Why is Israel like an olive?
R. Yohanan said:
Why is Israel said to be like an olive? Because as the olive will not yield its oil unless it is crushed, so Israel do not return to the right way unless they are crushed by affliction. (B. Men 53b and En Yaakov, ad loc.)
We read in Exod. R. 36:1
“A leafy olive tree, fair with goodly fruit” (Jer. 11:16). Olives, while still on the tree, are marked for shriveling, after which they are knocked down and brought up to a roof, where they are left to dry; then they are placed in a grinding mill, where they are ground; their pulp is then tied up in a hempen bale, upon which heavy stones are placed. Only after all that do olives yield their oil. So, too Israel. The nations of the earth knock them down, drive them from place to place, imprison them, put chains around their necks, and post soldiers all around them. Only then do Israel resolve on repentance, and the Holy One responds to them.
Shalom, Gene.
It’s interesting… Tenach refers to a cultivated Olive Tree known as Israel that will be broken according to the division of the Two Houses of Israel (Jer. 11:16-17). Hosea says that the House of Israel will be dispersed and eventually reconstituted and that this reconstitution is comparable to a regrowth of branches on an Olive Tree (Hosea 14:5-6). And then Peter, Paul, and James (of Jerusalem Council) all cite to the Hosea Two-House prophecy and apply it to the gentile Believers. Observe:
1 Peter 2:9
“9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”
Romans 9:23-26
“23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”
Romans 11
“17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches….24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved….”
Acts 15
And then James, in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, says that the prophets (plural) agree with Peter’s allusion to G-d’s work in the Cornelius episode. He offers a gezerah shavah, a quote that summarizes how the prophets foretold that G-d would at some point consider the Believing gentiles to be “a people called by His Name” (i.e. members of G-d’s covenanted people/laon/am). In this gezerah shavah, James quotes from Hosea 3:5. Observe:
“…we should not be surprised if James’ reference to the Scripture reflects several different contexts. That certainly seems to be the case. The first words of the citation, ‘After this,’ are a change from ‘in that day’ in Amos 9:11. These words probably come from Hosea 3:5. In Hosea 3:4 the prophet predicts that Israel will live many days without a ruler (“king or ruler”), worship (“sacrifice or altar” in LXX), or even idols; this is apparently a reference to their captivity. However “after this”… they will return and be reconciled to “the LORD their God and David their king;” these times are called “the last days” at the end of verse 5.71 The reading in Acts 15:16, “after this,” reflects the idea of Amos’ “in that day,” which as discussed above has the idea of “then” and in Amos 9:11 apparently has eschatological connotations. In Amos the rebuilding of “the tent of David” takes place after the exile and judgment described in the preceding context. Hosea 3 looks to a day when Israel will seek the Lord and David their king, implying that a Davidic king will again rule over a united Israel and explicitly connecting Israel’s worship of (“seek”) the Lord with their “seeking” David.” pg. 19 of Gentiles and the People of God: A Study of Apostolic Hermeneutics and Theology in Acts 15 by W. Edward Glenny.
It’s also interesting to note that James tells these returning gentiles called by the Name to prove their covenantal loyalty as a “laon” by observing four rules that were accorded to proselytes in Leviticus 17-18 (note that the formulations of the decree in Acts 15:29 and Acts 21 match precisely the order in which those stipulations occur in Leviticus 17 and 18. Also, note that the LXX of Leviticus indicates that these stipulations only apply to proselytes (i.e. full converts who are required to observe the full Torah). And, lastly, note that James does not consider this burdensome given that the gentile returnees would’ve already been aware of these introductory guidelines for proselytes since these guidelines are found in Torah and Torat Moshe is “preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogue on every Shabbat” (Acts 15:21).
“Romans 11-17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot”
Didn’t want this post to turn into another Two-House fest again and still don’t, but something, Peter, doesn’t quite compute – if Gentiles are actually part of the same olive tree as the Jews (per Two-House theology, as you see it) and merely get replanted to that same tree, why are they not only called a “wild olive shoot” but are said to have come from a “wild olive tree”?
Please do explain…
One other thing about James’ comments in Acts 15. It’s interesting that Israel is a “laon” in contrast to the “ethne” (gentiles) and that the only people called “after His Name” are Israel and Isaiah says that gentiles by definition are not called after His Name.
(Deut. 14:2). “You are a people (LXX, laos) holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the people (LXX, etne) on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be His treasured possession.”
Isaiah 63:19
“We are yours from of old; but you have not ruled over them, they have not been called by your name.”
Cheers,
Peter
Answer to your query: The difference between a cultivated tree and a wild tree is the difference between remaining under the care of the cultivator. The wild Olive Tree (House of Israel) did not remain under His care and were dispersed and made into “lo ammi”. Therefore they are “wild.”
-Peter
So, are you saying, Peter, that even under King Solomon Israel was still very much a wild olive tree (after which the “lost tribes” got supposedly lost), and only after having their Temple destroyed, after having been sent to Babylonia, after returning from Babylonian exile where they didn’t even observe Torah as they should’ve had, the “not lost Israel” somehow became a cultivated olive tree?
Also, can the same cultivated tree (not its offspring) somehow become a wild tree again? That goes against the laws of genetics. That’s like saying that if I buy a bulldog today, let it lose, it will turn into a mutt a few years from now.
“…after returning from Babylonian exile…”
If the House of Israel had returned then Ezra would’ve included them in the census (he only recorded three tribes of the House of Judah) AND Ezekiel wouldn’t have said that reunification would only occur in the Messianic Era (see Eze. 37, the “two stick” prophecy).
As far as the Olive Tree cultivation metaphor, keep in mind that Jeremiah implies that this tree was destroyed:
Jeremiah 11:16-17
16 The LORD called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form. But with the roar of a mighty storm he will set it on fire, and its branches will be broken.
17 The LORD Almighty, who planted you, has decreed disaster for you, because the people of both Israel and Judah have done evil and aroused my anger by burning incense to Baal.
This is proof that the metaphor can’t be stretched to match reality. Is it realistic that an Olive Tree could survive fire??? No, which means that you can’t expect a metaphor such as wild vs. cultivated Olive Trees to fully comport with reality. The important thing is that out of all possible trees to which to compare the gentiles, an olive tree (wild, yes, but still an olive tree). This metaphor was already claimed by Israel. So the question you should ask yourself is this: “why are the gentile Believers likened to an Olive Tree?” Hmm?
Shalom,
Peter
“Is it realistic that an Olive Tree could survive fire?”
Jeremiah 11:16-17 specifically referred to branches being broken in the fire, not the whole tree destroyed. So, I would say it’s possible, metaphor or not. (BTW, olive trees CAN survive a fire if trunk is thick enough).
“This is proof that the metaphor can’t be stretched to match reality.”
But this is exactly what TH theology proponents attempt to do – stretch a metaphor. Except their metaphor doesn’t match the reality.
“So the question you should ask yourself is this: “why are the gentile Believers likened to an Olive Tree?” Hmm? ”
To contrast them with the cultivated olive tree of Israel.
Gene,
You realize I’m arguing that the Olive Tree survived the fire, right? I would be arguing against my own existence otherwise.
You responded: “To contrast them with the cultivated olive tree of Israel.”
But if you wanted to contrast cultivation with wildness you can do that with different varieties of trees. My question is this: why are they an Olive Tree at all? Care to answer that?
-Peter
You said: “You realize I’m arguing that the Olive Tree survived the fire, right? I would be arguing against my own existence otherwise.”
I am just going by information you’ve given me, Peter, when you said:”Is it realistic that an Olive Tree could survive fire??? No”.
“But if you wanted to contrast cultivation with wildness you can do that with different varieties of trees. My question is this: why are they an Olive Tree at all?”
Why are Gentiles referred to a wild olive tree (or rather “branches”)? I showed above why Israel is called an olive tree. Gentiles are called such by Paul only for the sake of illustration and comparison to Israel (since nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles referred to as an “olive tree”), to make a point that a wild olive tree fruit is useless for consumption and needs to be cultivated before it can be “pressed” into service.
You’re leaving out something important: olives represent royalty. All the kings were anointed with olive oil. To be an olive tree shows a connection to royalty. But only Israel is elected to be the royal priesthood (and thus only Israel is deserving of the metaphor that represents royalty: the Olive Tree). Yet Peter tells the gentiles:
“9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”
How could the gentiles be part of the Royal Priesthood (i.e. Israel)? Peter (the apostle) quotes G-d’s promise to the House of Israel in Hosea: once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God. It’s the same promise that says the House of Israel will go from being a sickly/wild olive tree to a thriving olive tree:
Hosea 14:5-6
“5 I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. 6 His branches shall spread , and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.”
NOTE: if the House of Israel always had been and always would be in a thriving state then why is there a need for a promise that it would become a thriving Olive Tree? Is not the implication that it would damaged to the point that it could not bear viable fruit? And is this not the very image of a wild olive tree?
If Paul wanted to say that the gentiles needed to be “pressed into service” then he could have taught this in countless ways without resorting to implying the gentiles come from royal stock. If you want to be grafted into an olive tree, you must have come from an olive tree. Considering the Pauline context (Romans 9), Paul chose the most confusing metaphor possible if it was truly his intent to avoid implying that gentiles are returnees from the House of Israel.
Sincerely,
Peter
“Yet Peter tells the gentiles: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession”.
First of all (and actually that covers all of your points above), Peter, I reject as supersessionist the notion that A. Peter, the apostle to the Jews, is addressing a Gentile audience in this epistle. No doubt that there may have very well been some Gentiles present among the Jews to whom the letter was addressed (as was the case in all synagogues), however they were not the primary targets of the letter. A. Peter was not calling Gentiles as being part of the “Diaspora” (term only used two other times in NT, both times referring to Jews and only Jews), he was not calling Gentiles “chosen people”, a “holy nation” (Gentiles come from many nations), etc. and etc. Such interpretation is replacemenist at its core, i.e. it smells like “New Israel”.
Didn’t want this post to turn into another Two-House fest again…
Yes. Please. Who we are in God is so much more than this one, tired argument.
Gene and James,
The following verses prove that 1 Peter was written to gentiles:
1 Peter 1:14-15
14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;
NOTE: was Judaism a lifestyle of ignorance? it’s more likely he was referring to gentiles.
1 Peter 1:18-19
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
NOTE: was Judaism an empty way of life? Heaven forbid. It is more likely that he was referring to gentiles.
1 Peter 4:3-4
3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.
NOTE: was Judaism a lifestyle of paganism and “debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry”? No. It’s more likely he’s referring to gentiles.
This is just a taste of the cumulative case considered by most scholars to be beyond reasonable dispute. To say that he’s addressing Jews is to say that he thought Judaism was pagan.
Cheers,
Peter
“1 Peter 1:14-15…was Judaism a lifestyle of ignorance? it’s more likely he was referring to gentiles.”
Peter, you should read the prophets more… Hosea 4:6 “…my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge”. If Hosea wrote this down regarding Israel, why do you think that Peter would not? Besides, not all Jews lived or live in ignorance – so not all prophecies and statements apply to all Jews.
“1 Peter 1:18-19 “was Judaism an empty way of life? Heaven forbid. It is more likely that he was referring to gentiles.”
Of course the above applied to many in Israel at the time. To say otherwise is to ignore what the prophets have foretold. We read in Isaiah 29:13: “Wherefore the L-rd said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precept of men”. Or how about Yeshua’s own “They worship me in vain…” (Matthew 15:9)? Again, Peter (or Yeshua) was in no way addressing ALL Jews, but only those who needed to hear this.
“1 Peter 4:3-4 “was Judaism a lifestyle of paganism and “debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry”? No. It’s more likely he’s referring to gentiles.”
First of all, if the letter was addressed to Jews (as I believe), why do you insist that this must therefore mean that Peter was chastising Judaism as a whole [and all Jews] and not simply a behavior of individual sinners among Jews? Do you think that Jews at the time were not susceptible to this stuff, especially those Jews living in the Diaspora among the Gentiles? Also, do I really have to cite to you scripture after scripture in the Tanakh that speak of Israel as doing ALL of the sinful things that Peter lists? Also, it’s entirely possible that certain parts of the letter were addressed to Gentiles in the audience as well, as is the case with Paul’s letters (e.g. Romans).
Gene,
Wouldn’t it be confusing for Peter to address the “exiles in the Diaspora” and then say that they inherited an empty way of life from their ancestors? And you say “it’s entirely possible that certain parts of the letter were addressed to Gentiles in the audience” but this statement about the empty way of life comes after the address to “exiles” without any attempt at differentiation in the addressees.
And then consider the “surprise” factor. Peter writes “They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.” Yeshua-Believing gentiles would be told at the door of the synagogue about the apostolic decree, that they had to immediately stop practicing the main pagan practices as per Leviticus 17 and 18 (things strangled, blood, things polluted by idols, cultic prostitution). And further they would have to become social and civil pariahs to foresake their pagan ways and join the Jewish communities. So they would not be surprised that Jews could not act like pagans. They would know better than anyone that Jews could never do that. So we know that the people that Peter (the apostle) are referring to who are “surprised that you do not join with them in their reckless, wild living” cannot be the Yeshua-Believing gentiles. This just leaves the pagan gentiles would react with “surprise.” So what does that mean?
These “surprised” pagan gentiles would be in a position to exert all sorts of pressure on the Yeshua-Believing gentiles. This would create a very tempting situation for the new converts. They would be seen as traitors to their local gods! Just think of the pressure to go back to their pagan ancestral customs! And what of the Jews of that time?
The pagan society gave full leeway to the Jews because of their ancestral customs. The civic and social bodies did not exert pressure on the Jews to conform to pagan practices.
And so we’re left with the conclusion that Peter (the apostle) was addressing an issue that the Yeshua-Believing gentiles were facing. It was a tough issue to deal with and Peter was sympathetic to them.
But wasn’t Peter an apostle to the Jews and NOT the gentiles? Yes! And that’s why he acknowledged that his addressees had NOT been evangelized by him personally but rather through other men:
“12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven”
Surely if Peter was writing to his Jewish constituents then he would’ve taken responsibility and said something to the effect of “you learned the gospel even as I told it to you.”
In conclusion, it is evident from the text and from the historical context that Peter was addressing Yeshua-Believing gentiles who were suffering uniquely “as Christians” and not as Jews (4:16).
Cheers,
Peter
“Surely if Peter was writing to his Jewish constituents then he would’ve taken responsibility and said something to the effect of “you learned the gospel even as I told it to you.”
That’s certainly a stretch. Was Peter the only one apostle taking the gospel to his fellow Jews? Of all the apostles, only Paul went specifically to the Gentiles (but even he preached to Jews).
Anyway, we both made our case and it will be up to the readers to decide whose point of view makes more sense. (Reminder to readers who may be confused: commenter Peter started his argument by trying to prove that the wild olive tree or Gentiles are actually “lost Israelites” who were being re-attached to the cultivated tree they were originally cut off from in the first place, that is Gentiles are Israel).
I like how this link explains:
THE VINE is a symbol of Israel’s Spiritual privileges.
THE FIG-TREE is a symbol of Israel’s National privileges.
THE OLIVE TREE is a symbol of Israel’s Religious privileges.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/29.cfm
Would you agree with what he writes?
Kittii, thanks for commenting. The link you included is very interesting to me, because it gives us a glimpse into Dispensationist thinking BEFORE the Holocaust and before Israel became a nation again. (I am not a Dispensationalist).
I am not sure about the neat categorizations Larkin tries to wrest from the “tree” analogy. [Then again, that what Dispensationalism does - it tries to organize everything into compartments and charts.] Larkin tries to make sense with his tree analogies, but I can also see how different types of vines and trees could be made to mean other than what he lists there.
Shalom Gene,
Interesting little factoid. If one is trying to cultivate something like apples, and the soil and climate is presents a challenge, the thing to do is use the roots and stock of an indigenous plant that is hardy and grows well. For example here in British Columbia one would use the stock of a vine maple. Cut off a vine maple 4-6 inches from the base, then graft the the trunk of the apple tree you want to cultivate. Also grafting in branches from other apple trees onto a well established apple tree works great for producing other varieties. The same thing will work for grapes, figs and nut trees.
It will not work for OLIVES. Grafting wild olive branches onto an established olive tree trunk will spoil the crop. The olives produced will be much to bitter to eat and the oil the fruit produces is too dark and unpalatable to use for anything other than fuel for exterior lamps.
Brad
Brad,
Are you saying that grafting a wild olive tree branch onto a cultivated olive tree will spoil the crop that is on the cultivated branches? I would like to know more about that. Could you share your source for that?
Sincerely,
Peter
After I read your post I was looking up links related to it and I ran across this one that gives a different take on the “Vine”, “Olive Tree” and the “Fig Tree” and the Trees of Judges Nine. I thought it was interesting too. I told James, I’m not a writer. I just like to share information. I don’t usually post that much or that often. It can get confusing what is what and i guess that’s why we have to “study the Word” not just read it.
It’s a long link, so I’ll just post parts of it.
A STUDY OF THE OLIVE TREE, THE FIG TREE AND THE VINE
by Joyce Pollard
http://rightwordtruth.com/a-study-of-the-olive-tree-the-fig-tree-and-the-vine/
THE TREES OF JUDGES NINE
We read in Judges nine of the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine and the bramble. Some believe that these trees represent Israel. Furthermore, in a discussion of Romans 11, Judges nine is often suggested as the Scriptural evidence that the olive tree of Romans 11 represents Israel. In a discussion of Matt. 24 Judges nine is often suggested for the Scriptural evidence that the fig tree represents Israel. And in a discussion of Jn. 15 Judges nine is often suggested as the Scriptural evidence that the vine represents Israel.
As the reader continues in this study he/she will see the Scriptural evidence from the immediate context that in Rom. 11 the olive tree does represent Israel, and in Matt. 24 the fig tree does represent Israel. But the vine of Jn. 15 does not represent Israel. But my point is that Judges nine is not the appropriate passage to prove that the olive and fig trees represent Israel because in Judges nine they do not represent Israel.
THE OLIVE TREE
JEREMIAH 11:16-17
Jer. 11:16-17 reads, “The Lord called thy name, a green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult He hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken. For the Lord of hosts, That planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel, and of the house of Judah.…”.
In this context it is clear the olive tree is a metaphor for Israel.
ROMANS 11
The olive tree is also used as a metaphor for Israel in Rom. 11. How do we know that? We know that from the immediate context. We read in Rom. 11:24, “….how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree“. The natural branches were, of course, Israelites. How do we know that the natural branches were Israelites? We read in verse 13 that Paul was speaking to Gentiles, “For I speak to you Gentiles….”. Then in verse 17 we read, “….and thou (Gentiles) being a wild olive tree….”. If theGentiles were the “wild olive tree“, obviously Israel was the good olive tree. Therefore, this passage could not be more clear; the good olive tree is Israel.
THE FIG TREE
JEREMIAH 8:13
It is important to note that the fig tree is not used as a figure of speech in this passage. It is a prophecy of a literal event, i.e. that the fig tree will not bear fruit. Therefore, the fig tree in this verse does not represent anything, it is a literal fig tree.
MARK 11:12-14 AND 20-22
We are now ready to determine why Christ cursed the fig tree. Much has been written about what the tree represents. But the event described here is not a parable. That is to say, if Christ had told a parable it may (but not always) be helpful to determine what each item in the parable represents. But again, this is not a parable it is a description of a literal event.
THE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE (Matthew 24:32-33)
But what is important in this study is that the fig tree does not represent Israel.
THE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE IN THE VINEYARD (Luke 13:6-9)
I believe that this context also points to the following parable as being addressed to individuals rather than to the nation as a whole.
THE VINE
As we saw in regard to the fig tree, it is sometimes used to represent Israel, but other times it is not. So too, we will see in regards to the vine, it is sometimes used to represent Israel, but that does not mean that every time we read of the vine as a metaphor, that the vine represents Israel.
ISAIAH 5:1-7
“in verse 7 leaves absolutely no doubt that in this particular passage the vineyard and the vine represent Israel and Judah respectively”
JEREMIAH 2:21
Here again, it is clear that Israel is represented by a vine.
HOSEA 10:1
The phrase, “”Israel is an empty vine” tells us without doubt that in this passage, the vine represents Israel.
THE VINE OF JOHN 15
“In the opening phrase of this chapter , i.e. “I am the true vine”, we are told quite specifically that it is Christ, not Israel that is represented by the vine.”
Peter,
There are a variety of sources on the internet for the process of producing cultivars of different types of olives on a single tree. The branches should be 2 years of age and about the diameter of a pencil, but using wild olive branches onto a well known tasty olive trunk is hardly ever done because the fruit of wild olives tends to remain inedible.
There are instances where it is done, but it usually is only ever done when the prime cultivar trunk is having problems establishing itself in an area not indigenous to its production. In this instance wild olive branches (scions) are attached to the main cultivar trunk to provide strength, food and vitality to the main stock – this is referred to as topworking or topnotching – and the branches are later removed once the tree is established, because the fruit produced from the wild olive is extremely yukky.
The opposite procedure is quite often done though, where a wild olive tree stock or trunk is used to graft onto it well known tasty varieties of olives, where conditions do not allow for the prime cultivar variety to establish itself.
Sorry Peter I do not have any specific references of this. Horticulture was my major in college and I have recently given away all of my textbooks, but I am sure if you simply do a google search you will find information on this topic.
Here are a few I came across doing a google search http://www.gardenguides.com/88421-graft-olive-trees.html http://www.messianicmessages.com/A%20Vine%20Grafted%20In.htm
Sincerely yours,
Brad
Peter,
Sorry I did not look at your question more thoroughly, and thus answer it specifically. Growing olive trees is not my specialty, but from what I have heard they can be very temperamental bearing abundant fruit one year and virtually none the next year, this is quite common actually and olive tree are generally termed alternate fruit bearing trees. There are so many factors involved in producing yummy fruit, that one should know exactly what they are doing. I have heard many stories over the years of people that have gone bankrupt because they did not know what they were doing.
Given it takes 15-20 years for a tree to reach the growth stage where it is producing fruit, commercial growers do not fool around by grafting wild olive branches onto popular cultivar varieties. The olive is a dioecious so it has both male and female plants, so when grafting one should know the difference. If the wild olive scions grafted onto an established female cultivar are male they will tend to ruin the fruit on the main cultivar’s branches, due to cross pollination. The process of growing an olive tree can be a very tedious before it produces palatable fruit. This is why when grafting wild olive branches onto the main cultivar’s stock, in an effort to establish the tree in an area not generally suitable for it, the top worked branches are generally removed after the tree is established, diminishing any chances of tainting the future produce.
This knowledge should give other people groups reading Paul’s metaphor greater significance. Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. I can see why some would like to convince themselves that they are actually by nature, part of the good olive tree. The question they should ask themselves is if they are simply offshoots of the good olive tree, then why was Paul so adamant regarding that they not undergo circumcision? If they are completely convinced beyond any doubt that they are in fact shoots of the natural good olive tree, then it should be incumbent upon them to undergo circumcision.
Brad
Brad,
You wrote: “why was Paul so adamant regarding that they [gentiles] not undergo circumcision?”
This is a common misconception. Paul was actually not against gentiles undergoing circumcision for the right reasons. He was only against the false understanding that circumcision brought salvation. See Galatians 5 where he talks about people who circumcise themselves thinking that it will bring justification.
Paul felt that the spiritual circumcision given to the gentile Yeshua-Believers fulfilled the function of physical circumcision and made them Israelites (i.e. citizens of Israel with full rights). Observe:
Romans 2:26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?
Ephesians 2:11-12 “11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship [politeia] in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
Under the Old Covenant, it would not have been possible for an uncircumcised gentile to be regarded as though he was circumcised, to undergo tevilah in a mikveh, to be a part of the covenants, to be a citizen with full rights [politeia] in Israel. But, under the New Covenant, this is what the Holy Spirit was doing. This new work was recognized by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
Acts 15 shows that gentile Yeshua-Believers are bound by the Torah. A lot of Christians and Messianics (the bilateralists) miss this because of several exegetical hurdles. They disregard vs 2 which says “this issue” singular and mistranslate vs 5 to make it look like there were suddenly two issues on the table, two things that were plaguing the church at Antioch, (1) the false teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation; and (2) that the law must be followed. This proposed second issue actually wasn’t on the table. In the Greek, the syntax of vs. 5 reads as follows:
Acts 15:5 “But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees having believed, saying, It is right to circumcise them, to command and to keep the law of Moses.” The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, One-Volume Edition, Hendrickson Publishers.
OR
“But some Believers from the sect of the Pharisees rose up, saying that they must circumcise them in order to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). The New Testament, North Point Press.
Thus, no one was arguing about Torah observance (and note that Peter, Paul, and James didn’t argue this) but rather the Pharisees were promoting their false doctrine of salvation via circumcision and claiming that this was the only way to properly teach the law of Moses.
Another of the major exegetical issues is how to interpret “unbearable yoke” in vs 10. Christians and Messianics like to say that this must’ve been Torah. However, Torah specifically says that it is not “unbearable” but rather “not too difficult for you.” The next verse shows the proper context: “No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” This context shows that Peter wasn’t saying that the law was unbearable but rather this false Pharisaic notion that said circumcision was necessary for salvation–that was what was truly unbearable!
Next, the court agreed with Peter’s arguments that G-d was indeed reaching out to the gentiles and that the gentile mission was therefore valid. This was said to agree with the prophets (plural) which talk about how the House of Israel will be restored via Yeshua the Messiah in the midst of an in-gathering of gentiles (Amos; Hosea, etc). This thinking would later be corroborated by Peter and Paul in their epistles. 1 Peter 2:9 and Romans 9:23-26 citing the Hosea prophecy regarding the promised restoration of the House of Israel connect this prophecy to new gentile mission that was occurring under the New Covenant.
Finally, James gives the decision. He says that these gentiles are a “laon” (people) for His Name. Now, we know from the Septuagint that laon is a term that distinguishes Israel from the gentiles:
“You are a people (LXX, laos) holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the people (LXX, ethne) on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be His treasured possession.” Deuteronomy 14:2
James then goes on to say that Peter’s report about Cornelius and the gentile mission actually comports with the prophecies about the House of Israel and how it will return under the Messiah (Amos 9 “the tent of David”). This goes back to the idea that it will be the Davidic Messiah (Yeshua) who will reunite the Two Houses of Israel (Ezekiel 37).
And so James decides that it’s best to not lay the burden of works-based salvation on the gentiles but rather to require them to do what was always required of proselytes to do as they learned Torah each week in synagogue. They were required to abstain from paganism. When the council’s decision is written down (Acts 15:29), it matches the order in which these requirements occur in Leviticus 17 and 18, requirements which were required of natives and proselytes. It was deemed unburdensome given that these gentiles would’ve already learned these requirements as they sat in synagogue each week (Acts 15: 21 “For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath”).
So for all these reasons it appears to me that the gentiles are still free to physically circumcise provided that they’re doing it for the right reasons and not because they think it’ll bring salvation.
Cheers,
Peter
“Under the Old Covenant, it would not have been possible for an uncircumcised gentile to be regarded as though he was circumcised, to undergo tevilah in a mikveh, to be a part of the covenants, to be a citizen with full rights [politeia] in Israel. But, under the New Covenant, this is what the Holy Spirit was doing. This new work was recognized by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.”
Peter, but you believe that Gentiles (at least a good chunk of them) who believe in Messiah are in fact Israel by flesh, that is they are the “lost tribes” returning back to the fold, the tree from whence they came. Since you hold such a view, wouldn’t it make sense that all such “Israelites” be circumcised in the flesh? Why do such “lost Israelites” even need a New Covenant to be considered “citizens with full rights in Israel” – is it not already rightful theirs?
“So for all these reasons it appears to me that the gentiles are still free to physically circumcise provided that they’re doing it for the right reasons and not because they think it’ll bring salvation.”
I agree – they are free to do so…for health reasons.
Gene,
Torah says that G-d chose ONE people for His Name out of all the peoples. The prophets say that G-d will choose a people for His Name from the gentiles (Amos 9 as quoted by James in Acts 15). If this is a contradiction then who is wrong here, Moses or the Prophets?
Sincerely,
Peter
“If this is a contradiction then who is wrong here, Moses or the Prophets?”
Peter, you mean that G-d CAN’T also have nations/Gentiles/Non-Israelites who are called by his name? Does He need someone’s permission for that or something?
Gene,
No, He can’t contradict Himself. I’ve pointed out Deuteronomy 14:2
“You are a people (LXX, laos) holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the people (LXX, ethne) on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be His treasured possession.”
This says that there is an Am or “people” (laos) and that there is all the rest, the “ethne” (gentiles). So you’re either a gentile or you are part of G-d’s people. Those are the only categories, correct? This is what the verse explicitly says, correct?
Sincerely,
Peter
“So you’re either a gentile or you are part of G-d’s people. Those are the only categories, correct? This is what the verse explicitly says, correct?”
No, no, and gehenna no.
“Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.” (Isaiah 19:25)
“In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth.” (Isaiah 19:25)
So, Peter, do you still believe that only Israel can be a people of G-d? Do you still believe that everyone will be an Israelite, and G-d will not have Egyptians, Assyrians, Bulgarians as his people, in ADDITION to Israel?
Gene,
“So, Peter, do you still believe that only Israel can be a people of G-d?”
That’s a question to be put to Moses for writing the following: “You are a people (LXX, laos) holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the people (LXX, ethne) on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be His treasured possession.” Deuteronomy 14:2
Not my words, his.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter, thanks for ignoring my Isaiah 19:25, “Egypt my people” quote. Do you have anything to say to explain this glaring contradiction to what you’re trying to put forth?
“That’s a question to be put to Moses”
Perhaps it is prophet Isaiah who should be asked G-d the question “why did G-d have him write down the words “Egypt my people” and “Israel will be third, along with Egypt in Assyria” and not simply limit Himself to Israel.”
Also, Israel is chosen not just to be G-d’s people (“exclusively”, as you claim) but to be G-d’s “treasured possession” – it doesn’t mean that other nations can’t be “G-d’s people” as well! Instead of a “treasured possession” they can’t be referred to, as in the case of Assyria, “my handiwork” or some other endearing description of G-d’s choosing (like “my people”, in relation to Egypt).
Gene,
You just contradicted yourself. You wrote:
“it doesn’t mean that other nations can’t be “G-d’s people” as well!” [INCLUSION]
and:
“Also, Israel is chosen not just to be G-d’s people (exclusively)…” [EXCLUSION]
It is logically impossible to be simultaneously exclusive and inclusive.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter… I wasn’t contradicting myself, just wasn’t being clear. I have reworded it: “Israel is chosen not just to be G-d’s people (“exclusively”, as you claim) “
Gene,
We’re just going in circles at this point. I’ve shown that the Torah (Septuagint version) says that Israel was chosen out of all the “ethne” (gentiles) in the world to be His exclusive people (laon). See LXX of Deut 7:6 and 14:2. Therefore, instead of saying “as you claim” in your previous comment, you should’ve said “as the Torah claims.” But the readers can decide for themselves.
Shalom,
Peter
Peter… Right now readers are probably just wondering why you have been ignoring the fact that G-d refers to Egypt as “my people” and calls Israel “third” among Egypt and Assyria…
Gene,
Your passages show that there is a people from Egypt, correct? My passages (Amos 9:12 and Acts 15:14) show that there is a people from the gentiles. So I don’t think people will say “Peter is just avoiding Gene’s passages.” Your passages support one of the fundamental premises of my argument: that there is an apparent contradiction between the Deuteronomic passages which say Israel is the ONLY people out of all the peoples and the Prophetic passages which say that, nevertheless, a people come from the gentiles. The conclusion of my argument was that there is a way to resolve this apparent contradiction and that is to assume that the “people from the gentiles” are brought into (or returned into) the people of Israel (Am Yisrael). When viewed this way there is no contradiction because there is one people out of many peoples. Echad.
Sincerely,
Peter
“The conclusion of my argument was that there is a way to resolve this apparent contradiction and that is to assume that the “people from the gentiles” are brought into (or returned into) the people of Israel (Am Yisrael)”
My head is spinning from all the spin, Peter (with all due respect). Why would G-d call Israel “third” along with Egypt and Assyria, if it’s all “Israel” anyway?
In Zechariah 14:18 it says “If the Egyptian people do not go up [to Jerusalem] and take part, they will have no rain.”
So, what you’re claiming or at least assuming is that the “Egyptian people” in the Messianic Kingdom are actually Israelites (yet G-d calls them “Egyptian people”???] whom G-d threatens to punish for not going up with all the other nations who attacked Jerusalem [the attacking nations must be "Israelites", too?] to celebrate the Sukkot?
Gene,
I don’t understand the expression “spin.” If you would like me to address Zechariah 14:18, all I can say is that the idea of those of Egyptian ethnicity being bound by the laws of Sukkot, it makes it sound like they will one day have a covenantal obligation to observe Sukkot. Since there is only one covenant that I know of that requires its people to observe Sukkot (i.e. the Israeli Covenant), I would naturally have to conclude that at some point in the future there will be Egyptians who have joined the Israeli Covenant and have become bound by the provisions of Torah in that covenant that require us to observe Sukkot.
Sincerely,
Peter
“I don’t understand the expression “spin.””
spin – To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.
By that definition, spin would seem then to be a good thing. After all, which writer of the New Testament was NOT trying to interpret things in a way meant to sway public opinion? And yet it’s a very negative-sounding term in that it conjures imagery of a spider spinning its devious web.
I just realized what spin actually meant. It means “ignoring the Truth and twisting evidence in order to persuasively advocate an agenda.” I didn’t realize you were impugning my motives. But that’s to be expected I suppose. The argument of last resort is always to attack the opponent’s credibility.
“I didn’t realize you were impugning my motives.”
Not at all, Peter – your motives may very well be noble to you. However, the end doesn’t justify the means.
“The argument of last resort is always to attack the opponent’s credibility.”
Peter, for your Two-House argument, I have already shown that there is a lot more to counter it than simply attacking your credibility.