Romans 10:19

“ 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. ” Μὴ οὐκ : “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 ἐγνω 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 μή) 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 (Romans 10:19), and again more distinctly Isaiah (Romans 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 μή. 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 Deuteronomy 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 (παραζηλοῦν) means that God will employ the stimulant of jealousy; and the latter (παροργίζειν), 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.