August 24, 2009
-
Question 171 - What does "the well cultivated olive tree" refer to? Part 2
Question 171 - What does "the well cultivated olive tree" refer to? Part 2
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your reply to my question. It had not occurred to me in the slightest to interpret "concluded" in the sense you explained.
In your explanation that the sustenance refers to the Old Testament, you alerted your readers that the word "sustenance" was referring back to the previous sentence where the words "Old Testament" were to be found. I think that is the reason why I was interpreting the word "nor" as indicating that the second sentence was explicating the first.
I am still a little confused about the "well cultivated olive tree." If the root is God or Abraham, I find it hard to believe that we are to take the well cultivated olive tree as God or Abraham also. That would be like saying that we draw sustenance from the root (which is God) of the tree (which is God also). It just doesn't flow. It is like saying I draw sustenance from the root of that well cultivated carrot, if you know what I mean.
So, in your view, what precisely does the well cultivated olive tree refer to?
Thank you,
Damien
ps. sorry if I'm not "getting what you're saying"
R. Sungenis: Damien, actually, there is no reference to a “trunk” in the analogy Paul is using. I only added that to make the picture easier to visualize. Note verse 16 that says “If the root is holy, so also are the branches.” The trunk is skipped because it is superfluous to the analogy; and we also need to remember that Paul does not follow nature precisely. After all, how does one graft a branch onto a tree trunk? Only the tip of a leaf bud had that capability. Similarly, Paul says: “If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also.” The purpose is to show a cause-and-effect relationship between two entities. In essence, Abraham, and by extension Isaac and Jacob, were the “well cultivated olive tree.” This is why Abraham is featured in Romans 4 as both the father of the Gentiles and Jews. The other important thing to notice, however, is that Paul does not say “so also are all the branches” or “the whole lump is also,” since not all the Jews followed Abraham (Rom 9:6-7). It is only the remnant that followed Abraham, and only the remnant that will be saved.
Comments (7)
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI
),
Many Religions- One Covenant
, page 32:
“we must first ask what this view of the historical figure of Jesus means for the existence of those who know themselves to be grafted through him onto the 'olive tree Israel', the children of Abraham.”
St. Augustine:
"the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, were grafted into the good olive, that is,
the holy stock of the Hebrews
, that they might partake of the fatness of the olive." Augustine to Faustus the Manichean, Bk 9 2
St. Chrysostom
: So calling in this passage by the names of the first-fruit and root Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament;and the branches, those from them who believed. (Homilies on Romans, Homily XIX)
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture
1951, Dom Bernard
Orchard, page 1072 and 558:
“(St. Paul) is no renegade, and Israel…has not lost the holiness which
she inherited from the Patriarchs, who are…her roots.”
“’In the days to come, Israel shall take root…’ The world’s salvation is from Israel.”
Mr. Sungenis wrote ""we also need to remember that Paul does not follow nature precisely. After all, how does one graft a branch onto a tree trunk? Only the tip of a leaf bud had that capability."That's wrong. I've seen it done: "Suppose we have a wild apple tree, a few years old, with a healthy root system and a firm straight trunk, perhaps an inch in diameter. Call this the rootstock. Suppose we also have another apple tree which can bear luscious fruit. Call that the scion. Here's how we combine the two. We cut a branch or twig from the scion and make the cut diagonally. Then in the rootstock we make a shallow cut in the trunk, not all the way through. This makes a flap. We put the diagonally cut branch of the scion against the rootstock's trunk, under the flap, and we use tape or string to bind the two together. Then we wait." http://members.tripod.com/c_rader0/grafting.htmSt. Paul says the Gentiles are BY NATURE from the WILD olive tree. The Jews are the "natural branches" (Rom 11:21) and St. Paul says Jews "belong to [the cultivated olive tree] BY NATURE." Then he says they can easily be "grafted back into THEIR OWN OLIVE TREE." (Rom 11:24). Why is Mr. Sungenis straining so hard, even to the point of making St. Paul appear ignorant of something like grafting? I thought he supported the highest interpretation of Biblical Inerrancy?
There's another quote from Augustine where Israel is obviously the olive tree with the Patriarchs as the founders or roots.
"So then for this reason that people did not come to Him, that is by reason of pride; and the natural branches are said to be broken off from the olive tree, that is from that people founded by the Patriarchs."
Sermons, XXVII, 12
@JimGalen -
"Question 171 - What does "the well cultivated olive tree" refer to? Part 2"
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI),
Many Religions- One Covenant, page 32:“we must first ask what this view of the historical figure of Jesus means for the existence of those who know themselves to be grafted through him onto the 'olive tree Israel', the children of Abraham.”
R. Sungenis: Notice the grammar. Ratzinger is saying that the “children of Abraham” are those who “know themselves to be grafted…onto the olive tree,” not that they ARE the olive tree. How can one be “grafted” into a tree and yet be the tree at the same time? Hence, the “olive tree Israel,” can only mean Abraham and those who had his faith, not the Jews at large who rejected both God and Abraham. If, rather, one insists that “olive tree Israel” means that the olive tree refers to all of Israel, St. Paul says no. He, inspired by the Holy Spirit who cannot lie, said that the Jews in his day, and ours, are the “BRANCHES” that were broken off, not the TREE.
St. Augustine: "the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, were grafted into the good olive, that is, the holy stock of the Hebrews, that they might partake of the fatness of the olive." Augustine to Faustus the Manichean, Bk 9 2
R. Sungenis: Notice that Augustine says “the HOLY STOCK of the Hebrews,” not the Hebrews in general. The “holy stock” of the Hebrews are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and those who followed in the faith of Abraham, not the Jews at large. Most of the Jews were not holy. They were sinners and apostates who rejected the God of Abraham and the God whom he looked forward to, Jesus Christ (John 8:56).
St. Chrysostom: So calling in this passage by the names of the first-fruit and root Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament;and the branches, those from them who believed. (Homilies on Romans, Homily XIX)
R. Sungenis: Chrysostom got it right, as he usually did when dealing with the Jews. He says that the root is Abraham and the Jews at large are the branches. They can be grafted back into the tree if they believe in the God of Abraham, Jesus Christ.
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture 1951, Dom Bernard Orchard, page 1072 and 558: “(St. Paul) is no renegade, and Israel…has not lost the holiness which she inherited from the Patriarchs, who are…her roots.” “’In the days to come, Israel shall take root…’ The world’s salvation is from Israel.”
R. Sungenis: Here’s a clearer quote from Orchard on Romans 11:16:
“In this metaphor the cake stands for the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve sons of Jacob: these are the ‘firstfruit’ which was consecrated to God, and their dedication has the effect of making the whole ‘lump,’ that is, the whole nation to which they belong, ‘holy,’ in the sense indicated above….The following scheme will give the key to the interpretation of the passage:
*The ‘good,’ that is cultivated, olive tree = the One Church of God, continuously existing through the centuries.
The root = the Jewish Patriarchs….
The branches broken off = those Jews who have apostasized from the Ecclesia.”
(Commentary on Holy Scripture, p. 470, The Epistle to the Romans, 1928 edition).
As such, Orchard maintains with the others that Abraham is the root and that the Jews following were branches. That means that Israel, at large, is not the root. Only the faithful Jews, such as Abraham, were the root, for they accepted Christ as God. The Jews at large today are still broken off branches, and not part of the tree.
As for Orchard’s comment that “In the days to come, Israel shall take root…’ The world’s salvation is from Israel,” that occurred at Pentecost when 3000 Jews were saved and began the New Covenant, and those same Jews went out and preached Christ to the world, thereby bringing salvation from Israel (cf. Acts 1:8; 15:16-18). However, salvation does not come from today’s Jews. It comes from the Church which the Jews established in the New Covenant.
Cardinal Ratzinger said
it’s the Olive tree, Israel. Right there, he’s says plainly that the
Olive Tree is Israel. Back a while ago and in
your second apologetics Bible on page 149, you said absolutely that the Olive Tree was
Christ, not Israel and that it was the constant teaching of the Fathers of the
Church. Not Abraham. Not the Fathers, prophets and all. Not Israel. Just Christ. “Another aspect of this
matter concerns the identity of the Olive Tree in Romans 11:17-24.
Dispensationalism mistakenly believes that Israel is the Olive Tree. . . . But
the context of Romans 11 indicates that Christ is the Olive Tree and Israel is
but a mere branch that was broken off for its unbelief but can be grafted back
into the Tree…this was also the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church,
a representative sample noted below.” You’ve accused people
who said differently of being Zionists. So you accused the Pope of being
a Zionist and St. Augustine and the others because that’s what they taught,
too. Now you’re saying something totally different about the olive tree. You wrote : “This
is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally
distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans
11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are
grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.….It is as
if Moss is saying, “You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jews, and in
order to appreciate that fact, you should practice these Jewish rituals.”http://web.archive.org/web/20060527202501/www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/judaizers.htm But you’re still willing
to throw St. Paul and maybe even Biblical inerrancy under the bus and make him
look ignorant about something as simple as grafting? And what you said
was wrong. I already gave the proof about grafting and how branches can
be grafted into the trunk of a tree. What’s wrong with you on this subject? I just
googled it an found where you’re turning the Fathers on their heads by cropping
quotes. : http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/theology-of-prejudice.html
(Sorry, that formatting came out horridly. Trying again.) Cardinal Ratzinger said it’s the Olive
tree, Israel. Right there, he’s
says plainly that the Olive Tree is Israel. Back a while ago and in your second
apologetics Bible on page 149, you said absolutely that the Olive Tree was
Christ, not Israel and that it was the constant teaching of the Fathers of the
Church. Not Abraham. Not the Fathers,prophets and all. Not Israel. Just Christ. “Another aspect of this matter concerns
the identity of the Olive Tree in Romans 11:17-24. Dispensationalism mistakenly
believes that Israel is the Olive Tree. . . . But the context of Romans 11
indicates that Christ is the Olive Tree and Israel is but a mere branch that
was broken off for its unbelief but can be grafted back into the Tree…this was
also the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church, a representative sample noted
below.” You’ve accused people who said
differently of being Zionists. So you accused the Pope of being a Zionist and
St. Augustine and the others because that’s what they taught, too. Now you’re saying something totally
different about the olive tree. You wrote : “This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for
Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the
“root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved
as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not
Israel.….It is as if Moss is saying, “You Gentiles are only saved because of us
Jews, and in order to appreciate that fact, you should practice these Jewish
rituals.” http://web.archive.org/web/20060527202501/www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/judaizers.htm But you’re still willing to throw St.
Paul and maybe even Biblical inerrancy under the bus and make him look ignorant
about something as simple as grafting?
And what you said was wrong.
I already gave the proof about grafting and how branches can be grafted into the trunk of
a tree. What’s wrong with you on this
subject? I just googled it
an found where you’re turning the Fathers on their heads by cropping
quotes. : http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/theology-of-prejudice.html
**Cardinal Ratzinger said it’s the Olive tree, Israel. Right there, he’s says plainly that the Olive Tree is Israel.
R. Sungenis: Read Romans 9:6; “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” If it is Israel, it is the faithful of Israel, not the people or nation of Israel at large. As for faithful Israel, Abraham is always the best candidate. END
**Back a while ago and in your second apologetics Bible on page 149, you said absolutely that the Olive Tree was Christ, not Israel and that it was the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church. Not Abraham. Not the Fathers, prophets and all. Not Israel. Just Christ.
“Another aspect of this matter concerns the identity of the Olive Tree in Romans 11:17-24. Dispensationalism mistakenly believes that Israel is the Olive Tree. . . . But the context of Romans 11 indicates that Christ is the Olive Tree and Israel is but a mere branch that was broken off for its unbelief but can be grafted back into the Tree…this was also the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church, a representative sample noted below.”
R. Sungenis: That’s right. It is a major view of the Fathers of the Church. Some of them also say that Abraham is the root. Romans 11:17 is a metaphor, so there can be a number applications before we settle on the best one. That’s why I said the root can be God or Abraham. I have since added Abraham as a good possibility for the root, something I didn’t consider in my commentary, which was written a few years ago. END
**You’ve accused people who said differently of being Zionists. So you accused the Pope of being a Zionist and St. Augustine and the others because that’s what they taught, too. Now you’re saying something totally different about the olive tree.
R. Sungenis: No, I accuse people who think that the Jews deserve the land of Palestine by divine right as being Zionists. I accuse people of being Zionist who think the Jews are special people above the rest of the human race. I can’t help it if there are some Christian Zionists who also believe that the root/tree is the nation of Israel. Unfortunately, most of them are Zionists. END
**You wrote : “This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.….It is as
if Moss is saying, “You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jews, and in order to appreciate that fact, you should practice these Jewish rituals.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20060527202501/www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/judaizers.htm
But you’re still willing to throw St. Paul and maybe even Biblical inerrancy under the bus and make him look ignorant about something as simple as grafting? And what you said was wrong. I already gave the proof about grafting and how branches can be grafted into the trunk of a tree.
R. Sungenis: I’m not throwing St. Paul and biblical inerrancy under the bus, I can assure you. Israel, at least the nation of Israel, cannot be the root since Paul says that the majority of Israel is in disbelief. How can people who don’t believe be the root of the olive tree?? The only possible way Israel could have any association with the root is through the faithful believers in Israel, not Israel the nation. Remember Romans 9:6: “Not all Israel is descended from Israel.” The problem with people like David Moss is that they want to make the Jewish people at large, or the nation of Isarel, the root of the olive tree. That is impossible, because most of these Jews are unbelievers, and that is why Paul calls them “branches that were broken off.” Moreover, if unfaithful Jews were branches that were broken off, this means that faithful Jews are branches that remained on the tree, not the root. The root, then, must go deeper, and that is why Abraham would be the best candidate, if it doesn’t refer to God or Christ himself. END
**What’s wrong with you on this subject? I just googled it an found where you’re turning the Fathers on their heads by cropping quotes. : http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/theology-of-prejudice.html
R. Sungenis: Ah, nothing is wrong with me on this subject. I’m the only one out there who isn’t afraid to tell you the truth about where the Jews sit in God’s plan. Cropping quotes? That’s usually in the eye of the beholder. But if you can back up your accusation with a bona fide example, I will give it my utmost consideration.
By the way, the above website would be funny if it weren’t so sad. I’ve never seen such blatant distortion, half-truths and downright lies in all my life. But if you want to get your theology from an insurance salesman and two computer technicians, two of which haven’t taken one course in theology or biblical languages between them, and the third got his education at a Christian Zionist institution, be my guest. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, not Israel. END