Jews and Gentiles: Metaphors of distinction and unity.

John Atkinson - November 2008

Printable Version in PDF

Like any organisation, CMJ has a vocabulary and a set of metaphors that are commonly used to describe our identity and how which we understand ourselves and our mission. The nuances contained in our forms of description are important in that they too shape and reshape the way in which the organisation understands itself. Simultaneously, these forms of description prescribe and proscribe the characteristics of what it means to be a member of the organisation.

In this paper I intend to examine the biblical metaphors of the “olive trees” Romans 11:22-27 and the “one new man” (Ephesians 2:1-22) in the context of the ministry of CMJ Israel. What influence should these metaphors, and in particular the way we use them, have on the self understanding and identity of the organisation? In what way should they mould our behaviour and direct our policy?

In rabbinic literature metaphors and pictures belong to the genre of aggadah.  Unlike halacha which uses a narrow form of description in terms of regulation and direction, aggadah gives a bigger picture in order to counter slavish or mindless obedience of halachah.

Aggadah was cultivated so as to allow the unseen to enter the visible world and was formulated to give man the ability to go beyond the realms of the definable, perceivable, and demonstrable. Just as language attempts to allow us to comprehend the intangible through use of metaphor, Aggadah allows us to begin to comprehend the infinite through the use of symbolism. In this sense, Aggadah is a form of religious metaphor, a camera that enables us to form mental images of the indescribable. It answers man's need to understand the reasons for the actions demanded of him and assures him that there is purpose to what he does. When religion becomes frozen in dogmas, its ability to provide meaning to life becomes lost. [1]

Both Rabbi Cardozo[2] and the Protestant theologian, Louis Berkhoff[3] agree that when aggadah or figurative language are used the interpreter is not at liberty, on the basis of these texts, to establish doctrine – or put more hebraically, the aggadah cannot be used in determining halachah (Jerusalem Talmud, Peah 11:6)    

Here then, is an attempt to look again at familiar metaphors and pictures in the hope that a re-examination of these metaphors will invigorate them with a new energy and assist us in clarifying our organisational self knowledge and making our praxis intentional.

Limitations of Language

How do mere mortals describe the Divine? Even so, theology and the biblical text are replete with attempts at doing just that. In this endeavour there is an unwritten assumption that every description and every metaphor is qualitatively inadequate and, to some extent therefore, a misrepresentation. This is not to imply that the statement or description is wrong, per se, but that the limitations of language and the finite nature of our conceptual faculties render them inadequate. This difficulty with language is well illustrated by an extract from Maimonides in The Guide of the Perplexed.   The Rambam ponders this reality when considering the Sh’ma. Is it appropriate to call God “one”?  According to Maimonides’ view, the notion of singularity which he associates with the idea of echad in relation to God, is compromised by the fact that to ascribe to the Creator “oneness” is to imply, paradoxically, the possibility of a plurality.

“It is further necessary to consider that unity and plurality are accidents supervening to an object according as it consists of many elements or of one….In the same way as number is not the substance of the things numbered, so is unity not the substance of the thing which has the attribute of unity, for unity and plurality are accidents belonging to the category of discrete quantity, and supervening to such objects as are capable of receiving them.”[4]

Abraham Heschel comments on the above “

…doubts have been raised whether the term "one" is at all meaningful when applied to God. For how can we designate Him by a number? A number is one of a series of symbols used in arranging quantities, in order to set them in a relation to one another. Since God is not in time or space, not a part of a series, "the term 'one' is just as inapplicable to God as the term 'many'; for both unity and plurality are cate­gories of quantity…”[5]

At the risk of becoming mired in a complex debate over semiotics, it is important for our present purpose, to note from the outset, that our language and metaphors are not complete in themselves, and that the way we use them may have as much to do with ideology as it does with the attempt to describe our reality theologically or otherwise.  As we examine two of the metaphors used by the Apostle Paul to describe the emerging church of his day the limitations of our own language, and his, should be borne in mind.   

Acknowledging our Symbolic World.

Related to language is the world of meaning or our symbolic world. A symbolic world is not just an abstract set of ideas. It is a system of meaning that lends significance to the way we relate to each other and makes our behaviour understandable to one another. It is reinforced by history and common experience.

The notion of a symbolic world refers to a system of shared meaning that enables us to live together as a group. It includes more than specialized concepts; it involves in particular the fundamental perceptions that ground the community's existence and that therefore do not need to be debated or justified. The symbols pervade every level of the group's life.[6]  

However, symbols may change or take on new significance over time. When symbols are interpreted differently, the impact on our communication and social cohesion may be significant. Language is a good indicator of this phenomenon. The term “occupied territories” in a press release immediately reveals an aspect of the author’s perception of the dispute in Israel. It may indicate a set of values and a particular understanding of the historical narrative of the modern state of Israel. This kind of symbolisation can act as an agent or exclusion or inclusion. In a theological context the language of an article about the Church and Israel may reveal whether the writer subscribes to a supersessionist view or not. If so, this would immediately exclude the writer from being a part of the Christian Zionist community.

CMJ Israel  is a social group (as are other CMJ branches) with a symbolic world that makes functioning coherently as an organisation possible. Our symbolic world both identifies us and differentiates us from other groups and organisations. It embodies our self understanding and identity. As long as we subscribe to this symbolic world, the organisation is likely to continue to exist in its present form. There is no need to debate the various elements and symbols every time we meet because our meeting and social rituals  maintain the symbolic world. The symbolic world is shaped by and shapes the way we relate and operate as an organisation. 

Every now and again our symbolic world is challenged by claims that have equally plausible appeals to divine origination. We usually resist challenges that are at variance with our self identity or self definition as an organisation. However, the shaping and reshaping of the organisation is a dynamic process which, even though we may resist, is ongoing. We certainly do not look or behave the same way our founding fathers did.

Another source of tension that may arise is between the individual and the organisation. Strong personalities or, conversely, passive members who do not necessarily accept every aspect of the dominant ethos may subscribe to our symbolic world to a greater or lesser degree. This marginal activity may be very creative, or conversely, be a change agent to the established symbolic world. The organisation will grapple with this activity, but only with difficulty. 

Our symbolic world is not completely static and it also has the capacity to stretch in order to accommodate new or different emphases. It should be remembered that this capacity is finite and there will come a point where the stability of the symbolic world is threatened to such an extent that corrective steps are taken to purge the competing idea or symbolic content from the organisation’s symbolic world.

To summarise, our symbolic world and the language which serves it, are dynamic and constantly being shaped and reshaped. When we use metaphors like the olive tree (Rom 11) or the one new man (Eph 2) we are in the process of either maintaining or reshaping our symbolic world. Because metaphors are aggadic they lend themselves to fairly broad interpretations, aspects of which, may present a challenge to the established symbolic world.

Gentiles and Jews in the life of Yeshua

The metaphors under examination in this paper are both focused on describing relationships. Both metaphors recognise the distinction between Jews and Gentiles and yet simultaneously stress unity that is only possible in the Messiah. Before launching into an examination of the metaphors most commonly used to describe the relationship between Jews and Gentiles it is essential that we remind ourselves of the historical situation for whence these metaphors emanate.

When the Gospel was first proclaimed by Jesus He tended to restrict Himself to Jews.[7]  On a few occasions He spoke to Samaritans, and on one occasion, He healed a Samaritan leper calling Him a foreigner[8]. His discussion with a Syro-Phoenician is recorded by both Matthew and Mark.[9] Gentiles were however, part of Jesus thinking and speaking.[10] At one level this was unavoidable because of the Roman occupation in Israel and the number of Gentiles who had settled in, or who habitually travelled through, the region. 

It should be said that that it is very unlikely that Jesus never spoke to Gentiles, but the exchanges that the gospel writers considered worthy of inclusion did not include many directly with Gentiles. Of course there are some very notable exceptions. Particularly interesting about the majority of these conversations is that fact that if Jesus does not draw attention to the difference between Jew and Gentile, the Gentile does. [11]

When Jesus stood before Pilate His responses were restrained and short. It was as though He wanted to end the conversation from its inception, despite the fact that He was on trial for His life.

What is evident from the gospels is that Jesus was focused on “the lost sheep of Israel.” His mission was to proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven and to do it in a way that Jews could understand. His references were Jewish and His teaching methods were recognisably Jewish.  This focus naturally excluded comment on Greek philosophy or critique of Roman civil religion, even though they would have been of inestimable value to the Gentile Church over the following five centuries in particular. Jesus restricted His critique of religion to the cultic practices of the Jewish people and those of the Temple.

The point at which inclusion of Gentiles in the Kingdom of Heaven becomes part of Jesus’ vision is a widely debated issue. 

Many scholars argue that the negative aspersions made by Jesus and the prohibition of mission to the Gentiles (e.g., Mt 18:17) are authentic and that the positive encounters are, at least in part, the product of early Christian imagination. Others argue that although Jesus was consistently particularistic in viewpoint (ministering to Jews alone), his message naturally was unfolded by the early church into a panoramic vision of Gentile inclusion—but Jesus did not unfold this message himself[12]

Still others (with differing nuances, Sundkler, Bosch, Manson, Caird) believe that Jesus’ mission was limited to Israel (during his life), but his intention was to use this particularistic concentration to launch a universal program of Gentile participation, whether at the end of history or immediately after the passion.[13]

Whether the inclusion of the Gentiles was always in the mind of Jesus is probably better demonstrated by the view of Gentiles commonly held by Jews and inferred by the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures clearly indicate that through Abraham all the families of the earth would be blessed.[14] According to Targum Yerushalmi: The verse means that because of Abraham's righteousness and special friendship with God, all the generations of humanity would eventually come to be blessed through him. This was always understood to include the (goyyim) Gentile nations. The commands given to the people of Israel include commands that the Gentiles (ger) enter Israel’s Sabbath rest. [15]  

This exclusivity which Jesus practiced without reserve is especially significant when contrasted with the pastoral response of the Apostles and early church leaders in Jerusalem to the inclusion of Gentile followers of Jesus.[16] It may be this contrast that contributes to the complexity with which the New Testament epistles describe this relationship. The early church was breaking new ground in the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. An addition to this complexity is the level at which this relationship is viewed. There is no gradation in the relationship in which the two groups could grow toward each other. Believers in Yeshua, both Jews and Gentiles, are described in terms usually reserved for a blood relatives or family households. To describe the radical shift in relationship the New Testament writers resort to metaphor.

Jews and Gentiles: Metaphors and the New Testament Church.

There is some scholastic debate about the Pauline authorship of the Letter to the Ephesians.[17] For the sake of this discussion, we will take the Pauline authorship of both Ephesians and Romans as read, and therefore the origin of the two metaphors under consideration, as essentially Pauline.   

There are many metaphors that Rabbi Shaul/Paul uses to describe the church. At the outset, we should take note of the fact that he does not always use the same metaphor and that he changes the metaphor in different contexts. In the letter to the Romans, which most scholars estimate to be earlier than the letter to the Ephesians, he uses an analogy from oleiculture namely the “in grafting” of the Gentiles as a central metaphor to describe the fellowship of Jew and Gentile within the Church. It would not simply be idle speculation to wonder why this earlier metaphor, so rich in its imagery, was not used anywhere else in the Pauline corpus. When writing to the Ephesians he does not mention the metaphorical olive tree at all, but instead focuses on the Temple and specifically the dividing wall between the Court of the Gentiles and the rest of the Temple precinct. Many New Testament scholars, including F.F. Bruce[18]  and Clark H. Pinnock, consider Ephesians to be Paul’s magnum opus.

“Though it is likely that this epistle [Ephesians] is the quintessence of Paul’s theology and his final masterpiece, there are some features in it that suggest some shifts and further developments in Paul’s thought. The tensions between Jew and Gentile seem to have been overcome, and some of the terms used are employed in slightly new senses.”[19]      

Even C.H. Dodd identified the thought of Ephesians [as] “the crown of Paulinism, whether or not it was written by Paul.”[20]

So there seems to be a consensus amongst the majority of conservative New Testament scholars that the Temple metaphor is the latter and indeed the final metaphor that Paul choose to describe the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the Church.

It appears that the historical context of the olive tree metaphor was the ongoing strife between the two groups within the congregation at Rome while the Temple metaphor was used after that situation had been resolved somewhat. This difference in context is significant and may alert us to aspects of the metaphors previously overlooked and differences in the original applications to our own.

The Olive Tree and the conflict in Rome

Reading other people’s letters is a dangerous business. The danger of misunderstanding the text is very real, especially if you are not party to the relationship between the writer and the recipient. The reader may be unaware of the context of the contents and draw spurious conclusions from the text which have more to do with the reader’s own experience than that of the writer and the letter’s first recipients. Young expresses this idea as follows;

Interpreters of Paul must ask the questions that Paul asked before they apply his answers to their own problems, or else they may find themselves coupling Paul's answers with the wrong set of questions.[21]

This has seldom been more of an issue than with the letter to the Romans. There are three negative reasons for this. First, until the work of scholars such as Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders and James Dunn (among others) Christian scholars had not taken the personal Jewish identity of Paul and the elements of his portrayal of Judaism seriously enough. Instead they had treated him as a thoroughly Hellenised Jew who was more wedded to Greek rhetoric than rabbinic midrash. Second, in addition to this oversight Christians tended not to take the situation in Rome at the time of writing seriously enough. Romans 9-11 were considered a distraction to the rest of the epistle. In fact, C.H. Dodd believed that it was a well used sermon which Paul put in as a filler.[22]  Third, the misrepresentation of Judaism as a legalistic religion which preached works righteousness had a great deal more to do with the European Reformation than the original setting as the dominant context for interpretation.

As Krister Stendahl warned forty years ago, “it is deceptively easy to read Paul in the light of Luther’s agonized search for relief from a troubled conscience.”[23]

The messianic movement has benefitted from insights provided by what is commonly known as, “The New Perspective on Paul”. The new emphasis on the hebraic roots perspective and the positive endorsement of first century Judaism have made a significant contribution to the wider acceptance of the messianic movement in the predominantly Gentile church. So significant is this change in attitude that Jesus’ Jewish heritage, or as the magazine would have it, “the Re-Judaizing of Jesus”, was featured in Time magazine as one of “the ten ideas that are changing the world.” [24]  

The new emphasis on the Jewishness of Paul and the appreciation of first century Judaism as the well-spring of Christianity make a more informed examination of these metaphors possible. Paul’s use of the Olive Trees, one wild and uncultivated and the other cultivated, must be understood with careful regard to the language and context of this metaphor. Why was it meaningful to those who first heard it? Certainly one reason that made it meaningful would have been the fact that it actually addressed the issues of the conflict between Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome at that time. What was the issue? This is where we meet the first hurdle to understanding the metaphor. The issue is not clearly described in detail. Paul takes for granted that those who read his letter were involved in, or were at least observers of, the conflict. Unfortunately that excludes most of the commentators and readers of this letter. We can surmise from tantalising morsels of historic information but they do not give us the whole picture.

From at least the second century B.C.E. Jews lived in Rome. In the first part of the first century B.C.E,, Cicero refers to Jews sending money to Jerusalem from Rome.

Pandering to the snobbery of the jury, Cicero represents the Jews as a turbulent influence in Rome, liable to oppose any “decent-minded” public figure (in optimum quemque, Pro Flacco 28.66). But since he nowhere refers to the Jews in his voluminous correspondence (or takes cognizance of their views in his works on theology), one suspects that their influence is here greatly exaggerated. However, such references indicate at least that the Jews were by now well established in Rome, sufficiently organised to send money each year to Jerusalem. [25] 

In the first century C.E., members of the Herodian family spent time in Rome.[26]  Herod Agrippa I was an influential friend of the Emperor Tiberius and Nero's wife Poppaea Sabina was attracted to Judaism and identified by Josephus (Antiquities 20.195) as a God fearer.[27] The Jewish community lived originally in Trastevere, a quarter on the far bank of the Tiber River. During the imperial period they spread to other parts of the city. Several Jewish catacombs (burial areas) have been found along with numerous inscriptions. The inscriptions indicate that there were eleven synagogue communities in Rome and that Jews lived there for centuries.

The expulsion of Jews occurred three times, according to various ancient historians whose accounts are not always clear or consistent with one another. In 139 B.C.E., the Roman authori­ties expelled some Jews for proselytism – for evangelising the Gentiles. [28] In 19 C.E., the emperor Tiberius punished the Jewish community because some members had defrauded an aristo­cratic Roman woman out of a large sum of money and perhaps because of the enmity of his adviser Sejanus toward Jews. He expelled the community from Rome and impressed four thousand men into the military. Finally, the emperor Claudius either expelled the Jews from Rome or forbade them to assemble because they "constantly made distur­bances at the instigation of Chrestus."  This passage from the historian Suetonius may indicate that the community contained members who were fol­lowers of Jesus Christ (Latin Christus, meaning anointed one) who were causing trouble. This account by Suetonius seems to correspond with Acts 18:2 which gives the account of Paul’s meeting with Aquila.

There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from    Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome.[29]

The his­torical sources disagree on the date for this decree from Claudius, placing it either in 41 or 49 C.E.

The congregation at Rome, unlike the others in the New Testament, was not founded by Paul or even one of the other apostles. The Roman assembly developed following the events of Acts 2. At that time, Jews from around the empire came to Jerusalem for Shavuot. This new group of followers of Yeshua existed within the framework of the synagogue system in Rome. This was true of all congregations in the empire at least until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and in some places even until the revolt in 132 C.E.  Paul's letter to the Romans is addressed to this synagogue-based sub-culture within the Jewish community. The distance of Rome from Jerusalem, and its place as the centre of the pagan Roman Empire, meant that there was an early influx of believing Gentiles into this congregation. One should keep in mind that this influx had a different significance for the different sections of the Jewish community. Allegiances were tested by their presence.

The failure of the Roman authorities to distinguish between the Jewish community and the group made up of Jewish and Gentile Christians, when the edict of Claudius expelled the Jewish community from Rome, increased the desire on the part of the Jewish community, to be differentiated.[30] This situation probably led to the Jewish believers no longer being welcome in the synagogues after the Jewish community returned to the city.

During their absence the Gentile believers grew in number so that when the Jewish believers returned to the city, not only were they unwelcome in the synagogues, but the Christian community they had known had become more gentilised and had lost much of its Jewish character. [31] 

In some respects the situation mirrors that of Sarah and Hagar. Sarah’s misfortune of not being able to conceive is, according to Rashi,[32] interpreted by Hagar as the inferiority of Sarah’s standing before God compared to her own. The Jewish believers had suffered while the Gentile believers had escaped the persecution simply because they were Gentiles. Ironically and tragically, this situation would be reversed under the persecution by Nero after the great fire, when the Jewish believers were largely overlooked and the Gentile believers were crucified for their rejection of Roman civil religion.[33]          

The Roman congregation lacked the apostolic foundation of the other congregations in Asia Minor. Paul usually followed the same pattern for establishing new congregations. He began with the restoration of Israel in each location first, by preaching to the Jews and God-fearers in the synagogue. Only after doing this, would the message be extended to the Gentiles with no synagogue connection.

His pattern was always, "to the Jew first" which is reflected in this well known verse.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith…” Rom 1:16-17a

Paul intimates that his visit to Rome will reflect his usual pattern. This is why we see him telling the believers, both Jew and Gentile, that he is coming to bring them the gospel so that they will be properly established (Romans 1:11-15).  Although the Roman congregation had some truth about Messiah, there were certain teachings and practices that persisted, due to the lack of this authoritative apostolic foundation. The tensions in the relationships were the bitter fruits of this situation of not being established. 

Paul's letter was no doubt intended to be read aloud to the congregations. It would seem that the leadership of these groups may have been mostly in the hands of Jewish believers (or established Gentile proselytes to Judaism that had subsequently accepted Yeshua as Messiah). Reidar Hvalvik identifies at least five house churches based on the greetings in Roman 16. Apart from those associated with the house churches Hvalvik identifies fourteen other individuals mentioned in the same chapter.[34]   The multiplicity of the groups at Rome was further compounded by the diversity of the people that belonged to those groups. The variations are as follows;

First there were Jews who accepted Yeshua. Second, there were Gentiles who had fully converted to Judaism and then accepted Yeshua as the Messiah. Third there were Gentiles who had been in the process of converting, or who were God-fearers, and then accepted Yeshua as Messiah. Finally there were Gentiles who essentially had been pagans until hearing about Yeshua and then become followers.

Much of the letter of Romans is written by Paul to address Gentile believers who do not understand their role or place in the faith of Israel, or God's eternal redemption plan for the world. He writes into a situation of tension between Jews and Gentiles. There was a history of one group being favoured over another by the edict. Though this situation would be reversed under the persecution by Emperor Nero at the time of Paul’s writing the Jewish believing community had been victimised by the Romans and to some extent had lost the respect of the Gentile believers who had largely been unaffected by the expulsion.    

Paul is writing primarily to establish proper behaviour for the Gentiles coming into the faith of Israel. As mentioned, many of these Gentiles were coming into the Messianic faith directly from a pagan background, which had little regard, if not contempt, for anything "Jewish." The greater purpose of Paul's letter to the Romans was to explain, particularly to the Gentiles in the congregation, the significance of the Jewish heritage of the gospel and their place within the plan of God. This may be, as Nanos suggests, the reason why Paul views the believers in Rome as in need of having the gospel proclaimed to them. Rom. 1:8, 14-16) [35]

This conflicted situation is the context for the metaphor of the wild and cultivated olive trees. Characteristically Paul runs one metaphor into the other. Dough and trees may not have much connection in Grecian compartmental thinking but for Paul they are two ways of saying the same thing (Rom 11:16)    

According to Peter Stuhlmacher’s analysis of the literary structure of this section[36]

Verses 11-12 and 13-15 are parallel in construction and both produce “identically formulated statements” (verses 12 and 15). In each case using the comparison with the lesser to the greater(qal vahomer)  to make the point

Verse 16 is a development of the idea contained in verse 15, but it introduces a new metaphor and provides the foundational thesis from which Paul proceeds in his rhetorical dialogue with the Gentile believers which continues until verse 24 . This structure is demonstrated in the table below.

The multiplicity inherent in the symbol

Paul uses a concept from the Torah based on Numbers 15:17-21. The comparison of the firstfruits of the dough with the rest of the dough is used to describe the state of individuals and groups in the same way as it is in rabbinic literature.  Adam was created from the earth (Gen2:7) and so he is referred to as “the firstfruits of the world.” In early Jewish literature the root of Israel is, above all, Abraham. He is called the chosen root of the people of God (cf. Jub 16:26; 1 Enoch 93: 8; Philo, Quis rerum divinarum 279.).[37] The olive tree is a metaphor for Israel (cf Jer 11:16), and in Jub 1:16 the future people of God are called “the plant of the righteous. [38] Bell points out that although Paul most likely understood the Olive Tree to be Israel he has on another occasion seen the person of Yeshua in the metaphor of the firstfruits (1 Cor 15:20 7 23 / Rom 11:16)  it is possible that, in the same way, he saw Yeshua identified in the Olive Tree metaphor. [39]           

In Patristic exegesis the tree was understood to be Christ. There is an interesting parallel to Rom. 11:17-24, there is also a reference in Jn. 15 to cutting out branches. The image of the vine was used for Israel in Is. 5:1-7, but nevertheless, the Johannine Christ has no problem in using the image for himself. Likewise, the olive tree was used in Jer. 11:16 and Hos. 14:6 for Israel, but nevertheless, Paul could perhaps understand Christ behind this image of the olive tree for the anointed one.[40]      

This multi-layered approach of “both-and” rather than “either-or” is very characteristic of rabbinic teaching. The idea that one image can have more than one association simultaneously is worth bearing in mind when considering this, and other biblical metaphors.   

Gentile Arrogance

The metaphor contains positive and negative elements which should be considered in the light of what we know about the situation in the community of believers in Rome. Jewish believers had experienced a set back which had given the Gentile believers an advantage socially and they were in danger of viewing their advantage as spiritual as well. Paul’s metaphor mirrors this situation in terms of the gospel.

Paul’s use of this metaphor, by his own admission, was to counter the inclination to a sense of superiority among the Gentile believers of Rome. In the verse that follows the metaphor (11:25) Paul perceives that an understanding of this mystery is the antidote to Gentile conceit. The word which the New International Version translates conceit is actually a phrase (ἵναCSἵνα μὴQNμή ἦτεVSPA--2Pεἰμί ἑν ἑαυτοῖςNPDM2Pἑαυτοῦ φρόνιμοι)A--NM-Pφρόνιμοςwhich is literally, “lest you be in yourselves wise” or as Young’s Literal Translation renders it, “may not be wise in your own conceits”. [41] This is related to Paul’s earlier phrase – “For I do not wish you to be ignorant…” It appears from this Paul’s progression in this verse that ignorance produces a false wisdom which bears the bad fruit, conceit. This progression reflects what we know of the historical situation in Rome and the theological argument of the letter to the Romans. Notice the parallel progression in the description of the unrighteous in chapter one. “…but they becameG3154 futileG3154 in their speculationsG1261, and their foolishG801 heartG2588 was darkenedG4654. ProfessingG5335 to be wiseG4680, they becameG3471 foolsG3471…” (1:21b -22)

One can only speculate, for lack of information, but it may be possible that the Gentile believers were tempted to think that God had forsaken his people when the edict of Claudius went into effect. In addition to this they may have felt that because they had escaped the expulsion that they somehow enjoyed favour from God which their Jewish brothers and sisters had been denied. These seem to be the sentiments that Paul is seeking to address by this metaphor.

The counter balance to this view is Paul’s statement earlier in the letter regarding the equality of Jews and Gentiles who are followers of the Messiah.

“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in      circumcision? Much in every way! ….
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all!
We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin

(Rom. 3:1-2a & 9)

The advantage referred to in this section of Paul’s letter has a great deal to do with the kind of awareness that the Gentiles in Rome (11:25) lacked because they had not grown up with the Hebrew Scriptures. The advantage here is related to the potential for faith which knowledge and history provide.      

Finally, with regard to the structure of this passage the full number of Israel is referred to before the metaphor. (11:12). After the metaphor the full number of Gentiles is mentioned. (11:25). In both instances this refers to widely held belief that the full number of Israelites and Gentiles who will attain salvation, is determined from the very beginning, and is known by God. When in each case this full number is reached, God will bring about the eschatological consummation of the kingdom. (cf 2 Bar 23:4 and 1 Enoch 47:1-4; 4 Ezra 4:33, 35-37).

Jewish exclusivism

The conflict between Jew and Gentile believers had two sides. On the one hand Gentile arrogance, dealt with above, and on the other hand Jewish exclusivism. Paul’s work of reconciliation had to address both. Paul’s presentation of justification by faith was, according to Stendahl,

“…hammered out by Paul for the very specific and limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel. Their rights were based solely on faith in Jesus Christ. This was Paul’s very special stance, and he defended it zealously against any compromise.”[42]    

The acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles as fellow heirs and equals was a problem for many Jewish believers. At the council in Jerusalem it was the Pharisee believers who questioned Gentile inclusion without Jewish conversion.[43]  This is further evidenced by the problem of the Judaizers which Paul addresses in the most uncomplimentary terms in his letter to the Galatians.[44]

Sadly, both Gentile arrogance and Jewish exclusivism are alive and well in the modern community of faith. Both attitudes fall short of what Paul describes as, “the mystery of Messiah”[45].

Relationship

The Olive Tree metaphor is a description of a relationship. It addresses the situation of conflict between two groups. The believing Gentiles are described as branches that have been cut off a wild, and therefore fruitless, olive tree. They have been grafted into the fruitful cultivated olive tree, a process which Paul acknowledges is “contrary to nature”. Doubtless by the reference to the ingrafting being “contrary to nature” Paul is magnifying the idea of the graciousness and kindness of God. Disadvantaged in almost every way the Gentiles have been grafted into a tree that had supported the Jewish People for centuries. The hopelessness of the Gentile’s situation is further developed by Paul in Ephesians 1& 2.The metaphor lends itself to fairly broad speculation about the wild olive tree from which the Gentile believers had been cut. A background of paganism and lawlessness compounded by ignorance of the one true God is certainly implied by the wild olive. The association with fruitlessness in the case of the wild olive and the fruitlessness of these beliefs may also be intentional. Being a metaphor it is difficult to draw a limitation on the application of this symbol.

The Common Root

The olive tree into which the Gentiles have been grafted has been applied to many different aspects of the redemption plan of God. As mentioned above the roots have been associated with Abraham in early Jewish literature. In many current messianic writings the root (and the firstfruits of verse 16)  are associated with the messiah and /or the messianic movement. Both Marvin Wilson[46] and David Bivin[47] reject this interpretation. According to Wilson,

“the flow of the context supports the conclusion that the root represents the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the faithful forefathers of the Jews, the stalwart founders of that original people of God.” [48]

The root is described by Paul as supplying sustenance and nurture to the Gentile believer. The branches are dependent on the nourishing root and cannot exist apart from it. This aspect of the metaphor gives the lie to supersessionism. A Gentile church disconnected from the faith of the patriarchs is unthinkable to the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Wilson points out the association between the olive branch and peace. [49] Peace is a prerequisite to unity and these two elements will be seen again in Paul’s metaphor of the one new man in Ephesians 2.  

Conclusions from the olive Tree

The significance of the olive tree metaphor lies chiefly in its description of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles who are followers of Yeshua the Messiah. Certainly, Gentile arrogance is addressed, but the goal is not the separation of the two groups, nor the subservience of one to the other. On the contrary, the unity provided by the olive root and tree is a picture of the commonwealth into which Gentiles have been brought as wild branches. The natural branches and the wild olive branches are grafted into the same tree. They receive their nurture from the same root. They are united despite their distinctive identities.  

While the New Testament retains the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, when referring to the church, this distinction should not be over emphasised. Our identity and unity is in Messiah, but our heritage is Jewish.

The One New Man

The God of Israel delights in making unity from diversity. The book of Genesis provides an example of this principle in the unity between man and woman in the marriage relationship.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

 This verse is quoted by both Yeshua and Paul.[50]  The significance of this example is two fold. First it is used on three occasions in to describe the marriage relationship. Second it is used by Paul to compare the relationship between Yeshua and the Church. The distinction between man and woman is maintained, if fact, this distinction is essential to the marriage relationship. At the same time this union is described as “one flesh”.  The point illustrated here is that distinction is not lost in order to create unity. Unity implies distinctiveness and yet complementarity.      

His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Ephesians 2:15b -16.

The context of this metaphor is a discussion of the “bringing near” of the believing Gentiles with Jewish believers into the body of Messiah. Paul has the Temple in mind and the natural division and exclusion that the Temple was designed to maintain. It was possibly Paul’s memory of an accusation that was brought against him with regard to the temple that gave rise to this choice of the Temple metaphor. Paul had been wrongfully accused of taking an Asian Gentile, Trophimus, past the dividing wall. [51]

This association is enhanced by the use of familiar terms "far away" (makran) and "near" (engys).  These are Hebrew expressions that were often used to describe the position of Gentiles and Jews. The original reference related to distance from Jerusalem but Midrashic literature applied the terms to Gentiles and Jews (cf. on Esther 3:9--"No nation is near to God except Israel".[52])   

Brought near

There was a physical symbol of this division that rendered some “near” and some “far off”. 

Paul describes it as a “barrier” (phragmos) and as a “dividing wall” (mesotoichon). The

first word means simply a “fence” or “railing.” The second is much rarer and is literally a

“dividing wall” (NASB)[53]. Josephus used each of these terms separately with reference to the balustrade in the Jerusalem temple separating the court of the Gentiles from the temple proper. On it was an inscription that read: “No foreigner may enter within the barricade which surrounds the sanctuary and enclosure. Anyone who is caught doing so will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.” (Josephus, Ant.15.6.336) [54]  In Judaism this is a familiar feature in Orthodox synagogues. Known as a m’chitzah literally “that which divides something in half”, it divides the male worshippers from their female counterparts. [55]

The dividing wall has been broken down (2:14) not by the Jewish or Gentile believers but by the Messiah himself. (2:14) “He himself” (autos) is emphatic (cf. v. 15, “in himself”). Christ and no other “has solved the problem of our relationships with God and with our fellow human beings” No doubt, at some levels, it would have been easier for the two groups if the wall had not been broken down. There is a strange irony to this. In the century that saw the rise of the Messianic movement two of the Greek notices warning Gentiles not enter the sanctuary on pain of death have been found. One in 1871 which is housed in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul and the other found in 1934 which is in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.[56]  

The dividing wall broken down

There are three options that this change in circumstances presents to the two groups. First, they could mix in such a way that one group would assimilate the other thereby eliminating the distinction which the wall was designed to maintain. Second, the groups could maintain their distinctions by keeping a distance from each other, living as though the wall was still in place.

The third option is by far the most complex, which is probably why it has not really practiced. Both groups retain their distinctiveness, in terms of Torah observance on the part of Jewish believers, and a “Torah sensitive” lifestyle on the part of Gentile believers.

A Failure in the Church

There are many reasons why the Church has not achieved this way of living. First, it demands a maturity which is able to accept difference without being threatened by it. Second, it requires the willingness of messianic believers not to live like Gentiles and to maintain their Jewish identity in word and deed. David Stern comments on Torah observance among Messianic believers as follows,

“Not that there needs to be uniformity of opinion - the words of Beit-Hillel and of Beit-Shammai were both said to be the words of the living God - but that the issues   need to be understood in depth.” [57]

Third, it demands of Gentiles that they live in such a way that the Jewish observance of Torah is not compromised by their behaviour and that their behaviour is informed by Torah. This is reflected in the instructions given to the Gentile believers at Antioch by the Jerusalem Council.[58]

This has all kinds of pastoral complications but, if we were able to live together in shalom with these distinctions, it would certainly demonstrate the manifold wisdom of God (3:10) a great deal more than our present situation does.

The enmity (ἔχθρα)

2:15 The NIV, usually sensitive to Hebraic insight, does little to elucidate the metaphor by its translation of this verse.

“…by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.”  (2:15-16 NIV)

The average reader cannot really be blamed for reading this section with the understanding that Jesus abolished the Torah when He died on the cross. This would seem to indicate that the peace (the end of hostility) and the one new man are brought about by Jewish believers forsaking the Torah and becoming assimilated into a Torah-free environment which is nothing more that becoming Gentiles.  

This interpretation is in contradiction with both Yeshua’s teaching[59]  and the Paul’s many statements about the Torah.[60]

In his commentary on Ephesians Jim Gerrish cites Weust’s rendering of this sentence;

First, he abolished the law…as a divisive instrument separating men from God and Jews from Gentiles. Secondly he created a single new humanity…Thirdly, he     reconciled this new united humanity to God."[61]

This arrangement is reflected in David Stern’s Jewish New Testament,

he has made us both one and has broken down the m'chitzah which divided us by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom, and in order to reconcile to God both in a single body by being executed on a stake as a criminal and thus killing in himself that enmity.[62]

The same arrangement is given in the New American Standard Bible.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.[63]

Apart from the fact that Paul is talking about the enmity caused by the difference between Torah observant Jewish believers and Gentiles he is envisaging a shalom that exists between the two groups because of their allegiance to the Messiah. He is the cornerstone of this new creation. (2:20)

Stern describes the enmity between Jews and Gentiles as having four components;

1. “Gentile envy of the special status accorded by God to Israel in the Torah.
2. Jewish pride at being chosen.
3. Gentile resentment of that pride.
4. Mutual dislike of each other's customs.”  [64]

Conclusions.

Both metaphors address the issues of distinction and unity. In true Hebraic fashion they are not mutually exclusive but rather a creative tension in which the manifold wisdom of God is to be demonstrated. When we choose to emphasise distinction to the detriment of unity we choose less than God’s intention for His “one new man”. When we insist on the loss of distinction the prerequisite for unity we loose the characteristics of a divine creation. Commenting on this concept Dwight Pryor says,

“...the echad of the "one" new humanity in Messiah is indeed a unity not a singularity. The division has been removed but the distinction remains which is why he pleads so earnestly again and again for that unity (echad) to be manifest in the life of the church.”[65]

How we use these metaphors in describing the relationship between Messianic believers and those from Gentile communities may promote this unity. To do this we must maintain the creative tension between the preservation of distinction and promotion of unity. Developing an ecclesiology that allows for distinction and simultaneously promotes unity is at the heart of Paul’s message, and as such, it should also be at the heart of our message as well.  Affirming Jewish identity and restoring the Jewish heritage of the Church are essential elements of this ministry. The Gentile Church must be helped to move away from the arrogance of supersessionism and the commonly associated anti-Judaism, and at times even antisemitism, which has been an entrenched position for so long. Gentiles who understand the importance of the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith are key players in this ministry of transformation. Through this transformation Gentiles are enabled to discover that the Hebraic heritage is theirs as well, that they are, indeed the spiritual offspring of the father of faith, Abraham. Gentiles have a great deal to learn from Messianic communities but it would be naïve to think that the learning process would be unidirectional.

Providing opportunities for the diverse communities to interact and to learn from each other are a role that CMJ is uniquely positioned to play. Promoting mutual respect and a willingness to hear one another are vital components of the process of building a community that is a reflection of the one new man concept.

And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.  You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

Revelation 5:9-10

The Author:

The Revd John Atkinson is the Director of CMJ South Africa.

He is an ordained Anglican minister based in Cape Town at St Johns Parish Wynberg.

[1] Cardozo. L. Rabbi.  1998. The Written and Oral Torah, a Comprehensive Introduction.  Washington, DC. Jason Aronson

[2] Ibid.

[3] Berkhof, L. 1974 Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Michgan. Baker Book House. (82-91)

[4] Maimonides Moses 1904 (Eighth Proposition)  Second Edition. The Guide For The Perplexed (Translation  M. Friedlander)  (1:57)

[5] Heschel, A. 1979 Man is not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion. New York. Farrar, Straus and Giroux (115)

[6] Johnson, L.T. 1999. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation.  Minneapolis. Augsburg Fortress (21)

[7] Matt 4:23

[8] Luke 17:18

[9] Matt 15:22-28; Mark 7:24-30

[10] Matt 4:15; 10:5; 20:19; 20:25; Mark 10:33; 10:42; Luke 2:32; 18:32; 21:24; 22:25.

[11] Matt 15:22-24; Luke 9:52-53; 17:18; John 4:9; 4:22

[12] Green, Joel G.; McKnight, Scot; Marshall, I. Howard; editors, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1998, c1992.

[13]. Ibid

[14] Genesis 12:1-3

[15] Exodus 20:10; 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14

[16] Acts 15:19-29

[17] Collins, R.F. 1988 Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pseudepigrapha. Delaware. Glazier Inc.

[18] Martin R.P. 1978 New Testament Foundations (Vol 2) Michigan Paternoster Press “F.F. Bruce’s essay is a notable illustration of scholarly interpreters of Ephesians who see it as Paul’s  “final  masterpiece”, the summation of his apostolic labours as a missionary thinker.”  (1978:229)

[19] Pinnock, C.H. 2000 The Scripture Principle. Vancouver. Regent College Publishing 

[20] Collins, R.F. 1988 Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pseudepigrapha. Delaware. Glazier Inc.

[21] Young B. H. 1997 Paul The Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews and Gentiles. Massachusetts Hendrickson Publishers Inc. (80)

[22] Wright, N.T  Romans and the Theology of Paul  (Article)

[23] Stendahl, K. 1963 The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West. London: SCM,

[24] Van Biema, D.  The Re-Judaizing of Jesus, A Sea Change? Time Magazine March 24 2008 (Vol. 171 No. 12)

[25] Barclay. John M. G. 2001 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE) Edinburgh. T&T Clark. (287)

[26] Richardson, P. 1999  Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans  Edinburgh T&T Clark (239)

[27]  Feldman, L. H. 1996 Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. Leiden. EJ Brill (227)

[28] Ibid

[29] Acts 18:2 New International Version

[30] Skarsaune, O. & Hvalvik, R. 2007 Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Massachusetts. Peabody. (198)

[31] Ibid. (198)

[32]  Gen. Rabbah 45:4  RASHI Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, (Hebrew: רבי שלמה יצחקי), better known by the acronym Rashi (Hebrew: ‏רש"י‎), (February 22, 1040 – July 13, 1105), was a rabbi from France, famed as the author of the first comprehensive commentaries on the Talmud, Torah and Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). The quote from Rabbah 45:4 is as follows;  She said, “This Sarai her conduct in secret is not like her conduct in public. She shows herself as if she is a righteous woman, but she is not a righteous woman, for she did not merit to conceive all these years, whereas I have conceived from the first union.”

[33] Skarsaune, O. & Hvalvik, R. 2007 Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Massachusetts. Peabody. (199)

[34] Ibid.  (191)

[35] Nanos, M. D. 1996 The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis. Fortress Press (243)

[36] Stuhlmacher, P. 1994  Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary . Kentucky Westminster/ John Knox Press (166)

[37] Cited in Bell R. H. 1994 Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11  Tübingen. Mohr Siebeck. (123)

[38] Stuhlmacher, P. 1994  Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary . Kentucky Westminster/ John Knox Press (166)

[39] Bell R. H. 1994 Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11  Tübingen. Mohr Siebeck. (123)

[40] Ibid.

[41] Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible 1998 Electronic Edition Parsons Technology, Inc

[42] Young, B.H. 1997 Paul the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews and Gentiles. Massachusetts Hendrickson Publishers Inc. quote from an article  by  Stendahl K.  Paul among Jews and Gentiles 1-2, (80)

[43] Acts 15:5

[44] Galatians 5:12

[45] Ephesians 3:4

[46] Wilson M. R. 1989. Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids Mi. Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing (14)

[47] Bivin. D. 2004 The Olive Tree’s Root. Article published in Jerusalem Perspective 

[48] Wilson M. R. 1989. Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids Mi. Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing (14)

[49] Ibid. (15)

[50]  Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31

[51]   Acts 21:29

[52]  Montefiore C.G & Loewe H.M.J. 1974.  A Rabbinic Anthology. Virginia. Schocken Books (97)

[53]  New American Standard Version 1995 Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications

[54]  Josephus, Flavius. Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. London, Pickering & Inglis., 1960.

[55]  Stern, D. 1996  Jewish New Testament Commentary. Maryland. Jewish New Testament Publications (583) 

[56]  Bruce, F.F. 1984 NICNT The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (297)

[57]  Stern, D.H. Messianic Jewish Manifesto Jerusalem.  Jewish New Testament Publications (137)

[58]  Acts 15:28-29

[59] Matt 5:17-20

[60]   Romans 3:31; 7:12; 7:14; 7:16; Gal 4:4-5; 1 Tim 1:8

[61]  Wuest, K. S. 1984 Ephesians in the Greek New Testament: Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.  cited in  Gerrish, J. 2006 Ephesians: Living in the Heavenly Places http://www.churchisraelforum.com/Ephesians Living in the Heavenly Places.htm

[62] Stern. D.H. 1997 The Jewish New Testament. Clarksville. Jewish New Testament Publications (259)

[63] New American Standard Version 1995 Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications

[64] Stern. D.H. 1996 The Jewish New Testament Commentary. Clarksville. Jewish New Testament Publications (585)

[65] Pryor, D.A. Private correspondence with the author.