. This was the case with most barbarians; and the Jews, evidently regarded all ancient nations in this light, as unworthy the name of a people.
A foolish nation – The word fool means one void of understanding. But it also means one who is wicked, or idolatrous; one who contemns God. Psa 14:1, the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Pro 1:7, fools despise wisdom and instruction. Here it means a nation who had no understanding of the true God asuneto.
I will anger – My bestowing favors on them will excite your anger. We may remark here,
- That God is a sovereign, and has a right to bestow his favors on whom he pleases.
(2)That when people abuse his mercies, become proud, or cold, or dead in his service, he often takes away their privileges, and bestows them on others.
(3)That the effect of his sovereignty is to excite people to anger.
Proud and wicked people are always enraged that he bestows his favors on others; and the effect of his sovereign dealings is, to provoke to anger the very people who by their sins have rejected his mercy. Hence, there is no doctrine that proud man hates so cordially as he does the doctrine of divine sovereignty; and none that will so much test the character of the wicked.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. But I say, Did not Israel know?] You object to this preaching among the Gentiles; but is not this according to the positive declaration of God? He, foreseeing your unbelief and rebellion, said by Moses, De 32:21, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. As you have provoked me to jealousy with worshipping those that are no gods, I will provoke you to jealousy by those which are no people. This most evidently refers to the calling or inviting of the Gentiles to partake of the benefits of the Gospel; and plainly predicts the envy and rage which would be excited in the Jews, in consequence of those offers of mercy made to the Gentiles.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Here he proves by three testimonies out of the Old Testament, that the Jews must needs have heard the sound of the gospel, together with the Gentiles; only they rejected it, when the other embraced it. And so he layeth the ground of what he was purposed to handle in the following chapter, concerning the receiving of the Gentiles, and the casting off, and after calling, of the Jews.
Did not Israel know; here something must be supplied to make up the sense neither God, or the gospel, or the righteousness of faith, or the conversion of the Gentiles. The Israelites could not well pretend ignorance, considering what Moses and Isaiah had said, in whom, or in whose writings, they were conversant.
Moses saith; viz. in Deu 32:21. Still he follows the translation of the Seventy.
I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you; here God threateneth the Jews, that he would punish them with jealousy and anger, by preferring the Gentiles before them; at the sight whereof, their hearts should be sore vexed; to behold all their privileges taken from them, and given to a people whom they accounted most vile and despicable, to be no people in regard of them, to be dogs and beasts rather than men: see Act 13:45. Read the cited place in Deuteronomy Deu 32:21 and you will find that God speaks of this as a fit punishment upon the Jews for their idolatry. They had chosen to themselves such as were no gods; and therefore, to requite them, God would take to him such as were no people: they had chosen to themselves (as it were) another husband; and God, to be even with them, had chosen another wife.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. But I say, Did not Israelknow?know, from their own Scriptures, of God’s intention tobring in the Gentiles?
Firstthat is First inthe prophetic line [DEWETTE].
Moses saith, &c.”Iwill provoke you to jealousy (‘against’) [them that are] not anation, and against a nation without understanding will I anger you”(De 32:21). In this verse Godwarns His ancient people that because they had (that is, inaftertimes would) moved Him to jealousy with their “no-gods,”and provoked Him to anger with their vanities, He in requital wouldmove them to jealousy by receiving into His favor a “no-people,”and provoke them to anger by adopting a nation void of understanding.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But I say, did not Israel know? etc.] Some supply the word “God”, did not Israel know God? verily, they did; they knew the being and perfections of God, the unity of God, and the trinity of persons in the divine essence; they knew the will of God, and the right way of worshipping him; for they were favoured with a divine revelation; to them were committed the oracles of God, and to them belonged the giving of the “Gospel”, did not Israel know the Gospel? yes, they did; they not only heard it, but knew it; not spiritually and experimentally, but nationally and speculatively, and, against the light and conviction of their own minds, obstinately rejected it with contempt: but I rather think this question refers to the calling of the Gentiles, and their own rejection; and the sense is, did not Israel know, that the Gentiles were to be called by the grace of God, and that they themselves were to be cast off? they did know this, at least something of it, though not so clearly as it is now revealed to the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; but in some measure they could not but know it, since there were such strong hints of it in the writings of the Old Testament, some of which are hereafter produced:
first Moses saith; not “Moses the first”, as if there was another, or a second Moses, but either Moses, who is the first of the inspired writers, and chief of the prophets; or rather this regards order of time, Moses in the first place says so and so, for other testimonies are after cited; the passage in Moses referred to, is
De 32:21.
I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. The Gentiles are here designed by “them that are no people”: who before God, and in his sight, as all nations are, were as a drop of the bucket, as the small dust of the balance: nay, even as nothing, yea, less than nothing and vanity: likewise they were no people of any account, of any name; they were mean and contemptible, neglected and overlooked by God himself, and treated with contempt by the Jews, his professing people: and besides, they were not as yet openly and visibly the people of God; they neither called upon his name, nor were they called by his name; he had not as yet taken from among them a people for his name: these are also meant by “the foolish nation”; Jarchi m says, the Cuthites, or Samaritans, are intended; who were neighbours to the Jews, and greatly hated by them: but it may more rightly be applied to all the Gentiles in general, who notwithstanding their large pretensions to natural, civil, and moral wisdom, yet being without a true knowledge of God, Christ, and the Gospel, were a foolish people; and in nothing more did their folly appear, than in their idolatry and superstition. Now the Lord threatened by these people to provoke the Jews to jealousy, and to anger them; and this was but just, and by way of retaliation; for since they provoked him to jealousy and anger, by worshipping strange gods, which plainly declared their want of faith in him, affection for him, and their departure from him; it was a righteous thing in him to provoke them to jealousy of him, as if he had no affection for them, who had been so long, in some sense, an husband to them all; and as about to cast them off; and to anger them, by sending his Gospel among the Gentiles, and calling them by his grace, and making them partakers of his special favours; whereby this prophecy had its full accomplishment: for though the Jews rejected and despised the Gospel themselves, yet nothing more provoked them than that it should be carried among the Gentiles; see Ac 22:21. Now from these words of Moses, the Israelites must needs know, they could not but know that it was the will of God to call the Gentiles, and reject them.
m In Deut. xxxii. 21.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Did Israel not know? ( ?). “Did Israel fail to know?” See above.
First (). Moses first before any one else. LXX quotation De 32:21. See on 1Co 10:22 for (I will provoke you to jealousy).
With that which is no nation (‘ ). The Jews had worshipped “no-gods” and now God shows favours to a “no-nation” (people).
Will I anger you ( ). Future active (Attic future) of , rare word, to rouse to wrath.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Did Israel not know? As in ver. 18, a negative answer is implied. “It is surely not true that Israel did not know.” Did not know what? That the Gospel should go forth into all the earth. Moses and Isaiah had prophesied the conversion of the Gentiles, and Isaiah the opposition of the Jews thereto.
First Moses. First in order; the first who wrote.
I will provoke you to jealousy [ ] . From Deu 32:21. See Rom 11:11, 14; 1Co 10:22. Used only by Paul. The Septuagint has them instead of you.
By them that are no people [ ] . Lit., upon a no – people. The relation expressed by the preposition is that of the no – people as forming the basis of the jealousy. The prediction is that Israel shall be conquered by an apparently inferior people. No – people as related to God ‘s heritage, not that the Gentiles were inferior or insignificant in themselves. For people render nation, as Rev. See on 1Pe 2:9.
By a foolish nation [ ] . Lit., upon a foolish nation as the basis of the exasperation. For foolish, see on ch. Rom 1:21.
I will anger [] . Or provoke to anger. The force of the compounded preposition para in this verb and in parazhlwsw provoke to jealousy, seems to be driving to the side of something which by contact or comparison excites jealousy or anger.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But I say, Did not Israel know?” (alla lego me Israel ouk egno); “But I say did not Israel recognize, realize, or know?” In reply to any justification of Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ because of ignorance it is protested again and again by Paul. Their knowledge of God’s word, as custodians of it, rendered them without any valid excuse, Pro 1:22-30.
2) “First Moses saith,” (protos mouses legei) “First, (in priority of consideration) Moses says”; the ordinal number “first” suggests an order of several witnesses in “divers manners” God used to render man, and Israel in particular, without excuse for unbelief, Heb 1:1; Rom 3:1-4.
3) I will provoke you to jealousy,” (ego parazeloso humas) “I will provoke you all (Israel) to jealousy”; or call you forth to jealousy, because of others, others who would hear and believe his Word, while they (Israel) rejected it in unbelief, Deu 32:21; Rom 9:25-26; Hos 2:23.
4) “By them that are no people,” (ep ouk ethnei) “By (some who are) not (even) a nation”; a nation to be recognized or respected as moral, ethical, or spiritual by Israel’s standards, by the “oracles of God” which had been delivered to them, Rom 3:1-4; Deu 28:48-49.
5) “And by a foolish nation I will anger you,” (ep’ ethnei asuneto parorgio humas) “by a nation or people not (even) intelligent (senile like) I will anger you all;” Tit 3:3. The foolish, unintelligent, semi-senile nation refers to idolatrous nations, Jer 8:7-10; Rom 9:25-26; Jer 5:15; Isa 28:11-21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19. But I say, has not Israel known? This objection of an opponent is taken from the comparison of the less with the greater. Paul had argued, that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the knowledge of God, since he had from the beginning manifested himself to them, though only obscurely and through shadows, or had at least given them some knowledge of his truth. What then is to be said of Israel, who had been illuminated by a far different light of truth? for how comes it that aliens and the profane should run to the light manifested to them afar off, and that the holy race of Abraham should reject it when familiarly seen by them? For this distinction must be ever borne in mind, “What nation is so renowned, that it has gods coming nigh to it, as thy God at this day descends to thee?” It was not then without reason asked, why knowledge had not followed the doctrine of the law, with which Israel was favored.
First, Moses saith, etc. He proves by the testimony of Moses, that there was nothing inconsistent in God in preferring the Gentiles to the Jews. The passage is taken from that celebrated song, in which God, upbraiding the Jews with their perfidiousness, declares, that he would execute vengeance on them, and provoke them to jealousy by taking the Gentiles into covenant with himself, because they had departed to fictitious gods. “Ye have,” he says, “by despising and rejecting me, transferred my right and honor to idols: to avenge this wrong, I will also substitute the Gentiles in your place, and I will transfer to them what I have hitherto given to you.” Now this could not have been without repudiating the Jewish nation: for the emulation, which Moses mentions, arose from this, — that God formed for himself a nation from that which was not a nation, and raised up from nothing a new people, who were to occupy the place from which the Jews had been driven away, inasmuch as they had forsaken the true God and prostituted themselves to idols. For though, at the coming of Christ, the Jews were not gone astray to gross and external idolatry, they had yet no excuse, since they had profaned the whole worship of God by their inventions; yea, they at length denied God the Father, as revealed in Christ, his only-begotten Son, which was an extreme kind of impiety.
Observe, that a foolish nation, and no nation, are the same; for without the hope of eternal life men have properly no existence. Besides, the beginning or origin of life is from the light of faith: hence spiritual existence flows from the new creation; and in this sense Paul calls the faithful the work of God, as they are regenerated by his Spirit, and renewed after his image. Now from the word foolish, we learn that all the wisdom of men, apart from the word of God, is mere vanity. (335)
(335) The quotation is from Deu 32:21, and it is literally the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, except that “you” is put for “them.” The contrast in Hebrew is very striking; the whole verse is this, —
21. They have made me jealous by a no-God, They have provoked me by their foolish idols; And I will make them jealous by a no-people, By a foolish nation will I provoke them. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) Did not Israel know that the preaching of the gospel would be thus universal, and pass over from them to the Gentiles? Yes, certainly, for Moses had warned them of this.
First.In the order of time and of Scripture.
I will provoke you.In requital for the idolatries of the Jews, Moses prophesied that God would bestow his favour on a Gentile nation, and so provoke their jealousy; and the Apostle sees the fulfilment of this in his own day.
No people . . . a foolish nation.Terms used by the Jews of their Gentile neighbours. They were no people, because they did not stand in the same recognised relation to God. They were a foolish nation, because they had not received the same special revelation, but, on the contrary, worshipped stocks and stones.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Israel know Know is parallel to heard in Rom 10:18. St. Paul uses the word to indicate that Israel did know what they ignored in Rom 10:3. Know is evidently equivalent to heard; for St. Paul shows that they knew by hearing it from the predictions of the prophets. They knew because they heard just what they ignored in Rom 10:3; namely, that they were in danger of refusing the righteousness of God, of being supplanted by the Gentiles, and having a record of gainsaying left against them, (19-21.)
First Moses Earliest in the line of warning prophets. The quotation is from Deu 32:21, according to the Septuagint. Indisputably the no people were the Gentiles, and the Jews were at the present moment exhibiting to Paul the very jealousy and anger predicted.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But I say, “Did Israel not know?” First Moses says, “I will provoke you to jealousy with what is no nation, with a nation void of understanding will I anger you.’
The switch here to addressing Israel tends to confirm that what has been said previously was directed more widely, that is, as speaking to both believing Jews and Gentiles. So the question now is, but what about (unbelieving) Israel? Did they not know? That raises the issue of what it was they were supposed to know. In context there are two main possibilities. The first is as to whether they knew the message about the Messiah. That has been answered in Rom 10:2-3. They were ignorant of God’s righteousness, brought by the Messiah. The second is as to whether they knew that God’s word would go out to the Gentiles. That might be seen as answered in Rom 10:14-15. (It is also answered in Isa 2:2-4; Isa 49:6; Isa 60:3; etc). In view of the fact that it is the preaching of the Gospel about the Messiah to the Gentiles which will arouse Israel to jealousy (Rom 11:11; Rom 11:14), the first would appear to be more likely. For here Paul does cite Scripture authoritatively, when he declares what ‘Moses said’ (see Deu 32:21). And what did Moses say? He said that God would provoke Israel to jealousy by means of a ‘no-nation’, and would anger them by means of a nation ‘void of understanding’, that is one that did not know the Law (something which the followers of Jesus were accused of (Joh 7:49) and was clearly applicable, as well, to Gentiles). But in order to be provoked to jealousy in this way Israel had to have become cognisant of what was being proclaimed. Thus it is clear that they did know what the messengers of the Messiah were teaching.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 10:19. Did not Israel know? In this and the next verses, St. Paul seems to introduce the Jews as arguing, that they did not deserve to be cast off, because they did not know that the Gentiles were to be admitted; and so might be excused if they did not embrace a religion wherein they were to mix with the Gentiles: to which he answers in this and the following verses; First, Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy. Jealousy is an affection of the mind excited by another’s being our rival, or sharing in those honours or enjoyments which we highly esteem, which we account our own property, and which we are greatly desirous of securing to ourselves. Thus the Jews moved God to jealousy, by giving to idols the honour and worship due to him alone, or by acting towards God in such a manner as usually creates jealousy in a man. For which reason it is predicted, Deu 32:21 that they should be repaid in their own coin, and be moved to jealousy:How?By transferring from them the honours and privileges in which they gloried, to those whom they despised;to a lo-am, a no-people; that is, to the Gentiles. Lo-am, a no-people, or not a people, is the character of the heathen world, as not interested in the peculiar covenant of God. Therefore this text, as it lies in Deuteronomy, is full to the Apostle’s purpose; and does not relate to their being conquered by heathen nations, but to their being stripped of boasted honours, and seeing them conferred upon those whom they contemned as the vilest people. How much the Jews were irritated at the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles is well known. See Mat 21:43; Mat 21:46. Act 22:21-22. 1Th 2:15-16.
Inferences.It is certain, that we ought not to infer from the two last chapters, that God is a despotic, arbitrary sovereign, whose mere will, without the most perfect coincidence of all his moral perfections, is the only rule of all his actions. The great God, though he be supreme and accountable to none, always governs himself by the eternal and unalterable rules of wisdom, equity, and goodness. His will is not itself, abstractedly considered, the standard and measure of the divine conduct; but there is an intrinsic necessary difference, in the nature of things, between just and unjust, beneficence and cruelty, which cannot be altered. Indeed, what God wills is always right and fit; always, upon the whole, fittest and best. But why? not merely because he wills it, but because he is necessarily wise, just, and good. For can any man imagine, that if he should will to deceive, to vex and torment his innocent creatures, and employ his infinite power only to make them miserable, (which is a very possible supposition, if his will alone, in this abstract sense, be the rule of his proceedings,) such a conduct would be justifiable? Nay,for ever this must be maintained, as a necessary consequence from such principles, that it would be better, and more praiseworthy, than righteousness, truth, and mercy?
There cannot be a more dishonourable reflection on God, than to suppose that he acts without a reason, merely from humour, and arbitrary pleasure. It represents him as a tyrant, not as a wise and righteous governor. It renders him frightful to our contemplation, the object of aversion and horror, and destroys all rational esteem and love of him, and confidence in him. All reasonable expectations of favour from him must sink and vanish at once: for who knows how such a capricious being, who is not determined by reason and justice, but makes his mere will his only law,who can know in what manner he will act? What possible assurance can there be, that he will not resolve on the misery and ruin of his rational creatures at all events and without any reason? Nay, if he has promised the contrary, can we have any certainty that the same arbitrary will that made, will not also break the promise? Mere will and humour are fickle, uncertain, changeable things; but truth and goodness are steady principles, and a solid foundation for our trust and hope. We may add, that the representing of God in this manner, renders him infinitely more formidable than any earthly tyrants ever were or can be; even those who have been the greatest scourges and plagues of mankind; because he is possessed of almighty and uncontrollable power; and the thought of almighty power, that is not directed by wisdom and goodness, must fill the considerate mind with the utmost astonishment and terror. Shall we then give such a reproachful character of the most perfect, the most amiable of all Beings? Shall we picture the very best of Beings as the very worst? And represent Him, in whose unerring wisdom, strict impartial justice, and universal unchangeable goodness, the whole rational world have the highest reason to rejoice, as one whom every wise man must wish not to exist?
We may next consider to what cases the words of ch. Rom 9:20 may be properly applied: we hope it appears sufficiently from what has been said in the course of the foregoing notes, that the passages before us, which have been so confounded and darkened by many expositors, relate only to God’s dealings with national and collective bodies of men; and not to his favour or displeasure towards particular persons, and determining absolutely, without any regard to their actions, their eternal state hereafter. The argument which St. Paul pursues is only this: “That God might dispense his extraordinary favours as he saw fit; and consequently eminently distinguish one nation, and pass by others, without the least injustice; and to censure such a way of proceeding, in the Proprietor and sovereign Disposer of all things, was arrogant and presumptuous.” And hence we learn to what questions the words in ch. Rom 9:20 may be properly and justly applied; namely, to such as these:Why God vouchsafes a revelation of his will to some nations and not to others? Why, for example, he has not made the Christian revelation universal?Why does he permit moral and natural evil?Why has he not made all creatures of the highest order, and communicated to all equal degrees of perfection and happiness?Nothing of this can be shewn to be contrary to justice, because they are all favours, which his creatures have no right to claim. And therefore in these, and all other cases of a like nature, it is very pertinent to say to an objector, Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
Hence then we learn, 1st, How necessary it is that we consider the uses to which passages of Scripture are applied,without arguing generally from what is only adapted to a particular case. This is one reason why texts are so perverted, and strained to such absurd and unnatural senses, as are not only contrary to their true design, and the general scope and tenor of the revelation, but strike at the foundation of all religion.
2nd, Let us cultivate in our minds the higher reverence of God, especially the most honourable apprehensions of his moral character; and being persuaded that all his counsels are the result of infinite wisdom, and that his will is ever determined by the highest reason, let us humbly acquiesce in all the methods of his grace and providence. Survey the works of God, the exquisite beauty and harmony of the whole, the admirable connection and sub-serviency of the several parts; nay, survey thy own frame,the curious and astonishing structure of thy body,the noble faculties and capacities of thy mind;and, from the surprising marks of wisdom and goodness, which thou canst not distinctly perceive, in thine own make, and in the whole constitution of things, draw the just and natural inference: that the great Author and Governor of the universe is possessed of these perfections, in the most absolute and complete manner; and consequently, that all things are contrived and ordered with the same wise and benevolent view; though in particulars it does not appear equally, and in some, perhaps, not at all, to thy limited understanding.
The improving constantly in our mind, worthy notions of God, as a Being supremely wise, and immutably just and good, will be attended with very great advantages. It will restrain that impertinent humour of scepticism and cavilling, which makes men oppose their ignorance and prejudices to his infinite wisdom: we shall always consider the great God as the most amiable and delightful object of our contemplation; neither as a weak, capricious being, whom we cannot reverence; nor as a rigid, tyrannical being, whom we cannot love. In short, our religion, built on the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, and embracing and coinciding with the whole round of his divine perfections, will be wise and rational, just and good, and holy; and there can be no foundation for any of those superstitious mixtures which expose the most excellent, most good and most useful thing in the universe, to the contempt and ridicule of the infidel and profane.
REFLECTIONS.1st, The Apostle here,
1. Expresses his fervent desire for the salvation of his countrymen. Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Notwithstanding what he was, in the discharge of his office, compelled to say concerning the general rejection of the Jews, he was yet affectionately desirous of their salvation, and ceaseless in supplications at a throne of grace that they might yet be convinced and converted, and thereby plucked as brands from the burning. Notes; (1.) Those we preach to, we must fervently pray for, that God may give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth. (2.) They who know the value of immortal souls, will feel their eternal interests warm upon their hearts.
2. He speaks most respectfully of them, For I bear them record, that they have a zeal of God, a fixed aversion to idolatry, a strong attachment to his law and divinely instituted ordinances, and in their persecutions of Christianity really think they do God service: but they are misguided, and do not act according to knowledge; they understand not the nature and design of the law, and have imbibed the strongest prejudices against the true Messiah, and the way of salvation which he has brought to light by the Gospel. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, resting their acceptance before God on the footing of their own moral and ceremonial services, have not submitted to the righteousness of God, which he has provided and accepted in his dear Son, and which, embraced by faith, is, and can be, the only ground of the sinner’s justification before God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. He alone immaculately fulfilled the moral law, and in his life and death fully satisfied the demands of divine justice; and he hath abolished the ceremonial law, bring himself the substance of which that was the shadow. He alone therefore, being embraced by faith, can justify the sinner before God. Note; Nothing is more fatally dangerous to the soul, than ignorance of the spirituality of God’s law, and of our own inability to answer its demands.
2nd, There are two methods of justification.
1. By the law; and that justification is thus described by Moses, The man that doeth those things, all that is written in the book of the law, perfectly, universally, abidingly, without failure, flaw, or infirmity, shall live by them, and be entitled to life eternal. But no fallen creature ever did, or ever can do this; therefore justification and salvation are not this way attainable.
2. By the Redeemer’s substitution in our stead, accompanied with faith in him. The law of works, in our present condition, only preaches despair; but the righteousness which is of faith, which God has provided and accepted, and faith embraces, speaketh on this wise, to the conscience burdened with sin and guilt; Say not in thine heart, as if despairing of justification before God, Who shall ascend into heaven, that is, to bring Christ down from above to make atonement for sin: it is needless, seeing that by one oblation, once offered, he has completed the great atonement. Or who shall descend into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead. This is already done, and God, by the resurrection of Jesus, has testified the full satisfaction which has been made to his law and justice; so that the bar to our acceptance before God is now removed. Instead, therefore, of the impossibilities which guilty fear and unbelief would suggest, the Gospel opens a door of hope to the miserable and the desperate. But what saith it? Why, all that we can wish and desire, to silence our terrors, and revive our drooping hearts. The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; brought near in the Gospel revelation, acknowledged, and made effectual by the Spirit to the believing heart; that is the word of faith which we preach, holding up Christ as the glorious object, whom faith embraces: the tenor of our declarations, as authorized of God to speak, is this, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, as the true Messiah, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. No works of the law, nor other title whatever, is needful to justification, but this; and all who, renouncing themselves, repose their whole confidence upon Jesus, as delivered for their offences, and raised for their justification, are built on the only true foundation. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; faith is not a mere notion entertained in the head, but the cordial submission of the heart; and with the mouth confession is made of our faith before God and men unto salvation, there being an inseparable connection between true faith and real internal salvation; for the Scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed; whatever his condition has been, he will not now be ashamed of Christ; and however great his guilt has been, no condemnation now lies against him. Lord, in this faith may I be found, living and dying!
3rdly, Under the Gospel dispensation, mankind are in some sense on a level, without respect to any people or nation. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; both have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; both must be saved freely by grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ, or perish everlastingly: for the same Redeemer, who is Lord over all, is rich in grace, and boundless in mercy unto all that call upon him, as perishing and helpless without him. For, so it was foretold, Joe 2:32. Whosoever (without exception) shall call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, depending faithfully upon his atonement, shall be saved, from guilt and sin. But if the Gentiles are included in the dispensation of the Gospel, then,
1. It was needful that the Gospel should be preached to them; and St. Paul’s brethren had no just ground for their enmity against him, because he was appointed the Apostle of the Gentiles. For how then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Faith is essential to the very being of prayer, and without it the service of the lip and the knee is vain and unprofitable; and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? They must hear of Jesus in his saving offices, before they can possibly trust in him: and how shall they hear without a preacher, to make known to them the revelation of God’s will? and how shall they preach, except they be sent with a divine commission? Note; Before any presume to preach, let it be clear that they have a mission from God. To run unsent is insolent presumption.
2. The Gospel contains the best news that ever reached mortal ears, and should be matter of joy wherever it is carried; as it is written (Isa 52:7.), How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Which prophesy terminated not in the joyful messages of Israel’s deliverance from Babylon, but looked forward to the great redemption of Jesus, and that Gospel which his ministers should publish, a Gospel of peace, where God was, in Christ, reconciling sinners to himself, and proclaiming the glad news of pardon and salvation to guilty and perishing souls; and they who feel the comfort of the message, cannot but, for its sake, delight in and honour the messengers.
3. Though the Gospel in itself contained such a welcome message, yet in general both among Jews and Gentiles, it has been rejected. But they have not all obeyed the Gospel, and yielded themselves up to the Saviour. No; contrariwise, the generality of those to whom it is preached harden their hearts. For Esaias saith, foreseeing the little comparative success which the ministers of Christ should meet with, Who hath believed our report? How few are found faithful among the many called? Yet the Gospel report is the favour of life unto life in them who are saved. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, this being the ordinary means, and made effectual by the Spirit’s power, that arm of the Lord which reveals Christ to the hearts of all that will believe.
4. But I say, have they not heard, both Jews and Gentiles, the Gospel word? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. And this extensive spread of the Gospel, by those preachers whom God sent forth, however the multitude rejected the counsel of God, was a token of his good will to the Gentiles.
5. But I say, did not Israel know that God designed to shew mercy to the Gentiles? Had they attended to their own prophets, they would have seen how groundless their imaginations were, that the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom should be confined to them, and the Gentiles excluded. For first Moses saith, for whom they profess peculiar veneration, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. The Gentiles were long excluded from the peculiar privileges of God’s people, and, amidst all their wisdom, were in general entirely ignorant of spiritual things: to have them therefore now brought into the peculiar kingdom of the Messiah, should have provoked a holy emulation in the Jewish nation; but it wrought a contrary effect, exciting the greater bitterness and enmity against the converted Gentiles. He produces another Scripture, strongly proving the divine determination with regard to the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews. Moses had intimated it, but Esaias is very bold, and, with great plainness and freedom, foretels to his countrymen this mortifying event, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not, I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me, preventing the Gentiles with the blessings of his goodness, and the calls of his grace, when they were in general without one thought of the true God, worshipping their idols. But to Israel he saith, now to be rejected for their impenitence and obstinacy, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people; his patience therefore being wearied out, especially by their opposition to the Gospel, he abandons them to ruin. Note; (1.) If God had not first sought us, we should never have inquired after him. (2.) When the Lord has waited long to be gracious, and used the most powerful means to work upon the sinner’s heart,if he still rejects the counsel of God against his own soul, justly does God decree, “My Spirit shall not always strive,” and leaves him to the destruction which he has chosen.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 10:19 . A further possible exculpation, introduced in emphatic conformity with the preceding, and the repelling of it by means of scriptural declarations down to Rom 10:21 . On Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly observes: .
;] surely it did not remain unknown to the Israelites ? The “ it ” to be supplied with (see Ngelsbach, z. Ilias , p. 120, Exo 3 ) is: . . . This universal destination of the preaching of Christ expressed in Rom 10:18 must have been known by the Jews, for long ago Moses and also Isaiah had prophesied the conversion of the Gentiles
Isaiah likewise, the refractory spirit of opposition thereto of the Jews (Rom 10:20-21 ). This reference of alone (followed also by de Wette, Fritzsche, and Tholuck) flows purely in accordance with the text from what immediately precedes, and is at the same time naturally in keeping with the contents of the corresponding biblical passages; for the conversion of the Gentiles and the universality of Christianity are one; since the former was prophesied to the Jews, the latter could not be unknown to them; and they could not therefore allege as the excuse for their unbelief: We did not know that Christianity is destined for the whole of humanity the less could they do so, since Isaiah places before them the true source of their unbelief in their own spirit of resistance. The view of the passage which comes substantially nearest to ours, is that of Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Pareus, Toletus, Calovius, Turretine, Morus, Rosenmller, Koppe, Benecke, Kllner, Ewald (comp. Tholuck), who supply with : that the gospel would pass over from the Jews to the Gentiles . So Pelagius and Theodore of Mopsuestia: . But this is wrong, in so far as the object to be supplied is not purely borrowed from the preceding, but is already in part anticipated from what follows. Beza has vaguely and erroneously supplied Deum , with ; Reithmayr, on the other hand, thinks no object is to be supplied; while others imagine the gospel to be the object (“Have they not learnt to know the gospel, in order to be able to believe in it?”). So Chrysostom, Vatablus, Gomarus, Hammond, Estius, and several others, including Rckert, Olshausen, van Hengel, Beyschlag, Mangold, and, with a peculiar turn, Philippi also; similarly Hofmann and others, taking up the following (see below). In that case against which there is no objection in itself
would be so complete a parallel to in Rom 10:18 , that here, as there, the gospel would have to be supplied. But as this is by no means necessary (in opposition to Hofmann) since it fully satisfies the symmetry of the discourse, if in both instances has its reference to what immediately precedes so it is directly opposed by the fact, that the following reply beginning with would not be suitable. For if we were to assume that Paul has given an indirect answer (“when he shows that the Gentiles believe, he says: How should not, could not Israel have believed, if it had willed?” Olsh.), this would only be a makeshift, in which the answer would appear the more unsuitable in proportion to its indirectness, and still leave open the possibility of the . Or if we were to suppose with Rckert, that the thought is: “Want of knowledge is not the cause, but God is now putting into penal execution what He has threatened, and is allowing salvation to pass over to the Gentiles, in order thereby to convert the Jews to a better disposition,” the point of the would not be entered into at all, and moreover, the essential part of the interpretation would simply be supplied by the reader. This objection is at the same time valid against van Hengel, according to whom it is to be made to appear from the following prophetic quotations that Israel had indeed known, but had shamefully despised, the gospel. Or if, finally, with Philippi, we are to say that the passages from the prophets contained not a refutation, but a substantiation , of the fact that verily Israel had rejected the gospel (which rejection lies in ), this would be inconsistent with the interrogative form with (comp. on Rom 3:5 ), which necessarily presupposes the denial of the (consequently the affirmative: ). In entire deviation from the views just given, Reiche thinks that is accusative , and to be supplied as subject. “Did not God recognise Israel for His people? How could He permit it to be so blinded and hardened?” It is decisive against this view, that to supply as subject, especially after Rom 10:18 , is highly arbitrary, and that the following passages of Scripture would be quite inappropriate.
] not in the sense of (which, regarded by itself, might indeed be the case according to the context; see on Joh 1:15 ); but, since Moses is quoted, with whom the testimony of God in the O. T. begins: as the first (who in Scripture comes forward in opposition to this) speaks Moses . Of the later testimonies of Scripture, Paul then contents himself with adducing only the bold divine utterances of Isaiah. Theodore of Mopsuestia well gives it: . Wetstein, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Hofmann, connect with . But the supposed sense: “Did not Israel first learn to know it (the gospel)?” or, as Hofmann expresses it: “ Was it possibly to stand in such a position, that Israel did not obtain the first experience of it? ” must have been expressed without .
. . . .] Deu 32:21 , almost exactly after the LXX. God there, in the song of Moses, threatens the idolatrous Israelites, that He on His part ( ) will bless a Gentile people, and thereby incite the former to jealousy and to wrath, as they had incited Him by their worship of idols. Paul recognises in this according to the rule of the constancy of the divine ways in the history of the development of the theocracy a type of the attaining of the Gentiles to participation in the communion of God’s people, whereby the jealousy and wrath of the Jews will be excited.
] , in respect to a not-people; for only the people of God was the real one, the people corresponding to the divine idea of a people; every other is the negation of this idea. Comp. Rom 9:25 ; 1Pe 2:10 . On the connection of with nouns, cancelling the notion objectively, see Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 129; Grimm on 2Ma 4:13 . Often found in Thucydides (Krger on i. 137. 4). On , over, on the ground , that is, on account of , comp. Demosthenes, 1448. 4 : , Polyb. iv. 7. 5.
] ; Theophylact. Comp. i. 21.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 19. Did not Israel know ] sc. That the Gentiles were to be called? they were often told of it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19 .] But (in anticipation of another objection, that this universal evangelizing and admission of all, had at any rate taken the Jews by surprise , that they had not been forewarned of any such purpose of God) I say, Did Israel (no emphasis on Israel they are not first here introduced , nor have the preceding verses been said only of the Gentiles; but they have been during those verses in the Apostle’s mind, and are now named for distinctness’ sake , because it is not now a question of their having heard , which they did in common with all, but of their having been aware from their Scriptures of God’s intention with regard to themselves and the Gentiles) not know (supply, not ‘the Gospel,’ , as Chrys., Estius, Rckert, Olsh., al., but, the fact that such a general proclamation of the Gospel would be made as has been mentioned in the last verse, raising up the Gentiles into equality and rivalry with themselves so Meyer, Fritz., Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al. Others supply variously: Calv. and Beza, ‘the truth of God,’ so as to have an advantage over the Gentiles: Bengel, ‘justitiam Dei:’ Bretschneider and Reiche take for the object of , and understand as its subject : ‘Did not God know, acknowledge, regard with love, Israel?’ But surely the context will not allow this)? First (in the order of the prophetic roll; q. d. their very earliest prophet: compare Mat 10:2 , . . . Thol., after Rckert, observes, “The Apostle has in his mind a whole series of prophetic sayings which he might adduce, but gives only a few instead of all, and would shew by the , that even in the earliest period the same complaint (of Israel’s unbelief) is found”) Moses saith, I will provoke you (Heb. and LXX, ‘them’) to jealousy against (those who are) no nation (the Gentiles, as opposed to the people of God), against a nation that hath no understanding ( , the spiritual fool of Psa 14:1 ; Psa 53:1 ; Pro 17:21 ) will I anger you . The original reference of these words, as addressed to Israel by Moses, is exactly apposite to the Apostle’s argument. Moses prophetically assumes the departure of Israel from God, and his rejection of them, and denounces from God that as they had moved Him to jealousy with their ‘no-gods’ (idols) and provoked Him to anger by their vanities, so He would, by receiving into his favour a ‘no-nation,’ make them jealous, and provoke them to anger by adopting instead of them a foolish nation. On the interpretation of De Wette, al., that the meaning is, God would deliver the children of Israel, as a prey to the idolatrous nations of Canaan, the parallels will not hold; nor do the following verses in Deut. (22 25) justify it.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 10:19 . : another attempt to introduce a plea on behalf of Israel. You cannot say, “they did not hear”; surely you do not mean to say, then, Israel did not understand? At first sight there seems an unnatural emphasis here on Israel , but this is not the case. The generality of the argument must be abandoned now, for the passages next to be quoted, which are already present to Paul’s mind, contrast Israel with the Gentiles, and so bring it into prominence; and it is in the case of Israel, of all nations, that the plea of not understanding is most out of place. Above all nations Israel ought to have understood a message from God: Israel, and inability to understand God’s Word, ought to be incompatible ideas. , Deu 32:21 . suggests the beginning of a line of witnesses to this effect: virtually it means, even Moses, at the very beginning of their history. The point of the citation is not very clear. Like the passages quoted in Rom 9:25-26 , it might have been adduced by Paul as a proof that the Gentiles were to be called into God’s kingdom, and called in order to rouse the Jews to jealousy; but to be in place here, there must be also the latent idea that if peoples beyond the covenant (who were not peoples at all), and unintelligent peoples ( i.e. , idol worshippers) could understand the Gospel, a privileged and religiously gifted people like the Jews was surely inexcusable if it failed to understand it. The same idea seems to be enforced again in Rom 10:20 . : “breaks out boldly” (Gifford). It was an act of great daring to speak thus to a nation with the exclusive temper of Israel, and Paul who needed the same courage in carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles was the man to see this. means those who put no question to me, sc. , about the way of salvation. In Isa 65:1 the clauses occur in reverse order. What the prophet has in view is God’s spontaneous unmerited goodness, which takes the initiative, unsolicited, in showing mercy to faithless Jews who made no appeal to Him and never sought Him; the Apostle applies this, like the similar passages in Rom 9:25 f., to the reception of the Gospel by the Gentiles. [2] If God was found and recognised in His character and purposes, where all the conditions seemed so much against it, surely Israel must be inexcusable if it has missed the meaning of the Gospel. The very calling of the Gentiles, predicted and interpreted as it is in the passages quoted, should itself have been a message to the Jews, which they could not misunderstand; it should have opened their eyes as with a lightning flash to the position in which they stood that of men who had forfeited their place among the people of God and provoked them, out of jealousy, to vie with these outsiders in welcoming the righteousness of faith.
[2] The part of Isa 65:1 which is not quoted here (I said, Behold Me, behold Me, unto a nation that was not called by My name) is meant, as usually pointed, to refer to the Gentiles, and this tradition of its application Paul may have learned from Gamaliel (Cheyne); but the pointing is wrong: see Cheyne.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
know. App-132.
provoke . . . to jealousy. Greek. parazeloo. Only here, Rom 11:11, Rom 11:14; 1Co 10:22.
by. App-104.
people. Greek. ethnos.
foolish. See Rom 1:21.
nation = people, as above.
anger. Greek. parorgizo. Only here and Eph 6:4. Used frequently in the Septuagint of provoking Jehovah to anger. Deu 32:21, &c.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19.] But (in anticipation of another objection, that this universal evangelizing and admission of all, had at any rate taken the Jews by surprise,-that they had not been forewarned of any such purpose of God) I say, Did Israel (no emphasis on Israel-they are not first here introduced, nor have the preceding verses been said only of the Gentiles; but they have been during those verses in the Apostles mind, and are now named for distinctness sake, because it is not now a question of their having heard, which they did in common with all, but of their having been aware from their Scriptures of Gods intention with regard to themselves and the Gentiles) not know (supply, not the Gospel, , as Chrys., Estius, Rckert, Olsh., al.,-but, the fact that such a general proclamation of the Gospel would be made as has been mentioned in the last verse, raising up the Gentiles into equality and rivalry with themselves-so Meyer, Fritz., Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al.-Others supply variously:-Calv. and Beza, the truth of God,-so as to have an advantage over the Gentiles:-Bengel, justitiam Dei:-Bretschneider and Reiche take for the object of , and understand as its subject: Did not God know,-acknowledge, regard with love,-Israel? But surely the context will not allow this)?-First (in the order of the prophetic roll; q. d. their very earliest prophet: compare Mat 10:2, … Thol., after Rckert, observes, The Apostle has in his mind a whole series of prophetic sayings which he might adduce, but gives only a few instead of all, and would shew by the , that even in the earliest period the same complaint (of Israels unbelief) is found) Moses saith, I will provoke you (Heb. and LXX, them) to jealousy against (those who are) no nation (the Gentiles, as opposed to the people of God), against a nation that hath no understanding (, the spiritual fool of Psa 14:1; Psa 53:1; Pro 17:21) will I anger you. The original reference of these words, as addressed to Israel by Moses, is exactly apposite to the Apostles argument. Moses prophetically assumes the departure of Israel from God, and his rejection of them, and denounces from God that as they had moved Him to jealousy with their no-gods (idols) and provoked Him to anger by their vanities,-so He would, by receiving into his favour a no-nation, make them jealous, and provoke them to anger by adopting instead of them a foolish nation. On the interpretation of De Wette, al., that the meaning is, God would deliver the children of Israel, as a prey to the idolatrous nations of Canaan, the parallels will not hold; nor do the following verses in Deut. (22-25) justify it.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 10:19. ; Did not Israel know?) The meaning is, that Israel could and should have known the righteousness of God, but did not wish to know it, Rom 10:3, and that is now shown from Moses and Isaiah. Paul in ch. 9-11. frequently calls the people, Israel, not Jews.- , first Moses) Moses, under whom Israel took the form of a people or nation, has already at that early time said.—) Deu 32:21. LXX., — ) This may be expressed in Latin by ne-gente, a not-nation. As the people followed gods, that were no gods, so God avenges the perfidy of the people, and took up a people that was no people, a people, who had not God as their God, a people quite unlike to Israel. So the term people does not recur Rom 10:20, [of the Gentiles] but Rom 10:21 [of Israel].-, foolish) Wisdom makes a people, Job 12:2. Therefore a foolish people is not a nation; [a not-nation] a people that knows not God is foolish. is a middle term, by which even Israel is denoted [; applicable to the people Israel, and the not-people, the Gentiles]. The epithet denotes other nations.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 10:19
Rom 10:19
But I say, Did Israel not know?-To what does this question refer? The answer seems to indicate: Did they not know that the gospel would be preached to the Gentiles? If they did not, it was because they had closed their eyes and refused to see the plain teaching of the Jewish Scriptures.
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.-[If any Israelite had carefully and in a believing spirit considered the words of Moses thus quoted, he would have assuredly gathered from them that God would withdraw his favor from those who had hitherto been his people, on account of their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah, and give it to those who had hitherto been not his people. Now, this exactly described the state of things then existing. The fulfillment of this prophecy is thus described by Luke: And the next sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed. And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. . . . And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God. (Act 13:44-48). So that the Jews had then before their eyes the fulfillment of one of their most ancient prophecies-the Jews shutting their ears to the message of salvation ; the Gentiles, till then no people, listening and believing; and the Jews, full of envy and jealousy, enraged at the reception on the Gentiles part of the very gospel which they rejected.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
I say: Rom 10:18, Rom 3:26, 1Co 1:12, 1Co 7:29, 1Co 10:19, 1Co 11:22, 1Co 15:50
First: Rom 11:11, Deu 32:21, Hos 2:23, 1Pe 2:10
foolish: Rom 1:21, Rom 1:22, Psa 115:5-8, Isa 44:18-20, Jer 10:8, Jer 10:14, 1Co 12:2, Tit 3:3
Reciprocal: Luk 15:28 – he Act 13:46 – seeing
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:19
Rom 10:19. Did not Israel know that the Gospel was to be preached throughout the world, to both Gentile and Jew? They did not, but they should have known had they “considered” (Isa 1:3), for their own lawgiver Moses prophesied it in Deu 32:21. Had the Jews “considered” it, they would have realized that no people and foolish nation meant the Gentiles.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 10:19. But I say; as in Rom 10:18, introducing a similar question, and another supposed excuse.
Did Israel not know? This is the direct application to the Jews, who have been in mind throughout. The anticipated answer (as the original indicates) is a denial of the not-knowing, i.e., an affirmation that Israel knew. But knew what? The connection with Rom 10:18 favors the explanation: knew that the gospel would go forth into all the earth. The prophecies which follow, it is true, prove that the gospel was to pass over from the Jews to the Gentiles. But the more general view seems preferable. Meyer: This universal destination of the preaching of Christ expressed in Rom 10:18 must have been known by the Jews, for long ago Moses and also Isaiah had prophesied the conversion of the Gentiles,
Isaiah likewise, the refractory spirit of opposition thereto of the Jews (Rom 10:20-21). If they had not known this, there might have been some excuse for them, as surprised by the event. But there was not even this palliation. Most of the other views are opposed by the form of the question.
First Moses saith. From this point to the close of the chapter we have the direct Scriptural proof, that the Jews ought not to have been in ignorance. The universality had been announced to Abraham, but Moses was the first to write of this; others, among them Isaiah, repeated the prophecy.
I will provoke you, etc. The citation is quite exact, from the LXX. of Deu 32:21. You is substituted for them.
With that which is no nation. The preposition is almost = on account of, but implying more than that: aroused on account of and directed against a no-nation. No-people (comp. chap. Rom 9:25) is the meaning of the Hebrew.
With a foolish nation, one without understanding, idolatrous, I will anger you, or, excite you to anger. The use made by the Apostle of this prophecy is very apt. Moses prophetically assumes the departure of Israel from God, and His rejection of them, and denounces from God that, as they had moved Him to jealousy with their no-gods (idols) and provoked Him to anger by their vanities,so He would, by receiving into His favor a no-nation make them jealous, and provoke them to anger by adopting instead of them a foolish nation (Alford). The application of the original prophecy need not be confined to the Canaanites.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Did not Israel know, that is, of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, and of their own infidelity in rejecting it? This they might have known both from the testimony of Moses and Esaias.
First, from Moses’ testimony, who says, I will provoke you (Jews refusing to believe) unto jealousy by them that are (yet) no people (of God); and by a foolish nation (so the Gentiles were accounted by the conceited Jews) I will anger you. Deu 32:21.
When God preferred the Gentiles before the Jews, the hearts of the latter were vexed with jealousy and anger, to behold all their privileges taken from them, and given to the former, whom they accounted a people most vile and despicable.
The second testimony is that of Esaias, who the apostle says was very bold; that is, very plain and express, in foretelling God’s calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Jews: calling the Gentiles by his free grace, and seeking them that first sought him not; and casting off the Jews, who, after all his forbearance and long suffering, did continue obstinately to reject the offers of his grace and the tenders of his mercy.
Here note, 1. The holy courage of this evangelic prophet Isaiah, in the discharge of his office: with great boldness and freedom he foretells the calling of the Gentiles and casting off the Jews, although it cost him dear, even his life, being sawn asunder with a wooden saw, as some affirm. There ought to meet in the ministers and messengers of God both courage and impartiality; courage in fearing no faces, impartiality in sparing no crimes.
Note, 2. What little cause or reason the ministers of God have to sit down in despondency, after so many unwearied attempts made in vain to reclaim sinners from their wicked ways; when they consider the infinite patience of God towards them, who stretches forth his hands all the day long to a disobedient and gainsaying people; that is, patiently contends with their obstinacy and perverseness!
Lord! why should we, that are sinners ourselves, think much to bear with sinners? Let us rather imitate thy example in waiting upon them with the offers of grace and mercy, and follow them with our melting entreaties and passionate importunities, till we either overcome their obstinacy, or leave them totally inexcusable.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 19. But I say, Did not Israel know?First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by a people who are not a people, by a foolish nation I will anger you. : It is not the case, however, is it, that Israel did not know? Know what, then? Crities answer the question differently. Some, from Chrysostom to Philippi and Hofmann, say: The gospel. But what difference in that case would there be between this excuse and the former? Philippi seeks to evade this difficulty by explaining the verb not in the sense of know, but in the sense of understand: Is it credible that Israel did not understand what the Gentiles apprehended at once (the gospel)? But in that case the answer would be: Yes, certainly it is credible, for it is the fact. Now the form of the question (with ) admits only of a negative answer. The object of the verb did know ought naturally to be taken from what precedes; it is therefore the essential idea of this whole passage, the universality of the preaching of the gospel. Paul asks: It is not, however, the case, is it, that Israel did not know what was coming? that they were taken by surprise by this sending of the message of grace to the Gentiles throughout the whole world, as by an unexpected dispensation? If it were so, this might form an excuse for them. But no; Moses even (Rom 10:19), and again more distinctly Isaiah (Rom 10:20-21), had warned them of what would happen, so that they cannot excuse themselves by saying that they are the victims of a surprise. The sequence and progress of the argument are thus vindicated in a way which is perfectly natural and well marked. It is not even necessary to introduce here, with Ewald and several others, the more special idea of the transference of the kingdom of God from the Jews to the Gentiles.
Moses is called first relatively to Isaiah (following verse), simply because he preceded him. Hofmann has attempted to connect this epithet with Israel: Did Israel not hear the gospel first, as was their right? But the answer would require to be affirmative; and this is excluded by the . It is clear that what Paul is concerned to bring out by this word first is not the simple fact of the priority of Moses in time to Isaiah, but the circumstance that from the very opening of the sacred volume the mind of God on the point in question was declared to Israel.
The words quoted are found in Deu 32:21 : As Israel have provoked the Lord to jealousy by worshipping that which is not God, so the Lord in His turn will provoke them to jealousy by those who are not His people. It is inconceivable how commentators like Meyer can apply these last words to the remains of the Canaanites whom the Israelites had allowed to remain among them, and whom God proposed to bless to such a degree as to render the Israelites jealous of their well-being. Such are the exegetical monstrosities to which a preconceived system of prophetical interpretation may lead. Moses certainly announces to the Jews in these words, as Paul recognizes, that the Gentiles will precede them in the possession of salvation, and that this will be the humiliating means whereby Israel themselves shall require at length to be brought back to their God.
The former of the two verbs () means that God will employ the stimulant of jealousy; and the latter (), that this jealousy will be carried even to anger; but all in view of a favorable result, the conversion of Israel. The words: by those who are not a people, have been understood in the sense: that the Gentiles are not strictly peoples, but mere assemblages of men. This idea is forced, and foreign to the context. We must explain: those who are not a people, in the sense: those who are not a people, par excellence, my people.
What Moses had only announced darkly in these words, Isaiah proclaimed with open mouth. He declares unambiguously: God will one day manifest Himself to the Gentiles by a proclamation of grace, while the Jews will obstinately reject all the blessings which shall be offered to them.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
But I say [Again I ask a question to give my Jewish objector the benefit of every loophole of escape. See Rom 10:18], Did Israel not know? [This question also requires a negative answer, and thus, being like the preceding question, the negative of a negative, it amounts to a strong affirmative. Assuredly Israel knew. But knew what? Why, the fact just asserted, to wit, that the gospel should sound out to all, both Jew and Gentile, as freely as light and sunshine, according to the world-wide commission or command of Christ. Did this fact take Israel by surprise? Was the issuing of a world-wide commission a thing untaught in their Scriptures, allowing them to plead ignorance of it? Had Paul cited the promise to Abraham, “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3), then the Jew would have claimed that this promise must be fulfilled by their all becoming Jews (Act 15:1). But he begins with Moses, the first writer of Scripture, and cites a passage which precludes the idea of blessing by absorption or amalgamation, for it is plainly blessing in rivalry and opposition.] First Moses saith [“First in the prophetic line” (De Wette). First in point of time and place, as Isaiah was near the last. His two citations therefore suggest the entire trend of Scripture, from beginning to end. Compare the “said before” of Rom 9:29], I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you. [The passage cited is Deu 32:21 . The Jews had moved God to jealousy by their “no-gods” (idols), and had provoked his to anger by their vanities; he therefore prophetically announces that he will provoke them to like jealousy and anger by adopting in their stead a “no-people,” a foolish nation. A “no-people” describes a nation which has no covenant relation with God, and hence is not recognized as his people. A “foolish nation” describes one made wise by no revelation. The weight of the citation was greatly increased by the name of Moses attached to it, and by the remoteness of the period when uttered. Many utterances of the prophets sounded harsh and hostile, but no one had ever doubted the loyal friendship of Moses to Israel; yet Moses said this even in his day.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
19-21. Here Paul beautifully alludes to Gods merciful call of the Gentiles, simultaneously bewailing the stupidity and perversity of the Jews.
I was found unto those who sought not after me. This is a vivid allusion to the call of the Gentiles, to them a universal surprise. Not only is this true of the Gentile world, but millions of individuals have been saved speedily, and to their own unutterable surprise, when they went seeking curiosity and fun, suddenly caught in the lasso of the Holy Ghost and wonderfully saved. The proud, haughty squire in West Virginia took his wife and daughter and went to a camp-meeting. The afternoon is wearing away, he and his wife are in the carriage homeward bound. The daughter lingers unseen in the crowd till their patience flickers, and the mother goes to hunt her up and bring her. Finding the proud, giddy girl all torn to pieces, prostrate in the straw and crying for mercy, and, undertaking to get her away, she too is thunderstruck, falling in the straw. The haughty squire, his patience all ebbed away, raging mad, with bold threats, rushes into the red-hot altar to pull away his wife and daughter and take them home. Meanwhile a strange weakness pervades his entire body so he can do nothing, and thinks only of personal escape. Running ten steps, he falls prostrate on the ground, is carried back to the altar and laid down with his wife and daughter to spend the ensuing night in mutual agony, crying to God for the salvation which, with the glorious day-dawn, breaks in on them with a heavenly sunburst, so, to their unutterable surprise, they all mount the carriage and go home, shouting happy in the kingdom of God.
Twenty-seven years ago a very intelligent wicked man came to my meeting, cursing me and making fun of what he called my converting machine.
That man got wonderfully saved and turned preacher. Oh, the infinite mercy of God in thus surprising millions with the salvation which they never sought till He caught them with the lasso of the thunderbolt of conviction.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 19
Did not Israel know? Did they not know that the favor of God which they rejected was to be bestowed on the Gentile nations?–Them that are no people; the Gentiles.–A foolish nation; a people despised.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
10:19 {13} But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by {n} [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.
(13) The defender and maintainer of the Jew’s cause goes on still to ask whether the Jews also did not know God, the one who called them. Isaiah, says the apostle, denies it: and witnesses that the Gospel was taken from them and given to the Gentiles, because the Jews rejected it. In addition the apostle teaches that the outward and universal calling, which is set forth by the creation of the world, is not sufficient for the knowledge of God: indeed, and that the particular calling also which is by the preaching of the word of God, is of itself of little or no efficacy, unless it is apprehended or laid hold of by faith, which is the gift of God: otherwise by unbelief it is made unprofitable, and that by the only fault of man, who can pretend no ignorance.
(n) He calls all profane people “[them that are] no people”, as they are not said to live but to die, who are appointed for everlasting condemnation.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Might there be a second possible reason for Israel’s rejection of the gospel? Even though the Jews heard the message, perhaps they did not understand it.
The quotation from Deu 32:21 comes from Moses’ criticism of Israel for forsaking the Lord. God said that He would give Israel a desire to return to Himself (provoke her to jealousy) by blessing another people. This is what had happened since Jesus Christ had died. God had opened the door of the church to the Gentiles. This should have made Israel more desirous of returning to God, accepting His Messiah, and experiencing God’s blessing. However this had not happened, as the record of the church’s growth in Acts proves. As time went by, fewer and fewer Jews responded to the gospel whereas ever more Gentiles accepted it. This response was not due to ignorance but to deliberate rejection.