Who Is the Vine? Who Is the Root?

[Arial]

This OP is to open up a discussion on the biblical terms of vine and root, as they were applied to both national Israel and Jesus, and search out the theological implications.

In the OT Israel is referred to as the vine and the root. The explicit vine imagery applied to Israel is corporate and covenantal.

Is 5:1-7 "My beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill---
He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild
grapes...
For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of
Israel..."

Ps 80:8-9
You brought a vine out of Egypt;
you drove out the nations and planted it.
9You cleared the ground for it;
it took deep root and filled the land.

Jer 2:21 "I planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed.
How then have you turned degenerate..."

Hosea 10:1-2
Israel is a luxuriant vine
that yields its fruit.
The more his fruit increased,
the more altars he built;
as his country improved,
he improved his pillars.
2Their heart is false;
now they must bear their guilt.
The Lord will break down their altars
and destroy their pillars.

In reading the full text of the scriptures mentioned it is clear that Israel is God's vineyard/vine, expected to bear covenant fruit but fails.

The root imagery is slightly different---it emphasizes origin, covenant, and inheritance.

Is 11: 1-2

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.


10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.

Here the "root" is tied to the Davidic line (not corporate Israel, but its royal source. In the body of Is 11:3-9 it is clear that what is being spoken of parallels Rev 21.

Now we move into the NT and the words of Paul in Romans: 11:16-19 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.

The root equals the patriarchal promises (Abrahamic covenantal foundation). The natural branches are Israel. Gentiles are grafted into that same root.

In the NT we see Jesus referred to as the vine.

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me, 5. I am the vine; you are the branches.

It is crucial to note here that Jesus does not say he is a vine, but he says he is the true vine. This implies a contrast with Israel as the failed vine. What Israel was called to be, Christ is.

The NT also identifies Christ as the root itself.

Rev 5:5 The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered...

Rev 22:16 "I am the root and the descendant of David..."

Christ is both the source (root) and the offspring (branch). He embodies and fulfills the entire covenant structure.

When we put this together

Israel as the vine (corporate, covenantal, but fruitless in itself)​

Christ as the true vine (faithful, fruitful, fulfills Israel's calling)​

Patriarchal promise as root (Romans 11)​

Christ as root (ultimate source and fulfillment)​

​

Israel is not replaced in a crude sense---it is reconstituted in Christ. There is one tree, not two parallel peoples. It defines one people of God.

What does this do to the Dispensationalist view of two peoples of God and a restored national Israel?

 

[Arial]

Great discussion! Thanks.

 

[Josheb]

This OP is to open up a discussion on the biblical terms of vine and root, as they were applied to both national Israel and Jesus, and search out the theological implications.

In the OT Israel is referred to as the vine and the root. The explicit vine imagery applied to Israel is corporate and covenantal.

Is 5:1-7 "My beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill---
He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild
grapes...
For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of
Israel..."

What if Isaiah 5:7 is to be understood as "those in whom God prevails"?


Isaiah 5:7
For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus, He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is [the geo-political nation-state] of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus, He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is [those in whom God prevails] and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus, He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.​

Which sounds most consistent with the whole of scripture?

The word "Israel" denotatively means "wrestles/struggles with God," but connotatively, because God one the wrestling match with Jacob, the meaning is "God prevails," or "in whom God prevails." The word "Israel" was used by God for centuries before the geo-political nation-state Israel ever existed and it was used by God when the descendants of Abraham had no nation, after they'd lost their nation-state. Either there is a single cohesive definition of the word that carries through the entirety of scripture, or there are multiple definitions and the reader must select the best definition dependent on factors such as context.

What if Isaiah 5:7's use of the word "Israel" refers to all in whom God prevails instead of "national" Israel?





See posts 21, 22,23, 25, and 13 on the page HERE.
.

 

[Arial]

What if Isaiah 5:7 is to be understood as "those in whom God prevails"?


Isaiah 5:7
For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus, He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is [the geo-political nation-state] of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus, He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress. ​

​

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is [those in whom God prevails] and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus, He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.​

Which sounds most consistent with the whole of scripture?

The word "Israel" denotatively means "wrestles/struggles with God," but connotatively, because God one the wrestling match with Jacob, the meaning is "God prevails," or "in whom God prevails." The word "Israel" was used by God for centuries before the geo-political nation-state Israel ever existed and it was used by God when the descendants of Abraham had no nation, after they'd lost their nation-state. Either there is a single cohesive definition of the word that carries through the entirety of scripture, or there are multiple definitions and the reader must select the best definition dependent on factors such as context.

What if Isaiah 5:7's use of the word "Israel" refers to all in whom God prevails instead of "national" Israel?





See posts 21, 22,23, 25, and 13 on the page HERE.
.

I agree with your premise since it was Jacob whose name was changed to Israel (and I agree with the meaning though it can be even more nuanced). I just took a side journedy into ChatGPT and asked it the definition of Israel as a word. It is interesting so I will post it just for the curious. And then I will get back to your post.


The name Israel is generally understood as:

“He struggles with God”
or
“God strives” / “God contends”

It comes from two Hebrew elements:

• śārâ (שָׂרָה) — to strive, contend, wrestle
• ʾēl (אֵל) — God

So the name carries the idea of:

struggle, persistence, and divine encounter

Me: Jacob wrestles with God and refuses to let go without a blessing.
Chat:
So “Israel” is not just a label—it reflects:

• struggle with God
• dependence on God
• transformation through encounter

But I don't think we can substitute Is 5:7 with the definition in place of "Israel". Even though the definition and intent are an integral part of the verse "behind the scenes" so to speak. Jacob (Israel) did not stay one man but developed into a family (his family who became the twelve tribes) and all his descendants---the children of Israel. They became a nation and a covenant people. I believe it is this Israel that Is is referring to since that is what they were when the prophecy was made. It was the covenant nation that committed treason against God and broke the covenant.

It is very interesting that you present that though, because as redemption progresses through history, true Israel comes and dies on a cross, is raised again to life, ascends back to the Father, is crowned King and sits as High Priest interceding for his people. And the true meaning of Israel is manifest in Christ and his people. The definition of Israel and the reason behind Jacob being named Israel never leaves the pages of Scripture no matter what era of history we happen to be reading on those pages. And neither does Christ. There is absolutely no need of, and no room for, a restored national Israel.

 

[David Lamb]

Great discussion! Thanks.

Have I missed something? The OP is from you, Arial, and Post 2, saying: "Great discussion! Thanks." is also from you. I'm sure you are not thanking yourself for starting the discussion (which, incidentally, I agree is a good one). Forgive me for being a bit slow here.

 

[Arial]

Have I missed something? The OP is from you, Arial, and Post 2, saying: "Great discussion! Thanks." is also from you. I'm sure you are not thanking yourself for starting the discussion (which, incidentally, I agree is a good one). Forgive me for being a bit slow here.

It was nothing more than a bit of sour grapes and a sarcastic remark because my OP had sat there for days with no discussion when it opened with the offer and hope of discussion.

 

[makesends]

It was nothing more than a bit of sour grapes and a sarcastic remark because my OP had sat there for days with no discussion when it opened with the offer and hope of discussion.

I had taken it to be referring to the last few posts made. I hadn't noticed that the last few were the only posts made!

​

BTW there are a lot of threads I don't get into for several reasons, given here in no particular order: 1. I don't care to debate the riddles of eschatology till I see a good reason to comment; 2. I've tired of showing my POV concerning the afterlife, except where I see God's sovereignty, transcendence and majesty ignored; 3. Sometimes I don't follow the virulent arguments made against me, and my brain fuddles; 4. Sometimes as though a moderator in a formal debate, I stick my nose into someone else's fight and get it bit --certainly unappreciated, when all I had intended was to show that someone's claim was not necessarily logical; 5. Sometimes I need to see where a thread is going to go, first, as a sort of interpretation of the OP. [​

​

So, I didn't get into this one because it seemed a carry-over from the two-Israel thing, and I wanted to wait and see what would come of it.​

​

At this point, my vote is, as always ever since giving up on Methodism/Wesleyanism/Arminianism/Dp'ism, there is the Old Testament Israel, to whom God has never been unfaithful, and will always keep his word, and from whose line Jesus is born, and the true Israel of the promise, which includes members from all peoples, including SOME Jews. I still have a clinging feeling that OLD Israel still holds a place in his heart and plans, and I feel a strong affinity for the currently existing political nation of Israel. I have to admit to a certain dedication to them as God's particular people, something along the lines of Moses' prayer, "What will the other nations think, if you abandon them?"​

 

[Arial]

Have I missed something? The OP is from you, Arial, and Post 2, saying: "Great discussion! Thanks." is also from you. I'm sure you are not thanking yourself for starting the discussion (which, incidentally, I agree is a good one). Forgive me for being a bit slow here.

This is an addition to my first response to you.

I became curious about the "root" and "vine" references because in conversations I have had with Dispensationalists, here and other forums, one of their supports for the view of national Israel being restored and Jesus reigning on earth as their King for a thousand years, has been the OT references to national/ethnic Israel as being the root and the vine.

Oddly enough, considering their criticism of covenant theology/amillennialism "spiritualizing" everything, when it comes to John 15:1 where Jesus declares himself to be the true vine, the spiritualize that, by saying it means Christ is the source of spiritual life.

My curiosity sent me on a search of the specific scriptures that speak of the "root" and the "vine" both in regard to national Israel and Jesus, to compare them. What I found, to me anyway, so supported the covenant view of the Bible as one forward moving account of redemption through history with Christ always the protagonist and the central figure from Gen 3:15 on. It is the unbroken account of Christ defeating his enemies. Israel and the covenant relationship God established with them was serving multiple purposes, (not the least of which was the theology of election and covenant itself) was absolutely necessary, but was never the goal. It was/is a means of reaching the goal.

There are many such examples in Scripture that make the same point, such as the bride and bride groom, that have been relegated by Dispensationalism to primarily national/ethnic Israel centric.

 

[David Lamb]

It was nothing more than a bit of sour grapes and a sarcastic remark because my OP had sat there for days with no discussion when it opened with the offer and hope of discussion.

Thanks for explaining, and apologies for not understanding before.