Tag: Remain

November 17: John 15:16 (4)

John 15:16, continued

“(It was) not you (who) gathered me out, but I (who) gathered you out; and I set you (so) that you should lead (yourself) under and should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain, (so) that, whatever you would ask (of) the Father in my name, He should give to you.”

“and (that you) should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain”
kai\ karpo\n fe/rhte kai\ o( karpo\$ u(mw=n me/nh|

Picking up on our discussion from the previous note, the idiom of bearing fruit (vb fe/rw + obj karpo/$), as it applies to the disciple of Jesus, refers principally to the fulfilling of the mission given to the disciple. As I discussed, in the Gospel context, this means the continuation (and extension) of Jesus’ own mission—the mission of the Son, for which the Father sent him from heaven (to earth). Within the framework of the Johannine theology, this mission is rooted in the two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) that Jesus has given to disciples/believers, which itself follows the duty that the Father gave to the Son. The two-fold duty is: (1) to guard the word(s) of Jesus (“remain in my word”, 8:31; 15:7), and (2) to show love to one another, following the example of Jesus (“remain in my love”, 15:9-10).

In the qualifying phrase that follows, here in v. 16, Jesus adds the purpose that the fruit the disciple ‘bears’ should remain (vb me/nw). This important Johannine keyword has been discussed repeatedly in prior notes; it is especially prominent in the Vine-passage (15:1-17), where it occurs 11 times (vv. 4-7, 9-10, 16). It defines the believer’s fundamental identity, as belonging to the Son (Jesus), and of being/staying in union with him. The verb, with its basic meaning “remain, abide, stay”, carries both the sense of residing and of enduring.

The Johannine use of the verb entails both sides of the believer’s relationship with the Son: the believer remains in the Son, and the Son remains in the believer. This aspect of reciprocity is very much emphasized in the Vine illustration—see esp. the formulations in vv. 4 and 7:

    • “You must remain in me, and I in you” (v. 4)
    • “If you should remain in me, and my words remain in you” (v. 7)

But what does it mean for the believer’s fruit to remain? There are two references elsewhere in the Gospel that may shed some light on this question. The first is the statement by Jesus in 4:36:

“The (one) harvesting receives a wage, and gathers together fruit unto (the) life of the Age [i.e., eternal life], (so) that the (one) sowing and the (one) harvesting might rejoice as one.”

This verse was examined in an earlier note, where I pointed out the eschatological background and orientation of these harvest illustrations in the New Testament. The time of harvesting, indeed, serves as a natural image for the end of the current Age. The expression “into/unto the Age” refers to this eschatological perspective (viz., the ushering in of the coming New Age), while the related expression “(the) life of the Age” ([h(] ai)w/nio$ zwh/) refers to the Divine/blessed life that the righteous will experience in the Age to Come.

The Gospel of John retains this eschatological point of reference, but gives to it a deeper theological and spiritual meaning. Now, the “life of the Age”, or simply the shorthand term “life” (zwh/), refers to the life (and life-giving power) that God Himself possesses, and which is communicated to believers through the Son (Jesus). The Son possesses the same life that belongs to God the Father, it being given to him by the Father (cf. 3:34f; 5:26; 6:57); the Son, in turn, is able to give the life to believers. This happens even in the present, prior to the end-time Judgment—the one who trusts in Jesus has already passed through the Judgment, and now holds eternal life (see esp. 5:24).

The passage 4:31-38 shares with 15:16 (and with the Last Discourse as a whole) the theme of the disciples (believers) sharing in the mission of Jesus, and continuing it. Through the proclamation of the Gospel message, and by following the teaching and example of Jesus, believers serve as a witness to who Jesus is—viz., the Son sent by God the Father, who makes the Father known. The Gospel is rooted in Jesus’ own words (in the Discourses, etc) regarding his identity, and by the witness of the earliest disciples (and subsequently, by other believers) that confirms his word. Believers who are faithful to this witness thus “remain in his word”. It is a message—the word of Jesus—that leads to eternal life for those who trust in it.

The second reference of note is the opening declaration of the Bread of Life Discourse (chap. 6):

“You must not work (for) the food th(at is) perishing, but (for) the food th(at is) remaining [me/nousan] unto (the) life of the Age [i.e. eternal life], which the Son of Man shall give to you” (v. 27)

The motif of ‘food that remains’ is clearly parallel to that of ‘fruit that remains’. Thus, there is good reason to conclude that this abiding fruit, like the abiding food, refers to the eternal life that the Son (Jesus) gives to believers. This life is possessed (“held”) by believers even in the present, but only if one remains in the Son will this life remain.

It is possible, I think, to isolate three distinct strands of meaning that inform the motif of bearing “fruit that remains” in v. 16:

    • It is an extension of the broader concept of the believer remaining in Jesus, and Jesus in the believer. Through this abiding union with the Son, believers are also united with the Father, realizing their/our identity as His offspring (1:12-13, etc).
    • In particular, it refers to the eternal life from the Father that is granted to believers through the Son, being communicated by the Spirit.
    • It also relates to the discipleship-theme of believers’ role in continuing the ministry of Jesus—witnessing to the message (the words and example) of Jesus that leads to eternal life for all who trust in him.

November 4: John 15:10 (continued)

John 15:10, continued

In order to understand what it means for a disciple/believer to “keep watch over” (vb thre/w) the e)ntolai/ of Jesus, it is necessary to examine how the Gospel of John understands Jesus’ fulfilling of the duties (e)ntolai/) given to him by God the Father. The pattern in verse 10 (continuing from v. 9), as discussed in the previous note, establishes this as the basis for our study: the believer is to fulfill the duties given by the Son (Jesus), just as the Son has fulfilled the duties given to him by the Father.

The noun used to express this concept is e)ntolh/, which is typically translated as “command(ment)”, but this can be quite misleading, especially if one has in mind a set of written commands or regulations such as we find in the Torah. The term properly refers to a charge or duty that is placed upon a person, and which one is obligated to complete (vb e)nte/llomai). The verb does carry the sense of commanding (i.e., ordering) a person to do something.

The noun e)ntolh/ occurs 10 times in the Gospel of John, including three times here in the exposition of the Vine illustration (vv. 10, 12), while the verb e)nte/llomai occurs 4 times (and twice in the Vine exposition, vv. 14, 17); the noun also occurs 18 times in the Letters, including 14 in 1 John. Let us briefly examine the relevant occurrences in the Gospel prior to chapter 15.

10:17-18

“Through this, my Father loves me, (in) that I set (down) my soul, (so) that I might take it (up) again. No one takes it from me, but I set it (down) from myself. I hold (the) authority [e)cousi/a] to set it (down), and I hold authority to take it (up) again—this (is) the e)ntolh/ I received (from) alongside my Father.”

12:49-50

“I did not speak out of myself, but the (One hav)ing sent me, (the) Father, He has given me an e)ntolh/ (regarding) what I should say and what I should speak. And I have seen that His e)ntolh/ is (the) life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]. Therefore, (with regard to) the (thing)s that I speak, just as the Father has said (it) to me, so I speak.”

In these two references, Jesus talks of receiving an e)ntolh/ from the Father. In the first instance (10:17-18), he has been given something to do—namely, to lay down his life, i.e., in a sacrificial death, so that he might “take it up” again (i.e., his resurrection). This is the mission (and duty) which the Father has given him to complete, and he has been given the authority/ability (by the Father) to complete it. At the moment of Jesus’ death, on the cross, he declares that the mission has been completed: “It has been completed [tete/lestai]” (19:30).

In the second instance (12:49-50), the mission or duty (e)ntolh/) regards things that he must say. The Father gives him the words to speak, much as He gives Jesus (the Son) the authority/ability (e)cousi/a) to lay down his life (and take it up again). This is an important Johannine theme, emphasizing that Jesus’ teaching, and the word that he speaks, comes from God. It is an evident witness of his identity as the Son of God that his words come from God, and not from himself. Like a dutiful Son, Jesus follows the example of his Father, doing what he sees his Father doing and saying what he hears his father saying.

It is significant that we have here two different e)ntolai/, and thus can use the plural of the noun. The duties placed on Jesus by the Father are: (1) to lay down his life and take it up again (death / resurrection), and (2) to speak the words of God that were given to him by the Father.

It is in this light that we must understand the use of the noun e)ntolh/ (and verb e)nte/llomai) in 14:15-21 and here in the Vine illustration. Both passages have the following emphases in common:

    • Fulfilling the duties (e)ntolh/) is closely connected with love (a)ga/ph, vb a)gapa/w)
    • The believer’s fulfilling of the duties follows the example/pattern of Jesus’ fulfilling of his duties; in so doing, there is a real sense that the believer shares in the love experienced (and possessed) by Jesus.
    • The pattern: the Son (Jesus) fulfills the duties given to him by the Father, and the believer fulfills the duties given by the Son.

If the duties of the believer are patterned after the Son’s duties, then we must look to the two examples, the two e)ntolai/, discussed above:

    • Action—laying down his life, indicating a willingness to endure death, for the sake of others
    • Speech—speaking the word(s) of God, given to him by the Father

How do these relate to the believer? The first e)ntolh/, that of a willingness to lay down one’s life, is best understood in terms of the ‘love command’ that Jesus gives to his disciples in the opening section of the Last Discourse:

“A new e)ntolh/ I give to you: that you shall love one another; just as I (have) loved you, so you shall love one another. In this, all (people) will know that you are my learners [i.e. disciples]—if you hold love among one another.” (13:34-35)

The duty for believers to love one another is based on the example provided by Jesus, of the love that he has shown. The narrative setting of chapter 13 clearly establishes this point (cf. the opening words in v. 1), associating Jesus’ love in the context of his impending death. The foot-washing (vv. 4-11, 12-17) is meant to symbolize and illustrate this sacrificial love, even to the point of death. If there were any doubt regarding the centrality of this thematic association, it is reinforced by the exchange between Jesus and Peter in vv. 36-38, and then is made explicit in 15:13 (to be discussed), at the heart of the Last Discourse, as Jesus instructs his disciples (and us as believers):

“Greater love than this no one holds: that one would set (down) his soul over [i.e. for the sake of] his dear (one)s.”

The language used to describe this willingness to lay down one’s life essentially matches what Jesus says of himself in 10:17-18 (cf. above).

Thus, one of the duties (e)ntolai/) of disciples/believers is to show sacrificial love to one another, following the example of Jesus himself, being willing to lay down one’s life for the sake of others.

What of the second duty? It should match the second duty for Jesus, as described in 12:49-50 (cf. above)—namely, to speak the word(s) given to him by God. The context of 14:15-21ff, prior to the Vine illustration, explains how the pattern applies to believers: the Son (Jesus) gives believers the word(s) (of God) to speak. The theme of fulfilling the duties (e)ntolai/), in this passage, is connected with the promise of the coming of the Spirit-Paraclete. There are two Paraclete-sayings by Jesus in this context:

    • Vv. 16-17—The Spirit (of truth) will be given to believers from the Father, and will be with/alongside them, and will remain (vb me/nw) in/among them.
    • Vv. 25-26—The Spirit will teach believers; this entails reminding them of the things Jesus said during his earthly ministry, but also that Jesus would continue to speak to them through the Spirit (cf. 15:26-27; 16:12-15).

The twin emphases of love (a)ga/ph) and the word (lo/go$/r(h=ma) serve as two distinct, but interrelated, strands that run through the passage, informing the meaning of the duty/mission (e)ntolh/) that believers must fulfill. The aspect of love is dominant in vv. 15-21, while the word is more prominent in vv. 23-24ff:

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

Jesus has instructed his disciples both to remain (vb me/nw) in his word (8:31, cf. 15:7) and in his love (15:9-10). This reflects both of the e)ntolai/ that believers are obligated to fulfill—or, we may say, both aspects of the two-fold e)ntolh/ (the singular and plural of this noun being interchangeable in John) that is required of all true disciples/believers. Remaining in Jesus’ word/love also represent twin aspects of what it means to remain in him—i.e., in the Son himself. In the previous note, I illustrated this by the following diagram:

In closing, it is also important to emphasize again that the fulfilling of these duties follows the pattern of Jesus (the Son) himself, in the way that he completed the duties given to him by the Father:

“…(so) that world may know that I love the Father, even as the Father laid (the duty/mission) on me to complete [e)netei/lato], so I do (it).” (14:31)

Love is demonstrated by the completing of the duty/mission (e)ntolh/) that is given; and, of course, love itself is part of that duty. When we, as believers, fulfill that duty, we share in the love that is shared between Father and Son. We will examine this theme a bit further in the next daily note, when we turn to verse 11.

November 3: John 15:10

John 15:10

“If you would keep watch (over) my e)ntolai/, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept watch (over) the e)ntolai/ of my Father, and (so) I remain in His love.”

In verse 10, Jesus begins to explain what it means to remain (vb me/nw) in his love (v. 9, cf. the previous note). There are two aspects of this explanation here, which correspond to the two parts of v. 10. The first aspect (in the first part) expounds the idea (of remaining in his love) as a conditional statement. The second aspect (in the second part) extends the pattern-comparison from v. 9, whereby the relationship between the believer and the Son (Jesus) is patterned after the relationship between the Son and the Father.

Let us begin with the first part:

“If [e)a/n] you would keep watch (over) my e)ntolai/, you will remain in my love”

The condition is established in the initial clause, using the conditional conjunction e)a/n (“if…”) along with a verbal subjunctive (of the verb thre/w, “[keep] watch”). The object of the verb—that is, what the disciple/believer should keep watch over—is the plural of the noun e)ntolh/. This noun is somewhat difficult to translate. It is typically rendered rather flatly as “command(ment)”, but this is a bit misleading, especially in the context of the Gospel of John. It properly refers to a duty or charge that a person is obligated (i.e., placed upon him/her) to complete (vb e)nte/llomai). The implication here is that the disciple takes good care (vb thre/w, “watch [over]”) to fulfill the obligation, or duty, that Jesus gives. The qualifying genitive mou (“of me, my”) can be understood as a possessive (i.e., the e)ntolai/ ultimately belong to Jesus), but it seems more accurate to view it as an ablative genitive of source (or origin)—i.e., the requirement (to fulfill the duties) comes from Jesus. The same applies to the genitival expression “of my Father” in the second part.

Two questions naturally arise: (1) what is the force of the condition in this statement, and (2) what are the duties (e)ntolai/) that the disciple should complete?

As to the first question, the condition can be understood two different ways. First, where the result is dependent upon fulfilling the condition. In other words, if (and only if) one “keeps watch over” the duties (i.e., to complete/fulfill them), will one “remain in” Jesus’ love. According to this line of interpretation, remaining in his love is dependent upon fulfilling the duties.

A second way of reading v. 10a is epexegetical, whereby the “then” clause (apodosis) explains or clarifies the conditional clause (protasis). If the disciple watches over the duties (to fulfill them), then he/she truly does remain in Jesus’ love—in other words, that is what it means to remain in his love.

Both approaches can be seen as valid, and both are supported in the prior section, dealing with love and the e)ntolai/, in 14:15-21. The idea that love is dependent on fulfilling the duties is suggested by Jesus’ words in verse 15:

“If you would love me, (then) you will keep watch over my e)ntolai/…”

Here we have a conditional statement that is similar to 15:10a, though it reverses the relationship between the condition of love and fulfilling the duties (e)ntolai/).

On the other hand, the epexegetical reading of 15:10a is supported by the wording of 14:21a:

“The (one) holding my e)ntolai/ and keeping watch (over) them, that (person) is the (one) loving me…”

In other words, love is defined by, rather then dependent on, taking care to fulfill the duties.

Let us now turn to the second part of the verse (10b):

“…just as I have kept watch (over) the e)ntolai/ of my Father, and (so) I remain in His love.”

This syntax resembles that of verse 9, utilizing the same comparative conjunction kaqw/$ (“just as…”); and, indeed, the sense of its use is the same, establishing the relationship between God the Father and the Son (Jesus) as the pattern (“just as…so [also]…”) for the relationship between the Son and believers. In verse 9, the Father’s love for the Son was the focus of the pattern; here, it is the Son watching over the duties (e)ntolai/) given to him by the Father, which, in its own way, reflects the Son’s love for the Father.

The parallelism is clear and straightforward:

    • The Son takes care to fulfill the duties given by the Father…
      • …and so “remains” in His love
    • The believer should take care to fulfill the duties given by the Son…
      • …and so “remain” in his love

Furthermore, it becomes quite clear, based on this parallel, that, in order to understand the duties (e)ntolai/) the Son requires of disciples/believers, we must examine the duties that God the Father has given to the Son. This we will do, in the next daily note, with a study on the use of the noun e)ntolai/ (and the verb e)nte/llomai) in other key passages of the Gospel.

November 2: John 15:9 (continued)

John 15:9, continued

“Just as the Father (has) loved me, I also (have) loved you—you must remain in my love.”

Continuing our examination of the next portion (vv. 9-11) of the exposition of the Vine illustration, we will be looking at verse 9 in more detail (cf. the previous note). There are three distinct statements, which are related, both in the context of the illustration, and in terms of the Johannine theology. We will consider each component, as well as the relationship between the three.

“Just as the Father (has) loved me…”
kaqw\$ h)ga/phse/n me o( path/r

The first statement emphasizes the Father’s love for the Son (Jesus). This is an important aspect of the love-theme in the Gospel of John. Love (a)ga/ph, vb a)gapa/w) is a natural part of the Parent-Child relationship, particularly with regard to the love that parent has for his/her child. A father will naturally have love for his son—and so does God the Father have love for His Son. The identification of Jesus as the eternal Son of God is central to the Johannine theology, and to the Gospel, being established from the beginning, in the Prologue (1:14, 18). The Father’s love for His Son is declared in a number of places in the Gospel:

    • 3:35— “The Father loves [a)gapa=|] the Son, and has given all (thing)s in(to) his hand.”
    • 5:20— “The Father is fond of [filei=, i.e. loves] the Son, and shows him all (the thing)s that He does…”
    • 10:17— “Through [i.e. because of] this, the Father loves [a)gapa=|] me, (in) that I set (down) my soul, (so) that I might take it (up) again.”
    • 17:23-24, 26—At the climax of the Discourse-Prayer in chap. 17, Jesus requests/expects that the Father will love his disciples (believers), even as He has loved him.

The Father’s love for the Son is also clearly implied in 8:42; 14:21, 23; 16:27, where it is indicated that the Father loves the disciples (believers) because of their love for the Son.

The compound comparative conjunction (kaqw/$, “just as”) at the beginning of verse 9, establishes the Father’s love for the Son as the pattern for the Son’s love for believers (cf. below).

“…I also (have) loved you—”
ka)gw\ u(ma=$ h)ga/phsa

The compound ka)gw/ (conjunction kai/ plus pronoun e)gw/) means “and I”; however, here, in connection with the comparative kaqw/$ in the first statement (cf. above), it must be translated “I also”, or “so I (also)”. Jesus’ love for his disciples (“you” plur.) follows the example and pattern of the Father’s love for him. The form of the verb in both statements is in the aorist, which usually corresponds to the past tense in English. Here, it is practically necessary to translate the verb as though in the perfect tense—i.e., the Father has loved the Son, and the Son has loved the disciples/believers. The aorists do essentially correspond with perfects, in that the action or state (love) continues into the present; the continuous aspect of the Father’s love is expressed by the present tense of a)gapa/w (and file/w) in the Gospel references cited above.

Jesus’ love for his disciples (and all believers) is rarely stated explicitly in the Gospel, though it is implied throughout. Apart from the specific references to Lazarus and his family (11:3, 5, 36), and to the ‘beloved disciple’ (“the [one] whom he loved”, cf. 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), the entire thrust of the Son’s mission on earth is rooted in the love for God’s own, throughout the world (3:16). The theme of love is tied to Jesus’ death, as a self-sacrifice, more explicitly in 10:17. The same thematic emphasis comes into special prominence in the Last Discourse, with the anticipation of Jesus’ death. The narrative setting of chapter 13 establishes this most clearly, from the beginning:

“…Yeshua, having seen that his hour (has) come, (and) that (soon) he would step across, out of this world, toward the Father, (hav)ing loved [a)gaph/sa$] his own th(at are) in the world, unto completion [i.e. to the end] he loved [h)ga/phsen] them.” (v. 1)

This sacrificial love is demonstrated through the symbolism of the foot-washing (vv. 4-11, followed by the teaching in vv. 12-17), which sets the stage for the introduction of the ‘love command’ (vv. 34-35)—i.e., the duty (e)ntolh/) of the disciples/believers to love one another, following Jesus’ own example (cf. 15:13). This love is the theme of 14:15-21, the section of the Last Discourse that immediately precedes the Vine illustration; see especially the teaching in 14:21:

“The (one) holding my e)ntolai/ and keeping watch (over) them—that (one) is the (one) loving me; and the (one) loving me shall be loved under [i.e. by] the Father, and I (also) [ka)gw/] will love him and will shine forth myself in/on him.”

The same thematic emphasis—on love and the e)ntolai/ (i.e., the duties required of the disciple/believer)—prevails here in the exposition of the Vine illustration (vv. 9-11ff).

“—(so) you must remain in my love.”
mei/nate e)n th=| e)mh=|

The first two statements provide the basis for the directive (or command) Jesus gives here to his disciples. The key-verb me/nw (“remain, abide, stay”), so important in the Johannine writings, is used again. It occurred 7 times already in vv. 4-7 (cf. the previous notes), and is clearly central to the exposition of the illustration. The exposition begins with a similar imperative:

“You must remain [mei/nhte] in me, and I in you…”

In verse 4, the directive was to remain “in me” —that is, in Jesus (the Son) himself. Here, it is to remain “in my love” —that is, in the love that the Son has for believers, and for the Father, and which is at the heart of the union between Father and Son. The love is shared by Father and Son, similar to that shared by a parent and child—the love is mutual and reciprocal.

This is the first time in the Gospel that love (a)ga/ph) was associated directly with the verb me/nw. However, there is an important parallel, in this regard, between Jesus’ love (a)ga/ph) and his word (lo/go$/r(h=ma). Here, remaining in the Son’s love is essentially the same as remaining in the Son himself; similarly, having the Son’s words (r(h/mata) remaining in the believer (v. 7) is comparable to having the Son himself remain in the believer. The parallel is even closer when we compare the wording in 8:31:

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

Thus, there is a dual-aspect to what it means to “remain” in Jesus, which can be illustrated by the following diagram:

This will be discussed further as we continue through the exposition.

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.

 

 

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.