The Romans 11 Illustration of Olive Trees

[Morris]

Dec 17, 2010 12:59:23 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

If you choose to reply please start a new thread in the debates section. I would like to debate one on one with you about this.

Good idea. I was thinking about that myself. [ Original thread here ]

From the other thread:

Morris wrote:

Correct, they were not. But we have been made such through belief in Christ. This is exactly the point in Ephesians 2.

Ephesians 2 does not refer to the Gentiles. It refers to the uncircumcised of Israel. The Greek word "ethnos" simply means "nations" without any reference to non-Israelites.

That Greek word has no reference to Israelites either. It means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan)" according to Strong's. Thayers expands on this a bit but gives the general same idea. Nations plural is nations plural, whether that includes the Israelite one or not. If somebody desires to alter the connotation of the word itself, that is their prerogative. I am not comfortable doing this myself, especially when there is no internal reason to do so. The only reasoning for understanding this word in this particular light is for doctrinal purposes, so as I see it, desire is interpreting language here.

Note verse 17 which says that Christ came and preached peace to them. Christ did not go to and preach to the Gentiles.

Actually, that verse is saying that Christ comes (ongoing) bringing the good news of peace (ongoing). This is something that happened and was still happening, not past tense. It is in the same vein as "He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Philippians 1:6), it has started and is continuing. As Christ's ambassadors, we come to people representing Him.

He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

However, Jesus said "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16). Yes it was "for the Jew first and also for the Greek".

Therefore, the "Uncircumcision" in Ephesians 2 is not the Gentiles but the uncircumcised of Israel who had been cast out of the covenant but had been brought in again.

Not if we keep reading. Continuing His thoughts on the Gentiles coming into Israel, Paul makes it clear in the next chapter "which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles [ethne G1484] should be fellow heirs, of the same body and partakers of His promise". (Ephesians 3:5,6).

If "nations" refers to Israelites, how can Paul say that it was not made known to them that they should be heirs with themselves of their same body?

Paul was not speaking about two trees. The "wild" tree was the olive tree before it was cultivated.

Romans 11:24,
"For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"

So you are suggesting that a branch was broken from the tree, the tree was then cultivated, and then the branch re-grafted back on? Paul shows there are two trees by asking how much easier a natural branch can be placed into its own tree. This is in contrast to the other branches being grafted into a tree that was not their own.

I'm sorry Roo, but I just don't find that interpretation within scripture.

[kangaroojack]

Morris wrote:

That Greek word has no reference to Israelites either.

Correct. I did not say it did. The context will determine what "natons" are in view. Ephesians 2 clearly refers to the uncircumcised of Israel because verse 17 explicitly says that Christ "came and preached to you." We know that Christ did not go to the non-Israelite nations. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Therefore, the "nations" in Ephesians 2 are the uncircumcised of Israel. They were Israelites who had been "afar off" from the covenant.

Actually, that verse is saying that Christ comes (ongoing) bringing the good news of peace (ongoing). This is something that happened and was still happening, not past tense.

What! The verb is aorist which indicates punctiliar action is past time. It says that Jesus came (past) and preached to them. He CLEARLY did not go to and preach to non-Israelite nations!

Go to biblegateway and check all the translations for yourself. Not one treats the verb as an "ongoing" action. ALL the translations say "came and preached" (aorist) except for two which render it as a past perfect. Again, not one speaks about Christ continuing to preach peace to people.

www.biblegateway.com/

I am a little disappointed in you on this one bro!

Roo wrote:

He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Morris replied:

However, Jesus said "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16).

The expression "this fold" is demonstrative which indicates that Jesus was referring to those who were with Him, i.e., His disciples. The word "other" in the expression "other sheep" is the Greek word "allos" which means "other of the same." The "other" sheep were still Israelites. Jesus said that these "other" sheep would hear His voice. Jesus did not call Gentiles to salvation. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Yes it was "for the Jew first and also for the Greek".

This means that every Jew had to hear the gospel before it could be preached to the Gentiles. When the captain of a sinking ship orders the women and children to be gathered into the lifeboats first he means that no men may be gathered until ALL of the women and children are gathered first.

The body of Christ, that is, His wife was comprised of Jews alone. Gentiles were not introduced into the covenant until ALL the members of Christ's body had first come into salvation. Then the Gentiles could hear the message. If they believed they were just as saved as the Jews but they were not of Christ's body. They were not His Wife. They were the children of the Wife.

Not if we keep reading. Continuing His thoughts on the Gentiles coming into Israel, Paul makes it clear in the next chapter "which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles [ethne G1484] should be fellow heirs, of the same body and partakers of His promise". (Ephesians 3:5,6).

Circular. The English "Gentiles" is erroneous. See Young's Literal Translation and also Young's Analytical Concordance. The Greek "ethnos" should always be translated simply as "nations" and the context must determine whether it is Israelites or non-Isralite nations that are in view. Ephesians 2 is clearly about the non-Israelite nations.

Go to 3:1 where Paul said, "I am a prisoner for you nations." Paul was referring to his house arrest which was the result of his preaching the hope of Israel to Israelites. See the Acts account.

If "nations" refers to Israelites, how can Paul say that it was not made known to them that they should be heirs with themselves of their same body?

Because it was not made known to uncircumcised Israelites that they should be fellow heirs. According to the terms of the Abrahamic covenant an uncircumcised man was to be "cut off from the people" because he has "nullified My covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Until the preaching of Jesus and the apostles the uncircumcised of Israel knew themselves to be outside the covenant because they had nullified the covenant. So it makes perfect sense that Paul could say to them that it had not been made known to them that they should be fellow heirs.

Roo said:

Paul was not speaking about two trees. The "wild" tree was the olive tree before it was cultivated.

Morris replied:

So you are suggesting that a branch was broken from the tree, the tree was then cultivated, and then the branch re-grafted back on?

You got it bro! That's exactly what I am saying. The uncircumcised Israelite was to be "CUT OFF" from the people (Genesis 17:14). They were brought near again through the death of Christ.

Your "two trees" view cannot be sustained. The "wild" tree was the olive tree before it was cultivated.


Roo

[Morris]

Dec 27, 2010 11:06:26 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Morris wrote:

That Greek word has no reference to Israelites either.

Correct. I did not say it did. The context will determine what "natons" are in view. Ephesians 2 clearly refers to the uncircumcised of Israel because verse 17 explicitly says that Christ "came and preached to you." We know that Christ did not go to the non-Israelite nations. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Therefore, the "nations" in Ephesians 2 are the uncircumcised of Israel. They were Israelites who had been "afar off" from the covenant.

I tend to believe that the definition of the word "nations" (the Greek, not the English translation of course) determines what's in view. Christ had never gone to Ephesus and preached to these "lost sheep" either. In fact, Jesus told His disciples NOT to go into the "nations" saying "These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles ["nations"], and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5,6).

If these "nations" in Ephesians are the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", then in Matthew, Jesus told His disciples "do not go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". If we have the freedom to determine "nations" as we see fit then we have the freedom to make it say whatever we see fit.

[Note that "nations" in Matthew 10 is a plural neuter noun in the genitive whereas in Ephesians 2 it is a plural neuter noun in the nominative. I bring this to light in case anyone desired to object on this basis. However, also note that Ephesians 3:1 uses the exact same form of the word as in Matthew (plural neuter noun in the genitive) in reference to his addressees, showing that these "nations" should be understood as the same.]

So, as for as I can tell, these "nations" are not foreign Israelites in particular (although there may be some within the group addressed).

What! The verb is aorist which indicates punctiliar action is past time. It says that Jesus came (past) and preached to them. He CLEARLY did not go to and preach to non-Israelite nations!...
Again, not one speaks about Christ continuing to preach peace to people.

Aorist is more than simply past tense. It is the past spoken of in the present sense. I had at one time written a much fuller examining of aorist for this discussion but lost it due to idiocy on my part. I'm not up to recreating it at the moment. My only clarification is in regard to my statement that it was "ongoing". By that I meant at the time Paul wrote His letter, not in a perpetual sense.

But again, not only did Christ not go "and preach to non-Israelite nations", He did not go and preach to Jews of the diaspora either.

The expression "this fold" is demonstrative which indicates that Jesus was referring to those who were with Him, i.e., His disciples. The word "other" in the expression "other sheep" is the Greek word "allos" which means "other of the same." The "other" sheep were still Israelites. Jesus said that these "other" sheep would hear His voice. Jesus did not call Gentiles to salvation. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

"allos" means, and I quote Strong's here, " 'else,' i.e. different (in many applications)". Jesus did not come on earth to go out into the nations, but His message would.

This means that every Jew had to hear the gospel before it could be preached to the Gentiles. When the captain of a sinking ship orders the women and children to be gathered into the lifeboats first he means that no men may be gathered until ALL of the women and children are gathered first.

To me, this sounds like a wooden literalism based on a conclusion and not specifically on words in scripture. For example, how do come to the conclusion that the gospel could even be preached to the gentiles once all the Jews heard the message?

The body of Christ, that is, His wife was comprised of Jews alone. Gentiles were not introduced into the covenant until ALL the members of Christ's body had first come into salvation. Then the Gentiles could hear the message. If they believed they were just as saved as the Jews but they were not of Christ's body. They were not His Wife. They were the children of the Wife.

Interesting conclusions. However, history shows (as does the OT) that gentiles could, and did, come into the covenant.

Circular. The English "Gentiles" is erroneous. See Young's Literal Translation and also Young's Analytical Concordance. The Greek "ethnos" should always be translated simply as "nations" and the context must determine whether it is Israelites or non-Isralite nations that are in view. Ephesians 2 is clearly about the non-Israelite nations.

Go to 3:1 where Paul said, "I am a prisoner for you nations." Paul was referring to his house arrest which was the result of his preaching the hope of Israel to Israelites. See the Acts account.

As I've shown above, if the "nations" here in Ephesians 3:1 refers to Israelites, Jesus told His disciples not to go to them.

Because it was not made known to uncircumcised Israelites that they should be fellow heirs. According to the terms of the Abrahamic covenant an uncircumcised man was to be "cut off from the people" because he has "nullified My covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Until the preaching of Jesus and the apostles the uncircumcised of Israel knew themselves to be outside the covenant because they had nullified the covenant. So it makes perfect sense that Paul could say to them that it had not been made known to them that they should be fellow heirs.

I wouldn't disagree with these comments in general. In fact I would say this is a good rebuttal of my point.

I will respond more later.

[mellontes]

While I agree that there is much dispute about which ethnos is which (and especially of late), one thing which Morris said above strikes a different chord:

"As I've shown above, if the "nations" here in Ephesians 3:1 refers to Israelites, Jesus told His disciples not to go to them."

I agree. However, Paul was not one of Jesus' disciples...

It also contrasts with Paul's own words on the subject:

Romans 16:25-26 - Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Which to my way of understanding is exactly what he was trying to demonstrate to the Jewish believers of that church of Rome in Romans 15, just prior:

Romans 15:8-128 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

I especially like Paul's quote of Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12. To me it is absolute proof that Paul was speaking of Gentiles and that both Jew and Gentile were originally supposed join together as one body in Christ (as they had been) - the clean versus the unclean animals, like in Acts 10.

And then again, it could be that I don't understand what the original argument was all about in the first place. I'm sure I will be corrected by some one...

[Morris]

Jan 14, 2011 14:19:52 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

I'm sure I will be corrected by some one...

Not by me. Thanks for the contribution.