Who was grafted into the olive tree?

[Jerry Shugart]

have always believed that it was the Body Of Christ that was grafted into the Olive Tree but this guy makes a compelling argument to the contrary. I would appreciate your thoughts on this......

The "Olive Tree" does not represent the Church, which is His Body. Instead, it represents the "service" of believers. The Olive Tree analogy is in regard to "bearing fruit", or "service". At the time when the nation of Israel was bearing fruit the Lord called them an Olive Tree:

"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." (Jer.11:16).​

The Olive Tree was an important tree for the Israelites because it was a source of food and light for them. For hundreds of years the olive was eaten as a staple food and olive oil has been used for cooking and in lamps for light. The oil of the olive was also used for anointing in religious ceremonies.

In regard to bearing fruit the Israelites were appointed to be the LORD's agent upon the earth to bring the gospel to the Gentile nations:

"For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing. In my faithfulness I will reward my people and make an everlasting covenant with them. Their descendants will be known among the nations and their offspring among the peoples. All who see them will acknowledge that they are a people the LORD has blessed" (Isa.61:8-9).​

"Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations you do not know will come running to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor" (Isa.55:5).​

Due to the unbelief of many Israelites those people were bearing no fruit for the LORD so they were broken off of the Olive Tree which represents fruit bearing or service. Then when the gospel went to the Gentiles most of those who believed bore fruit for the LORD by serving Him and were therefore grafted into the Olive Tree. But even those believing Gentiles whose service came up short were saved nonetheless:

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person's work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved--even though only as one escaping through the flames" (1 Cor.3:11-15).​

According to Paul some of the Jews were "broken off because of unbelief." How could the Olive Tree be a symbol of the Body of Christ since the Lord Jesus said the following about those who come to Him?:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn.6:37).​

Paul also told the Gentile believers that since "God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Therefore, if the Olive Tree represents the Body of Christ then no one in the Body enjoys eternal security despite the following words found here:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​

 

[beloved57]

js

The "Olive Tree" does not represent the Church, which is His Body.

Yes it does represent the body of Christ !

According to Paul some of the Jews were "broken off because of unbelief." How could the Olive Tree be a symbol of the Body of Christ since the Lord Jesus said the following about those who come to Him?:

That doesnt make sense, they were unbelievers, they never came to faith in Christ. They were broken off because of unbelief

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes it does represent the body of Christ !

Just because you say that means nothing.

That doesnt make sense, they were unbelievers, they never came to faith in Christ. They were broken off because of unbelief

So you are saying that there are unbelievers in the Body of Christ?

 

[beloved57]

Just because you say that means nothing.



So you are saying that there are unbelievers in the Body of Christ?

Your question doesn't make sense in light of what I stated !

 

[Right Divider]

Yes it does represent the body of Christ !

No, it does not!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your question doesn't make sense in light of what I stated !

Nothing you say ever makes sense. Your spiritual I.Q.is ZERO!

 

[beloved57]

No, it does not!

Yes it does

 

[musterion]

Huh, lookie that. Calvinists debating spiritual truth positions when they can't even ascertain that they are among the elect, and are not really reprobates. Priorities.

TOL is a bad comedy site.

 

[musterion]

Whoever was grafted in could possibly be cut out again if they failed to live in the life of the root.

That excludes it being the Body of Christ, from which there is neither grafting in nor out but a new creature eternally sealed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God.

 

[Derf]

have always believed that it was the Body Of Christ that was grafted into the Olive Tree but this guy makes a compelling argument to the contrary. I would appreciate your thoughts on this......https://graceambassadors.com/books/romans/the-wild-graft-found-in-matthew-21?fbclid=IwAR0f5gJjAP8YWSKiBa7yPYQx1jkiqsO_yF8KRN MX3jmnMd8x9l2sa2SpmZI

I think he makes a mistake when he says the thing that is given to the branches is the promises of Israel. Why does he say that? It isn’t in Matt 21. I would offer that what is being given is the words of eternal life. Israel had that, but then that was given to the church, which is obviously made up mostly of a different nation than Israel.

 

[Derf]

Whoever was grafted in could possibly be cut out again if they failed to live in the life of the root.

That excludes it being the Body of Christ, from which there is neither grafting in nor out but a new creature eternally sealed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God.

But a church could be cut out. Revelation 2:5 (KJV) 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.

 

[Right Divider]

But a church could be cut out. Revelation 2:5 (KJV) 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.

This is why it is critical to rightly divide the Word of Truth!

The book of Revelation is ALL about Israel and the end times.

Rev 1:6 KJV And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

There are NO PRIESTS in the body of Christ. Paul never ONCE uses the words PRIEST or PRIESTHOOD in ANY of his epistles. That should make it crystal clear, but Churchianity has so indoctrinated people into false understandings.

Romans 9-11 is also about Israel (mostly their failure).

 

[Derf]

This is why it is critical to rightly divide the Word of Truth

Agreed.

The book of Revelation is ALL about Israel and the end times.

Don’t agree here. Rev 2 and 3 are specifically addressed to the churches in Gentile cities. If you say they are only for end times, that may be fine, but it is still in the period where Jesus Christ recognizes the jurisdiction of the churches, which would have to be prior to a rapture.

I’m pretty sure you hold to a MAD/Bob Enyart-style dispensationalism from other things you’ve written, but I haven’t read The Plot, so please help me out by citations or something when you’re using statements of “fact” that aren’t immediately obvious in scripture. Thanks.

There are NO PRIESTS in the body of Christ. Paul never ONCE uses the words PRIEST or PRIESTHOOD in ANY of his epistles. That should make it crystal clear, but Churchianity has so indoctrinated people into false understandings

And that last part is why we need to be careful—as it could happen to any of us.

 

[Right Divider]

Agreed.

Specifically what did Paul mean by rightly dividing?

Don’t agree here. Rev 2 and 3 are specifically addressed to the churches in Gentile cities.

The Jews (i.e., Israel) has been scattered into gentiles lands many times. The location does not determine the context. In Paul's journeys, he often went to synagogues in "gentile cities".

If you say they are only for end times, that may be fine, but it is still in the period where Jesus Christ recognizes the jurisdiction of the churches, which would have to be prior to a rapture.

Again, gentile cites does not prove that the churches are not Jewish in nature.

Rev 2:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:8) And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; (2:9) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

Why would Christ say something like that to a "gentile" church or to the body of Christ? (hint: He wouldn't).

I’m pretty sure you hold to a MAD/Bob Enyart-style dispensationalism from other things you’ve written, but I haven’t read The Plot, so please help me out by citations or something when you’re using statements of “fact” that aren’t immediately obvious in scripture. Thanks.

Let me know specifically what you're referring to and I'll do my best.

The book of Revelation is just jam packed with Jewish idioms and matches exactly with what the prophets of Israel foretold about the future of Israel. There it nothing to connect any of that to the body of Christ.



There is nothing whatsoever to connect it with the body of Christ and the teaching in Paul's epistles.

And that last part is why we need to be careful—as it could happen to any of us.

Okay.

 

[Derf]

Specifically what did Paul mean by rightly dividing?

The Jews (i.e., Israel) has been scattered into gentiles lands many times. The location does not determine the context. In Paul's journeys, he often went to synagogues in "gentile cities".

Again, gentile cites does not prove that the churches are not Jewish in nature.

Why would Christ say something like that to a "gentile" church or to the body of Christ? (hint: He wouldn't).

Let me know specifically what you're referring to and I'll do my best.

The book of Revelation is just jam packed with Jewish idioms and matches exactly with what the prophets of Israel foretold about the future of Israel. There it nothing to connect any of that to the body of Christ.



There is nothing whatsoever to connect it with the body of Christ and the teaching in Paul's epistles.

Okay.

The warning against the synagogue of Satan is exactly what you’re saying isn’t there, and exactly what Jesus would warn His churches about—the Jews that are trying to get the believers to follow Jewish laws.

And Paul regularly referred to Old Testament stories when writing to the Gentile Christians.

I’m open to the idea that Rev 4 and beyond is aimed at the Jews, and possibly for post-rapture, but including Rev 2 & 3 doesn’t make sense.

 

[musterion]

Agreed.

Don’t agree here. Rev 2 and 3 are specifically addressed to the churches in Gentile cities.

There was never one in Smyrna.

 

[Derf]

There was never one in Smyrna.

A church? Polycarp, a disciple of John, and a bishop of the church in Smyrna, would be surprised to hear that.

 

[Right Divider]

The warning against the synagogue of Satan is exactly what you’re saying isn’t there, and exactly what Jesus would warn His churches about—the Jews that are trying to get the believers to follow Jewish laws.

That is quite the spin.

And Paul regularly referred to Old Testament stories when writing to the Gentile Christians.

Yes, he did and why?

Did you ever note that sometimes he uses them in a different context... even opposites sometimes?

Rom 8:36-37 KJV As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. (37) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

• Paul did NOT throw out all of the Bible history to preach his NEW gospel.
• Paul preached to all... including unbelieving JEWS.
• Paul could not preach to unbelieving Jews without using THEIR history against them.
• Paul was given revelation that completes the Word of God (Col 1:25)

I’m open to the idea that Rev 4 and beyond is aimed at the Jews, and possibly for post-rapture, but including Rev 2 & 3 doesn’t make sense.

The WHOLE book is jammed full of these Jewish idioms and yet you want to separate chapters 2&3?

 

[Derf]

That is quite the spin.

You’re welcome!

Yes, he did and why?

Did you ever note that sometimes he uses them in a different context... even opposites sometimes?

Yes, just as Jesus often did—making a different point than they were expecting.

• Paul did NOT throw out all of the Bible history to preach his NEW gospel.
• Paul preached to all... including unbelieving JEWS.
• Paul could not preach to unbelieving Jews without using THEIR history against them.
• Paul was given revelation that completes the Word of God (Col 1:25)

But he was also introducing Jewish history to the Gentiles. Thereby they were able to learn some of the symbolism to help understand Revelation.

The WHOLE book is jammed full of these Jewish idioms and yet you want to separate chapters 2&3?

Rightly dividing, remember?

 

[Right Divider]

You’re welcome!

It wasn't a complement.

Yes, just as Jesus often did—making a different point than they were expecting.

More from the spin doctor.

But he was also introducing Jewish history to the Gentiles.

What Jewish history? Paul mostly taught Jewish history to the Jews, much like Stephen in Acts 7.

Thereby they were able to learn some of the symbolism to help understand Revelation.

Rightly dividing, remember?

Indeed, you claim to rightly divide, but you do not.

And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. (I Corinthians 12:5 [KJVA]

The administration of the twelve was not identical to the administration of the one.