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.
17.And if some of the branches, etc. He now refers to the present dignity of the Gentiles, which
is no other than to be of the branches; which, being taken from another, are set in some noble tree:
for the origin of the Gentiles was as it were from some wild and unfruitful olive, as nothing but a
curse was to be found in their whole race. Whatever glory then they had was from their new insition,
not from their old stock. There was then no reason for the Gentiles to glory in their own dignity in
comparison with the Jews. We may also add, that Paul wisely mitigates the severity of the case, by
not saying that the whole top of the tree was cut off, but that some of the branches were broken,
and also that God took some here and there from among the Gentiles, whom he set in the holy and
blessed trunk.^356
18.But if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, etc. The Gentiles could not contend with the
Jews respecting the excellency of their race without contending with Abraham himself; which
would have been extremely unbecoming, since he was like a root by which they were borne and
nourished. As unreasonable as it would be for the branches to boast against the root, so unreasonable
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.(^356) There is a difference of opinion as to the precise meaning of the words Calvin’s version is, “insitus es pro
ipsis — thou hast been ingrafted for them,” or in their stead; that of Beza and Pareus is the same, and also that of Macknight;
but Grotius has “inter illos — between them,” that is, the remaining branches; and Doddridge renders the words “among them,”
according to our version. What is most consonant with the first part of the verse, is the rendering of Calvin; what is stated is the
cutting off of some of the branches, and the most obvious meaning is, that others were put in for them, or in their stead. It has
been said, that it was not the practice to graft a wild olive in a good olive, except when the latter was decaying, such may have
been the case; but the Apostle’s object was no so much to refer to what was usual, as to form a comparison suitable to his purpose;
and this is what our Savior in his parables had sometimes done. Contrary to what the case is in nature, the Apostle makes the
stock good and the graft bad, and makes the stock to communicate its goodness to the graft and to improve the quality of its
fruit. But his main object is to show the fact of incision, without any regard to the character of the stock and of the graft in natural
things; for both his stock and his graft are of a different character. — Ed.