“I Am the Vine”
John 15:1-17 NET
After Jesus washed the disciples feet, He begins a “farewell discourse,” within which He includes an extended metaphor regarding a vine and branches. The imagery behind this pericope is often debated, but Jesus clearly employs these words to refer to the relationship between His disciples and Himself. The theme of “abiding” or “residing” is constant (15:4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16), indicating a close connection between the vine (Jesus) and the branches (disciples). Therefore, the first responsibility of the disciples is to “abide” in Christ (v. 4, 5, 7). If John has been consistent, then this act is accomplished by “feeding” on the flesh of Christ (i.e., believing on Him; cf. discussion of chapter six). It is important to note that a technical term (such as μένω for belief in Jesus) should have the same meaning throughout a book (and thus the main reason for my conclusions for this passage). In other places, μένω has a literal meaning of residing or staying in a place for a night (e.g., John 1:38; 4:40). Yet, in chapters six and fifteen, the context speaks of the believers relationship to Christ, which seems to indicate that the term is referencing an identical event or process. The one believing in Christ is the same one who abides in Him. As a result of abiding, life flows from Christ to the branches.
In addition, the disciples are supposed to abide in Christ so that they bear fruit (v. 2, 4, 8, 16). The production of fruit indicates that life is in fact flowing from the vine to the branches, and nothing is hindering their connection. Verse eight states that the Father is glorified by the disciples’ bearing fruit and “becoming” (15:8) Jesus’ disciples. In context, the translation “becoming” does not make sense for two reasons. First, Jesus is talking to the disciples that have followed him for three years (note: Judas has left at this point, 13:30), so the production of fruit cannot “make” them disciples. Second, from a theological standpoint, one’s status before Jesus is not reliant on their production of any type of fruit (i.e., works). Rather, their relationship fully depends on His sacrificial love and death on the cross (ch. 13). Therefore, it is probably better to translate the coordinate phrases as “bear fruit and show yourselves to be my disciples.” This not only fits the metaphor better (i.e., fruit is evidence of life, v. 5) but also relates with John’s emphasis elsewhere that works illustrate one’s heart condition (cf. John 8:39–47). Not bearing fruit is evidence that life is not flowing to that individual, and he or she is not a true believer.
What is the fruit that Jesus references? Most Christians today read this passage and immediately recognize a reference to any type of good work that illustrates devotion to Christ. Though this is not necessarily inaccurate, the immediate context seems to focus a bit more on one aspect of production. In addition to Jesus’ command to bear fruit, His other instruction in this passage is to abide in His love (13:9), which is clarified in verse ten as keeping His commandments. Again, this seems to indicate a lifestyle of obedience to whatever He commands (cf. 1 John 5:2–3), but the context of John 15 focuses on one particular command: love one another (15:12–13, 17; cf. the “new” commandment, 13:34–35). Furthermore, Jesus has already mentioned that this new commandment (“love one another”) is the means by which people will recognize Jesus’ disciples (13:34–35). Thus, they will show or prove themselves to be His disciples (v. 8) by bearing fruit or loving one another.
On the other hand, scholars often point to verse sixteen, in which Jesus says that He chose the disciples that they might “go and bear fruit,” which seems to parallel the Great Commission passages in the other gospels (cf. Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:44–49). In this missional sense, Jesus is connecting “fruit” with converts and further witnesses to the truth of His person. This added purpose of bearing fruit may be true, but it does not completely counter the notion of loving one another. Again, chapter thirteen indicated that loving one another would clarify to others the true disciples of Jesus. Being an example of love would ultimately point the surrounding world to the Savior. Therefore, I see a stronger emphasis in this passage on love, but an additional nuance of evangelism is an appropriate extension.
Role of the Father: Primarily John 15
The primary point here in reference to the Father’s work is found in John 15 (see below), where He “takes away” the branches that do not bear fruit and “cleans” those which do. Yet, John lists other activities that the Father performs, and His authority over Jesus provides a picture of a higher function. For example, the Father sent Jesus into the world (cf. 6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57; 13:20) or gave the “true bread” from heaven (6:32). Also, the Father is responsible for bringing and giving individuals to Jesus (6:37, 39, 44), in that they believe on Him. Finally, He sets His seal on the one “feeding” on the Son (6:27). Thus, the Father is also involved in each step of the salvation process if one defines it systematically.
However, the more problematic responsibility of the Father is found in John 15. Jesus relates Himself to a vine, the disciples to branches, and the Father to a vinedresser (15:1). The activities that are listed naturally follow when speaking of the earthly realm. Vinedressers or gardeners clearly pluck off branches that do not bear fruit because they are dead, add unnecessary weight,or hinder other branches from producing. In addition, productive branches are pruned every year so that they produce an even better crop. The difficulty with these metaphors is relating them to processes or activities from a systematic theological perspective.
First, the Father takes away (αἴρει) every branch that does not bear fruit (15:2). To what does this refer, and how could it mean eternal damnation if the branch is already described as being “in the vine” (i.e., Christ)? The first interpretive option that some scholars hold is that the verb “take” or “lift” means that the Father raises these branches, giving them support from other branches, ropes, or stands. The problem with this view is that the branches that do not bear fruit are described later as being gathered and thrown into the fire (15:6). These “withered” branches do not seem to parallel “supported” branches, but both verses two and six do seem to describe the same situation: the branches are dead and are removed from the vine. Their lack of fruit proves that the life of the vine is not flowing into them, and they are, in fact, dead branches. In contrast, those who bear fruit demonstrate that they are receiving necessary life from the vine. The “throwing away” and “burning” (v. 6) of the dead branches at least indicates any relationship with the vine has been terminated and probably precludes final judgment. Therefore, the eternal damnation of fruitless disciples seems to be viewed here.
How does this align theologically with other Johannine passages that Jesus will not cast out any who come to Him (6:37) or lose any that the Father gives Him (6:39)? Furthermore, John says that those who follow Him have eternal life, and they will never perish (10:27–28). However, the context of John 10 also mentions the importance of belief (10:25–26), confirming the Johannine idea that believing in Jesus is fundamental to receiving life. Many can follow Jesus and gain the title “disciple,” but a smaller core is composed of believers who truly gain life (cf. 6:64–66). In addition, the first Johannine epistle argues that the secessionists or opponents went out from the community because “they were not of us,” (1 John 2:19). He continues, “If they had been of us, they would have continued [μεμενήκεισαν] with us.” That is, the fact that they left the community proves they were never united with the community or the Lord.
It seems that the same idea is prevalent in John 15. The metaphor of the vine and branches intends to describe the result of “abiding” in Christ: production of fruit. Lack of fruit indicates that the branch is not only dead but also truly disconnected from the vine. As Carson notes:
…asking the in me language to settle such disputes is to push the vine imagery too far. The transparent purpose of the verse is to insist that there are no true Christians without some measure of fruit. Fruitfulness is an infallible mark of true Christianity; the alternative is dead wood, and the exigencies of the vine metaphor make it necessary that such wood be connected to the vine.
These branches are not true believers, or else they would be bearing fruit. Therefore, the Father takes them away, and they are cast into the fire. As Morris states, “We should not regard this as a proof that true believers may fall away. It [sic. Is] is part of the viticultural picture, and the point could not be made without it. The emphasis is on the bearing of fruit.”
Second, the Father cleans (καθαίρει) or prunes every branch that does bear fruit (15:2) so that it bears more fruit. To what does this verb refer? The process is clear enough; that is, a natural agricultural technique is to prune or trim branches after harvesting season so that they produce more fruit the next season. The question here is the tenor of the symbol. What exactly does the Father do to believers so that they produce “more fruit”?
The most commonly accepted interpretation (both among lay people and scholars) is that God brings difficult circumstances into the life of the believer (perhaps for chastisement or punishment) so that he realizes the need to live an obedient Christian life. Regardless of how devoted one is to Christ, he can never be perfect or reach his highest potential of obedience, and the sovereignty of God allows certain circumstances to prompt the believer to grow in dependence on Christ. In some cases, a believer needs disciplined for lack of obedience. The problem with this interpretation is two-fold. First, there is no mention in the immediate context of discipline or difficult circumstances orchestrated by the Father. The only reference to judgment concerns the dead branches. In John 15:18–23, the author does mention the world hating believers, which speaks of difficulties, but the contrast there is between the love among believers and the hatred from the world. Jesus does not assign this situation as the instrument of the Father employed for developing further obedience in the believer. The world acts out of its own hatred for Jesus and the Father (15:21, 23). Second, and somewhat related, I have argued for “fruit” to refer to love among believers, not general obedience to Jesus and devotion to Him. How would discipline or personal difficulty motivate the believer to love other believers more? One could say the sense of community would develop through difficult times, but individual love for one’s brother seems to be the focus of verse, not dependence on others.
I think a more plausible solution can be reached through an analysis of the word used here for “prune.” After some research, I only found three words in Koine literature that carried this meaning. First, τέμνω had the basic meaning of cut or maim, particularly in surgical procedures or in contexts of sacrifice or slaughter (Hom. Il.19.197; Eur. Supp. 1196; Heracl. 400). It could also refer to cutting down entire trees (e.g., Hom. Od.5.243; cf. Hdt. 5.82; Eur. Hec. 634 [lyr.]) and to acting for the sake of destruction (E. Hec. 1204; Xen. Mem. 2.1.13).Eventually, the word came to describe the process of cutting branches (i.e., pruning), but LSJ comments that the only references with this lexical value are in the LXX (cf. Exod36:10; Lev 25:3, 4; Isa 5:6; Wis 5:12; 4 Macc 9:17; 10:19). “The simple τέμνω ‘to cut’ is common in Gk. from Homer, but does not occur in the NT or the post-apost. fathers. This is undoubtedly accidental, for the LXX uses the word sometimes, it is common in the pap., and it turns up again in Chr. works, for the first time in Just.” For whatever reason, this word does not appear in the NT, and perhaps John was not familiar with this term either. Furthermore, his lexical connections and themes (see below) probably influenced another choice.
Second, κολάζω comes “from κόλος (Hom.) ‘mutilated,’”, which “means ‘to cut short,’ ‘to lop,’ or ‘to trim.’” In Theophrastus’ agricultural works (cf. Historia Plantarum 2.7.6; de Causis Plantarum 1.18.9; 3.18.2), the verb and its cognate noun are used to describe a “drastic method of checking the growth of the almond-tree.” Yet, the term quickly developed a connotation of punishment, an idea evident in classical Greek works (cf. Pl. Grg. 491e; Plu. 2.663e; Arist. Nu. 7; V. 406). In fact, it seems the direction of development in meaning is ambiguous. From the number of uses for this latter meaning, one could say the idea of chastisement or harsh treatment was the basic meaning, and the term was rarely used as an agricultural term. In the NT, the term is used a few times and always speaks of judgment or punishment (Acts 4:21; 1 Pet 2:20; 2 Pet 2:9).One could say that John did not insert this word because the idea of punishment or chastisement was not his intended meaning.
Third, the term καθαίρεω (cf. John 15:2) usually means to cause something to be clean. Diodorus Siculus references cleaning a specific location (19.13.4), and Josephus (Ant. 5.42)speaks of Joshua’s task of “purifying” the army after the defeat at Ai. This references dealing with Achan’s sin of taking from the dedicated material of Jericho. Thus, καθαίρεω speaks of cleansing in a literal or figurative, spiritual sense. Philo also uses the term in this latter sense, stating that the goat is a symbol of “perfect reasoning” that “cleanses the soul from sin,” (Somn. 1.198). On the other hand, Philo also uses the same term when referring to removing growth from a plant. He states, “For as superfluous shoots do grow on trees, which are a great injury to the genuine useful branches, and which the cultivators destroy (καθαίρουσι) and cut out from a prudent foreknowledge of what is necessary…” (Somn. 2.64; cf. Agr. 10, but in this case, Philo speaks of cutting down entire trees). It is important to note that Philo’s description does not directly parallel John’s. Philo references pruning “branches” from the larger trunk on which they grow, while John speaks of pruning the actual branches, that is, stripping them of offshoots or cutting them short. The only NT example of this word used in an agricultural context is John 15, yet the Philo parallels are remarkably interesting.
After these word studies, I propose that John used the word καθαίρεω for two reasons. First, the term accommodated his love for wordplays. In fact, within this verse, there are two wordplays: καθαίρεω vs. αἴρω (v. 2a); καθαίρεω vs. καθαροί (v. 3). On one hand, the author is contrasting two similar sounding words that speak of similar agricultural processes (i.e., cutting off dead branches and cutting off twigs or parts of fruitful branches). On the other, John uses cognate terms for stylistic ingenuity. Jesus claims that the Father, as the gardener, “cleans” every branch that bears fruit, and He comments in the next verse that the disciples are already clean (cf. John 13:10). The relationship between these two terms will be discussed below.
Therefore, John uses the agricultural term that meets the needs of his context, and his metaphor still makes sense. Theologically, though, to what is John referring? Does the “pruning” process still refer to discipline or difficult situations? I would argue that the remainder of John’s writings help answer these questions. The adjective form only appears in these passages in John and never in his epistles. The only other time the verb form of this lexical family is used is the first chapter of 1 John. There it seems that John has employed καθαίρεω in the spiritual sense not far removed from Philo’s referent: the cleansing of sin. “Although καθαίρει (lit. “cleanses”) clearly means “prunes” in this analogy (15:2), it is not the most common expression from viticulture, instead infusing the analogy with an image from Johannine theology (cf. the related καθαρίζω in 1 John 1:7–9; elsewhere 2 Cor 7:1; Tit 2:14; Heb 9:14, 22–23; 10:2).” 1 John 1:7, 9 state, “But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses (καθαρίζει) us from every/all sin. 9If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just, that He might forgive for us the sins and cleanse (καθαρίσῃ) us from every/all unrighteousness.” Thus, it seems John includes this term, though only a few times, in contexts of purification and forgiveness of sin. These processes are only possible because of the blood of Jesus, so Brown’s statement is accurate. “In the Johannine writings purity is brought into relation with the saving death of Jesus.” However, blood is an inanimate object that someone must use to provide forgiveness. 1 John 1:9 providesthe ultimate agent (i.e., the Father), which parallels the actions of the “husbandman” in John 15. Thus, the crucifixion of Christ provides basis for forgiveness of sins for the believer, but the Father applies the blood to the account of the believer, forgiving their sin and making them “clean.”
How does this interact with the context of John 15? Jesus says, “He (i.e., the Father) cleans every branch that bears fruit so that it bears more fruit.” If cleansing refers to forgiveness on the basis of Christ’s blood, and fruit specifically focuses on love for one another, then the Father forgives those who both abide (i.e., believe) in Christ and love their fellow brothers and sisters, because their fruit demonstrates that they truly are connected to the vine. First John also emphasizes these two traits, particularly love for others, as evidence of a relationship with the Son. As a result of the Father’s forgiveness and cleansing on the basis of Christ’s death, the believer is able to love others on a deeper level through forgiveness and self-sacrifice. This also finds support in John 13, where Jesus said that His followers should follow His example of washing feet, and more intensely self-sacrifice, and the motivation behind such love is the love of Christ displayed on the cross.
The natural question, then, regards the time of this “cleansing forgiveness.” Does it refer to original salvation or post-conversion confession and forgiveness as well? In 1 John, the fact that John writes to a Christian community causes me to think those passages refer to sins after the initial moment of salvation. In addition, if “abiding” refers to “believing,” and the believing branch is truly fruitful, then it seems his relationship with the vine has been established. Thus, future cleansing would occur after he is connected to the vine (i.e., saved). However, one must remember that John does not label these metaphors or symbols temporally, and it is possible for the concept of forgiveness to cover all aspects, not just post-conversion situations. John does not explicitly mention a difference between the first moment of belief and the lifetime of trust that follows. He simply claims that in order to gain eternal life, one must believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (20:30–31). In chapter fifteen, I do think John speaks more of the Father’s forgiveness extended toward true believers, but the fact that those who initially believe in Jesus are forgiven cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, I picture the Father’s forgiving act as cleansing the believer, enabling him to do the same to others in a manner of love.
No comments:
Post a Comment