Introduction
The Fourth Gospel clearly presents the life and ministry of Jesus from a perspective distinct from the other three accounts.Often, most believers turn to the gospel of John more frequently for this very reason. They feel as if John’s gospel presents a more theologically accurate view of their Savior, and His lengthy discourses about the Paraclete, salvation, and heaven give a strong sense of comfort. In contrast, most Johannine scholars typically point to these issues as evidence that denies the gospel’s historicity. Some posit that a certain community developed these stories and discourses to illustrate their history of development, and the historical facts have been outweighed by a theological interpretation. In addition, debate rages over the number of sources employed by the final editor(s), noting the “aporias” or parenthetical comments made by the narrator. In sum, the gospel of John has become the focus of much scholarly debate regarding a number of issues. One realm of such debate concerns the symbolism or imagery used by the author. This paper does not focus on method for understanding the imagery of John’s gospel but one possible interpretation of various passages regarding salvation.
When studying symbolism, one should acknowledge the components involved: the tenor and the vehicle, according to Culpepper. “Whereas the tenor and the vehicle are given in a metaphor and the reader must discern the relationship, a symbol presents the vehicle. The relationship may be stated, implied by the context, or assumed from the shared background or culture of writer and reader. The reader’s task is to discern the tenor or meaning of the symbol.” Culpepper continues, “The reader understands that the symbol means or expresses something more or something else than its plain or superficial meaning.”That is, Jesus is not a literal vine, but the author intends to relate that imagery with spiritual truth or a realm that makes sense of the symbol. For this paper, the vehicle is obviously the phrases and ideas employed by the author. The tenor will be the terminology and processes described in systematic theology.
Before I proceed further, two main presuppositions should be mentioned. First, I will refer to the author of the Fourth Gospel as John, implying the son of Zebedee. Many books and articles have been written regarding the authorship of this book, but I have not analyzed the evidence enough to be convinced of a position other than the traditional view. I recognize my view is the minority in Johannine scholarship, but this issue does not directly affect the content of this paper. In addition, I hold that John did write the epistles historically attributed to him. This will be significant in interpreting symbols at a later point.Second, I understand John 20:31 as the purpose statement of the book. The various signs, symbols, works, and discussions recounted by the author have one goal in mind: the proper response of the reader. That response is belief that Jesus is the Son of God, and the result of that belief is eternal life. The imagery of John greatly emphasizes this act of belief, and the promised effect is always true life. Therefore, the purpose of the book explicitly parallels the preceding narrative accounts.
The purpose of this paper is to resolve some of the tensions that arise when studying various passages in John. I have chosen three distinct texts that present various problems for believers regardless of academic training or hermeneutical interest. The original audience often did not understand the sayings of Jesus (cf. John 6:42, 52, 66; 13:7, 9), but holding the gospel as a whole enables the modern interpreter to perceive what they could not. Furthermore, viewing all the discourses in parallel fashion may provide solutions to problematic texts, assumingthe author has been consistent in his thematic development and terminology (which may not be a valid assumption in all cases). Some of the interpretive issues involve questions such as the following:
What is involved in gaining eternal life, simple belief or costly discipleship?
How do believers “eat” the flesh of Jesus?
Why could the disciples not understand a simple act of washing feet (13:7)?
What is the difference between the metaphorical ideas of bathing and washing (13:10)?
Are believers really cut off and thrown into the fire (15:2, 6)?
What does the process of “pruning” involve (15:2)?
To what does “fruit” refer (15:2, 5, 16)?
All of these questions involve some aspect of salvation, and an extensive analysis of the responsibilities of the believer, Jesus, and the Father will illuminate John’s view of salvation and subsequent discipleship.
The following sections analyze three of the more problematic passages (ch. 6, 13, 15) in John’s gospel to assimilate his view of all that is involved soteriologically. I understand other passages present interpretive issues as well (e.g., ch. 3, 4; 7:37–39), but the relationship of these three seems most helpful for the present task. Primarily, the focus here is on the responsibilities of three parties: the believer, the Son, and the Father. The first section conflates the response imagery that John (through Jesus) uses to describe the believer. Next, the work and significance of Jesus’ death will be discussed, followed by a survey of the Father’s involvement in this whole process. Conveniently, the three chosen passages align with the respective sections for the most part. The discussion of John 6 will emphasize the distinct, yet parallel, terms that the author uses to describe the believer’s response to Jesus, though parallel content from other passages will be included here. John 13 highlights the death of Jesus and how that affects the believer.Finally, John 15 does not focus on the Father’s work, but the author’s mention of the Father and His responsibilities as “farmer” or “husbandman” have caused much debate. By noting parallel imagery in the other passages, I will propose an interpretation of John 15 that fits John’s previous symbols and theology as a whole.
Response Imagery: Primarily John 6
The first major section discusses John’s view of the believer’s responsibility in gaining eternal life. Multiple elements will be noted among various passages, but his seemingly interchangeable terminology in John 6 provides a tremendous foundation for other texts.
Bread of Life Discourse
After the feeding of the five thousand, the disciples sail toward the other side of the sea, while Jesus prays and then walks on the water to their boat. Immediately, their boat reached the other side. The next morning, the crowds that had been fed looked for Jesus and eventually found Him in Capernaum. They ask how He got there (since they noticed only the disciples left in a boat), but Jesus sees through their question to their real motivation for seeking Him. They were fed the prior day and now were hungry again. Jesus then takes the opportunity to explain man’s need to “feed” on the true bread, His flesh. Through graphic imagery, Jesus portrays the spiritual truth that His death provides continual sustenance for His followers. The phenomenon in this discourse, though, is the multiple ways in which the author describes the follower’s response to Jesus, and this has interpretive results for later passages.
After reading John 6:22–59 carefully, the reader will notice the various types of “response imagery.” When the crowds ask how Jesus got to Capernaum, He tells them to labor for the food that does not perish instead of constantly seeking daily, physical food (6:27). Then, throughout the discourse, the crowds are indirectly encouraged to believe on the One whom the Father sent (6:29, 35b, 40, 47). Furthermore, these responses are paralleled by the idea of “coming to Jesus” (6:35a, 37, 44, 45). The reader will notice that verse thirty-five contains two distinct terms for the proper response, but the parallel structure of the verse implies the two phrases have the same referent. At one point, Jesus states that those who “look on the Son” and believe fulfill the will of the Father (6:40). This probably parallels John 3:14–15, where John references the bronze serpent that Moses raised in the wilderness. Though a different word for “seeing” is used in the LXX (ὁράω; θεωρέω), the final response image in John 6 points to the death of Christ that is also referenced in chapter three. Jesus closes the discourse with graphic remarks about eating “this” bread, later described as the flesh of the Son of Man, and drinking His blood (6:51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58). No less than five distinct phrases of terminology represent the actions that Jesus calls His followers to perform.
The reader may ask, Which am I supposed to do? What does it mean to “eat flesh” and “drink blood,” and how does that fulfill the will of God (6:39–40). Questions like these are answered by noticing the effects or results of performing the above actions. In a few instances, the result of a particular response is unique. First, the one who comes to Jesus will never hunger, and the one who believes will never thirst (6:35), but these metaphors are not explained further in literal terms. Second, coming to Jesus also results in not being cast out by Jesus (6:37), which indicates some type of inseparable bond between the individual and Christ.
On the other hand, two effects of these responses are repeated for multiple actions. First, Jesus claims that He will raise various individuals “on the last day.” He offers this promise to the one who believes on Him (6:40), the one who comes to Him (6:44), and the one who eats His flesh (6:54). Second, the concept of eternal life is declared certain for those who do the following: labor for food that does not perish (6:27), believe in Christ (6:40, 47), look on the son (6:40), and eat His flesh (6:54, 57). Similarly, whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood will live forever (6:51, 58). The only action not included in the second list is coming to Jesus. However, the first repetitive phrase (“raise on the last day”) connects this response to the others.
Based on these observations, I conclude that these phrases are multiple ways of referring to the same action. Since the same results are applied to those who perform each action, it follows that the actions are also identical. In this way, John presents that “salvation” in modern evangelical terminology is based on faith (i.e., “believing on Him whom the Father sent”). Coming to Jesus and looking on Him are different perspectives of the fundamental act. Finally, “eating His flesh” and “drinking His blood” refer to this process of believing in Jesus as the Source and Sustainer of spiritual life. In John 6, Jesus claims that His death is the means by which life flows to the believer, and dependence on that death is the content of “saving faith.”
Two final comments should be introduced here, though. First, the content of this belief is clear to modern Christians (and probably the author of John at the time of writing), but the disciples did not understand the necessity of Christ’s death until after the resurrection. They were constantly questioning His assertions of a coming death and forbad Him from speaking such things. Therefore, the content of their faith eventually progressed to the salvific necessity of His death and resurrection to provide atonement, but at the time of the Bread of Life Discourse they most likely considered the “object” of belief to be the truth of Christ’s being the Messiah or God’s promise of a new covenant and deliverance from sin.
Second, for future purposes, the one unmentioned result of “feeding” on Christ’s flesh should be mentioned. In verse fifty-six, Jesus claims that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood “abides” or resides (μένω) in Him. This is significant for two reasons. First, if eating and drinking Jesus’ body is identical to believing in Him or coming to Him as argued above, then all believers or Christians are “abiding” or “residing” in Christ. This conclusion opposes modern theories that only the seriously obedient and highly devoted Christians are “abiding” in Christ. Pastors and teachers often set this state of “abiding” as the goal of the daily Christian walk. Yet, John seems to argue that true believers always depend on Christ’s death for spiritual sustenance and thus “abide” in Him. Believers are those who abide in Christ, leaving no middle room for a Christian who does not abide in Jesus. John’s emphatic dualism is present in this chapter, providing only two options when it comes to accepting or rejecting Jesus. If the purpose of his writing is for the audience to believe that Jesus is the Christ (20:31), it follows that he would emphasize this need throughout the book. Second, the fact that believers are already abiding will become significant in later discussion of chapter fifteen. If John remains consistent in his terminology, he seems to imply that believers not only abide in Christ but also produce effects in their lives to show that to be the case. Again, he leaves no gray area: one believes and abides or one does not believe and does not abide.
Washing Feet (John 13)
The previous passage contained more emphasis on the proper response to Jesus’ teaching and ministry, but the other two texts for this paper provide helpful insight as well. In John 13, the author records a unique account, in which Jesus takes the position of a slave and washes the disciples’ feet. The text (v. 1) states this was before the Feast of the Passover, and Jesus performed this act during and after supper (vv. 2-4). Though the problems of Johannine chronology are well documented, it seems clear that this event occurred in the upper room the night of Jesus’ betrayal and trial. The Lord desired to teach the disciples the importance of humble service, and He used this opportunity to exhort them to love others likewise (vv. 15, 17). After these things, Jesus indicated Judas would betray him and dismissed him from dinner. Jesus foretells of Peter’s denial and then begins a lengthy discourse (ch. 14–17) on His imminent death, the coming of the Paraclete, the mission of the disciples, and a prayer on their behalf.
The dual nature of Christ’s act of service must be mentioned here in order for the reader’s response to surface. On the surface, Jesus taught His disciples to “wash the feet” of fellow disciples as a representation of Christ’s love among them. In fact, to love is classified as the “new commandment,” by which all will know Christ’s disciples (13:34–35). However, the author includes several linguistic features to prompt the reader to recognize a deeper meaning. First, the chapter begins by claiming Jesus loved His own even “to the end” (εἰς τέλος). This phrase could be taken adverbially, indicating the extent of Jesus’ love (i.e., “completely”). On the other hand, the noun is a cognate of τελέω, which the author repeats during the death of Christ (cf. 19:28, 30). In John 19:28, Jesus knows (εἰδώς; cf. 13:1) all things have been fulfilled (τετέλεσται) in order to fulfill (τελειωθῇ) the scripture and declares, τετέλεσται (19:30). The similar phrasing of Jesus’ recognition of the time and of a focus on completion causes most to see an intended connection between the two passages. In addition, John 13:4 says Jesus rosefrom the dinner, placed His garments aside (τίθησιν), and took up (λαβών) a linen cloth. The same sequence of verbs is used in John 10:18, when Jesus claims He has the power to lay down His life (θεῖναι) and to take it back again (λαβεῖν). This parallel is imperfect, though, because Jesus’ resurrection (i.e., taking His life back again) does not resemble the linen cloth of a slave who washes feet. However, it does seem clear that the author makes a subtle correlation between Jesus’ washing feet and dying for the sins of men.
Two final observations render this conclusion plausible. First, verse seven contains Jesus’ claim that Peter (and probably the others) would not understand Jesus’ actions until later. Yet, foot washing was a very common practice, and the disciples surely felt gratitude for Jesus’ extravagant portrayal of humility. They probably understood the importance of seeing their Lord and Teacher washing their feet, but they did not comprehend the full significance of Jesus’ death until after the resurrection. Second, when Jesus comes to Peter, and he refuses, Jesus comments, “Unless I wash you, you have no part in me,” (13:8). The response imagery implied from this verse is discussed below, but one should note the significance of accepting Jesus’ “washing.” If Peter had refused to have his feet cleaned, would he have been eternally banned from a relationship with Christ (and eternal life)? In addition, at this point, it seems that Judas may have had his feet washed. Does he have a “part” or “share” in Christ merely on the basis of clean feet? Both answers are a resounding no. Thus, it seems the author (and Jesus) are using this event to represent the effect of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The exhortation of loving one another gains a heightened force, for which the reader is directed below.
What then is the response imagery employed in this passage? Though the concept of foot washing appears first in the passage, the action of “bathing” is referenced as occurring prior to washing one’s feet. In verse ten, Jesus says, “The one who has bathed (λελουμένος) does not have need except to wash his feet (or have his feet washed).” The term λούω was frequently incorporated into religious texts and contexts to discuss ritual acts or purity (e.g., Plut. Mor. 264d; Jos. Vita 11; Lev 15:11). In this sense, BDAG directly links John 13:10 with baptism, similar to the use of the word in Hebrews 10:22. Kittel reflects this viewpoint as well, stating, “He who is baptized is clean (v. 10, cf. 3:6).” After tracing the use of the term through religious and symbolic contexts, including Jewish, Christian, and pagan, Kittel acknowledges that baptism and ritual cleansing in the NT has a distinct purpose. It is drastically different from cleansings of other religions or cults. There is no magical or ritualistic overture; rather, baptism reflects God’s complete act of mercy in forgiving the believer.
On the other hand, it is difficult to see a reference to baptism in this text because Jesus claims that the disciples are already clean (13:10; cf. 15:3 below). Their only responsibility is to have their feet washed because they are already clean (i.e., have already “bathed”). Surely, some of them were baptized by John the Baptist (cf. John 1:35–42), but the Christian rite of baptism was not instituted until after the death of Christ. At this point, none of the disciples have been baptized to identify themselves with the Lord. “Despite claims often made, it is improbable that any reference to Christian baptism is intended in this passage.” Therefore, the metaphor must refer to something else.
The term can also reference the use of water to clean the body physically, both someone else’s (Acts 9:37; 16:33) or one’s own (2 Pet 2:22, with reference to a pig; cf. Herm. Vis. 1.1.2). In classical Greek, the word meant to wash the entire body, while νίπτω generally referred to washing parts of the body. In the first century, the government funded public baths to which the less wealthy would go for periodic cleansing. Thus, the word could refer to a physical cleansing or an act representing spiritual purity (or both).
In John 3, Jesus’ tells Nicodemus that eternal life is given to those born “of water and the Spirit.” One could possibly see a reference to a physical birth and a spiritual birth here, but the parallel with Ezekiel 36:25-27 causes others to view one birth characterized by cleansing of the heart and indwelling of the Spirit. Carson particularly sees one referent from these two words, noting that “when water is used figuratively in the Old Testament, it habitually refers to renewal or cleansing, especially when it is found in conjunction with ‘spirit.’” He then points to Ezekiel 36, where water and spirit are explicitly connected to symbolize cleansing and God’s turning of His people’s hearts. In this way, the internalization of the law and coming of the Spirit fulfills to some degree the promise of a new covenant (Jer 31).This still does not fit the metaphor perfectly, because the act of “bathing” still demands “having feet washed.” If cleansing here refers to God’s act of washing an individual’s heart from sin and giving the Holy Spirit, what else does he need? What would foot washing imply?
Perhaps an exact parallel in modern systematic theology does not exist with Jesus’ reference to “bathing.” John 9, though, tells how the blind man was healed by Jesus healed after putting mud on his eyes and telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The text says he left, washed, and was healed (9:7). His action illustrated his internal belief that Jesus was able to heal him. This may aid in finding a parallel for John 13. The disciples were clean in the sense that they believed in Jesus. They were still confused about His mission and His statements about death, but Jesus told them they will understand later (13:7). By following Jesus, the disciples were placing their trust, allegiance, and (in effect) their lives in the hands of their Teacher. “According to the Gospel [of John] the disciples are clean because of their life-association with Jesus (15:3).” Truly, in the sense of John 6, they were ultimately relying on Him for sustenance and life. They were disciples in the full sense, yet Jesus indicates one of them is not clean (Judas; 13:10–11). The fact that Judas is excluded from the “clean” group, although he was a disciple, supports this view that Jesus is referencing those who truly believed He was the Messiah, being sent by God. The question remains: If “bathing” is simply reliance on Christ or believing on Him, what else is needed as implied by the reference to foot washing (νίπτω)?
The important thing to notice in this passage is not that washing one’s feet is emphasized, but the allowance of an act to occur. That is, the responsibility of the disciples was not to wash their feet but to allow Jesus to perform the act of service (13:6–8, 10). Throughout the passage, Jesus explains that He must wash them, and the middle infinitive in verse ten could be a direct reflexive (i.e., “wash one’s own feet”). Yet, I agree with Wallace that this is more likely a permissive middle in light of this context. Thus, the one who has bathed merely must allow his feet to be washed (i.e., by Jesus). The consequence of refusing Jesus’ act is having no part in Him, which resembles an inheritance motif (cf. Luke 15:12). Thus, for one to deny Jesus is to reject association with Him, a right to blessings from Him, and ultimately the life He offers. Yet, these consequences seem awfully stark for not allowing Jesus to wash one’s feet. In addition, how is there any hope for modern believers?
For these reasons, I see a clear parallel between Christ’s humble service and His death on the cross. The connections between John 13 and 19 have been listed previously, and that correlation explains how Christ can say such things in verses seven and eight. Barrett agrees, noting that the upper room discourse is preceded by this humble act. “There stands first a symbolic narrative, the washing of the disciples’ feet, which prefigures the crucifixion itself, and in doing so points the way to the interpretation of the crucifixion.” Allowing Christ to wash one’s feet implies the act of appropriating Christ’s sacrifice on his or her behalf. Belief in Christ as a person (i.e., “bathing”) must be followed by acceptance of His death (i.e., “foot washing”) or “receiving Christ” (13:20). The promise of having no part in Jesus if He does not wash one’s feet “indicates that the washing symbolizes allowing Jesus to serve his followers by embracing his death for them.” One possible difficulty with this parallelism is that the act of foot washing had to occur frequently because of the dirt roads of the first century. Yet, acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice is a one-time event, is it not? Perhaps the decision to begin believing in Christ occurs at a point in time, but the Johannine emphasis is on a constant state of believing in Jesus (cf. John 3:16; 6:47). Just as one must daily “feed” on the flesh of Christ (6:54–56), he must daily acknowledge his need for the death of Christ to cleanse him from his sin.
Barrett has a slightly different interpretation because he takes the shorter textual variant of John 13:10 as original. The longer reads, “The one who has bathed has no need except to wash his feet,” while the shorter reading says, “The one who has bathed has no need to wash.” He acknowledges that both variants are anciently supported, and contextual factors should decide the original reading. Noting John’s love for synonymous terms, Barrett comments that the two words “bathing” and “washing” are synonyms in this passage, and that Jesus’ action in chapter thirteen (if reflective of His death) is essential to the disciples’ cleanliness. “It is of fundamental importance and indispensable—that is, it is not a secondary ‘washing’ subordinate to an initial ‘bath.’” The issue Barrett is combating is the notion that in religious contexts, purifying washings were common, and Jesus is telling the disciples that subsequent washings are not necessary, because His death both “bathes” and “washes” them. They are completely clean based on His death. With this decision made, Barrett does not need to speculate on the distinct referents, since both “bathing” and “washing” refer to appropriation of Christ’s death.
The problem with this interpretation is two-fold. First, Barrett acknowledges the custom that a guest would bathe at his own home and have his only his feet washed when arriving at the host’s home, and Barrett claims that “knowledge of such a custom as this might have caused the expansion” of the text. However, Barrett never deals with the implication of the custom. If it was known in the first century, then two sequential activities are still mentioned: an initial bath and a subsequent foot washing. In his interpretation, though, Barrett equates the “bathing” with Jesus’ washing feet. This works if Jesus is specifically combating Peter’s request for a full body washing. Yet, it seems unnatural for Jesus to reference a custom of bathing and then washing in order to deny the need to wash later. In addition, using the term νίπτω for an absolutely necessary event (13:8) and subsequent activities that are irrelevant seems problematic. Even with the shorter reading, it is much more likely that the terms λούω and νίπτω refer to different events.
Second, his interpretation equates appropriation of Christ’s death with both “bathing” and “washing,” but Jesus pronounces the disciples as “clean” in John 13:10. Jesus has clearly not died yet, so the disciples could not have truly accepted the results of His death (i.e., “having bathed”). Furthermore, Jesus asserts the disciples do not understand what He is doing for them, indicating they are not accepting His death at this point. The act is a picture of a future reality, but the disciples have not internalized that reality at this point, allowing them to be “clean.” In addition, when this claim is repeated in John 15:3, the adverb “already” (ἤδη) acknowledges the present state of the disciples. It is difficult to see foot-washing (though it pictures future acceptance of Jesus’ death) as a sufficient component in making the disciples “clean.” On the other hand, the difference between Barrett’s (and Brown’s) view and my proposed interpretation is not too vast. None of us view “washing” as symbolic of baptism or some other ritual, and all acknowledge the supreme importance of accepting Jesus’ sacrifice. However, this is not the only responsibility of the believer mentioned here.
Jesus tells the disciples that they must wash each other’s feet, following the example of their Master. On the surface, this does indicate an attitude of humility when viewing other believers and a willingness to serve them out of love for Christ. Yet, if the parallel between Jesus’ act here and His death is accurate, Jesus is calling for a more serious commitment to one another than the modern church often actualizes. Just as Jesus was willing (and did) lay His life down for the disciples, so also they were instructed to serve one another to the point of self-sacrifice and possible death. This is the deepest form of love (cf. 15:13) and indicates a strong sense of unity and commitment among the followers of Christ. Washing someone’s feet may be inconvenient, but being willing to die for him or her is the greatest example of love.
“I Am the Vine” (John 15)
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 above). It is important to note that a technical term (such as μένω for belief in Jesus) should have the same meaning throughout a book. 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 oneparticular 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.
In summary, these three passages have emphasized the role of the disciple in gaining eternal life. First, John 6 focused on the response to Jesus, including an attitude of belief in Him and complete reliance on Him for spiritual nourishment and sustenance. Without depending on Jesus and believing in Him, someone cannot receive eternal life. Second, John 13 emphasized Jesus’ action but included the idea that the disciple must appropriate Christ’s death for himself. That is, he must allow Jesus to “wash his feet” via His sacrificial death on his account. Without accepting the perfect sacrifice, allegiance to Christ and dependence on His person is insufficient. Finally, John 15 commands for those who believe in Christ to bear fruit in order to demonstrate their “connectedness” to the vine. Love for other disciples proves that eternal life is flowing from Christ to the disciples, and loving others reflects an assumption upon oneself of Christ’s exemplary love on the cross.
Role of the Son: Primarily John 13
The previous pages have attempted to consolidate the role of the believer in the process of sanctification, and the same three passages also enable the reader to see Christ’s responsibilities. Obviously, the foundational act of Christ in any system of soteriology is His willingness to give His life for the world. Through His death and resurrection, redemption and forgiveness is possible. As mentioned previously, the phrasing of John 13:4, 12 probably symbolize the deeper significance of washing the disciples feet and point to the death of Jesus. When comparing other phrases such as εἰς τέλος (13:1) with John 19:28, 30, these connections are almost undeniable. In addition, John 6 mentions the self-sacrifice of Christ multiple times. First, Jesus claims that the “Son of Man” (i.e., Himself) came down from heaven (6:33) to give food that does not perish to the world (6:27). Later, this “food” that does not perish is defined as “life” (6:33). Finally, Jesus identifies His flesh as the bread that came down, and anyone who “eats” of Him will live forever. Clearly, the flesh and blood (vv. 55–56) refer to His death, indicating that the purpose of coming down from heaven was to give His life so that those who believe could receive true life. This constitutes doing the will of the Father (6:38).
Yet, Jesus promises to perform more responsibilities for those who believe on Him. First, He will not cast out the ones whom the Father gives to Him (6:37; i.e., those who believe); nor will He lose any of them, except for Judas (6:39; cf. 17:12). Rather, those who believe on Him are depending on His “flesh and blood” to sustain them, resulting in a constant “abiding” or “residing” in Christ. Those who believe in Jesus are promised His reciprocated state of “abiding” (6:56). This is how none are lost, because the union between the believer and Jesus is impenetrable (cf. 15:4, 7). Life flows through Jesus (i.e., the vine) to the believer, resulting in fruit, but those who do not bear fruit prove they are not truly abiding in Christ (i.e., believing in Him), and He does not abide in them.
Within chapters thirteen and fifteen, Jesus provides a powerful example of how believers should relate to one another. John acknowledges Jesus loved His disciples εἰς τέλος (“to the end” or “completely”), and he recounts the event of washing their feet (13:5, 8, 14). This is a humbling act of service, but previously noticed parallels point to a greater act of love: self-sacrifice to the point of death. Further, in chapter fifteen, Jesus says that He has loved the disciples (15:9, 12) and explains that the greatest type of love is laying down one’s life for his friends. Therefore, it follows that Jesus’ love for His disciples peaked in His death on the cross. Through loving the disciples in this way, Jesus kept the commands of the Father (cf. John 6:38-40 for conceptual parallel between the Father’s “will” and the Son’s responsibilities). Therefore, because of His obedience, Jesus has gained authority to command the disciples to love in the same way (15:12, 17) and to commission them to bear fruit (15:16). He has chosen them (15:16) for this specific purpose: to demonstrate Christ’s love to the world through love for one another.
Finally, John includes in these discourses the notion that Jesus will raise up those who believe on Him on the last day (6:39, 40, 44, 54). This refers to the future resurrection and will conclude the salvation process. John does not discuss theological concepts of glorification or “new bodies,” but these passages (cf. John 11:20–27) comment briefly on Jesus role throughout the process of salvation until it consummates in eternal life with the Father. Thus, Jesus’ primarily responsibility was His willingness to die, but He is involved in the current relationship with believers, which will culminate in life forever.
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.
Interpretive Problem(s)
Within this framework, two related questions could be asked. First, in John 15:3, Jesus states, “You are already clean (καθαροί) because of the word (διὰ τὸν λόγον) which I spoke to you.” This statement comes directly after verse two, in which Jesus said the Father “cleans” (καθαίρει) every branch that bears fruit. If “cleansing” references forgiveness in verse two, then Jesus statement would mean: “You are already forgiven,” but they have not yet been able to appropriate the means of that forgiveness (i.e., His death). The first question concerns the clause “because of the word which I spoke.” What is this “word”? In chapter fifteen, Jesus essentially repeats the phrase,“You are clean” that He spoke in the upper room (13:10). After washing their feet, He pronounced them to be clean, except for Judas. Therefore, it is possible for this phrase to simply mean: “You are clean, as I told you before.” Yet, this does not sufficiently resolve the problem. Beasley-Murray has a more plausible approach. He states that Jesus’ statement, “You are clean,” in both John 13:10 and 15:3 “are complementary; they illustrate a fundamental assumption of the Gospel that the ‘word’ and the ‘service’ of Jesus are inseparable.” That is, the “word” is not a specific utterance but Jesus’ general revelation of who He was and of the Father. He continues, “Τhe word spoken and enacted must be received and believed if its effect is to be for life … So it comes about that while all the disciples are ‘washed’ by Jesus, not all are ‘clean,’ for among them stands the betrayer, who has rejected the word both spoken and enacted by Jesus.” Carson takes Jesus’ “word” in a similar fashion. “Jesus’ teaching (as logos is rendered in 14:23), in its entirety, including what he is and what he does (since he himself is the logosincarnate, 1:1, 14) has already taken hold in the life of these followers.” Thus, Jesus’ spoken word (i.e., His revelation of the Father and offer of eternal life) reveals that His death is the basis of true cleansing. Only internalization of that sacrifice and belief in Jesus result in life.
Second, the real issue here is how the disciples can be labeled as “clean” and in need of future “cleaning.” One possible response is that the major textual stop for verse three does not come until the end of verse four, which states, “Abide in me, and I in you.” Perhaps Jesus has pronounced the disciples “clean,” but they still have a responsibility to abide or believe in Him. The fact that verse three is closely tied to the following verse seems to indicate Jesus has shifted His focus slightly. Truly, the Father cleans (by forgiving) the fruitful branch, but Jesus has now moved on to the disciples’ responsibility, whomHe described as clean in a previous chapter.
This is not the only way to view this passage, and to divide the “focus of Jesus” in the middle of an extended metaphor seems implausible. Perhaps John is using a cognate term in a similar, but not identical, way. In chapter thirteen, “cleanliness” was defined as “bathing” (i.e., purifying oneself through belief in Christ’s person and claims). For this individual, appropriation of Jesus’ death is still necessary, which in chapter thirteen was labeled as having feet “washed,” a process based on the death of Christ. Thus, the believer is already “clean” with reference to his responsibility, but the Father must still apply that blood to the believer, truly “washing” him.
Therefore, I think the connection between chapters thirteen and fifteen is Christ’s sacrifice, and the lexical cognates are not referring to the exact same tenor, but the same instrument of Jesus’ death. This difference is due to metaphorical limitations, and John’s word for “pruning” not only fit his context but also the larger picture of what it meant to be truly “cleansed.” If I were to make the two passages identical in referent, I would say the disciples are “already” clean because of their decision to believe and abide in Christ (except for Judas, 13:10), but chapter thirteen mentions their need to “have their feet washed” through the death of Christ. Chapter fifteen then claims the Father “cleans” fruitful branches, and I think this refers to the same process based on the factor that unites them: the death of Christ. Jesus washes the disciples feet to symbolize his death. The Father also “washes” the believers, but νίπτω does not fit the vine, branches, and pruning metaphor. Therefore, John was limited in wording, though he was referring to the same tenor.Jesus died for the disciples, but the Father makes that death effective.
This also finds support in John’s view of the relationship between belief and discipleship. Followers of Jesus may or may not be true believers, as evidenced by Judas (13:21–30). Before Judas left that night, Jesus had finished washing their feet and pronounced them “clean,” but not all, for “He knew who would betray him,” (13:11). If the washing of the feet symbolizes Christ’s sacrificial death which “washes” the disciples from their sin, one should note that Judas’ feet were probably also washed. He allowed Jesus to wash him literally, which should indicate his having “part” in Jesus (13:8). However, his choices later and ultimate betrayal (i.e., the antithesis of love) demonstrated his lack of true appropriation of Christ’s service. As Barrett notes, “Through the work of Christ God has cleansed a people for himself; yet the people are not all cleansed. Satan finds in Judas, one of the Twelve, a tool ready to his hand.” Jesus’ sacrifice was extended to all, but only a portion of his disciples truly believed and abided in Him. To these “clean” ones, the Father applies the blood of Christ in the act of forgiveness (15:2). They are clean or “bathed” (13:10) because of their belief, but they will need cleaned (or forgiven) after Jesus’ death. For this reason, Jesus does not qualify His statement, “You are clean” with “but not all” in John 15:3. His audience at this point truly is clean internally, and though Jesus’ sacrifice (i.e., the means of cleansing) was offered to all, the Father only cleanses those who believe. How is their heart of belief evident? Their fruit of loving each other manifests their internal condition.
Summary
Collating Johannine imagery and symbolism is not an easy task, and often his metaphors focus on one aspect of theology to the point that peripheral images are not intended to coincide with other passages. Yet, John 6, 13, 15 seem complementary to one another, presenting John’s view of salvation and discipleship. First, gaining eternal life results from a complete and continual dependence on Christ, as expressed in John 6. This dependence takes the form of believing in Jesus and “abiding” in Him. The daily need for food provides John (and Jesus) with the accurate symbol for perpetual belief in the Son and internalization of what His ministry accomplished (i.e., the New Covenant). In John 13, this symbol takes the form of allowing Jesus to wash one’s feet, accepting the sacrifice on his behalf, and receiving cleansing from sin through His blood. The one who does not accept this offer has no part in Jesus (13:8). For John, following Jesus leads to believing in Him, but belief in His person must be supplemented by appropriation of His death. This is the means of cleansing and of establishing a life-giving relationship (ch. 15).
Second, the one who truly believes on the Son not only has life but also bears fruit (15:2), which represents the love shared among believers. He who abides in Christ’s love (15:9) cannot deny the example displayed for him (13:14–15), and he must love others as well. In addition, the Father’s act of forgiveness and cleansing (15:2) motivates the believer to extend the same type of love to others (i.e., bearing more fruit). If someone who claims to be in the vine does not love others, he proves that he is not truly connected to the life-giving vine. Thus, the production of fruit demonstrates whether the connection between vine and branch is established. For John, then, one’s claim of belief and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice will be proven true by his actions toward others. Without a heart of love, one’s true internal condition is manifest.
Bibliography
Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th rev. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and edited by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Edited by Frederick William Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. “Baptism, Wash.” In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown, 3:143–154. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.
_____. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco: Word Books, 1987.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1966.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Coloe, M. L. “Welcome into the Household of God: The Foot Washing in John 13.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2004): 400–15.
Colson, F. H., and G. H. Whitaker, trans. Philo. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1929.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Derickson, Gary W. “Viticulture and John 15:1-6.” Bibliotheca sacra 153 (1996): 34–52.
Dillow, J. C. “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6.” Bibliotheca sacra 147, no. 585 (1990): 44–53.
Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on John’s Gospel. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1886. Reprint,. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978.
Giurisato, G. “John 13:10: An Archaeological Solution of a Textcritical Problem.” Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 58 (2008): 73–80.
Holmes, Michael, trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.
Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Laney, J. C. “Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6.” Bibliotheca sacra 146, no. 581 (1989): 55–66.
Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. 3 vols. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Payne, J. B. “Bathe.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Everett F. Harrison, and R. K. Harrison, 1:439–40. Rev. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
Thomas, John Christopher. “A Note on the Text of John 13:10.” Novum Testamentum 29, no. 1 (1987): 46–52.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
No comments:
Post a Comment