Is the olive tree in Romans 11 a covenantal tree?

[biblelighthouse]

In a previous thread, a disagreement arose concerning the nature of the olive tree in Romans 11.

I would like to focus on this particular point: Is the olive tree in Romans 11 a covenantal tree, or not? Is it a symbol of the Covenant of Grace?

I would argue that the olive tree in Romans 11 is a covenant tree, which contains both believers and unbelievers, both in the OT and in the NT. The visible church was mixed in the OT, and the visible church is still mixed today. We assume all members of the visible church are members of the invisible church, until a goat takes off his sheep's clothing, apostatizes, and is cut off from the tree.

To start of this spin-off discussion, I will paste my thoughts on Romans 11 here, which I had put in the other thread:



. . . And how about Romans 11? Some people get broken off the covenant tree, because of unbelief.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Well, it is you who have decided that the tree is a covenant tree. Paul never says it is.

Paul didn't just pull the olive tree out of thin air. There was already a rich OT background for the olive tree motif. Paul was an expert in the OT Scriptures, and simply used a covenantal analogy that was already well-known by Israelites of his time.

Read Jeremiah 11, and consider how closely it is paralleled by Romans 11:

" The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, "œHear the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and say to them, "˜Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "œCursed is the man who does not obey the words of this covenant which I commanded your fathers in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, "˜Obey My voice, and do according to all that I command you; so shall you be My people, and I will be your God,´ that I may establish the oath which I have sworn to your fathers, to give them "˜a land flowing with milk and honey,´ as it is this day."´" And I answered and said, "œSo be it, LORD." Then the LORD said to me, "œProclaim all these words in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying: "˜Hear the words of this covenant and do them. For I earnestly exhorted your fathers in the day I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, until this day, rising early and exhorting, saying, "œObey My voice." Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but everyone followed the dictates of his evil heart; therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do, but which they have not done.´" And the LORD said to me, "œA conspiracy has been found among the men of Judah and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers who refused to hear My words, and they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken My covenant which I made with their fathers." . . . "œ What has My beloved to do in My house, Having done lewd deeds with many? And the holy flesh has passed from you. When you do evil, then you rejoice. The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit. With the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, And its branches are broken. "œFor the LORD of hosts, who planted you, has pronounced doom against you for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke Me to anger in offering incense to Baal." "

God's people (Israel) is the olive tree, and the branches are broken off because of covenant disobedience. The branches are broken off because of unbelief (Rom. 11:20). But not all of the branches were broken off; only some of them were (Rom. 11:17). And Gentiles like you and me are grafted into the same olive tree. Nevertheless, even today, people can be "cut off" the olive tree if they show themselves faithless (Rom. 11:22).


Isaiah 17:4,6 also parallels Romans 11:

" "œ In that day it shall come to pass That the glory of Jacob will wane, And the fatness of his flesh grow lean. . . . Yet gleaning grapes will be left in it, Like the shaking of an olive tree, Two or three olives at the top of the uppermost bough, Four or five in its most fruitful branches," Says the LORD God of Israel. "

The olive tree is the people of God. And in this case, the people are called "olives" rather than "branches". But the analogy is otherwise identical. The apostate olives are shaken off the tree, leaving behind the faithful olives.


Isaiah 24:13 speaks likewise:
"When it shall be thus in the midst of the land among the people, It shall be like the shaking of an olive tree"


Israel, the covenant people of God, is also called an "olive tree" in Hosea 14:6.


David, a covenant member of God's people, calls himself an "olive tree" in Psalm 52:8.


And regarding the olive tree motif, we see direct relevance to the covenantal inclusion of children in Psalm 128:

"Blessed is every one who fears the LORD, Who walks in His ways. When you eat the labor of your hands, You shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine In the very heart of your house, Your children like olive plants All around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed Who fears the LORD. The LORD bless you out of Zion, And may you see the good of Jerusalem All the days of your life. Yes, may you see your children´s children. Peace be upon Israel!"

Notice how this Psalm interlinks the blessings of Israel together with the blessings of an individual faithful Israelite. Israel as a whole is an "olive tree", as we already know. And an individual faithful Israelite is therefore considered an "olive tree", as we already know. And here in Psalm 128, we find that the children of believers are also considered to be little olive plants.


The children of a believer are considered to be olive plants, not brambles!!!

 

[turmeric]

In my humble opinion, the olive tree will not always be a "mixed thing", all the unbelieving branches will be gone one day, and only the true Israel will remain.

Also, I'm convinced, the way that we show faithfulness to the covenant (of grace) today is by believing the Gospel - that Jesus is both God and man, that He lived a sinless life and died to pay for the sins of the elect, and that this is the only hope we have of being right with God. I do not believe that "covenant faithfulness" consists of particular acts that we do to "remain". I just want to make that clear in case misunderstandings of covenant language arise, not trying to start something.


[Edited on 1-21-2006 by turmeric]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by turmeric
In my humble opinion, the olive tree will not always be a "mixed thing", all the unbelieving branches will be gone one day, and only the true Israel will remain.

I agree. But of course we both agree that "we're not there yet". The tree still consists of a mixed crowd.

 

[turmeric]

Yep!

 

[non dignus]

Joseph,

Your work on the background of Paul's olive tree is very good. (You and I as ex-Arminians used to nurture that tree to make firewood out of eternal security.) Is it mere coincidence that Arminians and Baptists don't enjoy the shade of that tree?

And the analogy of root support gives good fruit that circumcision is contiguous with baptism. He who chops off infant baptism withers infant circumcison.

Thanks again, for my continuing education.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Of course it is covenantal, the olive tree is Israel. Israel has always been God's covenant people.

 

[RamistThomist]

Joseph,
That's good stuff. I am printing it out and putting it in a folder.

 

[Tom77]

I think it's just the "visible" people of God, and see no reason to think that it *must* be conceived as limited strictly to the members of the covenant of circumcision. Those who are visibly and objectively connected to the people of God are part of the tree because they are part of the physical/visible body.

Not only those who were actually in the Israelite covenant, but also the strangers who were in her midst, suffered when God brought judgment upon the visible, physical household of God in the OT. When God cut off the unbelieving branches, both unbelieving Israelites and unbelieving non Israelites (and there were often PLENTY of them during times of judgment) were severed from the collective group.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Tom77]

 

[VanVos]

Fred Marlone said in his book Baptism of Disciples Alone

Romans 1:11-24 specifically deals with the issue of the unbelieving Jews being broken off from the root because of their unbelief about Christ and Gentiles being grafted in because of their faith (Acts 13:47-48). The warning to Gentiles is that if they do not continue in faith, and have a better [sic? bitter] attitude toward Jews, then God may once again turn generally from them and engraft Jews into the root by their faith.
The issue in Romans 11 is not that of an individual being a New Covenant member who has been broken off as a covenant breaker. Rather, Paul speaks of faith, not ethnic origin, as the prerequisite of being engrafted into the root of the New Covenant era, whether Jew or Gentile. According to Robertson's [O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, 2000] discussion of Romans 11:26:

"All Israel," then, consists of the entire body of God's elect from among both Jews and Gentiles. This is the group whom Paul calls "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16, where he insists that Christians must walk according to the rule that no distinction is to be made between circumcised and uncircumcised people (v. 15). Here Paul clearly uses the term Israel to refer to the elect Jews and elect Gentiles as constituting the true Israel of God.
This text, therefore, does not deal at all with whether an individual can be placed in the New Covenant and then removed as a covenant breaker. Rather, it is a promise that God's election of grace does not fail and includes both Jew and Gentile according to His sovereign choice. No group should be haughty toward another, simply because God is the One who sovereignly chooses whom He will save in the flow of redemptive history. (Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 104-105)
Later, Malone rightly notes,

Using the metaphors of John 15 and Romans 11 to redefine clearer New Covenant prophecies and definitions and thereby to create a New Covenant that has curses and real members who do not possess all the realized blessings of the New Covenant is erroneous hermeneutics and poor exegesis. As Dan McCartney has said, "Literal passages are more determinative than symbolic ones." It is this overlooking of clearer didactic passages, which clearly define the New Covenant, by giving preference to symbolic ones or passages dealing with false profession and haughty spirits that is the hermeneutical error of some paedobaptists. (106)

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by VanVos]

 

[biblelighthouse]

In light of the two posts above,
here are three questions for Tom Hicks and Pastor Goundry:


Question #1:
Why were many Israelites broken off of the covenant tree?

Question #2:
Why can Gentiles be broken off of the covenant tree today?

Question #3:
Do you agree that questions #1 & #2 are parallel, with parallel answers? If not, why not, exegetically?

 

[Steve Owen]

Another quote from Bishop Ryle who, be it remembered, was a paedo-baptist:-

We must always remember that the passage before us is a parable, and as a parable it must be interpreted. We must be careful not to press each word and sentence in it too far; and as in all parables, we must look at the main scope and the great lesson it contains, rather than each clause- The old saying is most true, that "no parable stands on four legs;" and in all parables there are parts which are only the drapery of the figure, and not the figure itself. Neglect of this caution does much harm to the souls of Christians, and is the cause of much crude and unsound doctrine...........We are dealing with figures and pictures, mercifully used in order to meet our weak capacities; and we must take care we do not draw from them doctrinal conclusions which contradict other plain passages of Scripture.

Ryle's younger contemporary, W.H. Griffith Thomas wrote:-

As we have seen, we must be careful in our interpretation of this figure of the olive tree and its branches. The figure is not to be pressed.

Martin

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I can also see this as being just what it is.... a warning passage. Sin and love of the world ruins future generations and a prideful spirit will cause our fruit to be cut off and pruned. It is basically the same kind of warning as in Revelation 2. Can a regenerate believer be cut out of the tree? I don't think that is the right conclusion.

(Rom 11:20-22) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.



(Rev 2:4-5) Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Evidently they didn't repent or remain. Ephesus is gone from what I understand.

It is a warning passage.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
In light of the two posts above,
here are three questions for Tom Hicks and Pastor Goundry:


Question #1:
Why were many Israelites broken off of the covenant tree?

Question #2:
Why can Gentiles be broken off of the covenant tree today?

Question #3:
Do you agree that questions #1 & #2 are parallel, with parallel answers? If not, why not, exegetically?

#1 What kind of Covenant Tree is it. Covenant of Circumcision?

#2 See above post...

#3 Not necessarily. I see two different promises to Abraham. One is general in application to all of his physical seed. The other is specific in what the book of Galatians specifically says. The true children of Abraham are children of faith. We are counted in His Righteous Seed, not seeds. Two different promises or Covenants.

 

[Scott Bushey]

#1 What kind of Covenant Tree is it. Covenant of Circumcision?

Randy, Paul is speaking of past and in the present tense. As Joseph stated in the initial post:

Paul didn't just pull the olive tree out of thin air. There was already a rich OT background for the olive tree motif. Paul was an expert in the OT Scriptures, and simply used a covenantal analogy that was already well-known by Israelites of his time.

The olive tree is the kingdom of God, His bride, the church.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

What kind of Covenant Tree is it? Covenant of Circumcision?

Randy, please read Jeremiah 11, as I posted above. The "covenant" is explicitly mentioned 5 times, and the branches broken off the olive tree are done so because of their covenant unfaithfulness . . . the broken branches are covenant breakers.

So you please tell me what "covenant" is discussed in Jeremiah 11.

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

I see two different promises to Abraham. One is general in application to all of his physical seed. The other is specific in what the book of Galatians specifically says. The true children of Abraham are children of faith. We are counted in His Righteous Seed, not seeds. Two different promises or Covenants.

The covenant mentioned in Romans 11 cannot be different from the covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 11. The two chapters are tied directly together. Each chapter speaks of the same olive tree, and each chapter mentions the same breaking off of branches. And when people get grafted into the tree in Romans 11, it is explicitly the same tree, not a different one (Rom. 11:17, 24).




[Edited on 1-22-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sounds like a covenant of works or Mosaic covenant to me. Not like the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

(Jer 31:33-34) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Sounds like everyone is regenerate in this New covenant. Sounds like the old one is done away with. No stipulations in the New Covenant but the surety of the Lord's forgiveness of sin. It also sounds like everyone in this covenant knows God when they are in it. I think I will agree with John Owen and the scriptures on this one. We are in a New and Better Covenant. The Old is done away with. Sounds like he has cut out the old and is grafting in the New.

(Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

(Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

As I stated before. Which Covenant? The Root is always to be considered God.... It will not change. But He has chosen to change the branches evidently.

Can you be cut out of the covenant if you are regenerate?

As I stated before... I believe it is a warning passage just as Revelation 2 is.


[Edited on 1-22-2006 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Sounds like a covenant of works or Mosaic covenant to me. Not like the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

(Jer 31:33-34) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Sounds like everyone is regenerate in this New covenant. Sounds like the old one is done away with. No stipulations in the New Covenant but the surety of the Lord's forgiveness of sin. It also sounds like everyone in this covenant knows God when they are in it. I think I will agree with John Owen and the scriptures on this one. We are in a New and Better Covenant. The Old is done away with. Sounds like he has cut out the old and is grafting in the New.

(Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

(Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

As I stated before. Which Covenant? The Root is always to be considered God.... It will not change. But He has chosen to change the branches evidently.

Can you be cut out of the covenant if you are regenerate?

As I stated before... I believe it is a warning passage just as Revelation 2 is.


[Edited on 1-22-2006 by puritancovenanter]

Why warning passages in the NT if one cannot be cut off?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Sounds like a covenant of works or Mosaic covenant to me.

Randy,

Please focus specifically on Jeremiah 11, and the direct parallel in Romans 11, and tell me how it is even possible that they are talking about two different covenants, two different olive trees, etc.

I don't see how you can draw a dichotomy between Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11. Whatever one is referring to, the other has to be referring to the same thing.

What exactly IS the "olive tree", in your opinion? Whatever it is in Romans 11 has to be identical to whatever it is in Jeremiah 11.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think this article by Richard Pratt effectively answers Baptist objections to infant baptism based on Jer 31 and Hebrews 8:

http://tinyurl.com/8yguk

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
I think this article by Richard Pratt effectively answers Baptist objections to infant baptism based on Jer 31 and Hebrews 8:

http://tinyurl.com/8yguk

This old chestnut has been covered before. Pratt's argument is that the New Covenant is indeed one in which everyone will know the Lord- only not until Christ comes again.

But this horse won't run. The writer to the Hebrews does not quote Jer 31 only in Heb 8; he does it again in Heb 10:15ff, and here it is firmly fixed in the present time:-

'But the Holy Spirit also witnesses [present tense] to us; for after He had said before, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their hearts and in their minds will I write them." Then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Now where there is [present tense] remission of these, there is [present tense] no longer an offering for sin. Therefore.......let us draw near.....'

The New Covenant was a present reality for those to whom Hebrews was written, and so it is for us. Praise the Lord!

Martin

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Yes, Martin, the New Covenant is a present reality for us.

Nobody argues otherwise. The Pratt article is in agreement. All paedobaptists on here are in agreement.

The issue is not whether the NC is itself a present reality.

Rather, the issue is whether all aspects of the NC have reached their fruition yet.

The NC has certainly been inaugurated, and we are certainly in it. But the flower hasn't finished blossoming yet. There are still more of the elect to be grafted into the NC, and there are still some non-elect that need to be cut out of the NC. And all of this won't be complete until the 2nd coming of Christ. THEN all aspects of the NC will finally reach their fruition, and THEN 100% of remaining NC members will be regenerate.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

A "Don't Fall Off the Cliff" sign in the middle of Kansas isn't much of a warning.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I wish I had a covenant tree in my back yard. That would be cool.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
I wish I had a covenant tree in my back yard. That would be cool.

 

[turmeric]

The problem with a covenant tree is the fruit is already & not yet.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
[What exactly IS the "olive tree", in your opinion? Whatever it is in Romans 11 has to be identical to whatever it is in Jeremiah 11.

That's what I'd like to know from the credo-Baptist perspective. It doesn't have to be Randy.

None of my Baptist brethren have interacted with the parellel between Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11 yet.

Please do not quote Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 with your interpretation of what they mean. This is not to be rude but I think that position is well established by now.

I'm interested in how you harmonize the established Covenant Tree analogy and its re-use in Romans 11.

If, as you say, the tree is not Covenantal then explain why Paul, a masterful theologian, with a Pastor's touch, under inspiration, would provide such a confusing analogy. So much content would already be assumed into the mind by his use of the word picture.

If you assume a re-use of well-worn analogy here without any connection to previous use, do you apply that standard to all images that are re-tread in the New Covenant? For instance, when Pliate declares: "Behold the Man!" is that an isolated verse?

It's not that I disagree that symbols ought not to be pushed too far. Nevertheless, I'm an experienced teacher and I would not begin a powerpoint presentation on the history of France by placing a picture of the Union Jack on the first slide with "God Save the Queen" playing in the background.

 

[VanVos]

Jeremiah and Romans are parallel passages. They both give us a picture of redemptive history. The branches in Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11 are those that God turns his favor away from. I don't think we necessarily have to have some Old testament covenant breaking in Rom 11. It's true that Jeremiah 11 speaks of Israel breaking the Covenant, but that was as a Nation under the typological Covenant of works that was abrogated with Christ's 1st advent. Gal 3:23-27. The Olive tree is more a picture of redemptive history than it is an individual standing before God.


[Edited on 1-23-2006 by VanVos]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nobody is claiming that the tree is a picture of an individual. Nobody is claiming a static redemptive historical picture either. The issue is whether the tree is Covenantal. You seem to indicate that it is.

Is the Olive Tree the Israel of God and, if so, is it a Covenantal Tree?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by SemperFideles


It's not that I disagree that symbols ought not to be pushed too far. Nevertheless, I'm an experienced teacher and I would not begin a powerpoint presentation on the history of France by placing a picture of the Union Jack on the first slide with "God Save the Queen" playing in the background.

Yuk yuk yuk

 

[VanVos]

In short I believe the olive tree, as a picture of redemptive history, was used in conjunction with (or in reference to) the Israel's reality under the Covenant of works in the Old testament. In the New Testament the picture remains but the Covenant is abrogated because Christ's came to fulfill the Law. So we do have the Israel of God in Romans 11 but as it is seen through the lense of redemptive history. In my understanding there is no violable covenant in this passage.



[Edited on 1-23-2006 by VanVos]