Who Is The Root We're Grafted Into?

[Hidden In Him]

Who is the "root" Paul said the Gentiles were being grafted into in Romans 11? The following is just a thread I'm creating without having fully formulated my conclusion yet, though I do believe I know based on the context. But I thought I would posit it as food for thought while mulling it over.

Blessings in Christ to all who respond,
Hidden In Him

Here is the context in Romans:

16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump also; and if the root is holy, so the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. (Romans 11:16-28)

 

[Hidden In Him]

No takers?

Keep in mind, how one answers this question will have deep implications on their theology, and how they view end-times prophecy.

 

[Hopeful]

No takers?

Keep in mind, how one answers this question will have deep implications on their theology, and how they view end-times prophecy.

God is the root, as Jesus said He is the vine and we are the branches, in John 15:5.

 

[Hidden In Him]

God is the root, as Jesus said He is the vine and we are the branches, in John 15:5.

Thanks for the reply, Hopeful.

This is the strength of this argument. That, and some of the other language, such as that the root "supports" the branches, and that the ingrafted branches "partake" of the root.

However, there are problems with this interpretation, some contextual and some logical. For starters, Paul depicts the Lord as the Gardener here; i.e. the One doing the ingrafting. "If God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either..." and that if unbelieving Jews turn to faith, "they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." It becomes a mixed analogy if He is both the Gardener and the root.

Secondly, the language of "grafted in" and "coming in" suggests that the church is being grafted into Israel: "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery... that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." The expression "grafted in" here parallels how the Gentiles were "coming in."

There are other supports I can use to argue the root isn't actually the Lord here, but I will wait to see if I get any other responses. If you have any replies to the above counter-arguments, feel free to add them.

 

[Hopeful]

Thanks for the reply, Hopeful.

This is the strength of this argument. That, and some of the other language, such as that the root "supports" the branches, and that the ingrafted branches "partake" of the root.

However, there are problems with this interpretation, some contextual and some logical. For starters, Paul depicts the Lord as the Gardener here; i.e. the One doing the ingrafting. "If God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either..." and that if unbelieving Jews turn to faith, "they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." It becomes a mixed analogy if He is both the Gardener and the root.

Secondly, the language of "grafted in" and "coming in" suggests that the church is being grafted into Israel: "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery... that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." The expression "grafted in" here parallels how the Gentiles were "coming in."

There are other supports I can use to argue the root isn't actually the Lord here, but I will wait to see if I get any other responses. If you have any replies to the above counter-arguments, feel free to add them.

You are mixing your metaphors.
The "root" can be multiple things, as can be the branches.
It could be Israel, or the Jewish faith, or just faith itself.
But Jesus is the vine, and what can Jesus "come from" besides God?

 

[Hidden In Him]

But Jesus is the vine, and what can Jesus "come from" besides God?

Yes, but you are borrowing from one analogy to interpret another. Generally speaking that's not a good practice. Someone using it could first quote the scripture that says Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and then cite the one that says Satan is a roaring lion, going about seeking whom he may devour, and conclude by mixing the two that Jesus is in fact Satan. Better to limit the analogy to the immediate context, so as not to end up subscribing to false interpretations.

The "root" can be multiple things, as can be the branches.
It could be Israel, or the Jewish faith, or just faith itself.

Yes, but the task at hand here is to pinpoint which, rather than throwing up multiple alternatives. Smacks a little too much of the "scripture means whatever you want it to mean" theory; not that I think that's what you are subscribing to, but I believe very firmly that there is a correct interpretation for every verse yet multiple incorrect ones, so we're trying here to establish the best case for which one is the correct one.

 

[christian1724]

The root, I think, represents the Word of God. I think that Zion is the overall tree which has it's existence based in His Word (which is Truth).

 

[Hidden In Him]

The root, I think, represents the Word of God.

Hmmm... a different take. I think to establish this you would need scriptures to develop it. At present (and until something better is presented), I take the "root" here to be Israel the man and his children (Exodus 6:-6-8), from whom both natural Israel (the Jewish nation) and spiritual Israel who was grafted in (the Gentile believers) descended.

Additional evidence for this can be seen in that men are compared to trees in Old Testament scripture, such as in The Parable of the Trees:

7 Now when they told Jotham, he went and stood on top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted his voice and cried out. And he said to them:
“Listen to me, you men of Shechem,
That God may listen to you!
8 “The trees once went forth to anoint a king over them.
And they said to the olive tree,
‘Reign over us!’
9 But the olive tree said to them,
‘Should I cease giving my oil,
With which they honor God and men,
And go to sway over trees?’
10 “Then the trees said to the fig tree,
‘You come and reign over us!’
11 But the fig tree said to them,
‘Should I cease my sweetness and my good fruit,
And go to sway over trees?’
12 “Then the trees said to the vine,
‘You come and reign over us!’
13 But the vine said to them,
‘Should I cease my new wine,
Which cheers both God and men,
And go to sway over trees?’
14 “Then all the trees said to the bramble,
‘You come and reign over us!’
15 And the bramble said to the trees,
‘If in truth you anoint me as king over you,
Then come and take shelter in my shade;
But if not, let fire come out of the bramble
And devour the cedars of Lebanon!’ (Judges 9:7-15)

And more specifically about Israel:

20 Your sun shall no longer go down,
Nor shall your moon withdraw itself;
For the Lord will be your everlasting light,
And the days of your mourning shall be ended.
21 Also your people shall all be righteous;
They shall inherit the land forever,
"The branch of My planting,
The work of My hands,
That I may be glorified." (Isaiah 60:20-21)

 

[Hopeful]

Yes, but you are borrowing from one analogy to interpret another. Generally speaking that's not a good practice. Someone using it could first quote the scripture that says Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and then cite the one that says Satan is a roaring lion, going about seeking whom he may devour, and conclude by mixing the two that Jesus is in fact Satan. Better to limit the analogy to the immediate context, so as not to end up subscribing to false interpretations.

That does not answer my question from post #5.

Yes, but the task at hand here is to pinpoint which, rather than throwing up multiple alternatives. Smacks a little too much of the "scripture means whatever you want it to mean" theory; not that I think that's what you are subscribing to, but I believe very firmly that there is a correct interpretation for every verse yet multiple incorrect ones, so we're trying here to establish the best case for which one is the correct one.

What would be the point, if you just keep rejecting answers to the OP?

 

[Hidden In Him]

What would be the point, if you just keep rejecting answers to the OP?

Well, what I'm asking for is that people make a case first, and then support it. You know, debate.

Not a big deal, just a topic for discussion is all.

 

[Hidden In Him]

But Jesus is the vine, and what can Jesus "come from" besides God?

About your question here, you would first need to make a case that Jesus is being referred to in our text, before this question became relevant to the discussion. So if you believe Jesus is the root being referred to in the text, what would be your supports using the text itself, and other texts that have strong evidence are related directly to it?

 

[Hopeful]

Well, what I'm asking for is that people make a case first, and then support it. You know, debate.

Not a big deal, just a topic for discussion is all.

Ok.
What do you think the "root" is in Rom 11:16..."For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump also; and if the root is holy, so the branches."
We know that physical Israel wasn't holy, so it is eliminated.
We know that Jesus was the vine..."I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." (John 15:5)
The vine must come from some root.

We also know that Jesus was the "first fruits"..."But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." (1 Cor 15:20)
Holy fruit can only come from a holy vine...which must spring forth of a holy root.
Holiness is the thread that pulls them all together.
The root is God.

 

[Hopeful]

About your question here, you would first need to make a case that Jesus is being referred to in our text, before this question became relevant to the discussion. So if you believe Jesus is the root being referred to in the text, what would be your supports using the text itself, and other texts that have strong evidence are related directly to it?

The "vine" reference was an aside from another parable, just to establish a flow of holiness.
I don't feel He was the root being referenced in Rom 11.

 

[christian1724]

... natural Israel (the Jewish nation) ...

We may have a fundamental difference of 'who Israel is'. At the least, I think we've encountered a conflict of terminology. I don't know in advance how we may or may not be misled as to what the other is proposing/thinking. So let me state in a general way what I mean so that we don't misunderstand each other.

When I say 'Israel' I may be referring to Jacob, Jacob and his descendants, or the 'house of Israel' (I'll usually say 'house of Israel' if that is what I mean unless the context makes it obvious).

If I say 'house of Israel, I am nearly always referring to the northern kingdom of Israel (as opposed to the house of Judah (the Jewish nation).

My concept of the term 'Zion' is based on Zechariah 9:9-13 and on the scriptures surrounding Jesus' entry into Jerusalem riding upon a foal in which He identifies and reveals Himself to the "daughter of Zion" but the "daughter of Jerusalem" is not mentioned. In a general way, I believe that 'Zion' is a kingdom, based on God's Word, being prepared for those faithful believers in the Word of God.

When I say Word of God, you can substitute 'Jesus' or Truth (i.e. light).

It can be quite an involved conversation I'm sure you're well aware. We can have a separate discussion on this topic sometime if you like.

Additional evidence for this can be seen in that men are compared to trees in Old Testament scripture, such as in The Parable of the Trees:

Yes, I agree. There is also evidence that trees might also be representative of nations. Ex: Ezekiel 17 where trees could just a easily be peoples/nations.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Ok.
What do you think the "root" is in Rom 11:16..."For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump also; and if the root is holy, so the branches."
We know that physical Israel wasn't holy, so it is eliminated.
We know that Jesus was the vine..."I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." (John 15:5)
The vine must come from some root.

Ok. Good talking points!

Now, this is indeed one of the question marks to my position, and my answer would be this: My position is that the root is Israel and his children, from whom the whole nation descended. Now, scripture has God saying to them the following:

"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth." (Deuteronomy 7:6).

What Paul was saying was that the NT era "branches" must be holy as well (both Jewish and Gentile), just as the root was in the beginning.

We also know that Jesus was the "first fruits"..."But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." (1 Cor 15:20)
Holy fruit can only come from a holy vine...which must spring forth of a holy root.
Holiness is the thread that pulls them all together.
The root is God.

This would be reversing the analogy though. If you have Jesus as the root, then you have Jesus as the lump, not the first fruit.

The "vine" reference was an aside from another parable, just to establish a flow of holiness.
I don't feel He was the root being referenced in Rom 11.

Oh. Alright, so then do you have a particular interpretation yet?

 

[Hidden In Him]

My concept of the term 'Zion' is based on Zechariah 9:9-13 and on the scriptures surrounding Jesus' entry into Jerusalem riding upon a foal in which He identifies and reveals Himself to the "daughter of Zion" but the "daughter of Jerusalem" is not mentioned. In a general way, I believe that 'Zion' is a kingdom, based on God's Word, being prepared for those faithful believers in the Word of God.

Hmmm... I could maybe dissect this a little, but let it suffice that since Mount Zion is a hill in Jerusalem, (hence the word's association with the city), I would stick with it referring to the city itself rather than with the kingdom in this case.

But your argument does have a consistency to it. The root is the kingdom, and the kingdom grows into a larger tree with time, where some are "cut off" from the kingdom and others "grafted in." I just don't know that you are proving the argument that the root is the kingdom to begin with well enough yet.

Yes, I agree. There is also evidence that trees might also be representative of nations. Ex: Ezekiel 17 where trees could just a easily be peoples/nations.

Excellent point. I think this goes to both our arguments in this case, but it's certainly substantive.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Here is a parallel thread from elsewhere if you guys want more food for thought (limited number of respondents there also, so I figure there's no harm).

Who Is The "Root" We're Grafted Into?

Who is the "root" Paul said the Gentiles were being grafted into in Romans 11? The following is just a thread I'm creating without having fully formulated my conclusion yet, though I do believe I know based on the context. But I thought I would posit it as food for thought while mulling it over...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Hidden In Him]

Ok, Romans 15:12 answers the question. It is a reference to Messiah:

12 And again, Isaiah says, "There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles. In Him shall the Gentiles trust."

 

[Hopeful]

Ok. Good talking points!

Now, this is indeed one of the question marks to my position, and my answer would be this: My position is that the root is Israel and his children, from whom the whole nation descended. Now, scripture has God saying to them the following:

"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth." (Deuteronomy 7:6).

What Paul was saying was that the NT era "branches" must be holy as well (both Jewish and Gentile), just as the root was in the beginning.


This would be reversing the analogy though. If you have Jesus as the root, then you have Jesus as the lump, not the first fruit.


Oh. Alright, so then do you have a particular interpretation yet?

Nope.
I simply read what is written without hyper-examination of every facet of scripture.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Nope.
I simply read what is written without hyper-examination of every facet of scripture.

Well that's a different approach, Lol. I think the apostles (Paul especially) were REALLY guilty of this, but I do admit that life gets easier without it.