Fig. 193.

A glance at almost any even of the most trustworthy and judicious commentaries on this passage, is sufficient to show how distrustful their authors are of their ground in looking at the main points of the chief figure here, the grafting of the wild branch on the cultivated stock. "It has sometimes been remarked," says Haldane, "that there is no grafting in the olive-tree. But this makes no difference. The illustration from the process of grafting is the same, whether the operation be performed in the particular tree mentioned or not." "The Jewish church," Di says Hodge, "is compared to the olive-tree, one of the most addurable, productive, and valuTable of the productions of the earth, because it was highly favoured, and therefore valued in the sight of God. The Gentiles are compared to the wild olive, one of the most worthless of trees, to express the degradation of their state, considered as estranged from God. As it is customary to ingraft good scions on inferior stocks, the nature of the product being determined by the graft and not the root, it has been thought that the illustration of the apostle is not very apposite. But the difficulty The idea may be

Wild Olive.

may result from pressing the comparison too far. simply this, 'As the scion of one tree is ingrafted into another, and has no independent life, but derives all its vigour from the root, so the Gentiles are introduced among the people of God, not to confer but to receive good.' It is however said, on the authority of ancient writers and of modern travellers, to have been not unusual to graft the wild on the cultivated olive." Others might be quoted. Now it is not the least likely that Paul, who must have been intimately acquainted

แ

with the whole method of treatment of the olive-tree, would have taken the olive as a figure, if any other tree would have answered equally well. Nor would he have used any illustration which was not apposite. The key to the figure is to be found in verse 24, in the expression "wert graffed contrary to nature." The drift of the argument is to show how completely the Gentiles owed their newly acquired privileges to the sovereign grace of God. Thus, he says, it is natural to graft the cultivated branch on the wild stock, the inserted branch in this case gives its nature to the wild. It is neither natural nor useful to graft the wild branch on the cultivated stock; yet God's dealings with the Gentiles have been like this-contrary to nature, yet in grace overruled for highest ends even to the Jew-"that they might be provoked to emulation."

Light is shed on the figure of the root by a recent traveller. Resting in one of the olive-groves on the road from Beirût to Damascus, he asks-" Have all the trees in this vast grove been reclaimed from a wild state by grafting? Certainly not. The apostle himself speaks of the root of the good olive-implying that, by some means or other, it had been changed. The process by which this result is reached is quite simple. You observe certain knobs, or large warts, so to speak, on the body of this tree. Cut off one of these which has a branch growing out of it, above the place where it has been grafted; plant it in good soil, water it carefully, and it will strike out roots and grow. It is now a good tree from the root, and all scions taken from it are also 'good by nature.' But if the knob, or branch, be taken below the grafting, your tree comes wild again. The greater part of this grove is now 'good' from the root. I am told, however, by olive-growers, that there is a tendency to degenerate, and that it is often a great improvement to graft even a good tree with one that is still better."

When expounding the law of Christian liberty, and illustrating its limits (1 Cor. ix. 1), Paul puts forth his claim to the consideration of the Corinthians on grounds which spring naturally out of the great doctrine which he set before them in so many lights in the previous chapter. That he had for Christ's sake become their servant, did not, he protests, imply that he had relinquished personal liberty, or that in any way he had shut himself out from the power of admonishing them as to all duty. If he had not made these demands on their worldly substance for the cause of Christ, and for his own support as a minister of Christ, it was not, he says, from any want of a feeling of complete right to do so. On the contrary he states the claim, and does

VOL. II.

4 G

not at all feel laid under obligation, even should he hold by it until the Corinthians acknowledged it-"If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" (ver. 11.) It is not for "who goeth a warfare at any time on his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt" (ver. 7-10). The quotation from the law of Moses is made from Deut. xxx. 4, where the usual Hebrew word for ox (shōr) is used. The Greek equivalent (bous) occurs here. The text is one of many which indicate that deep spiritual meaning lies in Old Testament words which, as first employed, seemed to have relations only to very common earthly matters. In the Epistle to Timothy the right which Paul claimed for himself and Barnabas is, by special direction, made over to others. 'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, the labourer is worthy of his hire" (1 Tim. v. 17, 18). With the Gentiles it seems to have been otherwise in their dealings with the labouring yoke. But God wished his people to differ, even as regards their care of the oxen, and under this simple illustration he brought them in contact with great and vital truths. Where the Gentiles did not muzzle the patient oxen, they appear to have permitted them to take the straw only. An interesting proof of this was brought to light by the younger Champollion, in 1828. He found on an Egyptian monument, of very ancient date, a picture of peasants engaged on the threshing-floor, and, in hieroglyphics, the following song written over their heads:

"Tread ye out for yourselves,
Tread ye out for yourselves,
O oxen!

Tread ye out for yourselves,

Tread ye out for yourselves,

The straw;

แ

For men, who are your masters,

The grain.

"The Fellahs of the present day," says Gliddon, "sing in all their agricultural occupations; and the words of their simple melodies are

ANCIENT ROME.-ACTS ii. 10; xix. 21; xxviii. 16: Rox. xvi.

N&N WYORK