Romans 11:16

‘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 Numbers 15:17 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 Isaiah 11:10 and Isaiah 53:2 where it refers to the son of Jesse and the Servant of YHWH respectively, an idea connected with Jesus in Revelation 5:5; Revelation 22:16. Equally important is that Paul elsewhere cites Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 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 Romans 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' (Romans 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 (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:15), possibly seen in terms of the original ideal Israel who were ‘the firstfruit of His increase' (Jeremiah 2:2). These latter being ‘holiness to YHWH' (Jeremiah 2:3). This would tie in with the firstfruit being holy. The lump then becomes those who spring from the firstfruit, namely elect Jews (Romans 11:5), the Gentile believers who experience salvation (Romans 11:11), and the unbelieving Jews who later believe and are grafted in again (Romans 11:15; Romans 11:23). 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' (Acts 2:27; Acts 3:14) and as having ‘the spirit of holiness' (Romans 1:4), and as making His people ‘holy (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 1:30). In 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 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 (1 Corinthians 1:30). Furthermore ‘the root' was a recognised title of Christ, which is referred to in Romans 15:12. See also Isaiah 11:10; Revelation 5:5; Revelation 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 (Romans 11:17). 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 (John 15:1).

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 Romans 9:30 to Romans 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 Romans 9:1. 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. Matthew 2:15), and His own words in John 15:1 confirm this. He is the true Vine in contrast with the false vine (e.g. Isaiah 5:1), 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; 1 Corinthians 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 (John 15:1). 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 (Genesis 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' (Romans 12:4). 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 (Romans 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 (1 Corinthians 10:4), with the unbelieving being overthrown in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:5). The picture of Israel in 1 Corinthians 10:1 could be seen as very much that of ideal Israel as described in Jeremiah 2:2

On the other hand we must also probably see Romans 11:16 as the lead in to Romans 11:17, for Romans 11:17 demands some kind of prior introduction, so as to form a basis for its argument, while ‘And if the branches --' (Romans 11:17) must surely refer back to ‘the branches' (Romans 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 (Jeremiah 2:2), and the root, the Messiah (Romans 15:12; Isaiah 11:10; Revelation 5:5; Revelation 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 Romans 11:16, is to be seen as equivalent to the olive tree which produces its branches, for in Romans 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 (Jeremiah 11:16). This would favour all being seen as representing ideal Israel, a holy Israel as seen in the mind of God (compare Exodus 19:6), possibly as combined with the One Who sums up in Himself the true Israel.

In this regard we should note that Romans 9:1 to Romans 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. Isaiah 51:1), while Israel constantly looked back to the promises, as indeed Paul has done in Romans 9:6. 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 (Isaiah 11:1), and of the Servant as a root out of the dry ground (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 51:1). 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 Romans 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 Romans 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 Isaiah 9:6 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 (Romans 11:24).

Also in favour would be Romans 11:1 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 (Romans 11:17), while at the same time on the other hand benefiting from their relationship with them, as described in Romans 11:28. The point in Romans 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 (Romans 9:7), 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 (John 15:1), 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 (Isaiah 11:10; compare Romans 15:12), and a ‘root (hriza) out of dry ground' (Isaiah 53:2). See also Revelation 5:5; Revelation 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 (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23), with believers being the later ‘lump' who would be raised en masse, having already been raised spiritually (Romans 6:4; Romans 7:4; Ephesians 2:1). 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' (1 Corinthians 12:12), and made holy in Him (1 Corinthians 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 (Romans 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 Romans 9:30 to Romans 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 Romans 9:1. 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 (Matthew 2:15), and possibly as representing ideal Israel that He then went into the wilderness (Matthew 4:1). And as we have already seen it was that idea which lay at the root of John 15:1. 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 (Matthew 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 (Matthew 21:43) which would be founded on a new Cornerstone, which would be Jesus Himself (Matthew 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. Romans 11:1), with its members therefore being branches of the olive tree (Romans 11:16) and of the true vine (John 15:1). We should note in this regard that in Romans there is a stress on the idea of our oneness in Christ in Romans 5:12; Romans 12:4. There is the stress on our being united with Christ in Romans 6:5 seen in the light of its context. There is the idea of our being ‘joined with Him' in Romans 7:4. There is the continual emphasis on the fact that our righteousness comes from our being in Christ (see especially Romans 10:6). There is the clear comparison between the olive tree ‘receiving' those who are grafted in (Romans 11:15) and Christ ‘receiving' His people (Romans 15:7). And finally there is the pointer to Jesus as the coming Deliverer Who would take away ungodliness from Jacob (Romans 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 (John 15:1), and into Whom other branches are engrafted.

3) That they represent the ideal Israel in its notional form as the holy nation (Exodus 19:5). This should be seen in parallel with 4). In Jeremiah 2:2 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 (Isaiah 27:6), while the remnant of Israel (thus an ideal Israel), was to take root downwards and bear fruit upwards (Isaiah 37:31), a description which fits well with Romans 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 (Romans 11:18), and there is no doubt that an ideal Israel fits well the illustration that follows. What is more the close connection between Romans 11:16 and Romans 11:17, with Romans 11:17 clearly referring to the branches of an olive tree, suggests that Romans 11:16 is speaking of the root and branches of an olive tree, i.e. of Israel.

4). That they represent Israel within Israel (Romans 9:6). As we have seen in Jeremiah 2:2 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. Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:15), although those were not specifically Israelites. It was the remnant of Israel who were to take root downwards and bear fruit upwards (Isaiah 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 (Acts 5:1). It would need, therefore, to be combined with one of the other ideas.

5) That they represent Israel itself in its early stages. Jeremiah 2:2 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 Romans 8:23), and the root from which the later church came. They too could look back to Jeremiah 2:2, and apply it to themselves, as also with Isaiah 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 (Romans 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 (Romans 11:25) 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 Jeremiah 2:2. 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 (Matthew 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 (Romans 12:4; 1 Corinthians 12:12). 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 (Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 9:6 and Romans 11:1 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 Romans 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 Romans 9:6 and Romans 11:1 are against it. Those passages speak only of the elect in Israel. (Or if we see Israel as an entity as foreknown in Romans 11:2, then simply Romans 9:6). Also against is that the lump and branches in Romans 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 Romans 11:16. It would also fit the context which includes the idea of the salvation of the Gentiles (Romans 11:11).

Which interpretation we take will partly depend on how we interpret what follows, especially Romans 11:25, 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 (Jeremiah 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.