25

PAUL AND ARBORICULTURE: ROMANS 11.17-24

A.G. Baxter and J.A. Ziesler

Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1PL

The apostle uses the business of grafting new branches into olive
trees to make a crucial point about the relation between ancient
Israel and the Christian community, to maintain the continuity of
the former with the latter, to stress the dependence of the Gentiles on
their newly found ancient roots, and to point forward to a larger hope
that, in the end, God’s people may comprise not only those who at
present have faith in Christ, but also those who seem to have
declined to be part of that people as he understands it. The
suggestion made in this paper is that, rightly understood, the figure of
grafting into an old tree materially assists our comprehension of
Paul’s argument at this point in Romans.
Such a point is by no means invariably conceded. It has sometimes
been suggested’ that Paul was a townsman, and therefore had no
direct knowledge of oleiculture. As a result, he describes a ridiculous
and impossible procedure. Alternatively, if he did know his oleiculture,
he also knew that what he was talking about was botanical nonsense,
against nature, and that napd of)otv in 11.24 indicates that he knew
this; nevertheless, through the miraculous operation of divine grace
the impossible happens, analogically speaking.~ Others who are
aware that the botanical process may not have been at all impossible,
are still disinclined to exploit it fully in exegesis, because it does not
seem to convey the right message about that same miraculous

operation of divine grace, or because it may tend to suggest that

3
(contrary to v. 18) the tree owes something to the branches.3
Despite an intriguing suggestion by W.D. Davies that Paul know-
ingly turns on its head the common identification of the olive tree as
a symbol of Graeco-Roman cultures most commentators suppose
26

that he deliberately exploits a long-standing identification of the olive

tree as a figure of Israel. The importance of the olive tree and its
culture in the ancient world as a mark of a settled, secure, and
civilized existence, and equally its importance in the economy of
many Mediterranean societies, then as now, is hardly in question.
This leads us to the work of Sir William Ramsay, who 80 years ago
argued that, simply because of its importance to civilized life, the
methods of oleiculture would be as well known to Paul as to any of
his contemporaries who went about with open eyes. Townsman or
countryman, he was unlikely to have been ignorant about the
cultivation of olives. Moreover, Ramsay claimed, there is strong
evidence that the practice of grafting scions of the wild olive
(aYP1ÉÀalOç) into an aging or diseased cultivated olive was not only
possible and successful, but widespread and well known.’ He called
to witness the only writer to leave copious material about the culture
of trees, including olive trees, Columella (who was an almost exact
contemporary of Paul’s). This material is to be found in his De re
rustica and De arboribus. There is also the fourth-century writer
Palladius, whose work is to a very considerable extent derivative, not
least from Columella7
Columella writes a good deal about grafting, in De re rustica
5.11.1-15 and De arboribus 26-27 (although a good deal of the
material in the two works overlaps, even to the point of being straight
repetition). He includes a considerable amount also about oleiculture,
in De re rustica from 5.9.16. He certainly thinks he knows what he is
talking about, and it is interesting that in 5.9.16, almost in passing, he
says that well-established trees that are failing to produce proper
crops can be rejuvenated and made more productive if they are
ingrafted with shoots from the wild olive. In discussing Columella,
Ramsay stresses that this is a surgical process, having nothing to do
with another process of grafting that is used when a tree is being
established in the first place.8 Further, this surgical process is carried
out strictly to benefit the tree, to renew its life and fruitfulness. Paul
would surely know this. Obviously a question arises about grafting
from a wild into a cultivated olive, and indeed about the identification
of the wild olive (aYP1ÉÀalOç). Although he acknowledged the
confusion and disagreement about the matter, he took it that the
’wild olive’ was the oleaster (Greek Kónvoç), a different species from
the olive proper.9 He concedes that in that case the procedure is odd,
but says that nevertheless it works. Indeed his witness Columella on
 27

several occasions states with considerable force that any scion can be
grafted on to any stock.&dquo; Almost certainly Ramsay was wrong about
this. The dypitkatoq would be the wild olive proper, of the same
species as the cultivated olive, despite its difference in appearance. It
is a bush rather than a tree, with small oval leaves and small hard
fruit which yield very little oil. Nonetheless, although it does not
appear to be the same species it is the same species.ll What Paul
describes is therefore a perfectly possible process that would be
undertaken to rejuvenate a tree. Ramsay quotes the botanist Fischer
(in Der Olbaum, p. 9) to show that in Palestine a similar process was
still used, and later (1930) the Swede Sven Linder encountered it in
more than one area of the Mediterranean, though in both cases it was

by root grafting.&dquo; The fact that Origen found the process impossible
merely shows that Origen knew less about it than Paul,13 and
Ramsay adduces reasons why this might be SO.14 It is worth noting
that a recent writer on oleiculture can speak with respect of ancient
methods, and also cite this passage in Romans as serious evidence. 15
There is therefore a good case for supposing that Paul knew what
he was talking about, and many recent commentators acknowledge
it,16 though allegations of his ignorance are still repeated by others.&dquo;
Even among the former, however, there seems to be a reluctance to
make much of Paul’s accuracy, because it is deemed inappropriate.
Life comes from the root (11.16, 18) and not from the branches,
which do not contribute anything to the tree.18 In Paul’s use of the
figure (whether allegory or metaphor) the point, it is argued, is not to
rejuvenate the tree. Moreover, it is said, v. 24 shows that the process
is against nature, which means that Paul is concerned with the
miraculous operation of grace, so that Ramsay’s argument is deemed
to be confusing and irrelevant. 19 We suggest this is a mistaken line of

thought.
If we grant that Paul knew his arboriculture, it is possible to make
the process fit very well with what Paul believes is happening to
Israel. First, we recall that, not only according to Columella but also
according to modern authorities, such grafting with scions from a
wild olive would be done only to a tree that was exhausted,
unproductive, or diseased, 21 in order to re-invigorate it. In Paul’s
understanding of salvation history also, the bringing in of the
Gentiles serves to restore life to Israel. Of course there is nothing
wrong with the root, which is probably to be understood as the
patriarchs, Abraham in particular, seen as the recipient of and
28

respondent to the promises of God (v. 16).21 The tree as a whole,

however, is not in such good condition. We know it is not, because
Israel in part has responded inadequately or wrongly to Jesus Christ
(it has shown unbelief, vv. 15, 20, 23) and the rejectors have been
rejected. It is tempting then simply to say that Gentiles have replaced
Jews within Israel, but though Paul certainly argues in Romans 111
that Jewish rejection has led to the ingathering of the Gentiles
(w. 11, 12, 15) he resists the notion that Jews are permanently
replaced (w. 12, 14, 15, 23, 24-26). The long-term strategy of God
allows Paul to hope for the final inclusion of all Israel. Surely the
figure of the olive tree and in particular the meaning of the grafting
process (to rejuvenate the tree) tends on the whole to give strength to
this hope. There is no new tree, but the same old tree rejuvenated,
though part of it has had to be removed and new scions grafted in.
Thus the process not only enables the Gentiles to become fruitful,
but also restores strong life to the tree as a whole. Certainly the root
is not affected, and certainly the ingrafted brances depend on the root
for their life (as branches not ingrafted they are moribund). Yet they
do, once ingrafted and deriving sap from the root, contribute to the
renovation of the tree.
In theological terms they do this by making Israel ’jealous’, as Paul
has argued and will argue (11.11, 14, 31). Exactly what he means by
this one cannot be dogmatic about, but he probably means that
seeing the Gentiles entering in such numbers into the people of God
(and assuming that Paul did not think of the church as a community
outside Judaism), they will come to recognize that the elect are being
gathered to Zion and they are not there This will make them
repent, be forgiven, and return to being true Israel. Then in their
turn they can be grafted back in (vv. 23-24); at this point the
arboriculture does become absurd (since excised branches wither and
die), unless the time before this happens is implicitly taken to be
exceedingly short. It is thus not true that the ingrafting of the
Gentiles contributes nothing to the tree; in salvation history terms it
contributes a very great deal. We must note, however, that it is the
ingrafting that makes the contribution, rather than the scions
themselves strictly speaking. The final tree will be not only sound,
but a much bigger tree with the restored old branches as well as the
ingrafted new ones. In the overall divine strategy, the ingrafting of
the Gentile scions is a crucial and necessary intermediate stage.
Two important questions remain. First, why must the Gentiles not
 29

boast (w. 18, 19, 20)? In the first place because without being part of
the tree and dependent on the root, they can be and do nothing
(v. 18). In the second place, because they are no more invulnerable
than the broken-off branches (v. 21) and must maintain the faith that
is the indispensable condition for belonging (v. 20). It is boasting over
the other branches, the removed branches, that they are warned
against, not any kind of self-righteousness. Just as Paul is elsewhere
concerned to warn Jews against boasting of their privileges over
against Gentiles, so here he is concerned to warn Gentile Christians
not to do the reverse. All the same, the fact that they cannot boast
and that of themselves they do not contribute anything, does not
mean that their ingrafting contributes nothing.
The second question is the meaning of napd 00(ytv in v. 24. It
would be convenient for the present thesis to say that it simply means
that the Gentiles belonged naturally to the wild olive, while the Jews
belonged naturally to the cultivated olive, and that now the Gentile
Christians are part of the tree to which they did not by nature
belong.23 This is not, however, the most natural way to take the
verse. On the other hand, there is no need to suppose that Paul is
here signalling that he is aware he is describing an impossible
oleicultural process. Most likely, he calls it naps <t>Ú<J1V not because it
does not and cannot happen,24 but rather because it is interfering
with nature, as the ancients were well aware. 21 The whole process is
an interference with nature, and strictly therefore against nature, but
it happens and it works.
Paul’s figures in general have a limited area of applicability. One
thinks of the marriage law in Romans 7 as a prime example. If the
details are pressed, the figure dissolves in confusion, but the main
point is clear enough and the figure works. It seems to us that the
main point of the figure of the olive tree and its grafting in Romans
11 is precisely what it is sometimes alleged not to be, namely the
rejuvenation of the tree. This is why the process would be undertaken
at all. 21 It would enable the ingrafted branches to become fruitful,
but the rejuvenation of the whole tree would be the primary aim. If,
as we suggest, it is likely that Paul knew this, then the figure is used

primarily to stress God’s intention to save Israel (v. 26).

Thus historical Israel is not downgraded. Gentile Christians have
not, or more precisely will not have, replaced the unbelieving Jews.
They have to accept the fact that in the long run their purpose is to
benefit Israel, the Israel of faith and promise, the Israel of which
Abraham is the theological as well as the literal progenitor. 27
30

NOTES

1. Most C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans

famously by
(London, 1932), p. 180.
2. E.g. O. Michel, Der Brief an die R&ouml;mer (G&ouml;ttingen, 1963), pp. 348f.
3. Even F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London, 1963),
p. 218, does not altogether avoid this failure.
4. Jewish and Pauline Studies (London, 1984), pp. 153-63.
5. See for example Jer. 11.16, 19 (and note LXX version), and A.T.
Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (London, 1974), pp. 121-
24, who also cites Rabbinic use of the figure. He thinks Rom. 11.17-24 is a
midrash on Jer. 11.16-19. Philo, De praemiis et poenis, describes the proselyte
as turned from a weed into fruitfulness, but there is nothing about the olive
or about grafting, and the passage is not as important for Rom. 11 as was

thought by H.J. Schoeps, Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of
Jewish Religious History (London, 1961), p. 242 (and cf. Strack-Billerbeck,
III, p. 291, for later evidence of the idea of human scions being grafted into
Israel).
6. W.M. Ramsay, ’The Olive Tree and the Wild Olive’, Expositor, 6th
Series, 11 (1905), pp. 16-34, 152-60.
7. See his Opus Agriculturae, 11.8.3 and 14.53.
8. See Ramsay, pp. 24f.: in establishing a tree, scions of the best available
stock are grafted in at 7 to 10 years. This is a quite different matter from that
reflected in Rom. 11.
9. Ramsay (pp. 152-60) is confused about the Wild Olive, oleaster in
Latin and &kap a;&oacgr;&tau;&iota;&nu;&ogr;&sfgr; in Greek He thinks it is a quite different species from the
true olive, whereas in fact, according to the modem botanists we have been
able to consult, it is not.
10. De re rustica 5.11.1, 12-15; De arboribus 26-27. He is well aware that
other botanical writers disagree with him.
11. Cf. n. 9 above. On the botanical point see O. Pulunin, Trees and
Bushes of Europe (London, 1976), p. 166; N.W. Simmonds (ed.), Evolution of
Crop Plants (London and New York, 1976), p. 219, thinks the oleaster may
be an escaped variety, not a truly wild one. It is important to bear in mind
.hat terminology varies, in that the name oleaster may be given both to the
wild variety of the true olive, and to a different species altogether. In Rom.
11, there is no reason why &a cgr;&gam a;&rho;&igr;&eacgr;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&ogr;&sfgr; should not be the true wild olive, and
is will be seen below, it could be and was used in grafting.

12. Cf. S. Linder, ’Das Propfen mit wilden &Ouml;lzweigen (R&ouml;m. 11,17)’,
Palastinajahrbuch 26 (1930), pp. 40-43; although the precise method which
the discusses, not altogether clearly, may not be directly relevant, yet the fact

hat grafting done for the purpose of rejuvenating old or ailing trees was
known in more than one place around the Mediterranean is of some

mportance. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina, IV, pp. 184-85, cites
 31

Linder but says that his Arab friends find the idea ludicrous. In any case, Dr
D. Gledhill, to whom we are much indebted for botanical guidance, assures
us that the trunk of the tree would be the place where grafting would be
done.
13. In his commentary on Rom. 8.10. Cf. W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam,
The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1945), p. 328.
14. Art. cit., p. 33.
15. R.J. Garner, The Grafter’s Handbook (London, 1947), pp. 29-30; K.D.
White, Roman Farming (London, 1970), p. 227, and cf. pp. 248-58.
16. E.g. Murray, p. 86; Black, p. 146; Michel, pp. 358f.; Schmidt, p. 195;
Bruce, pp. 217f.; Cranfield, pp. 565f.; Leenhardt, p. 288; K&auml;semann, p. 308,
is somewhat non-committal.
17. E.g. Dodd, p. 180; L&uuml;thi, p. 153; O’Neill, p. 187 (although for him
Paul did not write this section); Lagrange, followed by Huby-Lyonnet,
acknowledges the work of Columella, but rather confusingly doubts if Paul
would know it, so that Paul could have been botanically accurate without
meaning to be (Lagrange, p. 230; Huby-Lyonnet, pp. 395-96). Schneider, in
TDNT, III, p. 721, takes a similar line, as does J. Munck in Christ and Israel
(Philadelphia, 1967), p. 130.
18. So, for example, Bruce, p. 218; Cranfield, pp. 566ff.; Michel, p. 349;
Schmidt, p. 195 (following Zahn and Schlatter); see also Strack-Billerbeck,
III, p. 291; Munck, Christ and Israel, p. 130; Davies, Jewish and Pauline
Studies, p. 145.
19. So Lagrange, p. 230; Munck, Christ and Israel, p. 128; U. Luz, Das
Geschichtsverstandnis des Paulus (Munich, 1968), pp.276f.; earlier A.
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (London, 1927), p. 274.
20. It is hard to understand how Munck, Chrise and Israel, p. 130, can say
that in Paul’s account the tree is not feeble and is not failing to produce fruit,
and that this is shown by the ability of the ingrafted branches to draw from
the richness of the root. Certainly the root is in good shape (11.18; and cf.
v. 16). Yet only because there is something wrong with them&mdash;their lack of

faith (v. 20)&mdash;have branches been cut out. The tree is basically sound, but as
a whole it is in trouble. If it were not so, the whole discussion at least from
11.1 would be unnecessary!
21. So in effect Luz, Geschichtsverst&auml;ndnis, p. 276. Barrett, however, ( ad
loc.), thinks that despite v. 28 the root is the Jewish Christians. The
difference to our argument is slight, as in any case the Jewish Christians
would be seen as the primary though of course not the only heirs of Abraham
and the promise.
22. Cf. for example Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies, pp. 132, 347 n. 43.
23. This is mentioned, though without endorsement, by Cranfield, pp. 566,
571, and Bruce, p. 220 (and compare Schlatter, p. 325).
24. As is suggested by, e.g., Barrett, pp. 217, 219; Best, p. 129; Sanday and
32

Headlam, pp. 328, 330; Murray, p. 86 (despite his apparent endorsement of

Ramsay’s case); J.A.T. Robinson, p. 129; M. Black, p. 146; Leenhardt,
p. 288; Michel, p. 348.
25. So Bruce, p. 220; Cranfield, pp. 566, 571; Ramsay, p. 23.
26. Cf. Garner, The Grafter’s Handbook, pp. 195-200. Dr Gledhill of the
Bristol University Department of Botany confirms that this is the usual
reason for any grafting operation.
27. So many writers, e.g., P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church
(Cambridge, 1969), p. 130. No use has been made in this present short article
of the full-scale work of M.M. Bourke,
A Study of the Metaphor of the Olive
Tree in Romans XI (Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred
Theology, Series 2, No. 3; Washington, 1947). Oddly, perhaps, he never
discusses the arboriculture and its implications.
One should also mention K.H. Rengstorf, ’Das Olbaum-Gleichnis in
Rom. 11,16ff. Versuch einer weiterfuhrenden Deutung’, in E. Bammel, C.K.
Barrett, and W.D. Davies, Donum Gentilicium (Oxford, 1978), pp. 127-64,
which, though it is inadequate on the arboricultural point, provides a very
interesting treatment of possible background material.