Why does the Apostle use the expression "contrary to nature"? The root and fatness

of the olive tree belonged to Israel, and if Israel had repented, and had been restored at

that time, no Gentile would ever have shared it with them, even temporarily. It was

something exceptional that was in view. It is clear that Paul cannot be referring to the

great promise of justification by faith, for two reasons. In the first place, he warns the

believing Gentile that he might be "cut off", a warning that cannot refer to justification by

faith, for Rom. 8: makes a separation for ever impossible; and secondly, Abraham

himself was an uncircumcised Gentile when he was justified by faith, and so can be the

father of all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, without any necessity for a grafting

in "contrary to nature".  So far as justification was concerned, the oneness of all

believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, was so close, that many have taken the words of

Gal. 3: 27-29 as though they were written in Ephesians. "Contrary to nature" cannot,

therefore be used of the great doctrine of Rom. 1:-8:;  it can only apply to the

dispensational teaching of Rom. 9:-11: The doctrinal truth remains, the dispensational

aspects change, and pass away.

We have now seen enough, we trust, to convince us that truth is not in view in

Rom. 11:  Before passing on to the great conclusion, however, we must examine more

carefully the Apostle's figure of the olive tree, and discover why he speaks of the process

as engrafting into the true olive tree, branches of the wild olive, contrary to nature.

If the reader will glance at the structure of Rom. 11: 11-32, he will see that the word

`provoke' is given three times. Two of these references actually occur in verses 11 & 14,

while in verses 17-24, instead of stating the fact for the third time, we find that the

Apostle uses the figure of the olive tree. It is the usual custom in grafting to take a slip of

the choice variety, whether it be apple or pear, or rose, and graft it into the stock of some

stronger, though not so choice, variety. For example, in the case of the standard rose, the

tall stem is the briar, and upon this is budded the more fragile flower. Paul appears to

reverse all this, and there are many who bluntly say that he did not know anything about

the culture of trees, and must not be taken literally. This, however, cannot be. He hangs

the whole argument of Rom. 11: upon this figure, and if he is wrong in this, he may be

wrong altogether. Paul himself recognizes that the process is "contrary to nature", but

those who criticize, and suggest that he is using a far-fetched illustration, are themselves

in error. While the engrafting of a wild olive into the true was "contrary to nature", it

was by no means contrary to practice. Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella, a Latin

writer on agriculture, gardening and trees, deals with the cultivation of the olive tree, and

speaks of the very practice under consideration. It was found that when an olive tree

began to cease fruit-bearing, the insertion of a wild graft had the same effect upon the

tree that it was hoped the insertion of the Gentile would have had on Israel;  it

"provoked" the flagging olive tree to "emulation". The practice has been revived in our

own day to provoke certain shy-bearing pear trees to fruitfulness. Columella flourished

about 40A.D., so that Paul was not speaking "without the book".