A Reexamination of Jacob 5

[aw.smoot]

Hey everybody 👋

I'm relatively new to this forum (thus I'm a little perplexed why I can only post to the "Social Hall" thread, but I would like to solicit some critical feedback on a recent article I've written after conducting a close study of the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5. I come here, because I was encouraged by a discussion that @teddyaware prompted back in 2020. To put it frankly, I don't think a the traditional understanding of Jacob 5 is correct in how we interpret many of the elements in this passage. Now, there's a literary discussion and a historical discussion to be had here, but I wanted to first begin with a literary approach. I've attached my study and conclusion here but would welcome any and all input (no matter how critical). No matter what your thoughts might be about the origins of the Book of Mormon, it's clearly a complex and sophisticated text. Thanks, everyone! 

Both Roots & Branches.pdf

[aw.smoot]

And here is the original thread that I referred to: 

 

[teddyaware]

26 minutes ago, aw.smoot said:

And here is the original thread that I referred to: 

 

When you accumulate a sufficient number of posts on the Social Hall (forget what the actual number is), you’ll then be able to fully engage on any forum. I’m going to read your article with interest, and return and report. All the best!

Edited September 11 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

aw-smoot, I think it's 25 posts and many use the "three word story" to build up that many posts. Plus, share a recipe, maybe a good movie or post replies on so many other topics in Social. Also, once that's been done, I believe you could start topics in the other areas like the News and General Discussion. 

Welcome!

[teddyaware]

20 hours ago, aw.smoot said:

Hey everybody 👋

I'm relatively new to this forum (thus I'm a little perplexed why I can only post to the "Social Hall" thread, but I would like to solicit some critical feedback on a recent article I've written after conducting a close study of the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5. I come here, because I was encouraged by a discussion that @teddyaware prompted back in 2020. To put it frankly, I don't think a the traditional understanding of Jacob 5 is correct in how we interpret many of the elements in this passage. Now, there's a literary discussion and a historical discussion to be had here, but I wanted to first begin with a literary approach. I've attached my study and conclusion here but would welcome any and all input (no matter how critical). No matter what your thoughts might be about the origins of the Book of Mormon, it's clearly a complex and sophisticated text. Thanks, everyone! 

Both Roots & Branches.pdf 340.24 kB · 5 downloads

Read your article and believe your take on the parable of the Olive Tree is largely correct. I think one of the most important elements that the traditional interpretation of the parable gets wrong is that rather than representing the abstract principle of covenants (a concept devoid of any real life and meaning in the absence of actual men and women who have consciously made covenants with the Lord), the roots actually represent covenant making members of the house of Israel who have passed beyond the portal of death and are now dwelling in the world of the departed dead. And as you noted, Zenos testifies that God loves the entire house of Israel, both the roots and the branches.

4 And how merciful is our God unto us, for he remembereth the house of Israel, both roots and branches; and he stretches forth his hands unto them all the day long; and they are a stiffnecked and a gainsaying people; but as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. (Jacob 6)

In light of the words ‘us,’ ’them,’ ‘they’ and ‘people,’ it’s exceedingly hard to imagine that the roots of which Zenos speaks are covenants and not covenant making members of the house of Israel. The assertion that the ‘roots’ of Zenos’ parable are members of the house of Israel lends itself perfectly to the following truths the prophet Joseph Smith testified to in Doctrine and Covenants 128.

15 And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect. (Doctrine and Covenants 128)

In other words, without those who continue to walk the covenant path in the spirit world God’s plan of salvation would fail and come to naught. No wonder God remembers those who are the departed living roots of the house of Israel!

Further, Doctrine and Covenants 138 powerfully sets forth in detail the essential salvative work performed by those of the house of Israel in the world of departed spirits. Personally, I have zero doubt that the roots Zenos refers to in his parable are those who are walking the covenant path and anxiously engaged in missionary work in the realm of the dead. 

Edited September 12 by teddyaware

[aw.smoot]

Thanks @teddyaware for taking the time to read this article and responding. I do find your interpretation of the roots representing Israelite ancestry fascinating, and I'd like to consider this a bit further. From your perspective, what is the significance of the Lord repeatedly specifically digging, dunging, and nourishing the roots? Additionally, what I the significant of the branches "overcoming the roots" so that the whole tree is now producing "wild fruit"? Likewise, near the tail end of the allegory (v.66.) the servants make tremendous effort to keep the roots and the breaches "equal in strength", so that one does not overcome the other? The constant maintenance by both the Lord and his servant to me suggests a much more "living" element pertaining to the roots. I'd really appreciate your insight here.

[aw.smoot]

Fixing some typos.

Thanks @teddyaware for taking the time to read this article and responding. I do find your interpretation of the roots representing Israelite ancestry fascinating, and I'd like to consider this a bit further. From your perspective, what is the significance of the Lord repeatedly and** specifically digging, dunging, and nourishing the roots? Additionally, what I the significance** of the branches "overcoming the roots" so that the whole tree is now producing "wild fruit"? Likewise, near the tail end of the allegory (v.66.) the servants make tremendous effort to keep the roots and the breaches "equal in strength", so that one does not overcome the other? The constant maintenance by both the Lord and his servant to me suggests a much more "living" element pertaining to the roots. I'd really appreciate your insight here.

Also, I say this because I think there is significant historical evidence that answers this question if we are to interpret the base/roots of the branches as the remnant of Israel after the Assyrian conquest in 722BCE (referred to in 2 Kings 17), in that a whole group of people are grafted into Israel after a significant portion of the Northern Kingdom had been cut off and carried away. The base of the tree represents the what remained of this people and the new group that is grafted in represents these wild olive trees that are being brought into the Israelite covenant. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, aw.smoot said:

Fixing some typos.

Thanks @teddyaware for taking the time to read this article and responding. I do find your interpretation of the roots representing Israelite ancestry fascinating, and I'd like to consider this a bit further. From your perspective, what is the significance of the Lord repeatedly and** specifically digging, dunging, and nourishing the roots? Additionally, what I the significance** of the branches "overcoming the roots" so that the whole tree is now producing "wild fruit"? Likewise, near the tail end of the allegory (v.66.) the servants make tremendous effort to keep the roots and the breaches "equal in strength", so that one does not overcome the other? The constant maintenance by both the Lord and his servant to me suggests a much more "living" element pertaining to the roots. I'd really appreciate your insight here.

Also, I say this because I think there is significant historical evidence that answers this question if we are to interpret the base/roots of the branches as the remnant of Israel after the Assyrian conquest in 722BCE (referred to in 2 Kings 17), in that a whole group of people are grafted into Israel after a significant portion of the Northern Kingdom had been cut off and carried away. The base of the tree represents the what remained of this people and the new group that is grafted in represents these wild olive trees that are being brought into the Israelite covenant. 

Doctrine and Covenants appears to indicate that the same struggles to maintain a positive, forward leaning spiritual frame of mind continue to be somewhat of a challenge, even for those who aren’t consigned to the spirit prison. Therefore it appears that there are some remaining challenges involving faithful spiritual struggle that the righteous deadness to engage in order to fully overcome the fallen nature. See for yourself.

17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.

18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful; (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

It appears that the righteous dead aren’t fully delivered from the fallen state until after the resurrection. It also appears that the Savior did indeed preach the gospel to those who were captives of the fallen state, but in actuality the imprisoned captives he visited were the righteous in paradise, else why would they be referred to as captives? And again…

49 All these and many more, even the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites and testified of the coming of the Son of God, mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance,

50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.

So again, it does indeed appear that the struggle of the righteous to remain faithful after death is real, requiring diligent effort in order to continue to move forward spiritually, otherwise why would we be told that even those spirits who die in the faith are spoken of as being captives in bondage, in need of a miraculous deliverance in order to be fully delivered from the baleful effects of physical and spiritual death? And the fact that these more righteous spirits rejoiced beyond measure at their deliverance from physical death, and the fallen state, indicates that they are, at least to a certain degree, engaged in struggles that must be overcome on the way to their full deliverance from the fallen state that can only come with the resurrection. It’s amazing because Christ really did preach the gospel to the captive spirits who were in bondage, but they were actually the more righteous who were in paradise.

In the context of your article, what all this distills down to is that the more righteous among the dead still need to endure to the end and receive gifts of divine grace and empowerment in order to fully overcome the fallen state and obtain the fullness of exaltation. So yes, the Lord also needs to purge and help the roots who on the covenant path in order to enable them to obtain the fullness of eternal life.

More later…

Edited September 12 by teddyaware

[aw.smoot]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Doctrine and Covenants appears to indicate that the same struggles to maintain a positive, forward leaning spiritual frame of mind continue to be somewhat of a challenge, even for those who aren’t consigned to the spirit prison. Therefore it appears that there are some remaining challenges involving faithful spiritual struggle that the righteous deadness to engage in order to fully overcome the fallen nature. See for yourself.

Does this adequately deal with the fact that this whole allegory is about the house of Israel though? Not Gentiles? There's only one instance of whole branches being grafted into the tree and it happens very early in the passage. Even before these scattered branches are placed elsewhere in the vineyard (which one can assumed is an allusion to ~600BC). Additionally, how does this relate to the the description of the branches overcoming these roots? Or the obsessive maintenance of keeping the branches and the roots equal "lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard."

How can the living overcome the dead? And how can the dead "be too strong for the graft" that they cause the living to perish and the whole tree is lost?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

righteous deadness

That would be a good band name.

[Dario_M]

That you can only post in Social hall is only in the beginning when you're new. I had the same thing when i was new here. 

[Kenngo1969]

Well, The Dead are righteous.  They're righteous because they're Grateful.  (ingratitude is a big sin, you know! )

 I'm not sure where that leaves these guys, but, anyway:

Sorry for the irrelevant diversion.    

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled on-topic programming.  

[CV75]

On 9/12/2024 at 3:51 PM, aw.smoot said:

Does this adequately deal with the fact that this whole allegory is about the house of Israel though? Not Gentiles? There's only one instance of whole branches being grafted into the tree and it happens very early in the passage. Even before these scattered branches are placed elsewhere in the vineyard (which one can assumed is an allusion to ~600BC). Additionally, how does this relate to the the description of the branches overcoming these roots? Or the obsessive maintenance of keeping the branches and the roots equal "lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard."

How can the living overcome the dead? And how can the dead "be too strong for the graft" that they cause the living to perish and the whole tree is lost?

I take the roots of Israel to be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the branches to be the nation of Israel as a whole. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were chosen and set apart by God to hold and transmit a special covenant relationship, and their covenant-bearing posterity likewise (the Abrahamic covenant). Abraham and his covenant are represented by the roots of the original tame tree. The branches represent his covenant descendants. Just as Christ is The Word, Messenger of the Covenant, so are His obedient stewards the words and messengers of the covenant, just as Mosiah 15: 10 – 19 describes the Lord and His servants. Jesus is a root and stem, and so are His people who abide in Him.

Some things that came to mind as I was reading Jacob 5 just the other day:

All roots (Christ and the obedient among His servants and chosen people) are good irrespective of the quality of soil in which they are planted. The Book of Mormon shows how the Lord has covenants with the Gentiles (wild olive tree) as well as Israel (the mother tree) and its relocated remnants (the young and tender shoots). Even when there is apostasy, the word remains in heaven util it is restored to the earth. I think the wild olive tree represents any time a Gentile nation assists Israel, whether by letting a remnant return to Jerusalem after the remnants were dispersed, or by hosting the restoration of the Gospel in the last days.

The roots can produce evil fruit when they are abused. Apostates do this. An example of keeping them alive is the preservation of the Lamanite remnant for their restoration in the last days despite the fathers who rejected the Lord. Divine justice, despite the divine mercy extended, issues a redemption of lesser glory when the recipient is too proud, and thus produces evil fruit.

I’m not sure why “graft” is used in verse 8 when none of the subsequent references imply that the young and tender natural branches of the original tame tree were grafted, but that they were rather placed, (v. 13); hid (v. 14 and 20); and planted (v. 21, 23- 25). Perhaps horticultural vegetative propagation is considered "grafting" here since a cutting is used. These transplanted cuttings grew their own roots and branches and received divine attention and care (verse 54 - 66).

[aw.smoot]

Thanks for your input, @CV75. @Brant Gardner, I've studied your commentary on this. If you have a moment, would you mind reading my article (found at the top) and provide some feedback?

[CV75]

On 9/12/2024 at 12:29 PM, aw.smoot said:

Fixing some typos.

Thanks @teddyaware for taking the time to read this article and responding. I do find your interpretation of the roots representing Israelite ancestry fascinating, and I'd like to consider this a bit further. From your perspective, what is the significance of the Lord repeatedly and** specifically digging, dunging, and nourishing the roots? Additionally, what I the significance** of the branches "overcoming the roots" so that the whole tree is now producing "wild fruit"? Likewise, near the tail end of the allegory (v.66.) the servants make tremendous effort to keep the roots and the breaches "equal in strength", so that one does not overcome the other? The constant maintenance by both the Lord and his servant to me suggests a much more "living" element pertaining to the roots. I'd really appreciate your insight here.

Also, I say this because I think there is significant historical evidence that answers this question if we are to interpret the base/roots of the branches as the remnant of Israel after the Assyrian conquest in 722BCE (referred to in 2 Kings 17), in that a whole group of people are grafted into Israel after a significant portion of the Northern Kingdom had been cut off and carried away. The base of the tree represents the what remained of this people and the new group that is grafted in represents these wild olive trees that are being brought into the Israelite covenant. 

Verse 7 mentions "a" wild olive tree, were there more? Could this have been the conquerors who lorded over Jeruslaem/Israel, and eventually the good fruit thereof represents those who facilitated the return to Jerusalem of some of the captives and allow them to live their own religion?

Verses 65-66 seem to parallel the wheat and tares idea. 

[aw.smoot]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

Verse 7 mentions "a" wild olive tree, were there more?

This is a great detail to point out. Thanks @CV75 And, in my opinion, affirms the reading that the vineyard represents God's covenant rather than the roots. Yes, in v. 7 the Lord instructs the servants to pluck the branches from "a wild olive-tree". 

Quote

[7] And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard saw it, and he said unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, go and pluck the branches from a wild olive-tree, and bring them hither unto me; and we will pluck off those main branches which are beginning to wither away, and we will cast them into the fire that they may be burned.

Presumably, yes, there are other wild olive trees like the one that the servant plucks the branches from but I would submit that they are all residing outside of the vineyard. It would seem strange to assume that the Lord is allowing wild olive trees to reside in the vineyard when we see him grieved to find the trees of his vineyard to all be producing wild fruit. In v.47 he declares:

Quote

[47] But what could I have done more in my vineyard? Have I slackened mine hand, that I have not nourished it, Nay, I have nourished it, and I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it; and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long, and the end draweth nigh. And it grieveth me that I should hew down all the trees of my vineyard, and cast them into the fire that they should be burned. Who is it that has corrupted my vineyard?

To which the servant responds that it is simply the nature of the trees and the loftiness of the vineyard – not because of the presence of other wild trees in the vineyard. Additionally, after the servant goes to a wild olive tree, the Lord and the Servant exclusively refer to "the wild olive tree" thereafter. Suggest that a single wild olive tree was selected to have its branches plucked out and grafted in, and only that wild olive tree and its branches are referred to from that point on. *There is a single mention of "a wild olive tree" and 14 mentions of "the wild olive tree/branches".

As I've suggested in my article, the allegory strongly asserts that 1) a major event occurred in Israelite history that caused the Lord to remove a large portion of Israelites and have them permanently cut off from the house of Israel, which was followed by 2) a new group being grafted into the house of Israel in their place. Both of these events must have occurred between the establishment of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and shortly prior to the Babylonian Exile.

The reason being that the allegory relates the Lord as having plucked off the "main branches" from the "main top" of the tree, (which are then burned) and is followed by the Servant grafting in whole branches from a wild olive tree in their place. After this is done, they prune, dig about and nourish the tree once again, after which the Lord then gathers many "young and tender branches" and carries them away and plants them elsewhere in the vineyard. Assuming that Lehi is among those branches, these events must have occurred roughly around the same time in Israelite history. Likewise, Christ relates to the Nephites that there are other "lost tribes" "...which the Father had led away out of Jerusalem". (3N21:26)

So yes, there very well may be other wild olive trees or vegetation, but they reside outside of the vineyard and therefore outside of the Lord's covenant. To be planted in the vineyard or grafted into a tree in the vineyard is to receive the Lord's covenant and divine inheritance. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, aw.smoot said:

This is a great detail to point out. Thanks @CV75 And, in my opinion, affirms the reading that the vineyard represents God's covenant rather than the roots. Yes, in v. 7 the Lord instructs the servants to pluck the branches from "a wild olive-tree". 

Presumably, yes, there are other wild olive trees like the one that the servant plucks the branches from but I would submit that they are all residing outside of the vineyard. It would seem strange to assume that the Lord is allowing wild olive trees to reside in the vineyard when we see him grieved to find the trees of his vineyard to all be producing wild fruit. In v.47 he declares:

To which the servant responds that it is simply the nature of the trees and the loftiness of the vineyard – not because of the presence of other wild trees in the vineyard. Additionally, after the servant goes to a wild olive tree, the Lord and the Servant exclusively refer to "the wild olive tree" thereafter. Suggest that a single wild olive tree was selected to have its branches plucked out and grafted in, and only that wild olive tree and its branches are referred to from that point on. *There is a single mention of "a wild olive tree" and 14 mentions of "the wild olive tree/branches".

As I've suggested in my article, the allegory strongly asserts that 1) a major event occurred in Israelite history that caused the Lord to remove a large portion of Israelites and have them permanently cut off from the house of Israel, which was followed by 2) a new group being grafted into the house of Israel in their place. Both of these events must have occurred between the establishment of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and shortly prior to the Babylonian Exile.

The reason being that the allegory relates the Lord as having plucked off the "main branches" from the "main top" of the tree, (which are then burned) and is followed by the Servant grafting in whole branches from a wild olive tree in their place. After this is done, they prune, dig about and nourish the tree once again, after which the Lord then gathers many "young and tender branches" and carries them away and plants them elsewhere in the vineyard. Assuming that Lehi is among those branches, these events must have occurred roughly around the same time in Israelite history. Likewise, Christ relates to the Nephites that there are other "lost tribes" "...which the Father had led away out of Jerusalem". (3N21:26)

So yes, there very well may be other wild olive trees or vegetation, but they reside outside of the vineyard and therefore outside of the Lord's covenant. To be planted in the vineyard or grafted into a tree in the vineyard is to receive the Lord's covenant and divine inheritance. 

It is interesting that one of the young and tender branches brought forth both tame (v. 25).and wild (“not… good” v. 26) fruit.

Once grafted into the natural mother tree, the wild olive tree branches can bring forth both tame or good fruit (v. 18, 36), “all sorts of fruit” (v. 30) and “evil” fruit (v. 37).

The young and tender natural branches, still in the vineyard, became like unto the wild olive tree (v. 46). But like the original wild olive tree, they do have some worth (contrary to v. 46 saying they are of no worth). The solution is not to hew them down, but take the natural branches that became wild and graft them into the original tree (v. 52) – much like the original wild olive tree. In v. 54, the branches of the wild olive tree are repurposed as grafts into the stocks of the natural branches that became wild. So now the natural trees function like the original wild tree did, and the branches from the original wild tree are again being used for grafting as they first were for the original tame tree, and across many natural trees that have become wild.

Some questions that may or may not contribute to identifying the new group being grafted in the place of Israel and that point to the main question, “How might the wild olive tree / new group be identified as Gentiles or as former Israelites who had become wild and separate from the vineyard?”:

Where is “outside the vineyard”? Are they descendants of Abraham living in the general area of Israel’s promised land (a subset of Abraham’s inheritance/covenant)?

What are your thoughts of the roots of the transplanted young and tender branches since they are preserved after the bad branches and fruit had been removed (as with their natural, tame mother tree)? Are they neutral parts of the cosmos/ethos fed by the soil/covenant, and have no intrinsic value without these?

Related to that, what is it about roots that exert more enduring influence on the production of good fruit in the long run, even though all sorts of branches/fruit and evil branches/fruit are produced and discarded along the way?

What is the relationship between the roots of the transplanted young and tender branches and the roots of the mother tree (v. 74 says they, with the mother tree, become as one body)?

It seems the function of the branches of the wild olive tree and the function of the roots of the original tree are the most indispensable tree parts saving the vineyard, despite all wild branches eventually being discarded (v. 73, 74). Is this an example of the Lord leveraging the choices of the wicked to remove the wicked and  benefit of Zion, and what is the identity of the groups involved?

[CV75]

@aw.smoot I may be belaboring things, but I just can't help it  !

Picking up from your second chart:

All the trees in and out of the vineyard have roots, so these could represent the enduring legacy of Adam among all the peoples of all eras of the earth. The Tame Olive Tree (the part above ground) could then represent Israel; the Scattered Branches and the Trees that developed from them could represent the remnants or lost tribes that were led away or removed; the Wild Olive Tree could represent the posterities of Adam from other eras that had lost that originating dispensation’s covenant identity.

If so, The Vineyard could be the era or dispensation of Moses that is losing its identity as a peculiar people. Outside the Vineyard would be eras and descendants of earlier dispensations and peoples where the Lord’s kingdom on earth failed, whether they be offshoots of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob or any earlier patriarch (known and unknown) since Noah. This provides many potential “saviors” in the same spirit as future latter-day Gentiles who save Israel.

In this scenario, there is no direct representation of the covenant except by way of the ministrations or husbandry of the Lord, Chief Servant and Other Servants. The covenant is fulfilled as humility binds the good fruit to Him as it agrees with and responds properly to their horticultural procedures and super-human longsuffering, which includes putting the surviving descendants of previously failed dispensations to good use.

Edited September 20 by CV75

[aw.smoot]

Thanks for the engagement, @CV75. So I think we need to stop and think about the significance of the "main branches" being plucked out and burned. If we are to assume that the branches are living Israel, and roots are its ancestry, then we must conclude that the Lord permanently cut off the entirety of the living house of Israel as he's described as plucking out all the "main branches" of the tree because it had begun to wither away. So he removed all of living Israel? Additionally, we have to assume that this was permanent because all the branches are then burned. This would suggest that whatever was grafted in makes up all of modern Israel because it entirely replaced all the living branches.

This is why I think it's important to recognize that there are no "dead" portions of the tree. The living olive tree representing the living house of Israel – both the roots and branches. (I also think it's important to recognize that the roots includes that which is underneath the ground and above it, such as the base of the tree where the new branches are grafted in). But when the "main top" began to wither, the Lord plucked out all the main branches (suggesting a significant portion of living Israel, but not the entirety of Israel), which pertains to a group that was permanently cut off from the house of Israel. This can be demonstrated historically with modern scholarship. And what remained of the tree, the base and its roots is the remnant of Israel. After this major event of cutting off a large portion of Israel, a new significant group was grafted into Israel and began to produce the same tame fruit as the tree had before, because of the roots which were good and alive. All of this, according to the chronology of the parable, has occurred prior to Lehi's departure from Jerusalem and the Lord has yet to scatter the "young and tender branches" elsewhere in the vineyard.

This, again, can be demonstrated in the historical record with modern scholarship and I think demonstrates a key revelation to the Book of Mormon's link to antiquity. And that's because the wild branches that are grafted aren't representative of Christians (who wouldn't exist for another several centuries) nor are they representative of Israelites intermarrying with Canaanites.

Instead, scholars today would tell us that despite what the Bible claims, in the 8th century BCE all of Israel resided in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. And then when the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, upwards to 20% of the elites (or main top) of Israel were carried off to Assyrian lands and integrated with the Assyrian empire and abandoned their Israelite identity. In contrast, the Biblical authors assert that "all of Israel" was taken away. And immediately after this, tens of thousands of Israelites (or what remained of Israel) fled south to the neighboring Kingdom of Judah. This detail is again absent from the biblical narrative. And it was then, for the first time ever, that members of the house of Judah were grafted into Israel. That is to say that the Kingdom of Judah, prior to 722BCE, was never identified as a tribe of Israel.

This is what Jacob 5 is referring to. The wild olive branches that are grafted directly into the house of Israel prior to Lehi's departure is the entire house of Judah. Completely absent from the traditional Biblical narrative, yet coded in the historical record and the leading view among critical biblical scholars today.

Sources: 
Wright, Jacob L.. Why the Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins. Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Finkelstein, Israel, and Silberman, Neil Asher. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts. Free Press, 2002.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, aw.smoot said:

Thanks for the engagement, @CV75. So I think we need to stop and think about the significance of the "main branches" being plucked out and burned. If we are to assume that the branches are living Israel, and roots are its ancestry, then we must conclude that the Lord permanently cut off the entirety of the living house of Israel as he's described as plucking out all the "main branches" of the tree because it had begun to wither away. So he removed all of living Israel? Additionally, we have to assume that this was permanent because all the branches are then burned. This would suggest that whatever was grafted in makes up all of modern Israel because it entirely replaced all the living branches.

This is why I think it's important to recognize that there are no "dead" portions of the tree. The living olive tree representing the living house of Israel – both the roots and branches. (I also think it's important to recognize that the roots includes that which is underneath the ground and above it, such as the base of the tree where the new branches are grafted in). But when the "main top" began to wither, the Lord plucked out all the main branches (suggesting a significant portion of living Israel, but not the entirety of Israel), which pertains to a group that was permanently cut off from the house of Israel. This can be demonstrated historically with modern scholarship. And what remained of the tree, the base and its roots is the remnant of Israel. After this major event of cutting off a large portion of Israel, a new significant group was grafted into Israel and began to produce the same tame fruit as the tree had before, because of the roots which were good and alive. All of this, according to the chronology of the parable, has occurred prior to Lehi's departure from Jerusalem and the Lord has yet to scatter the "young and tender branches" elsewhere in the vineyard.

This, again, can be demonstrated in the historical record with modern scholarship and I think demonstrates a key revelation to the Book of Mormon's link to antiquity. And that's because the wild branches that are grafted aren't representative of Christians (who wouldn't exist for another several centuries) nor are they representative of Israelites intermarrying with Canaanites.

Instead, scholars today would tell us that despite what the Bible claims, in the 8th century BCE all of Israel resided in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. And then when the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, upwards to 20% of the elites (or main top) of Israel were carried off to Assyrian lands and integrated with the Assyrian empire and abandoned their Israelite identity. In contrast, the Biblical authors assert that "all of Israel" was taken away. And immediately after this, tens of thousands of Israelites (or what remained of Israel) fled south to the neighboring Kingdom of Judah. This detail is again absent from the biblical narrative. And it was then, for the first time ever, that members of the house of Judah were grafted into Israel. That is to say that the Kingdom of Judah, prior to 722BCE, was never identified as a tribe of Israel.

This is what Jacob 5 is referring to. The wild olive branches that are grafted directly into the house of Israel prior to Lehi's departure is the entire house of Judah. Completely absent from the traditional Biblical narrative, yet coded in the historical record and the leading view among critical biblical scholars today.

Sources: 
Wright, Jacob L.. Why the Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins. Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Finkelstein, Israel, and Silberman, Neil Asher. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts. Free Press, 2002.

Thank you for the review -- I think a chart like the one you have in the Conclusions section, but with columns showing the Biblical and historical narratives, would be very useful. For example, showing whether / that Judah was not considered a tribe of Israel (when and by whom?) and then a tribe (when and by whom?) would certainly add perspective to the parable. It might also shed some light on Zenos' perspective, depending on when he lived and what tribe he belonged to (presumably being a progenitor of Lehi).