“eis πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν
ἐξῆλθεν & φθόγγος αὐτῶν, καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ
ς lal >
pCh. xi14; ῥήματα αὐτῶν”.
1 Cor. x. 22.
19. ᾽Αλλὰ λέγω, Μὴ οὐκ ἔγνω Ισραήλ;
πρῶτος
Μωσῆς λέγει, “'᾿Ἐγὼ Ρπαραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπ᾽ οὐκ έἔθνει, ἐπὶ ἔθνει
1 Ισραηλ before ουκ εγνω ΝΑΒΟΡΣ ΣΕ.
That which when heard is ἀκοὴ is when spoken ῥῆμα, and it is the condition of faith. The construction in ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ is the same as in τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως in ver. 8. The words could not signify Christ’s command.
Ver. 18. The process of convicting the Jews is now under way, and ἀλλὰ λέγω introduces a plea on their behalf. It is Paul who speaks: hence the form of the question μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν suggests his opinion as to the answer. To hear is necessary in order to believe ; you do not mean to say they did mot hear? Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, xi. 22. μενοῦνγε is 7mmo vero. The contrary is so clearly the case that there is a touch of derision in the word with which Paul introduces the proof of it. Cf. ix. 20. The Gospel has been preached in all the world: the words of Ps. xix. 4 (exactly as in LXX) are at once the expression and the proof of this. Of course they refer to the revelation of God in nature, but their
use will seem legitimate enough if we
remember that Paul knew the extent to which the Gospel had been proclaimed in his day. Cf. Col. i. 6, 23. It was as widely diffused as the Diaspora, and the poetic inspired expression for this had a charm of its own.
Ver. 19. ἀλλὰ λέγω: 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, Isvael 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 pro- minence ; and it is in the case of Israel, of all nations, that the plea of not under- standing is most out of place. Above all nations Israel ought to have understood a message from God: Israel, and in-
ability to understand God’s Word, ought to be incompatible ideas. πρῶτος Μωυσῆς λέγει, Deut. xxxii. 21. πρῶτος 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 ix. 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 ver. 20. ‘Hoaias δὲ ἀποτολμά: ‘‘ 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. οἱ ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶντες means those who put no question to me, s¢., about the way of salvation. In Isa. lxv. 1 the clauses occur in reverse order. What the pro- phet 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 ix. 25 f., to the reception of the Gospel by the Gentiles.* If God was found and recognised in His character and pur- poses, 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