The Olive Tree Metaphor in Romans 11.

Dear Friends,
After a three-year hiatus because of serious illness, I find myself well enough to take on a renewed commitment to the NewVineyard blog. While I cannot promise to post every day, every week or every month, I will endeavor to post as often as the Lord permits. I intend to offer thought-provoking articles in the spirit of Semper Reformanda. I begin with an excerpt from a much longer essay on the significance of the Sabbath for the NT believer, focussing on the meaning of chapter 11 from Paul's epistle to the Roman congregation. I pray you find it stimulating and useful.

SHALOM

Jamie

“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3.6).

“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews”
(John 4.22).

To a significant degree one’s assumptions regarding the spiritual status or prominence of the church will influence what one believes about the Sabbath versus the Lord’s Day. That is to say, if you proceed from the triumphalist point of view that the church has superseded Israel as God’s people—for the reason that God has forever and irrevocably rejected Israel because of her unbelief and rebellious obstinacy and has instead bestowed the promises on the new people of God (the so-called “Church”, a word I have come to dislike)—then you will not likely be comfortable with the idea of keeping the OT Sabbath celebration, preferring instead to celebrate on Sunday, the first day of the week, as do the overwhelming majority of Christians. If however, you are willing to accept the possibility that God has not entirely written off His people Israel and that there is a degree of overlap between Israel and Christ’s ekklesia or assembly then you will probably not be uncomfortable with the idea of keeping the Sabbath in a biblically appropriate fashion (and not according to Rabbinic accretions, i.e. the traditions of the elders,
Matt. 15:3).

Most Christians today hold to one of two differing views regarding the relationship between Israel and the church. The first, replacement theology is the view that though Israel was once God’s chosen people, because of her disobedience in rejecting Jesus as Messiah God has transferred the promises of the covenants to the Christian Church. Israel forfeited all the blessings originally promised to her, which are now the possession of the church. The second view, separation theology, holds that the church and Israel are completely separate entities, with entirely different destinies. Many separation theologians maintain that Israel will inherit all God’s worldly promises (including an independent nation-state) while the church will inherit all the spiritual promises. According to Separation theologians, the church had her beginning with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Pentecost following Christ’s ascension. Before that time, they believe, the church did not exist and therefore there can be no continuity with Israel. My own growing conviction is that there is instead an overlap between Israel and the church. I arrive at this conviction from such passages of Scripture as Romans 9 and 11, Eph. 2:12-22; 3:4-6 and so forth. This understanding of the overlap is known as remnant theology.  However, this overlap in no way makes Israel and the church identical, or that the assembly (Heb. qahal) in the OT was simply the promise or type of which the church of the NT is the fulfillment or antitype. While replacement theology maintains that the church has taken prominence over Israel as the true ekklesia of God and that the remnant (believing Israel) has been grafted into the church, the opposite position is taken by remnant theology which maintains that the NT ekklesia or assembly has been grafted into the believing remnant (Isa. 10:22; Rom. 9:27) of Israel—an important distinction.

Scripture uses many metaphors and symbols to represent God’s people. One found in both testaments is the metaphor of the olive tree.  For instance, we read of God’s people in Jeremiah that “The LORD once called you ‘a green olive tree, beautiful with good fruit’” (Jer. 11:16a). Again, referring to Israel Hosea says, “…his beauty shall be like the olive [tree]” (Hos. 14:6b). King David refers to himself as “like a green olive tree in the house of God” (Psalm 52:8). (Zechariah chapter 4 also employs the image of olive trees and branches, but consideration of that use of the metaphor would take us too far off the path we are on, therefore we will not consider it in this context.) The image of the olive tree already had a solid place in Scripture as representing God’s people when Paul was inspired to use the metaphor to illustrate the “mystery” of the relationship between Israel and the ekklesia. This olive tree metaphor was a very suitable instrument for Paul’s purpose of disclosing an extremely important spiritual truth.

So with these introductory thoughts in mind, we turn our attention to Paul`s understanding of Israel and how Israel and the ekklesia are related. We then move to a consideration of the inception of the church in Matt. 16:18 and the outcome of the Council of Jerusalem only some twenty five years after the ascension of Christ.

In chapter nine of Romans, Paul begins to lay out the groundwork for the “problem of Israel.” This “mystery” he discloses in chapter 11 and by which the ekklesia of Christ should have been profoundly and humbly affected but—because of the sins of ignorance, fear and arrogance—was not.

In Romans 9, Paul begins to build an argument for the eventual salvation of Israel as well as the Gentiles by demonstrating through the metaphor of the olive tree that (with the coming of Christ) there is a kind of unity between Israel and the ekklesia. He begins his argument by lamenting that Israel, in spite of being the recipients of adoption as God’s sons, God’s glory, the covenants, the Torah, temple worship and the promises of God to the Patriarchs, from whom is traced the human ancestry of Christ (vs. 1-5) has in spite of all that, seemingly failed of salvation. His heart is burdened almost to breaking, especially as he identifies so strongly with his cultural as well as spiritual heritage (Phil. 3:4-6). He then explains that it is not because God has failed or broken His promises to Israel, but rather that Israel has collectively failed to uphold God’s promises and intentions for her.

Romans 11 is based on the figure of an olive tree. Some of the branches of this tree have been broken off, while others—from a wild olive tree—have been grafted in to the tree (the existing rootstock). The rootstock, which receives the new, foreign branches, is the remnant of Israel and the original inheritor of God’s salvation through its own root, Abraham and the other patriarchs. The branches which have been broken off of the olive tree constitute unbelieving Israel, while those branches grafted in from the wild olive tree are the Gentiles, saved by God’s gracious action of giving them access by faith to Christ as well as the “oracles of God”, the holy Scriptures, and thereby they come to “share in the nourishing root of the olive tree” that is, the covenants made with the patriarchs (v. 17).  This God has done not only to fulfill His own promises concerning the Gentiles (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 9:2; Rom. 3:29-30;15:9) but also, through these new grafted in branches, to provoke some of unbelieving Israel to jealousy, which Paul assures will lead to new faith and so to be themselves grafted back into their own rootstock. Together, the remnant of Israel with the prophesied addition of Gentiles, constitute the ekklesia of God, to which the remainder of those destined for salvation will be added. But Paul goes on to warn the Gentiles that they should not be arrogant since it is not they who support the root, “but the root supports you” (v. 18) and that if God could break off the natural branches because of unbelief, he can do the same to the Gentiles for arrogance and ungratefulness (vs. 20-22).

In the opening verses of chapter 11, Paul makes it clear that God has not rejected His people, that is, those He foreknew (vs. 1-2) but declares rather—in keeping with Isaiah, (Isa. 10:22, LXX)—that a remnant of the faithful has been chosen by grace (v. 5). “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel… and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named’” (Rom. 9:6-7).

In verses 17 and 24 Paul depicts Gentiles as branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted into a cultivated rootstock. Elsewhere—but echoing Romans 11—Paul says that Gentiles have up till then been excluded from citizenship in Israel, are foreigners (i.e. a wild olive tree) to the covenants of promise and therefore have been without hope and have been far away (Eph. 2:11-13). As idol worshippers (1 Cor. 12:2), Gentiles have been beyond God’s pale as it were, whereas Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of God (Rom. 3:2). In the development of his argument Paul stresses that there is a remnant of Israel saved by grace. This remnant is the inheritor of God’s promise of salvation made to the patriarchs, who form the root of the olive tree. In v. 16, Paul uses an additional metaphor in order to reinforce this idea. He says that “If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches”. The firstfruits and the dough both refer to the Patriarchs and the saving promises given to them, the root of the olive tree. It is the saving promises that have made salvation possible for Gentiles, not their own goodness (Eph. 2:8). The majority of Jews were removed (as branches broken off the tree) because of their obstinate disbelief, while the Gentile branches have been grafted into the tree of Israel because of their faith in God made known to them through the word of God, both written and living. It is important to understand that the metaphor of the olive tree teaches first, Gentiles are indebted to Judaism for this salvation (John 4:22) and not the reverse and second, that God has not finally forsaken his people Israel (Deut. 4:30; 28:64; 30:3; Eze. 37:11-14; Isa. 43:5-6).

This means two things. First, it means that if God has not finally forsaken His people, then they are still the inheritors of His covenant blessings. This is the meaning of the message of Jeremiah 31:30-33. The new covenant written of by Jeremiah applies directly and firstly to Israel and indirectly and secondly to the Gentiles. Let me quote David Stern on this point. “God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:30-33) through Yeshua the Messiah blesses all mankind by providing the final and permanent atonement for sin and by promising that the Holy Spirit of God will write the Torah on the heart of anyone with faith. It thus complements the earlier covenants without annulling them (Galatians 3). It was promised in the Tanakh, and the books of the New Testament elaborate on it” (The Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern, D. Jewish New Testament Publications, Clarksville, 1992). The fact that God always had a heart for Gentiles is manifest in several places in Scripture (i.e. Gen. 12:3; Isa. 11:10; 49:6). But the covenant (and therefore the law, including the fourth commandment) applies to Gentiles only in the sense that those who receive the blessing of salvation receive it as branches grafted into the rootstock of the remnant of Israel. Not only that, but the grafting in of the Gentiles—and therefore the blessing of salvation given to them through the original covenant with Abraham—has the secondary purpose of creating jealousy (a kind of covetousness) in unbelieving, Rabbinic Judaism. According to Paul, this will cause them to turn back to the root of their faith and become children of the promise, that is, believers in Christ Jesus as the one true Messiah. The point being made here is that Gentiles have received the blessing of the covenant in a way similar to how adopted children receive their inheritance. It is not their birthright in the way it is for the natural offspring, but is theirs because it was given to them by a decision made. The inheritance belongs to the natural children by right of birth and is then shared with the newly adopted sons or daughters. So the blessings of the law, including the fourth commandment, are given to Gentiles in a similar fashion, and all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of the law are just as binding on them as on the natural children.

Now coming to consider the account of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, we will see that it offers a differing (but not conflicting) perspective than that of Romans 11 on the relationship between Judaism and the ekklesia. In the context of Acts 15:1-21, we are given James’ speech outlining his plan of concession for reconciling the Gentile believers with their Jewish brothers and sisters, particularly with the party of Judaizers. The entire account is important for two reasons. One, it acknowledges the widening rift between the two groups within Judaism at large, but specifically between Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians, polarized by the issue of circumcision [a blood sacrifice], and two, it refers to a poorly understood OT original promise later echoed by Christ in the NT that seems to indicate that Christ would rebuild or restore something that had fallen on hard times, that is, the remnant of God, including Gentiles, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”  The passage that Jesus seemed to have in mind is found in James’ speech beginning at verse 16 and which is a quote from the prophet Amos, “After this [or “in that day”] I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old” (italics added; quoting Amos 9:11-12, LXX). Thus, the rebuilding of David’s tent echoes the idea of Paul that Gentiles were grafted into something that had already existed and was the manifestation of the promise of salvation and the blessings of God. It was indeed something new and novel, never having existed before, but at the same time it was also something that God had laboured over long before according to the good purpose of His will (Isa. 55:8-9). I’d like to begin by considering the belief of many Christians that the church had its genesis on the day of Pentecost, with the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4) and that prior to this event, did not exist. This belief is contrary to the belief of covenant theologians—mostly Reformed or Calvinist—who maintain the continuity of God’s people from the OT but who nevertheless believe at the same time that the church has superseded Israel as God’s chosen people, an idea Paul found outrageous according to my understanding of Romans 11. This belief we described earlier as Replacement theology (because the church has replaced Israel as being more worthy of the favour of God). This orientation is also known as Triumphalism because supposedly the Gentile Church of Christ has triumphed over the Jewish Tabernacle of Moses.

Interestingly, the Pentecost event was revealed not to Gentiles at all, but to Jews, described as “devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5ff). The others who mocked were either worldly, irreligious Jews and/or Gentiles then residing in Jerusalem. The sermon that Peter preached that day (Acts 2:14-36) was preached to these devout men, “men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” as well as to many Jews on pilgrimage to Jerusalem from other countries. In other words, the audience of this first sermon was predominantly if not exclusively Jewish! Not only that, they were convicted on the spot by Peter’s sermon and three thousands of them came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied Messiah. Peter targets his message by saying that “the promise [of salvation in Christ as Messiah, through Abraham and Isaac, the root of the olive tree] is one,  for you and your children and two, for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” [i.e. Jews first, then Gentiles]. Let me make the point once again that there were no Gentiles in the early, apostolic Ekklesia. The account of the coming to faith of three thousand Jews establishes Christ’s admission: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24, see also 10:5-6). Moreover, since these initial three thousand converts were described as devout people, it is reasonable to conclude that they were members of synagogues in their home communities. As well, most, if not all, were in Jerusalem in order to participate in Shavu’ot or the Feast of Weeks, a harvest festival mandated by God (Lev. 23) and which began on the fiftieth day from the Feast of Firstfruits (Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12). Remember, all these devout men were circumcised, card-carrying Hebrews who kept Torah, not only Shavu’ot but the fourth commandment as well!

So, getting back to James and the quote from Amos, we see from the prior event at Pentecost that the words of Christ—and Amos before Him, quoted by James and that corroborated the same message preached by Paul in the eleventh chapter of his letter to the Romans—were being fulfilled and carried out by His apostles, beginning with Peter. But what does the quote from Amos have to do with Jesus’ words in Matt. 16:18 and what does any of this have to do with the Sabbath? I’m working my way to it; stay with me.

“In that day [paraphrased by James as “after these things”, that is, meaning after the Destruction and Exile of ethnic Israel described by Amos in vs. 8-10, and from which a remnant will emerge] I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things” (Amos 9:11-12, LXX, Brenton, L., trans.).

            These words of Amos seem to be speaking of a renewal of the throne or dynasty of David, the throne that has been left vacant and derelict but which will be restored (Hos. 3:4-5) by the Messiah. This renewal was inaugurated by Christ but will not reach its consummation until He returns; in that sense it is “already” but “not yet.”

In light of Amos and James, when Christ said “I will build my church” I believe he meant “I will rebuild my church.” The word translated “build” in English is the Greek oikodomeo. In the LXX version of Amos (the version known and used by Jesus and all the apostles, including James) the word is anoikodomeo, to rebuild. But depending on how one reads the grammatical construction, the Greek can allow the word oikodomeo to easily take the sense of “to build again.” This option is confirmed by the words “as in the ancient days” or “as the days of old” (NETS). This qualifying statement, beginning “as in…” strongly implies that the building is not unique but is a kind of renewal or repair of what had been built before but was now in a state of decline or decrepitude. (As well, there is the possibility of scribal error between oikodomeo and anoikodomeo. The words in Greek script are hard to distinguish).

So what? Well, just this: the ekklesia, that is, the Assembly, was in some way already in existence when Christ spoke to Peter in Matt. 16:18. But not in the way that covenant theologians understand. The true Israel of God was a remnant from within larger ethnic Israel as we can see from the verses immediately preceding our previously quoted passage from Amos: “Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the kingdom of sinners [ethnic Israel], and I will cut it off from the face of the earth; only I will not utterly cut off the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For I will give commandment, and sift the house of Israel among all the Gentiles, as corn is sifted in a sieve, and yet a fragment [the remnant] shall not in any wise fall [become extinct] upon the earth” (Amos 9:8-9).

This remnant is the very olive tree spoken of by Paul in Romans 11. As such it will be saved along with all the elect Gentiles grafted into its rootstock! Christ did not create a new entity; he renewed one that already belonged to Him and had been in existence from at least the calling of Abraham.

In regard to the obligatory nature of the Sabbath for God’s people—and in light of Paul’s inspired use of the metaphor of the olive tree—it is well to keep in mind the implications of remnant theology which maintains the unity of a believing remnant of Israel and the Gentile ekklesia. If remnant theology is correct and the church has indeed been grafted into believing Israel, and if God gave His chosen people the Sabbath—as part of the moral law—then the privilege and blessing of accepting the Sabbath as part of the new covenant is binding on the church as it has always been binding on Israel, unless—and this is extremely important—under the terms of the new covenant it can be clearly shown from Scripture that the fourth commandment has been repealed (or significantly amended) by God! But nowhere in Scripture—let me repeat myself—nowhere in Scripture, is there to be found a statement of such a repeal or amendment.