The passage
      14-15a. In these verses Paul shows that the Jews are without excuse in that they rejected Christ. God's means of salvation was theirs for the asking; nothing was hidden from them. In making his point Paul gives us a rare insight into the way of salvation. It is like a chain which must not be broken. The five links are as follows:
          i] Sinners will be saved, will receive God's mercy and forgiveness, if they call out to Jesus.
          ii] Yet, they cannot call upon Jesus unless they believe in him.
          iii] They cannot believe in him without hearing about him.
          iv] And they cannot hear about him unless the message of Christ, the gospel, is preached to them.
          v] The message cannot be proclaimed unless a preacher is sent by God.
      v15b. This quote from Isaiah 52:7 affirms the preacher, the one who communicates God's saving word, a word the apostles were authorized to communicate to the historic people of Israel. So, the message has been sent.
      v16. Yet, Israel broke the link of faith; they failed to believe God's word of salvation, and therefore failed to call on "the name of the Lord", v13. Thus they stand condemned. The quote from Isaiah reminds us that there is nothing new in Israel's resistance to God's word.
      v17. Paul now sums up his argument so far by restating the key links in the chain of salvation: faith is linked to hearing, and hearing linked to communication.
      v18-19a. Did Israel hear about the way of salvation in Christ? "They did indeed". The trouble is they didn't believe. Quoting Psalm 19:4, concerning the display of God's glory in nature, Paul implies that the message of salvation has been proclaimed widely and so therefore, Israel is without excuse.
      v19b-21. Paul now quotes scripture to support his contention that Israel's failure to appropriate God's free offer of salvation is its own doing. They have heard, but have chosen not to believe. Deuteronomy 32:21 reminds us that God's chastisement of his people for infidelity (their chasing after other God's) includes his provoking them through his positive dealings with the nations. Israel now faces this reality. Isaiah 65:1 reminds us that the Jews obviously heard the message of salvation because it was even heard by those who were not seeking him. Finally, Isaiah 65:2 reminds us that the wilful rejection of God's steadfast love toward his historic people leaves Israel without excuse.

Five gospel principles
      In our passage for study we see clearly the factors involved in the evangelistic process. They are factors worth noting:
          i] A person is saved when they call out to Jesus, when they ask him for his forgiveness, acceptance and love. Like the thief on the cross, we have to say, "Jesus, remember me." It is so amazingly simple that we often try to add extra requirements, bolster it up a bit. Still, in the end, it is "ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you."
          ii] A person can only ask if they are willing to trust Jesus to do what they are asking. Can this man who lived 2,000 years ago in Palestine, who was taken by wicked men and crucified, and who, it was claimed of him, rose from the dead, can he (and will he) give life eternal? Is he able to save? It's impossible to be sure about any of this, but faith is taking God at his word; it involves going out on a limb with Jesus.
          iii] A person can only believe if they get to hear the message of salvation, the gospel. Believing requires hearing. This involves the effective communication of an understandable message. The message must be in the language of the hearer, even their accent, and must use thought-forms appropriate to the hearer (contextualization). The message, of course, must be the gospel. It must be theologically accurate. To believe, a person has to hear and understand the gospel.
          iv] A person can only hear if there is someone to preach. It is essential to communicate through popular mass-media . In our age, one-to-one communication is still effective, but it is the mass-media that most effectively communicates ideas.
          v] Finally, a person can only preach if they are sent. It is true that only the gifted are sent to evangelize, yet we are all "to do the work of evangelism", being ready willing and able to "give a defense of the hope that is in us". As a community of believers we are indeed sent - we are to see to it that the gospel is proclaimed.

v14
      By now, Paul has established the proposition that covenant standing, and thus salvation, is a gift of God appropriated through faith and not works of the law. The simple fact is, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Yet, to call on the Lord for salvation is the last link in a chain that is easily broken, v14-15. Given the "anyone / everyone" of v11-13, some commentators argue that v14-15 applies to Jew and Gentile alike, cf. Luz, Schreiner. This is unlikely.
      oun "then" - Usually expressing result, "therefore", but sometimes adversative. Some argue that this verse should be attached to v13 as a consequence of the statement made there, but an adversative sense, and therefore a new paragraph, seems more likely; "but then ...." Cassirer.
      epikaleswntai (epikalew) aor. subj. "[how, then,] can they call on" - [how therefore] may they call on. As with "believe in", "hear", and in v15, "preach (convey a word from God)", "call on" is a deliberative subjunctive. The term reminds us that salvation finally comes down to an act of asking, "ask and it will be given." "How can they call for help ...?"
      eiV "on" - toward, into [(the one) they did not believe]. Possibly "appeal to someone", Barclay, or "on" as NIV, but better taken as "into", in the same sense as faith is expressed as being "in/into" God/Christ - a common sense in John's writings. "In whom they have not believed", Williams. "[how can they believe] in the one [of whom ....]" - It is usually accepted that eiV "in", must be supplied from the previous clause, as well as the antecedent of "of whom they did not hear", namely, "the one."
      ou| "(the one) of whom" - of whom [they did not hear]. This genitive pronoun functions as the object of the verb "heard" = "how can they believe [in the one] they have not heard of [of whom]" = "in the one whom they have not heard." Since akouw "hear" often takes a genitive as a matter of form (gen. = person who is heard, acc. thing that is heard), then it is not "of whom they have not heard", NIV, ie, heard the message about, so TEV, but rather "how are they to believe in one whom they have never heard", Bruce, ie, heard in the message.
      khrussontoV (khrussw) pres. part. "someone preaching to them" - [apart from] one preaching, proclaiming. Participle as a substantive. "How can they hear if nobody tells them", Peterson.

v15
      ean mh + subj "unless [they are sent]" - if [they are] not [sent] / except [they be sent]. Introducing a subordinate clause of negated condition.
      apostalwsin (apostellw) aor. pas. subj. "they are sent" - Sent by a higher authority, namely God. Referring to the ministry of the gospel. Obviously Israel could not properly respond to God if he (some suggest the church) had not sent messengers to them to proclaim the way of salvation, but in reality he had. "Unless they are sent by God to do so", Barclay.
      oiJ podeV ( ous odoV) "the feet" - The reference is to Isaiah 52:7. The Jews understood this as a messianic text. The reference to "the feet" reflects the typical use of a body part to represent the whole, so better "how wonderful is the coming of those who bring good news", TEV.
      twn euaggelizomenwn (euaggelizw) gen. pres. part. "of those who bring [good] news" - of the one's bringing news. The genitive is possessive and the participle forms a substantive. The "good" is often carried with "the news / gospel", but of course, "beautiful feet" bring good news while the feet that bring bad news aren't so beautiful. We often forget that the gospel is both good and bad news, depending on how we respond to it.

v16
      Sadly Israel has broken the chain. Most of Israel has not called on the Lord for they have not "harkened" to his word.
      alla "but" - but, and. A forceful adversative. We would expect Israel to respond positively to the good news, but .... Paul's point is that the chain which links a person's calling on God for mercy to the sending of his message of salvation has been broken by Israel, broken by their rejection of that message, and it is for this reason alone that Israel now finds itself outside of God's new covenant. "But not all of them paid heed to the gospel", Cassirer.
      ou panteV "not all the Israelites" - not all. Possibly a litotes (ironic understatement) = "only a few" , cf. Meyer. "Israelites" is not stated, but properly assumed.
      uJpakousan (uJpakouw) aor. "accepted" - obeyed, harkened. "Accepted", NIV is a gentle way of expressing "give credence to", but better "submit to." Clearly we should take this as a belief statement, ie. the broken link is "believing", not "hearing". "Paid heed to", Cassirer/Bruce; "given in to", Moffatt; certainly better than "responded to", NJB.
      tw/ euaggeliw/ (on) "the good news" - the news, message, communication. The "good" has stuck!
      gar "for" - Expressing cause/reason, establishing a logical conclusion: "that all who hear the gospel do not respond", arguing "that a message from God is not always received as it should be", Morris.
      HsiaV legei "Isaiah says" - Explicit reference, Isa.53:1.
      th/ akoh/ (h) dat. "[who has believed our] message" - in the message [of us]. "Believed" followed by a dative of indirect object = "gave credence to / harkened to the message."

v17
      Not all Israelites have responded in faith to the divine message of salvation, a resistance even Isaiah experienced, "therefore ...." v17. The "therefore" doesn't seem to logically advance the argument. Hendricksen suggests "a summarizing conclusion", Morris a rounding up the argument of the last few verses, "a conclusion", Jewett. Moo suggests that Paul is drawing an inference from v16b, namely, that "faith comes as a result of hearing .... (and) hearing, the kind of hearing that can lead to faith, can only happen if there is a definite salvific word from God that is proclaimed", Moo. One wonders if systematic theology has got the better of Moo here. It is more likely that Paul is rounding up his argument at this point. Note, there are no verbs in the Gk. and so they must be supplied eg. "comes": "faith comes from/out of the message (heard or preached?) and the message (heard or preached?) comes through / by means of the word of Christ."
      ara "consequently" - therefore. Here inferential; "so, the point I am making is this ........... but (v18)"
      pistiV (iV ewV) "faith" - belief. "Belief, you see, can only come from hearing the message", Phillips.
      akohV (h) "hearing the message" - report, message. Better, "the act of hearing", with the object supplied, "what is preached." "Before you trust you have to listen", Peterson.
      dia "through" - through, by means of. There is a tendency for this preposition to drift toward a causal sense even though followed by a genitive, as here, so "because of / on account of" may be intended, although the instrumental sense is more likely.
      Cristou (oV) "[word] of Christ" - Genitive: Either possessive = the word that belongs to Christ; objective genitive = "the word about Christ", Zerwick; or origin/author = the word that comes from Christ, "what is heard has its source in its having been spoken by Christ", Cassirer.

v18
      Paul now poses the question, "Now I ask you this, has Israel had the opportunity to hear God's word of salvation / the gospel? They certainly have", v18-19b.
      alla "but" - but, and. Adversative.
      mh ouk "[did they] not [hear]" - The object may be supplied, eg. "the message", TEV. The mh serves to negate the question producing the answer "no", but ouk negates the verb, so the answer is then "yes", so Burton, followed by most translations and commentators. It is possible, although unlikely, that the double negative is seeking an emphatic "no" to the question; "they did not hear (in the sense of "harken"), did they? Indeed they certainly did not." Gifford takes this line in his old John Murray commentary on Romans with the anticipated "nay verily." The "hear" is just "hear", not "harken / believe". Israel did "hear", but didn't "believe".
      menounge "of course they did" - indeed ("indeed they have", BDF) / on the contrary. An emphatic expression, here either for the positive, as NIV, or the negative, so Kasemann. Positive is best.
      Paul's quote from Psalm 19:4 supports his case that the new covenant has universally been communicated to Israel (Paul's practice of preaching to the synagogue first, before taking the gospel to the Gentile community). In the context of this verse, if the answer to the question is "yes", then the quote supports the "yes they have heard", if "no", then the quote takes a concessive sense, "no they haven't harkened, even though ......" A concessive sense is unlikely.
      eiV "into / to" - The gospel has gone "into all the earth" and "to the ends of the world." For Paul, Rome is probably the "end" of the world, in the sense of the center of the world, although some think he has in mind Spain.

v19
      Paul repeats the question posed in v18, again most likely expecting the answer "yes". The Jews have no excuse, they heard, but did not believe, v18b-19. The quote, Deut.32:21, from the song of Moses, speaks of the consequences of Israel's infidelity. To anger God consequentially causes them anger, here in terms of "a not people" becoming God's people, a truth supported by Isaiah 65:1, v20.
      alla "again [I ask]" - but, and. Probably again adversative, as in v18. "But I ask", Barclay.
      mh ... ouk "[did Israel] not [understand]" - [Israel] not [know]. Again the double negative can be handled in two ways as in v18; "did Israel understand (the gospel)?" Assumed answer is "yes indeed", or "certainly not". So either, Israel did "hear, v18, did "know", in the sense of "understand", v19, but rejected what they heard, or they did not "hear" in the sense of "harken", v18, did not "know" in the sense of "harken", again from an "obstinate" spirit, v21. Either way, they broke the chain outlined in v14-15. An expected positive answer seems best.
      egnw (ginwskw) "understand" - come to know, know, recognize. The answer to the question is "yes", Israel did "hear clearly / understood" the gospel. Note, the question may be ""did Israel fail to understand that the Nations would be called?", Pilcher, ie. "did Israel not know what Moses first says?". Most translations agree with NIV and this does seem to be the extent of the question. "Did Israel take note?", Berkeley.
      ego "I" - Emphatic.
      parazhlwsw (parazhlow) fut. "will make you envious" - will provoke [you] to jealousy. Transitive = "make jealous" or "provoke to jealousy". Paul later develops the idea that the incoming of the Gentiles will provoke the Jews into a reevaluation of their rejection of Christ. Contextually, though, this idea is probably not in Paul's mind here. The point is that the failure of the Jews to act on what they heard has consequentially set them apart from God's mercy, and this while Gentiles find the covenant inclusion that historically belongs to Israel. "Provoke to jealous anger", Moo.
      epi "by [those who are not a nation]" - over, on, at, to. "In regard to", BAGD; "I shall make you jealous with regard to a non-nation", Jewett.
      ouk eqnei (oV) "those who are not a nation" - not nation. Obviously "Gentiles".
      asunetw/ adj. "that has no understanding" - without understanding. Probably a little stronger in that it would include a lack of morality; "devoid of understanding", Cassirer.