Jesus The True Vine An Exegesis of John PDF

JESUS, THE TRUE VINE:
AN EXEGESIS OF JOHN 15:1–5
____________
A Research Project
Submitted to
Professor Thomas Rohm
Southern California Seminary
____________
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for
BL-702 New Testament Exegesis II
____________
By
Cory M. Marsh, M.Div., M.A.
April 18, 2017
Faculty Box
ii
All Greek quotations are from BibleWorks 9th ed., NA28 and LXX/BNT (BGT), copyright © by
BibleWorks, LLC, 2011.Unless noted, all English Scripture translations are from The New
American Standard Bible (NASB), copyright © by the Lockman Foundation, 1977. Scripture
quotations indicated (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © by
Crossway Bibles, 2011. Scripture quotations indicated (NET) are from The Net Bible, New
English Translation, copyright © by Biblical Studies Press, 2005. Scripture quotations indicated
(HCSB) are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible, © by Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.
Copyright © 2017 by Cory M. Marsh

All rights reserved
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface..............................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
Transaltions of John 15:1–5 ............................................................................................................ 4
Comparative Translations of John 15:1-5 ........................................................................................7
Outline of John.................................................................................................................................9
Exegetical Outline of John 14:30 - 15:1-5 ....................................................................................12
Controlling Purposes Statements ...................................................................................................13
Introduction to Exegesis of John 15:1-5 ........................................................................................14
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................16
Exegetical Commentary of John 15:1-5 ........................................................................................17
Conclusion of Exegesis ..................................................................................................................43
Application of John 15:1-5 ............................................................................................................45
Theological Analysis .....................................................................................................................47
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................49
Historical Analysis of John's Gospel .................................................................................50
Analysis of Rabbinism .......................................................................................................54
The Old Testament in John's Gospel .................................................................................58
Repentance in John's Gospel? ............................................................................................61
Clausal Analysis.................................................................................................................64
Word Study (Ἄμπελος) ......................................................................................................66
A Brief Survey of Textual Criticism ..................................................................................73
Textual Criticism of John 15:3-4 .......................................................................................77
iv
Diagrams of John 15:1-5 ....................................................................................................81
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................88
v
PREFACE
Dreadful stories abound concerning students who take a Greek course or two in
seminary and loose all of it once they graduate. Like the screaming baby who refuses to
allow sleep deprived parents a moment’s rest, the busyness of life and ministry can rise
up and demand the full attention of the once thriving Greek student. It can even turn
tragically ironic. This occurs when the seminary graduate, who earlier drew closer to
God by way of the New Testament’s original language, now pastors a church and decides
it prudent to abandon the Greek he once loved. It’s not uncommon for pastors to retreat
to the well-worn pretext that maintaining one’s Greek is neither necessary nor practical
in full time ministry. Perhaps, a cheap justification is thundered: “People need the
gospel explained, not the Greek verb tenses!” This problem isn’t new. In the early 20th
century, A. T. Robertson—whose name can be in apposition to “greatest American Greek
scholar”—wrote in the preface to his six volume Word Pictures in the New Testament:
It is a sad fact that many ministers, laymen, and women, who took courses
in Greek at college, university, or seminary have allowed the cares of the world
and the deceitfulness of riches to choke off the Greek that they once knew. Some,
strangely enough, even in the supposed interest of the very gospel whose vivid
message they have thus allowed to grow dim and faint.1
Admittedly risking presumption here, the “sad fact” of which Robertson speaks is
one whose ranks will never include this student. The past five years of biblical language
study has filled my heart with a deep passion and love for God’s Word that is unrivaled
by anything during my undergraduate or graduate studies. Paul’s command for
σπουδάζω in 2 Tim 2:15 has been both a haunting and driving force behind my
conviction of “being approved before God” when dealing with the sacred Text. This
passage in Greek, like so many others that stoked my love for Christ and Scripture, was
pressed deep into my soul in 2012 by my beloved language professor, Thomas A. Rohm.
It has been lodged there ever since and has grown to soaring heights. Words such as
grateful, thankful, humbled, and respect, as appropriate they may be, still seem
inadequate to express my indebtedness for this man who has taught me so much about
God’s revelation. How does one really thank such a person? In the end I can only think
of one way that, as his student and follower of Jesus, will do him the most honor: I will
never to let it go to waste. I promise not to become another “sad fact.” Therefore, it is to
Prof Rohm that I affectionately dedicate this work with his exhortation running across
my mind to always “think clause-lly!” While this project may represent the culmination
of my time with him as his student, he will always remain to me, διδάσκαλου, my ‫מֹורה‬ ֶ .
1 Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman,
1933), 1:viii.
1
INTRODUCTION
It was Clement of Alexandria who first described the Gospel of John as a πνευματικὸν
εὐαγγέλιον (spiritual gospel).1 Clement’s words were not meant to undercut the factual accounts
in the fourth Gospel, he merely pointed out an obvious difference between John and the
Synoptics. While the other three were more comprehensive in their treatment of Jesus’
discourses given by Israel’s long awaited Messiah, John demonstrates a broader role for Christ—
He is the one and only Son of God. Thus, the deity of Jesus is the relentless focus throughout the
book forming a divinely-themed inclusio (John 1:1; 20:31). Yet, the fourth
Gospel is not left without its own unique presentation of Jesus’ kingly rule The Greek New
over Israel. In fact, John wastes no time highlighting this aspect, as seen
for example, in Nathaniel’s early declaration that Jesus truly is the Son of
God and King of Israel (cf. 1:49). It is these dual traits of Christ—His Testament is the
divine personhood and relationship with Israel—that will be the focus of
this exegetical treatise. New Testament.
Several features are included here to help support one main
purpose: Jesus Christ is the premiere model of everything Israel was meant All else is
to be. By way of exegetical analysis applied to Jesus’ final predicated Ἐγώ
Eἰμι statement at John 15:1–5, this paper will demonstrate that Jesus being translation. –
ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ (the true Vine) is not only a declaration of deity, but
intended to convey His connection to national Israel and their changing
relationship with Him. While temporary Israel may fail, the eternal Israel A. T. Robertson
does not. And with Jesus’ statement at John 15, sandwiched in the midst of
His final discourse, the disciples are given a powerful glimpse concerning
a new era that was dawning (the Church)—and their intimate relationship
with its Head. By drawing on in language befitting of Israel’s viticulture, Jesus emphasized that
He is, and had always been, the only genuine vine; the Jewish disciples are connected to Him as
τὰ κλήματα (the branches).
This paper has a scope carrying with it several assumptions. While one is considered an
essential, the other two are uniquely relevant to purposes here. First, a consistently literal,
grammatical-historical hermeneutic is understood as the only correct handling of Scripture; this
is applied throughout. Second, many basic terms or concepts relating to the exegetical method
will not be explained. As the paper is this student’s third major exegetical project, a basic
knowledge of Greek exegesis is assumed here.2And finally, this paper, among other things, is
striving for conciseness. Admittedly this is a challenge. Years of research and writing have shed
a blinding light on this student’s unfortunate weakness in the art of brevity and succinctness.
Mercifully for the reader, however, the writer has matured in the area of technical writing and
will employ a strategy pointed at majoring only on the majors, and letting go of everything else.
This should especially be apparent in this paper’s commentary section, as many rabbit trails full
of interesting insights are not chased. Fuller treatments exist elsewhere for such matters.
1
cf. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14.
2
The previous exegetical projects by the author concerned John 9 and Jeremiah 31and contains many
explanatory details for those interested in exegesis aimed more at a first or second-year level. These are available
upon request.
2
With these set, this paper’s scope is quite exhaustive. In addition to a word-by-word
exegetical commentary of John 15:1–5, treated will be various key features throughout the paper.
These will include things as comparative translations of the passage, various outlines drawn,
historical and theological analyses given, as well as several appendices treating rabbinic, clausal,
and word study analysis together with textual criticism, diagrams, (and others)—all of which is
applied to John’s Gospel broadly and directed at John 15:1–5 specifically. Moreover, special
attention is also given in this project to Jesus’ seventh and final predicated “I Am” declaration at
verses 1 and 5. In a very real sense, these two verses form the grammatical-syntactical focus of
the paper. An exegesis of Jesus being “the true vine” while the disciples are “the branches” is
pivotal for a correct understanding of chapter 15. It also has far reaching implications concerning
the two major schools of theology: Dispensationalism and Covenantalism. Though the student
will refrain from unwarranted dogmatism, the passage nonetheless yields interesting perspectives
that may affect certain theological assumptions. Yet, this project is first and foremost exegetical,
and therefore concerns grammar and syntax the Greek text. That is, it is textual, lexical,
linguistic, and grammatical investigations of the underlying Greek of John 15 that concerns the
main purpose here. Artificial theological conundrums will be avoided. That said, this paper being
exegetical at its core, will inevitably expose details affecting theology. This certainly makes
sense as the Bible was given for us to know and grow in God (Eph 4:14-15; 2 Peter 3:18).
Accordingly, this work, while analyzing the different semantics and syntax of the Greek text,
will secondarily be an exercise in exegetical-theology.
The greatest of all modern Greek grammarians declared: “There is nothing like the Greek
New Testament to rejuvenate the world, which came out of the Dark Ages with the Greek
Testament in its hand.” 3 What a powerful testimony to God’s preserved Scripture throughout
history! The Lord has made sure remnants of faithful scholars devoted to the Bible’s original
languages would carry the torch of His Word. From Jerome in the 5th century to William Tyndale
in the 15th, the original Greek of the New Testament has inspired revolutions, reformations, and
reconciliation. Countless people from every tribe, nation, and tongue have come to know God
through Jesus Christ because of the Greek New Testament. World languages have been created
because of the Greek New Testament. Schools, hospitals, and even governments have been
formed because of the Greek New Testament. It was Koine Greek that God chose as His
language to codify and preserve the revelation of His Son, Jesus Christ. The Greek New
Testament is the New Testament, as Robertson contended. All else is translation. Consequently,
in what follows is this student’s best attempt at capturing the beauties, mystery, and power of
Jesus’ words in the Greek Text on the very night of His arrest. Any flaws contained therein lay
squarely on this student; any glory is to be God’s alone.
3
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville,
TN: Broadman, 1934), xix.
3
TRANSLATIONS OF JOHN 15: 1–5
John 14:30–31
(immediate context)
NA28: Οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων· καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ
ἔχει οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ καθὼς ἐνετείλατό μοι ὁ πατήρ,
οὕτως ποιῶ. ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν.
Word Literal: No longer much I will speak with you, is coming for the the world
ruler; and in me not he has nothing, but so that you may know they may know the
world that I love the father, and just as he commanded me the father, this I do. You
all rise, lets us go from here.
Cory Marsh: Not much will I speak to you all, for the ruler of this world is coming,
and he has nothing on Me; but, so that the world may know that I love the Father,
and I do just as the Father commanded Me. Rise, let us go from here.
John 15:1
NA28: Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν.
Word Literal: I am the vine the true and the father of me the land-worker is.
Cory Marsh: I Am the true Vine, and my Father is the Cultivator.
4
John 15:2
NA28: πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει
αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ.
Word Literal: Every branch in me not bearing fruit he takes away it, and every the
fruit bearing he prunes it so that fruit more it may bear.
Cory Marsh: Every branch on not bearing fruit, he takes it away; and every
branch bearing the fruit He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
John 15:3
NA28: ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν·
Word Literal: Already you clean are through the word which I have spoken to you.
Cory Marsh: Already you are clean because of the Word which I have spoken to
you.
John 15:4
NA28: μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ
ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε.
Word Literal: You all—abide in me, and I in you. Just as the branch not able fruit
to bear from itself if not abiding in the vine, thus neither you if not in me abiding.
Cory Marsh: Abide in me, and I in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit from
itself if not abiding in the vine, so neither can you if not abiding in Me.
5
John 15:5
NA28: ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει
καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.
Word Literal: I Am the Vine, you the branches. The one remaining in me and I in
him this bears fruit much, because apart from me not you are able to do nothing.
Cory Marsh: I Am the Vine—you the branches. The one abiding in Me and I in him,
this one bears much fruit because apart from Me you can do nothing.
John 15:6–7
(immediate context)
NA28: ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ
καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται. ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ τὰ ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ, ὃ
ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε, καὶ γενήσεται ὑμῖν.
Word Literal: If not anyone abides in me, he is thrown outside as the branch and
dried up and gathered them and into the fire they are thrown and are burned. If you
all abide in me and the words of the words of me in you abide, whatever you may
wish ask, and it will be to you.
Cory Marsh: If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and
withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you
abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish—and it will be done
for you.
6
COMPARATIVE TRANSLATIONS OF JOHN 15: 1–5
John 15:1–5 Εγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός
ἐστιν. 2 πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ
καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ. 3 ἤδη ὑμεῖς
καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν· 4 μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν
ὑμῖν. καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ
ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε. 5 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ
ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει
John 15:1–15 (KJV) I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me
that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it
may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no
more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me,
and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:1– 5 (ESV) I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me
that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may
bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide
in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither
can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me
and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
John 15:1–5 (NASB) I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me
that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He 1prunes it so that it
may bear more fruit. 3 You are already 1clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4
Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit 1of itself unless it abides in the vine,
so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides
in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
John 15:1–5 (NKJV) I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me
that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may
bear more fruit. 3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4
"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine,
neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in
Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
John 15:1–5 (HCSB) I am the true vine, and My Father is the vineyard keeper. 2 Every branch
in Me that does not produce fruit He removes, and He prunes every branch that produces fruit so
7
that it will produce more fruit. 3 You are already clean 1 because of the word I have spoken to
you. 4 Remain in Me, and I in you. Just as a branch is unable to produce fruit by itself unless it
remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in Me. 5 I am the vine; you are the
branches remains in Me and I in him produces much fruit,2 because you can do nothing without
Me.
John 15:1–5 (NET) I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener.2 He takes away every
branch that does not bear fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear
more fruit. 3 You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in
me, and I will remain in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the
vine, so neither can you unless you remaining me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. The one
who remains in me – and I in him – bears much fruit, because apart from me you can accomplish
nothing.
John 15:1–5 (NIV) I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch
in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prune so that it will be even
more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me,
as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can
you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in
me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
John 15:1–5 (CJB) I am the real vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 Every branch which is
part of me but fails to bear fruit, he cuts off; and every branch that does bear fruit, he prunes, so
that it may bear more fruit. 3 Right now, because of the word which I have spoken to you, you
are pruned. 4 Stay united with me, as I will with you - for just as the branch can't put forth fruit
by itself apart from the vine, so you can't bear fruit apart from me. 5 I am the vine and you are the
branches. Those who stay united with me, and I with them, are the ones who bear much fruit;
because apart from me you can't do a thing.
John 15:1–15 (NLT) I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every
branch of mine that doesn't produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they
will produce even more. 3 You have already been pruned and purified by the message I have
given you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is
severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in me. 5 Yes, I am the vine;
you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart
from me you can do nothing.
8
OUTLINE OF JOHN
I. Prologue 1:1-181
A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5
B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8
C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13
D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18
II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19—12:50
A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51
1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28
2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34
3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42
4. The witness of Andrew and Philip 1:43-51
B. Jesus' early Galilean ministry 2:1-12
1. The first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11
2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12
C. Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem 2:13—3:36
1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22
2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25
3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21
4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-305.
5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36
D. Jesus' ministry in Samaria 4:1-42
1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26
2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38
3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42
E. Jesus' resumption of His Galilean ministry 4:43-54
1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45
2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54
F. Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem ch. 5
1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9
2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18
3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29
4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47
G. Jesus' later Galilean ministry 6:1—7:9
1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15
2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21
3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59
4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:60—7:9
H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10—10:42
1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13
1
Outline adapted from Thomas L. Constable, “Notes on John,” Dr. Constable’s Expository (Bible Study)
Notes, accessed April 9, 2017, http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm.
9
2. Jesus' ministry at the Feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44
3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52
[4. The woman caught in adultery 7:53—8:11]
5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59
6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9
7. The good shepherd discourse 10:1-21
8. The confrontation at the Feast of Dedication 10:22-42
I. The conclusion of Jesus' public ministry chs. 11—12
1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44
2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57
3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8
4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11
5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19
6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36
7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50
III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 13—17
A. The Last Supper 13:1-30
1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20
2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30
B. The Upper Room Discourse 13:31—16:33
1. Jesus' announcement and command 13:31-35
2. Peter's question about Jesus' departure and Jesus' reply 13:36-38
3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24
4. Jesus' promise of future understanding 14:25-31
5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16
6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27
7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24
8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33
C. Jesus' high priestly prayer ch. 17
1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5
2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19
3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:19-26
IV. Jesus' passion ministry chs. 18—20
A. Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies 18:1-11
B. Jesus' religious trial 18:12-27
1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14
2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priest's courtyard and
Peter's first denial 18:15-18
3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24
4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27
C. Jesus' civil trial 18:28—19:16
1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32
2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a
3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40
4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16
D. Jesus' crucifixion 19:17-30
10
1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17
2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18
3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22
4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24
5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27
6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30
E. The treatment of Jesus' body 19:31-42
1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37
2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42
F. Jesus' resurrection 20:1-29
1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9
2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18
3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening 20:19-23
4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29
G. The purpose of this Gospel 20:30-31
V. Epilogue ch. 21
A. Jesus' appearance to seven disciples in Galilee 21:1-14
B. Jesus' teachings about motivation for service 21:15-23
C. The writer's postscript 21:24-25
11
EXEGETICAL OUTLINE
John 14:30 — 15:1– 5: Jesus’ True Vine Illustration
What is the Purpose?
Central Idea: The Reason for Jesus’ obedience to the Father was to show His love for Him to the
world which is then highlighted by His final predicated I Am statement demonstrating
the He alone is the true Vine and His Father is the sovereign Cultivator, and true
disciples are those who are utterly dependent on Him for life.
I. The Reason for Jesus’ Obedience to the Father was to show His love for Him to the
world (14:30–31).
A. The reason Jesus is wrapping up His ministry was because Satan was
beginning his (v.30a).
B. The inevitable demise of Satan was because he had no claim on Jesus
(v.30b).
C. The stark contrast was the Father is who has a claim on Jesus, and Jesus
obeys Him (v.31a).
D. The purpose of Jesus’ obedience was to show His love for the Father to
the world (v.31b).
E. The reason Jesus leads the group of disciples out was for His vine
illustration (v.31c).
II. The Reason for Jesus’ final predicated I Am statement was to demonstrate the He
alone is the true Vine and His Father is the sovereign Cultivator (15:1–5).
A. The reason for Jesus’ statement and illustration was to demonstrate the He
alone is the true Vine and His Father is the sovereign Cultivator (v.1)
B. The cause of why certain branches get taken away was because they do
not bear fruit (v.2a).
C. The reason why the certain branches do bear fruit was because the
sovereign Cultivator prunes them (v.2b).
D. The source of the disciples cleanliness was Jesus’ teaching them and them
receiving His teaching (v.3)
E. The essential requirement for the disciples was to abide in Jesus (v.4a)
1. The reason why a branch is dead was because it would not abide in the
vine (4.b)
2. The point behind the branch illustration was to draw an analogy of
discipleship (v.4b).
3. The reason behind Jesus’ entire vine and branch illustration was to
draw comparisons between Him and true disciples who are utterly
dependent on Him for life (v.5)
12
CONTROLLING PURPOSE STATEMENTS
The Gospel of John

John’s ultimate purpose of his Gospel account is to present Jesus as the sent Word of God who is
overwhelmingly proved to be God’s unique Son and Messiah—by means of seven chosen signs
and seven “I Am” declarations, the personal witness of John the Baptist, Sabbath healings,
strategic key words such as sent, light, love, life, world, and truth, fulfillment of Jewish Feasts,
and even frequent divisions and attestations amongst crowds—all of which cumulatively is
meant lead the reader to eternal life through trusting in His name. Or, as explicitly stated by
John himself: ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα
πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. But these things have been written in order that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in
His name (John 20:31).
John 15—True Discipleship and Worldly Opposition

The overarching controlling purpose of John 15 is twofold, broken down into two distinct
sections: (1) vv.1–17; and (2) vv.18–27. The first section is to demonstrate that only the κλῆμα
(branch) or disciple who is μένων (abiding) in the vine (i.e., Jesus) will bear fruit and bear it
continuously. This is in contrast to the non-fruit bearing branch who lies dead apart from the
vine—Judas being the premier example of a dead branch. Thus John contends here that true
discipleship consists in abiding in Jesus through love, faith, and obedience (vv.9–17) resulting in
bearing fruit to the glory of God. The second section is to warn any branch/disciple abiding in
Jesus to expect persecution and opposition from the world. Because the true disciple is ἐκ τοῦ
κόσμου οὐκ (not of the world), he or she is to expect hostilities from those who hate Jesus and His
Father (vv.20, 24), and is to respond in abiding love (vv.9–17). However, chapter 15 ends with
hope as the Holy Spirit will be sent to all true disciples Who will give them power to witness
about Jesus to the hostile world (vv.26–27).
John 15:1–5—The True Vine

The controlling purpose of the first five verses of John 15 is to highlight Jesus’ final predicated
Ἐγώ Eἰμι, that He is ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινη (the true Vine)—a symbol biblically used of national
Israel. While Jesus is the ultimate anti-type to Israel, national Israel will remain but a new age is
dawning through the Holy Spirit that will change Israel’s relationship with God. As Jesus made
this declaration of deity the night of His arrest, the disciples are to continue to trust in Christ as
the absolute eternal Israel who is loved by the Father, the eternal vinedresser. Thus John 15:1–5
highlights Jesus’ final predicated I Am statement demonstrating the He alone is the true Vine and
His Father is the sovereign Cultivator, and true disciples are those who are utterly dependent on
Him for life.
13
INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS OF JOHN 15:1–5
When one is engaged in exegeting the New Testament, one is engaged in cresting the
mountain peak of Bible study. Here, Paul’s words to “rightly divide the Word of Truth” take on
their most serious expression, as the student of God’s Word must engage it with an attitude of
σπουδάζω (2 Tim 2:15). This means, among others, that the Koine Greek must be investigated
by using sound hermeneutical principles in order to declare the author’s intended meaning.1 In
order to truly exegete the NT, both the grammar of the sacred Text and its syntax must be taken
into account. This means that not only are the Greek words studied, but so are their relations to
other words, as well as the discernible rules that govern their placement. If “grammar” deals with
all that is
involved with
Grammar the “art of
Γραμματική: “The art of letters” letters,” than
The language of the N. T. has a special interest by reason of the message
“syntax”
that it bears. Every word and phrase calls for minute investigation where
deals with
so much is at stake—A. T. Robertson
“putting them
together.”
Syntax
Thus words
Σύνταξις: “A putting together”
and clauses
Every language in the world has a system for putting words together. The
are of upmost
way in which speakers of a language pattern words is generally referred
importance in
to as the syntax of a language –David Allan Black
the exegetical
method as
well as the reasons why the author chose to structure them the way he did. Only when this is
performed, has the student truly exegeted the Sacred Text and is ready to declare to the Church
and world what the Lord intended by it.
In what follows is an exegetical commentary of John 15:1–5. The exegesis centers on
Jesus’ final predicated “I Am” declaration in John’s Gospel. Broadly, the chapter is set directly
in the middle of Jesus’ final and private discourse to His disciples (13–17), and is given the night
of His betrayal and arrest. Specifically, it is set directly in between Jesus’ prophecies concerning
the coming of the Holy Spirit (14, 16), Who would later usher in a new dispensation with the
birth of the Church (Acts 2). The purpose of the following exegetical analysis of John 15:1–5 is
to demonstrate that by Jesus declaring that He is “ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινη” (the true vine), and that
His disciples are “τὰ κλήματα” (the branches), He is intending to convey that He is everything
national Israel was meant to be; and that they, as still products of Israel, are to abide joyfully in
Him. Therefore, neither the Church nor any other candidate has the right to take what was always
reserved for national Israel. Moreover, it will be shown that only by way of intimate faith in
Jesus (by use of a verb reserved for true followers) is any disciple able to produce fruit—and is
promised to φέρει καρπὸν πολύν (bear much fruit). Finally, all of this is intended to support the
Gospel’s overall purpose, that is, to illicit and strengthen faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
and gain eternal life in His Name (20:31).
1
Cf. John D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1974), 7 for a solid and fuller definition of exegesis.
14
ABBREVIATIONS
In the following exegesis, multiple Greek tools were utilized to help discover the
meaning of the grammar and syntax of the Koine of John 15:1–5. The reader will no doubt notice
the virtual absence of any biblical commentaries (save a few citations where appropriate) in the
exegesis that follows. This was purposeful. The student wished to use only language tools that
would avail themselves to the strict exegesis of the semantics and syntax at hand without any
interpretation afforded by Johannine scholars.
Far from discounting the use of exegetical, informational, textual, and even devotional
commentaries written on John, the student desired to approach the passage in a more conscious
attempt at depending on the Holy Spirit for correct interpretation, based in part, on the
culmination of five years personally devoted to Johannine Greek study (cf. 1 John 2:27).
Therefore, only strict grammatical aids dealing with the language were used in the following
exegetical analysis of John 15:1–5. And, all interpretive commentary, unless noted, is this
student’s own. External Johannine interpretative commentaries, as helpful and important they
are, are indeed used elsewhere in this project. However, here the following detailed exegesis of
the Greek Text was reserved for aids designed with lexical, grammatical, syntactical, and
linguistic insight into the Koine used by NT authors. As such, the abbreviations that follow in the
each word’s exegetical treatment correspond to the following tools:
BDAG Bauer, Walter, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. BibleWorks 9.
Campbell Campbell, Constantine R. Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights

for Reading the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.
Dana and Mantey Mantey, Julius, R. and H. E. Dana. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament. Toronto, ON: Macmillian, 1955.
Decker Decker, Rodney, J. Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated

Workbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014.
Friberg Friberg, Barbara and Timothy Friberg and Neva F. Miller, Analytical
Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000.
BibleWorks 9.
Gingrich Gingrich, Wilber F. Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

Norfolk, VA, 2011. BibleWorks 9.
Harris Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament:
An Essential Reference for Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
15
Köstenberger, et al. Köstenberger, Andreas J. and Benjamin L. Merkle and Robert L.
Plummer, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate
Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament. Nashville, TN: B
& H Academic, 2016.
L-N Louw, Johannes, E. and Engine Nida. Greek-English Lexicon Based on

Semantic Domains Vols. 1 and 2. New York, NY: UBS, 1989.
BibleWorks 9.
LSJ Liddell Henry George and Robert Scott, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English
Lexicon abridged version, Norfolk, VA, 2011. BibleWorks 9.
Moulton and Milligan Moulton, J.H. and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
London, UK: Hodder and Stroughton, 1930. BibleWorks 9.
Robertson Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in

Light of Historical Research 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934 (and
3rd ed., 1914, BibleWorks 9).
Robertson, WPNT Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament
Vol.5. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1960.
Rogers’ Rogers Jr., Cleon, L, and Cleon L. Rogers. III. The New Linguistic and
Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1999.
Thayer Thayer, Joseph, A. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

Norfolk, VA, 2011. BibleWorks 9.
Wallace Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical

Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.
16
EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY OF JOHN 15: 1–5
BGT
John 15:1: Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν.
WL
John 15:1: I, I am the grape vine the true and the father of me the land-worker is.
CM
John 15:1: I Am the true grape Vine and my Father is the Cultivator.
CM
John 9:1 And passing by, He saw [a] man blind from birth.
Introduction to 15:1
Verse one of chapter 15 commences with Jesus’ final predicated Ἐγώ Eἰμι declaration in
John’s Gospel. In contrast to the other six, the uniqueness of this particular “I Am” statement can
be seen in two specific ways: first, Jesus’ claim of deity here uses a prominent biblical symbol
depicting national Israel, ἄμπελος (vine); and second, it is also the only one of His seven
declarations where Jesus includes His Father in the same sentence. This verse initiates the “I Am”
inclusio, along with its viticulture imagery, that is capped off in v.5
Eγώ (I). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun, Nominative 1st Person Singular. Because this
personal pronoun is in construct with the immediate verb, Jesus is emphasizing His personhood
in the declaration. Unlike English grammar, this is due to person already being imbedded in
Greek verbs. Thus ἐγώ, when used with a verb, is intended to emphasize the person making the
statement (cf. BDAG, 2209). In essence, Jesus is repeating Himself as the subject of the clause
by saying, “I, I Am…” removing any ambiguity as to the identity of the illustration’s main
character; that is, it is Jesus who is the true vine, not the converse (the true vine being Jesus), nor
any other possible candidate. Similar instances of Jesus using this 1st person pronoun with a verb
for emphasis can be seen in notable texts such as Matthew 10:16—“Behold I send you out [ἐγὼ
ἀποστέλλω] as sheep amongst the wolves”; and John 8:24 (which uses the ἐγὼ εἰμι
construction)—“For unless you believe that I am He [ἐγώ εἰμι], you will die in your sins.” Other
instances of this phenomena by Jesus are scattered throughout all four Gospels (cf. Matt 5:22;
21:27; Mark 9:25; 14:58; Luke 21:8; 24:39; John 8:28, 58). Thus, when Jesus uses the pronoun
ἐγώ with the verb εἰμι, as He does here in John 15:1, the reader would do well to discern the
intensity of the discourse taking place—and Jesus’ place in it.
Eἰμι (Am). Strong# 1510, 2479x:1 Verb, Present Active Indicative 1st Person Singular. BDAG
states the meaning to “to be, exist, be on hand” which, in Scripture, is a predominate use of God
1
It should be noted that Andres Köstenberger, et al., lists 2,463 occurrences of εἰμι (Going Deeper, 503).
The difference in number here and elsewhere can usually be attributed to the particular manuscripts at the scholar’s
17
(2272). Here in v.1, the finite equative εἰμί serves a stative active function, a very common usage
in the NT. According to Wallace, “The subject exists in the state indicated by the verb” (412).
This is easy to identify as “the stative active occurs…with the equative verb” (413). In addition
to Wallace, L-N likewise classifies this verb as under their category, “state” (13.1-13.47). It is
the phrase εγώ εἰμι that sets verse one a part, from other uses of both words. Here at v.1, Jesus
gives his final predicated “I Am” statement, which is doubtless an emphatic declaration of deity.
The other six are found at: John 6:35 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς); 8:12 (ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου);
10:7, 9 (ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα); 10:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); 11:25 (ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωη); and
14:6 (ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή). These seven εγώ εἰμι declarations help form the
purpose of John’s Gospel as they, along with Jesus’ miracles, inspire faith in Him as the Christ,
the Son of God (20:31). The present tense of each of these εἰμι statements of deity makes it clear
that Jesus’ work as Messiah and Lord is in current operation, and can never be fulfilled by
another candidate (cf. Matt 24:4).
ἡ (the). Strong #3588, 20012x: Article, Nominative feminine singular. The article is by far the
most used word in the NT. The next in line would be the conjunction καί with just under 9000
occurrences. The Greek article goes back to Homer and the Ionic writings which is properly a
demonstrative pronoun (Thayer, 3683). Its most common usage is for identity, as it is being used
here by Jesus as well as the other six predicated “I Am” statements. In other words, Jesus is the
true Vine, as in the one and only candidate to be associated with this illustration.
THE “DEFINITE” ARTICLE
The article as a word-identifier is unique in Western literature, a product purely of Greek grammar. Wallace
states his sentiments, “One of the greatest gifts bequeathed by the Greeks to Western civilization was the
article. European intellectual life was profoundly impacted by this gift of clarity….In short, there is no more
important aspect of Greek grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought and
theology of the NT writers” (207-8). Robertson likewise expressed, “The development of the Greek article is
one of the most interesting things in human speech” (754). As is usually the case with Greek grammar, the
article carries with it a basic rule, yet it is not always tightly held. The normal rule of the article’s usage is to
identify the clause’s substantive; thus identity is its main goal. Additionally, when the article is absent from
a noun in a Greek sentence, even when there is a clear noun present, the quality (or essence) is what the NT
writer is attempting to emphasize. Perhaps the most well known of the latter instance is John 1:1, καὶ θεὸς ἦν
ὁ λόγος (and God was the Word), the article ὁ (the) acts to identify the subject λόγος (Word), while it is
simultaneously absent from the noun, and usual subject, θεὸς (God). This particular usage involving the
article being used only once in a clause, when two nominatives are stated, and joined by an equative verb
(e.g., ἦν , was), is known as a “predicate nominative.” This simply means one nominative is further
explained by the other (larger) nominative. In the instance of John 1:1, the subject ὁ λόγος (the Word) is
predicated by (or belonging to) the larger category θεὸς (God).
ἄμπελος ([grape] vine). Strong #288, 9x: Noun, [Predicate] Nominative Feminine Singular. The
type of vine meant here is undoubtedly a grape-vine (cf. Friberg, 1378)—one of the most “prized
disposal. The differences in number counting, where found, are generally minor (always under 50), and affect no
major doctrine.
18
plants” representing the most “privileged among nations” (Rogers, 217). By Jesus assigning this
predicate nominative for Himself (see above excurses on the article), He immediately ushers in a
familiar term depicting national Israel. Throughout the OT, ἄμπελος (LXX) / ‫( ֶּגפֶּן‬MT), is used
as dramatic imagery portraying national Israel as vine or vineyard being either fruitless or fruitful
(cf. Psalm 80:9-12; Isa 5:1-2, 7; cf. 27:2ff; Hos 10:1; Jer 2:21). This image became so popular in
Israel, it morphed into their national symbol during the intertestamental period, even being
depicted on their coins throughout the Maccebean era (cf. Robertson, WPNT, 257). The grape
vine had a prominent place not only in Israel’s viticulture, but also as permanent decorations for
the Jerusalem Temple. On this, Josephus described the Temple as having “a golden vine, with its
branches hanging down [from above the front doors and embroidered veils] from a great height,
the largest and fine workmanship.”2 These golden vines, reported elsewhere by Josephus, had
“clusters of grapes hung [from them] as tall as a man’s height.”3 Thus Jesus’ declaration that He
is the true ἄμπελος, must have been incredibly striking for the Jewish disciples to hear.
Additionally, this articular noun being placed immediately after the ἐγώ εἰμι phrase, and yet
before the following predicate adjective ἡ ἀληθινη (the true), serves to underscore Jesus’ extreme
emphasis (cf. Rogers, 217). See this project’s “Word Study” for further insight on ἄμπελος.
ἡ (the). Strong #3588, 20012x: Article, Nominative feminine singular. Used to articulate the
following adjective, ἀληθινή (true) and thus form an articular adjectival construction. See
comments above for further information regarding the article.
ἀληθινή (true, genuine). Strong #228, 28x: Adjective Nominative Feminine Singular. This is an
attributive use of the adjectival construction here as the article precedes the adjective (cf. Decker,
96). It is thus ascribing a particular quality to the noun ἄμπελος with emphasis—Jesus is the true
Vine. Out of three possible positions of an articular adjectival construction in Greek, its usage
here is that of the 2nd position, which is common in the NT: “Article-Noun-Article-Adjective”
(Köstenberger, et al., 167). Robertson adds that with the repetition of the article, “both
substantive and adjective receive emphasis and the adjective is added as a sort of climax in
apposition with a separate article” (776–77). As to the actual word itself, BDAG defines this
adjective as “pertaining to being real, genuine, authentic, real” (327). Thus in contrast to Israel
who was God’s own elect nation (Isa 43:1)—a nation that was meant to display all of Yahweh’s
love and justice to the world—Jesus, God’s Son and Messiah, was the real, true, genuine Israel.
Here, it is revealed that Jesus is always faithful and true to Yahweh. It is Jesus who shines a light
into the world greater than anything temporal Israel could ever produce (Isa 42:6; Luke 2:32). It
is Jesus who is and always was Israel par excellence. No other candidate can make this claim.
Καὶ (and). Strong# 2532, 9079x: A Coordinating Conjunction. Wallace labels this as connective
conjunction (or continuative, coordinate) and goes on to state: “This use simply connects an
additional element to a discussion or adds an additional idea to the train of thought” (671).
Grammatically, the additional idea in Jesus’ use of καί here at v.1 is what distinguishes this
predicated ἐγώ εἰμι from the other six. This is because it is the only one of Jesus great “I Am”
statements that is a compound clause with equal grammatical clausal-weight separated by the
2
Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 15:11:3.
3
Josephus Wars of the Jews 5:5:4.
19
coordinating conjunction.4 The construction is unique5 in that it is in this particular ἐγώ εἰμι
declaration that Jesus adds a new character within the same sentence, His Father.
ὁ (the). Strong #3588, 20012x: Article, Nominative Masculine Singular. Used to articulate the
following noun, πατήρ (father) and thus form an articular construction emphasizing the identity of
Jesus’ Father. See comments above for further information regarding the article.
πατήρ (father). Strong #3962, 418x: Noun, Nominative Masculine Singular. This noun is used
throughout Scripture to relate several ideas such as: biological relationships between a parent and
child (Matt 2:22); a distant forefather or relative removed by several generations (Luke 1:73);
one who provides spiritual instruction (1 Cor 4:15); a title for respectful address (Acts 7:2);
revered deceased persons (2 Peter 3:4); a supreme deity, Father to all of creation (Mal 2:10); a
special Father for Christians (Rom 1:7); and “as Father of Jesus Christ as a witness concerning
Himself” (BDAG, 5728). Clearly, it is in this last usage that Jesus uses πατήρ in 15:1. Here,
Jesus’ Father is brought immediately in conjunction with His final “I Am” statement. This is
significant, not only for being a hapax construction in Jesus’ seven declarations of deity, but also
for its timing. On the very night Jesus made the declaration, He was betrayed and arrested. The
disciples would no longer be with Him as they had been. Thus, Jesus’ statement would bring
extra assurance for the disciples that no matter what was about to take place, the Father is always
alongside Him—tilling all the ground for His Son’s atoning work of glory.
μου (my). Strong# 1473, 2600x. Personal Pronoun Genitive Singular. According to Wallace,
“Personal pronouns are far and away the most frequently used pronouns in the NT. Two out of
three pronouns belong to this classification” (320). Wallace also lists 33 specific functions of the
genitive broken up by five categories: adjectival; ablative; verbal; adverbial; and genitives after
certain words (72). It is the first category, adjectival, where this particular genitive belongs as it
functions both as a genitive of possession and/or genitive of relationship, the former more likely
being the case as the Father did not descend from the Son; rather, the converse is true (cf.
Wallace, 83; Köstenberger, et al., 91-92). Yet, the distinction between the genitive of possession
and the genitive of relationship is not an easy one to make. While the genitive of possession is
“one of the most prevalent uses of the genitive, especially with pronouns” (Dana and Mantey,
70), the genitive of relationship can be considered a special class of the former (Ibid.). As
reported by Dana and Mantey, “This construction was abundantly used in colloquial Greek of the
Koine period, as evidenced by its frequent occurrence in the papyri” (77). While God is
referenced as “Father” 24x throughout the OT (15x concerning individuals and 9x concerning
4
By this is meant John 15:1 is unique in having two equal, full clauses in its compound separated by καί.
Both John 11:25 and 14:6 contain the copulative καί separating mere nouns (not clauses), with the former having an
asyndeton construction between clauses. John 6:35 and 8:12 may qualify as asyndetons as well as this is common in
John. Nevertheless, only John 15:1 is explicit is in its compound, clausal construction which is noteworthy as John’s
“default position” is asyndeton (cf. Campbell, 167–68).
5
It is worth noting Stephen H. Levinsohn of the Summer Institute of Linguistics here. While he does
acknowledge καί in Gospel literature as functioning as a conjunction linking sentences, he also suggests it can have
a “nonconjunctive” function where addition is meant within the immediate context. This is keeping in line with
Wallace above. Yet, Levinsohn goes further. Rather than merely linking sentences together, καί can indicate
“parallelism between the proposition concerned and an earlier one” where a proposition “is added to confirm an
earlier one” (Campbell, 168, emphasis in original). While this may be the case in John 15:1, the καί is still widely
known to function as a connector linking two equal parts concerning narrative literature, as even acknowledged by
Levinsohn whose work focuses on the still emerging field of Discourse Analysis.
20
Israel), Jesus uses the construction, “My Father” τοῦ πατρός μου over 165x in the Gospels. Thus
throughout the NT, Jesus constantly calls God His own Father (e.g., Matt 11:27; Luke 2:49; John
6:40, et al)—even at the risk of death (John 5:18; 10:31–38).
ὁ (the). Strong #3588, 20012x. For all further articles found in the pericope at hand, please refer
to comments made earlier.
γεωργός ( cultivator, gardner, vine-dresser, land-worker). Strong#1092, 19x. Noun,

[Predicate] Nominative Masculine Singular. Like ἡ ἄμπελος (the vine) above, the noun here is
functioning as a predicate nominative. Because grammatically both ὁ πατήρ and ὁ γεωργός
qualify as either subject or predicate nominatives due to their accompanying articles, it is word
order in this clause that helps determine the issue. Thus, the latter (ὁ γεωργός) is what serves as
the predicate nominative here while ὁ πατήρ is the subject nominative (cf. Köstenberger et al, 55;
Wallace, 44). A compound of γῆ and ἔργον (worker), γεωργός literally means “land-worker” or
one who “tills the ground” (LSJ, 8158; cf. Thayer, 1143). While occurring nine times in the
Greek NT and only three times in the LXX (Gen 9:20; 49:15; and Amos 5:16), this noun was
common in ancient Egyptian literature as a “ubiquitous word, enough to indicate some of the
Egyptian farmer’s public burdens” (Moulton and Milligan, 851). Therefore the illustration Jesus
uses here at 15:1 is immersed in ANE viticulture. Farming is an ancient practice going back to
Adam and his father Cain (Gen 2:15; 4:2), and one that made several of Jesus’ parables in the
Synoptics. Jesus, the true vine, was “planted” by His father, the land-worker, as the premier
example of everything national Israel was meant to be, but failed (cf. Jer 2:21). It is difficult to
miss the subordinate relationship of vine to gardener here, as the Son submits to the Father in all
things. With that, there is a proleptic allusion here to Jesus’ words in Acts 1:7 that no one knows
the hour of consummation of Israel’s coming kingdom, including the glorified Son, but the
Father alone—who is the great Cultivator.
ἐστιν (is).Strong #1510, 2479x. Verb, Present Active Indicative 3rd Person Singular. See earlier
comments above for more on the state function of the verb εἰμί. Köstenberger, et al. would
classify the indicative mood of this verb as a “Declarative Indicative” since it is employed to
convey an unqualified assertion (201). This is the mood’s most common usage in the NT (cf.
e.g., Matt 16:16; John 1:1). As Jesus is (present tense) the true Vine, so His father is (present
tense) the vine-dresser or land-worker. It appears that each of Jesus’ six predicated ’εγώ εἰμι
statements deal with His redemptive role with believers during the age between the Fall and
Consummation. And, inanimate imagery such as “bread,” “door,” and “vine” convey a present
yet temporary function and meaning. Perhaps in one sense, Jesus will always be the true Israel.
In another sense, this a temporal role, one to be completed after the Millennial Kingdom (Zech
14:9ff; Rev 20:2-7) comes to an end, and God in Christ ushers in the Eternal State (Rev 21–22).
Conclusion to 15:1
Verse one of chapter 15 commenced this project with Jesus’ final predicated Ἐγώ Eἰμι
declaration in John’s Gospel. In contrast to the other six, the uniqueness of this particular “I
Am” statement was seen in two specific ways: first, Jesus’ claim of deity here used a prominent
biblical symbol depicting national Israel, ἄμπελος (vine); and second, it is also the only one of His
seven declarations where Jesus included His Father in the same sentence.
21
In v.1, Jesus emphatically declares that He is “the true vine” while His Father is the “land-
worker.” With that, there is a gentle allusion to His submission to the Father’s cultivation of His
earthly redemptive work. Furthermore, Jesus is seen here as the genuine and faithful Israel in
stark contrast to the earthly one that had failed (cf. Psalm 80; Isa 5; Jer 2). Yet, national Israel is
not finished. It is to be recalled that in this verse Jesus—the Jewish Messiah from Israel— is the
true Israel, not the Church or any other candidate. Due to the theological ramifications of this,
this verse will be explored later, in conjunction with v. 5, in the Theological Analysis later in the
appendix to this project.
22
BGT
John 15:2: πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ
καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ.
WL
John 15:2: Every branch into me not bearing fruit he takes away it, and
every one branch bearing he cleans it so that fruit more it might bear.
CM
John 15:2: Every branch in me not bearing fruit He takes away, and
every branch bearing fruit He prunes so that it might bear more fruit.
Introduction to John 15:2

With Jesus’ bold declaration of deity stated and His changing relationship with Israel
introduced as the true Vine, He now alludes to the disciples as His branches. While He doesn’t
actually identify the disciples as branches until v.5, here the viticulture imagery deepens as the act
of “pruning” and “fruit bearing” is established in metaphor corresponding to true and false
disciples. Judas has gone out into the night in 13:30, yet his dark presence is still felt as he
represents the dead-branch of which Jesus illustrates, whom God has taken away from the faithful
branches. Of major note, it is here at v.2 where our primary exegetical problem surfaces.
πᾶν (every). Strong #3956, 1248x. Adjective, Accusative Neuter Singular. With this adjective
being first in word order as well as modifying the anarthrous noun κλῆμα, it is meant to project a
straightforward intensive force (contra. an extensive-intensive when articular). Robertson
describes this initiating adjectival phrase as an anacoluthon under his category “suspended
subject” (436), while Wallace labels it a Pendent Accusative (Accusativum Pendens)—as this
accusative phrase is a grammatical independent use of the accusative and is thus “hanging” from
the rest of the clause (189) (cf. diagram for visual display of this syntactically awkward verse).
πᾶν here “means ‘all’ in the sense of ‘each (every) part that applies.’ The emphasis of the total
picture then is on ‘one piece at a time.’”6 Here, Jesus is making it personal. While He has yet to
identify the disciples as the branches, He nonetheless individualizes every single branch in Him
and the demarcation of true and false disciples is being made.
κλῆμα (branch) Strong# 2814, 4x. Noun, Accusative, Neuter Singular. See above for details
concerning this adjectival construction. All four uses of this noun in the Greek NT are by John
and are all in the beginning of chapter 15 (vv. 2–6). Kλῆμα is derived from the verb κλάω which
means “to break” (Thayer, 2971), and thus Rogers’ describes this type of branch as “cane, a
shoot of a vine” (218). Additionally, L-N subsumes this noun under their “non-fruit parts of
plants” semantic category and define it as “more or less tender, flexible branch, as of a vine –
'branch' (principally of grapevines)” (3.50). Jesus’ viticulture illustration is now in full swing and
6
Helps Word-studies, Bible Hub, accessed March 21, 2017, http://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm.
23
as the disciples are getting a lesson they would readily understand. Whether they realize that
Jesus is referring to an intimate relationship with Him at this point, still remains to be seen.
ἐν (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x7. Proper Preposition, Dative. Concerning the ἐν preposition,
Wallace states it “is the workhorse of prepositions in the NT, occurring more frequently and in
more varied situations than any other.” Totally a staggering 26.5% of all preposition uses in the
NT, it is frequently used with the dative as a way to make more explicit its intention since the
dative was becoming more ubiquitous by the time of the Koine. Murray Harris observes, “As the
dative gradually weakened with its increasing load, the role of prepositions became more and
more significant as a means of clarifying the meaning intended by the case ending.”8 The
particular usage for this particular preposition is “spatial/sphere” (Wallace, 372), as branches are
in the vine. As such, it is here at v.2 where our primary exegetical “problem” is surfaced.
Exegetical Problem Introduced at V.2
It appears that Jesus is describing a branch that is only superficially “in”

the vine. If Judas is the example being portrayed here, and it makes
plausible sense that he is, this type of branch was never really “in” the
Vine, but only professed himself to be so. Admittedly, some ambiguity
exists here due to Jesus using the prepositional phrase ἐν ἐμοὶ to describe
seemingly lifeless branches. It can be asked, How can dead branches /
disciples be “in” Christ? This latter aspect is taken up below at v.4.
ἐμοί (me, myself). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun Dative 1st Person Singular. This can
be considered as a “dative after certain prepositions” (Wallace, 175). By using the dative ἐμοὶ,
there “is an added feature of emphasis in the form ἐγώ” (L-N, 92.1). Jesus using the prepositional
phrase ἐν ἐμοί here in v.2 intensifies His role as the vine of which the branches are totally
dependent. Commenting on this prepositional phrase in v.2, Robertson states, “Two kinds of
connexion [sic] with Christ as the vine (the merely cosmic which bears no fruit, the spiritual and
vital which bears fruit” (Robertson, WPNT, 257).
μή (not). Strong# 3361, 1061x: Negative Adverb/Particle. This particle negates the underlying
concept of a statement. Though μή is generally reserved as particle of negation for non-indicative
moods (oὐ being commonly used for indicative), Koine Greek writers often times deviated from
this grammatical “rule” (cf. Köstenberger, et al., 420). The negative particle μή is more
subjective than oὐ in that while the latter outright denies the thing itself, the former is used to
deny an idea, concept, or hypothetical situation (cf. Thayer, 3454). As Robertson states, “If οὐ
denies the fact, μή denies the idea” (1167). Here its usage is to clarify that a branch not φέρον
καρπὸν (bearing fruit) will be taken away by God, the great Vinedresser.
7
Wallace lists 2752 usages (357), as does Decker (636).
8
Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference
Recourse for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 115.
24
φέρον (bearing). Strong #5342, 66x. Participle, Present Active Accusative Neuter Singular.
Here the reader is introduced to the first of three participles in vv.1–5. BDAG defines φέρω as
meaning “to bear or carry from one place to another with focus on an act of transport” (7709). Its
usage here, like the other two, carries a temporal function (Wallace, 623), and is
contemporaneous to the governing verb, αἴρει (he takes away). The idea of a branch “in the vine”
not bearing fruit is most likely a dramatic portrayal of Judas (cf. Robertson, WPNT, 257) who
was at one time counting among the disciples, but is now committing the greatest act of betrayal
known to man (cf. 1 John 2:15, 19).
καρπὸν (fruit). Strong #, 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. Decker defines this
noun as having three distinct meanings: “The product of a plant (whether tree, vine, bush,
vegetable, etc.), agricultural produce; the offspring of a person; metaphorically of the result or
outcome of an action or attitude” (643). While using the literal agricultural meaning as the
starting point (Decker’s first option), it is the third choice, the metaphorical, that Jesus tends to
convey at v.2 by His illustration of a branch either bearing or nor bearing fruit.
αἴρει (he takes away). Strong # 42, 101x. Verb, Present Active Indicative 3rd Person Singular.
This is the main verb of the clause and with it comes a dreadful warning. Some would prefer to
translate this verb “to lift up” as John uses the verb in this sense elsewhere (8:59; 10:18),
however the sense of actual removal is also in John—and is more prominent (11:39, 48; 16:22;
17:15). It is noteworthy that the NET Bible translates this verb “He cuts off,” and states: “In
context (theological presuppositions aside for the moment) the meaning ‘remove’ does seem
more natural and less forced (particularly in light of v. 6, where worthless branches are described
as being ‘thrown out’ – an image that seems incompatible with restoration).” With Judas as the
premier apostate branch not bearing fruit, and currently removed from the group, it is in the
sense of being “taken away” or “cut off” that Jesus is conveying here in v.2.
αὐτό, (it). Strong # 846, 5606x. Personal Pronoun, Accusative Neuter 3rd Person Singular.
Gingrich states concerning this pronoun that it can be used as “self intensive, setting the word it
modifies from everything else” (BibleWorks; cf. Decker, 103). It is in this sense the pronoun is
being used here at v.2 since the 3rd person is already known and imbedded in the preceding verb.
Thus, Jesus is intensifying the fruitless branch here. Again, Judas is the horrific example par
excellence of this negative illustration.
kαὶ (and). Strong# 2532, 9079x: Coordinating Conjunction. Wallace labels this as connective
conjunction (or continuative, coordinate) and goes on to state: “This use simply connects an
additional element to a discussion or adds an additional idea to the train of thought” (671). Jesus
is using this conjunction as a linking word from the previous idea of the fruitless branch to the
following idea of the fruitful branch. With this conjunction, the transition is made from Judas the
apostate to a new focus on the faithful disciples still accompanying Jesus. A repetition of words
and thoughts now follow till the end of the verse.
πᾶν (every). Strong #3956, 1248x. Adjective, Accusative Neuter Singular. See above comments
concerning this repeated adjective.
25
καρπὸν (fruit). Strong #, 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. See above
comments concerning this repeated noun.
φέρον (bearing). Strong #5342, 66x. Present Active Participle Accusative Neuter Singular. This
articular participle parallels the above pendant accusative clause See above comments
concerning this repeated participle.
καθαίρει (He prunes) Strong #2501, 1x. Verb, Pesent Active Indicative 3rd Person Singular. The
form of this verb is a hapax legomena as its only usage is here in 15:2. The meaning is to “make
clean by purging (removing undesirable elements); hence, ‘pruned (purged); eliminating what is
fruitless by purifying (making unmixed).”9 BDAG adds καθαίρει means “to remove superfluous
growth from a plant, clear, prune of a vine” (3807). Methods of pruning in ANE viticulture
included training vines on trellises, poles, or trees. Sticking with the farming illustration, Rogers
explains: “The light pruning was done by snapping off the tips by hand so that the wood would
grow longer” (218). Jesus’ use of this verb here at v.2 is probably a play on words with καθαροί in
v.3, the latter also being used in the upper room when Jesus declared the group “clean” (John
13:10). While the purpose of the Father in cleansing His people is clear, the precise means by
which he does so is not immediately obvious. This will become clearer, however, in the
following verse (cf. NET Notes).
αὐτό, (it). Strong # 846, 5606x. Personal Pronoun, Accusative Neuter 3rd Person Singular. See
above comments concerning this repeated pronoun.
ἵνα (so that). Strong # 2443, 671x. Subordinating Conjunction. This conjunction can either
express purpose or result (the distinction not always easy to make). Dana and Mantey observe,
“Purpose clauses may exhibit various shades of meaning, ranging from deliberate design to mere
tendency or result” (283). Here at v.2, either function fits the immediate context (purpose or
result). However, both Rogers and Robertson label this subordinating conjunction as marking a
purpose clause (218; 257, respectively). Thus, God prunes fruit branches with the purpose of
producing more fruit. This certainly fits the context of Jesus’ words, while acknowledging that
being pruned with the result of producing more fruit is not far behind. Either way, the point
being made is clear of which Robertson adds: “A good test for modern Christians and church
members” (WPNT, 257).
καρπὸν (fruit). Strong #, 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. See above
comments for more concerning this repeated noun.
πλείονα (more). Strong# 4119, 55x. Comparative Adjective, Accusative Masculine Singular.
This adjective is the comparative degree of the positive, πολύς (much, many). BDAG defines
πλείονα as “being a large number, many, a great number” (6061), and when it precedes or
following a noun (or participle or adjective used as a noun) in the plural, “many, numerous”
(Ibid.) Jesus is making it clear that for those “branches” (believers) who God prunes, He does so
with the purpose, or for the result, that that they bear much more, numerous fruit.
9
Helps Word-studies, Bible Hub, accessed March 21, 2017, http://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm.
26
φέρῃ (might bear). Strong #5342, 66x. Verb, Present Active Subjunctive 3rd Person Singular.
See above comments on this repeated verb. Added here are some fresh insights regarding the
subjunctive mood as this is the first of its kind in the pericope. The subjunctive may be the most
subjective mood of all the Greek moods. This is because is based on kind of action (or aspect) far
more than tense form. It is used in the NT to convey the verbal action as indefinite, but still
probable. Köstenberger, et al. explains that the subjunctive mood “do[es] not involve time of
action but [is] restricted to the kind of action or the author’s perspective of the action” (202).
While there is much similarity between the subjunctive and future indicative (as both convey a
possible future action) Robertson clarifies, “The subjunctive differs from the future indicative in
stating what is thought likely to occur, not positively what will occur” (925). Thus the
subjunctive mood is inherently perspectival with its meaning depending entirely on the
immediate context and perspective the speaker. The subjunctive verb here at v.2 is present in a
subordinate clause as marked by the ἵνα conjunction earlier. This is relevant, because as
Robertson states, “The subjunctive is always future, subordinate clauses relatively future” (924).
Therefore, when Jesus said that branches are pruned so they “might bear more fruit,” it is the
promise of bearing fruit we should bear in mind, not the time frame. Thus a lifetime of
faithfulness is the key takeaway.
Conclusion to John 15:2

With Jesus’ bold declaration of deity stated in v.1 along with His changing relationship
with Israel introduced as the true Vine, He now alludes to the disciples as His branches in v.2.
While He does not positively identify the disciples as branches until v.5, the viticulture imagery
begun earlier deepens as the act of “pruning” and “fruit bearing” is established in metaphor
corresponding to true and false disciples. Judas has gone out into the night in 13:30, yet his dark
presence is still felt as he represents the dead-branch of which Jesus illustrates whom God has
taken away from the faithful branches. Judas, like any dead branch, only appeared to be “in” the
Vine; he, never “abided” in Him and produced fruit. However, for those branches that faithfully
produce fruit to the glory of God, He prunes them in order that they may bear even more fruit
over their lifetime, however long that may be.
27
BGT
John 15:3 ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν·
WL
John 15:3 already you cleansed are on account of the word which I have
spoken to you.
CM
John 15:3 Already you are cleansed because of the word which I have
spoken to you.

The concept of “cleansing” or pruning (καθαίρω) has just been applied by Jesus to
fruitless branches in v.2 yet was initiated earlier in the Upper Room in 13:10. While washing His
disciples’ feet in John 13, Jesus powerfully illustrates in tangible form what he identifies here in
15:3—it is the words of Christ that form the cleansing and pruning tool, not mere water. Thus the
concept of “cleansing” is what linguistically bridges the gap between John 13 to John 15.
ἤδη (already, now). Strong #2235, 61x. Adverb. All adverbs in the Koine Greek are used to
express relationships of time, place, manner, and degree (Dana and Mantey, 234). Many times
adverbs can also function as a conjunction, interjection or even a preposition. However, here at
v.3 it is modifying the verb ἐστε as Jesus is saying the disciples “are now” or “are already” clean
by His past spoken words. Robertson has a note stating “potentially cleansed” here at v.3 (cf.
WPNT, 258), but taken in its plain, literal sense, Jesus makes is it clean the disciples are already
cleaned.
ὑμεῖς (you[all]). Strong# 4771, 2929x. Personal Pronoun, Nominative 2nd Person Plural. Since
this personal pronoun is plural, Jesus is addressing the group. Additionally as there is no need to
specify the subject with a pronoun (the Greek verb includes the subject), there is a slight
emphasis being conveyed here. Decker agrees: “When a writer chooses to use a pronoun
anyway, there is a certain degree of attention drawn to the subject of the statement” (66). This
happens often whenever the nominative 1st or 2nd person pronouns are used (Ibid., 65). Here,
therefore, Jesus is zeroing in on the remaining eleven disciples are the focus of attention. It is
worth noting that Greek 2p pronouns do not have gender. So, this does allow, at least
grammatically, for women to be present in the audience to whom Jesus is addressing at v.3.
However, grammatical arguments only carry so much weight (and here not much), as context is
always the determinative factor. Due to the explicit context of the entire upper room discourse
(chps.13–17) being masculine, as seen by the male spokesmen throughout, it is most probable
that Jesus is addressing only the 11 male disciples here. Moreover, Jesus does explicitly use
masculine genders at v.5 when finally wrapping up the point of His illustration.
καθαροί (clean). Strong # 2513, 27x. Adjective, Nominative Masculine Plural. This anarthrous
adjective is functioning substantively and as the predicate of the clause. Its use here is taking the
place of a noun or substantive in the given phrase (cf. Köstenberger, 169; Wallace, 294). This
28
adjective is derived from the noun καθαρός which means to be pure and untainted by any
admixture (cf. BDAG, 3814). While the word can certainly have a physical meaning (Heb
10:22), here at v.3 it is conveying an ethical sense (cf. Thayer, 2649)—Jesus is saying the
disciples are free from any false mixture, and are pure and clean by way of His spoken word.
This brings added insight to Jesus’ using this same adjective during the foot washing scene in
13:10-11. Rather than the mere water being the cleansing instrument, ultimately, it was and is
Jesus’ words all along. Thus, the mystery of that physical illustration is now given its true
meaning: Jesus cleanses us from sin through His holy Word. It is noteworthy that Judas is not
among the group being described here as “clean.” Tragically, he had already departed into a
night as dark as his own heart (13:30).
ἐστε (are). Strong# 1510, 2479x. Verb, Present Active Indicative 2nd Person Plural. The present
tense of this verb, used in conjunction with the adverb ἤδη, further suggests that the disciples
were already and presently at the moment καθαροί (contra. Robertson, WPNT, 258). See above
comments for more on this repeated state of being verb.
διά (because of). Strong #1223, 669x. Proper Preposition, Accusative. Robertson notes that our
English gloss “through” (as in “passing through in between”) is not the original meaning of διὰ
though that is its predominate use in the genitive.10 While its origin may be debated, Murray
Harris notes, “διά moved beyond the categories of space and time to express the idea of
‘intervention,’ the idea of any cause, whether direct or indirect, primary or secondary, that comes
between the beginning and end of an action” (71). While L-N suggests no less than ten NT uses
διά,11 it makes the most grammatical-historical sense to understand the preposition at v.3, in the
accusative case and thus conveying the causal idea of “because of,” “for the sake of,” “on
account of” (cf. Robertson, 583). Thus Jesus is making plain the instrument that has caused the
disciples to be clean: His Word. The disciples were already clean due to years of faithfully
receiving Jesus’ discourses, commands, and instructions.
τόv (the). Strong #3588, 20012x. For all further articles found in the pericope at hand, please
refer to comments made earlier.
λόγον (word, discourse, body of truth). Strong# 3056, 331x. Noun, Accusative Masculine
Singular. This noun can take on a variety of nuances in the NT. It can refer to a noteworthy oral
utterance (Luke 24:19), a singular statement (Mark 15:12), a matter (Acts 8:21), an entire body
of truth (John 5:24), or even the personification of the invisible God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14)
(cf. BDAG for more options). Here at v.3, Jesus uses τόv λόγον as a chief utterance
encapsulating an entire body of truth “Since this ‘divine word’ is brought to humanity through
Christ, his word can be used in the same sense” (BDAG, 4605). It being singular suggests Jesus
was referring to His entire discourse that begun in chapter 13, or even perhaps including His
teaching since the beginning of His ministry (cf. Jesus’ use of ῥήματά in v.7). Either way, here
10
And sometimes in the accusative—as far back as Homer, and also used by Luke NT (Luke 4:30 and
17:11), cf. Robertson, 583. The origin of διά is virtually unknown and has no clear Indo-European etymon (cf.
Harris, 68).
11
The 10 are: (1) by (agent); (2) by (instrument); (3) through (means); (4) on behalf of (benefaction); (5)
because of (reason participant); (6) on account (of reason); (7) through (extension); (8) along (extension); (9) during
(time); and (10) throughout (time), cf. L–N, 1530.
29
the causing agent of the disciples’ cleansing is unambiguously identified as Jesus’ Word. While
the physical water during the foot washing scene dramatically displayed Jesus’ cleansing of
them, at v.3 we are to understand it was a symbol of the cleaning words of Christ. Thus these two
chapters (13 and 15) are connected in a most striking fashion, linked together by the concept of
cleansing now clarified.
ὃν (which, what, who, that). Strong# 3739, 1411x. Relative Pronoun, Accusative Masculine
Singular. Relative pronouns, according to Wallace, are “‘hinge’ words in that they both refer
back to an antecedent in the previous clause and also function in some capacity in their own
clause” (335). The antecedent to this relative pronoun is τὸν λόγον, as Jesus is further explaining it
was the word that He had already spoken to the disciples that had cleansed them.
λελάληκα (I have spoken). Strong# 2980, 2970x. Verb, Perfect Active Indicative 1st Person
Singular. The perfect tense form appears 836x in the NT, and had traditionally been understood
as conveying a past action with the continual results being emphasized. As such, it distinguishes
itself from the simple aorist. There are however linguistic scholars who prefer to understand the
perfect by its verbal aspect. For example, Constantine Campbell regards the perfect as
imperfective in aspect meaning the author who uses the perfect is bringing a past action in to a
finished state while allowing a new state of open potentiality (cf. Campbell, 117-18).
Köstenberger, while likewise viewing the Greek verbal system as aspect dominate, prefers to
label the perfect verb as stative in aspect explaining that an author using the perfect is intending
to focus on the state of being that results from a previous action, and thus sees it as a
“combination of the perfective and imperfective aspects” (Köstenberger, et al. 297). If the
choice had to be made, this student leans more toward Kostenberger’s take on the perfect’s
combinational aspect. However, it makes little difference when compared to the traditional tense
view of the perfect. Whether viewing the perfect as aspect or tense, the point is the same: there
was a past action that is now complete, with results continuing into the present and possibly
future. Thus, at v.3, by Jesus using the perfect of λαλέω (I speak), He is conveying that the 11
disciples present with Him are cleansed by the previous words He spoke to them—either
beginning in the Upper room (John 13), or from the beginning of His public ministry and these
words are continuing to have their cleansing effect.
ὑμῖν (to you). Strong# 4771, 2926x Personal Pronoun, Dative Plural. This personal pronoun is
identified as dative of indirect object (cf. Wallace, 140). The disciples have received the
cleansing words Jesus spoke to them. The plural further supports that Jesus was addressing the
entire group present with Him. Not one disciple was above the other. Each of them is an equal
beneficiary of Jesus’ cleansing words.
30
While the concept of “cleansing” or pruning (καθαίρω) had just been applied by Jesus
to fruitless branches in v.2, it was one that was initiated earlier in the Upper Room in 13:10. There,
by the washing His disciples’ feet in John 13, Jesus powerfully illustrates in tangible form what he
identifies here in 15:3—it is the words of Christ that form the cleansing and pruning tool, not mere
water. The entire group, except Judas, is addressed as Jesus makes it plain they were already
cleansed by His words, the past tense with continuing results being brought out by the
perfective/stative aspect of λελάληκα.
31
BGT
John 15:4 μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται
καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως
οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε.
WL
John 15:4 Remain in to me, and I in to you. Just as the branch not is
able fruit to bear from itself if not he remains in the vine,
thus neither you if not in to me you all remain.
CM
John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. Just as the branch cannot bear
fruit from itself if not in the vine, so neither can you if you
are not abiding in Me.

Verse four introduces the reader to the only imperative in the pericope at hand, and does
so using a verb reserved strictly for believers. Thus it is here at v.4 that the exegetical problem
introduced earlier is concluded. Moreover, Jesus furthers His viticulture illustration and applies it
to basic discipleship: the true believer in Jesus is to remain in Him just as a branch remains in the
vine—and produces fruit. However, this verse states the premise in the negative using a fruitless
branch as the example: a branch not abiding in the vine cannot produce fruit. Judas’s absence is
felt in this verse, as he is the premiere example of the fruitless branch. This verse also subtlety
illustrates the intimate relationship the Jewish disciples have with the ultimate Israel, Jesus, as a
new age is dawning.
μείνατε (abide, remain). Strong# 3306, 118x . Verb, Aorist Imperative Active 2nd Person Plural.
This is the only command in John 15:1–5. The aorist is functioning in a constative sense
(Robertson, WPNT, 258) as the “abiding” relationship between branch and vine—disciple and
Jesus—is pictured in its entirety as a whole. As Robertson observes, “The only way to continue
‘clean’ (pruned) and to bear fruit is to maintain a vital spiritual connexion [sic] with Christ (the
vine)” (Ibid). Wallace categorizes this aorist imperative as a “solemn or categorical command”
and adds: “the stress is on the solemnity and urgency of the action” (720). This type of aorist
imperative often used to command an action that has already been occurring, such as here with
the 11 disciples following their Master for several years now. Harris adds the imperatival sense
of this verb suggests “the responsibility for preserving this intimate fellowship is clearly…to rest
on the believer” (135). It is the verb to “abide” at v.4 which solves the exegetical problem earlier.
32
Exegetical Problem Concluded at V.4
It is noteworthy that Jesus reserves the particular verb μένω in John 15 to

describe only those who are truly His. This helps clear up any ambiguity
caused at v.2 by the prepositional phrase “in Me” when Jesus described a
fruitless branch. Here, Jesus is saying genuine disciples must remain united
in Him, and He will remain united to them—by way of a verb used only in
connection with true disciples (cf. vv. 4, 9).
ἐν (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments regarding this
repeated preposition. What can be added here is that Jesus is obviously using this preposition in a
metaphorical sense. Regarding the metaphorical sense of ἐν, Robertson observes that this is a
frequent use, “where a single case is selected as a specimen or striking illustration” (587). This is
precisely what Jesus is doing at v.4 picturing true disciples as those that remain “in” Him.12
ἐμοὶ (me). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal [intensive] Pronoun, Dative 1st Person Singular. See
earlier comments regarding this repeated pronoun.13
κἀγώ (and I). Strong# 2504, 84x Conjunction and Personal Pronoun, Nominative Singular. A
crasis (combination) of the coordinating conjunction καί and pronoun ἐγώ, κἀγώ can function as
both. The crasis form of κἀγώ is a personal affirmation adding to, or confirming, a previous
statement (cf. Decker, 244). In the present case, Jesus is adding His own personal affirmation to
His command for the the disciples to abide / remain in Him.
ἐν (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments regarding this
repeated preposition. What is worth adding here, however, is Murray Harris’s take on Jesus’ use
of ἐν at vv.4–5. He classifies the preposition under “sphere of influence” and states the
prepositional phrase “in Christ,” is equivalent to the adjective “Christian” (Χριστιανός). Harris
goes on to say, “The notion of direct relation between two individuals is to the fore; reciprocity
of fellowship between believer and Christ is implied. It is the risen and exalted Christ…that
indwells the believer (through the Spirit). Only in Johannine thought do we find the idea of
personal co-inherence” (125).
12
Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology, 134–36, devotes substantial space to John’s use of ἐν when
used with the intransitive μένειν, describing it as “theologically significant.” According to Harris, John specifically
has in mind “ideas of continuance, permanency, and adherence,” heavily implying an intimate relationship—“a
reciprocal immanence between two parties (‘remain united to’).”
13
Yet, this student cannot resist the temptation to make one further comment regarding Jesus’ statement to
abide or remain “in Him.” Noted theologian, Tim Lahaye, had a personal 1901 ASV Bible that he used throughout
his ministry. This very Bible, stamped with blue ink “Rev. Tim F. Lahaye” on the front page, was kept in his home
office in Alpine, and came into this student’s personal possession after he died in July 2016. The Bible is chock full
of Dr. Lahaye’s hand written notes in the margins, blank pages, etc. from Genesis to Revelation—long before his
“Left Behind” fame. In John 15:1–5, the passage to which this exegesis is devoted, Lahaye has one hand written
and underlined note in blue ink at v.2’s prepositional phrase concerning the disciples to abide in Jesus, which is
repeated here at v.4. Dr. Lahaye’s note simply reads: “Best definition of salv[ation] there is.”
33
ὑμῖν (to you). Strong# 4771, 2926x. Personal Pronoun, Dative Plural. See earlier comments
regarding this repeated pronoun.
καθὼς (just as). Strong# 2531, 183x. Subordinating Conjunction. While this compound word is
technically a subordinating conjunction (as it is used here, cf. diagram), it can also function
adverbially. This is due to it being derived from κατά (according to) and the adverb ὡς (like, as).
Thus BDAG defines its use a “comparison, just as” (3843; cf. Köstenberger, et al., 414). Hence,
Jesus is here at v.4 making a comparison between the fruitless branch and the fruitless disciple.
τόv (the). Strong #3588, 20012x. Article, Nominative Neuter Singular. See earlier comments
regarding this repeated article.
κλῆμα (branch) Strong# 2814, 4x. Noun, Accusative, Neuter Singular. See earlier comments
regarding this repeated noun.
οὐ (no, not). Strong# 3756, 1634x. Adverb, Negative. This negative particle, commonly
reserved for the indicative mood (cf. Köstenberger, et al., 420), is modifying the following verb
δύναται. By its usage in v.4, Jesus is saying a branch can do nothing from its own strength.
Rather, it derives all its nutrients and life-sustaining qualities from abiding in the vine. Thus,
Jesus is continuing the comparison between viticulture and discipleship that began with the
καθὼς clause.
δύναται (you are able, accomplish). Strong# 1410, 210x. Verb, Present Middle Indicative 3rd
Person Singular. L-N classifies this verb under their “Able / Capable” semantic domain with 28
different nuances. Yet, they broadly define it as “to be able to do or to experience something”
(1777, 74.5). That is the plain meaning of the verb as Jesus intended here at v.4. No branch on its
own can accomplish nor experience bearing fruit; it is entirely dependent on the vine. The
comparison is true of a Christian’s relationship with Jesus. In the opinion of this student, the
middle voice, far from making this verb “deponent,” actually helps underscore the focus on the
clause’s subject, τόv κλῆμα (the branch), as it carries a subject-intensive focus of the verb δύναται.
In other words the middle voice dramatically brings out the truth that a branch (i.e., a disciple)
of himself and by himself cannot bear a single fruit.
καρπὸν (fruit). Strong# 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. BDAG defines its
usage at v.4 as a “product or outcome of something” (3930). The product being conveyed, by
this word, while not explicit in the text, yet the context makes clear, is certainly good fruit. This
in contrast to bad fruit spoken of elsewhere (cf. Matt 7:15–20). A branch producing good fruit is
certainly the case for the viticulture illustration Jesus is using. His point is not to remain in the
physical realm. Rather, it is to drive this truth home in a spiritual sense concerning discipleship.
In its spiritual usage, καρπὸν is a collective singular noun here as well as at Galatians 5:22, the
premier text outlining ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός (the fruit of the Spirit). Thus, good character traits
and good works is the spiritual/metaphorical meaning of καρπὸν that Jesus intends here. It is
noteworthy that the magisterial London Baptist Confession of 1689, the use of this noun in v.4 is
cited in their section on “Good Works.” Speaking of believers—true disciples of Christ—the
confession clarifies: “Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from
the Spirit of Christ” (LBC 16.2).
34
φέρειν (to bear). Strong# 5342, 66x. Verbal, Present Active Infinitive. While the most common
meaning of the verb φέρω is that of transport viz., to bear or carry from one place or another,
BDAG also lists another meaning as “to produce” or “bring forth” (7709). This is the sense of
the infinitive here at v.4. Jesus is furthering the comparison that as a branch of itself has no fruit
to bear, to produce, to bring forth fruit, neither can a disciple not abiding in Him.
ἀφ᾽ (from). Strong# 575, 650x. Proper Preposition, Genitive. Elided form of ἀπό due to the
vowel and rough breathing mark in the following word. This genitive preposition most generally
functions in an ablative sense signifying separation (away from), and ranks seventh in NT uses
and fourth in the LXX (Harris, 57). BDAG defines its usage here as “to indicate responsible
agents for something” (888; cf. L-N. 90.7). As it takes the following reflexive ἑαυτοῦ (itself) as
its object, Jesus is clearly stating a branch, or a person claiming to follow Christ, can do
absolutely nothing by itself apart from the vine.
ἑαυτοῦ (itself). Strong# 1438, 321x. Reflexive Pronoun, Genitive Neuter 3rd Person Singular. A
primary pronoun of αὐτό, the reflexive form is used in the third person to denote that the agent
and the person acted on are the same (Thayer, 1520). Thus Jesus continues to emphasize that a
branch (representing a disciple) cannot accomplish anything of merit on its own. This is
especially brought to the fore in v.5. NET Notes provides a helpful explanation here: “As far as
the disciples were concerned, they would produce no fruit from themselves if they did not remain
in their relationship to Jesus, because the eternal life which a disciple must possess in order to
bear fruit originates with Jesus; he is the source of all life and productivity for the disciple.”
ἐὰν (if). Strong# 1437, 337x. Conditional Particle and Subordinating Conjunction. This is a
third class condition particle used to describe something that will most probably take place
contingent on the subject being fulfilled. It is clear from Jesus here at v.4 that only when a
branch remains, abides, and is united to the vine does it have any chance of producing fruit.
Indeed, a striking illustration of true Christianity.
μὴ (not). Strong# 3361, 1061x. Negative Particle. Unlike οὐ used earlier, μὴ is generally
reserved for moods outside the indicative as it is here. BDAG clarifies, “For the Koine of the NT
the usage is simplified to such a degree that οὐ is generally the negative used with the indicative,
and μή is used with the other moods” (4884). By Jesus using this particle of negation in the
subjunctive clause, He is furthering His point that a branch cannot produce any fruit unless it
abides in the vine. A better lesson for Christian discipleship does not exist.
μένῃ (abides). Strong# 3306, 118x. Verb, Present Active Subjunctive 3rd Person Singular. The
present tense of this verb suggests a continual abiding: “Keep on abiding.” Robertson adds,
“Same condition and tense in the application, ‘except ye abide in me.’” For more, see earlier
comments regarding this repeated verb.
ἐν (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments concerning this
repeated preposition.
35
τῇ (the). Strong# 3588, 20012x. Article, Dative Feminine Singular. See earlier comments
concerning this repeated article.
ἀμπέλῳ (vine). Strong# 288, 9x. Noun, Dative Feminine Singular. In each of the nine times this
noun is used in the NT (1x, Matt; 1x Mark; 1x, Luke; 3x, John; 1x, James; 2x, Revelation), it is
meant to picture specifically a grape vine. Again, Jesus is drawing comparisons between Him
and a life-sustaining vine. For more on this noun, see comments above at the beginning of v.1.
οὕτως (thus, in this manner). Strong# 3779, 209x. Adverb. While the repeated verb δύναται is
absent in the clause, it is implied in the context as this adverb modifies its elliptical presence (cf.
diagram). This adverbial particle explicitly marks the comparison that Jesus has been making
between the branch–vine / disciple–Lord analogy. It is thus functioning as an adverb of manner,
as it is answering the question of “how?” or “In what way?” (cf. Köstenberger et al., 418). Thus
Jesus is saying in the same manner as a branch, a disciple can bear no fruit on his own.
οὐδὲ (neither). Strong # 3761, 144x. Conjunction and/or Adverb. A combination of both οὐ and
δέ this conjunction (functioning adverbially) is an emphatic negation (cf. BDAG, 5423).
Moreover, Liddell-Scott likens it to another popular NT negation with combined particles, μηδέ
(31526). While this conjunction can be translated “and not,” “not even” or “neither,” it is best to
view Jesus’ use of it here at v.4 in the adverbial sense “nor” as this compliments best the adverb
οὕτως and the comparison He is making between viticulture and discipleship.
ὑμεῖς (you[all]). Strong# 4771, 2929x. Personal Pronoun, Nominative 2nd Person Plural. See
comments for more concerning this pronoun.
ἐὰν (if). Strong# 1437, 337x. Conditional Particle and Subordinating Conjunction. See earlier
comments for more concerning this repeated third class condition particle.
μὴ (not). Strong# 3361, 1061x. Negative Particle. See earlier comments for more concerning
this repeated negative particle.
ἐν (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments for more
concerning this repeated preposition.
ἐμοὶ (me). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun Dative 1st Person Singular. See earlier
comments for more concerning this repeated intensive pronoun.
μένῃ (abides). Strong# 3306, 118x. Verb, Present Active Subjunctive 2nd Person Plural. See
earlier comments for more concerning this repeated verb.

Verse four introduced the reader to the only imperative in vv. 1-5: abide in the vine. Jesus’
use of this concept for believers only throughout the illustration helps clarify the distinction
between those who are truly in Him, and those who are not. Moreover, it helped solve the
exegetical problem introduced in v.2. Here at v.4, Jesus furthered His viticulture illustration and
36
applied it to basic discipleship. This He did by way of negative particles showing that a branch not
abiding in the vine cannot produce fruit. Judas, the fruitless branch par excellence, is the looming
example of Jesus’ negative illustration. Yet, the positive converse is likewise true in regards to
discipleship: the true believer abiding in Jesus, just as a branch abiding in the vine, produces fruit.
Furthering Jesus “I Am” statement in v.1, the verse also subtlety illustrates the intimate
relationship the Jewish disciples have with the ultimate Israel, Jesus, as a new age is dawning.
37
BGT
John 15:5 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ
κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ
οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.
WL
John 15:5 I am the vine, you the branches. The one remaining in to
me and I in to him this he bears fruit many, because
apart from me you not you able to do nothing.
CM
John 15:5 I Am the Vine, you (are) the branches. The one abiding
in Me and I in him, this one bears much fruit because
apart from Me, you can do nothing.

The final verse in the treatment of this exegesis brings us full circle to Jesus ἐγώ εἰμι
declaration v.1. The biggest difference in v.5 is the disciples are finally, positively identified as the
branches. Jesus also makes plain here what He has been illustrating in the previous three verses,
that only disciples who are abiding in Him, and He in them, are able to consistently produce fruit.
He takes it even further to point out that without an intimate uniting relationship between Him
and them, they can produce absolutely nothing of spiritual value. Note: as v.5 is in parallel with
v.1, and thus repeats many of the same words and concepts, much of the following exegesis will
direct the reader back to that initiating verse.
Eγώ (I). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun, Nominative 1st Person Singular. See v.1 for
more concerning this repeated pronoun. Here it is worth mentioning that Jesus comes full circle
to v.1 emphasizing the importance of this particular Ἐγώ Eἰμι declaration. Thus a notable
inclusion is formed. This seventh ἐγὼ εἰμι, and His fourth one at 10:7, 9 (“I am the door”), are
the only two of Jesus’ seven predicated ἐγὼ εἰμι statements to be repeated within the same
pericope.
Eἰμι (Am). Strong# 1510, 2479x: Finite Equative Verb, Present Active Indicative 1st Person
Singular. See v.1 for more concerning this repeated verb.
ἡ (the). Strong #3588, 20012x: Article, Nominative feminine singular. See v.1 for more
concerning this repeated article.
ἄμπελος ([grape] vine). Strong #288, 9x: Noun, [Predicate] Nominative Feminine Singular. See
v.1 for more concerning this repeated noun. L-N add a noteworthy comment relevant for
translating this word properly: “A rendering of ἄμπελος as 'vine' rather than as 'grapevine' in Jn
15.1 may cause serious misunderstanding, since it might refer merely to a vine which does not
produce fruit. Accordingly, if there is no particular expression for 'grapevine,' it may be more
satisfactory in Jn 15.1 to speak of 'fruit bush' or 'fruit plant’” (3.27)
38
ὑμεῖς (you[all]). Strong# 4771, 2929x. Personal Pronoun, Nominative 2nd Person Plural. This
clause is acting as an asyndeton as there is no coordinating conjunction separating ἡ ἄμπελος
from ὑμεῖς. See v.3 for more concerning this repeated pronoun.
τά (the). Strong #3588, 20012x. Article, Nominative Neuter Singular. See earlier comments for
this repeated article.
κλήματα (branches). Strong# 2814, 4x. Noun, Accusative, Neuter Plural. See earlier comments
concerning this repeated noun. The only difference in the branch imagery here than at vv. 2, 4 is
that this time it is in the plural. Thus Jesus is identifying the entire group together as the
branches. The disciples being the branches, while Jesus is the true Vine, shows a remarkable
intimate relationship, though one that is still distinct. That is, while these two characters are
related and close, they still retain their distinctiveness nonetheless—Jesus is clear that He is ἡ
ἄμπελος while the Jewish disciples are τὰ κλήματα, not the other way around. And being this
passages is sandwiched in between the promised coming of the Holy Spirit (chps. 14 and 16),
and with Him, the Church age (cf, Acts 2), this verse has far reaching implications concerning
ecclesiology and Israelology. This very thing is something to picked up again in this paper’s
exegetical/theological problem.
ὁ μένων (the one abiding). Strong# 3306, 118x. Verbal, Articular Present Active Participle
Nominative Masculine Singular. While comments at v.4 concern the verb, μένω, a few things
can be added here concerning the present substantive participle. With this articular participle
functioning substantively, it initiates a “suspended sentence” since it virtually gets left behind
and the sentence is completed by another away (cf. Robertson, 436–37). Much like an
aposiopesis, there is a sudden break that seems will not be completed; however, it later is
completed by the following οὗτος clause whose object is καρπὸν (cf. diagram). As such, this
makes the sentence an anacoluthon, not aposiopesis, due to the unexpected discontinuity that is
later completed. Additionally, as is the case with many anacoluthon, the participle here at v.5 is
in oratio variata as there is a lack any parallel participles in the following sub-clause κἀγὼ ἐν
αὐτω where one would be expected (cf. Ibid., 442). With all this grammar in mind, at v.5, Jesus is
quickly disrupting His thought-flow to identify a true disciple as one who is currently and always
abiding in Him.
ἐν (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments for this repeated
preposition.
ἐμοί (me, myself). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun Dative 1st Person Singular. This
propositional phrase is paralleled with the following ἐν αὐτῷ. See earlier comments for more
concerning this repeated and emphasized pronoun.
κἀγώ (and I). Strong# 2504, 84x Conjunction and Personal Pronoun Nominative Singular. See
earlier comments for this repeated crasis.
ἐν (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments for this repeated
preposition.
39
αὐτῷ (him, himself). Strong# 846, 5606x. Personal Pronoun, Dative Masculine 3rd Person
Singular. This, like the parallel ἐμοί above, is an intensive self-emphatic pronoun (Thayer, 878;
cf. Dana and Mantey, 129). Its predicate use, word position of being last in the sub-clause, as
well as immediately preceding the demonstrative οὗτος all suggests the emphatic prominence
being dropped on to this pronoun. Jesus is here emphasizing that only a branch in reciprocal
relation with its vine can produce any fruit. So it is with any so-called disciple of Jesus.
οὗτος (this, he). Strong# 3778, 1395x. Demonstrative Pronoun, Nominative Masculine Singular.
The demonstrative pronoun was the original article in classical Greek, but became a particle of
emphasis in the Koine. As mentioned above it is this sub-clause, marked by οὗτος, that
completes this aposiopesis sentence. Emphasis is placed on this pronoun as the following verb
already has the (third) person imbedded in it. It is as if Jesus is saying this one is the one who
bears much fruit. The masculine form of its usage here in v.5 suggests that Jesus is emphasizing
the Christian disciple (not an inanimate branch), who is thriving in his reciprocal relationship
with Him, will be a multiple fruit-producer.
φέρει (he bears). Strong# 5342, 66x. Verb, Present Active Indicative 3rd Person Singular. The
present tense suggests the disciple who is abiding in Jesus will continually bear fruit. While the
time of fruit bearing is not suggested by the verb tense, its imperfective aspect views the action
up close and personal from the inside As such, it suggests an unfolding of the fruit bearing, an
action that is viewed as already in progress without a specific time marker (cf. Campbell, 107).
For more on this repeated verb, see earlier comments.
καρπὸν (fruit). Strong# 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. See earlier comments
for this repeated noun. NET Notes adds a pertinent, relevant remark concerning καρπός in
Johannine literature: “One must remember that for John, to have life at all is to bear fruit, while
one who does not bear fruit shows that he does not have the life.”
πολύν (much). Strong #4183, 361x. Adjective, Accusative Masculine Singular. BDAG defines
this adjective as pertaining to being a large number, as in “many, a great number of” (6061). This
positive (non-degree) adjective modifies the preceding noun καρπὸν and carries the idea (and can
be translated) as “many,” “numerous” (Ibid.). Moreover, as this adjective is anarthrous, context
determines its modifying function, which here at v.5 appears to be attributive. That is, it is
ascribing a quality about the noun καρπὸν viz., he bears much fruit. Here at v.5 Jesus is stating
the disciple who is thriving in his relationship with Him will not only produce good fruit, but will
produce many, much, numerous good fruit.
ὅτι (because, since, for). Strong #3754, 1309x. Subordinating Conjunction. This subordinating
conjunction is only used to govern the indicative mood. As this conjunction is amplifying the
verbal idea, it is adverbial in mode and functioning in a causal manner. Thus is can be translated
because or since (Wallace, 674). Thayer observes that ὅτι gives “the reason why anything is said
to be or to be done, because, since, for that, for….It is added to a speaker's words to show what
ground he gives for his opinion” (3869). As Jesus is using the conjunction as part of His direct
discourse to the disciples, it is practically equivalent to the English quotation marks when used
for emphasis (cf. Dana and Mantey, 252). Thus, it can legitimately be translated: … he it is that
bears much fruit, “for apart from me you can do nothing.” A continual abiding in Christ is the
only cause for the production of anything God-honoring.
40
χωρὶς (apart from, seperated). Strong #5565, 41x. [Improper] Genitive Preposition. Since it is
used with a genitive of person here at v.5, BDAG, defines χωρὶς as “separated from someone, far
from someone, without someone” (8013; cf., Harris, 250–251; Friberg, 28873). Köstenberger, et
al. classifies χωρὶς as an improper preposition, as does Harris, and suggests that these types of
prepositions can sometimes function as adverbs (409–10).14 Originally derived from the noun
χώρα, meaning “a space lying between two places or limits,” this preposition at v.5 is used in the
sense, “without connection and fellowship with one” (Thayer, 5770). (cf, John 11:54; 20:7).
Thus Jesus is again making it clear that no so-called disciple can ever produce a good work apart
from Him. The absolute sovereignty and grace of God in Christ is striking throughout Jesus’
illustration in these verses (cf. Eph 2:8-10). This is most pointedly brought out in v.5 by Jesus’
use of this prepositional phrase—as nothing good in a believer’s life is possible apart from Jesus
redeeming and sustaining grace.15
ἐμοῦ (me). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun, Genitive 1st Person Singular. See earlier
comments for more regarding this personal pronoun. As with most personal pronouns, it is being
used here to emphasize the person (BDAG, 2009). Jesus’ use of this genitive personal pronoun
completes the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἐμοῦ. Again, man is totally without chance to affect any
good apart from Jesus’ sovereign grace.16
οὐ (no, not). Strong# 3756, 1634x. Adverb, Negative. See earlier comments concerning this
repeated negative particle, as well as what it stated below at οὐδέν.
δύνασθε (you are able). Strong# 1410, 210x. Verb, Present Middle Indicative 2nd Person Plural.
See earlier comments made concerning this repeated verb as well as its middle (subject-
intensive) voice.
ποιεῖν (to do). Strong# 4160, 572x. Verbal, Present Active Infinitive. As a verbal noun, this
infinitive is functioning substantively for the ending of the clause (cf. diagram).17 Its usage here
14
Yet, Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology, 250–51 states: “Only one of the 41 NT uses of χωρὶς
is adverbial (‘apart’ in John 20:7) and all are prepositive except for οὗ χωρὶς, without which’ [= holiness],’ in Heb
12:14.
15
A point strikingly brought out in The Westminster Confession of Faith 9.4: “When God converts a sinner,
and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone,
enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good” (cf. op. cit. “Good Works,” 16.2, 3).
16
Interestingly, there is much solidarity on this point between WCF and The Five Arminian Articles of
1610. Using John 15:5 as a reference, in Article III of the FAA states: “That man has not saving grace of himself,
nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither
think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be
born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his
powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of
Christ, John 15:5: 'Without me ye can do nothing.'”
17
According to Köstenberger, et al., 359, n.5: “Most grammarians agree that the infinitive has its origin in
the locative or dative case of a noun [emphasis added]. This consensus is affirmed, in part, by the article often
associated with the infinitive.” This student cannot resist an aside comment that Köstenberger, et al. (like most
modern grammars) promote a five-case declension system while decrying the antiquated eight-case system. Yet,
41
helps complete Jesus’ main verbal idea that the disciples, without Him, are unable (οὐ δύνασθε)
to produce or manufacture any good fruit (cf. BDAG, 6015).
οὐδέν. Strong #3762, 234x. Indefinite Pronoun, Accusative Neuter Singular (cf. Bible Hub
which classifies it as an adjective as does BDAG). A combination of οὐ and εἷς this pronoun or
adjective means “not one, no one.” BDAG glosses it as “in no respect, in no way” (5424). Used
together with the above negative particle, the double negative οὐ…οὐδέν is an “intensifying
compound negative” (Robertson, 1164–65). Originally, the compound οὐδέν was merely οὐ and δέ
(“but not”), an ancient form found often in Homer’s writings (cf. Robertson, 1164). If understood
as indefinite, this would suggest that Jesus is emphasizing, not only the lack of fruit for those not
abiding in Him, but also its time-duration as indefinitely as in never. A sober promise from the
Lord Himself that only things produced out of faith in Him is rightly esteemed; everything else is
of man (cf. Luke 16:15). Thus it is as a pronoun that οὐδέν makes the most sense in the
immediate context.

As mentioned in this final verse’s introduction, v.5 brings the reader full circle to Jesus ἐγώ
εἰμι declaration v.1. Here, the big difference is seen in that the disciples are finally, positively
identified as the branches. Thus a distinct yet intimate relationship is illustrated. Jesus also made
it plain here what He has been illustrating in the previous three verses, that only disciples who are
abiding in Him, and He in them, are able to consistently produce fruit. Jesus took it even further
to point out that without an abiding relationship between Him and His disciples, the best the
latter can produce is still absolutely nothing of spiritual value. Thus this verse, like the preceding
four, provides a sticking teaching lesson in the doctrines of grace and sovereignty as any good
thing that man can ever produce originates in God and are distributed at His will (Eph 2:10; Col
1:16; James 1:17).
some inconsistency is detected in Benjamin Merkle’s comment here as he himself seems to acknowledge two
separate cases that are always lumped together by five-case advocates (cf. op. cit. 51–52). To be fair, Merkle does
not distinguish Greek from Sanskrit in his comment here (the latter everyone concedes was an eight-case system and
parent to Greek). However, with his following comment about the article, and the overall context of his chapter, it is
reasonable to infer he is indeed speaking of the origin of the Greek infinitive. Perhaps, as remarks such as these are
often made in modern Greek grammars, the traditional (“antiquated”) eight case system is not so unreasonable to
hold. Differences between the two systems are mainly arbitrary, one of form or function—whichever one the
grammarian decides to presuppose as their starting point (cf. Wallace, 32–35 for a helpful assessment of both
systems).
42
CONCLUSION OF EXEGESIS
Overall Summary
Much has been discussed above. Lest the paper suffer from a too-narrow focus on the leaves
of the passage, the forest needs to be reassessed. Therefore it is helpful to recall what has been
demonstrated throughout the exegesis here, with a more detailed recap given below. It will be
remembered the historical setting of the John 15:1–5 is set in the Upper Room discourse begun in
chapter 13. This is Jesus’ last private time with His disciples before He is betrayed and arrested. This
section carries the reader up until chapter 17. To reiterate, John structures His book around Jesus’
seven grand miracles, and seven grand Ἐγώ Eἰμι statements. These are meant to lead to and/or
strengthen the faith of John’s readers (20:31).
The exegesis above centers on Jesus’ final predicated “I Am” declaration in chapter 15. This
chapter (and final ἐγώ εἰμι) is set directly in the middle of Jesus’ final and private discourse to His
disciples. Specifically, it is set directly in between Jesus’ prophecies concerning the coming of the
Holy Spirit (14, 16), Who would usher in a new dispensation by birthing the Church. By Jesus
declaring that He is ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινη (the true vine), and that His disciples are τὰ κλήματα (the
branches) here in chapter 15, He is intending to convey that He is everything national Israel was
meant to be, and that they, as products of Israel, are to abide joyfully in Him. Thus neither the
Church nor any other candidate has the right to take what was always reserved for national Israel, yet
is still distinctly related to her. Moreover, only by way of intimate faith in Jesus is any disciple able to
produce fruit, and is promised to φέρει καρπὸν πολύν (bear much fruit). To this, it is noteworthy that
Jesus reserves the verb μένω for use only in connection with true disciples—not those merely
professing to be “in Him.” All of this taken together is intended to help illicit faith in Jesus Christ, the
Son of God and eternal Israel, and obtain eternal life in His Name.
Detailed Verse Recap

Verse one of chapter 15 commenced this project with Jesus’ final predicated Ἐγώ Eἰμι
declaration in John’s Gospel. In contrast to the other six, the uniqueness of this particular “I
Am” statement was seen in two specific ways: first, Jesus’ claim of deity here used a prominent
biblical symbol depicting national Israel, ἄμπελος (vine); and second, it is also the only one of His
seven declarations where Jesus included His Father in the same sentence.
Additionally in v.1, Jesus emphatically declares that He is “the true vine” while His Father
is the “land-worker.” With that, there is a gentle allusion to His submission to the Father’s
cultivation of His earthly redemptive work. Furthermore, Jesus is seen in this verse as the genuine
and faithful Israel in stark contrast to the earthly one that had failed (cf. Psalm 80; Isa 5). Yet,
national Israel is not finished. It is to be recalled in this verse that Jesus—the Jewish Messiah from
Israel— is the true Israel, not the Church or any other candidate.
With Jesus’ bold declaration of deity stated in v.1 along with His changing relationship
with Israel introduced as the true Vine, in v2. Here, Jesus alludes to the disciples as His branches
and used the concept of “abiding” as a way to distinguish true from false disciples. While He does
not positively identify the disciples as branches until v.5, the viticulture imagery begun in earlier
deepens as the act of “pruning” and “fruit bearing” is established in metaphor corresponding to
true and false disciples. Judas, it is to be remembered, has gone out into the night in 13:30, yet his
43
dark presence is still felt as he represents the dead-branch of which Jesus illustrates whom God
has taken away from the faithful branches. However, for those branches that faithfully produce
fruit to the glory of God, He prunes them in order that they may bear even more fruit over their
lifetime, however long that may be.
While the concept of “cleansing” or pruning (καθαίρω) had been applied by Jesus to
fruitless branches in v.2, it was one that was initiated earlier in the Upper Room at 13:10. There,
by the washing His disciples’ feet in John 13, Jesus powerfully illustrates in tangible form what He
identifies at 15:3—it is the words of Christ that form the cleansing and pruning tool, not mere
water. The entire group, except Judas, is addressed as Jesus makes it plain they were already
cleansed by His words, the past tense with continuing results being brought out by the perfective
aspect of λελάληκα.
Verse four introduced the reader to the only imperative in vv. 1-5: abide in the vine. The
verb Jesus’ uses here He reserves for believers only throughout the illustration which helps to
clarify the distinction between those who are truly “in Him,” and those who are not (cf. v.2).
Additionally, Jesus furthered His viticulture illustration and applied it to basic discipleship. This
He did by way of negative particles showing that a branch not abiding in the vine cannot produce
fruit. Judas, the fruitless branch par excellence, is the looming example of Jesus’ negative
illustration. Yet, the positive converse is likewise true in regards to discipleship: the true believer
abiding in Jesus, just as a branch abiding in the vine, produces fruit. Furthering Jesus “I Am”
statement in v.1, the verse also subtlety illustrates the intimate relationship the Jewish disciples
have with the ultimate Israel, Jesus, as a new age is dawning.
In v.5, Jesus brings the reader full circle to His ἐγώ εἰμι declaration at v.1. Here, the big
difference is seen in that the disciples are finally, positively identified as the branches. Thus a
distinct yet intimate relationship is illustrated. Jesus also made it plain here what He has been
illustrating throughout the previous three verses—that only disciples who are abiding in Him, and
He in them, are able to consistently produce fruit. Jesus took it a step further to point out that
without an abiding relationship between Him and His disciples, the best the latter can produce is
still absolutely nothing of spiritual value. Thus this verse, like the preceding four, provides a
striking teaching lesson in the doctrines of grace and sovereignty as any good thing that man can
ever produce originates in God and are distributed at His will.
44
APPLICATION OF JOHN 15:1–5
Introductory Remarks
While a few serious theological considerations are to be inferred from John 15:1–5,
these are taken up elsewhere in this project. Yet, since God’s Word is given to us for our
sanctification (John 17:17) in addition to growing in our knowledge, there are equally serious
practical consequences from the current study to be gained as well. Three of these are briefly
considered here, all of which center on differing aspects of discipleship imbedded in the Jesus’
use of the verb μένω (abide, remain)—a word that Jesus reserves only for His true disciples.
A Mere Profession is Not Discipleship
Jesus hits the reader hard in v. 2 that every branch “in Him” not bearing fruit, God αἴρει
αὐτό (takes it away). For those that believe a mere profession of belief in Christ is all one needs
to be a Christian is confronted by Jesus’ haunting words here.1 As the previous exegesis
remarked several times, Judas is not with the group during this scene, and is most probably the
example being described by Jesus. Throughout Jesus’ ministry, Judas was always “in Him” in
the sense of being a close part of Jesus’ ministry, close enough in fact to be the group’s treasurer
(John 12:6). From the outside, Judas was one branch among all the others devoted to the Vine.
From this, a reasonable inference can be draw that Judas professed to believe in Jesus. However,
as Köstenberger notes, “Judas represents a member of the messianic community who was one
only outwardly and only for a season (13:10–13:11). For this reason, he was eventually cut off
from the vine (15:2–4).”2 Far from abiding in Christ, Judas was in fact exposed as being the
ultimate apostate, one who bore no fruit and whom the Lord indeed took away (cf. 1 John 2:19).
True Disciples Bear Fruit
In stark contrast to mere professors of Jesus (Judas the premier example) is the κλῆμα
(branch) abiding in the vine. Jesus makes and repeats a promise in vv, 2, 3, 5 that the disciple
μένων (abiding) in Him is the one that will produce fruit. The present tense of the participle
suggests a continual, thriving reciprocal relationship with Jesus united by faith. As a result, this
true disciple is promised to bear πλείονα καρπὸν (more fruit), the comparative adjective not being
incidental. As John emphasizes the act of “trust / faith” in its verb form 98x throughout His
Gospel, Köstenberger observes, “Indeed, ‘believing’ is primarily an act of placing one’s faith in
Jesus rather than a static noun set of convictions to be helps.”3Thus, to abide in Jesus is to have
1
The author has in mind those devoted to the extreme “free grace” theology promoted by theologians such
as Zane Hodges, George Meisinger and the like.
2
Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: A Biblical Theology of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 498.
3
Ibid., 292.
45
an active, moment-by-moment conscious faith in Him—to this, the disciple is promised to
continually bear a lifetime of fruit.
Abide in John’s Gospel from the Inside
This third application point is one that is reserved for the exegetical student, teacher, and
pastor. It is one that admittedly lays dear to this student-teacher-preacher—especially throughout
this journey of exegetical analysis—and is one that had to be recalled often. In his wonderfully
insightful book Interpreting the Gospel of John, Gary Burge provides a sobering cautionary tale
of the dangers of knowing about John’s Gospel, but not truly knowing it. Those of us who
devote our mental energies to dissecting the intricate details of John’s use of the Koine (such as
his obsession with the historical-present verb tense…a favorite of this exegete), can easily lose
sight of the awesome wonders of God’s glory within its pages. Burge describes this as “holding
John from the outside.” Rather than allowing our exegesis to penetrate our souls, we can use our
knowledge of the text as a tool for finely
polished lessons or, in Exegete-preachers may come to the some cases, even as a
device to impress point where they have analyzed the others. To this Burge
cautions: “Exegete- verses and read the literature so preachers may come
to the point where they have analyzed the
verses and read the carefully that their hearts are no literature so carefully
that their hearts are no longer stirred – Gary M. Burge longer stirred. They
know the fourth Gospel so well that it has
become a preaching tool instead of a
voice in which God is speaking to us.”4
This is indeed a real and tragic possibility. The very people who know more about John then the
average person can allow their exegesis to drive away all spirituality inherent in the Text. A
greater case of irony does not exist, and is reminiscent of the tale told by A. T. Robertson in the
preface to this project. Therefore in heeding Burge’s caution, a notable application point emerges
in relation to John 15:1–5. To truly “abide” in Jesus through John’s Gospel is to enjoy a radically
adventurous journey with the true Israel. It is one that is full of faith, joy, peace—and of course,
good fruits. As John trumpets so loudly the grand purpose of his account is to inspire faith in the
divine Messiah—for both believer and non believer (John 11:15; 20:31)—any exegete handling
this holy book should be the leader in the pack exampling a prayerful, Spirit-filled Christian who
is constantly enamored by God’s blinding glory. John’s portrayal of Jesus deserves nothing less.
4
Gary M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John: A Practical Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013),
204.
46
THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF JOHN 15:1–5
I AM
It is widely recognized John’s Gospel differs at many points with the Synoptics. One
prominent feature exclusive to John’s account is Jesus’ seven predicated Ἐγώ Eἰμι (I Am)
statements which help form the structure of the fourth Gospel.1 Each of these declarations by
Jesus is known to underscore His deity—as only God can claim such characteristics as being
bread from heaven or the way, the truth, and the life. Additionally, they serve also to highlight
Jesus’ role in relation to humanity—as He is the shepherd to His people, and light for mankind.
While the legitimacy of these dual notions has been established in Johannine scholarship, there
appears to be an additional purpose behind them that has largely been overlooked. This particular
purpose is highlighted by Jesus’ final predicated “I Am” statement given in John 15. Indeed, this
last predicated Ἐγώ Eἰμι from Jesus has wide reaching theological significance pertinent to both
Covenantal and Dispensational systems of theology.
The True Vine
The imagery given by Jesus in John 15:1–5 on the night of His betrayal and arrest (itself
being significant)—is one tailored specifically to the Jewish people as He declares Himself to be
ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινη (the true Vine). Keener observes, “Some doubt that the vine can allude to
Israel here, objecting that the Church rather than Christ ‘replaces’ Israel. The objection is,
however, wide of the mark; it is through identifying with Christ that believers both Jewish and
Gentile are grafted into the historic people of God (e.g., Gal 3:16).”2 Vine imagery was a
frequent Old Testament expression used to describe the nation of Israel as well as her expected
Messiah (Psalm 80; Isa 5; 27; Jer 2, et al.). Thus, Jesus’ “I Am” declaration in John 15 is heavily
steeped in OT backgrounds concerning national Israel, and it is He alone that is its antitype.
The Abiding Branches
In addition to Jesus identifying Himself as the true Vine (or genuine Israel), He also
provides another identifier to depict the 11 disciples with Him that fateful night. These men were
the very disciples who comprised the Church in seed form which would later be birthed in Acts 2
by the Holy Spirit (whose coming is promised by Jesus on both sides of the pericope at hand:
chps.14 and 16). In John 15:5, Jesus labels those who follow Him, κλήματα (branches), and
commands them to μένω (abide) in Him thereby disclosing a sharp distinction between Himself as
Israel, and them as something distinct who are to maintain an obvious relationship with this
Israel. It is not incidental that Jesus declares a changing relationship between Him, Israel, and the
disciples directly in the midst of His promises of the Holy Spirit’s coming in chapters 14, and 16.
To this, Köstenberger likewise observes, “In a major paradigm shift, Jesus’ presence among his
disciples is about to be replaced with the Spirit’s taking up residence in believers (cf. 14:16–
1
Cf. Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: A Biblical Theology of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 324.
2
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:992.
47
18).”3 A new economy was on the horizon which would connect both Jew and Gentile, and yet
would not swallow up national Israel.
A Dispensational Shift
From the disciples changing, yet intimate relationship with Jesus, an inference can be
drawn that the Church is a distinct entity, yet has in no way replaced or superseded national
Israel; rather, she is to maintain a close relationship with her—as they are bonded together, while
still distinct as God’s people under the one Jewish Messiah. Morris brings out the clear notion
from Jesus’ declaration: “Jesus does not say that the church is the vine but that He is. The church
is no more than the branches which are ‘in’ the vine.”4As mentioned earlier, the emphasis of
Johannine study has historically centered largely on the notions of personal belief, eternal life,
and even eschatological themes rather than any shifting of economies. This is due in large part to
John’s own purpose statement of belief in Christ for eternal life in 20:31. Yet this pericope in
John 15, rather causing distraction, actually helps support that purpose in a subtle yet powerful
way. Because 15:1–5 heavily suggests a dispensational shift with Jesus’ declaration of being the
eternal Israel while earthly Israel remains His possession, we see God remaining true to His Old
Testament promises of one day sending His Servant to the world through the glory of national
Israel (Isa 49; 52:13-53:1–12). God’s faithfulness to His ancient promises, therefore, provides
credible motivation for faith in His Son—the faith that results in eternal life (20:31).
3
Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 2004), 450.
4
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 668.
48
APPENDIX
49
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF JOHN’S GOSPEL
Introduction
The Gospel of John flies above literary landscapes as a soaring testimony to the wonders
of God in Christ. If one were to have the unfortunate option of taking a single Bible book with
them into isolation, the fourth Gospel would be the choice for many. Out of the four Gospels
written and canonized, John’s account is by far the most theological and spiritual, yet ironically
simplistic in its historical presentation. John has been the go-to book for many Christians who
are new to the Faith, or are recommending a starting point to a sincere seeker. The reason is
obvious and is stated within the book itself: ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ
χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. These things are
written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing
you may have life in his name (John 20:31). These eternal words act as both evangelistic and
apologetic pillars that have brought countless souls to saving faith in Christ, and has comforted
(and re-comforted!) and strengthened the faith of innumerable Christians. To put it bluntly, there
is nothing like the Gospel in John anywhere in the history of written thought. What follows is a
brief overview of John’s Gospel account. This author will organize this overview using
Kostenberger and Patterson’s helpful paradigm they call, “hermeneutical triad.”1 This geometric
word picture seeks to outline a Bible book through the three main categories of history, literature
and theology. Within these three groupings, a basic overview will emerge that will touch on the
Gospel’s authorship and date, historical setting, audience, purpose, etc.
Historical Attestation:
Location, Author and Recipients
The actual date and place of authorship of John’s Gospel still technically lies in realm
of the unknown. Additionally, this also applies to the book’s author. However, diligent
investigations have been made into the book’s history over the centuries which have turned up
mountains of evidence supporting: (1) the Apostle John penned the book for both a Jewish and
Gentile audience; (2) John wrote it from Ephesus; and (3) John wrote it from a later date toward
the close of the first century. This is based on both internal and external evidence, the latter
which draws support from early Church Fathers such as Irenaeus, Papias, Eusebius and Clement
of Alexandria.2 With regards to internal support that John the Apostle is the book’s human
1
See Andreas Köstenberger and Richard Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel, 2011).
2
For excellent treatments validating all three of these conclusions see: Andreas Köstenberger, John (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 6-8; D. A. Carson and Douglass Moo, “John” in An Introduction to the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 229-55; George Beasley-Murray, John (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), lxxv-
lxxxi; William Hendrickson, John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 3-31.
50
author,3 it is interesting to note that John is often presented in situations specifically with Peter
throughout the other NT writings (cf. Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33; Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1;
3:3-4, 11; 4:1, 13, 19; 8:14). However, in John’s account never does the reader see the disciple
mentioned explicitly in any important situation (even those with Peter). Rather, what is found in
these scenarios seems to be the narrator describing himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”
(John 13:23; 21:7, 20). The absence of John’s actual name omitted from the fourth Gospel is a
thundering testimony from silence. MacArthur observes:
The absence of any mention of John’s name directly is remarkable when

one considers the important part played by other named disciples in this Gospel.
Yet, the recurring designation of himself as the disciple “whom Jesus loved,” a
deliberate avoidance by John of his personal name, reflects his humility and
celebrates his relation to his Lord Jesus. No mention of his name was necessary
sine his original readers clearly understood that he was the Gospel’s author.4
In addition to the purposeful silence of the apostle’s name in John’s Gospel, other
internal evidence points to the son of Zebedee being the book’s author. The author was obviously
Jewish and familiar with Jewish customs and Jewish topics 1:21; 7:2; 10:22; 11:55). The author
was not merely Jewish, but a Jew with detailed knowledge of the local areas in and around
Palestine (1:28; 5:2; 11:18). Moreover, the author of the Gospel was an eyewitness to the events
involving Jesus, some of which do not occur in the Synoptics (e.g., the man born blind in chapter
9 or the sickness, death, and resurrection of Lazarus in chapter 11). Taken together, the internal
along with the external witnesses provides enough support to lay aside any doubt that John the
apostle is the author of the fourth Gospel.
Literature:
Genre, Style and Vocabulary
The literary genre of John’s Gospel is often times categorized under historical narrative,
or continuous prose. This takes it out of the exclusive realm of strict biography, although there
are personal biographical elements in the Gospel that cannot be ignored. These include Jesus’
pre-existence (John 1:1), and His travels throughout Israel viz. through lower Judea and
Jerusalem, middle Samaria, and upper Galilee (2:1, 12, 13; 3:22, 4:4-5, et al.). The opening
prologue of the Gospel (1:1-18) serves as the entire account’s pillar—a rich theological buttress
laying down the rest of the book’s content in seed form. This is in part why John cannot be
strictly categorized as either historical narrative or biography; it is far too theological in nature.
Some, in an attempt to find affinity with ancient Greco-Roman narrative, have contextualized the
book’s emphasis on God’s glory in Christ and have suggested the terms theo-drama, Christo-
drama, and even doxa-drama as possible literary categories.5 Indeed, John’s Gospel is a genre
refusing to be pigeonholed into normative literary conventions. As such, this student suggests the
3
The word “human” is chosen here to distinguish John from the book’s ultimate author, the Holy Spirit (2
Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 2:20-21).
4
John MacArthur, “John” in MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
2007), 248.
5
E.g., Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2009), 124. Köstenberger also provides a helpful six point analysis showing the differences between Greco-Roman
biographies and the Gospels.
51
only solution that recognizes John’s historical-biographical genre while remaining true to its
unique theology is to categorize the book as “Gospel” genre.
There are different ways to divide the book according to its contents, the two best being
in either two grand sections, chps. 1—12 (focusing on all seven of Jesus’ signs and most ἐγὼ εἰμί
[I Am] statements); and chps. 13—21 (containing the remaining ἐγὼ εἰμί declarations and Jesus’
farewell discourse and passion glory); and the other, more precise division, is to see four
sections: (1) chps. 1—1:18 (the prologue); (2) chps. 1:19—12:50 (Jesus’ seven signs); (3) chps.
13:1—20:31 (Jesus’ final discourse to his Twelve and Passion); (4) 21:1—15 (epilogue, post
resurrection of Jesus).6 It should be noted that several scholars have proposed chiastic devices
throughout the Gospel, especially the prologue, but also the entire structure of the book, which
has some warrant but carries too many obstacles to delve into here.
In addition to the book’s literary genre, John has a unique writing style and vocabulary.
Specifically, the author has a flare for the dramatic as he shows himself to be a vivid, master
story-teller. Out of the four Gospel writers, he makes the most use of the “historical present”
rhetorical device when using a third-person present active singular verb. John uses this device
more than any other Gospel writer—162x throughout his record. This is followed by Mark’s use
of it (151x), then Matthew (93x), and finally Luke who uses this device the least (11x).7
Campbell reports that out of all of John’s uses of the historical present, “144 historical presents
are used to introduce reported discourse, while 23 are verbs of propulsion.”8 Examples of the
former would be ἀκούει (he hears) or λέγει (he says) which John uses throughout his Gospel to
introduce or continue a dialogue or discourse. By his use of this historical present, John vividly
portrays the events to his readers as if they are a part of the scene themselves. In addition to
John’s usage of the historical present tense verbs, certain nouns are also prominent within his
Gospel account. Specifically, John uses λόγος (word) 16x and is the only Gospel writer to attach
a rich, personal-theological meaning to it (e.g., 1:1, 14). He also uses κόσμος (world) 104x in his
writings out of 186 total uses in the NT (e.g., 1:9; 3:16; 8:12; 9:5, etc.) as well as φῶς (light)
which John uses 35 out of 73 total times the word is used in the NT (e.g., 1:4-5; 3:19-21; 8:12;
9:5; etc.).
Theology
The theology presented in John is unlike anything else in Scripture. It is not that it is
different theology (as all of Scripture has unifying theological coherence) it is just presented in a
deeper and loftier way than the Synoptics. This is most likely why Clement of Alexandria
described John’s account as “a spiritual Gospel.”9 Indeed, “John’s Gospel together with the Book
of Romans, may well be considered the ‘twin towers’ of NT theology soaring. . .as an eagle over
more pedestrian descriptions of the life of Christ”10 This is seen best in the opening prologue
(1:1—18) which serves as the theological support for the entire book. From the outset of the
Gospel, the reader discovers that Jesus is the preexistent word of God (1:1), and that He, as the
6
Both R. E. Brown and Andreas Köstenberger helpfully label the two middle sections “book of signs,” and
“book of glory.”
7
Cf. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 528.
8
Constantine R. Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 139. It
should be noted, Campbell reports 167 historical presents by John, not 162 as reported by Daniel Wallace.
9
Cf. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14; Carson and Moo, “John,” 231.
10
Köstenberger, John, 1.
52
word of God, “became flesh and dwelt among us” (v.14). On this verse, Beasley-Murray
remarks: “This goes beyond a mere assertion that the Logos [λογος, “word”] is coming among
men that they might see his glory; rather σαρξ εγενετο [“became flesh”] signifies becoming
something that the Logos wasn’t beforehand, namely, flesh.”11 This opening section is
remarkably profound and serves a unifying theme interwoven throughout the rest of the book.
Jesus, the eternal Word of God, is sent forth from the Father (3:16; 20:21) to accomplish a great
work, a work that is performed by the incarnate Word of God as He lived among us (cf. 9:3-4).
This mission of Jesus the Messiah brings ultimate bearing on the prophet’s words penned
in Isaiah 55:10-11, that God’s Word will not return to Him void without first accomplishing all
He sent it (Him) to do. The great work and mission of Jesus, as John presents Him, is to disclose
the very character and truth of God in the most extreme form possible—the personal
embodiment of the eternal Son of God (1:14-18). While the Son of God was present on earth in
the person of Jesus of Nazareth, He “[was] the light of the world” (8:12; 9:5), the very “life” that
“was the light of men” (1:4). In the first half of the book (1—12), Jesus performs seven
incredible miracles and seven times emphatically declares Himself as sharing the very essence of
God through His great “I Am” statements.12 This is radical—as seen most immediately by the
Pharisees’ reaction (5:18; 10:33)—as Jesus was enigmatically declaring Himself to be the divine
Son of God who shares the same nature as God himself. These statements and miracles, in the
end, find their purpose for the whole book as recorded by John: that Jesus is the Word of God
and proved to be God’s unique Son and Messiah who gives eternal life to all who fully trust in
Him (cf. John 20:31).
Conclusion
The fourth Gospel is most certainly a πνευματικὸν εὐαγγέλιον. This designation,

however, does not take it out of the realm of factual history. It is true the Gospel of John presents
challenges when it comes to familiar literary conventions. However, these challenges
dramatically serve in testifying to the Gospel’s divine authorship. Had John been written by man
and only man, there would be little to dispute in terms of normative literary categories. But, John
was not written only by man. Because the Gospel of John’s true origin is θεόπνευστος (cf. 2 Tim
3:16), the reader can expect a piece of literature containing the fingerprint of humanity while also
transcending all human constructs. John is written with the purpose of leading the reader to trust
in the divine Jewish Messiah and giver of life. For that reason, everything within its pages will
strike the reader with glimpses of heaven using words and a style reserved for something higher
than normal literature. Indeed, John is a spiritual Gospel—a Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the
unique Son of God who gives eternal life for all who trust in Him (20:31).
11
George Beasley-Murray, John, xc. Emphasis in original.
12
“I Am” in Greek is εγω ειμι and points back to Yahweh’s disclosure of His personal name to Moses in
Exodus 3:14. There is much warrant, this student believes, to include John 6:20 as an additional great “I Am”
statement, making the total number eight. Only God can walk on water and Jesus’ use of εγω ειμι here (translated in
the ESV and NASB “it is I”) assured His disciples that He in fact is God and therefore to “not be afraid” (v.20c).
John is the only Gospel writer who recorded these declarations from Jesus, and partly structures his book around
them.
53
ANALYSIS OF RABBINISM
Introduction
Since the 1980s, there has been much discussion regarding the value of rabbinic study in
connection to New Testament exegesis. It was during this period that Jewish scholar, Jacob
Nuesner (who is credited with publishing well over 900 books), released his seminal series on
rabbinic studies.1 Nuesner’s groundbreaking study soon circulated throughout academia causing
exegetes of all stripes to have to wrestle with the question of ancient Rabbnism’s validity
concerning New Testament study.2 Therefore, a brief analysis will be given below concerning
the value in Rabbinism as it relates specifically to Johannine exegesis. The argument advanced is
that any non-canonical literature used in assisting New Testament (NT) exegesis is to be done
with extreme caution—including rabbinical texts. More narrowly, rabbinic insights, while
helpful when constructing a historiography concerning the post-Temple / post-biblical periods,
has limited value when it comes to Johannine study. This is because too many changes occurred
in Judaism after the first century for today’s student to get decisive answers from it regarding the
New Testament.
What is Rabbinism?
Perhaps the best way to address the question of Rabbnism’s value to the NT is to simply
define the term. Yet, it is exactly here where the first problem emerges: there is no definitive
definition. This is perhaps a reason why The Dictionary of Jewish Words, Judaism 101, and even
the authoritative The Jewish Encyclopedia have no entry for the word at all.3 Due to the
ambiguity surrounding “Rabbinism,” the definition offered by Oxford will have to suffice: “The
teachings or doctrines of the Talmud and the latter rabbinical writings.”4 The definition problem
of Rabbinism is then confounded by its late dating problem. Rabbinic Judaism (Heb: ‫) ית יהדות‬
has been the standard form of Judaism since the 6th century codification of the Babylonian
Talmud. However, its origin—a germinal form entirely dependent on oral (not recorded)
tradition—can be traced to the decades and leading centuries following the destruction of the
Jerusalem Temple in A.D. 70. This means the New Testament, itself a thoroughly Jewish
document, far predates any contemporary notion of Rabbinism. As such, the major problem that
surfaces is one of anachronism. What we read and quote from Rabbinic Judaism, while affording
1
See Jacob, Neusner A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages: Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 5
vols. (Leiden: Brill,1983–1985). This is one publication among many that Neusner put out in regards to early
Rabbinism and its impact on 1st century Judeo-Christianity.
2
A helpful essay on the matter is David Instone Brewer, “The Use of Rabbinic Sources in Gospel Studies,”
Tyndale Bulletin 50, no. 2 (NA 1999): 281–298.
3
Joyce Eisenberg and Ellen Scholnic, Dictionary of Jewish Words (Philadelphia, PA: JPS, 2006); Judaism
101, accessed March 31, 2017, http://www.jewfaq.org/; The Jewish Encyclopedia, accessed March 31, 2017,
www.jewishencylopedia.com.
4
Oxford Dictionary, accessed March 31, 2017, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rabbinism.
54
interesting historical-cultural insights, is still at best a portrayal of a form of Judaism several
centuries removed from the days of Jesus and John. Brewer agrees: “The world of rabbinic
Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE is very different from that of
Rabbinic Judaism before this momentous event.”5
What Rabbinism is Not
Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is addressed as “Rabbi” eight times (chps. 1–11).
The Greek term ῥαββί is an indeclinable form of the Hebrew ‫ ַרב‬meaning “lord, master,”6 or
literally: “my great one.”7 This is not to be confused with its later derivatives “rabbinic” or
“Rabbinism” which denotes a religious system based on latter Jewish sages and texts. To be a
rabbi during the days of John’s Gospel was simply to be a teacher of the Law, one who had a
mastery of the Old Testament corpus. It did not carry its modern notion of an ordained clergy
member within the Jewish community. ‫( י‬Yeshua, Jesus) was a Jewish teacher of God’s
revelation, not an uncommon vocation in the days of the Second Temple. His being the incarnate
Son of God certainly made Jesus more than a mere rabbi, but nothing less. Köstenberger adds:
“Part of Jesus’ ‘enfleshment’ involved his assumption of the role of a Jewish religious teacher, a
rabbi. So while he was certainly more than a rabbi, even a rabbi ‘with a difference,’ he was not
less than a rabbi.”8 To this even the respected Nicodemus addressed Yeshua as “Rabbi” and
recognized that He “came from God” (John 3:2). Thus, “rabbi” is not the same as Rabbinism.
Rabbinism and the New Testament
New Testament Johannine scholar, Craig Keener, has treated the issue of the NT’s
overall Jewish context more than most. In his massive 1600 page commentary on John, Keener
devotes a 20 page analysis of ancient Judaism during the days of Jesus in John’s Gospel. Keener
astutely observes, “A Gospel that structures its chronology around Jerusalem festivals, engages
in polemic with a Jewish elite as its main competitor, and exploits a variety of Jewish symbols
cannot be understood apart from early Judaism.”9 While Kenner’s observation is certainly
noteworthy, the problem with it is that there is no “early Judaism” on record as early as the NT.
The earliest rabbinical texts in which comparisons can be attempted do not emerge until several
centuries post John’s Gospel. However, Keener’s treatment on the matter is indeed wise and
should be taken seriously by the NT exegete. Of course Keener acknowledges the time gap
between the John’s Gospel and early Rabbinism, and because of that fact, the best he can do is
compare different localities of rabbinic expression.10 Yet, as he states repeatedly throughout his
treatment: “Some evidence is better than no evidence.” While this may not inspire much
confidence for the NT exegete to expense his energies in the subjective realm of diverse and late
5
Brewer, 282; cf. Michael E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia,
Fortress, 1984), xx-xxi for interesting insights regarding the radical changes in genre between early Jewish
Apocryphal works and later Rabbinic literature. One gets the impression that it is a futile enterprise when attempting
to compare pre-Temple to post-Temple Judaism, let alone trying to interpret the NT in light of the latter.
6
BDAG, 6460.
7
Friberg, 23900.
8
Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological
Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 242.
9
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:171.
10
Ibid., 180–81.
55
rabbinical texts, Keener does make strong points for the usefulness of Rabbinism. For example,
Keener sums up his masterful survey with the following gem:
Given the peculiar problems in rabbinic literature (most significantly its dating
and diversity), this challenge may be appropriate; nevertheless, on many points
rabbinic sources are all we have. When our evidence is limited, our conclusions
are tenuous; but some evidence remains better than no evidence, and even a relatively
late and isolated source that moves somewhere in the general cultural continuum of
Mediterranean antiquity is more likely to provide the basis for a useful educated guess
than a modern argument from silence would.11
While not forgetting the problems with Rabbinism outlined earlier by this student, an agreement
with Keener’s assessment on the limited, yet still valid, usefulness of rabbinic study is reached.
To dismiss Rabbinic Judaism out of hand due to its time gap is too minimalistic in one’s
exegetical methodology. Yet, to endorse every insight Rabbinic Judaism possibly throws onto
the NT is to endorse a dangerous anachronism wholesale. A balance must be struck between the
two, and Keener does just that. “For our purposes,” suggests Keener, “fourth-century evidence of
a particular view may be better than no evidence at all, but if this material appears in isolation, it
is only a little better than no evidence at all, and it must be used with caution [concluding
emphasis added]. 12
A Caution to Preachers and Authors
Many well intended (yet unaware) preachers often appeal to a form Judaism found in
rabbinic texts when delivering a homiletical point. Statements such as “To the Jew this would
have meant…” or “In ancient Judaism the custom was…” are often hurled from the pulpit in an
unguarded fashion devoid of any factual validation. The same can be true in research and
writing. Michael Kibbe warns of the mistake often made when theological writers treat
secondary sources as if they were primary and contemporaneous with the biblical topic at hand.
Kibbe provides a relevant illustration:
For example, there are some fun and even profound points to be made by
comparing Jesus’ calling and training of his disciples with the way Jewish
rabbis called and trained their disciples. But nearly all of what we know about
the rabbinic customs on this point comes from the second, third, or fourth
century AD [sic], and there are concrete historical reasons (e.g., the destruction
of the temple in AD 70 [sic] and its impact on Jewish religious practices) to
question whether the rabbinic customs in the third century were in force during
the life of Jesus. At the very least, we must admit that we do not know if those
practices were in place, and so we must exercise caution in treating them as if they
were.13
11
Keener, 185.
12
Ibid., 190.
13
Michael Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
2016), 34, n. 7.
56
Kibbe’s final point echoes Keener’s caution in the way to approach Rabbinism and the NT.
Rabbinic Judaism is a religion heavily marinated in ancient tradition, and as such, can shed light
on certain aspects of the ancient Judaism of the Gospel accounts. Yet, while there is certainly a
plum line of tradition within Judaism (as wobbly that line may be), the student of the NT would
do well to research, validate, and discern whether it is appropriate to appeal to rabbinic texts as
an authoritative guide for ancient Jewish customs. This means that while Rabbinism can be
helpful at times with a view to Jewish historical-cultural milieu, it is still to be used with caution.
Concluding Proposal
It must be remembered that the NT is thoroughly Jewish and pre-dates any rabbinic texts.
So, for example, Jesus being labeled “rabbi” throughout John (and the other Gospels) provides us
with the earliest documented record of term’s usage.14 This example yields some fascinating
historical perspective, which one Jewish commentator aptly picked up:
What if the New Testament provides us a better window into the history of
Judaism than other sources [i.e., Rabbinic]?....If so, the New Testament collection
can be considered the earliest collection of ancient literature that testifies to the existence
of the office of a Jewish Rabbi; even if we still need to concede that the office of
Rabbi was in its infancy.15
The NT as the earliest source of a particular Jewish institution does not end with the office of
rabbi. In Luke, the oldest synagogue service on record is reported (Luke 4:16–29), and in John,
we find the earliest mention of Hanukkah taking place (“the Feast of Dedication,” John 10:22).16
Examples such as these exalt the NT as the premier source to consult for first century Jewish
history. In turning the tables, one might therefore legitimately pose this option: Rather than
studying the earlier Jewish New Testament in light of later Jewish Rabbinism, perhaps we should
be studying later Rabbinism in light of the earlier Jewish New Testament. It would seem more
historical weight lies with the portrayal of Yeshua—the rabbi par excellence—recorded in first
century inspired documents than with rabbis centuries removed from the Temple period. This is
especially so as these rabbis, then and now, are entirely hostile to Ἰησοῦς and His revelation—a
point so constantly portrayed in John’s Gospel (cf. chps. 7–10).
14
In contrast, the word “Rabbinism” has no written appearance before the Hebraist scholar, Joseph Mede
(1586–1638), used the term in the mid 17th century. Cf. Oxford Dictionary, s.v. “rabbinism.”
15
Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, The Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, the King of Israel (Tel Mond,
Israel: Israel Study Center, 2015), 17.
16
Cf. Cory M. Marsh’s “Is the Gospel of John Antiemetic?” in this exegetical project for more ancient
Jewish insights concerning John.
57
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN JOHN’S GOSPEL
Introduction
Until recently, much of Johannine scholarship had largely overlooked (or dismissed) the
thoroughly Jewish background of the Gospel of John.1 While New Testament (NT) books such
as Mathew, James and Hebrews have been exposited in the context of their obvious Jewish Old
Testament (OT) backgrounds, the fourth Gospel’s radical Jewishness has often times been
neglected by scholars and pastors. Perhaps this is due to John’s all-encompassing picture of the
divine Christ as being the Savior of the entire cosmos (John 3:16–17). A narrow view of Jesus’
global mission, and John’s purpose statement for the book (20:31), can lead one to believe that
John has divorced his book from any lingering Israelite intention. That view would be terribly
flawed. As this essay will demonstrate, John’s dependence on the OT through direct quotations,
paraphrases and allusions gives undeniable justification to the fourth Gospel being heavily
steeped in Hebrew Messianic and Kingdom expectations. Further, as this article will show,
without an understanding of the OT so prominently displayed in the Gospel of John, the book
itself cannot properly be understood.
Direct Old Testament Quotations
Throughout John’s Gospel, there are 18 direct quotations from the OT, ten of which are
found in 1:19–12:50, and eight in chapters 13–21. Many of these explicit quotations, center on
the stubborn hostilities of the Ἰουδαῖοι (Jews) from Judea (e.g., 12:38, 40), as well as Jesus’
fulfillment of OT prophecies concerning His passion and Kingship (e.g., 19:24, 28, 36–37; Zech
9:9). According to Köstenberger, “The overall purpose of the use of the OT in John’s gospel, as
evidenced by the formal quotations, is to show that both Jesus’ public ministry and his cross-
death fulfilled scriptural patterns and prophecies.”2 That is, John’s use of the OT vividly presents
the written Word as the living Word (cf. Isa 52:11). In chronological order of OT books, John’s
direct OT quotations can be charted as such:3
Old Testament John’s Gospel

Exodus 12:46 / Numbers 9:12 19:36
Psalm 22:18 19:24
Psalm 34:20 19:36
Psalm 35:19 15:25
1
See “Is the Gospel of John Anti-Semitic?” in this project’s appendix for more on this unfortunate
phenomenon.
2
Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009),
299.
3
Ibid., 305–06. Minor variations were made to the table as this student saw fit.
58
Old Testament John’s Gospel
Psalm 41:9 13:18
Psalm 69:4 15:25
Psalm 69:9 2:17
Psalm 69:21 19:28
Psalm 78:15, 20 7:39
Psalm 78:24 6:31
Psalm 82:6 10:34
Psalm 118:26 12:13
Isaiah 6:10 12:40
Isaiah 40:3 1:23
Isaiah 53:1 12:38
Isaiah 54:14 6:45
Zech 9:9 12:15
Zech 12:10 19:37
As can be seen from the chart, John’s use of the Psalter, especially in reference to
Messianic prophecies concerning Jesus’ passion and future Kingdom, is the predominant OT
book he quotes, 12x to be exact. Thus, the psalms are a heavy support underlying John’s
theology. The remaining six quotations of John are from Moses, Isaiah, and Zechariah. These
quotations center on themes of Jewish obduracy as well as Messianic prophecies concerning both
of the Lord’s advents.
It is obvious that John was dependent on the OT, and quoted from it with fervor much
like the other apostolic authors. His quotations of the OT makes John very much like his Lord
who taught in the same way to His Jewish audiences. “In other words,” observed Archer and
Chirichigno, “there is a certain sense in which Christ's chosen spokesmen were like Him guided
to expound the Old Testament Scriptures ‘with authority, and not as the scribes.’”4 As such, John
displays a masterful command of the OT in his Gospel presentation.
Allusions to Old Testament Quotations
Because the concept of typology, allusions, and paraphrases can be somewhat arbitrarily
plotted (i.e., depending on the exegete’s opinion of what actually qualifies as a legitimate OT
allusion or type), a chart like the one above would be too expansive here.5 However, certain
themes can certainly be drawn by John’s many OT allusions. For example, John powerfully
displays allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures through rhetorical devices such as typology. This
includes John’s portrayal of Jesus as the prophesied Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13– 53:12 cf.
John 12, 19), as well as various Davidic and Mosaic typology (1:17; 3:14; 2:17, 5:46, 15:25;
19:24, 28, et al.). These allusions to the OT in John are difficult to dismiss.
Moreover, John’s method of alluding to the OT is varied in his book. At times, John
simply presupposes foundational Jewish customs drawn from OT passages. Examples include
4
Gleason L. Archer and Gregory Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago,
IL: Moody, 1983). BibleWorks.
5
For a thorough plotting of possible OT allusions, paraphrases, and types in John (84 to be exact), see
Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 307–09.
59
burial customs on the Sabbath (19:31; cf. Deut 21:22f); the Passover and Tabernacles festivals
(chps. 6; 7 – 8; cf. Deut 16; Lev 23), and even the premier Israelite institution, the Temple (chp.
2; cf 1 Kings 6; Ezra 3; Hag 2). In some cases, John references a particular OT event where Jesus
is portrayed as its fulfillment or anti-type such as Moses’ serpent-headed pole (3:13–14; cf. Num
21:9), or Jacob’s ladder (1:51; cf. Gen 28:12). Particularly germane to the current exegetical
project, is John’s portrayal of Jesus being the “true vine” (ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ)—a contrasted
picture to national Israel which had been the vine that failed (15:1–5; cf. Isa 5; Jer 2). Indeed,
John is soaked with OT background. As Köstenberger concludes, “Together with direct OT
quotations and references to broader OT themes…the OT allusions found in John’s gospel create
a web of intertxtuality that grounds the theology of John’s gospel profoundly in the Hebrew
Scriptures, particularly with regard to the person and teaching of Jesus.”6 Unless guided by
presupposed anti-Semitism, it is impossible for the exegete not to conclude that the Gospel of
John is heavily dependent on the OT for its context, and is thus thoroughly Jewish—from post to
post.
Conclusion
To dismiss the OT as the proper background for John’s Gospel is to commit an exegetical
crime of serious magnitude. As demonstrated above, John’s dependence on the OT through
direct quotations, paraphrases, and allusions makes it obvious that the fourth Gospel is heavily
steeped in Hebrew Messianic and Kingdom expectations. As such, a concluding implication for
the NT student today, is that without an understanding of the OT—which is so prominently
displayed in the Gospel of John—the book itself cannot be properly understood. Therefore, the
biblical exegete would do well to know and understand the Hebrew Scriptures as the correct
background and context supporting the NT. This is especially the case for John’s Gospel.
6
Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 310.
60
REPENTANCE IN JOHN’S GOSPEL?
Introduction
Ever since the Lordship vs. Free Grace clash occurred in the mid 1980s, a hot bed of
controversy has surrounded the Gospel of John and the place of repentance in a person’s
salvation. Because John is considered by many “the gospel of belief” (cf. John 20:31) it is the
go-to document for considering how one is to be saved.1 Yet, while 11 of the 27 books of the
New Testament do explicitly use the word μετάνοια (its verb or cognates), the word is
conspicuously absent in John’s Gospel. Therefore, it flows from a certain line of reasoning that
since John does not mention the word repentance, it is not required in a person’s salvation given
that John is the gospel of belief. This essay will directly challenge that notion. In short, due to an
artificial construct placed on the fourth Gospel, some are kept from seeing the concept of
repentance in John which is powerfully illustrated within its pages. In other words, while it is
true the verb μετανοέω and noun μετάνοια do not occur in the Gospel of John, their grammatical
absence is not evidence of its conceptual absence. In contrast to some, repentance is dramatically
and prominently featured in John’s Gospel.
The Debate
Scholars have long observed the absence of “repentance” in John’s Gospel and have
responded with vitriol against those who insist repentance is nonetheless required for salvation.
Dallas Seminary founder, Lewis Sperry Chafer, is a good example: “No thoughtful person would
attempt to defend such a notion against such odds. And those who have thus undertaken
doubtless have done so without weighing the evidence or considering the untenable position
which they assume.”2 More recently, Master’s University and Seminary president, John
MacArthur, and former Dallas Seminary professor, Zane Hodges, went toe-to-toe debating
whether repentance is necessary for salvation. MacArthur insisted that repentance is a gift from
God and accompanies saving faith, and is thus required for one to be saved. Hodges insisted
repentance is a human work and thus violates God’s free grace. Added to Hodges argument is
the fact that the word for repentance does not occur in John’s Gospel, the “gospel of belief” (also
referred to the “gospel of salvation”).
The debate between MacArthur and Hodges resulted into what is now known as the
“Lordship Salvation” vs. “Free Grace” controversy. MacArthur, representing the former position,
1
Theologians such as Charles Ryrie and Charles Bing immediately come to mind as representative of those
distinguishing / categorizing the fourth Gospel as “the Gospel of Belief.”
2
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 3:376–77. In
fairness to Chafer, which many lordship advocates who negatively quote him have not been, it is vital he be
understood in the proper context. What Chafer was responding to with this often-used quote was the false notion that
repentance is a necessary, independent or separate act added to saving belief. Moreover, he thoroughly believed
repentance was indeed necessary for salvation, and was gift from God. More on this below.
61
promoted true belief as repentance and submission to the Lord’s authority, and boldly stated:
“Those who will not receive [Christ] as Lord are willfully rejecting Him….Thus there is no
salvation except ‘lordship’ salvation.”3 Hodges, a proponent of the latter position contended,
“Indeed [one] could have searched the entirety of John’s Gospel repeatedly and never found even
one reference to repentance, much less a reference to surrender or submission as a condition for
eternal life.”4 The irony is that both men appealed to the same Scriptures to make their case. The
debate continues to this day.
Absence of Evidence Does Not Mean Evidence of Absence
In an article promoting the concept of repentance in John, New Testament scholar David
Croteau listed several key doctrines absent in various NT writings:
(1) The concept of Jesus as Savior is absent from Matthew, Mark, Romans, Colossians,
Hebrews, and Revelation; (2) The concept of grace is absent from Matthew and Mark; (3)
The concept of salvation is absent (in noun form) from Matthew and completely in
Colossians; (4) The verb πιστεύω [believe] does not occur in Colossians or Revelation
and the noun πίστις [faith] does not occur in the Fourth Gospel.5
Acknowledging the above concepts and / or words are indeed absent from important NT books—
doctrines that are essential doctrines to accept if one is to be a Christian—would anyone accuse,
say, Matthew of rejecting Jesus as the Savior, or Mark of rejecting God’s grace? Absolutely not.
In this same vein, John is not only devoid of the word repentance, the fourth Gospel is also
absent of Jesus’ virgin birth, hell, and any notion of justification. Are we to believe that the
apostle rejected these crucial doctrines? It seems unthinkable. So, rather than accepting one free-
grace advocate’s stance that we should “admit that it was important enough to John that
repentance not be included in his Gospel of Belief,”6we would do well to remember that the
absence of a word does not mean de facto an author purposely rejects the concept or intentionally
left it out. Thus, the absence of a word does not equal the absence of its concept.
Repentance is in John’s Gospel
The noun for repentance, μετάνοια, occurs 22 times in the New Testament (NT), while its
verb form μετανοέω occurs 34 times. Taken together, this equals a total of 56 times that
repentance is explicitly taught in the Greek New Testament. The word μετάνοια, as used in the
NT, is defined as “turning about, conversion”7 while μετανοέω means to “change one’s mind,”
and to “feel remorse, repent, be converted.”8 While these words for repentance occur regularly
3
John F. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus: What does it mean when He says, “Follow Me”?
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 34.
4
Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Corinth, TX: GES, 2014), 24.
5
David A. Croteau, “Repentance Found? The Concept of Repentance in the Fourth Gospel,” Master’s
Seminary Journal 24, no.1 (Spring 2013): 108–09.
6
Charles C. Bing, “The Condition for Salvation in John’s Gospel,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical
Society 9, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 34. Emphasis in original.
7
BDAG, 4854.
8
Ibid., 4853.
62
throughout the New Testament, John does not use the actual words in his Gospel.9 However, as it
is the notion of conversion or turning that connects both noun and verb (as defined above), the
concept of repentance is something prominently displayed in the fourth Gospel. For example, the
crippled man healed in John 5 is told by Jesus to “sin no more so that something worse does not
happen to [him]” (John 5:14). In other words, Jesus commands him to turn from his previous
life. To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus verbally scatters her accusers and commands her “to
go and from now on sin no more” (8:11).10 Thus a call to turn and be converted is portrayed.
More explicitly, John uses the verb στρέφω in 12:40 when paraphrasing Isaiah’s rebuke of
people refusing to repent (cf. Isaiah 6:9– 10). The verb στρέφω, as used by John here, means “to
experience an inward change, turn, change.”11 Conceptually, this is the exact equivalent for the
word “repentance.” Croteau’s words nicely bring us full circle: “Therefore, the absence of the
word doesn’t necessitate the absence of a concept.”12
Conclusion
Out of the 39 books of the Old Testament only one is completely devoid of any Hebrew
word for God: Esther. Yet, as any diligent Bible student knows—God is prominently lurking
behind the pages of Esther, sovereignly controlling all the events to ensure the continuance of the
Jewish race that would one day produce the Messiah. As it is unheard of to say the Book of
Esther rejects any belief in God because His name is absent from the book, so it is to say that
John rejects repentance because the word is not found in his book. The concept of repentance is
most certainly found in John, just as God is certainly present in Esther. To categorize John as
“the Gospel of Belief” is well and good as belief is most certainly the grand theme (cf. 20:31).
However, it would do well to remember that that title is a man-made construct placed over it; it
is not something the book calls itself. Thus to argue that repentance is absent form John’s Gospel
or that it is something not required in salvation because it is simply the Gospel of Belief is to
commit two errors: a straw man, and an argument from silence. As demonstrated above, John
very much displays the concept, and even a word (12:40), that depicts a turning from one’s sin,
i.e., repentance. Therefore, the Gospel of John is most certainly a Gospel of Belief—a Gospel of
Repentant-Belief.13
9
Yet, John explicitly uses various forms of the verb μετανοέω 12 times throughout Revelation in chaps. 2 –
16 proving he was not opposed to the word. As for his Gospel, it is noteworthy that out of 98 uses, John uses only
the verb for “faith,” πιστεύω, never its noun form, πίστις.Thus, for John, belief or faith seems only to be an action
concept–of which repentance, being a mindful and soulful act, can certainly be inferred.
10
While the authenticity of this passage is disputed, it still validates the concept in John nonetheless.
11
BDAG, 6856. This is the same meaning for its Hebrew counterpart ‫ ׁשוב‬in Isaiah 6:10 (HALOT, 9407).
12
David A. Croteau, Urban Legends of the New Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions (Nashville, TN:
B&H Academic, 2015), 57.
13
This biblical notion of repentant-belief is precisely what Chafer advocated, and that it was an act entirely
of God’s grace. For example, throughout his Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948),
3:372–78, Chafer states the following: “Therefore, it as dogmatically stated as language can declare, that repentance
is essential for salvation, and that none can be saved apart from repentance, but it is included in believing and cannot
be separated from it” (373, emphasis added). “As before stated, repentance, which is a change of mind, is included
in believing….That change of mind is the work of the Spirit (Eph 2:8) (374, emphasis added). And finally Chafer
concludes, “It is asserted that repentance, which is a change of mind, enters of necessity into the very act of believing
on Christ, since one cannot turn to Christ from objects of confidence without that change of mind” (378). Quotes
such as these prove Chafer was certainly in line with traditional Calvinistic soteriology, a fact (as a Presbyterian) he
promotes throughout volume three of his eight volume theology set.
63
CLAUSAL ANALYSIS
Introductory Remarks
Rather than interpreting Jesus’ vine analogy in John 15:1–5 as an allegory, it is best to
view it as a distinct metaphor.1 In the first five verses of John 15, Jesus makes direct
correspondence of identities: Jesus = the true Vine; the Father = the Cultivator; the disciples =
the branches. The clearness of this pericope being metaphor and not allegory is helpfully brought
out not only by the accidence or forms of its semantics, but also by its syntax—as the former
leads to the latter. Indeed, as Robertson observed: “Knowledge of the forms is the first great step
toward syntax.” 2Thus, it is the latter that will be the focus here as the syntax of the various
clauses are briefly identified an examined.
____________________________________________________________________________
John 15:1 Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή, καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν.
No subordinates in this initiating clause. The verse is comprised of two independent clauses
joined by the coordinate conjunction καὶ making one compound sentence. Jesus is the Vine,
no other. His Father is the Great Cultivator (or Vinedresser).
John 15:2 πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ
ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ.
There are six distinct clauses in this verse. Perhaps most distinct is that two of the clauses are
suspended subjects forming a notable anacoluthon (cf. commentary), one being the adjectival
phrase πᾶν κλῆμα (every branch) the other being the substantive participle τὸ φέρον (the one
abiding). Only off of the former does a participle clause exist with φέρον (bearing) modified by
the negative particle μὴ (not); that is, the branch not bearing fruit is taken away. Both of these
suspended clauses find their connecting point in the main compound sentence (two independent
clauses) joined together by the coordinating conjunction καὶ. The verse also contains a
subordinate clause marked by the particle ἵνα expressing the purpose behind why God prunes
fruit-bearing branches viz. that He prunes fruit branches with the purpose of producing more
fruit.
1
It seems that those of the Covenantal / Reformed persuasion are more likely to view John 15 an allegory,
and as such, bypass the clear implication from v.5 that the church does not supersede Israel in any way. In v. 5 Jesus
says that He is the Vine, and that disciples are the branches. This is clear metaphor, according to a literal,
grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If one wishes to adopt an allegorical interpretation, one can (ultimately) make it
mean whatever they desire as they search for hidden, cryptic, or multiple meanings that would detract from Jesus’
intention that He is the true Israel, not the church; the church is comprised of the branches abiding in the vine. That
said, for a classic and well presented interpretation that views John 15 as allegory, see William Hendricksen, John,
New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 293–300.
2
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, 3th ed.
(Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1914), 381. BibleWorks 9.
64
John 15:3 ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν·
There are two separate clauses forming v.3. The first clause contains the adverb ἤδη (already) and
prepositional phrase διὰ τὸν λόγον (because of the word) modifying the subject ὑμεῖς (you all).
Hence—already you are clean because of the word. The second is a relative clause as marked by
the relative pronoun ὃν (which), its nearest antecedent being τὸν λόγον (the word). Thus Jesus is
saying His disciples were already clean due to His pruning words He had spoken to them.
John 15:4 μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ
ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε.
Verse four is unique in that it contains two separate sentences and six clauses. The first two clauses
form a compound sentence initiated by the imperative μείνατε (abide) and is connected by the crasis
κἀγὼ (and I). The rest is a series of clauses held together by a main complex sentence whose
subject is the plural pronoun ὑμεῖς (you all). Of the remaining four clauses, two are 3rd class
conditional statements (if this, than that) marked by ἐὰν, one is a dependent clause marked by
καθὼς (just as), and the other contains the accusative infinitive φέρειν (to bear). This verse contains
the only imperative in the pericope as Jesus commands His disciples to abide in Him, and those that
do, are promised to bear fruit.
John 15:5 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει
This final verse in the pericope is the most unique. Overall, it contains three sentences and seven
clauses. The first sentence is a simple compound asyndeton viz. held together by an implied
coordinating conjunction (common in John’s Gospel). The second sentence is a notable
anacoluthon which is a departure from the original grammatical construction of a sentence. This is
initiated with the substantive participle ὁ μένων (the one remaining) leading to the crasis καγώ
(and I) to partially finish Jesus’ train of thought (and I [abiding] in him). The thought is never
properly grammatically completed (thus the anacoluthon) but is conceptually completed by the
third sentence initiated by the demonstrative οὗτος (this one). From this main clause stems two
dependent clauses marked by the causal particle ὅτι (because) and the accusative substantive
participle ποιεῖν (to do), making this a complex sentence. Jesus’ point is that only He is the vine,
and His disciples are utterly dependent on Him for a life of quality and meaning.
Concluding Remarks
The sentence structure of John 15:1–5 is a beautiful display of the vividness of John’s
Kοινή Greek. Jesus’ vine illustration is a masterful metaphor submerged in a web of compound
and complex sentences that include subordinate purposes statements and rhetorical devises like
anacoluthon. This clausal analysis, perhaps as well if not better than the previous analysis of the
words themselves, has demonstrated that interpreting Jesus’ vine analogy is to be done so using
known rules of grammar with a view to the literal meaning intended by the author. As such, John
15:1–5 is to be understood as a single-meaning metaphor rather than a possibly endless allegory.
65
WORD STUD Y
Ἄμπελος
Vine, grapevine, 288. (9x)
____________________________________________
Introduction
Jesus final predicated Ἐγώ εἰμι declaration occurs at John 15:1, the night of His betrayal
and arrest. Rather than choosing a climactic predicate with a global referent (such as the light of
the world [8:12], or the way, the truth, and the life [14:6]), Jesus uses a term with specific Jewish
national undertones, a predicate noun to which the Jewish disciples were familiar: Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ
ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν. I Am the true vine and my Father is the
Cultivator (John 15:1). Because ἄμπελος is used only nine times in the New Testament, all nine
will be showcased below which will serve to demonstrate the word’s significance pertaining to
the Jewish nation as well as Jesus applying the term to Himself.
Definitions for “ἄμπελος”
Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ…
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
288. ἄμπελος. Vine. Probably from the base of amphoteros and that of halon; a vine (as coiling
about a support)–vine.
297. ἀμφότεροι. Both. Comparative of amphi (around); (in plural) both—both.
257. ἅλων. Floor. Probably from the base of helisso; a threshing-floor (as rolled hard), i.e.
(figuratively) the grain (and chaff, as just threshed)–floor.
BDAG
417. ἄμπελος, ου, ἡ (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX; En 32:4; JosAs, GrBar, EpArist, Philo; Jos., Ant.
12, 75 κλήματα ἀμπέλων σὺν βότρυσιν; Just.; Ath. 22:6f; Did., Gen. 31, 27; s. Frisk s.v. on futile
attempts to establish I-E. or Semitic origin) vine, grapevine. Figurative of Christ and his
disciples: he is the vine, they the branches J 15:1, 4f (cp. Cornutus 27 p. 51, 3, where the
pleasant state for the ἄμπ. is τὸ πολυφόρον κ. καθαρόν; Sir 24:17 of wisdom: ἐγὼ ὡς ἄ.
66
ἐβλάστησα χάριν; Did., Gen. 86, 11 ἡ ψυχὴ ποτὲ μὲν ἄμπελος, ποτὲ δὲ πρόβατον, ποτὲ νύμφη …
λέγεται). The words of the eucharistic prayer over the cup in D 9:2 cannot be explained w.
certainty εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι … ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀ. Δαυὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου (s. AHarnack, TU II 1f, 1884 ad loc.; 6, 225ff; RKnopf, Hdb. ad loc.)—
M-M. TW.
Thayer
299. ἄμπελος
ἄμπελος, -ου, ἡ (from Homer down), a vine: Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18; James 3:12.
In John 15:1,4f Christ calls himself a vine, because, as the vine imparts to its branches sap and
productiveness, so Christ infuses into his followers his own divine strength and life. ἄμπελος τῆς
γῆς in Rev. 14:18 (Rec.st omits τῆς ἀμπέλου.), John 15:19, signifies the enemies of Christ, who,
ripe for destruction, are likened to clusters of grapes, to be cut off, thrown into the winepress,
and trodden there.*
Friberg
1378. ἄμπελος, ου, ἡ literally grapevine (MT 26.29); metaphorically, of Christ as sustaining
and spiritually nurturing his disciples (JN 15.1); by metonymy, to indicate the produce that a
plant produces (RV 14.19).
Liddell-Scott
2402. ἄμπελος, ἡ a vine, Lat. vitis, Od., etc. (Perh.from ἀμπί (Aeol. for ἀμφί), ἕλ-ιξ, from its
clasping tendrils.
Louw and Nida
3.27 ἄμπελος, ου f - 'grapevine.' ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή 'I am the true grapevine' Jn 15.1.
A rendering of ἄμπελος as 'vine' rather than as 'grapevine' in Jn 15.1 may cause serious
misunderstanding, since it might refer merely to a vine which does not produce fruit.
Accordingly, if there is no particular expression for 'grapevine,' it may be more satisfactory in Jn
15.1 to speak of 'fruit bush' or 'fruit plant.' A term in Jn 15.1 which would indicate only jungle
vines would also result in complete misunderstanding of the function of pruning (see 43.12),
since such jungle vines are never pruned and in fact are only useful when they have been cut
down and used for building purposes. In some languages a grapevine may be referred to as 'a
bush producing grapes,' and in certain other languages it is called 'the wine plant.'
67
Vine, grapevine
Ἄμπελος, ου, ἡ Strong #288.
9 total uses in the NT, 3 uses in John’s writings
VERSE TRANSLATION OBSERVATION

Matt 26:29  Jesus’ statement during final
Passover.
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι I say to you I will not drink  τῆς ἀμπέλου is a genitive of
ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς again of this fruit of the vine material (Wallace, 91). Can
ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης until that day when I drink it be translated “the fruit made
ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καινὸν new with you in my Father's out of the vine.”
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου. kingdom.  Jesus is using a physical item
(wine from a grape vine) to
illustrate a future spiritual
reality: Jesus will fulfill and
participate in the New
Covenant in “that [future]
day.”
Mark 14:25  A parallel of Matthew’s
account (see above).
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ I say to you, I will not drink  The fruit of the vine is the
πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς again of the fruit of the vine wine representing Jesus’
ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης until that day when I drink it blood of the New Covenant.
ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ new in the kingdom of God.  His “Father’s Kingdom”
βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. above is here identified as
the “Kingdom of God”
which is the future
Millennial Kingdom where
Israel is redeemed and
restored.
Luke 22:18  A parallel of Mathew’s and
Luke’s account (see
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω For I tell you that from now on above).
ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος I will not drink of the fruit of  Here, the AAS/3s verb ἔλθῃ
τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία the vine until the kingdom of (it comes) is added to
τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. God comes Jesus’ discourse
highlighting the fact that
the future Kingdom will
“come” to the world. This
will happen with Jesus’
return.
68
John 15:1  Jesus’ final predicated “I
Am” declaration of deity.
Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ καὶ I Am the true Vine and my  ἡ ἄμπελος is a attributive
ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν. Father is the Vinedresser. adjective (Wallace, 306).
 Jesus is using ἄμπελος
figuratively here as
representative of Israel (see
commentary).
John 15:4  Jesus continues His
figurative use of ἄμπελος in
μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. Abide in Me and in you. Just as His viticulture analogy.
καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται the branch has no power to  ἀμπέλῳ is “dative of sphere”
καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ bear fruit of himself if not in the 5-case system
μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ abiding in the vine, thus (Wallace, 153) or the distinct
ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε. neither can you if not abiding Locative in the 8-case
in Me. (Robertson 520).
 As καρπὸν (fruit) is being
used in connection with
ἄμπελος (vine) and κλήματα
(branches), it leaves little
doubt that Jesus is intending
ἄμπελος as specifically a
“grape-vine” (see L-N
definition above).
 3rd class conditional
statement. The branch will
not produce fruit if not
abiding in the grape vine (τῇ
ἀμπέλῳ).
John 15:5  This is Jesus’ last use of

ἄμπελος.
ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ I Am the Vine, you the  Repeats His final ἐγώ εἰμι
κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν branches. The one abiding in declaration from v.1
αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν, Me and I in him, this one bears  The disciples are now
ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν much fruit, because apart from positively identified as the
οὐδέν. me you can do nothing. branches (τὰ κλήματα) used
throughout Jesus’ analogy.
 Here, Jesus continues to use
ἄμπελος to identify Himself
as the premier anti-type to
Israel.
James 3:12  Like Jesus above during the

final Passover, James is
μὴ δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ Can a fig tree, my brothers, referring to ἄμπελος here in
ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; bear olives, or a grapevine a literal sense to make a
οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. produce figs? Neither can a salt spiritual point. However its
69
pond yield fresh water. usage is strictly literal in the
immediate context of his
illustration: a grape vine can
only produce grapes.
 James’s point is that a
believer’s conduct should be
consistent with his or her
faith.
 James’s use of ἄμπελος
helps underscore the points
made above that the word is
specifically a grapevine, not
merely a “vine” in a generic
sense.
 ἄμπελος is contrasted with
figs—fruits produced from a
fig vine (συκῆ). See point
above.
Revelation 14:18  τῆς ἀμπέλου is used here
figuratively in describing
καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος [ἐξῆλθεν] ἐκ And another angel came out God’s future wrath on the
τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου [ὁ] ἔχων from the altar, the angel who earth.
ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός, καὶ has authority over the fire, and  τῆς ἀμπέλου is a genitive of
ἐφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τῷ ἔχοντι he called with a loud voice to material (Wallace, 91).
τὸ δρέπανον τὸ ὀξὺ λέγων· the one who had the sharp  βότρυας (bunch of grapes)
πέμψον σου τὸ δρέπανον τὸ ὀξὺ sickle, "Put in your sickle and makes it clear that the
καὶ τρύγησον τοὺς βότρυας τῆς “vine” here represents
gather the clusters from the
ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ specifically a grapevine (cf.
vine of the earth, for its grapes BDAG, 181; L-N., 3.38;
σταφυλαὶ αὐτῆς. are ripe." NET Notes).
Revelation 14:19  Continuation of the above

illustration.
καὶ ἔβαλεν ὁ ἄγγελος τὸ δρέπανον So the angel swung his sickle to  The accusative ἄμπελον
αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐτρύγησεν the earth and gathered the functions as the direct object
τὴν ἄμπελον τῆς γῆς καὶ ἔβαλεν clusters from the vine of the of the harvesting/gathering
εἰς τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ earth, and threw them into the (ἐτρύγησεν) by the great
τὸν μέγαν. great wine press of the wrath of angel.
God.  Thus “vine, grapevine” is
used both positively and
negatively throughout
Scripture.
SEMANTIC RANGE VERSES OBSERVATIONS

 James is the only NT author to
Literal, Non-Figurative Aspect (1x) James 3:12 use ἄμπελος in a strictly literal
fashion.
Applying strictly to a literal  While he does have a spiritual
grape fruit vine point to make (like Jesus in the
Upper Room Passover),
70
James’s immediate point is that
a literal grape vine can only
produce literal grapes.
 In each of the parallel Synoptic
Blended Literal-Figurative (4x) Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; accounts of Jesus’ final
Aspect Luke 22:18; John 15:4 Passover discourse, He uses
the physical wine present with
Applying to a literal them (produced by literal
grapevine for an immediate grapes) as a starting point to
figurative point illustrate His later “Kingdom
of God” point.
 In Jesus’ viticulture analogy in
(John 15:1-5), v.4 is the only
blended use of ἄμπελος as He
intends a spiritual point
(abiding in Him) by way of
describing a literal vine and
literal branch.
 Apart from v.4, each usage of
Figurative, Non-Literal Aspect (4x) John 15:1, 5; Rev 14:18, 19 ἄμπελος is entirely figurative
as Jesus is the anti-type of
Applying strictly to Israel (the vine), and true
a non-literal, figurative discipleship consists of abiding
grapevine in Him.
 The remaining two uses of
ἄμπελος in Revelation are
dramatic (figurative) portrayals
of God’s wrath harvested and
poured on the earth.
LXX
The Septuagint uses ἄμπελος frequently, a total of 51 times throughout its translation. Ἄμπελος
is the primary word used to translate the Hebrew noun (vine), itself used 55 times in the MT
(Strong’s #1512). HALOT gives both a literal and figurative definition for : (1) a climbing
plant or wild vine; and (2) a symbol for Israel (1856). BDB adds that is a vine that is always
grape-bearing except in a few instances, as well as being used figuratively for Israel (1900). As
for ἄμπελος signifying national Israel, the LXX uses the word in notable places such as Isaiah
5:2 along with its cognate ἀμπελών (vineyard) to depict national Israel devoid of any grapes.
Similar uses are found in Jeremiah 2:21 and Psalm 80:8ff. Another notable example of ἄμπελος
representing national Israel is found in Hosea 10:1, where the nation is reproached as a self-
reliant “luxuriant vine.” Israel had failed to consistently produce grapes for the glory of ‫ יהוה‬yet
she will be restored (Amos 9:11–15). In fact, Isaiah 27 dramatically pictures Israel’s future
redemption and restoration. This is highlighted by the LXX describing the Israel-to-come as a
ἀμπελὼν καλός or “good vineyard” and that it will fill the whole world with τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτοῦ
(his fruit) (Isa 27:2,6). To this, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
adds that “superabundance [of vines/vineyards] will characterize the end time,” and “Whereas
71
Israel was the vine or the vineyard in the OT, Jesus the vine is now narrowed down to Jesus
himself.”1
Conclusion
From this study, it was demonstrated that the New Testament semantic range of ἄμπελος
incorporates three aspects: literal; figurative; and a mix of the two. However, the term’s usage is
predominately figurative—either strictly figurative or figurative blended with literal. Only once
out of its nine appearances does the term carry a strictly literal sense (James 3:12). Moreover, it
was shown that “vine” and “vineyard” are prominent concepts throughout the Old Testament
which provides the background for their NT context. Viticulture was indeed an important
economy in ancient Israel, and “vine / vineyard” language soon became a metaphor for national
Israel; past, present, and future national Israel.
This word study also proved that, rather than referring to a generic “vine,” ἄμπελος is
used predominately in the OT—and exclusively in the NT—to depict specifically a grapevine (a
translation of John 15:1 accurately given by the NLT, cf. translations page). Knowing this gives
clearer understanding of discipleship especially as it relates to Jesus illustration in John 15.
Disciples are to abide in Jesus and produce sweet fruit. This is only possible by abiding in a fruit-
making vine. On this, Louw and Nida were especially helpful.
Louw and Nida’s definition above, while geared more toward missionary Bible
translators than Bible exegetes, nonetheless provides an important point relevant to this exegesis.
It is the grape vine—not a generic, non-fruit producing plant—that Jesus so dramatically
illustrates in John 15:1–5 (cf. Rev 14:18-19). The act of bearing fruit is indeed emphasized by
Jesus throughout His analogy, thus the exegete would do well to remember Louw and Nida’s
observation when performing their own translations (cf. this student’s). Their suggestion to
translate ἄμπελος with “grape-vine” is entirely justified by the OT’s use of the word, as well a
Jewish viticulture customs as emphasized most dramatically by the grape cluster decorations
hanging off the golden vine at the Temple’s door (cf. commentary at v.1).
1
Colin Brown, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1981), s.v. “Vine, Wine, ἄμπελος.” The article goes on to note Rudolf Bultmann’s, interesting, yet far-
fetched, theory that the vine to which Jesus refers to in John 15 has its origin in the tree of life, rather than any OT
texts or Jewish tradition depicting Israel; this he does by appealing to post-Christian, Gnostic Mandean sources.
72
A BRIEF SURVEY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Introduction
Like the blithe duck breaking the surface for a quick dip of its beak while paddling across
a pond, is the Bible student who remains satisfied with a cursory knowledge of Scripture while
neglecting the deep ocean of exegesis. Yet, for the serious student of God’s Word, Paul’s call for
σπουδάζω in 2 Timothy 2:15 is a haunting imperative that destroys any lingering traces of fear
or laziness while handling the sacred Text. For one whose chief desire is to truly know the
wisdom of God’s Word (Prov 1:2), a fascinating exegetical tool has been developed over the
years that helps aid the serious student get back to the original wording of God’s revelation.
Subsumed under the umbrella of exegesis is the discipline called textual criticism. While
this discipline is one that can be applied to either sacred or secular texts, it is the latter that
concerns the biblical exegete and will be the focus throughout. It is here, in the deep recesses of
Scripture-study, that text criticism promises a wealth of insight for the Christian truly wanting to
“grow in the grace and knowledge” of God’s Word, both written and incarnate (cf. 2 Peter 3:18).
Therefore, in what follows is a brief introduction to the necessity, history, and practice of the
highest peak of Bible analysis: textual criticism. It should be noted that because this paper serves
as a mere primer or survey of the discipline, a comprehensive treatment of text criticism lies
outside its scope.1
Necessity
Because we do not possess the actual manuscripts penned by the biblical authors,
developing a system was necessary that would help ensure our copies reflect the original Text.
With now close to 6ooo Greek manuscripts that have been discovered since the Protestant
Reformation, more than enough evidence exists to compare and analyze the different text types
in order to confidently ensure which variant (a difference or disagreement between the different
MSS) best represents God’s original revelation. The art and science of comparing these different
manuscripts with their differing variants is the discipline known as “textual criticism.”
According to leading Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace, “Textual criticism is the study of the copies
of any written document whose autograph (original) is unknown or nonexistent, for the primary
purpose of determining the exact wording of the original.”2
1
While there are many recourses that treat comprehensively the art and science of text criticism worthy of
consideration, the two scholarly standards for both Old and New Testaments are: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of
the Hebrew Bible 2nd rev. ed. (Augsburg Fortress, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001); and Bruce M. Metzger, The
Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 1992). For purposes of this paper, the Greek NT will be the focus.
2
Daniel B. Wallace, “Laying a Foundation: New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Interpreting the New
Testament Text: Introduction the the Art and Science of Exegesis (Wheaten, IL: Crossway, 2006), 33.
73
History
While the most important texts ever to be subjected to textual criticism are most certainly
the MSS of Scripture, the discipline did not originate with the biblical text. The historical roots
of textual criticism can be traced to ancient Greek volumes found in the Alexandrian Library of
Egypt in 3rd century B.C, and even further back to works of the Ionic and Aeolic dialects of the
ancient Mediterranean. It was the great epics of Homer that through its long history had been
copied down from the “City Editions” (official copies authorized by civic authorities from which
other copies were made) to Aristotle who had prepared copies for his most famous pupil,
Alexander the Great.3 The various copies of Homer’s works for the first five hundred years had
accumulated many variants that ancient scholars logged and compared between the different
copies.4
Perhaps the next stage of comparing and analyzing different manuscripts—and more
relevant to purposes here—was during the production of the Septuagint (LXX), also in
Alexandria. All knowledge we have of this process stems directly from a second century
document referred to as The Epistle of Aristeas. According to this letter, which is apocryphal in
genre, Greek-Egyptian king, Ptolemy II Philedelphus, who ruled from 285–246 B.C.,
commissioned 70 (or 72) Jewish scribes to travel from Israel to Alexandria in order to translate
the Books of Moses into Greek.5 These were then given the Greek name, Pentateuch, meaning
“five vessels.” The LXX continued to be copied throughout the beginning of the Christian era
resulting in at least four different versions by the end of the second century A. D., all of which
had variant readings between them. 6 From the time of Constantine onward, there seems to have
been a dark covering over original text comparison as the Roman Catholic Church became the
premier monopolizer of truth—capped by pope claiming exclusive authority of Scriptural
interpretation.7
After the Renaissance period (13th–15th centuries) resurrected the discipline of recovering
the languages of the ancient texts (especially Hebrew, Greek, and Latin)—which directly
influenced the sola Scriptura battle cry of the 16th century Reformation—a new era in textual
studies would emerge during the Enlightenment period (17th–18th centuries). It is out of this age
that our modern day textual criticism finds its closest antecedent. In the late 18th century, a
German New Testament professor at the University of Jena named Johann Jakob Griesbach, in
Metzger’s estimation, “Laid the foundations for all subsequent work on the Greek Text of the
New Testament.”8 It was Griesbach who developed the “text type” (or family) system of which
3
Cf. Metzger, 149. Metzger specifically lists the Homeric sagas Iliad and Odyssey (orig. c. 8th century
B.C.) as the first and most popular texts subjected to a germinal form of what we today call “textual criticism.”
4
Ibid., 149–50.
5
For an interesting survey concerning the debated provenance of these scribes (Egyptian or Palestinian),
while leaning favorably toward the former, see Jan Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language,
Culture, and History,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies [now The
Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies or JSCS] 43 (2010): 54–56.
6
The most widely know Greek translations circulating at this time were done by: Aquila (A.D. 125-50);
Theodotion (A.D. 160-70); and Symamchus (A.D. 180-95). After these three, Origen constructed his Hexapla (six-
fold) translation (early to mid 3rd century) followed by Lucian and Hesychius who both produced Greek versions of
the Hebrew Scripture in the early 4th century A.D.
7
This very issue was the second “Romanist Wall” that Martin Luther attacked in his treatise, “An Address
to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation concerning The Reform of the Christian Estate,” published August
18, 1520.
8
Metzger, 119.
74
is still used today by biblical scholars (with some revisions and expansions). This system
classified MSS with similarities into three geographical categories: Alexandrian (oldest);
Byzantine [or Constantinopolitan] (latest); and Western (somewhere in between). The taxonomy
of text families was Griesbach’s greatest contribution to the field of textual criticism. This was
because he realized that the real value of a manuscript lies not in its quantity of copies, as one
MS with 1o errors will have copies made multiplying the same 10 errors, but in its genealogy
with other similar MSS. Neill and Wright explain that, “He [Griesbach] had clearly grasped the
principle that no final results can be obtained until a complete classification has been made of all
the materials according to the families of manuscripts to which they belong” [emphasis in
original].9 This is a principle still respected by text critics today.10
Practice
In his now classic handbook on performing exegesis, Gordon Fee observed, “The key to
good exegesis is the ability to ask the right questions of the text in order to get at the author’s
intended meaning” [emphasis added].11 It is only the author’s intended meaning that matters
whenever one’s eyes fall on the sacred Text—all else is useless at best and dangerous at worst;
too many quasi-Christian cults have proven this. The student of Scripture who takes seriously
Fee’s words cannot neglect the discipline of engaging in textual criticism. While expert
proficiency of the task is of course desirable for any textual critic, possessing a basic working
knowledge is still miles above the paddling duck mentioned earlier. And today, students of the
Bible are not left without helpful tools to engage in the discipline of textual criticism.
For example, consulting the critical apparatuses found on each page of the two standard
Greek New Testaments, The Nestle-Aland 28th Novum Testamentum Graece and The Greek New
Testament 4th / 5th edition put out by the United Bible Societies, are generally the first steps in
the process of locating and weighing the value of any variants. The latter of the two gives an
actual letter grade to the variant (A–D) which the student can then look up in Bruce Metzger’s,
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, for the explanation as to why the textual
committee decided on that specific letter grade for that particular variant. For a more
comprehensive treatment of variants inside the Greek New Testament, the student can also
consult the NT Critical Apparatus put out by The Center for New Testament Textual Studies at
The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. This excellent tool is available on many Bible
software programs and provides the largest database of variants found in the NT; whether
insignificant or significant (altering meaning)—it is all there. These are just a few of the basic
tools easily at the disposal of the beginning text critic wishing to expose the original wording of
God’s revelation.
9
Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986 (Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, 2003), 71.
10
Due to space limits, there are many who have been left out of the history of text criticism presented here.
However, two more names that deserve mention are the 19 th century Cambridge scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.
Hort. Through diligent textual criticism, Westcott and Hort produced the groundbreaking critical Greek text, The
New Testament in the Original Greek, published in 1881.
11
Gordon D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors (Louisville, KY: John
Knox, 1993), 31.
75
Conclusion
Again, to echo Fee’s words: the key of any good exegesis is to get at the author’s
intended meaning. Textual criticism is an enormous help in doing that very thing for those
wanting to grow in God’s grace and knowledge poured out in the biblical Text. Rather than
being a discipline reversed for those in ivory towers, text criticism is a Bible study tool available
for all who take Paul’s command of σπουδάζω seriously. On this, text critic J. Harold Greenlee
agrees: “Textual criticism is the basic study for the accurate knowledge of any text…. It is
therefore deserving of the acquaintance and attention of every serious student of the Bible.”12
The Bible is just too deep to be satisfied with a mere surface study. It contains knowledge too
wonderful, too high not to at least try and grapple with (cf. Psalm 139:6). Radiant pearls
discovered through the deep ocean of exegesis—aided by textual criticism—awaits any serious
Bible student who is diligent enough to make sure they are approved before God (2 Tim 2:15).
12
J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1995), 7.
76
Textual criticism is
the study of the
copies of any written
document whose
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF JOHN 15:3–4
autograph (original)
is unknown or
Introduction nonexistent, for the
The first five verses of John 15 boldly testify to the perseverance of primary purpose of
the Text. The reason is because there are no major textual variant issues determining the
within its pericope. The UBS committee does not list a single variant until v.8
(γένησθε), and each of the variants listed in the NA27 throughout vv. 1–5 is exact wording of the
very minor affecting no meaning whatsoever. Minor they may be, out of five original
specific variants listed in the Nestle-Aland critical apparatus for vv.3–4, two
specific ones will be treated below since they provide the best opportunity for — DANIEL B
text criticism. However, a brief overview of all five will be surveyed first. WALLACE
th
Perhaps the most peculiar variant to note exists in a single 5 century
MS that omits all of v.3 and most of v.4, beginning its reading at ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ
(from himself). In addition to this variant, another sole variant exists at v.3
concerning the phrase “spoken to you (dative pronoun ὑμῖν in the printed reading) while one early
2nd century fragment uses the prepositional phrase “spoken in to you” (en umein). This particular
variant is given extra attention below in the translations as the added preposition does suggest a
deep nuance to Jesus’ words. The third minor variant involves μένῃ (abide) in the printed text
while there is one early MS with the reading, μεινη. This variant is so minor, as it deals with
spelling (orthography), even the best commentaries remain virtually silent regarding it. The
fourth variant concerns another sole, yet early MS that replaced the reading οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν
ἐμοὶ μένητε in the printed text with kai o en emoi menwn, while the fifth and final variant for vv.3– 4
involves the late medieval reading of μeinhte for the better attested printed reading choice of
μένητε.
John 15:3 1
ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν
(1) GNV
John 15:3 “Nowe are ye cleane through the worde, which I haue spoken vnto you.”
KJV
(2) John 15:3 “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”
ASV
(3) John 15:3 “Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you.”
ERV
(4) John 15:3 “Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you.”
ETH
(5) John 15:3 “Now are you clean because of the word which I have spoken with you.
MGI
(6) John 15:3 “You are pruned already, because of the word that I have spoken with you.
1
These six older English translations (16th – 19th centuries) stemming from both the Textus Receptus and
the Syriac Peshitta were the only ones found that chose to translate the variant en umein rather than the mere dative
ὑμῖν as printed in the NA and UBS Greek NTs. All other English translations reflect the NA and UBS reading.
77
Textual Variants Chart for John 15:3–4
3
ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν· 4 μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα
οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε
(John 15:3-4).
3 4
Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As
the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in
me (John 15:3-4).
Reading Byzantine Alexandrian Western Cesarean Others

ἤδη….φέρειν D* (V)
Omitted
en umein î66 *(II/III) î66 *(II/III)
μεινη A (V) î66 vid (II/III) D (V) Q (IX)

f 1 (X/XI) Y (IX/X)
1424 (IX)
0250 (VIII)
H013 (IX)
f 13 (X/XV)
1203 (X)
33 (IX)
1220 (X)
69 (XV)
1096 (XI)
1191 (XI)
1195 (XI)
1390 (XII)
1190 (XII)
10 (XIII)
1113 (XIII)
1023 (XIV)
1235 (XIV)
1232 (XV)
1247 (XV)
47 (XV)
56 (XV)
58 (XV)
kai o en emoi î66 (II)
menwn
Replaced
Text
meinhte f 1 (X/XI) D (V) Qc (IX)
EO7 (VIII) Y (IX/X)
G011 (IX) 0250 (VIII)
H013 (IX) f 13 (X/XV)
1203 (X) 33 (IX)
1220 (X) 69 (XV)
1346 (X)
78
669 (X)
1319 (XII)
1190 (XII)
1200 XII)
1217 (XII)
10 (XIII)
1113 (XIII)
1201 (XIII)
1238 (XIII)
1023 (IV)
1235 (IV)
1476 (IV)
1232 (XV)
1247(XV)
Discussion
As for the first of the two variants in the chart explored here, it can be seen the omission
of vv. 3 and 4 from ἤδη through φέρειν exists solely in the fifth century manuscript, Codex Bezae
(D*). According to the Center for New Testament Textual Studies (CNTTS), this is a reinked
Greek-Latin manuscript of the Gospels – Acts is housed in the Cambridge University Library
and classified as an Aland category IV, Western family text.2 The omission is likely due to a lack
of space at the bottom of the page in which a later scribe attempted to write in the omitted parts.
The smudged re-inked portion of the MS is clearly from a different hand than the rest of the text.
Moreover, the reading is a possible homoeoteleuton, that is, the omission may be the result of
jumping from like endings (as reported by the CNTTS). Due to the overwhelming external
evidence against this particular reading, as well as its visual difference internally, the preferred
reading is the one printed in both the NA and UBS texts.
The second variant warranting some exploration exists at v.3 concerning Jesus’ words
λελάληκα ὑμῖν (I have spoken to you, emphasis added). While the dative pronoun ὑμῖν is used in
the printed reading, the chart above shows one early 2nd century fragment, î66 *, that uses the
prepositional phrase “spoken in to you” (en umein). The CNTTS reports that this fragment is a
likely 3rd century corrector of the earlier 2nd century, î66 (hence the slash between dates in the
chart). This fragment is “located in the Bodmer Library and in the Chester Beatty Library,
classified as a free text, Aland category I text, Alex/Western mix.”3 Thus, the slash in the chart is
meant to show the transcendence of the two text types of this particular variant.
This variant may not be significant as in an altered meaning of the text, but this early
reading does suggest a deeper nuance to Jesus’ words if it is to be accepted as the original. The
preposition ἐν itself is by far the most widely used in the NT, totaling 26.5% of all prepositional
uses.4 This internal evidence coupled with the external evidence, viz., its existence in a very
early MS, does add considerable weight to its possible legitimacy at John 15:3. Apparently, the
2
cf. CNTTS, BibleWorks. The student has viewed a clear digital copy of this actual MS via BibleWorks
software.
3
Ibid.
4
Cf. Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference
Recourse for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 32.
79
early English translations above felt the same as they attempt to translate it highlighting either its
locative function, “unto”, or instrumental/sociative function, “with.” Thus Jesus can be saying
either that the disciples were clean because of the word He had spoken into them penetrating
their hearts, or that they were clean because of the words He had spoken to them while
accompanying them. Both options are possible due to the preposition’s versatility here. It is also
possible that the ἐν preposition was original due to the increasing vagueness of the dative case in
Koine Greek (the dative personal pronoun ὑμῖν being present in the text). While discussing the
preposition ἐν, Harris observes, “As the dative gradually weakened with its increasing load, the
role of prepositions became more and more significant as a means of clarifying the meaning
intended by the case ending.”5Thus clarity may have been the intention behind the early reading.
Yet, even with these compelling reasons that may lean toward favoring the variant reading, the
external evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of the printed reading. A few reasons should
suffice. While the variant is still early (3rd century), it is nonetheless itself a redaction of the
original î66. Additionally, it is the only known copy to exist. All others MSS favor the
preposition-less reading including the magisterial Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As to
the variant’s existence, a satisfying explanation is that of orthography—the reading is likely due
to vowel confusion or spelling differences. This is indeed a reason given by the reputable Center
for New Testament Textual Studies.6
Conclusion
Mentioned in the “practice” section of “A Brief Survey of Textual Criticism” was the use
of tools at the disposal of anyone wishing to engage in text criticism. As displayed above, the
various tools brought up there were consulted here when dealing with John 15:3–4. All of them
were used here as was necessary. Had this burgeoning text critic been satisfied with merely the
UBS text, no variants would have been explored as none were disclosed. The apparatus to the
NA27 certainly helped as it did list some variants in the text, even though they appeared to be
minor. Then after consulting and traversing the wide-ranged CNTTS apparatus, where excellent
detail was provided, each of these minor variants were the given the proper attention which
served in this exegete’s overall conclusion: this text as we have it printed in our modern Bibles
reflects the original text as written by John.
Being able to pin down the various MSS along with their variants could at times seem
dry and tedious. However, as we are to do “all things to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31), even
the discipline of textual criticism can be a worshipful experience. And it was here. While not an
expert by any means, this student of exegesis was left with an even deeper respect for God’s
Word. Despite the skeptics, God really has supernaturally preserved His revelation for His
people. As the psalmist declared, “Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens”
(Psalm 119:89), God’s Word is forever fixed and going nowhere. It is here to stay. And this brief
exercise in textual criticism has only helped to once-again support that truth.
5
Murray J. Harris, 115.
6
Cf. CNTTS, BibleWorks.
80
DIAGRAMS OF JOHN 15:1–5
John 15:1
81
John 15:2
82
John 15:3
83
John 15:4
84
John 15:4
(Continued)
85
86
John 15:5
(Continued)
87
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. BibleWorks 9.
Beasley-Murray, George. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
Bing, Charles, C. “The Condition for Salvation in John’s Gospel.” Journal of the Grace
Evangelical Society 9, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 25–37.
Black, David Alan. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic
Concepts and Applications. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995.
Brewer, David, Instone. “The Use of Rabbinic Sources in Gospel Studies.” Tyndale Bulletin 50,
no. 2 (NA 1999): 281–298.
Brown, Brown, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.
Burge, Gary M. Interpreting the Gospel of John: A Practical Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
2013.
Campbell, Constantine R. Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.
Carson, D. A. and Douglass Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2005.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 Vols. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.
Constable, Thomas L. “Notes on John.” Dr. Constable’s Expository (Bible Study) Notes.
Accessed April 9, 2017. http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm.
Croteau, David A. “Repentance Found? The Concept of Repentance in the Fourth Gospel.”
Master’s Seminary Journal 24, no.1 (Spring 2013): 97–123.
_______. Urban Legends of the New Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions. Nashville, TN:
B&H Academic, 2015.
88
Decker, Rodney, J. Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014.
Demoss, Matthew S. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP, 2001.
Eisenberg Joyce and Ellen Scholnic. Dictionary of Jewish Words. Philadelphia, PA: JPS, 2006.
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14. New Advent. Accessed March 22, 2017.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm.
Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. Louisville, KY:
John Knox, 1993.
Friberg, Barbara and Timothy Friberg and Neva F. Miller. Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000. BibleWorks 9.
Gingrich, Wilber F. Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago, 1983. BibleWorks 9.
Gleason, L. and Gregory Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. Chicago,
IL: Moody, 1983. BibleWorks 9.
Grassmick, John, D. Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis. Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1974.
Greenlee, Harold J. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Rev. Ed. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1995.
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential
Reference for Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
Helps Word-Studies. Bible Hub. Accessed March 21, 2017. http://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm.
Hendrickson, William. John. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004.
Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Corinth, TX: GES,
2014.
Joosten, Jan. “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture, and History.”
Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies [now The
Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies] 43 (2010): 51–70.
Josephus “Antiquities of the Jews.” In The Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.
89
_______. “Wars of the Jews.” In The Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987
Judaism 101. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.jewfaq.org/.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 Vols. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2003.
Kibbe, Michael. From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research. Downers Grove, IL:
IVP, 2016.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2000. BibleWorks 9.
Köstenberger, Andreas, J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: A Biblical Theology of the
New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
_______. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013.
_______.John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
2004.
_______. and Benjamin L. Merkle and Robert L. Plummer, Going Deeper with New Testament
Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament.
Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2016.
_______.andRichard Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel,

2011.
Liddell Henry George and Robert Scott. Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. Abridged
Version. Norfolk, VA, 2011. BibleWorks 9.
Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Eli. The Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, the King of Israel. Tel
Mond, Israel: Israel Study Center, 2015.
London Baptist Confession of 1689. Norfolk, VA, 2011. BibleWorks 9.
Louw, Johannes, E. and Engine Nida. Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains. Vols.
1 and 2. New York, NY: UBS, 1989. BibleWorks 9.
MacArthur, John F. The Gospel According to Jesus: What does it mean when He says, “Follow
Me”? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
_______. MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
Mantey, Julius, R. and H. E. Dana. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto,
ON: Macmillan, 1955.
90
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975.
Moulton, J.H. and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London, UK: Hodder and
Stroughton, 1930. BibleWorks 9.
Neill, Stephen and Tom Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Neusner Jacob. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages: Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity,
5 Vols. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1983–1985.
Oxford Dictionary. Accessed March 31, 2017.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rabbinism.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical
Research. 4th Ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934.
_______. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. 3rd Ed.
BibleWorks 9.
_______. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 Vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1960.
Rogers Jr., Cleon, L, and Cleon L. Rogers. III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the
Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
Singer, Isidore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia. Accessed March 31, 2017.
www.jewishencylopedia.com.
Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. BibleHub.com. Accessed April 7, 2017.

www.biblehub.com.
Thayer, Joseph, A. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Norfolk, VA, 2011.
BibleWorks 9.
The Center for New Testament Textual Studies NT Critical Apparatus. New Orleans Baptist
Theological Seminary. BibleWorks 9.
The Five Arminian Articles of 1610. Norfolk, VA, 2011. BibleWorks 9.
The Westminster Confession of Faith. Norforlk, VA, 2011. BibleWorks 9.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd Rev. Ed. Augsburg Fortress, MN:
Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001.
91
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.
_______. “Laying A Foundation: New Testament Textual Criticism.” In Interpreting the New
Testament Text. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006.
92

Jesus The True Vine An Exegesis of John PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jesus The True Vine An Exegesis of John PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JESUS, THE TRUE VINE:

AN EXEGESIS OF JOHN 15:1–5

Professor Thomas Rohm

Southern California Seminary

Of the Requirements for

BL-702 New Testament Exegesis II

Cory M. Marsh, M.Div., M.A.

April 18, 2017

Copyright © 2017 by Cory M. Marsh

Transaltions of John 15:1–5 ............................................................................................................ 4

Comparative Translations of John 15:1-5 ........................................................................................7

Exegetical Outline of John 14:30 - 15:1-5 ....................................................................................12

Controlling Purposes Statements ...................................................................................................13

Introduction to Exegesis of John 15:1-5 ........................................................................................14

Exegetical Commentary of John 15:1-5 ........................................................................................17

Conclusion of Exegesis ..................................................................................................................43

Application of John 15:1-5 ............................................................................................................45

Theological Analysis .....................................................................................................................47

Historical Analysis of John's Gospel .................................................................................50

Analysis of Rabbinism .......................................................................................................54

The Old Testament in John's Gospel .................................................................................58

Repentance in John's Gospel? ............................................................................................61

Word Study (Ἄμπελος) ......................................................................................................66

A Brief Survey of Textual Criticism ..................................................................................73

Textual Criticism of John 15:3-4 .......................................................................................77

Cory Marsh: I Am the true Vine, and my Father is the Cultivator.

John 14:30 — 15:1– 5: Jesus’ True Vine Illustration

What is the Purpose?

The Gospel of John

John 15—True Discipleship and Worldly Opposition

John 15:1–5—The True Vine

Campbell Campbell, Constantine R. Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights

Decker Decker, Rodney, J. Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated

Gingrich Gingrich, Wilber F. Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

L-N Louw, Johannes, E. and Engine Nida. Greek-English Lexicon Based on

Robertson Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in

Thayer Thayer, Joseph, A. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

Wallace Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical

THE “DEFINITE” ARTICLE

γεωργός ( cultivator, gardner, vine-dresser, land-worker). Strong#1092, 19x. Noun,

Introduction to John 15:2

Exegetical Problem Introduced at V.2

It appears that Jesus is describing a branch that is only superficially “in”

Conclusion to John 15:2

Introduction to John 15:3

Introduction to John 15:4

It is noteworthy that Jesus reserves the particular verb μένω in John 15 to

Conclusion to John 15:4

Introduction to John 15:5

Conclusion to John 15:5

Detailed Verse Recap

A Mere Profession is Not Discipleship

True Disciples Bear Fruit

Abide in John’s Gospel from the Inside

The True Vine

The Abiding Branches

The absence of any mention of John’s name directly is remarkable when

The fourth Gospel is most certainly a πνευματικὸν εὐαγγέλιον. This designation,

What Rabbinism is Not

Rabbinism and the New Testament

A Caution to Preachers and Authors

Direct Old Testament Quotations

Old Testament John’s Gospel

en umein î66 (II/III) î66 (II/III)