Month: October 2023

October 31: John 15:8

John 15:8

“In this my Father is given honor: that you should bear much fruit, and should come to be my learners [i.e. disciples].”

The first section (vv. 4-8) of the exposition/application of the Vine illustration (vv. 1-3) concludes with this declaration by Jesus. God the Father (i.e., the land-worker of the illustration, v. 1) is given honor (e)doca/sqh) when the branches of the vine bear “much fruit”. The verb doca/zw (“give/show honor”) is an important Johannine keyword in the Gospel, occurring 23 times, compared with 14 in the Synoptics combined (Luke 9, Matthew 4, Mark 1). It tends to be used in the second half of the Gospel, being concentrated in the Last Discourse and the Discourse-Prayer of chap. 17. It features in the opening of the Last Discourse (13:31-32), repeating the earlier announcement by Jesus in 12:23 (cf. also v. 28):

“The hour has come that the Son of Man should be given honor” (12:23)
“Now the Son of Man is given honor, and God is given honor in him;” (13:31)

The second clause of 13:31 is precisely parallel to the statement here in 15:8:

    • “God | is given honor [e)doca/sqe] | in him [e)n au)tw=|]”
    • “the Father | is given honor [e)doca/sqe] | in this [e)n tou=tw|]

Before examining this parallel in more detail, let us consider 13:32, in which Jesus gives us an exposition of the statement in v. 31:

“[(and) if God is given honor in him,] (then) also will God give him honor in Him(self), and will straightaway give him honor.”

The words in square brackets are missing from a significant range of witnesses (Ë66 a* B C D* L W X P f1 al), and thus may not be original; but, as Brown (p. 606) notes, “it is easier to explain why it may have been lost than why it would have been added”.

Also problematic is the precise meaning (and referent) for the second dative pronoun au)tw=|: “…God will also give him honor in him [e)n au)tw=|]”. The pronoun is apparently being used in a reflexive sense (i.e., “in himself”), but is the reference to God the Father or Jesus the Son? Is the promise that God will give Jesus honor in himself, or in Himself (i.e., the Son in the Father)? The emphasis in the Gospel on the reciprocal relationship between Father and Son makes the latter more likely. If the Father is given honor in the Son, then the Son will be given honor (by the Father) in the Father (“in Him[self]”).

The verb doca/zw properly means “recognize”, usually in the sense of giving recognition to someone—i.e., treating them with esteem or honor; sometimes it can include the idea of raising someone to a position of honor. In the Gospel of John, the verb tends to be used in the specific context of the exaltation of the Son (Jesus). The process of exaltation begins with the suffering and death of Jesus, includes his resurrection from the dead, and then concludes with his return to the Father in heaven. This is clearly the context in which the verb is used in 7:39, 12:16, and here in 12:23 and 13:31-32. The Son’s mission on earth brings honor to the Father (11:4; 14:13; 17:4), and the Son is also given honor (and raised to honor) in the process (11:4; 17:1, 5, 10); ultimately it is God the Father who gives honor to the Son (8:54; 12:28; 17:1ff).

This helps us to understand the parallel between 15:8 and 13:31. The Father is given honor “in this” —believers becoming true disciples of the Son—just as He is given honor in the Son himself (“in him”). Believers, as disciples of the Son, continue the mission of the Son.

By continuing the Son’s mission, and following his example, the disciples (i.e., believers) are part of this same dynamic—bringing honor to the Father, and being honored in return (17:10, 22, 24; 21:19). In 15:8, it is clearly stated that, by bearing “much fruit”, the disciples will bring honor to the Father; implicit is the idea that the disciples (believers) are doing this in (e)n) the Son, indicating that they/we take part in the same relationship between Father and Son. This is very much the message in the chapter 17 Discourse-Prayer, and is an overarching theme throughout the Last Discourse (and elsewhere in the Gospel as well). Consider, for example, the statement in 17:10:

“Indeed, all the (thing)s (that are) mine are yours, and all the (thing)s (that are) yours are mine, and I have been given honor [dedo/casmai] in them.”

When speaking of “all the (thing)s”, Jesus is referring principally to the disciples/believers, as is clear from v. 9: “…the (one)s whom you have given me”, saying of them, “that they are yours”. Believers belong to God the Father, and the Father has given them to the Son, so they also (equally) belong to the Son. Moreover, they are in the Son (and the Son is in them), and thus the honor given/received is shared by both. This relationship of unity is indicated in 14:13, as Jesus tells his disciples:

“And whatever you should request (from the Father) in my name, this I will do, (so) that the Father should be given honor [docasqh=|] in the Son.”

The same emphasis on prayer, with the promise of answered prayer, occurs in the immediate context here (v. 7, discussed in the previous note). The bond of unity is realized through the presence of the Spirit; see, for example, how this relates in 16:14, where Jesus says of the Spirit:

“That (one) will give me honor [e)me\ doca/sei], (in) that he will receive out of th(at which is) mine, and will give (it) forth as a message to you.”

In other words, through the Spirit, the ministry of Jesus continues in/through the disciples (believers), and this gives honor to the Son—and thus also to the Father, since, as it is again stated in 16:15, all things that belong to the Father also belong to the Son (“All [thing]s, as [many] as the Father holds, are mine”).

Returning to verse 8 of the Vine illustration, the Father is “given honor” when the disciples “bear much fruit”. An interpretative crux of the passage involves determining just what, precisely, it means for a disciple/believer to “bear (much) fruit”. We have discussed the matter, initially, in prior notes, but have yet to give it a thorough treatment. Here, however, Jesus himself (as the speaker) offers us a glimpse of the meaning, by effectively identifying the “bearing of fruit” with being a disciple:

“…that you should bear much fruit and should come to be my learners [ge/nhsqe e)moi\ maqhtai/]”

Some manuscripts read the future indicative genh/sesqe, rather than the aorist subjunctive (ge/nhsqe). This would give a slightly different emphasis to Jesus’ statement:

“…that you should bear much fruit, and (so) you will come to be my learners”

The noun maqhth/$ means “learner, one who learns”, but is typically translated as “disciple,” which is accurate enough; certainly, the noun is used in the New Testament almost exclusively for disciples/followers of Jesus. In two other places in the Gospel of John, Jesus (and also the Gospel writer) gives us an indication of what it means to be a true disciple:

    • “If you should remain in my word, (then) truly you are my learners [i.e. disciples]” (8:31)
    • “In this all (people) shall know that you are my learners [i.e. disciples]—if you would hold love among (one) another” (13:35)

The Gospel thus gives two specific criteria for being a true disciple of Jesus—(1) “remaining” in his word, and (2) having love toward fellow believers (“each other”). And since, according to 15:8, “bearing fruit” is essentially the same as being a (true) disciple, then believers who fulfill/exhibit these two criteria are “bearing much fruit”.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the next portion of the exposition, vv. 9-11, which introduces a new theme—love and the ‘commandments’ —that very much relates to the line of interpretation discussed here. And exegesis of these verses will give us an even clearer understanding of what it means for the disciple/believer to “bear much fruit”.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 29A (1970).

 

October 30: John 15:7 (continued)

John 15:7, continued

As we examined in the previous note, there is a close connection between the motif of Jesus’ word (lo/go$ / r(h=ma) and the theme of the believer remaining in Jesus (and he in the believer). This is certainly expressed in v. 7a:

“If you should remain in me, and my utterances [r(h/mata] should remain in you…”

The same idiom—viz., of the word of Jesus (or of God the Father) remaining (or being) in (e)n) a person—is found in 5:38 and 8:37, as discussed in the previous note. The noun r(h=ma (lit. “utterance, something uttered”) is used here in v. 7, but r(h=ma and lo/go$ are largely synonymous, in this context, in the Gospel of John; r(h=ma always occurs in the plural (r(h/mata), being virtually identical in meaning with the plural lo/goi—both referring to specific things taught/said by the Son (Jesus) during the time of his earthly ministry.

If Jesus himself “remains” in the believer (vv. 4-5), then his words also will; similarly, based on the reciprocal nature of the abiding relationship, the believer will remain in Jesus, and also will remain in his word(s) (cf. 8:31). Indeed, the relationship of the believer to Jesus’ word(s) is a demonstration of the truth of his/her relationship to Jesus himself. This becomes an especially important point of emphasis for the author of 1 John. The true believer in Christ remains firmly rooted in Christ’s words (i.e., his teaching, proclamation, witness).

The content of the remainder of verse 7 is a bit surprising. Without any preparation, in the context of the Vine-illustration, there is an abrupt introduction of the theme of prayer (and the answer to prayer). If the believer remains in Jesus, and in Jesus’ words, then, as a result of this condition, the promise is:

“…you may request what ever you might wish, and it will come to be (so) for you.”
[In Ë66*, and a few other witnesses, the final word u(mi=n (“for you”) is absent/omitted.]

This echoes a promise stated elsewhere in the Last Discourse, most notably in 14:12-14 and 16:23-24, 26; it also occurs again at the close of the Vine-illustration (v. 16). In 14:12-14 and 16:23-24ff, the condition for prayer being answered is that the disciple (believer) should make the request of God in Jesus’ name (“in my name”). I have discussed these passages in earlier studies in the Monday Notes on Prayer feature. It is clear that the qualifying expression “in my name” relates principally to the believer’s trust in Jesus—specifically, believing that Jesus is the Son sent from heaven by God the Father (16:27), and recognizing the abiding relationship of unity between Father and Son (14:10ff). The latter is particularly important, since the relationship between Father and Son serves as the pattern for the same kind of relationship between the Son and believers. It is worth citing again Jesus’ words to his disciples in 14:10:

“Do you not trust that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The utterances [r(h/mata] that I say to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father remaining [me/nwn] in me, He does His works.”

Central to the Father’s work [e&rgon] that He does in the Son are the words that He speaks through him. The Son (Jesus) speaks the Father’s words, even as he does the Father’s works. Even if one cannot fully understand the nature (in a purely theological sense) of the abiding relationship they share, one can still trust that the works Jesus does, and the words he speaks, are evidence of this relationship—and of his identity as the Son of God:

“You must trust that I am in the Father, and the Father (is) in me; but, if (you can) not, (then) trust through [i.e. because of] the works (them)selves.” (v. 11)

The one who trusts, comes to share in the same relationship—viz., the believer is in the Son, and the Son is in the believer, just as the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son. As a result, the believer does the Son’s works, even as the Son does the Father’s works:

“Amen, amen, I say to you: the (one) trusting in me—that (one) also will do the (thing)s that I do…” (v. 12)

This sense of the believer’s abiding union with Jesus is at the heart of the Johannine understanding of the expression in Jesus’ name (“in my name”). When requests are made to God from the standpoint of this relationship, then the promise is that they will be answered.

Returning to the version of the promise in 15:7, there is a general parallel with the condition in 14:11:

    • “You must remain in me, and I in you”
      “If you remain in me, and my words remain in you…”
    • “You must trust that I am in the Father and the Father (is) in me…
      …trust in the works…”

It is clear that remaining in Jesus is parallel to (and synonymous with) trusting in him (as the Son of God). Similarly, remaining in his words is comparable to trusting in his works. Both the words and works of Jesus testify to his identity as the Son; indeed, there is a intimately close connection between the words (r(h/mata) and works (e&rga)—so as to be virtually equivalent in meaning (cf. the interchangeability of terms in 14:10).

Commentators can focus on the practical implications of these statements regarding the answer to prayer, and miss the theological (and Christological) implications, which are primary in the Gospel of John. The Son (Jesus) hears what the Father says, but the Father also hears what the Son requests. This aspect of the Father-Son relationship is not as prominent in the Gospel, but it does occur at several points—most notably, at the climactic moment of the Lazarus episode; just prior to the miracle, Jesus prays, addressing the Father:

“Yeshua lifted up his eyes above and said: ‘Father, I give thanks to you (for your) favor, (in) that you (have) heard me. Indeed, I had seen [i.e. known] that you always hear me, but I said (it) through [i.e. because of] the throng (of people) standing around (here), that they might trust that you did send me forth.'” (11:41-42)

The purpose of Jesus’ prayer is that people (i.e., those belonging to God) would come to trust in him—that he is the Son sent by God the Father. This is an important emphasis in the Gospel of John: the prayer that takes place “in Jesus’ name”, and which will surely be answered, relates to this mission of the Son. Believers continue the Son’s mission, and are to pray to the Father following the example of the Son. The theme expressed in 11:41-42, and which is central to the Johannine understanding of prayer, is developed in the great Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17. The prayer-references in the Last Discourse, including the reference here in the Vine illustration, anticipate the teaching and message of Jesus to his disciples (and to us as believers) in chap. 17.

 

 

Notes on Prayer: 1 Kings 8 and the Role of the Temple

Having completed our recent series of notes on the Prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8, set on the occasion of the inauguration of the Jerusalem Temple, it is worth considering the broader interpretive implication of the two major themes of this Prayer (and its surrounding narrative): (1) the centralization of worship, and (2) the name of YHWH.

The Centralization of Worship

An important religious and theological issue in 1 Kings 8 is the centralization of worship for the Israelite people. By this is meant the central place of Jerusalem and the Temple for the religion of the kingdom of Israel/Judah, a principle rooted in the developing royal theology of the kingdom period. Religious unity is essential for unifying the kingdom, and the presence of the Temple was a focal point for this goal of unity. The centrality of Jerusalem (and the Temple) is a fundamental theme of the entire Deuteronomic history, being established in the book of Deuteronomy itself (cf. 12:5-6ff; 14:23-25; 16:2ff; 17:8ff; 26:2; 31:11), but naturally coming into much greater prominence in the book of Kings. In 1 Kings 8, this centrality is expressed two different ways:

    • In the surrounding narrative (vv. 1-11, 62-66), people from all over the kingdom come to Jerusalem, to the Temple precincts, for the festival of Sukkot/Booths, according to the directive given in Deut 31:10-11ff. Sukkot is one of the three great pilgrimage festivals, during which all adult males were required to “appear before YHWH” (Exod 23:14, 17; 34:23); in the Deuteronomic tradition, this meant traveling to “the place which YHWH will choose” (16:16, etc)—that is, to Jerusalem.
    • Within the Prayer (vv. 12-61), the Jerusalem Temple becomes the focus of the people’s prayers. Regardless of where the people are throughout the kingdom (or even far away in exile), they are to pray in the direction of the Temple.

It is interesting to consider how the religious significance and symbolism of the Temple developed in Old Testament and Jewish tradition, and how these lines of tradition ultimately were inherited by early Christians in the first century. A particularly important line of tradition is eschatological—the Temple played a key role in Jewish eschatological and Messianic thought during the first centuries B.C./A.D. I discuss this subject at some length in an earlier article.

It is thus not surprising that the relation of Jesus to the Temple was a theme of some prominence for early Christians, being expressed and developed at various points in the New Testament. Jesus’ identity as the Messiah, who was ushering in a New Age for God’s people, meant that the eschatological (and Messianic) significance of the Temple had to be applied to the person of Jesus in some way.

I have discussed Jesus’ relationship to the Jerusalem Temple in the series “Jesus and the Law”, examining it within the broader context of his view of the Law (Torah). The Temple ritual is an important part of the commands and ordinances in the Law, and Jesus’ relation to it is an important aspect of this subject. My study of the subject, in the aforementioned series, was divided into three areas:

    1. Jesus’ “cleansing” of the Temple
    2. The “Temple saying” of Jesus
    3. Other sayings and teachings related to the Temple

The first two are discussed in Part 6, while the third is examined in Part 7.

In particular, the Temple-action and Temple-saying(s) by Jesus have eschatological (and Messianic) significance, both at the level of the original historical event/tradition, and the way that these have been narrated and presented in the Gospels. Was Jesus consciously responding to the traditional line of eschatological thought—viz., that the “restoration of Israel” at the end-time would involve a new/restored Temple (cf. my previously mentioned article)? I believe that the answer must be regarded as affirmative, though with some qualification. From the earlier studies on the eschatology in the Sayings and Parables of Jesus, we have seen how Jesus repeatedly began from the point of the traditional expectation, but then proceeded to re-interpret it, giving it a deeper meaning in relation to his own person and identity (as Messiah and Son of Man). The same appears to be true with regard to the Temple action, and also the Temple saying (in John they are combined together).

Three distinct strands can be found in the Gospel tradition:

    • The destruction of the Temple in terms of the end-time Judgment
    • A new/restored role and purpose for the Temple—as a place of prayer and teaching
    • The identification of Jesus himself as the new/true Temple, which also marks the end of the old Covenant and the beginning of the new (in Christ)

Early Christians developed all three strands, though it is the last of these which came to dominate by the end of the New Testament period.

Early Christian Views of the Temple

The last two themes mentioned above were applied and developed by early Christians almost immediately, indicating that they followed naturally from Jesus’ own teaching; this pair of themes may be summarized:

    • The Temple as a place of prayer and teaching
    • The Temple fulfilled in the person of Jesus

Both aspects involve the elimination of the sacrificial ritual, allowing for the Temple idea to continue among believers long after the historical Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. Already in the Gospel tradition, several statements by Jesus identify the Temple with his own person, and thus imply that following him effectively takes the place of fulfilling the Temple ritual (Matt 12:5-8; John 2:19ff, etc; cf. Parts 6 and 7 of “Jesus and the Law”). This came to be made more explicit by early Christians, and two areas of the New Testament may be highlighted:

    1. The sacrificial ritual is fulfilled and completed (i.e. put to an end) by Jesus’ own (sacrificial) death. This is expressed all throughout the body of Hebrews (4:14-10:18), as well as in passages such as Rom 3:25; Eph 5:2; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.
    2. Believers in Jesus are priests, able to touch the holy things and to enter, in a spiritual manner, the sacred shrine through our union with Christ. Cf. 1 Pet 2:5ff; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6; also Rom 15:16.

Combining both ideas leads to the core image of believers, collectively and in community, as the body of Christ—i.e., the (true) Temple and House of God. This is found numerous times in the Pauline letters—1 Cor 3:9ff, 16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; and especially Eph 2:19-22. In 2 Cor 5:1, it refers to the eternal life awaiting believers following death and resurrection. In this regard, there is a clear echo of the Temple-saying of Jesus (in Mk 14:58), with its use of the adjective a)xeiropoi/hto$ (“made without hands”; cf. also Col 2:11 and the wording in Acts 7:41, 48, 50 [referring to Temples]). In John 2:19ff, the Temple-saying of Jesus was interpreted precisely in terms of his death and resurrection, in which believers now have a share. The idea of believers as the (spiritual) house of God is also found in 1 Pet 2:5; cf. also Rev 3:12.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 85

Psalm 85

Dead Sea MSS: MasPsa (vv. 1-6 [1-5])

This is the second in a set of Psalms (84-85, 87-88) attributed to “the sons of Qorah [Korah]”; cf. the earlier studies on Pss 42 and 84.

This Psalm has a clear two-part structure: a prayer-petition to YHWH (vv. 2-8), and YHWH’s answer (vv. 9-14) presented in the form of a prophetic oracle. Each part can be further divided into two strophes (vv. 2-4, 5-8; 9-10, 11-14), cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 359, 363. The meter of the composition is relatively consistent, following a 3-beat (3+3) couplet format.

Like the prior Psalms (82-84), Ps 85 is not preserved among the Qumran Psalm manuscripts; however, it does survive in a Dead Sea manuscript from Masada. Though fragmentary and incomplete, the text of this MS is very close to the Masoretic Text, with no variants of note.

Part 1: Verses 2-8 [1-7]

Verse 2 [1]

“May you show favor to your land, O YHWH;
may you (bring) back a return for Ya’aqob!”

The perfect verb forms in this opening couplet (also in vv. 3-4) are best read as precative perfects—expressing the Psalmist’s wish for what will come to pass (cf. Dahood, II, p. 286). They have also been explained as prophetic perfects (cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 360, 362), declaring what will happen as though it has already occurred. If they were to be read as past-tense perfects, then the Psalm would certainly date from the post-exilic period, referring to Israel’s restoration and return from exile.

The noun tWbv= (Qere tyb!v=) has typically been explained as deriving from the root hb*v*, and thus meaning “captivity”; however, a strong argument has been made for deriving it from bWv (“turn back, return”), in which case it would mean something like a return to how things were before. The close parallel in Job 42:10 would seem to confirm this; cf. also Psalm 14:7; 53:7 [6]; 126:4. Thus, we have here an early example, probably dating from the exilic or early post-exilic period, of the prophetic theme of the restoration of Israel.

Verses 3-4 [2-3]

“May you lift (away the) crookedness of your people;
may you cover (over) all their sin!
Selah
May you gather up all your fury;
may you turn back (the) burning of your anger!”

These two couplets form a symmetrical poetic unit: a 3+2+2+3 quatrain, with a Selah (hl*s#) pause-marker in the middle. The first couplet deals with the sin of the people; in the second line the regular noun denoting wrongdoing (lit. missing the mark, ha*F*j^) is used, while in the first line it is /ou* (“crookedness,” i.e., perversity). The Psalmist asks that such sin be forgiven; the action of YHWH is two-fold in this regard—(a) lifting/carrying it away (vb ac*n`), and (b) covering it over (vb hs*K*).

The second couplet deals with YHWH’s response to the people’s sin, having punished it, the punishment being described in terms of God’s anger. The noun hr*b=u# means something like an overflow (of anger); for poetic concision, I have translated it here as “fury”. The noun [a^ properly denotes the nostrils, but it is often used in the general sense of anger, perhaps abstracted from the more concrete (and colorful) image of burning/flaring nostrils (as a sign of anger). The Psalmist asks that this punishing anger be removed, again using two different actions by YHWH to express this: (a) gather it all up (vb [s^a*), and (b) turn it back (vb bWv, Hiphil).

By forgiving the people’s sin, and removing the punishment for it (as an expression of Divine anger), YHWH will be able to restore the fortunes of His people, returning them to a condition (in the land) as it was prior to the exile.

Verse 5 [4]

“Return us, O Mighty (One) of our salvation;
break (off) your (anger), provoked by us!”

The motifs from the first strophe (vv. 2-4) continue here, as the Psalmist calls on YHWH—now using imperatives rather than precative perfects—both to return/restore the people (again using the verb bWv), and to turn away His anger against them. The Psalmist now includes himself (“our/us”) among the people. Dahood (II, p. 287) would read the suffix Wn– on the verb in line 1 as a dative, rather than an accusative object suffix; in this case, the request would be for YHWH to “return to us”. The verb in the second line is presumably rr^P* I (“break”), though Dahood (II, p. 287) identifies it with the cognate Ugaritic prr meaning “flee” —in context, the Hiphil would mean “make your anger flee away from us”. Other commentators (e.g., Kraus, p. 173) would instead, following the LXX, read a form of the verb rWs (“turn aside/away”). The noun su^K^ fundamentally means a disturbance or “stirring up” of anger—i.e., a provoking, or provocation.

Verse 6 [5]

“Will you be angry with us into (the) distant (future),
drawing your anger (endlessly) for cycle and cycle?”

The first line begins with a prefixed interrogative particle (-h), by which the Psalmist reinforces his petition with an earnest, but rhetorical, question. The question assumes/expects a negative response: surely, God will not be angry with His people forever. The noun <l*ou signifies a (period of) time extending either into the distant past or distant future; here it refers to the future. The noun roD has the basic meaning “circle, cycle”, but is often translated as “generation” —i.e., “for generation and generation”. Even if one renders roD this way here, it is important to realize that the time-frame of a generation is being emphasized, more so than the people in it; the parallel with <l*ou makes this clear. For the specific expression rwdw rwd[l] elsewhere in the Psalms, cf. 10:7 [6]; 33:11; 45:18 [17]; 49:12 [11]; 61:7 [6]; 72:5; 77:9 [8]; 79:13; 89:2 [1], 5 [4]; 90:1; 100:5; 102:13 [12]; 106:31; 119:90; 135:13; 146:10.

Verse 7 [6]

“Will you not return (and) make us live (again),
so (that) your people may be glad in you?”

The Psalmist asks a second question, this time in the negative, and assuming/expecting a positive response: surely, God will restore his people to life! Again the verb bWv (“return”) is used, with the verb pair bWv / hy`j* probably functioning as a hendiadys: i.e., “return (and) make us live” = “restore us to life”. The restoration of God’s people would naturally lead to their rejoicing and praise of Him.

Verse 8 [7]

“Make us to see, O YHWH, your goodness,
and your salvation may you give to us!”

The Piel of hy`j* (in the sense of “make live”) is followed here by the Hiphil (causative) stem of ha*r* (“see,” i.e., “cause to see, make see”). The restoration of God’s people entails blessing. The noun ds#j# (“goodness, kindness”) refers to the blessings that YHWH gives to His people, when they are faithful/loyal to the covenant bond; ds#j#, in this covenantal context, connotes the faithfulness and loyalty (of YHWH). The blessing, and the covenant-obligation of YHWH for His people, also includes providing protection—i.e., giving “salvation”, as the noun uv^y# can also mean “well-being, safety, victory”. This is a frequent theme in the Psalms.

Part 2: Verses 9-14 [8-13]

Verse 9 [8]

“I shall make heard what the Mighty (One) speaks,
for YHWH (indeed) does speak fullness
to His people and to His devoted (one)s,
and they shall not return to a false hope!”

With Dahood (II, p. 288), I vocalize humva as a Hiphil imperfect (jussive/cohortative) form, hu*m!v=a^. The Psalmist here functions like a prophet, receiving an oracle from YHWH, which he then reports (makes heard). The oracle represents the answer of YHWH to the prayer of vv. 2-8.

The noun <olv* is typically translated “peace”, but properly denotes “fullness, completion”. It is often used (especially in the Psalms) in the context of the covenant-bond with YHWH. Fulfilling the binding agreement leads to blessing—well-being, security, and peace—from God. The adjective dys!j* (“good, kind”), like the related noun ds#j# (in v. 8), in the context of the covenant, connotes faithfulness and loyalty; I have translated it here as “devoted”. The phrase “to His people and His devoted (one)s” is another example of hendiadys (cf. verse 7 above); it essentially means “to the devoted ones of His people”.

The final line is problematic, and may be corrupt. For lack of any better option (the lone Dead Sea manuscript is not preserved beyond v. 6), I more or less follow the MT, understanding the noun hl*s=K! in the sense of a “false/foolish hope”. The promise is that, with the restoration of the people by YHWH, they will no longer be inclined to return to such folly (trusting in other gods, etc), but will be fully devoted and faithful to YHWH, placing their trust in Him alone.

Verse 10 [9]

“Truly, His salvation (is) near for (those) fearing Him—
(and His) weight (is again) to dwell in our land!”

As noted above, the noun uv^y# has a somewhat broader semantic range than the primary denotation of “salvation”; it can also mean “well-being, safety, victory” —referring to the blessings and protection that YHWH provides to His faithful followers, as an obligation of the covenant. The second line is a bit obscure, but it seems to be referring to the promise of YHWH’s presence—expressed here by the noun dobK* (“weight,” i.e., His glory)—among His people. The noun dobK* may also allude to the blessings that stem from His protective and abiding presence in the land.

Verses 11-12 [10-11]

“Goodness and firmness meet (as one),
rightness and fullness join (together);
firmness sprouts (up) from (the) earth,
and rightness leans down from (the) heavens.”

In the first couplet, four nouns, each of which has a wide semantic range, are used; all four allude to covenant loyalty, and the bond between YHWH and his people:

    • ds#j# (“goodness, kindness”)—cf. verse 8 (and the adjective dys!j* in v. 9b); in the context of the covenant, it can specifically connote “faithfulness, loyalty, devotion”.
    • tm#a# (“firmness”)—i.e., faithfulness, trustworthiness, etc., sometimes in the sense of being truthful (and thus, more abstractly, “truth”).
    • qd#x# (“right[ness]”)—or “righteousness,” when a religious-ethical emphasis is intended; also “justice”, in a socio-ethical context; in the context of the covenant, it has a meaning that overlaps with ds#j# (i.e., loyalty).
    • <olv* (“fullness, completion”)—sometimes in the specific sense of “well-being, security”, or, more narrowly, “peace”.

These four are divided into two groups: ds#j# / qd#x# and tm#a# / <olv*. The two sides “come/join together”, a meeting or union that is expressed in the first couplet by the verbs vg~P* and qv^n` (the latter verb can specifically mean “kiss”, including the idea of embracing). The meeting can be understood as taking place in a horizontal direction. In the second couplet (v. 12), a vertical direction is indicated—i.e., coming (lit. “sprouting”) up from the earth, and leaning down from the heavens.

These verses express the presence of Divine blessings on the land and its people, in a thorough and comprehensive way. As noted above, the four attribute-nouns all reflect, with slightly different nuances, the idea of faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant. The faithfulness of the people in the time of Israel’s restoration will mirror that of YHWH Himself.

Verse 13 [12]

“Indeed, YHWH shall give (forth) the good,
and our land shall give along her produce.”

Here, the blessing from YHWH is described specifically in terms of the fertility of the land. There is a formal parallel here:

    • YHWH | gives (vb /t^n`) | the good
    • the land | gives (vb /t^n`) | her produce

While the noun bof (“good”) should be understood in a general and comprehensive sense—viz., as the richness and blessing that God provides—the specific expression “the good” (boFh^) likely is allusion to the rain that comes down from heaven (from YHWH) to water and make fertile the land (cf. Dahood, II, p. 290, and elsewhere). For an agricultural and pastoral society, rain certainly would be among the foremost of the good things and blessings that God could provide.

The noun lWby+ is a bit difficult to translate in English. It basically denotes something that is brought/carried along, or refers to the process of such carrying. The fertile land brings forth its produce, bearing it and carrying it along.

Verse 14 [13]

“Right(eous)ness shall go before His face,
and shall set (the) path for His steps.”

This concluding couplet is rather ambiguous. Who is the subject and/or what is the precise scenario being so allusively described? If it is the returning of the people that is principally in view here, then it would make sense that YHWH’s right(eousness) (qd#x#) would go before His people and set the path for them on their return. It is also possible that the emphasis is on YHWH returning, to His land and His people, in which case qd#x# would be going before Him. It may be that both points of reference are in view, as in the general parallels one finds, for example, in the book of Isaiah and the deutero-Isaian poems—e.g., 35:8ff; 40:3; 42:16; 43:19ff; 51:10-11.

Here qd#x# stands for all four of the attribute-nouns related to the idea of faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant (cf. on vv. 11-12 above). It represents the overarching characteristic of the New Age of Israel’s restoration—referring to the restored people as the righteous and faithful ones, those fully devoted to YHWH, and who walk in His footsteps, following His example.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

Saturday Series: John 9:41; 15:22-24

John 9:41; 15:22-24

Last week, we examined the two levels, or aspects, of meaning for the sin word-group (hamartía, vb hamartánœ) in John 9. At the beginning of the episode (vv. 2-3), sin is referenced in the conventional ethical-religious sense, as wrongs or misdeeds that a person may commit. However, at the conclusion of the narrative (vv. 39-41), the meaning has shifted, to the distinctive Johannine theological understanding of sin as unbelief—a failure/refusal to trust in Jesus as the Son of God.

A similar kind of dual-meaning applies to the motif of seeing. At the beginning of the episode (vv. 6-7), the blind man receives sight in the ordinary, physical sense (of seeing with his eyes). But at the conclusion (vv. 35-38), he receives sight in the theological (and Christological) sense of trusting in Jesus. The same shift of meaning occurs, naturally enough, for the idea of blindness—i.e., a lack of sight. At the beginning, the blind man has a lack of sight in the ordinary sense, while, at the end of the episode, it is the opponents of Jesus who are shown to be blind, in that they refuse to trust in Jesus. This refusal to trust comes in the form of refusing to acknowledge or accept that the work performed by Jesus (i.e., the healing miracle) comes from God the Father, and thus demonstrates that he is the Son of God.

In the climactic declaration by Jesus (v. 41), there is a play on both aspects of meaning:

“Yeshua said to them [i.e. to his opponents]: If you were blind, you would not hold sin; but now, (since) you say that ‘We see’, your sin remains.”

In the first clause, the motif of sight/blindness occurs in the ordinary (phyiscal/optical) sense. Jesus is telling his opponents that, if they were simply blind in the way that the blind man had been, they would not have sin. This is an echo of Jesus’ earlier statement in verse 3, to the effect that the man’s (physical) blindness was not the result of any sin. There is no sin involved in simply being blind (in the ordinary sense).

The true blindness of his opponents, however, is quite different, and they do not even recognize that they are without sight, for they say “we see”. They think that they understand who Jesus is—namely, a sinful pretender who insults God by claiming to work healing miracles (that come from God). They are actually blind to Jesus’ true identity—the Son of God, sent from heaven by God the Father, who performs the works of the Father. And, because they are blind in this way, they do have sin (“your sin remains”)—indeed, they are guilty of the great sin of unbelief.

At the same time, it is also possible to see both aspects of the sin concept present here in verse 41. Because the opponents of Jesus commit the sin of unbelief, it is not possible for them to be set free from other sins (see 8:34-36, discussed in the earlier study). Trust in Jesus leads to the removal of sin (1:29; see also 1 Jn 1:7; 3:5); without this trust, the removal of sin is not possible, and a person’s sin(s) remain. Thus in a real sense, according to the logic of the Johannine theology, the presence/existence of all other sins is dependent upon the great sin of unbelief.

John 15:22-24

There is a parallel to 9:41 in 15:22-24 which we must consider, and which represents the next sin-reference to be found in the Gospel. These verses occur in the second half (15:18-16:4a) of the second Discourse-division (15:1-16:4a) of the Last Discourse. The principal theme of this Discourse-unit is the persecution of Jesus’ disciples (believers) by the world (or world-order, Greek kósmos). This theme is established in vv. 18-21, within the wider context of the stark juxtaposition contrasting believers and the world.

There is a strong dualistic orientation in the Gospel of John, which is also central to the Johannine theology, defining the very identity of a believer in Christ. A person either belongs to God, or belongs to the world. The noun kósmos in the Johannine writings has, for the most part, a decidedly negative meaning—referring to the domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. Human beings are trapped in this darkness, but the Son (Jesus) is sent to earth to bring light into the darkness. Those who belong to God come to the light (3:21), and trust in Jesus, and thus are set free—the light effectively dispelling the darkness.

This Christological significance of the light-motif is closely related to the sight/seeing-motif in chapter 9, as is clear from the declaration by Jesus in vv. 4-5. In terms of the Johannine dualism, the same significance applies to the parallel motifs of darkness and blindness—with the concept of sin (as unbelief) tied to both.

The “world” hates Jesus’ disciples (believers) because it hates him, the Son of God—being, as it is, fundamentally opposed to God. This is the main principle surrounding the persecution motif in 15:18ff. It is part of the wider theme, expressed throughout the Discourses (esp. in chapters 5-9), of the people’s opposition and hostility to Jesus. This hostility is rooted in a lack of knowledge, which, in chapter 9, is expressed by the idiom of blindness. In the Gospel of John, the concepts of seeing (vb eídœ, etc) and knowing (vb ginœ¡skœ) are interchangeable and virtually synonymous—both refer to trust in Jesus, a recognition of his identity as the Son of God. As the Son, Jesus reveals (i.e., makes visible) and makes known the Father; the believer who sees/knows the Son of God also sees/knows God the Father. This is an important thematic emphasis in the Last Discourse, and it very much relates to the world’s hostility toward believers:

“all these (thing)s they will do to you through [i.e. because of] my name, (in) that they have not seen [i.e. known] the (One hav)ing sent me.” (v. 21)

Those who belong to the world do not know God, and cannot see the truth. How this relates to the concept of sin is explained by Jesus in vv. 22-24:

“If I did not come and speak to them, they would not hold sin; but now they do not hold (any) forward showing around their sin.” (v. 22)

The first clause of v. 22 is similar to that of 9:41 (see above). If Jesus had not come (to earth) and spoken to the people (spec. his opponents), it would have been comparable to a condition where these people were simply blind (like the blind man)—and they would not hold (vb échœ) any sin. However, since the Son did come, the people are now in a position where they have to respond to him—either by trusting or by refusing to trust. By refusing to trust, the opponents, those belonging to the world, do now hold sin. And what is this sin which they did not hold before, but do hold now? The great sin of unbelief.

As discussed above, the presence of this fundamental sin means that all other sins are present as well—they remain, and are not removed. The contrast here in verse 22, is interesting. Before the coming of Jesus, the people of the world did not hold/have sin; now they do hold/have sin, but what they do not have is a “forward showing” around their sin. The noun próphasis literally means a “shining before”; the use of the preposition perí (“around”) suggests a shining light that surrounds someone (or something). For lack of any better option in English, I have translated this noun above as “forward showing”. Often próphasis connotes an outward show or pretense that is meant to cover one’s real intent.

A comparable idea is surely present here: that of a false “shining” that covers and masks the true darkness of a person. Almost certainly, there is an allusion to a kind of religious-ethical piety or ‘righteousness’ that masks a person’s unbelief. The religious opponents of Jesus may seem to be ‘shining’ with righteous devotion to God, but they are actually full of the darkness of sin (unbelief); by refusing to trust in God’s Son, they show their true nature—as people belonging to the world, and who are opposed to God. This is stated bluntly by Jesus in verse 23:

“The (one) hating me, also hates my Father.”

The statements of vv. 22-23 are combined together in verse 24, making it abundantly clear that sin is understood here principally in terms of unbelief:

“If I did not do among them the works that no one other (has) done, they would not hold sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.”

Here doing the works of God is parallel (in v. 22) with the idea of speaking the words of God—both represent the Son’s mission on earth, for which he was sent by the Father. In response to seeing and hearing this mission, one either trusts in Jesus as God’s Son or refuses to trust. Sin is defined primarily by this refusal to trust; it leads to expressions of hatred against both the Son (Jesus) and God the Father, and manifests other sins and evils that are characteristic of the darkness of the world.

Next week we will turn to the next sin-reference, which is embedded as part of the Paraclete-saying in 16:8-11. In a number of important ways, this references builds upon the earlier statements by Jesus regarding sin in 15:22-24.

October 28: John 15:7

John 15:7

“If you should remain in me, and my utterances should remain in you, (then) you may request what ever you might wish, and it will come to be (so) for you.”

In the remainder of the exposition (and application) of the Vine-illustration, Jesus develops for his disciples (and for us as believers) the theme of remaining (using the verb me/nw) that is so vital to the illustration. The principal idea expressed is that the branch (the disciple/believer) must remain in the vine (Jesus). But this abiding relationship of unity is reciprocal, and works both ways: the believer remains in the Son (Jesus), and the Son remains in the believer. This is the fundamental theological principle expressed (and expounded) in verses 4-5, and is patterned after the relation between God the Father and Jesus the Son—viz., the Son remains in the Father, and the Father remains in the Son (see esp., 14:10).

All of this is essential to the Johannine theology, and can be found throughout the Gospel and Letters, utilizing both the relational participle e)n (“in”) and the verb me/nw (“remain, abide, stay”). I have discussed the verb me/nw and its distinctive Johannine theological usage in prior notes and articles; of the 40 occurrences of this verb in the Gospel, more than a quarter of them (11) are found in the Vine passage (15:1-17).

Here, however, the statement of reciprocity is framed a bit differently; compare the statement in v. 7a with those in vv. 4-5:

    • “You must remain in me, and I in you…” (v. 4)
      “the (one) remaining in me, and I in him…” (v. 5)
    • “If you should remain in me, and my utterances should remain in you…” (v. 7)

Instead of the Son (Jesus) himself remaining in the believer, it is his words that must remain. The reference to Jesus’ words (lit. “utterances,” r(h/mata) may seem abrupt at this point, but no more so than the reference to his word (lo/go$) in verse 3. There is, in fact, a thematic/conceptual chain of relation between these two nouns (denoting the spoken word) and the person of Jesus himself (“I”) as speaker:

    • r(h/mata (“utterances”)—individual things (teachings, etc) said/spoken by Jesus to his disciples =>
      • lo/goi (“words”)—synonymous with r(h/mata =>
        • lo/go$ (“word”)—all the things said by Jesus in a general or collective sense; they come from God the Father and have their origin in Him =>
          • Lo/go$ (“Word”)—the Son (Jesus) as the incarnation of the living/eternal Word of God the Father

Thus, there is a continuum of meaning connecting the plural r(h/mata and the singular lo/go$, spanning the full spectrum of Johannine thought and expression—its theology and Christology. One must be sensitive to this range of special meaning when considering the use of lo/go$ and r(h=ma throughout the Gospel, but especially here in the Last Discourse. There are several places in the Gospel of John where the noun lo/go$ and/or r(h=ma is used together with the verb me/nw, as it is here in 15:7. It will be necessary to examine these.

John 5:38

Toward the close of the great chapter 5 Discourse, Jesus directs the thematic thrust of his exposition against his opponents. A key theme of the Discourse has been the premise that Jesus (the Son) performs the work of his Father. The idea of “work” (e&rgon) in this context is defined in terms of the power of God the Father to give life. Jesus exercises this same power, as demonstrated by his ability to heal the crippled man (vv. 1-17); yet the Divine power extends even to the resurrection—the giving of life to the dead (vv. 19ff, 25-29)—and to the granting of eternal life in the Judgment (vv. 22-24).

In the remainder of the Discourse (vv. 30-46), the emphasis shifts from doing the works of God to speaking the words of God (for the interchangeability of these concepts in the Gospel of John, see esp. 14:10). This transition is realized through the thematic concept of witnessing (vb marture/w, noun marturi/a)—one both sees the Divine works, and hears the Divine words. The “words” (lo/goi) of this witness testify to Jesus’ identity as the Son (and the living “Word” [lo/go$]) of God; on this dual-meaning of lo/go$ in the Johannine writings, cf. the discussion above.

Yet Jesus’ opponents do not have trust in him as the Son/Word of God. Consider how he addresses this in vv. 37-38:

“And the (One hav)ing sent me, (the) Father, that (One) has (Himself) given witness about me. You have not heard His voice at any time, nor have you seen His appearance; and His word [lo/go$] you do not have remaining in you [e)n u(mi=n me/nonta], (in) that the (one) whom that (One) sent forth, you do not trust in him [lit. in this one].”

There is an extremely close connection, if not identification, between having God’s word (lo/go$) remaining in a person and that person trusting in Jesus as the Son of God (sent by the Father). See also below on the parallel in 8:37.

John 8:31

I have discussed this verse in a recent article. The same theological concepts and motifs from 5:37-38 are present here. In 8:31a, it is narrated how some of the people, who heard Jesus speaking/teaching, trusted in him; based on the principle in 5:38, this would imply that those who trusted had God’s word (lo/go$) “remaining” in them. In verse 31b, Jesus extends this idea, giving a directive to those who trusted in him, and who had begun to be his disciples:

“If you should remain [mei/nhte] in my word [e)n tw=| lo/gw| tw=| e)mw=|], (then) truly you are my learners [i.e. disciples]”

The focus has shifted from God the Father’s word to the Son’s (Jesus’) word (“my word”). And yet, in essence, it is the same word, since, as the Gospel repeatedly explains, the Son (Jesus) speaks the word(s) that he hears the Father speaking, and which the Father gives to him. On this important theme, cf. 3:31-35; 7:16-18; 8:26, 28, 38, 40ff, 55; 12:49; 14:10, 24; 15:15; 17:8, 14; cp. also 5:24ff, 32ff; 6:63; 10:35ff.

The true believer both remains in Jesus’ word (lo/go$), and has this word remaining in him/her. The opposite situation, parallel to Jesus’ statement in 5:37-38 (cf. above), is found in verse 37, in reference to Jesus’ hostile opponents, those who do not trust in him:

“…you seek to kill me off, (in) that [i.e. because] my word [o( lo/go$ o( e)mo/$] does not have (any) space [i.e. place] in you [e)n u(mi=n]”

John 12:46ff

The sayings by Jesus in 12:46-50 mark the close of his public ministry, and occur just prior to the beginning of the Passion narrative (including the Last Discourse). They effectively summarize the Gospel up to this point, beginning with the important declaration in v. 46:

“I have come into the world (as) light, (so) that every (one) trusting in me should not remain [mei/nh|] in the darkness.”

This important juxtaposition of trusting/remaining is, again, explained in terms of receiving (and having in oneself) the word(s) of Jesus:

“And if any (one) should not hear my words [r(h/mata], and should not guard (them), I do not judge him…(but) the (one) setting me aside, and not receiving my words [r(h/mata], holds the (one) judging him—the word [lo/go$] which I have spoken: that (is what) will judge him on the last day!” (vv. 47-48)

On the relationship between the nouns lo/go$ and r(h=ma, cf. the discussion above. Moving into the Last Discourse, as Jesus presents a deeper level of teaching to his disciples, the thematic motif of guarding / keeping-watch, utilizing the verbs fula/ssw and thre/w, takes on greater prominence. The concept of watching/guarding Jesus’ word is very much related to the idea of remaining in his word. See especially the instruction in 14:23-24:

“If any (one) would love me, he will keep watch (over) my word [lo/go$], and my Father will love him, and we will come toward him and will make our abode [monh/] alongside him. (But) the (one) not loving me will not keep watch (over) my word—and the word that you hear is not my (own), but (is) the Father’s, the (One hav)ing sent me.”

The noun monh/ is related to the verb me/nw, and refers to a place where a person remains or abides (i.e., an abode). Thus, to speak of the Father and Son having an abode (monh/) with the believer, is much the same as saying that they will remain in/with the believer.

All of this comparative analysis shows how closely related, from a theological standpoint, the concepts of Jesus’ word (lo/go$/r(h=ma) and of remaining in him (vb me/nw) are in Johannine thought. We must keep this firmly in mind as we continue with our study of verse 7 and following.

 

 

October 27: John 15:6

John 15:6

“If any (one) should not remain in me, he is cast out of (the place), as the broken (branch) (is), and it is dried up, and (when) they gather them together, is also cast into the fire and is burned.”

In this portion of the exposition of the vine illustration, Jesus explains what happens to the ‘branch’ (klh=ma) that does not “remain” in the vine: “it/he is cast out of (the place)” (e)blh/qh e&cw). The land-worker who does this work is God the Father (v. 1), and the Father must be seen as the implied actor of the passive verb here—an example of the so-called “divine passive” (passivum divinum). The act of casting/throwing (vb ba/llw) away is parallel (and essentially equivalent) to the “taking away” (vb ai&rw) of the branch that does not bear fruit (v. 2). As is clear from vv. 4-5, the branch that does not remain in the vine, does not (and cannot) bear fruit.

The taking/casting away of such branches is part of the overall cutting/pruning of the vine that is indicated within the illustration. The noun klh=ma, typically translated “branch”, properly denotes something that is “broken (off)”; here in verse 6, the verbal aspect of the branch being broken off, is particularly prominent. The branches/tendrils that do bear fruit are also cut away and pruned, but this yields a fundamentally different result: the branch is not simply “taken away”; rather, it is “cleaned” (vb kaqai/rw) by the pruning process, so as to be able to produce more/better fruit.

The branch that is cut/broken off and “cast out” (the adverb e&cw indicating removal from a place) simply dries up (vb chrai/nw, “be[come] dry”), since, being separated from the vine (that is itself rooted in the ground), it no longer has access to the vine’s vital essence and life-giving nutrients. All the passive verbs in v. 6 should be read as “divine passives”, with God the Father effectively performing the action. However, at least in the case of the verb chrai/nw, the passive can also indicate the condition of the branch that is now on its own, apart from the vine (cf. the previous note on v. 5).

At this point, the grammatical number in the verse suddenly shifts from the singular to the plural (before shifting back again to the singular): “and they gather them together” (kai\ suna/gousin au)ta/). While some manuscripts read the singular here (“they gather it together”), that reading most likely represents a scribal ‘correction’ to match the singulars elsewhere in the verse. By the sudden shift to the plural, the individual ‘branch’ is recognized as part of a group—i.e., all of the branches that do not bear fruit (because they do not “remain” in the vine), and are thus removed and “thrown out”.

It is these branches that are “gathered together” and thrown into the fire, utilizing imagery that reinforces the eschatological emphasis of other comparable harvest-illustrations (see esp. Matt 3:12 par; 13:30 / 41), alluding to the end-time Judgment by God. The plural subject of the verb suna/gw, could refer to the end-time role of the angels (Matt 13:41; Mark 13:27 par), acting as God’s representatives in the onset of the Judgment. The implication thus is, that if a disciple (believer) does not remain in Jesus, he/she will perish in the Judgment (“and is burned [up]”, vb kai/w). In the upcoming notes, we will examine, in some detail, precisely what it means to “remain” (vb me/nw) in Jesus.

In the exposition/application of the vine illustration, Jesus focuses on the identification of the disciples with the cut/pruned branches. Here in verse 6, he is clearly speaking of the disciples, mentioning at the same time, again, their place in the illustration (as the ‘branches’)— “he [i.e. the disciple] is cast out of (the place), as the broken (branch is)”. The shift in verbal tense, from aorist to present, is best explained in terms of Jesus’ application of the illustration: the aorist verbs refer to the fate of the individual branch at a specific point in time; while the present verbs describe the regular activity of the workers who deal, each season, with the branches that are cut off. We may outline this as follows:

    • Aorist—the branch is “cast out” and “dried up”
      and so is dealt with as regularly happens for all such branches:
    • Present—the workers “gather together” all such branches, and the individual branch, being among them, “is cast” into the fire and “is burned (up)”.

It is also possible that the present tense could refer to an eschatological orientation—whether to the imminent (future) eschatology of early Christians, or to the realized eschatology that is emphasized in the Gospel of John:

    • Imminent—the ‘branches’ are about to be gathered together and thrown into the fire (of the end-time Judgment)
    • Realized—the cut-off ‘branches’ are even now, in the present, because of their failure to “remain” in Jesus, under God’s Judgment

An interesting aspect of the vine-illustration, that is not particularly emphasized in the exposition, is that the fruit-bearing branches are also cut away (as part of the pruning process). Presumably, these branches (or the cut-off portions of them) also also burned up in the fire. Yet, in terms of the Johaninne theology, the true believer has (already) passed safely through the Judgment (see esp. 5:24), and thus will not face its “fire”. It is possible to extend the imagery to refer to the “fire” as part of the cleansing process for the believer—the sinful portions (i.e., sins) are removed from the believer and ‘burned away’ in the fire. The Spirit is sometimes associated with the image of fire in this regard—cf. Isa 4:4-5; Mal 3:2-3; Matt 3:11 [par Lk 3:16]; 1QS 4:20-21.

 

 

October 26: John 15:5

John 15:5

“I am the vine, you (are) the broken (branche)s. The (one) remaining in me—and I in him—this (one) bears much fruit, (in) that, apart from me, you are not able to do anything.”

Verse 5 effectively summarizes the Vine illustration (vv. 1-3), including also the initial principle of the application, as expressed in verse 4 (cf. the previous note). As in verse 4, Jesus makes a central statement and then follows it with an exposition. The main statement reprises the opening of the illustration, building upon it:

    • “I am the true vine,
      and my Father is the land-worker” (v. 1)
    • “I am the vine,
      and you (are) the broken (branche)s” (v. 5a)

The emphasis on the relationship between the Son and the Father has been replaced by that of the relationship between the Son and believers. The qualifying adjective a)lhqino/$ (“true”) is not included here, but it certainly still applies; Jesus, as the Son of God, is still the true vine. Again, the illustration-emphasis is now on the disciples (believers):

“you (are) the broken (branche)s”
u(mei=$ ta\ klh/mata

It is significant that, in verse 1, the verb of being (ei)mi) was explicitly present in both predicative statements—i.e., for both the Son (“I am”) and the Father (“He is”). In verse 5, by contrast, the verb of being is only used with regard to the Son, not believers. This point is totally obscured in most translations, since it is necessary to insert the verb of being in English, in both statements, for readability; however, its absence is important to note, and I have indicated this above by placing the verb of being (“are”) in parentheses. Within the Johannine theological idiom, the verb of being, when used in essential predicative statements, tends to refer specifically (if not exclusively) to a Divine subject—i.e., to God, or to Jesus as the Son of God.

The noun klh=ma denotes something that is “broken (off)” (vb kla/w, “break”); often, as here, it is used in the specific sense of a branch that is (or may be) broken off. Most translations simply render klh=ma as “branch” (plur. klh/mata, “branches”); however, in light of the important theme of pruning/cutting (of the vine) that is present in the illustration, I think it is important to preserve the verbal aspect of “breaking (off)”.

The exposition that follows in verse 5 explains this statement in terms of the prior statement in verse 4; consider how these relate:

    • “You must remain in me, and I in you”
    • “The (one) remaining in me, and I in him…”

In the verse 4 statement, an imperative of the verb me/nw (“remain”) was used (“you must remain,” “remain!”), indicating something that the disciple/believer must do. Here in verse 5, a substantive participle (with definite article) is used. This syntax is very much typical (and reflective) of Johannine style, and is part of the Johannine theological idiom. It expresses an essential characteristic or aspect of identity that defines a person (or group)— “the (one/s) doing/being {such}”. The disciple/believer is required to remain in the Son; the true believer is one who is (regularly/continually) remaining in the Son.

This relationship of abiding is reciprocal: the believer is remaining in the Son, and the Son is remaining in the believer. As discussed in the previous note, this follows the pattern of the relationship between the Son and the Father (see, e.g., 14:10): the Son remains in the Father, and the Father remains in the Son.

As Jesus made clear in verse 4, only when the “branch” (i.e., the believer) is in the “vine” (Jesus), can it “bear fruit”. This is basic to the very idea of a grape-vine: fruit comes from the branches and tendrils that are part of the overall vine, being connected to its central stalk (and the other branches). Here, this concept is enhanced:

“the (one) remaining in me…this (one) bears much [polu/$] fruit”

The bearing of fruit is qualified by the adjective polu/$ (“much, many”). The closest parallel to this use of polu/$ occurs in 12:24:

“if the kernel of grain, (hav)ing fallen into the earth, should not die off, it remains [me/nei] alone; but if it should die off, it bears much fruit.”

I discussed this saying, with its agricultural illustration comparable to that of the chap. 15 Vine-illustration, in an earlier note. The similarities of thought and language are worth highlighting:

    • The parallel between the seed “dying off” and the branches of the vine being ‘cut off’; both motifs relate to the concept of death, and to the death of Jesus.
    • The use of the verb me/nw (“remain”); in 12:24, it is used in the opposite sense, referring to the seed that does not bear fruit (remaining alone).
    • The idea of the seed/branch being by itself (“alone” / “apart from me”); such a seed/branch cannot bear fruit.

Most notable is the phrase “it/he bears much fruit” (fe/rei karpo\n polu/n), which is identical (only differing in word order) in both references. Clearly, then, the statements by Jesus in 12:24 and 15:5 are closely related, both thematically and conceptually. Most striking is the implicit parallel between “remaining in” Jesus and the idea of the seed “dying off”. As the seed-illustration in 12:24 refers primarily to the sacrificial death of Jesus, the parallel would seem to imply that “remaining in” Jesus entails a participation in his death. At the very least, based on the discipleship-sayings that follow in 12:25-26, the true believer is expected to follow the example of Jesus, following him even to the point of death (i.e., willing to sacrifice one’s own life).

It is worth considering several additional contexts in the Gospel of John where the adjective polu/$ is used. Beyond its common/ordinary use in narrative, a deeper meaning would seem to be implied or alluded to in a number of references. I would group these as follows:

The last two categories can be combined together: the “many” things Jesus (the Son) says and does are from the Father, and are evidence of his abiding relationship with the Father; our previous discussion of 14:10 relates to this important Johannine theological principle. Thus the adjective polu/$, insofar as it has a distinctive theological connotation in the Gospel, can be interpreted according to the following two aspects of meaning:

    • The things Jesus says/does as the Son sent by the Father, manifesting God the Father, during his earthly ministry.
    • The people who come to trust in Jesus, as the result of this witness.

Both aspects, I believe, are quite relevant to an understanding of what Jesus means by the idea of bearing “much fruit”.

The final clause of verse 5 essentially repeats, with different wording, a key teaching from verse 4:

    • “the branch is not able to bear fruit from itself, if it should not remain in the vine”
      “so you are not (able), if you should not remain in me”
    • “apart from me, you are not able to do anything”

The teaching in verse 5 has been simplified and distilled. The concepts of “not remaining in me” and “from yourself” have been combined in the expression “apart from me” (xwri\$ e)mou=). The adverb/preposition xwri/$ means “separate, apart”, connoting the presence of space between two things. Here, in the context of the illustration, it refers to a separation between the branch and the vine. We might think that this would allude to the act of the land-worker (i.e., the Father) “taking away” (i.e., cutting off) the vine that does not bear fruit (v. 2); however, the implication here clearly is that the separation is the reason why the branch does not bear fruit. A certain kind of separation thus occurs, even before the branch is ‘taken away’.

The idea of “bearing fruit” is also generalized here by the common verb poie/w (“do, make”). The act of bearing fruit thus is understood as something that the branch actively does. This has important implications for an understanding of the fruit-bearing motif, and will be discussed in more detail in the upcoming notes.

October 25: John 15:4 (continued)

John 15:4, continued

The beginning of Jesus’ application of his vine-illustration (vv. 1-3) occurs here in verse 4. It consists of a central statement, followed by an exposition. The central statement, including its featured use of the verb me/nw (“remain”), was discussed in the previous note:

“You must remain in me, and I in you.”

How this statement relates to the vine-illustration is explained, at least initially, in the remainder of the verse:

“Just as the broken (branch) is not able to bear fruit from itself, if it should not remain in the vine, so also you are not (able) if you should not remain in me.”

The verb me/nw occurs twice, not as an imperative, but as a subjunctive, indicating a condition—viz., the condition required for bearing fruit. The condition is formulated from a negative standpoint:

“the branch is not able to bear fruit…
if it should not remain [mh\ me/nh|] in the vine”

The branch not remaining in the vine is qualified by the prepositional expression “from itself” (a)f’ e(autou=). The branch needs to be in the vine in order to bear; it cannot bear fruit (“is not able,” ou) du/natai) on its own, separated from the vine. This principle, derived from the illustration, is then applied to the disciples (believers), using the syntactical configuration “just as” [kaqw/$]… “so also” [ou%tw$ + de/]:

“…so also you (are) not (able to bear fruit) if you should not remain [mh\ me/nhte] in me.”

Clearly, the disciples (“you”) are identified with the branches of the illustration, though this identification is not made explicit until verse 5.

As discussed in the previous note, the context of the illustration (within the Last Discourse) establishes the theological (and Christological) significance of the language used here in verse 4. The Son is (and remains) in the Father, and the Father is/remains in the Son (14:10). The intended relationship between Jesus (the Son) and believers is patterned after this relationship between Father and Son. The pattern extends even to the prepositional qualifier “from itself” (a)f’ e(autou=), as Jesus declares that he does not speak from himself (“from myself,” a)p’ e(mautou=):

“the utterances that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father remaining in me [e)n e)moi me/nwn] does His works.” (14:10b)

This clearly is a close conceptual parallel with what Jesus is saying in 15:4. He remains in the Father (and the Father in him), and so he does not speak “from himself”; rather, the Father is the source of his speaking. This is expressed in terms of the Father doing (vb poie/w) work (e&rgon). As we shall see, this parallel is important for a proper understanding of the motif of “bearing fruit” in the Vine illustration.

In the next daily note, we will turn our attention to verse 5, as the application of the illustration to the disciples (believers) is brought more clearly into focus

October 24: John 15:4

John 15:4-8

The application of the Vine-illustration (vv. 1-3) by Jesus follows in vv. 4-15. This has three components, the first of which (vv. 4-8) features the theme of remaining/abiding in Jesus.

John 15:4

“You must remain in me, and I in you. Just as the broken (branch) is not able to bear fruit from itself, if it should not remain in the vine, so also you are not (able) if you should not remain in me.”

In applying his vine illustration (vv. 1-3), Jesus (and the Gospel writer) utilizes an important Johannine keyword: the verb me/nw. I have discussed the Johannine significance of this verb in prior notes and articles. It can be glimpsed by a comparison of usage: me/nw occurs in the Gospel of John 40 times, compared with just 12 in the Synoptics combined (Mk 2, Matt 3, Lk 7); it also occurs 27 times in the Letters of John (24 in 1 Jn, 3 in 2 Jn), giving a total of 67 occurrences in the Johannine writings (plus another in the book of Revelation), which is more than half of all New Testament occurrences (118).

Though me/nw is a common enough verb (meaning “remain, abide, stay”), it is almost always used in a special theological sense in the Johannine writings. Even when it seems to have an ordinary meaning in a narrative context, in the Gospel (e.g., 1:38-39; 4:40), there is often an implied reference or allusion to the theological meaning. There are several important occurrences of the verb just prior to the Last Discourse; the occurrence in the 12:24 saying by Jesus is particularly significant, in relation to the Vine illustration, and was discussed in an earlier note. The concluding statement by Jesus in 12:46 may be cited:

“I have come into the world (as) light, (so) that every (one) trusting in me should not remain [mei/nh|] in the darkness.”

This dualistic light-darkness contrast is an important Johannine theme, established already in the Prologue (1:4-5ff, 9; cp. 1 John 1:5ff; 2:8ff). The world (ko/smo$), in the distinctively negative Johannine (theological) sense of the term, is dominated by darkness (sin, evil, lack of knowledge, etc), and the people of the world are trapped in this darkness. Jesus (the Son) came into the world (from heaven) as light (fw=$) to dispel the darkness and enlighten all those who belong to God. This is the significance of the verb me/nw here: the one who belongs to God may be in the darkness (of the world), but he/she will not remain in the darkness. Such a person will come to the light, trusting in the Son (Jesus).

The verb me/nw occurs three times in the Last Discourse prior to the Vine illustration. The first instance, in 14:10, is fundamentally Christological, referring to the relationship between God the Father and the Son (Jesus):

“Do you not trust that I (am) in the Father and the Father is in me? The utterances [r(h/mata] which I say [le/gw] to you I do not speak [lalw=] from myself [a)p’ e)mautou=], but the Father remaining [me/nwn] in me does His works.”

The Father is in (e)n) the Son, and the Son is in (e)n) the Father—the same sort of reciprocal abiding relationship described between the Son and believers here in 15:4. There is other language, highlighted by the Greek words in brackets above, from 14:10 that is quite similar to what we find in 15:3-4. The terminology of speaking (words/utterances), within the Johannine theological idiom, was discussed in the previous note. The important prepositional expression “from myself” (a)p’ e)mautou=) also finds a parallel here in 15:4, when Jesus states that the ‘branch’ cannot bear fruit “from itself” (a)f’ e(autou=) apart from the ‘vine’. The Son cannot ‘bear fruit’ apart from the Father, and, similarly, the believer cannot apart from the Son.

In 14:17, the first of the Paraclete sayings in the Last Discourse (cf. the earlier note on 14:16-17), Jesus, in referring to the coming of the Spirit (“the Spirit of Truth”), promises that:

“…he will remain [me/nei] alongside you, and will be [e&stai] in you.”

Here the Spirit acts in relation to believers just as Jesus (the Vine) is said to with the disciples (branches) here in v. 4: the Spirit will be/remain in the believer(s). In this regard, the Spirit continues the work of Jesus, even as Jesus (the Son) has been performing the work of the Father. There is an allusion to this in 14:25, where Jesus mentions that “I have spoken these (thing)s to you (while) remaining alongside you [par’ u(mi=n me/nwn]” —precisely the same wording used in the Paraclete saying of v. 17.

This, then, is the immediate Johannine background for the use of me/nw here in 15:4. The verse itself consists of a principal statement, followed by an exposition by Jesus. We begin with the principal statement:

“You must remain in me, and I in you.”
mei/nate e)n e)moi/ ka)gw\ e)n u(mi=n

As noted above, this reciprocal relationship of an abiding union, between Jesus and his disciples (believers), follows the similar relationship (using the same wording) stated between the Father and the Son (Jesus) in 14:10. Just as the Son is in (e)n) the Father, and the Father is in the Son, so also believers are to be in (e)n) the Son, and the Son in believers. The statement in 14:10 also made clear that the Father remains (i.e., abides) in the Son, and, we may assume, the Son remains in the Father. This is also what is expressed, here in v. 4, for the situation between believers (the branches) and the Son (the vine).

It is important to emphasize the wording from the original illustration, where, by the very nature of the vine-motif used in the illustration, the branches are in the vine: “Every broken (branch) in me [e)n e)moi]…”. In other words, the disciples, as branches are in Jesus (as the vine). Even the branches that are not bearing fruit are in the vine. The issue is not one of being in the vine, but of remaining in the vine. The implication is that a branch can cease from remaining in the vine. That this is a possibility for the disciple of Jesus is indicated by the imperative here in v. 4: “You must remain [mei/nate]…”.

Our discussion of verse 4 will continue in the next daily note.