The Root or Origin of David/JesSe?
When the phrase ‘the Root of David’ or ‘the Root of JesSe’ appears in an original text, we may translate it as ‘the Origin of David’ or ‘the Origin of JesSe’. This note explains why.
First, please understand that Root of David and Root of JesSe mean the same thing, since JesSe was David’s father.
The Greek word at the center of this phrase is ριζα (rhiza), which literally means a root — the part of a plant that anchors it and draws nourishment from the ground. Metaphorically, a root is a source, a foundation, or an origin of something, in the same way that routes are the source from which a plant grows.
While it’s sometimes argued that rhiza could simply mean ‘offshoot’ or ‘descendant’, the context shows this interpretation to be incomplete, and there are other words for those terms (offshoot or sprout could be blastos; descendant could be genos, ekgenos, or sperma for seed).
The clearest evidence is in Revelation 22:16, where the speaker explicitly says:
‘I am the Root (rhiza) and the Offspring/Descendant (genos) of David…’
By using both words, the text deliberately creates a contrast. However, if rhiza (root) just meant the same thing as genos (offspring/descendant), then it’s pointlessly repeating itself (‘I am the offspring and the offspring’).
The distinction shows that ‘root’ must refer to something different from ‘offspring’.
Therefore, in this context, ‘root’ means the source or origin of David’s lineage, while ‘offspring’ refers to his descendant. The speaker is presented as a paradox: he is both the origin of David’s line and also its descendant.
Jesus mentioned this same paradox in Matthew 22:41-46 when he questioned the Pharisees:
Jesus asked them:
‘What do you believe about the Anointed One… Whose son is he to be?’
And they replied:
‘David’s.’
So he said:
‘Then why did David, through the breath [of God], call him his Lord, when he said […]:
‘[Yahweh] said this to my lord […]’?
‘So if David called him ‘Lord,’ how could he be his son?’
It seems the same paradox is being presented here in Revelation 22:16, reflecting the dual Christian belief that:
- Jesus is David’s Lord and creator, because as God’s ‘Word’, God created the world through Jesus.
- Jesus is also David’s descendant, because he came to earth by being born through Mary, a descendant of David.
Once we understand this Christian belief, and the contrast shown in Revelation 22:16, we understand what they meant by the word root, and how to correctly translate it today.
So, to convey this intended Christian paradox clearly, we use the word ‘origin’.
- It’s one of the valid and accepted translations of the Greek word.
- It directly translates the specific sense of rhiza being used, helping the reader to understand the claim being made.
- It accurately conveys the metaphorical meaning of the Hebrew word used in prophecies like Isaiah 11:10.
On the other hand, if we went with the literal ‘root’, then this original intended meaning may be entirely lost on some modern readers. Indeed, many modern readers think ‘root’ refers to a small sprout in the ground, entirely missing the point of:
- The prophecy in Isaiah,
- The paradox presented by Jesus in Matthew, and
- The dual belief about Jesus presented in Revelation.
Of course, it’s also possible that there is a dual-meaning here, with root meant to convey a bit of both: a sprout in the ground, and a source of something. But this is obviously not the intention in Revelation 22:16, where the speaker appears to be presenting a contrasting paradox, and such a paradox matches what Jesus said in Matthew 22:41-46.