Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 11:16

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 11:16” utilice nuestra app.

For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

16. For ] Lit., and much better, But, or Now. The word marks transition to a new fact in connexion with the “receiving” of Israel; the fact of the peculiar position of Jews with regard to the Divine Promise. The main effect of the following passage, to Rom 11:24, is to prove that the restoration of Jews to the Church of Messiah, so far from being unlikely, is in the nature of the case likely. Their peculiar connexion, by lineal descent, with the Fathers, makes it certain that their return will be as abundantly welcome to their God as the admission of the Gentiles. We might say more welcome, but for the fact that no welcome can be fuller than that which awaits the true believer of whatever nation. But St Paul wishes to meet the rising prejudice (so strong and stubborn in after ages) of Gentile against Jewish believers, by emphasizing the grand fact that the whole Church springs, so to speak, from a Jewish root; and that thus nothing could be, in a certain sense, more natural than the restoration of Jews to the Church. He has also to announce that there is reserved for Israel, in the future, not merely restoration to the Church, but a work of special importance and glory in it for the world.

the firstfruit ] The Jewish Patriarchs, but perhaps specially Abraham, who was eminently “holy” in the sense of consecration to the purposes of God. For the figure here cp. Num 15:21; “Of the first of your dough ye shall offer unto the Lord an heave-offering.” The words just below here point to the idea of “firstfruits” not of grain but of bread.

holy ] In the sense indicated in the last note. The Patriarchs were, by the Divine purpose, separated to be special recipients of Divine light, in trust for their descendants and the world. In a sense somewhat similar their descendants, viewed as a nation, are still separated in the Divine purpose to a special work connected with Divine mercy. The reference is not, of course, to a supposed superior personal sanctity of individual Jews as such, (which would be to contradict the whole reasoning of cch. 2, 3, 4,) but to the special purpose towards Israel as a nation, in view of which they are reserved (scattered but never vanishing) for a time of grace.

the root ] Here again the figure points to the Patriarchs, and especially to Abraham. (Cp. Isa 51:1-2, for yet another figure, that of the Quarry, with the same reference.) The “root” and “branches” are here brought in to form the main illustration of the passage following as far as Rom 11:25. The passage is one of much importance and some difficulty, and calls for a few preliminary remarks.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For if the first-fruit be holy – The word first-fruit aparche used here denotes the firstling of fruit or grain which was separated from the mass and presented as an offering to God. The Jews were required to present such a portion of their harvest to God, as an expression of gratitude and of their sense of dependence; Num 15:19-21. Until this was done, it was not lawful to partake of the harvest. The offering of this was regarded as rendering the mass holy, that is, it was lawful then to partake of it. The first-fruits were regarded as among the best portions of the harvest; and it was their duty to devote to God that which would be the best expression of their thanksgiving. This was the general practice in relation to all that the land produced. The expression here, however, has reference to the small portion of dough or kneaded meal that was offered to God; and then the mass or lump phurama was left for the use of him who made the offering; Num 15:20.

Be holy – Be set apart, or consecrated to God, as he commanded.

The lump – The mass. It refers here properly to the dough of which a part had been offered. The same was true also in relation to the harvest, after the waive-sheaf had been offered; of the flock, after the first male had been offered, etc.

Is also holy – It is lawful then for the owner to partake of it. The offering of a part has consecrated the whole. By this illustration Paul doubtless means to say that the Jewish nation, as a people, were set apart to the service of God, and were so regarded by him. Some have supposed that by the first-fruit here the apostle intends to refer to the early converts, made to the Christian faith in the first preaching of the gospel. But it is more probable that he refers to the patriarchs, the pious people of old, as the first-fruits of the Jewish nation; see Rom 11:28. By their piety the nation was, in a manner, sanctified, or set apart to the service of God; implying that yet the great mass of them would be reclaimed and saved.

If the root be holy – This figure expresses the same thing as is denoted in the first part of the verse. The root of a tree is the source of nutritious juices necessary for its growth, and gives its character to the tree. If that be sound, pure, vigorous, we expect the same of the branches. A root bears a similar relation to the tree that the first-fruit does to the mass of bread. Perhaps there is allusion here to Jer 11:16, where the Jewish nation is represented under the image of a green olivetree, fair, and of goodly fruit. In this place the reference is doubtless to Abraham and the patriarchs, as the root or founders of the Jewish nation. If they were holy, it is to be expected that the distant branches, or descendants, would also be so regarded. The mention of the root and branches of a tree gives the apostle occasion for an illustration of the relation at that time of the Jews and Gentiles to the church of Christ.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 16. For if the first fruit be holy] As the consecrating the first fruits to God was the means of drawing down his blessing upon the rest, so the conversion of Abraham to the true faith, and the several Jews who have now embraced Christianity, are pledges that God will, in process of time, admit the whole Jewish nation into his favour again, so that they shall constitute a part of the visible Church of Christ.

If the root be holy, so are the branches.] The word holy in this verse is to be taken in that sense which it has so frequently in the Old and New Testaments, viz. consecrated, set apart to sacred uses. It must not be forgotten that the first converts to Christ were from among the Jews; these formed the root of the Christian Church: these were holy, , consecrated to God, and those who among the Gentiles were converted by their means were also , consecrated; but the chief reference is to the ancestors of the Jewish people, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and, as these were devoted to God and received into his covenant, all their posterity, the branches which proceeded from this root, became entitled to the same privileges: and as the root still remains, and the branches also, the descendants from that root still remain: they still have a certain title to the blessings of the covenant; though, because of their obstinate unbelief, these blessings are suspended, as they cannot, even on the ground of the old covenant, enjoy these blessings but through faith: for it was when Abraham believed God that it was accounted to him for righteousness; and thus he became an heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Here is another argument to prove the Jews are not finally rejected, because of the covenant made with their fathers.

If the first-fruit be holy: some make a difference between the first-fruit, and the root, in the latter part of the verse. By the first-fruit they understand the apostles and other godly Jews, that were at first converted to the Christian faith; and by the root they understand Abraham and the patriarchs. Others take them for the same, and understand Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with the rest of the patriarchs, to be both the first-fruit and the root.

The lump is also holy; by lump, and branches, he means the people of the Jews that descended of these holy patriarchs, and spring from them, as branches from a root. The great question is, In what sense they are said to be holy? Or of what holiness doth he speak? It is not meant of inherent, but of federal, or covenant holiness; all in all outward and visible covenant with God, were called holy: see Exo 9:6; Dan 8:24. Many common things are called holy in Scripture, because dedicated to God and to his service; yea, Jerusalem, though a place of great wickedness, is called a holy city, Mat 27:53. In such a sense as this, the Jews are still a holy people; they have an hereditary kind of dedication to God; they have a federal holiness, and relation to God, as being for ever separated to him, in the loins of their progenitors; this can never be wholly forfeited, as being granted to all the posterity of the holy patriarchs: therefore they are called the children of the covenant, which God made with their fathers, Act 3:25; see Act 2:39. So then God will remember in his own time, his covenant with the Jews, the posterity of Abraham, &c., who are beloved for the fathers sakes, Rom 11:28. Therefore, in the mean time, they should not look on themselves with desperation; nor should the Gentiles look on them with disdain, as it follows in the next words.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

16. For“But”

if the first-fruit be holy,the lump is also holy; and if the root . . . so the branchesTheIsraelites were required to offer to God the first-fruits of theearthboth in their raw state, in a sheaf of newly reaped grain(Lev 23:10; Lev 23:11),and in their prepared state, made into cakes of dough (Nu15:19-21) by which the whole produce of that season wasregarded as hallowed. It is probable that the latter of theseofferings is here intended, as to it the word “lump” bestapplies; and the argument of the apostle is, that as the separationunto God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the rest of mankind, asthe parent stem of their race, was as real an offering offirst-fruits as that which hallowed the produce of the earth, so, inthe divine estimation, it was as real a separation of the mass or”lump” of that nation in all time to God. The figure of the”root” and its “branches” is of like importtheconsecration of the one of them extending to the other.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For if the firstfruit be holy,…. Some by “the firstfruit” and “root” understand Christ, who is sometimes called, “the firstfruits of them that slept”, 1Co 15:20, and “the root of Jesse and David”, Isa 11:10, and indeed of all the righteous; and certain it is, that since he is holy, has all the holiness of his people in him, and is sanctification unto them, they shall be holy likewise; have it imparted to them in this life, and perfected in them in another: but this does not seem to agree with the apostle’s argument. Others think that by them are meant the Jewish ancestors, and particularly Abraham, and dream of a holiness derived from him to his natural seed; but if no such holiness was derived from him to his immediate offspring, Ishmael, it can hardly be thought any should be communicated by him to his remote posterity; and to these here designed, at the distance of four or five thousand years from him: but by them are intended the first converts among the Jews, under the Gospel dispensation; it being usual with the apostle to call those persons, that were first converted in any place, the firstfruits of it; see Ro 16:5; These were they who received the firstfruits of the Spirit in Judea, and who first among the Jews hoped and believed in Christ; these were but few in number, as the “firstfruit” is but small in comparison of “the lump”, and mean, abject, and despicable, as the “root” under, and in a dry ground is; but yet were pledges and presages of a larger number of souls among that people, to be converted in the latter day: now the apostle’s argument is, “if the firstfruit be holy”,

the lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches; that is, that whereas those persons who were converted among the Jews, however few in number, and despicable in appearance they might be, yet were truly sanctified by the Spirit of God; and as they were, so should the whole body of that people be in the last days, “when holiness [shall] be upon the horses’ bells, [and] every pot in Judah and Jerusalem shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts”, Zec 14:20, by which metaphorical expressions is meant, that holiness should be common to the whole nation, and all the inhabitants of it, of which the call of some few among them was a pledge and presage. The allusion in the former clause is to the holy offerings of firstfruits to the Lord, the two wave loaves, Le 23:14, whereby the whole lump was sanctified, for after use throughout the year following; and that in the latter clause, to the holiness of trees; that is, to trees devoted to sacred use or that were planted in a field appropriated thereunto: hence we read t, that the men of Jericho permitted, or as other exemplars read it, cut down , “branches of holiness”, or “holy branches”; and eat fallen fruit on the sabbath day. u Bartenora explains these branches, of such that grow upon a tree devoted to holy uses; and Maimonides w, observes, that they thought it lawful to eat what grew in a holy field.

t Misn. Pesachim, c. 4. sect. 8. u In Misn. Pesachim. c. 4. sect. 8. w In ib.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

First fruit (). See on 1Cor 15:20; 1Cor 15:23. The metaphor is from Nu 15:19f. The LXX has , first of the dough as a heave offering.

The lump ( ). From which the first fruit came. See on 9:21. Apparently the patriarchs are the first fruit.

The root ( ). Perhaps Abraham singly here. The metaphor is changed, but the idea is the same. Israel is looked on as a tree. But one must recall and keep in mind the double sense of Israel in 9:6f. (the natural and the spiritual).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

For [] . Better but, or now. A new paragraph begins.

The first – fruit – holy. See on Jas 1:18, Act 26:10. Referring to the patriarchs.

Lump. See on ch. Rom 9:21. The whole body of the people. The apparent confusion of metaphor, first – fruit, lump, is resolved by the fact that first – fruit does not apply exclusively to harvest, but is the general term for the first portion of every thing which was offered to God. The reference here is to Num 14:18 – 21; according to which the Israelites were to set apart a portion of the dough of each baking of bread for a cake for the priests. This was called ajparch, first – fruits.

Root – branches. The same thought under another figure. The second figure is more comprehensive, since it admits an application to the conversion of the Gentiles. 58 The thought of both figures centres in holy. Both the first – fruits and the root represent the patriarchs (or Abraham singly, compare ver. 28). The holiness by call and destination of the nation as represented by its fathers (first – fruits, root) implies their future restoration, the holiness of the lump and branches.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For if the firstfruit be holy,” (ei de he aparche hagia) “And (moreover) if the firstfruit (is) holy,” exists as a holy fruit, and it does, sanctified, and set apart, as Israel was called as a holy people. Their land was to be sanctified, the people, and their cattle and the firstfruits of their crops, Num 15:19-21.

2) “The lump is also holy,” (kai to phurama) “The lump is also holy,” sanctified, or set apart, though now set apart, cut off to chastisement till the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled, Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2; Deu 14:21; Deu 26:19; Deu 28:9; Dan 12:7.

3) “And if the root be holy,” (kai ei he hriza hagia) “And if the root (is) holy” sanctified, set apart; the root-stock of Abraham, and it was, made holy by Abraham’s believing the gospel and God’s imputing it to him for righteousness, Gal 3:6-8; Jas 2:23.

4) “So are the branches”, (kai hoi kladoi) “The branches (are) also holy, sanctified, or set apart;” the offspring, those springing forth of the faith of Abraham, Gen 15:6; Gal 3:8; Rom 4:16. After Abraham was saved he was called, commissioned, and obeyed God by going into a land that was later promised to him and his posterity.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

16. For if the first-fruits, etc. By comparing the worthiness of the Jews and of the Gentiles, he now takes away pride from the one and pacifies the other, as far as he could; for he shows that the Gentiles, if they pretended any prerogative of honor of their own, did in no respect excel the Jews, nay, that if they came to a contest, they should be left far behind. Let us remember that in this comparison man is not compared with man, but nation with nation. If then a comparison be made between them, they shall be found equal in this respect, that they are both equally the children of Adam; the only difference is that the Jews had been separated from the Gentiles, that they might be a peculiar people to the Lord. (354)

They were then sanctified by the holy covenant, and adorned with peculiar honor, with which God had not at that time favored the Gentiles; but as the efficacy of the covenant appeared then but small, he bids us to look back to Abraham and the patriarchs, in whom the blessing of God was not indeed either empty or void. He hence concludes, that from them an heredity holiness had passed to all their posterity. But this conclusion would not have been right had he spoken of persons, or rather had he not regarded the promise; for when the father is just, he cannot yet transmit his own uprightness to his son: but as the Lord had sanctified Abraham for himself for this end, that his seed might also be holy, and as he thus conferred holiness not only on his person but also on his whole race, the Apostle does not unsuitably draw this conclusion, that all the Jews were sanctified in their father Abraham. (355)

Then to confirm this view, he adduces two similitudes: the one taken from the ceremonies of the law, and the other borrowed from nature. The first-fruits which were offered sanctified the whole lump, in like manner the goodness of the juice diffuses itself from the root to the branches; and posterity hold the same connection with their parents from whom they proceed as the lump has with the first-fruits, and the branches with the tree. It is not then a strange thing that the Jews were sanctified in their father. There is here no difficulty if you understand by holiness the spiritual nobility of the nation, and that indeed not belonging to nature, but what proceeded from the covenant. It may be truly said, I allow, that the Jews were naturally holy, for their adoption was hereditary; but I now speak of our first nature, according to which we are all, as we know, accursed in Adam. Therefore the dignity of an elect people, to speak correctly, is a supernatural privilege.

(354) There were two kinds of first-fruits: the sheaf, being the first ripe fruit, Lev 23:10; and the dough, the first kneaded cake, Num 15:20. It is to the last that the reference is here made.

The first-fruits are considered by some, such as [ Mede ] and [ Chalmers ], to have been the first Jewish converts to Christianity — the apostles and disciples; but this is not consistent with the usual manner of the Apostle, which is to express the same thing in two ways, or by two metaphors. Besides, the whole context refers to the first adoption of the Jewish nation, or to the covenant made with Abraham and confirmed to the patriarchs. — Ed.

(355) That the holiness here mentioned is external and relative, and not personal and inward, is evident from the whole context. The children of Israel were denominated holy in all their wickedness and disobedience, because they had been consecrated to God, adopted as his people, and set apart for his service, and they enjoyed all the external privileges of the covenant which God had made with their fathers.

[ Pareus ] makes a distinction between what passes from progenitors to their offspring and what does not pass. In the present case the rights and privileges of the covenant were transmitted, but not faith and inward holiness. “Often,” he says, “the worst descend from the best, and the best from the worst; from wicked Ahaz sprang good Hezekiah, from Hezekiah descended impious Manasse, from Manasse again came good Josiah, and from Josiah sprang wicked sons, Shallum and Jehoiakim.” But all were alike holy in the sense intended here by the Apostle, as they were circumcised, and inherited the transmissible rights and privileges of the covenant.

“

The holiness,” says [ Turrettin ], “of the first-fruits and of the root was no other than an external, federal, and national consecration, such as could be transferred from parents to their children.”

“

The attentive reader,” says [ Scott ], “will readily perceive that relative holiness, or consecration to God, is here exclusively meant. […] Abraham was as it were the root of the visible Church. Ishmael was broken off, and the tree grew up in Isaac; and when Esau was broken off, it grew up in Jacob and his sons. […] When the nation rejected the Messiah, their relation to Abraham and to God was as it were suspended. They no longer retained even the outward seal of the covenant; for circumcision lost its validity and baptism became the sign of regeneration: they were thenceforth deprived of the ordinances of God.” — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(16) And we have the strongest reason for believing in this reconversion of the Jews. Their forefathers were the first recipients of the promise, and what they were it is only natural to hope that their descendants will be. When a piece of dough is taken from the lump to make a consecrated cake, the consecration of the part extends over the whole; and the character which is inherent in the root of a tree shows itself also in the branches. So we may believe that the latter end of Israel will be like its beginning. The consecration that was imparted to it in the founders of the race we may expect to see resumed by their descendants, even though it is for a time interrupted.

The firstfruit . . . the lump.The allusion here is to the custom, described in Num. 15:19-21, of dedicating a portion of the dough to God. The portion thus taken was to be a heave-offeringi.e., it was to be waved, or heaved, before the Lord, and was then given to the priest.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

16-24. The image of the olive tree It is from its beauty and richness that the apostle selects the olive tree as an emblem of the Church of God. Some of the branches (the apostate Jews) are broken off, and from a wild tree new branches (the believing Gentiles) are grafted into the parent trunk.

But, amid their bloom and flourish, let the new grafts beware of forgetting their parasite position and proudly exulting over the severed branches. The latter were cut off for unbelief, the former may be for their pride and thus is furnished a striking picture of God’s impartial dealing. How probable that the native branches will yet resume their place!

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

16. Firstfruit The first product of the autumn of any kind offered to God was called firstfruit. Here, as the word lump indicates, it means the first dough for baking. In Num 15:20, the Israelites were commanded to offer a cake of their first dough for a heave offering. This ceremony indicated their gratitude to God for his gift of bread. And this first dough so offered was representative of the whole; upon the whole dough was now a consecration by which it could be gratefully and piously eaten, and in that sense holy. Firstfruit and whole lump were all of a piece.

Lump The entire mass of dough for baking. In the apostle’s figure the Jews were to their first ancestors what the lump was to the first dough, sacredly set apart.

Root and branches are of the same nature. The root is the holy ancestry of the Jews; as branches they remain consecrated. And upon that changeless consecration the apostle bases the assurance of the restoration of the later generations.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.’

Paul now uses the illustration of the firstfruit and the root. The firstfruit as connected with ‘the lump’ comes from Num 15:17-21 LXX where the first of the dough is offered as a heave-offering to YHWH, leaving the lump for use by the offerer, although it is nowhere said that the lump is thereby made holy. The idea of ‘the root’ (hriza) is found in Isa 11:10 and Isa 53:2 where it refers to the son of Jesse and the Servant of YHWH respectively, an idea connected with Jesus in Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16. Equally important is that Paul elsewhere cites Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12 (which see). The question then arises as to what these refer to, and why this illustration is used here. The fact that the ensuing lump and branches are holy implies that with regard to these we are dealing with those whom God had made holy, and in context that is the Gentiles in Rom 11:11 to whom salvation has come, and those among the unbelieving Jews who are received as a result of believing in the Messiah, becoming ‘life from the dead’ (Rom 11:15).

It may well be that the firstfruit is to be seen as those of Israel who initially believed in the Messiah, for ‘the firstfruit’ often indicates those who first believe (Rom 16:5; 1Co 16:15), possibly seen in terms of the original ideal Israel who were ‘the firstfruit of His increase’ (Jer 2:2-3). These latter being ‘holiness to YHWH’ (Jer 2:3). This would tie in with the firstfruit being holy. The lump then becomes those who spring from the firstfruit, namely elect Jews (Rom 11:5), the Gentile believers who experience salvation (Rom 11:11), and the unbelieving Jews who later believe and are grafted in again (Rom 11:15; Rom 11:23-24). In the same way the root could be seen as indicating the initial believers in the Messiah from whom the whole tree grew. They are, however, nowhere described as the root.

There is, however, One Who is described as both firstfruit and root, and is also spoken of as ‘holy’ (Act 2:27; Act 3:14) and as having ‘the spirit of holiness’ (Rom 1:4), and as making His people ‘holy (1Co 1:2; 1Co 1:30). In 1Co 15:20; 1Co 15:23 Christ (the Messiah) is seen as the Firstfruit from the dead by His resurrection from the dead, the Firstfruit Whose resurrection guarantees the resurrection of those who have died in Him. This figure could easily be transferred to indicating Him as the firstfruit from Whom the whole lump of believers receive their holiness, for He is made unto them holiness (1Co 1:30). Furthermore ‘the root’ was a recognised title of Christ, which is referred to in Rom 15:12. See also Isa 11:10; Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16. This idea is especially significant as the root is connected with the branches, and in context these must surely be seen as the branches of the olive tree (Rom 11:17-24). It would thus tie in with the idea of the Messiah as the True Vine Whose true attached branches prove fruitful, and Whose false branches are removed and burned (Joh 15:1-6).

Added to this is the fact that it is man’s relationship to the Messiah which lies at the root of Paul’s message throughout Romans, and especially as exemplified in the previous passage in Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:21. There the concept of the need for faith in the Messiah for both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. for them to be grafted in to Him) is pre-eminent, with the stark contrast being made with unbelieving Jews who refuse God’s entreaties (and to be grafted into the Messiah). Whilst the fact that unbelieving Israel are accursed from the Messiah, and therefore cut off from Israel, is Paul’s great concern in Rom 9:1-5. All would tie in with the idea of the olive tree representing the Messiah.

Jesus was, of course, seen as the One Who summed up the true Israel in Himself (e.g. Mat 2:15), and His own words in Joh 15:1-6 confirm this. He is the true Vine in contrast with the false vine (e.g. Isa 5:1-7), representing an Israel which will retain its fruitful branches whole casting off its unfruitful. Thus it may well be that Paul intended us to combine these two ideas of ideal Israel as the firstfruit who were holiness to YHWH, and the Messiah of Israel as the Root, with the branches of the olive tree which remain being seen as those who sprung from them, that is, believing Israel made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, who were made holy in Him ( 1Co 1:2 ; 1Co 1:30; etc.).

One principle that lies behind the illustration is that holiness produces holiness, and there is no doubt that the Messiah as the Holy One, is the One who has made His people holy. Another is that of fruitfulness and provision. The dough would produce bread, the tree would produce fruit (Joh 15:1-6). Thus the firstfruit and the root are to produce what is satisfying to mankind, even though mankind may not be aware of it. They are to fulfil the promises given to Abraham (Gen 12:3).

This combining of the ideal Israel with the Messiah (Who did represent the ideal Israel) is very similar to seeing the church as one body ‘in Christ’ (Rom 12:4-5). The ideal Israel, as personified in the early disciples, has the Messiah in its midst, just as the church has Christ in its midst, and the ideal Israel is ‘in the Messiah’, in the same way as Paul was (Rom 9:1), and this in the same way as the church is ‘in Christ’. Furthermore Paul elsewhere stresses that ideal Israel partook of the Messiah (1Co 10:4), with the unbelieving being overthrown in the wilderness (1Co 10:5). The picture of Israel in 1Co 10:1-4 could be seen as very much that of ideal Israel as described in Jer 2:2-3

On the other hand we must also probably see Rom 11:16 as the lead in to Rom 11:17-28, for Rom 11:17 demands some kind of prior introduction, so as to form a basis for its argument, while ‘And if the branches –’ (Rom 11:17) must surely refer back to ‘the branches’ (Rom 11:16). Furthermore the passage that follows is looking towards the downfall of unbelieving Israelites, as branches that will be broken off (because they are not holy), and asking questions about its possible future restoration, something which would tie in well with this verse, which includes the illustration of the root and the branches, the holy root producing holy branches.

Thus Paul’s point is that because the firstfruit, the ideal Israel (Jer 2:2-3), and the root, the Messiah (Rom 15:12; Isa 11:10; Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16), were holy, so are those who spring from them. Holiness begets holiness. This may be positional holiness, seen as passed on, or genuine moral holiness, demonstrating what is expected of the lump and the branches. It is because of this that the unbelieving branches have to be remove from the olive tree.

EXCURSUS. Who Did Paul Have In Mind As The Firstfruits Lump Of Dough And The Holy Root?

In view of the controversy about this subject we must now consider in more detail the question as to who Paul had in mind when he spoke of the holy firstfruits lump of dough and the holy root? And connected with this must be the question as to who the olive tree represents, for the passage immediately goes on to assume that Paul is speaking of an olive tree growing its branches. Indeed it is most probable that the root which produces branches in Rom 11:16, is to be seen as equivalent to the olive tree which produces its branches, for in Rom 11:18 it is said to be the root which produces the branches of the olive tree. And this being accepted, there are good grounds for seeing the olive tree as representing Israel in some form or another (Jer 11:16). This would favour all being seen as representing ideal Israel, a holy Israel as seen in the mind of God (compare Exo 19:6), possibly as combined with the One Who sums up in Himself the true Israel.

In this regard we should note that Rom 9:1 to Rom 11:10 have emphasised 1). an Israel within Israel, 2). election through the Patriarchs, 3). salvation in the Messiah of both believing Jews and Gentiles, 4). a salvation of the elect remnant from within Israel, and it is clear that he has in mind in each of these the same people. It would not therefore be strange if the idea of the olive tree included all these concepts.

There are seven main answers which are supported by different scholars which we should now consider:

1) That they represent the patriarchs, or the patriarchal promises. This might be seen as favoured by the fact that the patriarchs are often seen as the source from which Israel sprang (e.g. Isa 51:1-2), while Israel constantly looked back to the promises, as indeed Paul has done in Rom 9:6-29. But the case is very much weakened by the fact that hriza (root) is never used in LXX to refer either to the patriarchs or to the promises (although it is used of the root of Jesse (Isa 11:1), and of the Servant as a root out of the dry ground (Isa 53:2)). The patriarchs are, however, seen as the root of Israel in Jewish tradition (1 Enoch 93:5; compare Philo Heir 279 of Abraham; Jubilees 21:24 of Isaac). But that then raises the question as to whether Paul himself would look to this source, and whether he would expect the Gentile Christians in Rome to be aware in detail of Jewish tradition about the Patriarchs, or even to consider it, something that must be considered doubtful. Also a further problem to this view is that the Patriarchs are never seen in Scripture as the firstfruits. Abraham is rather the rock from which they were hewn (Isa 51:1-2). Thus neither firstfruits nor root Scripturally apply to the patriarchs, or to the patriarchal promises.

More specifically it also does not fit well with the idea of their being ‘the firstfruits lump taken from a larger lump of dough’, for this suggests the two as existing at the same time, unless a). we see the dough as representing God’s elect people from the beginning, or b). we see Israel or the elect of Israel as being in their fathers’ loins. The latter would certainly be a Scriptural concept, but one problem with it is that the fathers were only fathers by blood to a limited number of Israelites, as God and Paul both well knew. In Paul’s day demonstrating pure descent in Israel was something that was seen as of high importance, so he would have been well aware of the lack of evidence for descent among the majority of Israel, and he would equally have been aware of the references that demonstrated that not all Israelites were directly descended from the fathers by human descent. It would fit better if the lump and the branches represented Abraham’s spiritual descendants. But the overall fact is that the fathers are never described as the firstfruit of anything, and are never spoken of in Scripture as the root.

On the other hand there are certain things in favour of this interpretation. In Rom 11:28 we learn that, ‘as touching the election they are beloved for their fathers’ sake’, which clearly does indicate a connection between the fathers and whoever are seen as beloved, a connection which results in a benefit being passed on. But this was a connection that arose because of God’s love for their fathers, not from their being the firstfruits. One interpretation of Rom 11:28 has it as saying that while He had cast the enemies of God’s people out of Israel, His love still reached out to them because they had once been part of Israel, and were thus connected with the fathers on whom He had set His love. This would, of course, favour the fathers as a whole, being seen as the root, rather than just Abraham. But this interpretation is at least questionable.

Also in favour Isa 9:6-21 where the elect, including both Jews and Gentiles, are traced back to their source in Abraham and Isaac. In this case the whole lump and the branches would represent the elect (Rom 11:24).

Also in favour would be Rom 11:1-2 where Paul looks back to his roots in Abraham and Benjamin, with their fruit being seen in the people whom God foreknew, which we have argued are the elect, but which others see as notional Israel as an entity.

But very much against this interpretation as indicating the fathers is the fact that it does not fit the later illustration. The fathers are nowhere likened to an olive tree, while this passage assumes that this verse is building up to the olive tree. (Unless, of course, we see the fathers as representing the ideal Israel. See 5). below). And indeed if we equate the patriarchs, or the promises made to them, with the olive tree, we have the difficulty of explaining why, on the one hand, the unbelieving Jews are broken off from them (Rom 11:17), while at the same time on the other hand benefiting from their relationship with them, as described in Rom 11:28. The point in Rom 11:28 is surely that they have not been broken off from the promises. So this interpretation is inconsistent with what follows.

We would not, however, dismiss this idea totally. For there is no question but that the promises to the fathers were basic to the establishment of Israel, and indeed that those promise are basic to the election of the true line (the branches that remain in the olive tree), and the removing of those who were not of the true line (Rom 9:7-13), the branches which were removed. Thus Paul would no doubt have seen these as indicating incipient Israel. But the basic idea of the olive tree must, in Scriptural terms, have reference to Israel.

2) That they represent Jesus Messiah Who spoke of Himself as the true vine (Joh 15:1-6), the source of blessing to His people in making them holy, a very similar picture to the olive tree. This interpretation has the advantage that the one who is coming is in Scripture called the root (hriza) of Jesse to whom the nations will seek (Isa 11:10; compare Rom 15:12), and a ‘root (hriza) out of dry ground’ (Isa 53:2). See also Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16 which demonstrates the emphasis placed by the early church on Jesus as ‘the Root’. It would also tie in with Jesus as being the true vine from which branches would spring, and from which branches would be cut off. Furthermore this view has the advantage that Jesus Christ is also seen by Paul as the firstfruit of the resurrection (1Co 15:20; 1Co 15:23), with believers being the later ‘lump’ who would be raised en masse, having already been raised spiritually (Rom 6:4; Rom 7:4; Eph 2:1-6). The idea of the firstfruits as part of the lump which is made holy would also fit well with the idea that Christ’s people are ‘in Him’ (1Co 12:12-13), and made holy in Him (1Co 1:30), so that they and He are seen together. And certainly Jesus as the Messiah is seen in Romans as the source of the holiness of His people (Rom 6:22). Jesus is nowhere, however, likened to an olive tree. Had Paul spoken of a vine it would have been decisive. But we could argue that this is simply because Paul altered the illustration in order to suit his argument.

Added to this is the fact that it is man’s relationship to the Messiah which lies at the root of Paul’s message throughout Romans, and especially as exemplified in the previous passage in Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:21. There the concept of the need for faith in the Messiah for both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. for them to be grafted in to Him) is pre-eminent, with the stark contrast being made with unbelieving Jews who refuse God’s entreaties, and fall away from the Messiah, whilst the fact that unbelieving Israel are accursed from the Messiah, and therefore cut off from Israel, is Paul’s great concern in Rom 9:1-5. All would tie in with the idea of the olive tree as representing the Messiah.

It can also be pointed out that Jesus is also described continually as ‘representing’ Israel. In other words Israel was summed up in Him as the Messiah. Thus it was as representing Israel that He was called out of Egypt (Mat 2:15), and possibly as representing ideal Israel that He then went into the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11). And as we have already seen it was that idea which lay at the root of Joh 15:1-6. And this was confirmed when He spoke of establishing ‘His congregation’ (a word signifying Israel in the Old Testament) on the foundation of Peter’s Messianic statement (Mat 16:18). Furthermore the Kingly Rule of God was to be taken away from old Israel, and given to a new nation producing its fruit (Mat 21:43) which would be founded on a new Cornerstone, which would be Jesus Himself (Mat 21:42). This is why, as the true vine, He could well have been seen by Paul in terms of the olive tree, for Paul would have seen the change as necessary because branches are not engrafted into vines. After all, in the Old Testament Israel were seen as both the vine and the olive tree.

Additional to all this is that there is the emphasis throughout the letter that the church is ‘in Christ’ (e.g. Rom 11:1), with its members therefore being branches of the olive tree (Rom 11:16-24) and of the true vine (Joh 15:1-6). We should note in this regard that in Romans there is a stress on the idea of our oneness in Christ in Rom 5:12-21; Rom 12:4-5. There is the stress on our being united with Christ in Rom 6:5 seen in the light of its context. There is the idea of our being ‘joined with Him’ in Rom 7:4. There is the continual emphasis on the fact that our righteousness comes from our being in Christ (see especiallyRom 10:6-10). There is the clear comparison between the olive tree ‘receiving’ those who are grafted in (Rom 11:15) and Christ ‘receiving’ His people (Rom 15:7). And finally there is the pointer to Jesus as the coming Deliverer Who would take away ungodliness from Jacob (Rom 11:26). There is thus a strong case for seeing the ‘root’ and the ‘olive tree’ as representing the Messiah, from whom branches are cut off (Joh 15:1-6), and into Whom other branches are engrafted.

3) That they represent the ideal Israel in its notional form as the holy nation (Exo 19:5-6). This should be seen in parallel with 4). In Jer 2:2-3 we read, ‘You went after Me in the wilderness, . . Israel was holiness unto YHWH, the firstfruits of his increase.’ The picture here is, of course, an ideal one as Israel in the wilderness were far from holy, so here it is the ideal Israel which is likened to the firstfruits. Furthermore, in Isaiah Jacob was to take root, and Israel to blossom and bud and fill the face of the world with fruit (Isa 27:6), while the remnant of Israel (thus an ideal Israel), was to take root downwards and bear fruit upwards (Isa 37:31), a description which fits well with Rom 11:18. Here then we may see the ideal Israel as doubly connected with the idea of a holy root, especially as in Paul’s mind the root is linked with the tree (Rom 11:18), and there is no doubt that an ideal Israel fits well the illustration that follows. What is more the close connection between Rom 11:16 and Rom 11:17, with Rom 11:17 clearly referring to the branches of an olive tree, suggests that Rom 11:16 is speaking of the root and branches of an olive tree, i.e. of Israel.

4). That they represent Israel within Israel (Rom 9:6). As we have seen in Jer 2:2-3 we read, ‘You went after Me in the wilderness, . . Israel was holiness unto YHWH, the firstfruits of his increase.’ The picture here is, of course, an ideal one as Israel in the wilderness were far from holy, so this may well be seen as speaking about the Israel within Israel (those who ‘went after YHWH’) as the firstfruits and root of Israel. Additionally early converts were regularly described as the ‘firstfruit’ (e.g. Rom 16:5; 1Co 16:15), although those were not specifically Israelites. It was the remnant of Israel who were to take root downwards and bear fruit upwards (Isa 37:31). This identification also fits well with what follows, except that branches could not be cast off from the elect Israel, unless it is seen as the early Jewish church containing good and bad. But that is not Paul’s view of the elect who are those chosen by God and would therefore continue faithful For example, he would not have seen Ananias and Sapphira as part of the elect (Act 5:1-11). It would need, therefore, to be combined with one of the other ideas.

5) That they represent Israel itself in its early stages. Jer 2:2-3 also fits here, thus seeing them as the firstfruits, and part of the lump. But the same stricture also applies about what Israel in the wilderness really were, and it is better to think of the ideal Israel, because that was what Jeremiah had in mind. It would, however, fit well with the illustration that follows.

6) That they represent the early Jewish church as the firstfruits of the Spirit (see Rom 8:23), and the root from which the later church came. They too could look back to Jer 2:2-3, and apply it to themselves, as also with Isa 37:31. But in their case the branches that were cast off would be nominal Christian Jews, and that is not what Paul has in mind. He was thinking of unbelieving Jews as the whole passage makes clear.

7) That they represent believing Jews and Gentiles as the root and firstfruits of the later church (Rom 8:23). This again has the disadvantage of not fitting fully the later illustration for similar reasons to 6).

It is true that as the passage goes on to deal with the ‘history’ of the later church ending at the consummation (Rom 11:25-26) we would be justified in looking forward to the later church in our interpretation as in 7). But this is unnecessary. It appears to us, in the light of the specific background, and in the light of the illustration of the olive tree that follows, that the reference is to the notional ideal Israel, possibly conjoined with the ideal Israel in its early stages and the Israel within Israel, (which in a sense is the ideal Israel), an Israel which has to be kept pure, these as depicted as the olive tree spoken of by Jeremiah. This would tie in nicely with the fact that the following verses assume that in mind is the olive tree i.e. Israel. But it may be argued that the branches that are broken off are fatal to this identification. We could, however, reply that they were broken off precisely because they could have no part in the notional ideal Israel. Whilst the olive tree could theoretically be seen as physical Israel, physical Israel as it was in Paul’s day could neither be seen as a holy root or holy branches. What is in mind is therefore a hypothetical Israel, we could say an Israel in the mind of God, that has to be kept pure. This ties in nicely with Jeremiah’s depiction in Jer 2:2-3. But it would be a brave person who denied a connection with Jesus as the Messiah in view of the evidence. With His being, as He was, the true representative of Israel (Mat 2:15; and the fact that He probably accepted baptism for this reason) we may probably see Him as combined with ideal Israel. He was after all the full representative of ideal Israel. Thus the olive tree could be seen as the ideal Israel as personified in the risen Messiah. Compare Paul’s similar picture of the church as united with the risen Christ, forming one body (Rom 12:4-5; 1Co 12:12-27). And clearly the promises to the Patriarchs were an essential part of what ideal Israel was. Thus we may see the Olive Tree as arising out of the promises to the Patriarchs, as representing an Israel being purified, and as incorporating the Messiah, the root of Jesse.

But what then do the lump and the branches represent?

Again there are a number of possibilities:

1) They indicate the Israel within Israel (Rom 9:6). In favour of this is that they are stated to be ‘holy’, that is, set apart to God. This is especially so as in the New Testament ‘being holy’ almost always indicates being morally pure, either positionally in Christ, or literally. Against it is that in the illustration that follows some of the branches, those which are broken off, are clearly not holy in this way. On the other hand Paul may well in Rom 11:16 have had in mind the branches which were permanent. Certainly if we see the fathers or ideal Israel as the firstfruits and the lump, then Rom 9:6-27 and Rom 11:1-2 do suggest that the elect are in mind, the latter depending on how we interpret ‘foreknew’. If Jesus Christ is in mind the same would apply. Also against it, however, is the fact that the following illustration clearly includes both Jews and Gentiles as branches. This would point to 3).

2) They indicate physical Israel seen as an entity, but not necessarily as a whole, i.e. not as necessarily including every Israelite. In favour of this is that in the illustration that follows there are both branches that are retained and branches that are broken off. The branches that are grafted in would be seen as not in mind in Rom 11:16, although they may be seen as becoming a part of physical Israel in the same way as proselytes do. Against this, if the fathers are seen as the firstfruits and the root, is that Rom 9:6-27 and Rom 11:1-2 are against it. Those passages speak only of the elect in Israel. (Or if we see Israel as an entity as foreknown in Rom 11:2, then simply Rom 9:6-27). Also against is that the lump and branches in Rom 11:16 are seen as ‘holy, but it may be argued that what is in mind is not moral holiness but positional holiness in the sense that they are favoured by God.

3) They indicate God’s elect, both Jew and Gentile, as the true Israel of God. Greatly in favour of this is that the illustration that follows includes both Jews and Gentiles. Against is that the illustration that follows includes branches that are broken off. But again these may not have been in mind in Rom 11:16. It would also fit the context which includes the idea of the salvation of the Gentiles (Rom 11:11).

Which interpretation we take will partly depend on how we interpret what follows, especially Rom 11:25-28, something that we will now consider.

End of Excursus.

Taking up our suggestion that the firstfruit and root represent ideal, spiritual Israel, probably seen together with the Messiah, the root of David, and that the lump and the branches represent the true people of God (including both Jews and believing Gentiles), the unworthy having been cast off, the illustration is indicating that the holiness of God’s ideal people (Jer 2:3), and probably of the Messiah, will be passed on to God’s people in Paul’s day, supplying them with provision and fruitfulness, which would be why the false branches have to be rooted out. This process is now described further with regard to the root and the branches.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A warning to the Gentile Christians:

v. 16. For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

v. 17. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakes of the root and fatness of the olive-tree,

v. 18. boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

v. 19. Thou wilt say, then, The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.

v. 20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear;

v. 21. for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.

v. 22. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

v. 23. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.

v. 24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive-tree!

The apostle here guards against a danger, namely, that of misunderstanding his previous exposition. For what he had written regarding the fall and the consequent rejection of the Jews might cause such Gentile Christians as were easily guided by their flesh to be filled with pride and over weeningness and to give way to boasting at the expense of the Jews. Paul first of all, by way of introduction, states a general truth: If the first of the dough is holy, then also the entire mass; and if the root is holy, then also the branches. The apostle alludes, in the first half of the sentence, to the fact that the first of the dough, the first dough made out of the flour of every new harvest, had to be given unto the Lord, Num 15:19-21. This first part of the dough and the entire offering became holy by being consecrated to the Lord. The picture in the second part of the sentence has the same meaning: the root being consecrated to God and accepted by Him, the branches will also be acceptable to Him. The root of the true Israel, of the body which is and always will be consecrated to the Lord, are the patriarchs, and the branches are the true spiritual children of the patriarchs, together with some that had the appearance of true branches, but whose deceptive. nature was discovered in time, with the result that they were removed. The olive-tree therefore represents the entire mass of the true spiritual children of Abraham, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, of all times. Every person that accepts the Messiah by faith is a branch of this trunk or body, becomes a partaker of the divine promise and blessings.

Keeping well within this picture, the apostle brings out an earnest admonition to every overweening Christian from among the Gentiles: If some of the branches are broken off, and thou, as a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in among them and didst become a joint partaker of the root of the fatness of the olive-tree, then do not boast against the branches. The breaking off of the branches took place at the same time that the twigs of the wild olive-tree were grafted in. The advent of Christ into the world brought on a crisis for all the Jews. A great number of them took offense at the crucified Christ and at the preaching of the Cross, and the result was that they were broken off the tree of the Church and removed. For with the coming of the Messiah the Church of believers had become the Church of Jesus Christ, and every one that did not accept Jesus as the promised Messiah excluded himself from the communion of saints, for the touchstone of faith consisted in applying the Messianic prophecies to Jesus of Nazareth. In the place of such branches, however, that had lost their character and therefore been removed, the Lord grafted in some branches from a wild olive-tree; He called some Gentiles to the fellowship of the saints. They were taken from the midst of the lost and condemned heathen world, they mere received into the communion of the Lord and thus became living members of His congregation. And at the same time they became partakers of all the benefits of salvation, of reconciliation with the Father, of remission of sins, of full and complete justification, of victory over death, and of eternal bliss. The thought which the apostle brings out is this, that the Jews were the original children of God, that they were the first possessors of these advantages and privileges, that to them as to the first the blessings of God in Jesus were revealed, Mat 8:11; Joh 10:16; Eph 2:11 ff. And therefore the Gentile Christian should guard very carefully against boasting at the expense of the Jews, against the very ones that had foolishly neglected to accept the Messiah in the fullness of time, To boast of possessions which have not been merited, but are the gift of free grace, instead of giving all glory to God alone, is always foolish and reprehensible, but to do so at the expense of those that have been rejected because they, in their blindness, excluded themselves from the blessings of the Kingdom, is the very height of blamable behavior.

The apostle, therefore, follows up his warning with an explanation: But if thou should boast (if you cannot resist the temptation to exhibit vainglory), then remember, not thou bearest the root, but the root thee. The root consists of the patriarchs of Israel, they having been made so by God’s Word and promise. And this same strength is keeping the branches alive. The Jews were the channel of blessings to the Gentiles; salvation was from the Jews. Therefore all ungenerous and self-confident boasting on the part of the Gentile Christians and of the Christians of all times should be excluded. And if one of them should want to object in a spirit of the same ungenerous self-complacency: The branches were broken out in order that I might be grafted in; then Paul has the answer: Very well, let that stand, it is true enough that the rejection of the Jews after their repudiation of Christ resulted in the conversion of the Gentiles; but this was not because the heathen were better by nature than the Jews or because the Lord took special pleasure in the Gentiles. Such an inference would be altogether wrong. Not because they were Jews had the Lord rejected them, but through their unbelief, because of their unbelief they were broken off; because they refused to accept the Savior the Lord had rejected them, since faith is the only means by which the relation with God may be maintained. The Gentiles were in a condition of grace and salvation only by faith, the gift of God’s mercy. Instead, then, of boasting, of being proud in their own conceit, of forming an unwarranted estimate of their own importance in the eyes of God, they should fear, Php_2:12-13 . For if God did not spare the natural branches, He might not spare thee either. Since the Gentile Christian is in a state of grace only by faith, and since faith excludes boasting, he had better beware lest in his pride he fall away from faith and share the very fate of those whom he was tempted to despise. As a matter of fact, the Jews were more likely to be spared than the Gentiles, all things being equal, since they had so long been connected with Him in a most intimate manner.

The apostle now draws a conclusion from the facts just presented: Behold, therefore, the kindness and the severity of God; upon those that have fallen severity, but upon thee the kindness of God, if thou hold closely to His kindness, since, in the opposite case, thou, too, shalt be cast off, v. 22. In the case of those that have fallen, whose unbelief has excluded them from the grace and the fellowship of God and the saints, the severity of God has been manifested. In His holiness and justice God is obliged to show His displeasure to those that leave the fellowship in which they enjoyed His grace and kindness, by withdrawing from them all His mercy and love. But in the case of the Gentile Christian, God has shown His goodness and kindness in taking him out of the midst of godlessness and enmity toward God and accepting him as a member of His Church. For such a person, therefore, it is a matter of working out his salvation with fear and trembling, of holding fast to the goodness of God, lest he also be cast off by God, Joh 15:1-6. If Christians forget that they owe their state of grace, their membership in the congregation of the Lord, to the kindness and mercy of God only and presume to elevate themselves over others, especially by despising the rejected ones, then they, in turn, deny the kindness of God, lose their faith, and are cast off. In their case they challenge the goodness of God to be turned into severity.

And there is another point which must not be overlooked by the Gentile Christian if he feels presumptive thoughts rising in his heart: But they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in again, for God is fully able to graft them in again, v. 23. Those that are standing today may very easily and quickly fall, especially if thoughts of pride and self-complacency fill their hearts. On the other hand, the mercy of God will quickly turn to those that have fallen if they do not remain in their unbelief, if they have not hardened their hearts to the point of final rejection at the hands of God. If they but heed His call and turn to Jesus as their Savior, God will gladly receive them again as members of His Church and grant them all the rights and privileges of the other believers. And what is more, this event, if considered by itself, is more probable than the calling of the Gentiles. For if thou, cut out of thy natural tree, the wild olive-tree, wert, contrary to thy nature, grafted into the good olive-tree, how much more will those that are branches by nature be grafted into their own olive-tree!

v. 24. The Gentile Christians were the branches from the wild olive-tree, having no natural connection with the good olive tree into which they were grafted; the Jews were the natural branches. Now what is in accordance with nature will happen far more easily than that which is against nature. Therefore the reunion of the Jews with the body of the Church of God, which they have foolishly left, could be accomplished far more easily, according to all probability, than the union of the Gentile Christians with a community with which they never did have anything in common. Not that the Jews, as a race, were more susceptible to the Gospel than the Gentiles; for Jews and Gentiles are alike unfit and unable to save themselves or to perform the slightest meritorious work for their own salvation, a truth which is valid and should be heeded for all times.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Rom 11:16. For if the first-fruit be holy, &c. Now if, &c. The Apostle makes use of these allusions to shew that the patriarchs, the root of the Jewish nation, being accepted by God, and the few Jewish converts who at first entered into the Christian church, being also accepted of God, are as it were first-fruits, or pledges, that God will in due time admit the whole nation of the Jews into his visible church, to be together with the Gentile Christians his peculiar people again. By holy here is meant that relative holiness, whereby any thing has an appropriation to God. See Locke. Instead of lump, Dr. Heylin reads, the whole product.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 11:16 . ] continuative; but this , how well it corresponds to the character of holiness, which has been associated with the people of Israel from its origin till now! The two figures are parallel, and set forth the same thought.

] obtains the genitival definition to be mentally supplied with it through , just as in the second clause is the root of the . The is known from Num 15:19-21 to be a designation of the first of the dough; that is, from every baking, when the dough was kneaded, a portion was to be set aside and a cake to be baked therefrom for the priests. See Philo, de sac. hon . II. p. 232; Josephus, Antt . iv. 4. 4; Saalschutz, M. R . p. 347; Keil, Archol . I. 71; and the Rabbinical prescriptions in Mischn. Surenh . p. 289 ff. This , as the first portion devoted to Jehovah from the whole, was designed to impart the character of its consecration to the remainder of the lump. The article with denotes the lump of dough concerned , from which the is separated; hence did not require to be expressed (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection). Grotius and Rosenmller take . . to be the corn destined for the baking, and to be the first- fruits . But (Rom 9:21 ) always denotes a mass mixed (with moisture or otherwise), particularly a kneaded one, and is in the LXX. (Exo 12:34 ) and in Paul (1Co 5:6-7 ; Gal 5:9 ) the standing expression for dough . Estius, Koppe, Kllner, Olshausen, Krehl rightly take it so, but nevertheless understand by the sacred first- fruits (comp. Exo 23:10 ) which were employed for . But in that case obtains a genitival definition not presented by the text; and this can the less be approved, since , in fact, was the stated expression from Num. l.c. This applies also against Hofmann, who likewise explains the as the firstling- sheaf , but considers the to be the dough worked up from the harvest-fruit generally.

The figure is correctly interpreted , when by we understand the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and by . the whole body of the people , to whom the character of holiness of consecration in property to God passed over from the former. With the holiness of the , Rom 9:4-13 (in accordance with which we are not here to think of Abraham alone ), is given also the holiness of the theocratic people, their posterity, according to the divine right of covenant and promise. Comp. Rom 9:4-5 . But this holiness, which Paul looks upon, as respects the national whole, in the light of a character indelebilis , is not the inner moral, but (comp. 1Co 7:14 ) the theocratic legal holiness (“quod juribus ecclesiae et promissis Dei frui possint,” Calovius). The expression is taken of the patriarchs by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Koppe, Tholuck, Kllner, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Philippi, Maier, de Wette, Krehl, Umbreit, Ewald, Reithmayr, Hofmann (though the latter thinks only of Abraham ). This is correct, because the second figure ( . . .) is capable of no other interpretation (see below); but to explain the two figures differently, as Toletus and Stolz, Reiche and Rckert, Glckler, Stengel, Bisping, van Hengel, after Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, have in manifold ways arbitrarily done, is simply a violation of the parallelism. This holds also against the interpretation of the Jews who have become believing , and of the remaining mass of the people (Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Anselm, Toletus, Rosenmller, Stolz, Reiche, Rckert, Bisping).

and are the patriarchs and their theocratic bodily descendants, the Jews . As the is related to the , so is the to the ; comp. on the latter, Menander, 711: . The divergent interpretation, which may deserve to be considered in opposition to this usual one, is, that the is the first primitive or mother church consisting of the believing Jews, and that the are the Jews , in so far as they in virtue of their national position were primarily called thereto. This exposition (substantially in Cornelius a Lapide, Carpzov, Schoettgen; Semler and Ammon suppose to be the Gentile Christians) is still considered possible by de Wette. It is, however, unsuitable; for the (natural) must have proceeded from the , must have their origin from it (comp. Sir 23:25 ; Sir 40:15 ), and the broken-off branches (Rom 11:17 ) must have earlier belonged to the , which is not the case, if is the Christian mother-church of which they were never . The true theocracy (the olive tree, comp. Jer 11:16 ; Hos 14:7 ; Zec 4:11 ; Neh 8:15 ) did not begin in the Christian mother-church (as its root), but in the patriarchs, and Christ Himself was from this sacred root, Mat 1:1 f. In this view it is clear that the unbelieving Jews, in so far as they rejected Christ, ceased thereby to belong to the true people of God, and fell away from their root. They were now after the light, and with it judgment, had come into the world (Joh 3:19 ) broken-off branches, apostate children of Abraham (Joh 8:37 ; Joh 8:39-40 ), children of the kingdom who were to be cast out (Mat 8:12 ). Comp. the figure of the vine in Joh 15 . See also Rom 9:6 ff.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy : and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Ver. 16. If the firstfruit be holy ] Not with a natural, but a federal holiness, as 1Co 7:14 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

16 24. ] Such a restoration of Israel was to be expected from a consideration of their destination and history. This is set forth in similitudes, that of the root and branches being followed out at some length, and their own position, as engrafted Gentiles, brought to the mind of the readers . But (a further argument for their restoration following on , Rom 11:11 ) if the firstfruit be holy, so also the Iump (not here the firstfruit of the field , as Grot., Rosenm. (nor is the cake made by the priests out of the firstfruits which fell to them, Deu 18:4 , as Estius, Koppe, Kllner, Olsh., al.); but the portion of the kneaded lump of dough ( ), which was offered as a heave-offering to the Lord, and so sanctified for use the rest: see ref. Num. where the same words occur); and if the root be holy, so also the branches . Who are the and the ? First of all, there is no impropriety in the two words applying to the same thing . For though, as Olsh. remarks, the branches being evolved from the root , it rather answers to the than to the , and, as Rckert, the firstfruit succeeds the lump in time, while the root precedes the branches, yet, as Thol. replies, the is the point of comparison , and in the precedes and gives existence to the . This being so, (1) the and have generally been taken to represent the patriarchs ; and I believe rightly (except that perhaps it would be more strictly correct to say, Abraham himself ). The of Rom 11:28 places this reference almost beyond doubt. Origen explains the to be our Lord . But He is Himself a branch , by descent from Abraham and David (Isa 11:1 ; Mat 1:1 ), if genealogically considered; and if mystically, the whole tree ( Joh 15:1 ). De Wette prefers to take as the firstfruit and root, the ideal theocracy founded on the patriarchs, the true, faithful children of the patriarchs, and as the branches, those united by mere external relationship to these others. This he does, because in the common acceptation , the who are cut off ought to be severed from their physical connexion with Abraham, &c., which they are not . This objection I do not conceive applicable here: because, as we see evidently from Rom 11:23 , the severing and re-engrafting are types, not of genealogical disunion and reunion, but of spiritual . Meanwhile, De W.’s view appears less simple than the ordinary one, which, as I hope to shew, is borne out by the whole passage. (2) Then, who are indicated by the and the ? ISRAEL, considered as the people of God. The lump, which has received its from the , = Israel, beloved for the fathers’ sakes: the assemblage of branches, evolved from Abraham, and partaking of his holiness. But one thing must be especially borne in mind. As Abraham himself had an outer and an inner life, so have the branches. They have an outer life , derived from Abraham by physical descent . Of this, no cutting off can deprive them . It may be compared to the very organization of the wood itself, which subsists even after its separation from the tree. But they have, while they remain in the tree, an inner life , nourished by the circulating sap, by virtue of which they are constituted living parts of the tree: see our Lord’s parable of the vine and the branches, Joh 15:1 ff. It is of this life , that their severance from the tree deprives them: it is this life , which they will re-acquire if grafted in again.

See a very ingenious but artificial explanation in Olsh., who agrees in the main with De W.: and the whole question admirably discussed in Tholuck. The then here spoken of, consists in their dedication to God as a people in their being physically evolved from a holy root . This peculiar (see 1Co 7:14 , where the children of one Christian parent are similarly called ) renders their restoration to their own stock a matter, not of wonder and difficulty, but of reasonable hope and probability. I may notice in passing, that those expositors who do not hold a restoration of the Jewish people to national preeminence, find this passage exceedingly in their way, if we may judge by their explanations of this . E.g. Mr. Ewbank remarks: ‘Holy they are, inasmuch as there is no decree against their restoration to their place of life and fruitfulness.’ Surely this is a new meaning of ‘holy:’ the same would be true of a Hottentot: in his case, too, there is no decree against his reception into a place (and in Mr. E.’s view, the restoration of the Jew is nothing more) of life and fruitfulness in the Church of God.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

firstfruit. See Rom 8:23.

lump. See Rom 9:21.

is also = also is.

so, &c. = the branches also are.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

16-24.] Such a restoration of Israel was to be expected from a consideration of their destination and history. This is set forth in similitudes, that of the root and branches being followed out at some length,-and their own position, as engrafted Gentiles, brought to the mind of the readers. But (a further argument for their restoration following on , Rom 11:11) if the firstfruit be holy, so also the Iump (not here the firstfruit of the field, as Grot., Rosenm. (nor is the cake made by the priests out of the firstfruits which fell to them, Deu 18:4, as Estius, Koppe, Kllner, Olsh., al.);-but the portion of the kneaded lump of dough (), which was offered as a heave-offering to the Lord, and so sanctified for use the rest: see ref. Num. where the same words occur);-and if the root be holy, so also the branches. Who are the and the ? First of all, there is no impropriety in the two words applying to the same thing. For though, as Olsh. remarks, the branches being evolved from the root, it rather answers to the than to the , and, as Rckert, the firstfruit succeeds the lump in time, while the root precedes the branches,-yet, as Thol. replies, the is the point of comparison, and in the precedes and gives existence to the . This being so, (1) the and have generally been taken to represent the patriarchs; and I believe rightly (except that perhaps it would be more strictly correct to say, Abraham himself). The of Rom 11:28 places this reference almost beyond doubt. Origen explains the to be our Lord. But He is Himself a branch, by descent from Abraham and David (Isa 11:1; Mat 1:1), if genealogically considered; and if mystically, the whole tree (Joh 15:1). De Wette prefers to take as the firstfruit and root, the ideal theocracy founded on the patriarchs,-the true, faithful children of the patriarchs, and as the branches, those united by mere external relationship to these others. This he does, because in the common acceptation, the who are cut off ought to be severed from their physical connexion with Abraham, &c., which they are not. This objection I do not conceive applicable here: because, as we see evidently from Rom 11:23, the severing and re-engrafting are types, not of genealogical disunion and reunion, but of spiritual. Meanwhile, De W.s view appears less simple than the ordinary one, which, as I hope to shew, is borne out by the whole passage. (2) Then, who are indicated by the and the ? ISRAEL, considered as the people of God. The lump, which has received its from the , = Israel, beloved for the fathers sakes: the assemblage of branches, evolved from Abraham, and partaking of his holiness. But one thing must be especially borne in mind. As Abraham himself had an outer and an inner life, so have the branches. They have an outer life, derived from Abraham by physical descent. Of this, no cutting off can deprive them. It may be compared to the very organization of the wood itself, which subsists even after its separation from the tree. But they have, while they remain in the tree, an inner life, nourished by the circulating sap, by virtue of which they are constituted living parts of the tree: see our Lords parable of the vine and the branches, Joh 15:1 ff. It is of this life, that their severance from the tree deprives them: it is this life, which they will re-acquire if grafted in again.

See a very ingenious but artificial explanation in Olsh., who agrees in the main with De W.:-and the whole question admirably discussed in Tholuck. The then here spoken of, consists in their dedication to God as a people-in their being physically evolved from a holy root. This peculiar (see 1Co 7:14, where the children of one Christian parent are similarly called ) renders their restoration to their own stock a matter, not of wonder and difficulty, but of reasonable hope and probability. I may notice in passing, that those expositors who do not hold a restoration of the Jewish people to national preeminence, find this passage exceedingly in their way, if we may judge by their explanations of this . E.g. Mr. Ewbank remarks: Holy they are, inasmuch as there is no decree against their restoration to their place of life and fruitfulness. Surely this is a new meaning of holy: the same would be true of a Hottentot: in his case, too, there is no decree against his reception into a place (and in Mr. E.s view, the restoration of the Jew is nothing more) of life and fruitfulness in the Church of God.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 11:16. , the first fruits) The patriarchs.-, holy) appropriated and acceptable to God.-Comp. Rom 11:15, with 1Ti 4:4-5.-, a lump) Num 15:20-21, .- , the root) the patriarchal stock, considered naturally, as also being regarded as in possession of circumcision and of the promise. In the opinion of Weller, after Orige[122], Christ is the root, the patriarchs also are the branches, from whom the first fruits were derived.

[122] rigen (born about 186 A.D., died 253 A.D., a Greek father: two-thirds of the N. Test. are quoted in his writings). Ed. Vinc. Delarue, Paris. 1733, 1740, 1759.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 11:16

And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump:-This refers to the requirement to offer the first fruits to God before the harvest could be eaten by men: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before Jehovah, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And in the day when ye wave the sheaf, ye shall offer a he-lamb without blemish a year old for a burnt- offering unto Jehovah. And the meal-offering thereof shall be two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto Jehovah for a sweet savor; and the drink-offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of a hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the oblation of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. (Lev 23:10-14). The grain was unclean to be eaten by the people until the first fruits of it had been offered to the Lord. So as the first fruits of the gospel were from the Jews on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and since they were then taken and accepted of God, so will all Israel be accepted if they turn to God. [They are not irrevocably rejected, but will be accepted if they accept Jesus Christ and become obedient unto the faith.]

and if the root is holy,-This evidently has reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in whom God chose the Jewish race and for whose sake they were accepted and loved. Now, is it possible for those two things, so far apart, to coalesce? Yes. They coalesce in Jesus Christ. [No Christian can so much as think of the Jewish remnant without thinking of Him who called the apostles his brethren. (Mat 28:10; Joh 20:17). So far as his human nature was concerned, he was the first of the Jewish system. His mother, his education, his worship, were Jewish, of whom is Christ concerning the flesh (Rom 9:5), and he is equally the root. If he was the root and offspring of David (Isa 11:10; Rom 15:12; Rev 22:16), so was he of Abraham. From him came the call, the election of grace, and the promises; and yet not in an exclusive sense, for he was the first fruits of Israel, but also the first fruits of humanity. He was the root of Abraham, but also of all human nature. He is before all things, and in him all things consist. (Col 1:17).]

so are the branches.-As the root was acceptable to God, so will the branches be if they believe on him. Holy here means acceptable in the service of God. If God has accepted the first converts from the Jews, it gives assurance that he will not refuse the service of the later members of the family, if they will believe and serve God through Jesus Christ. It was the assurance that the Jews were not finally rejected by God.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

if the firstfruit: Exo 22:29, Exo 23:16, Exo 23:19, Lev 23:10, Num 15:17-21, Deu 18:4, Deu 26:10, Neh 10:35-37, Pro 3:9, Eze 44:30, Jam 1:18, Rev 14:4

and if: Rom 11:17, Gen 17:7, Jer 2:21, 1Co 7:14

Reciprocal: Lev 21:15 – profane Num 15:20 – a cake Deu 26:2 – That thou shalt Isa 6:13 – But yet Isa 27:6 – General Isa 61:9 – they are Jer 2:3 – the firstfruits Jer 32:39 – for the Hos 14:6 – branches Zec 10:9 – live Zec 14:16 – that every Mar 10:14 – Suffer Act 2:39 – the promise Act 16:31 – and thy Rom 16:5 – who Jam 3:12 – the fig tree

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

:16

Rom 11:16. A great part of this chapter is for the information of the Gentile Christians who were disposed to make too much of their acceptance with God, over the Jews who had been the “chosen people” for so long. Paul wants them to know that the present alienated state of the nation of Israel was not to be permanent, but that when it gave up its stubborn unbelief and acknowledged Christ to be the promised Messiah, the nation would be as holy (acceptable) to God as it always was. The subject is illustrated by a reference to the practice under the Mosaic system. (See Lev 23:10; Num 15:19-20.) In the application it means that if the Jewish Christians who were first converted to Christ (Act 13:46) were holy (acceptable), then the whole nation would be when it also turned away from its unbelief (Rom 11:26).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 11:16. Moreover, lit, but, not, for. This suggests a reason for expecting this receiving of the Jews, namely, the consecrated character impressed on this people, when they were separated from other nations. This moral necessity for the restoration of the Jews becomes the theme of the remainder of the chapter, both in its warning to the Gentiles (Rom 11:17-24) and in the positive statements respecting the future of Israel (Rom 11:25-32). We therefore begin a paragraph here.

The firstfruit is holy. This is assumed, the reference being to the portion of dough taken as a peace-offering, so that the whole lump (of kneaded dough) from which it was taken was thereby consecrated; see marginal references. The firstfruits of the field are not meant. The firstfruit, it is generally agreed, refers to the patriarchs (some limit the application to Abraham), with whom the covenant was made by which Israel became the theocratic people. Holy here means consecrated (comp. 1Co 7:14), and the underlying argument resembles that of Rom 11:1-2.

If the root, etc. The parallelism leads us to find here the same thought as in the previous clause, but under another figure, which admits, as the other did not, of an application to the conversion of the Gentiles (so Godet). The attempts to explain the two clauses differently have not been successful (e. g., Christ, the firstfruit; the patriarchs, the root; or Christ, both firstfruit and root; the firstfruit, the believing Jews, and the lump the mass of unbelievers). God, in selecting the Hebrew patriarchs, and setting them apart for His service, had reference to their descendants, as well as to themselves; and designed that the Jews, as a people, should, to the latest generations, be specially devoted to Himself. They stand now, therefore, and ever have stood, in a relation to God which no other nation ever has sustained; and in consequence of this relation, their restoration to the divine favor is an event in itself probable, and one which Paul afterwards teaches (Rom 11:25) God has determined to accomplish (Hodge).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here the apostle produced another argument to prove the universal restoration of the Jews unto the grace and favour of God before the end of the world; and it is drawn from the covenant of God made with Abraham, (as the root of the Jewish nation,) which said, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

Now the argument runs thus: “As the branches follow the nature of the root, so do the Jews follow the condition of Abraham, and the holy patriarchs, with respect to the outward privileges of the covenant. Was the root holy? so are the branches holy; not inherently, but federally holy, being called, consecrated, and separated from the world unto the service of God. If then Almighty God, by entering into covenant with Abraham, hallowed to himself all his posterity, even as the first-fruits hallowed the whole lump; in like manner will God, in his own good time be so mindful of the Jews, the posterity of Aabraham, as to bring them again nigh unto himself in remembrance of his holy covenant; so that they shall be his people, and he will be their God.”

Learn hence, That the Jews, though at present cast off by God, are still an holy people, they are under an hereditary dedication to God, they have a federal holiness, as descending from holy progenitors, with respect to whom the love and compassion of God are towards them, and they shall in his own time be called and converted by him. And therefore, in the mean time, the Jews are not to look upon themselves with desperation, nor should the Gentiles look upon them with disdain. The first -fruits being holy, the lump is also holy: the root being holy, so are the branches also.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 11:16-17. And their conversion will surely be effected, For if the first- fruit of them, the patriarchs, be holy He alludes to the waved sheaf, which was said to be holy, because it was accepted of God, in token of his giving the appointed weeks of the harvest: and by the first-fruit, he either means the patriarchs, who were called and separated to the service of God from all the people of the earth; or, as many commentators understand him, the first converts to Christianity from among the Jews, teaching that they were most acceptable to God, as being the first members of the newly- erected Christian church. The lump is also holy The lump, , (which was the meal tempered with water, and kneaded for baking,) here denotes the mass of which the two wave-loaves were made, mentioned Lev 23:17. And as these were offered at the conclusion of the harvest, seven weeks after the offering of the first-fruits, they represented the whole fruits of the earth newly gathered in, as sanctified through that offering for the peoples use, during the following year. By this latter similitude, therefore, the apostle intends the whole mass, or body of the nation, to be hereafter converted, and rendered acceptable to God, as members of his true church. And if the root of them, namely, Abraham, was holy and beloved of God, so are the branches still beloved for the fathers sake, and so will be once more, in his good time, admitted to his favour. There seems here to be an allusion to Jer 2:16, where the Jewish nation, made the visible church of God by virtue of the covenant at Sinai, are represented under the figure of a green olive-tree, of which Abraham was the root, and his descendants by Isaac the branches. Hence the thrusting the Jews out of the covenant of God, is here represented by the breaking off of the branches; and the admission of the Gentiles into that covenant, so as to make them members of Gods church, is set forth under the idea of their being ingrafted into the stock of the green olive-tree; and the advantages which they enjoyed thereby, are expressed by their partaking of the root and fatness of the olive-tree. The expression, a wild olive-tree, means here, a branch of a wild olive-tree, for branches only are ingrafted. The Gentiles are called a wild olive, because God had not cultivated them as he did the Jews, who on that account were called, Rom 11:24, the good or garden olive.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 16-24.

The apostle proves in this passage the perfect congruity, from the viewpoint of Israelitish antecedents, of the event which he has just announced as the consummation of Israel’s history. Their future restoration is in conformity with the holy character impressed on them from the first; it is therefore not only possible, but morally necessary (Rom 11:16). This thought, he adds, should inspire the Gentiles, on the one hand, with a feeling of profound regard for Israel, even in their lapsed state (Rom 11:17-18); on the other, with a feeling of watchful fear over themselves; for if a judgment of rejection overtook such a people, how much more easily may not the same chastisement descend on them (Rom 11:19-21)! He finishes with a conclusion confirming the principal idea of the passage (Rom 11:22-24).

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. [Another parallelism. The apostle demonstrates the same truth, first, from the standpoint of the law of God in the Bible (firstfruit and lump); second, from the law of God in nature (root and tree). As the harvest or raw material of the Jew was regarded as unclean, or ceremonially unholy, and not to be eaten till it was cleansed by the waving of a first-portion, or firstfruit, of it as a heave-offering before the Lord (Lev 23:9-14; Exo 34:26); so the meal or prepared material was likewise prescribed until a portion of the first dough was offered as a heave-offering. This offered “firstfruit,” or, better, “first-portion” (aparche), made the whole lump (phurama) from which it was taken holy, and thus sanctified all the future meal, of which it was the representative or symbol, so that it could now be used by the owner (Num 15:19-21; Neh 10:37). The apostle, then, means that as the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (called fathers in verse 28), the firstfruit by the revealed law, and the root by the natural law, were holy, so all their descendants as lump and tree were likewise holy. But holiness has two distinct meanings: (1) Purity, moral and spiritual perfection, absolute righteousness–a holiness unto salvation; (2) that which is consecrated or set apart for divine use–a holiness short of salvation. The second meaning is the one intended here. The Jews, being out of Christ, are certainly not holy or righteous unto salvation, Paul being witness; but they have what Gifford styles “this legal and relative holiness of that which has been consecrated to God.” In this respect they are still “the holy people” (Dan 12:7), “the chosen people” (Dan 11:15), preserved from fusion with the Gentiles, and ultimately to be restored to their original pre-eminence as leaders in the worship of Jehovah. In short, then, there is no divinely erected barrier rendering them irrevocably unholy, and preventing their conversion. On the contrary, they are pre-eminently susceptible to conversion both by law divine and natural, and only their persistent unbelief prevents their Christianization.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

16. But if the first fruit is holy, so also is the lump; and if the root be holy, so also are the branches. Gods holy covenant with the patriarchs is as fresh in the divine mind this day as when He first spoke to Abraham in Chaldea.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 16

The lump; the whole mass. The meaning is, that, inasmuch as now a small portion of the Jewish nation believed in Christ, so the time would come when all would be brought into his kingdom.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

11:16 {9} For if the {o} firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root {p} [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

(9) The nation of the Jews being considered in their head and root, that is, in Abraham, is holy, although many of the branches are cut off. Therefore in judging of our brethren, we must not dwell on their unworthiness, to think that they are at once all cast off, but we ought to consider the root of the covenant, and rather go back to their ancestors who were faithful, that we may know that the blessing of the covenant rests in some of their posterity, as we also find proof here in ourselves.

(o) He alludes to the first fruits of those loaves, by the offering of which the whole crop of corn was sanctified, and they might use the rest of the crop for that year with good conscience.

(p) Abraham.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The first piece of dough (firstfruits) describes the believing remnant in Israel now, Christian Jews. The "lump" or "batch" refers to the whole nation, Israel. God has consecrated both groups to Himself.

The root and branches must refer to the Abrahamic Covenant and the believing and unbelieving Gentiles and Jews respectively in view of how Paul proceeded to develop this illustration in Rom 11:17-24. [Note: See J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, p. 286.] Moo saw the root as the patriarchs and God’s promises to them. [Note: Moo, p. 698.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles