THE OLIVE TREE and THE GRAPE VINE

The olive tree and the grape vine are two of the mostvaluable gifts of nature in ancient Palestine.When the Israelites first took possession of Canaan,they were the only two floras which were specifically highlighted (cf. Deut6:11; Jos 24:13). There were other agricultural items (cf. Deut 8:8), but theywere apparently not valued as much. The olive tree and the grape vine continuedto be esteemed as the most valuable sources of revenue throughout most of OldTestament history (e.g., 1 Sam 8:14; 2 Kgs 5:26).

It is not surprising, therefore, that the olive treeand the grape vine have much poetic and symbolic significance in the OldTestament. Both the olive tree and the grape vine are used symbolically tospeak of the Old Testament covenant people of God, Israel (see, for examples,Jeremiah 11:16; Hosea 14:6; Psalm 80:8, 14; Jeremiah 2:21; Hosea 10:1). Theolive and vine are also used to describe the individual Israelite in the OldCovenant. Job’s friend Eliphaz describes the wicked under the temporaljudgement of God as one who “shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, andshall cast off his flower as the olive” (Job 15:33). Conversely, the Psalmistencourages the man who fears the LORD withthe words: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house:thy children like olive plants round about thy table” (Ps 128:3). Notice themixed metaphor in this verse. The wife is described as a fruitful vine, meaningshe will have many children, which means the grapes would represent thechildren. However, when he speaks about the children, he calls them “oliveplants.” Now, we must not understand the plants here are we do when we talkabout “money plant” or “orchid plant.” The word translated ‘plants’ (in Hebrew: shetil) can be moreunambiguously rendered ‘shoots’ (as is done in NIV, RSV and NRSV). There are[Hebrew] words that would describe the individual plants as we understand it(e.g., siycha; natha; yownek), but these words arenot used here. The picture that the Psalmist is painting of the godly man iseither that of a branch of an olive tree which has many shoots, or of an olivetree that has many shoots growing up from its roots (this apparently happens,especially when the tree is cut down).

In the New Testament, the olive tree and the grapevine continue to have symbolic significance, notably in John 15:1–7 for thevine, and Romans 11:16–24 for the olive tree. These two metaphors have beeninterpreted in a variety of ways. But I believe there is only one correctinterpretation for each; and both metaphors are related.

Obviously, in this short article, it would not bepossible for us to expound both passages thoroughly. However, once weunderstand what the vine and the olive tree represent in these two passages, itwould not be difficult to work out the details.

The Olive Tree

Let’s first look at the olive tree metaphor. TheApostle Paul says in the eleventh chapter of Romans:

[16]For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy,so are the branches. [17] And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou,being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest ofthe root and fatness of the olive tree;  [18]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root,but the root thee. [19] Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, thatI might be grafted in. [20] Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, andthou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: [21] For if God spared notthe natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. [22] Beholdtherefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; buttoward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou alsoshalt be cut off. [23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief,shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. [24] For if thouwert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graftedcontrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which bethe natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom 11:16–24).

What does the olive tree represent in this passage?There are some who would say it does not represent anything in particular: thatit is simply used as a figure of speech to teach Gentiles not to boast againstthe Jews. This is true as far as it goes. It is true that one of the mainthoughts in the metaphor is that the wild olive shoots are grafted into thecultivated tree, against the normal practice of olive tree cultivation. Yousee, the fruits of the wild olive tree are small and worthless. In order tomake a wild tree useful, fruitful cultivated stocks had to be grafted onto it.This was the common practice in those days. It would be unnatural to do thereverse. But according to the metaphor, this (the reverse) is exactly what Godhas done for the Gentiles. Therefore Gentiles must not boast against the ethnicJews even though the latter may have been broken off because of unbelief. Theymust not despise them, much less, persecute them.

But is this all that the Apostle Paul intends toillustrate with the olive tree? No, because Paul introduces the metaphor with atheological statement: “For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy:and if the root be holy, so are the branches” (v. 16). The first part of thestatement relates to the meal offering with which we will not concern ourselvesat the moment. The second part brings us immediately into the metaphor of theolive tree: as the root of the tree is holy, so the branches are holy too.Moreover, Paul speaks about partaking of the root and fatness of the tree (v.17), and about God’s breaking off some of the branches of the tree on accountof unbelief (vv. 19–21). Each of these statements suggests that the olive treeis intended to represent something. Why is the root of the tree holy? What isthe “root and fatness” of the tree? We know that the branches are people, butwhat does being broken off mean? Broken off from what? What does grafting mean?Quite obviously, the olive tree is deliberately chosen to fit into atheological concept that Paul has in mind; and once we understand what the treerepresents, each of his statements would become very clear.

For this reason, several ideas have been surfacedconcerning what the olive tree represent. Some believe that the tree representsnational Israel. But this cannot be correct because faith cannot be aprerequisite for citizenship in a nation. How could unbelieving Jews be brokenoff if the tree represent the nation? Conversely, how could Gentiles be graftedin if the tree is the nation unless we emigrate to Israel? Moreover, no onewould dispute that the proselytes (converts to Judaism under the Old Covenant;see Acts 2:9–11) were already in the tree before the Gentiles were grafted in;and the proselytes were not Jewish citizens.

The tree must, therefore, be defined religiously. Onesuggestion then, is that the root of the tree is Christ and the tree represents believing Israel or true Israel. This again cannot be entirelycorrect. If the tree represents true Israel, why is there a need to breakoff unbelieving branches?

Now, there are some others who will combine the twoviews and say: the tree was Israel as a nation under the Old Covenant, but underthe New Covenant, it refers to the people of God since under the New Covenantonly true believers are in covenant relationship with God.This view sounds plausible at first sight, but is really impossible, for theApostle warns those who have been grafted into the tree under the New Covenantthat, if they do not continue in the goodness of God, they too will be cut off(v. 21–22). If the tree under the New Covenant comprise only true believers, Paul would at best beteaching that true believers can loose their salvation, and at worst be usingan empty threat against the people of God. I do not know of any sound biblicalexpositor who would say that a believer can loose his salvation. Neither wouldanyone agree that Paul could possibly be guilty of falsehood. Someone mayobject: “But don’t we tell all elect that if they do not persevere inobedience, they will be cut off and prove themselves to have never been in thefaith?” This objection is a strange one, and shows that the person is confusedin his understanding. In the first place, we do not know who are the elect ofGod. In the second place, if we know who are the elect we would not make thatkind of statement. The statement is founded on the fact that God has chosen notto reveal to us who are the elect and the reprobate. We are never to relate toa person based on whether he is elect or not. We must rather relate to him onthe basis of whether he professes to be a believer or not. Now; then, if Paulhad in mind that the grafted branches comprise only the elect, it would bemeaningless for him to warn them against falling. There must be anotherexplanation to what the tree represents.

What, then, does the tree represent?

When we have considered everything, we find that thereis only one convincing answer to what the tree represents. I have no doubt thatit represents the covenant people of God or the visible church of God, both inthe Old and New Covenants.

The root of the tree is no doubt Christ. ProphetIsaiah had already referred to Christ as the Root: “And in that day there shallbe a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shallthe Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious” (Isa 11:10). In this sameverse, it was prophesied that the Gentiles would also seek after Him and cleaveunto Him. The prophet Jeremiah had already spoken of the “house of Israel andthe house of Judah” (Jer 11:10) as an olive tree: “The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree,fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindledfire upon it, and the branches of it are broken” (Jer 11:16). Notice howJeremiah also speaks about the breaking off of branches, though by the fire oftemporal judgement. But think for a moment of how a person gets incorporatedinto the tree in the first place. Surely there is no doubt that it is bynatural descent except in the case of proselytes who are grafted in. This iswhy Israel is not a basket of figs or even pearls. It is a tree. A tree grows.But there is more. The Lord had instructed Abraham that if any Jewish child beuncircumcised, he should be cut off from his people (Gen 17:14). In otherwords, by nature all olive shoots (Ps 128:3) would be part of the tree. But ifany of the shoots be not marked out by appropriating the sign and seal of thecovenant, then it will be cut off. This is consistent with the fact thatproselytes must be circumcised to be included into the membership of thecovenant people (Ex 12:48). After the institution of circumcision, it served toratify the membership of the proselytes as well as the native-born. But thetree was already growing before that.

It began growing with Adam and Eve. Their childrenwere part of it. Cain and Abel were part of it. Then Cain killed Abel and hewas essentially cut-off or, if you like, excommunicated. The olive treecontinued to grow with Seth and other sons and daughters. Eventually Noah andhis family was one of the branches on the tree. The other parts of the treewere unbelieving. They were cut off by the great flood. After the flood, thetree continued to grow, and continued to be pruned such as when the unbelieverswere killed in 722 BC (collapse of the Northern Kingdom) and 586 BC (collapseof the Southern Kingdom).

What was the shape of the tree when the Lord was born?It had many branches. The branches were holy (Rom 11:16) because the Jews werestill the covenant people of God. Many were dead or fruitless branches, butthey were still part of the tree. But later, a large number of these branchesclamoured for the Lord’s blood, and even called a curse upon themselves andtheir children: “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us,and on our children” (Mt 27:25; cf. Acts 18:6). In so doing, they essentiallycut themselves and their children from the olive tree. At the same time, thosewho identified with them and did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ also cutthemselves off by denying the Root. The Gentiles, on the other hand, weregrafted in when they confessed the Lord Jesus Christ and were baptised (as the OldCovenant proselytes were circumcised).

Has the tree stopped growing except by grafting and bythe Jewish branches that are still on it? Of course not! The tree continues togrow with believers and their children, whether Jewish or Gentile (Acts 2:39).Will the tree still bear bad branches that need to be pruned? Of course! Asthere were bad branches in the Old Covenant, there will be bad branches in theNew. This is why Paul warns against unbelief. Those who persist in unbeliefshould be cut off by the church (Mt 16:19, 18:15–18), or they will be cut offby God Himself eventually. This fact, as we shall see, is also taught in ourLord’s parable of the vine.

The Olive Tree

The Lord says:

[1]I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. [2] Every branch in methat beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, hepurgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. [3] Now ye are clean throughthe word which I have spoken unto you. [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As thebranch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more canye, except ye abide in me. [5] I am the vine, ye are the branches: He thatabideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without meye can do nothing. [6] If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch,and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they areburned. [7] If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what yewill, and it shall be done unto you (Jn 15:1–7)

We will have to be brief in this section. Here, thereis no question of who is the vine (the main stem of the grape plant from whichthe branches proceed). It is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself! But the question weneed to ask is: Who are the branches? The most common answer to this questionis that they are truebelieversor the elect; after all,how could a reprobate or a false believer be united with Christ or said to bein Christ as a branch?

There is, however, a severe difficulty with this view,for if that be the case, than how could any of the branch ever fail to bringforth fruits and be cast away (v. 6)? Could the Arminians be right, after all,that a believer can fall from grace? A Calvinist may respond: the person who isfruitless is a false professor of faith. He is never really united with Christ.But if so, it may be argued that the true believer is also not really unitedwith Christ, for the union that the false professor have had, for verse 6 tomake sense, is the same union that the fruit bearers have.

What then is the solution? The solution is to be foundin the fact that the union of the branches to the vine is the same in essencewith the union of the branches of the olive tree to the root. This shouldhardly surprise anyone since the vine, like the olive tree, has from OldTestament time been used to describe the churchvisible. For example, the prophet Hosea had said: “Israel is anempty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude ofhis fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his landthey have made goodly images” (Hos 10:1). The Lord has no doubt changed theanalogy slightly in that He calls Himself the vine, whereas in the OldTestament, the vine is His covenant people. But remember that this is ananalogy, and we can easily conceive of calling the Church (the body of Christ)the vine because it is united with Christ.

So, then, the union between the branches and the vineis to be seen in the context of God’s covenant with His people. This is how therecould be false professors attached to the vine. But one question remainsunanswered: How could the branches abide in the vine in any sense at all ifthey are reprobate? The answer is to be found in the fact that when we look atthe church as an olive tree or as a grape vine, we are saying that the churchis to be viewed organically. The whole church is to be regarded as holy becausethe Root is holy. However, it is only the elect who are the “children of thepromise” (Rom 9:8; Gal 4:28) and so are actually imputed with the righteousnessof Christ and therefore holy. The rest are regarded as holy on account of theirmembership in the visiblechurch. In other words, since no man can see the hearts of fellow men,every man who has appropriated the seal of the covenant is to regarded as beingunited with Christ, unless he proves fruitless ultimately, and has to bepurged, cut-off or excommunicated.

Conclusion

The metaphors of the olive tree and vine have baffledme for a long time. My discussions with a number of people led to nowhere butcontradictions. It was only as I begun to more fully understand covenanttheology and the relationship between Israel and the Church, andrealising that they are one, that I began to appreciate the meaning of theolive tree. What a joy it was when I read Herman Hoeksema’s Believers and Their Seed (Reformed Free Publishing Association,1997 [1971]), and discovered a well-written articulation of what I wasbeginning to appreciate of the two metaphors.  

I am convinced that the interpretations of themetaphors as presented above are correct. And I believe that unless we graspthe meaning of the two metaphors, it would be difficult for us to slip into theerrors of Dispensationalism and Anti-Pedobaptism. The olive tree shows us thatGod has only one people throughout the ages. It explains also why the people ofthe Old Covenant could be called the “people of God” or the “holy nation” orthe wife of Jehovah when often times, the greater proportion of the people wereliving in sin and unbelief. The covenantal interpretation of the vine mostsatisfactorily explains why one who is said to be united with Christ could fallfrom grace. Both metaphors teach us how we are to treat and instruct anyone whohas been baptised as a member of the church, whether adult or infant. They mustbe unambiguously treated as being united with Christ, and yet taught of thenecessity of conversion and warned against final apostasy.

—JJ Lim