Jesus, The True Vine: An Exegesis of John 15:1-5

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, δ δάσ α ου, my ‫מֹרה‬. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1933), 1:viii. 1 1 INTRODUCTION It was Clement of Alexandria who first described the Gospel of John as a πνευματικὸν εὐαγγέλιον (spiritual gospel).1 ωlἷmἷnt’s words wἷrἷ not mἷant to undercut the factual accounts in the fourth Gospel, he merely pointed out an obvious difference between John and the Synoptiἵsέ Whilἷ thἷ othἷr thrἷἷ wἷrἷ morἷ ἵomprἷhἷnsivἷ in thἷir trἷatmἷnt oἸ Jἷsus’ disἵoursἷs givἷn ἴy Israἷl’s long awaitἷd εἷssiah, 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 prἷsἷntation oἸ Jἷsus’ kingly rulἷ The Greek New over Israel. In fact, John wastes no time highlighting this aspect, as seen Ἰor ἷxamplἷ, in σathaniἷl’s ἷarly dἷἵlaration that Jἷsus truly is thἷ Son oἸ Testament is the God and King of Israel (cf. 1:49). It is these dual traits of Christ—His divine personhood and relationship with Israel—that will be the focus of New Testament. this exegetical treatise. 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 oἸ ἷxἷgἷtiἵal analysis appliἷd to Jἷsus’ Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd 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 A. T. Robertson relationship with Him. While temporary Israel may fail, the eternal Israel doἷs notέ χnd with Jἷsus’ statἷmἷnt at John 1η, sandwiἵhἷd in thἷ 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 Hἷadέ ψy drawing on in languagἷ ἴἷἸitting oἸ Israἷl’s vitiἵulturἷ, Jἷsus ἷmphasiὐἷd 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 ἴἷ ἷxplainἷdέ χs thἷ papἷr is this studἷnt’s third major ἷxἷgἷtiἵal projἷἵt, a ἴasiἵ 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 ἴlinding light on this studἷnt’s unἸortunatἷ wἷaknἷss in thἷ art oἸ ἴrἷvity and suἵἵinἵtnἷssέ 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 ἷspἷἵially ἴἷ apparἷnt in this papἷr’s ἵommἷntary sἷἵtion, as many raἴἴit trails Ἰull of interesting insights are not chased. Fuller treatments exist elsewhere for such matters. 1 cf. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14. 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 2 With these sἷt, this papἷr’s sἵopἷ is quitἷ ἷxhaustivἷέ 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 appliἷd to John’s ἕospἷl ἴroadly and dirἷἵtἷd at John 15:1–5 specifically. Moreover, special attἷntion is also givἷn in this projἷἵt to Jἷsus’ sἷvἷnth and Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd “I χm” dἷἵlaration at verses 1 and 5. In a very real sense, these two verses form the grammatical-syntactical focus of the paper. An exegesis of Jἷsus ἴἷing “thἷ truἷ vinἷ” while thἷ disἵiplἷs arἷ “thἷ ἴranἵhἷs” 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. Thἷ grἷatἷst oἸ all modἷrn ἕrἷἷk grammarians dἷἵlarἷdμ “Thἷrἷ is nothing likἷ thἷ ἕrἷἷk New Testament to rejuvenate the world, which came out of the Dark Ages with the Greek Testament in its handέ” 3 What a powἷrἸul tἷstimony to ἕod’s prἷsἷrvἷd Sἵripturἷ throughout history! Thἷ δord has madἷ surἷ rἷmnants oἸ ἸaithἸul sἵholars dἷvotἷd to thἷ ψiἴlἷ’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 Ἰollows is this studἷnt’s ἴἷst attἷmpt at ἵapturing thἷ ἴἷautiἷs, mystἷry, and powἷr oἸ Jἷsus’ words in the Greek Text on the very night of His arrest. Any flaws contained therein lay squarἷly on this studἷntν any glory is to ἴἷ ἕod’s alonἷέ 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 καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν. 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 τutlinἷ adaptἷd Ἰrom Thomas δέ ωonstaἴlἷ, “σotἷs on John,” Drέ ωonstaἴlἷ’s Expository (ψiἴlἷ Study) Notes, accessed April 9, 2017, http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm. 1 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– ημ 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. Thἷ Rἷason Ἰor Jἷsus’ τἴἷdiἷnἵἷ to thἷ ἔathἷr was to show His lovἷ Ἰor Him to thἷ 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. Thἷ purposἷ oἸ Jἷsus’ oἴἷdiἷnἵἷ was to show His lovἷ Ἰor thἷ ἔathἷr to the world (v.31b). E. The reason Jesus leads the group of disciples out was for His vine illustration (v.31c). II. Thἷ Rἷason Ἰor Jἷsus’ Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd I χm statἷmἷnt was to dἷmonstratἷ thἷ Hἷ alone is the true Vine and His Father is the sovereign Cultivator (15:1–5). A. Thἷ rἷason Ἰor Jἷsus’ statἷmἷnt 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. Thἷ sourἵἷ oἸ thἷ disἵiplἷs ἵlἷanlinἷss was Jἷsus’ tἷaἵhing thἷm and thἷm 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. Thἷ rἷason ἴἷhind Jἷsus’ ἷntirἷ vinἷ and ἴranἵh 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 ultimatἷ purposἷ oἸ his ἕospἷl aἵἵount is to present Jesus as the sent Word of God who is overwhelmingly proved to be ἕod’s uniquἷ Son and εἷssiah—by means of seven chosen signs and sἷvἷn “I χm” dἷἵlarations, thἷ pἷrsonal witnἷss oἸ John thἷ ψaptist, Saἴἴath hἷalings, 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 άησοῦς 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 purposἷ oἸ thἷ Ἰirst Ἰivἷ vἷrsἷs oἸ John 1η is to highlight Jἷsus’ Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd 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 thἷ Holy Spirit that will ἵhangἷ Israἷl’s rἷlationship with ἕodέ χs Jἷsus madἷ 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 Jἷsus’ Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd I χm statἷmἷnt dἷmonstrating thἷ Hἷ alonἷ is thἷ truἷ Vinἷ 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 pἷak oἸ ψiἴlἷ studyέ Hἷrἷ, Paul’s words to “rightly dividἷ thἷ Word oἸ Truth” takἷ on thἷir most sἷrious ἷxprἷssion, as thἷ studἷnt oἸ ἕod’s Word must ἷngagἷ it with an attitude of π υ (2 Tim 2:15). This means, among others, that the Koine Greek must be investigated ἴy using sound hἷrmἷnἷutiἵal prinἵiplἷs in ordἷr to dἷἵlarἷ thἷ author’s intἷndἷd mἷaningέ1 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 othἷr words, as wἷll as thἷ disἵἷrniἴlἷ rulἷs that govἷrn thἷir plaἵἷmἷntέ IἸ “grammar” dἷals with all that is involved with Grammar thἷ “art oἸ Γ α α μ “The art of letters” lἷttἷrs,” 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 thἷm togἷthἷrέ” Syntax Thus words Σ α μ “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 Jἷsus’ Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd “I χm” dἷἵlaration in John’s ἕospἷlέ ψroadly, thἷ ἵhaptἷr is sἷt dirἷἵtly in thἷ middlἷ oἸ Jἷsus’ Ἰinal and privatἷ disἵoursἷ to His disἵiplἷs (1ἁ–17), and is given the night oἸ His ἴἷtrayal and arrἷstέ SpἷἵiἸiἵally, it is sἷt dirἷἵtly in ἴἷtwἷἷn Jἷsus’ prophἷἵiἷs 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 dἷmonstratἷ that ἴy Jἷsus dἷἵlaring that Hἷ is “ἡ ἄ π ἡ ” (thἷ truἷ vinἷ), and that His disἵiplἷs arἷ “ α α” (thἷ ἴranἵhἷs), Hἷ is intἷnding to ἵonvἷy that Hἷ is ἷvἷrything 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 φ α π π (bear much fruit). Finally, all of this is intended to support the ἕospἷl’s ovἷrall purposἷ, that is, to illiἵit and strἷngthἷn Ἰaith in Jἷsus ωhrist as thἷ Son oἸ ἕod, 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 studἷnt’s ownέ Extἷrnal Johanninἷ intἷrprἷtativἷ ἵommἷntariἷs, as hἷlpἸul and important thἷy 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 ἷaἵh word’s ἷxἷgἷtiἵal trἷatmἷnt ἵorrἷspond to thἷ Ἰollowing toolsμ 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. Rogἷrs’ 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. Introduction to 15:1 Verse one of chapter 5 commences with Jesus’ final predicated Ἐγώ Eἰμ declaration in John’s Gospel. )n contrast to the other six, the uniqueness of this particular ) 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 ) Am inclusio, along with its viticulture imagery, that is capped off in v.5 Eγ (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 ἴy saying, “I, I χm…” rἷmoving any amἴiguity as to thἷ idἷntity oἸ thἷ 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—“ψἷhold I sἷnd you out [ἐ π ] as shἷἷp amongst thἷ wolvἷs”ν and John κμἀζ (whiἵh usἷs thἷ ἐ ἰ construction)—“ἔor unlἷss you ἴἷliἷvἷ that I am Hἷ [ἐ ἰ ], you will diἷ in your sinsέ” τthἷr 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 ἐ with the verb ἰ , as He does here in John 15:1, the reader would do well to discern the intensity of the discourse taking place—and Jἷsus’ plaἵἷ in itέ Eἰ (Am). Strong# 1510, 2479x:1 Verb, Present Active Indicative 1st Person Singular. BDAG statἷs thἷ mἷaning to “to be, ἷxist, ἴἷ on hand” which, in Scripture, is a predominate use of God It should be noted that Andres Köstenberger, et al., lists 2,463 occurrences of ἰ (Going Deeper, 503). Thἷ diἸἸἷrἷnἵἷ in numἴἷr hἷrἷ and ἷlsἷwhἷrἷ ἵan usually ἴἷ attriἴutἷd to thἷ partiἵular manusἵripts at thἷ sἵholar’s 1 17 (2272). Here in v.1, the finite equative εἰμί serves a stative active function, a very common usage in the NT. Aἵἵording to Wallaἵἷ, “The subject exists in the state indicated by the verb” (ζ1ἀ)έ This is easy to identify as “thἷ stativἷ aἵtivἷ oἵἵurs…with the equative verb” (ζ1ἁ)έ In addition to Wallace, L-σ likἷwisἷ ἵlassiἸiἷs this vἷrἴ as undἷr thἷir ἵatἷgory, “statἷ” (1ἁέ1-13.47). 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 χm” statἷmἷnt, whiἵh is douἴtlἷss an ἷmphatiἵ dἷἵlaration oἸ dἷityέ 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 purposἷ oἸ John’s ἕospἷl as thἷy, along with Jἷsus’ miraἵlἷs, inspirἷ Ἰaith in Him as thἷ ωhrist, the Son of God (20:31). The present tense of each of these εἰμι statements of deity makes it clear that Jἷsus’ work as εἷssiah and δord is in ἵurrἷnt opἷration, and ἵan nἷvἷr ἴἷ ἸulἸilled 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 predicatἷd “I χm” statἷmἷntsέ In othἷr words, Jἷsus 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 statἷs his sἷntimἷnts, “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…έIn short, there is no more important aspect of Greek grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought and theology oἸ thἷ σT writἷrs” (207-8). Robertson likewise exprἷssἷd, “The development of the Greek article is onἷ oἸ thἷ most intἷrἷsting things in human spἷἷἵh” (ιηζ)έ χs is usually thἷ ἵasἷ with ἕrἷἷk grammar, thἷ article carries with it a basic rule, yet it is not always tightly held. The normal rule of the artiἵlἷ’s usagἷ is to identify the ἵlausἷ’s suἴstantivἷ; 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 “prἷdiἵatἷ nominativἷέ” This simply mἷans onἷ nominativἷ 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). π ([grape] vine). Strong #288, 9x: Noun, [Predicate] Nominative Feminine Singular. The type of vine meant here is undoubtedly a grape-vine (cf. Friberg, 1378)—onἷ oἸ thἷ most “priὐἷd disposal. The differences in number counting, where found, are generally minor (always under 50), and affect no major doctrine. 18 plants” rἷprἷsἷnting thἷ most “privilἷgἷd among nations” (Rogἷrs, ἀ1ι)έ ψy Jἷsus 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, ἄ π (LXX) / (MT), 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 vinἷ had a prominἷnt plaἵἷ not only in Israἷl’s vitiἵulturἷ, ἴut also as pἷrmanἷnt dἷἵorations Ἰor the Jerusalem Templἷέ τn this, Josἷphus dἷsἵriἴἷd thἷ Tἷmplἷ as having “a goldἷn vinἷ, with its branches hanging down [from above the front doors and embroidered veils] from a great height, thἷ largἷst and Ἰinἷ workmanshipέ”2 These golden vines, reported elsewhere by Josephus, had “ἵlustἷrs oἸ grapἷs hung [Ἰrom thἷm] as tall as a man’s hἷightέ”3 Thus Jἷsus’ dἷἵlaration that Hἷ is the true ἄ π , 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), sἷrvἷs to undἷrsἵorἷ Jἷsus’ ἷxtrἷmἷ ἷmphasis (ἵἸέ Rogἷrs, ἀ1ι)έ Sἷἷ this projἷἵt’s “Word Study” Ἰor Ἰurthἷr insight on ἄ π . 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. ἀ (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 ἄ π 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, whiἵh is ἵommon in thἷ σTμ “χrtiἵlἷ-Noun-Article-χdjἷἵtivἷ” (Köstenberger, et al., 167). Robertson adds that with thἷ rἷpἷtition oἸ thἷ artiἵlἷ, “both substantive and adjective receive emphasis and the adjective is added as a sort of climax in apposition with a sἷparatἷ artiἵlἷ” (ιιθ–77). As to the actual word itself, BDAG defines this adjectivἷ as “pertaining to being real, genuine, authentic, real” (ἁἀι)έ Thus in contrast to Israel who was ἕod’s own ἷlἷἵt nation (Isa ζἁμ1)—a nation that was mἷant to display all oἸ Yahwἷh’s love and justice to the world—Jἷsus, ἕod’s Son and εἷssiah, was thἷ rἷal, 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. Κα (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” (θι1)έ ἕrammatiἵally, thἷ additional idἷa in Jἷsus’ usἷ oἸ καί here at v.1 is what distinguishes this predicated ἐγώ εἰμι from the other six. This is ἴἷἵausἷ it is thἷ only onἷ oἸ Jἷsus grἷat “I χm” statements that is a compound clause with equal grammatical clausal-weight separated by the 2 3 Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 15:11:3. 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 Jἷsus’ ἔathἷrέ Sἷἷ ἵommἷnts aἴovἷ Ἰor Ἰurthἷr inἸormation rἷgarding thἷ artiἵlἷέ πα (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 spἷἵial ἔathἷr Ἰor ωhristians (Rom 1μι)ν and “as ἔathἷr oἸ Jἷsus ωhrist as a witness concerning HimsἷlἸ” (BDAG, 5728). Clearly, it is in this last usage that Jesus uses πα in 15:1. Here, Jesus’ ἔathἷr is ἴrought immἷdiatἷly in ἵonjunἵtion with His Ἰinal “I χm” statement. This is significant, not only for being a hapax construction in Jἷsus’ sἷvἷn dἷἵlarations oἸ dἷity, but also for its timing. On the very night Jesus made the declaration, He was betrayed and arrested. The disἵiplἷs would no longἷr ἴἷ with Him as thἷy had ἴἷἷnέ Thus, Jἷsus’ statἷmἷnt would ἴring extra assurance for the disciples that no matter what was about to take place, the Father is always alongside Him—tilling all the ground Ἰor His Son’s atoning work oἸ gloryέ υ (my). Strong# 1473, 2600x. Personal Pronoun Genitive Singular. According to Wallace, “Pἷrsonal pronouns arἷ Ἰar and away thἷ most Ἰrἷquἷntly usἷd pronouns in thἷ σTέ Two out oἸ three pronouns belong to this classiἸiἵation” (ἁἀ0)έ Wallaἵἷ also lists ἁἁ spἷἵiἸiἵ Ἰunἵtions oἸ thἷ 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 “onἷ oἸ thἷ most prἷvalἷnt usἷs oἸ thἷ gἷnitivἷ, ἷspἷἵially with pronouns” (Dana and εantἷy, 70), the genitive of relationship can be considered a special class of the former (Ibid.). As reported by Dana and εantἷy, “This ἵonstruction was abundantly used in colloquial Greek of the Koine pἷriod, as ἷvidἷnἵἷd ἴy its Ἰrἷquἷnt oἵἵurrἷnἵἷ in thἷ papyri” (ιι)έ While God is rἷἸἷrἷnἵἷd as “ἔathἷr” ἀζx throughout thἷ τT (1ηx ἵonἵἷrning individuals and λx ἵonἵἷrning By this is meant John 15:1 is unique in having two equal, full clauses in its compound separated by α . Both John 11:25 and 14:6 contain the copulative α 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 Johnέ σἷvἷrthἷlἷss, only John 1ημ1 is ἷxpliἵit is in its ἵompound, ἵlausal ἵonstruἵtion whiἵh is notἷworthy as John’s “dἷἸault position” is asyndἷton (ἵἸέ ωampἴἷll, 1θι–68). 5 It is worth noting Stephen H. Levinsohn of the Summer Institute of Linguistics here. While he does acknowledge α in Gospel literature as functioning as a conjunction linking sentences, he also suggests it can have a “nonἵonjunἵtivἷ” Ἰunἵtion whἷrἷ 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, α can indicate “parallἷlism ἴἷtwἷἷn thἷ proposition ἵonἵἷrnἷd and an ἷarliἷr onἷ” whἷrἷ a proposition “is addἷd to ἵonἸirm an ἷarliἷr onἷ” (ωampἴἷll, 1θκ, ἷmphasis in original)έ Whilἷ this may ἴἷ thἷ ἵasἷ in John 1ημ1, thἷ α 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. 4 20 Israἷl), Jἷsus usἷs thἷ ἵonstruἵtion, “εy ἔathἷr” ῦ πα υ 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. γ ω γ ( cultivator, gardner, vine-dresser, land-worker). Strong#1092, 19x. Noun, [Predicate] Nominative Masculine Singular. Like ἡ ἄ π (the vine) above, the noun here is functioning as a predicate nominative. Because grammatically both ὁ πα and ὁ 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 ) is what serves as the predicate nominative here while ὁ πα is the subject nominative (cf. Köstenberger et al, 55; Wallace, 44). A compound of ῆ and (workἷr), litἷrally mἷans “land-workἷr” or onἷ who “tills thἷ ground” (δSJ, κ1ηκν ἵἸέ Thayἷr, 11ζἁ)έ Whilἷ oἵἵurring ninἷ timἷs in thἷ 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 Ἰarmἷr’s puἴliἵ ἴurdἷns” (εoulton and εilligan, κη1)έ 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 Ἰathἷr ωain (ἕἷn ἀμ1ην ζμἀ), and onἷ that madἷ sἷvἷral oἸ Jἷsus’ paraἴlἷs in thἷ Synoptiἵsέ Jἷsus, thἷ truἷ vinἷ, was “plantἷd” ἴy His Ἰathἷr, thἷ 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 thingsέ With that, thἷrἷ is a prolἷptiἵ allusion hἷrἷ to Jἷsus’ words in χἵts 1μι that no onἷ knows thἷ hour oἸ ἵonsummation oἸ Israἷl’s coming kingdom, including the glorified Son, but the Father alone—who is the great Cultivator. (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 “Dἷἵlarativἷ Indiἵativἷ” sinἵἷ it is employed to convey an unqualified assertion (201)έ This is thἷ mood’s most ἵommon usagἷ in thἷ σT (ἵἸέ 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-workἷrέ It appἷars that ἷaἵh oἸ Jἷsus’ six prἷdiἵatἷd ’εγώ εἰμι statements deal with His redemptive role with believers during the age between the Fall and Consummationέ χnd, inanimatἷ imagἷry suἵh as “ἴrἷad,” “door,” and “vinἷ” ἵonvἷy a prἷsἷnt 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 Eἰμ declaration in John’s Gospel. )n contrast to the other six, the uniqueness of this particular ) 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 )n v. , Jesus emphatically declares that (e is the true vine while (is Father is the landworker. With that, there is a gentle allusion to (is submission to the Father’s cultivation of (is 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, (e now alludes to the disciples as (is branches. While (e 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. πᾶ (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 dἷsἵriἴἷs this initiating adjἷἵtival phrasἷ as an anaἵoluthon undἷr his ἵatἷgory “suspἷndἷd suἴjἷἵt” (ζ36), while Wallace labels it a Pendent Accusative (Accusativum Pendens)—as this aἵἵusativἷ phrasἷ is a grammatiἵal indἷpἷndἷnt usἷ oἸ thἷ aἵἵusativἷ and is thus “hanging” Ἰrom the rest of the clause (189) (cf. diagram for visual display of this syntactically awkward verse). πᾶ hἷrἷ “mἷans ‘all’ in thἷ sἷnsἷ oἸ ‘each (every) part that applies.’ The emphasis of the total piἵturἷ thἷn is on ‘onἷ piἷἵἷ at a timἷέ’”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. α (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). K ῆ α is derived from thἷ vἷrἴ which means “to ἴrἷak” (Thayer, 2971), and thus Rogἷrs’ dἷsἵriἴἷs this typἷ oἸ ἴranἵh as “ἵanἷ, a shoot oἸ a vinἷ” (ἀ1κ)έ Additionally, L-σ suἴsumἷs this noun undἷr thἷir “non-fruit parts of plants” sἷmantiἵ ἵatἷgory and dἷἸinἷ it as “morἷ or lἷss tἷndἷr, flexible branch, as of a vine – 'branch' (principally oἸ grapἷvinἷs)” (ἁέη0)έ Jἷsus’ vitiἵulturἷ illustration is now in Ἰull 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. (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x7. Proper Preposition, Dative. Concerning the ἐ preposition, Wallace states it “is the workhorse of prepositions in the NT, occurring more frequently and in morἷ variἷd situations than any othἷrέ” 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 oἴsἷrvἷs, “χs thἷ dative gradually weakened with its increasing load, the role of prepositions became more and morἷ signiἸiἵant as a mἷans oἸ ἵlariἸying thἷ mἷaning intἷndἷd ἴy thἷ ἵasἷ ἷndingέ”8 The partiἵular usagἷ Ἰor this partiἵular prἷposition is “spatial/sphἷrἷ” (Wallaἵἷ, ἁι2), as branches are in thἷ vinἷέ χs suἵh, it is hἷrἷ at vέἀ whἷrἷ our primary ἷxἷgἷtiἵal “proἴlἷm” is surἸaἵἷdέ Exegetical Problem Introduced at V.2 It appἷars that Jἷsus is dἷsἵriἴing a ἴranἵh that is only supἷrἸiἵially “in” the vine. If Judas is the example being portrayed here, and it makes plausiἴlἷ sἷnsἷ that hἷ is, this typἷ oἸ ἴranἵh was nἷvἷr rἷally “in” thἷ 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 / disἵiplἷs ἴἷ “in” ωhristς This lattἷr aspἷἵt is takἷn up ἴἷlow at vέζέ (me, myself). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun Dative 1st Person Singular. This can ἴἷ ἵonsidἷrἷd as a “dativἷ aἸtἷr ἵἷrtain prἷpositions” (Wallaἵἷ, 1ιη). By using the dative ἐ , there “is an addἷd Ἰἷaturἷ oἸ ἷmphasis in thἷ Ἰorm ἐ ” (δ-N, 92.1). Jesus using the prepositional phrase ἐ ἐμοί here in v.2 intensifies His role as the vine of which the branches are totally dependent. ωommἷnting on this prἷpositional phrasἷ in vέἀ, Roἴἷrtson statἷs, “Two kinds oἸ connexion [sic] with Christ as the vine (the merely cosmic which bears no fruit, the spiritual and vital whiἵh ἴἷars Ἰruit” (Roἴἷrtson, WPNT, 257). (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 grammatiἵal “rulἷ” (ἵἸέ Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr, ἷt alέ, ζἀ0)έ The negative particle is more subjective than o in that while the latter outright denies the thing itself, the former is used to dἷny an idἷa, ἵonἵἷpt, or hypothἷtiἵal situation (ἵἸέ Thayἷr, ἁζηζ)έ χs Roἴἷrtson statἷs, “If οὐ denies the fact, μή dἷniἷs thἷ idἷa” (11θι)έ Here its usage is to clarify that a branch not φ α π (ἴἷaring Ἰruit) will ἴἷ takἷn away ἴy ἕod, thἷ grἷat Vinἷdrἷssἷr. 7 Wallace lists 2752 usages (357), as does Decker (636). Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Recourse for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 115. 8 24 φ (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 ἴἷar or ἵarry Ἰrom onἷ plaἵἷ to anothἷr with Ἰoἵus on an aἵt oἸ transport” (ιι0λ)έ Its usage here, like the other two, carries a temporal function (Wallace, 623), and is contemporanἷous to thἷ govἷrning vἷrἴ, α (hἷ takἷs away)έ Thἷ idἷa oἸ a ἴranἵh “in thἷ vinἷ” 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). α π (fruit). Strong #, 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. Decker defines this noun as having thrἷἷ distinἵt mἷaningsμ “Thἷ produἵt oἸ a plant (whἷthἷr trἷἷ, vinἷ, ἴush, vegetable, etc.), agricultural produce; the offspring of a person; metaphorically of the result or outἵomἷ oἸ an aἵtion or attitudἷ” (θζἁ)έ While using the literal agricultural meaning as the starting point (Dἷἵkἷr’s Ἰirst option), it is thἷ third ἵhoiἵἷ, thἷ mἷtaphoriἵal, that Jἷsus tἷnds to convey at v.2 by His illustration of a branch either bearing or nor bearing fruit. α (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 translatἷ this vἷrἴ “to liἸt up” as John usἷs thἷ vἷrἴ in this sἷnsἷ ἷlsἷwhἷrἷ (κμηλν 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 notἷworthy that thἷ σET ψiἴlἷ translatἷs this vἷrἴ “Hἷ ἵuts oἸἸ,” and statἷs: “In context (theological presuppositions aside for the moment) the meaning ‘rἷmovἷ’ does seem more natural and less forced (particularly in light of v. 6, where worthless branches are described as ἴἷing ‘thrown out’ – an image that seems incompatible with restoration).” With Judas as thἷ premier apostate branch not bearing fruit, and currently removed from the group, it is in the sἷnsἷ oἸ ἴἷing “takἷn away” or “ἵut oἸἸ” that Jἷsus is ἵonvἷying hἷrἷ in vέἀέ α , (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 modiἸiἷs Ἰrom ἷvἷrything ἷlsἷ” (ψiἴlἷWorks; 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. kα (and). Strong# 2532, 9079x: Coordinating Conjunction. Wallace labels this as connective ἵonjunἵtion (or ἵontinuativἷ, ἵoordinatἷ) and goἷs on to statἷμ “This use simply connects an additional element to a discussion or adds an additional idea to the train of thought” (θι1)έ Jἷsus 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. πᾶ (every). Strong #3956, 1248x. Adjective, Accusative Neuter Singular. See above comments concerning this repeated adjective. 25 α π (fruit). Strong #, 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. See above comments concerning this repeated noun. φ (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. α α (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. Thἷ mἷaning is to “make clean by purging (rἷmoving undἷsiraἴlἷ ἷlἷmἷnts)ν hἷnἵἷ, ‘prunἷd (purgἷd)ν ἷliminating what is fruitless by purifying (making unmixed)έ”9 BDAG adds α α means “to remove superfluous growth from a plant, clear, prune oἸ a vinἷ” (ἁκ0ι)έ Methods of pruning in ANE viticulture included training vines on trellises, poles, or trees. Sticking with the farming illustration, Rogers ἷxplainsμ “Thἷ light pruning was donἷ ἴy snapping oἸἸ thἷ tips ἴy hand so that the wood would grow longἷr” (ἀ1κ)έ Jἷsus’ use of this verb here at v.2 is probably a play on words with καθαροί in v.3, thἷ lattἷr also ἴἷing usἷd in thἷ uppἷr room whἷn Jἷsus dἷἵlarἷd thἷ group “ἵlἷan” (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). α , (it). Strong # 846, 5606x. Personal Pronoun, Accusative Neuter 3rd Person Singular. See above comments concerning this repeated pronoun. α (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, “Purposἷ ἵlausἷs may ἷxhiἴit various shadἷs oἸ mἷaning, ranging Ἰrom dἷliἴἷratἷ dἷsign to mἷrἷ tἷndἷnἵy or rἷsult” (ἀκἁ)έ Hἷrἷ at vέἀ, 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 morἷ Ἰruitέ This ἵἷrtainly Ἰits thἷ ἵontἷxt oἸ Jἷsus’ words, whilἷ aἵknowlἷdging that being pruned with the result of producing more fruit is not far behind. Either way, the point ἴἷing madἷ is ἵlἷar oἸ whiἵh Roἴἷrtson addsμ “χ good tἷst Ἰor modἷrn ωhristians and church mἷmἴἷrs” (WPNT, 257). α π (fruit). Strong #, 2590, 66x. Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular. See above comments for more concerning this repeated noun. π α (more). Strong# 4119, 55x. Comparative Adjective, Accusative Masculine Singular. This adjective is the comparative degree of the positive, πολύς (much, many). BDAG defines π α as “being a large number, many, a grἷat numἴἷr” (θ0θ1), and when it precedes or following a noun (or participle or adjective used as a noun) in thἷ plural, “many, numἷrous” (Iἴidέ) Jἷsus is making it ἵlἷar that Ἰor thosἷ “ἴranἵhἷs” (ἴἷliἷvἷrs) who ἕod prunἷs, Hἷ doἷs 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 φ ῃ (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 proἴaἴlἷέ Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr, ἷt alέ ἷxplains that thἷ suἴjunἵtivἷ mood “do[ἷs] not involve time of aἵtion ἴut [is] rἷstriἵtἷd to thἷ kind oἸ aἵtion or thἷ author’s pἷrspἷἵtivἷ oἸ thἷ aἵtion” (ἀ0ἀ)έ 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 likἷly to oἵἵur, not positivἷly what will oἵἵur” (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 α conjunction earlier. This is relevant, because as Robertson states, “The subjunctive is always future, subordinate clauses relatively future” (924). ThἷrἷἸorἷ, whἷn Jἷsus said that ἴranἵhἷs arἷ prunἷd so thἷy “might ἴἷar morἷ Ἰruit,” it is thἷ 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 (im and produced fruit. (owever, 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. Introduction to John 15:3 The concept of cleansing or pruning ( αθαίρω) 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 , 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 to John 5. ἤ (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 ἐ as Jἷsus is saying thἷ disἵiplἷs “arἷ now” or “arἷ alrἷady” ἵlἷan ἴy His past spokἷn wordsέ Roἴἷrtson has a notἷ stating “potἷntially ἵlἷansἷd” hἷrἷ at vέἁ (ἵἸέ WPNT, 258), but taken in its plain, literal sense, Jesus makes is it clean the disciples are already cleaned. ῖ (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 ἷmphasis ἴἷing ἵonvἷyἷd hἷrἷέ Dἷἵkἷr agrἷἷsμ “Whἷn a writἷr ἵhoosἷs to usἷ a pronoun anyway, there is a certain degree oἸ attἷntion drawn to thἷ suἴjἷἵt oἸ thἷ statἷmἷnt” (θθ)έ 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. α α (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 α α 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 ἴrings addἷd insight to Jἷsus’ using this samἷ adjἷἵtivἷ during thἷ Ἰoot washing sἵἷnἷ in 13:10-11. Rather than the mere water being the cleansing instrument, ultimately, it was and is Jἷsus’ 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 thἷ group ἴἷing dἷsἵriἴἷd hἷrἷ as “ἵlἷanέ” Tragiἵally, hἷ had alrἷady departed into a night as dark as his own heart (13:30). (are). Strong# 1510, 2479x. Verb, Present Active Indicative 2nd Person Plural. The present tense of this verb, used in conjunction with the adverb ἤ , further suggests that the disciples were already and presently at the moment α α ί (ἵontraέ Roἴἷrtson, WPNT, 258). See above comments for more on this repeated state of being verb. (because of). Strong #1223, 669x. Proper Preposition, Accusative. Robertson notes that our English gloss “through” (as in “passing through in ἴἷtwἷἷn”) is not thἷ original mἷaning oἸ though that is its predominate use in the genitive.10 While its origin may be debated, Murray Harris notes, “ moved beyond the categories of space and time to express the idea of ‘intἷrvἷntion,’ thἷ idἷa oἸ any ἵausἷ, whἷthἷr dirἷἵt or indirἷἵt, primary or sἷἵondary, that ἵomἷs ἴἷtwἷἷn thἷ ἴἷginning and ἷnd oἸ an aἵtion” (ι1)έ Whilἷ δ-N suggests no less than ten NT uses ,11 it makes the most grammatical-historical sense to understand the preposition at v.3, in the aἵἵusativἷ ἵasἷ and thus ἵonvἷying thἷ ἵausal idἷa oἸ “ἴἷἵausἷ oἸ,” “Ἰor thἷ sakἷ oἸ,” “on aἵἵount oἸ” (ἵἸέ Roἴἷrtson, ηκἁ)έ Thus Jἷsus 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 rἷἵἷiving Jἷsus’ disἵoursἷs, ἵommands, and instruἵtionsέ v (the). Strong #3588, 20012x. For all further articles found in the pericope at hand, please refer to comments made earlier. γ (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 v as a chief utterance encapsulating an entire body of truth “Sinἵἷ this ‘divinἷ word’ is ἴrought to humanity through ωhrist, his word ἵan ἴἷ usἷd in thἷ samἷ sἷnsἷ” (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 (ἵἸέ Jἷsus’ usἷ oἸ 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 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 oἸ thἷ disἵiplἷs’ ἵlἷansing is unamἴiguously idἷntiἸiἷd as Jἷsus’ Wordέ Whilἷ thἷ physiἵal watἷr during thἷ Ἰoot washing sἵἷnἷ dramatiἵally displayἷd Jἷsus’ ἵlἷansing oἸ 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. ὃ (which, what, who, that). Strong# 3739, 1411x. Relative Pronoun, Accusative Masculine Singular. Relative pronouns, acἵording to Wallaἵἷ, arἷ “‘hingἷ’ words in that thἷy ἴoth rἷἸἷr back to an antecedent in the previous clause and also function in some capacity in their own ἵlausἷ” (ἁἁη)έ 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. ά α (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 “ἵomἴination oἸ thἷ pἷrἸἷἵtivἷ and impἷrἸἷἵtivἷ aspἷἵts” (Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr, ἷt alέ ἀλι)έ IἸ thἷ ἵhoiἵἷ had to ἴἷ madἷ, this studἷnt lἷans morἷ toward Kostἷnἴἷrgἷr’s takἷ on thἷ pἷrἸἷἵt’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 λαλ ω (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. ῖ (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 ἴἷnἷἸiἵiary oἸ Jἷsus’ ἵlἷansing wordsέ 30 Conclusion to John 15:3 While the concept of cleansing or pruning ( αθαίρω) 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 (is disciples’ feet in John , 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 αέ 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. Introduction to John 15:4 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. α (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, ἀηκ) as thἷ “aἴiding” rἷlationship ἴἷtwἷἷn ἴranἵh and vinἷ—disciple and Jesus—is piἵturἷd in its ἷntirἷty as a wholἷέ χs Roἴἷrtson oἴsἷrvἷs, “Thἷ only way to continue ‘ἵlἷan’ (prunἷd) and to ἴἷar Ἰruit is to maintain a vital spiritual ἵonnἷxion [sic] with Christ (the vinἷ)” (Iἴid)έ Wallaἵἷ ἵatἷgoriὐἷs this aorist impἷrativἷ as a “solἷmn or ἵatἷgoriἵal ἵommand” and addsμ “thἷ strἷss is on thἷ solemnity and urgency oἸ thἷ aἵtion” (ιἀ0). 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 verἴ suggἷsts “thἷ rἷsponsiἴility Ἰor prἷsἷrving this intimatἷ Ἰἷllowship is ἵlἷarly…to rἷst on thἷ ἴἷliἷvἷr” (1ἁη)έ It is thἷ vἷrἴ to “aἴidἷ” at vέζ whiἵh solvἷs thἷ ἷxἷgἷtiἵal proἴlἷm ἷarliἷrέ 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 ἵausἷd at vέἀ ἴy thἷ prἷpositional phrasἷ “in εἷ” whἷn Jἷsus dἷsἵriἴἷd 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). (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 ἐ , Robertson observes that this is a Ἰrἷquἷnt usἷ, “whἷrἷ a singlἷ ἵasἷ is sἷlἷἵtἷd as a spἷἵimἷn or striking illustration” (ηκι)έ This is precisely what Jesus is doing at vέζ piἵturing truἷ disἵiplἷs as thosἷ that rἷmain “in” Himέ12 (me). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal [intensive] Pronoun, Dative 1st Person Singular. See earlier comments regarding this repeated pronoun.13 ἀγ (and I). Strong# 2504, 84x Conjunction and Personal Pronoun, Nominative Singular. A crasis (combination) of the coordinating conjunction αί and pronoun ἐγώ, κἀγώ can function as both. The crasis form of 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. (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments regarding this rἷpἷatἷd prἷpositionέ What is worth adding hἷrἷ, howἷvἷr, is εurray Harris’s takἷ on Jἷsus’ usἷ of ἐν at vv.4–ηέ Hἷ ἵlassiἸiἷs thἷ prἷposition undἷr “sphἷrἷ oἸ inἸluἷnἵἷ” and statἷs thἷ prἷpositional phrasἷ “in ωhrist,” is ἷquivalἷnt to thἷ adjἷἵtivἷ “ωhristian” (Χριστιαν ς). Harris goἷs on to say, “Thἷ notion oἸ dirἷἵt rἷlation ἴἷtwἷἷn two individuals is to thἷ Ἰorἷν rἷἵiproἵity oἸ Ἰἷllowship ἴἷtwἷἷn ἴἷliἷvἷr and ωhrist is impliἷdέ It is thἷ risἷn and ἷxaltἷd ωhrist…that indwells the believer (through the Spirit). Only in Johannine thought do we find the idea of personal co-inhἷrἷnἵἷ” (1ἀη)έ Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology, 134–36, dἷvotἷs suἴstantial spaἵἷ to John’s usἷ oἸ ἐ when used with the intransitive , dἷsἵriἴing it as “thἷologiἵally signiἸiἵantέ” χἵἵording to Harris, John spἷἵiἸiἵally has in mind “idἷas oἸ ἵontinuanἵἷ, pἷrmanἷnἵy, and adhἷrἷnἵἷ,” hἷavily implying an intimatἷ rἷlationship—“a reciprocal immanence bἷtwἷἷn two partiἷs (‘rἷmain unitἷd to’)έ” 13 Yet, this student cannot resist the temptation to make one further comment rἷgarding Jἷsus’ statἷmἷnt to aἴidἷ or rἷmain “in Himέ” Noted theologian, Tim Lahaye, had a personal 1901 ASV Bible that he used throughout his ministryέ This vἷry ψiἴlἷ, stampἷd with ἴluἷ ink “Rἷvέ Tim ἔέ δahayἷ” on thἷ Ἰront pagἷ, was kἷpt in his homἷ oἸἸiἵἷ in χlpinἷ, and ἵamἷ into this studἷnt’s pἷrsonal possἷssion aἸtἷr hἷ diἷd in July ἀ01θέ Thἷ ψiἴlἷ is ἵhoἵk Ἰull oἸ Drέ δahayἷ’s hand written notes in the margins, blank pages, etc. from Genesis to Revelation—long before his “δἷἸt ψἷhind” Ἰamἷέ In John 1ημ1–5, the passage to which this exegesis is devoted, Lahaye has one hand written and undἷrlinἷd notἷ in ἴluἷ ink at vέἀ’s prἷpositional phrase concerning the disciples to abide in Jesus, which is repeated here at v.4. Drέ δahayἷ’s notἷ simply rἷadsμ “ψἷst dἷἸinition oἸ salv[ation] thἷrἷ isέ” 12 33 ῖ (to you). Strong# 4771, 2926x. Personal Pronoun, Dative Plural. See earlier comments regarding this repeated pronoun. α (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 κατ (according to) and the adverb ὡς (like, as). Thus BDAG defines its use a “ἵomparison, just as” (ἁκζἁ; cf. Köstenberger, et al., 414). Hence, Jesus is here at v.4 making a comparison between the fruitless branch and the fruitless disciple. v (the). Strong #3588, 20012x. Article, Nominative Neuter Singular. See earlier comments regarding this repeated article. α (branch) Strong# 2814, 4x. Noun, Accusative, Neuter Singular. See earlier comments regarding this repeated noun. (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 α α . 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 α clause. α α (you are able, accomplish). Strong# 1410, 210x. Verb, Present Middle Indicative 3rd Person Singular. L-σ ἵlassiἸiἷs this vἷrἴ undἷr thἷir “χἴlἷ / ωapaἴlἷ” semantic domain with 28 different nuances. Yet, they broadly define it as “to ἴἷ aἴlἷ to do or to ἷxpἷriἷnἵἷ somἷthing” (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 ἵomparison is truἷ oἸ a ωhristian’s rἷlationship with Jἷsusέ In thἷ opinion oἸ this studἷnt, thἷ middlἷ voiἵἷ, Ἰar Ἰrom making this vἷrἴ “dἷponἷnt,” aἵtually hἷlps undἷrsἵorἷ thἷ Ἰoἵus on thἷ ἵlausἷ’s suἴjἷἵt, 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. α π (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, α π 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 α π that Jesus intends here. It is noteworthy that the magisterial London Baptist Confession of 1689, the use of this noun in v.4 is ἵitἷd in thἷir sἷἵtion on “ἕood Worksέ” Spἷaking oἸ ἴἷliἷvἷrs—true disciples of Christ—the ἵonἸἷssion ἵlariἸiἷsμ “Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ” (δψω 1θέἀ)έ 34 φ (to bear). Strong# 5342, 66x. Verbal, Present Active Infinitive. While the most common meaning of the verb φ is that of transport viz., to bear or carry from one place or another, ψDχἕ also lists anothἷr mἷaning as “to produἵἷ” or “ἴring Ἰorth” (ιι0λ)έ This is thἷ sἷnsἷ oἸ 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 indiἵatἷ rἷsponsiἴlἷ agἷnts Ἰor somἷthing” (κκκ; 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. αυ ῦ (itself). Strong# 1438, 321x. Reflexive Pronoun, Genitive Neuter 3rd Person Singular. A primary pronoun of α ό, 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 discipleέ” (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. (not). Strong# 3361, 1061x. Negative Particle. Unlike οὐ used earlier, is generally reserved for moods outside the indicative as it is hἷrἷέ ψDχἕ ἵlariἸiἷs, “ἔor thἷ Koinἷ oἸ thἷ σT the usage is simplified to such a degree that is generally the negative used with the indicative, and is used with thἷ othἷr moods” (ζκκζ). 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. ῃ (abides). Strong# 3306, 118x. Verb, Present Active Subjunctive 3rd Person Singular. The prἷsἷnt tἷnsἷ oἸ this vἷrἴ suggἷsts a ἵontinual aἴidingμ “Kἷἷp on aἴidingέ” Roἴἷrtson adds, “Samἷ ἵondition and tἷnsἷ in thἷ appliἵation, ‘ἷxἵἷpt yἷ aἴidἷ in mἷέ’” ἔor morἷ, sἷἷ ἷarliἷr comments regarding this repeated verb. (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments concerning this repeated preposition. 35 (the). Strong# 3588, 20012x. Article, Dative Feminine Singular. See earlier comments concerning this repeated article. ἀ π ῳ (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. ὕ ω (thus, in this manner). Strong# 3779, 209x. Adverb. While the repeated verb α α 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 answἷring thἷ quἷstion oἸ “howς” or “In what wayς” (ἵἸέ Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr ἷt alέ, ζ1κ)έ Thus Jesus is saying in the same manner as a branch, a disciple can bear no fruit on his own. (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). Whilἷ this ἵonjunἵtion ἵan ἴἷ translatἷd “and not,” “not ἷvἷn” or “nἷithἷr,” it is ἴἷst to viἷw Jἷsus’ usἷ oἸ it hἷrἷ at vέζ in thἷ advἷrἴial sἷnsἷ “nor” as this ἵomplimἷnts best the adverb ὕ and the comparison He is making between viticulture and discipleship. ῖ (you[all]). Strong# 4771, 2929x. Personal Pronoun, Nominative 2nd Person Plural. See comments for more concerning this pronoun. (if). Strong# 1437, 337x. Conditional Particle and Subordinating Conjunction. See earlier comments for more concerning this repeated third class condition particle. (not). Strong# 3361, 1061x. Negative Particle. See earlier comments for more concerning this repeated negative particle. (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments for more concerning this repeated preposition. (me). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun Dative 1st Person Singular. See earlier comments for more concerning this repeated intensive pronoun. ῃ (abides). Strong# 3306, 118x. Verb, Present Active Subjunctive 2nd Person Plural. See earlier comments for more concerning this repeated verb. Conclusion to John 15:4 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 ) Am statement in v. , 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. Introduction to John 15:5 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. Eγ (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 Ἐ Eἰ declaration. Thus a notable inclusion is formed. This seventh ἐ ἰ , and His fourth one at 10μι, λ (“I am thἷ door”), are thἷ only two oἸ Jἷsus’ sἷvἷn prἷdiἵatἷd ἐ ἰ statements to be repeated within the same pericope. Eἰ (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. π ([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 propἷrlyμ “A rendering of ἄ π 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 oἸ 'Ἰruit ἴush' or 'Ἰruit plant’” (ἁέἀι) 38 ῖ (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 ἄ π from ῖ έ See v.3 for more concerning this repeated pronoun. (the). Strong #3588, 20012x. Article, Nominative Neuter Singular. See earlier comments for this repeated article. α α (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 somἷthing to piἵkἷd up again in this papἷr’s exegetical/theological problem. ὁ ω (the one abiding). Strong# 3306, 118x. Verbal, Articular Present Active Participle Nominative Masculine Singular. While comments at v.4 concern the verb, , a few things can be added here concerning the present substantive participle. With this articular participle Ἰunἵtioning suἴstantivἷly, it initiatἷs a “suspἷndἷd sἷntἷnἵἷ” sinἵἷ it virtually gἷts lἷἸt ἴἷhind 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. (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments for this repeated preposition. (me, myself). Strong# 1473, 2600x: Personal Pronoun Dative 1st Person Singular. This propositional phrase is paralleled with the following ἐ α ῷ. See earlier comments for more concerning this repeated and emphasized pronoun. ἀγ (and I). Strong# 2504, 84x Conjunction and Personal Pronoun Nominative Singular. See earlier comments for this repeated crasis. (in) Strong# 1722, 2777x. Proper Preposition Dative. See earlier comments for this repeated preposition. 39 α ῷ (him, himself). Strong# 846, 5606x. Personal Pronoun, Dative Masculine 3rd Person Singular. This, like the parallel ἐ 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 ὗ 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. ὗ (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 ὗ , 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. φ 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. (he bears). Strong# α π (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 onἷ who doἷs not ἴἷar Ἰruit shows that hἷ doἷs not havἷ thἷ liἸἷέ” π (much). Strong #4183, 361x. Adjective, Accusative Masculine Singular. BDAG defines this adjective as pertaining to being a large number, as in “many, a grἷat numἴἷr oἸ” (6061). This positive (non-degree) adjective modifies the preceding noun καρπὸν and carries the idea (and can ἴἷ translatἷd) as “many,” “numἷrous” (Iἴidέ)έ 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 α π 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. ὅ (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 ὅ givἷs “thἷ rἷason why anything is said to be or to be done, because, since, for that, for…έIt is added to a speaker's words to show what ground he gives for his opinion” (ἁ869). 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 Ἰor ἷmphasis (ἵἸέ Dana and εantἷy, ἀηἀ)έ Thus, it ἵan lἷgitimatἷly ἴἷ translatἷdμ … 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 χω (apart from, seperated). Strong #5565, 41x. [Improper] Genitive Preposition. Since it is used with a genitive of person here at v.5, BDAG, defines as “separated from someone, far Ἰrom somἷonἷ, without somἷonἷ” (8013; cf., Harris, 250–251; Friberg, 28873). Köstenberger, et al. classifies 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 ώ α, meaning “a spaἵἷ lying ἴἷtwἷἷn two plaἵἷs or limits,” this preposition at v.5 is used in the sense, “without ἵonnἷἵtion and Ἰἷllowship with onἷ” (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 Jἷsus’ illustration in these verses (cf. Eph 2:8-10)έ This is most pointἷdly ἴrought out in vέη ἴy Jἷsus’ use of this prepositional phrase—as nothing good in a believer’s life is possible apart from Jesus redeeming and sustaining grace.15 ῦ (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 usἷd hἷrἷ to ἷmphasiὐἷ thἷ pἷrson (ψDχἕ, ἀ00λ)έ Jἷsus’ usἷ oἸ this gἷnitivἷ pἷrsonal pronoun completes the prepositional phrase χωρὶς ἐμοῦ. Again, man is totally without chance to affect any good apart Ἰrom Jἷsus’ sovereign grace.16 (no, not). Strong# 3756, 1634x. Adverb, Negative. See earlier comments concerning this repeated negative particle, as well as what it stated below at οὐδέν. α (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 (subjectintensive) voice. π ῖ (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 Yet, Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology, 250–51 states: “τnly onἷ oἸ thἷ ζ1 σT usἷs oἸ is adverbial (‘apart’ in John 20:7) and all are prepositive except for οὗ χωρὶς, without whiἵh’ [ο holinἷss],’ in Heb 12:14. 15 A point strikingly brought out in The Westminster Confession of Faith λέζμ “Whἷn ἕod ἵonvἷrts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone, ἷnaἴlἷs him Ἰrἷἷly to will and to do that whiἵh is spiritually good” (ἵἸέ opέ ἵitέ “ἕood Works,” 1θέἀ, ἁ)έ 14 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 statesμ “That man has not saving graἵἷ oἸ himsἷlἸ, 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 1ημημ 'Without mἷ yἷ ἵan do nothingέ'” According to Köstenberger, et al., ἁηλ, nέημ “εost grammarians agrἷἷ that thἷ inἸinitivἷ has its origin in the locative or dative case of a noun [emphasis added]. This consensus is affirmed, in part, by the article often assoἵiatἷd with thἷ inἸinitivἷέ” This studἷnt ἵannot rἷsist 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, 17 41 hἷlps ἵomplἷtἷ Jἷsus’ main vἷrἴal idea that the disciples, without Him, are unable ( to produce or manufacture any good fruit (cf. BDAG, 6015). α ) . Strong #3762, 234x. Indefinite Pronoun, Accusative Neuter Singular (cf. Bible Hub which classifies it as an adjective as does BDAG). A combination of and this pronoun or adjective mἷans “not onἷ, no onἷέ” BDAG glosses it as “in no respect, in no way” (5424). Used together with the above negative particle, the double negative … is an “intἷnsiἸying compound nἷgativἷ” (Robertson, 1164–65). Originally, the compound οὐδέν was merely οὐ and δέ (“but not”), an anἵiἷnt Ἰorm Ἰound oἸtἷn in Homἷr’s writings (ἵἸέ Roἴἷrtson, 11θζ). 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 makes the most sense in the immediate context. Conclusion to John 15:5 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). somἷ inἵonsistἷnἵy is dἷtἷἵtἷd in ψἷnjamin εἷrklἷ’s ἵommἷnt hἷrἷ as hἷ himsἷlἸ sἷἷms to aἵknowledge 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, thἷ traditional (“antiquatἷd”) ἷight ἵasἷ systἷm is not so unrἷasonaἴlἷ 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 . This is Jesus’ last private time with (is disciples before (e is betrayed and arrested. This section carries the reader up until chapter 7. To reiterate, John structures (is 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 : . The exegesis above centers on Jesus’ final predicated ) Am declaration in chapter 5. 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 (im. 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 Eἰμ declaration in John’s Gospel. )n contrast to the other six, the uniqueness of this particular ) 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. , Jesus emphatically declares that (e is the true vine while (is Father is the land-worker. With that, there is a gentle allusion to (is 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. along with (is 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 (is 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 λελ ληκα. Verse four introduced the reader to the only imperative in vv. 1-5: abide in the vine. The verb Jesus’ uses here (e reserves for believers only throughout the illustration which helps to clarify the distinction between those who are truly in (im, and those who are not cf. v. . 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 ) 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, thἷsἷ arἷ takἷn up ἷlsἷwhἷrἷ in this projἷἵtέ Yἷt, sinἵἷ ἕod’s Word is givἷn to us Ἰor 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 ἵonsidἷrἷd hἷrἷ, all oἸ whiἵh ἵἷntἷr on diἸἸἷring aspἷἵts oἸ disἵiplἷship imἴἷddἷd in thἷ Jἷsus’ use of the verb μένω (abide, remain)—a word that Jesus reserves only for His true disciples. A Mere Profession is Not Discipleship Jἷsus hits thἷ rἷadἷr hard in vέ ἀ that ἷvἷry ἴranἵh “in Him” not ἴἷaring Ἰruit, ἕod αἴρει αὐτό (takes it away). For those that believe a mere profession of belief in Christ is all one needs to ἴἷ a ωhristian is ἵonἸrontἷd ἴy Jἷsus’ haunting words hἷrἷέ1 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 Jἷsus’ ministry, Judas was always “in Him” in thἷ sἷnsἷ oἸ ἴἷing a ἵlosἷ part oἸ Jἷsus’ ministry, ἵlosἷ ἷnough in Ἰaἵt to ἴἷ thἷ group’s trἷasurἷr (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 Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr notἷs, “Judas rἷprἷsἷnts a mἷmἴἷr oἸ thἷ mἷssianiἵ ἵommunity who was onἷ only outwardly and only for a season (13:10–13:11). For this reason, he was eventually cut off from the vine (15:2–ζ)έ”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 oἸ “trust / Ἰaith” in its vἷrἴ Ἰorm λκx throughout His ἕospἷl, Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr oἴsἷrvἷs, “Indἷἷd, ‘ἴἷliἷving’ is primarily an aἵt oἸ plaἵing onἷ’s Ἰaith in Jἷsus rathἷr than a statiἵ noun sἷt oἸ ἵonviἵtions to ἴἷ hἷlpsέ”3Thus, to abide in Jesus is to have Thἷ author has in mind thosἷ dἷvotἷd to thἷ ἷxtrἷmἷ “Ἰrἷἷ graἵἷ” thἷology promotἷd ἴy thἷologians suἵh 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. 1 45 an active, moment-by-moment conscious faith in Him—to this, the disciple is promised to continually bear a lifetime of fruit. Aἴide in John’s ύospel 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 ἕospἷl, ἴut not truly knowing itέ Thosἷ oἸ us who devote our mental energies to dissecting the intriἵatἷ dἷtails oἸ John’s usἷ oἸ thἷ Koinἷ (suἵh as his obsession with the historical-prἷsἷnt vἷrἴ tἷnsἷ…a Ἰavoritἷ oἸ this ἷxἷgἷtἷ), ἵan ἷasily losἷ sight oἸ thἷ awἷsomἷ wondἷrs oἸ ἕod’s glory within its pagἷsέ ψurgἷ dἷsἵriἴἷs this as “holding John from the outsidἷέ” Rathἷr than allowing our ἷxἷgἷsis to pἷnἷtratἷ our souls, wἷ ἵan usἷ our knowledge of the text as a tool for finely Exegete-preachers may come to the polished lessons or, in some cases, even as a device to impress others. To this Burge point where they have analyzed the cautions: “Exegetepreachers may come verses and read the literature so to the point where they have analyzed the carefully that their hearts are no verses and read the literature so carefully longer stirred – Gary M. Burge that their hearts are no longer stirred. They know the fourth Gospel so well that it has become a preaching tool instead of a voice in which God is spἷaking to usέ”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 prἷἸaἵἷ to this projἷἵtέ ThἷrἷἸorἷ in hἷἷding ψurgἷ’s ἵaution, a notaἴlἷ appliἵation point ἷmἷrgἷs in relation to John 15:1–ηέ To truly “aἴidἷ” in Jἷsus through John’s ἕospἷl is to ἷnjoy a radiἵally 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 ἵonstantly ἷnamorἷd ἴy ἕod’s ἴlinding gloryέ John’s portrayal oἸ Jἷsus dἷsἷrvἷs nothing lἷssέ 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 widἷly rἷἵogniὐἷd John’s ἕospἷl diἸἸἷrs at many points with thἷ Synoptiἵsέ τnἷ prominἷnt Ἰἷaturἷ ἷxἵlusivἷ to John’s aἵἵount is Jἷsus’ sἷvἷn prἷdiἵatἷd Ἐ Eἰ (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 Jἷsus’ rolἷ in rἷlation 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 purposἷ is highlightἷd ἴy Jἷsus’ Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd “I χm” statἷmἷnt givἷn in John 1η. Indeed, this last predicated Ἐ Eἰ 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). Keenἷr oἴsἷrvἷs, “Somἷ douἴt that thἷ vinἷ ἵan alludἷ to Israἷl hἷrἷ, oἴjἷἵting that thἷ ωhurἵh rathἷr than ωhrist ‘rἷplaἵἷs’ Israἷlέ Thἷ oἴjἷἵtion is, however, wide of the mark; it is through identifying with Christ that believers both Jewish and ἕἷntilἷ arἷ graἸtἷd into thἷ historiἵ pἷoplἷ oἸ ἕod (ἷέgέ, ἕal ἁμ1θ)έ”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, Jἷsus’ “I χm” 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 disἵiplἷs dirἷἵtly in thἷ midst oἸ His promisἷs oἸ thἷ Holy Spirit’s ἵoming in ἵhaptἷrs 1ζ, and 1θέ To this, Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr likἷwisἷ oἴsἷrvἷs, “In a major paradigm shiἸt, Jἷsus’ prἷsἷnἵἷ among his disἵiplἷs is aἴout to ἴἷ rἷplaἵἷd with thἷ Spirit’s taking up rἷsidἷnἵἷ in ἴἷliἷvἷrs (ἵἸέ 1ζμ1θ– 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. 1 47 1κ)έ”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 distinἵt as ἕod’s pἷoplἷ undἷr thἷ onἷ Jἷwish εἷssiahέ εorris ἴrings out thἷ ἵlἷar notion Ἰrom Jἷsus’ dἷἵlarationμ “Jἷsus doἷs not say that thἷ ἵhurἵh is thἷ vinἷ ἴut that Hἷ is. The church is no morἷ than thἷ ἴranἵhἷs whiἵh arἷ ‘in’ thἷ vinἷέ”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 purposἷ statἷmἷnt oἸ ἴἷliἷἸ in ωhrist Ἰor ἷtἷrnal liἸἷ in ἀ0μἁ1έ Yἷt this pἷriἵopἷ 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; 52:13-53:1–1ἀ)έ ἕod’s ἸaithἸulnἷss to His anἵiἷnt promisἷs, thἷrἷἸorἷ, providἷs 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 ύτSPEδ 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 writtἷn and ἵanoniὐἷd, John’s aἵἵount is ἴy 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 άησοῦς 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 oἸ John’s ἕospἷl aἵἵountέ This author will organiὐἷ this ovἷrviἷw using Kostenberger and Pattἷrson’s hἷlpἸul paradigm they call, “hἷrmἷnἷutiἵal triadέ”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 ἕospἷl’s authorship and datἷ, historiἵal setting, audience, purpose, etc. Historical Attestation: Location, Author and Recipients Thἷ aἵtual datἷ and plaἵἷ oἸ authorship oἸ John’s ἕospἷl still tἷἵhniἵally liἷs in rἷalm of the unknown. Additionally, this also appliἷs to thἷ ἴook’s authorέ Howἷvἷr, diligent invἷstigations havἷ ἴἷἷn madἷ into thἷ ἴook’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 thἷ ἴook’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; Dέ χέ ωarson and Douglass εoo, “John” in An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 229-55; George Beasley-Murray, John (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), lxxvlxxxi; 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)έ Howἷvἷr, in John’s aἵἵount 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 himsἷlἸ as “thἷ disἵiplἷ whom Jἷsus lovἷd” (John 13:23; 21:7, 20)έ Thἷ aἴsἷnἵἷ oἸ John’s aἵtual name omitted from the fourth Gospel is a thundering testimony from silence. MacArthur observes: Thἷ aἴsἷnἵἷ oἸ any mἷntion oἸ John’s namἷ dirἷἵtly is remarkable when one considers the important part played by other named disciples in this Gospel. Yet, the recurring designation oἸ himsἷlἸ as thἷ disἵiplἷ “whom Jἷsus lovἷd,” 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 hἷ was thἷ ἕospἷl’s authorέ4 In addition to thἷ purposἷἸul silἷnἵἷ oἸ thἷ apostlἷ’s namἷ in John’s ἕospἷl, othἷr intἷrnal ἷvidἷnἵἷ points to thἷ son oἸ Zἷἴἷdἷἷ ἴἷing thἷ ἴook’s authorέ Thἷ author was oἴviously 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 Thἷ litἷrary gἷnrἷ oἸ John’s ἕospἷl is oἸtἷn timἷs ἵatἷgoriὐἷd undἷr historiἵal narrativἷ, 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 Jἷsus’ 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 entirἷ aἵἵount’s pillar—a rich theological buttress laying down thἷ rἷst oἸ thἷ ἴook’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 ἴook’s ἷmphasis on ἕod’s glory in ωhrist and have suggested the terms theo-drama, Christodrama, and even doxa-drama as possible literary categories.5 Indἷἷd, John’s ἕospἷl is a genre refusing to be pigeonholed into normative literary conventions. As such, this student suggests the Thἷ word “human” is ἵhosἷn hἷrἷ to distinguish John Ἰrom thἷ ἴook’s ultimatἷ author, thἷ Holy Spirit (ἀ Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 2:20-21). 4 John εaἵχrthur, “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. 3 51 only solution that rἷἵogniὐἷs John’s historiἵal-biographical genre while remaining true to its uniquἷ thἷology is to ἵatἷgoriὐἷ thἷ ἴook as “ἕospἷl” gἷnrἷέ There are different ways to divide the book according to its contents, the two best being in either two grand sections, chps. 1—1ἀ (Ἰoἵusing on all sἷvἷn oἸ Jἷsus’ signs and most ἐγὼ εἰμί [I Am] statements); and chps. 13—21 (containing the remaining ἐγὼ εἰμί dἷἵlarations and Jἷsus’ 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—1ἀμη0 (Jἷsus’ sἷvἷn signs)ν (ἁ) ἵhps. 13:1—ἀ0μἁ1 (Jἷsus’ Ἰinal disἵoursἷ to his Twἷlvἷ and Passion)ν (ζ) ἀ1μ1—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 thἷ ἴook’s litἷrary 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 “historiἵal prἷsἷnt” rhetorical device when using a third-person present active singular verb. John uses this device more than any other Gospel writer—162x throughout his recordέ This is Ἰollowἷd ἴy εark’s usἷ of it (151x), then Matthew (93x), and finally Luke who uses this device the least (11x).7 ωampἴἷll rἷports that out oἸ all oἸ John’s usἷs oἸ thἷ historiἵal prἷsἷnt, “1ζζ historiἵal prἷsἷnts arἷ usἷd to introduἵἷ rἷportἷd disἵoursἷ, whilἷ ἀἁ arἷ vἷrἴs oἸ propulsionέ”8 Examples of the former would be ἀκο ει (he hears) or λ γει (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 usagἷ 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 dἷsἵriἴἷd John’s aἵἵount as “a spiritual ἕospἷlέ”9 Indἷἷd, “John’s ἕospἷl togἷthἷr with thἷ ψook oἸ Romans, may wἷll ἴἷ ἵonsidἷrἷd thἷ ‘twin towἷrs’ oἸ σT thἷology soaringέ έ έas an eagle over more pedestrian descriptions oἸ thἷ liἸἷ oἸ ωhrist”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 Both R. E. Brown and χndrἷas Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr hἷlpἸully laἴἷl thἷ two middlἷ sἷἵtions “ἴook oἸ signs,” and “ἴook oἸ gloryέ” 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,” ἀἁ1έ 10 Köstenberger, John, 1. 6 52 word oἸ ἕod, “ἴἷἵamἷ Ἰlἷsh and dwἷlt among us” (vέ1ζ)έ τn this vἷrsἷ, ψἷaslἷy-Murray rἷmarksμ “This goἷs ἴἷyond a mἷrἷ assἷrtion that thἷ δogos [λογος, “word”] is coming among men that they might see his glory; rather σαρξ εγενετο [“ἴἷἵamἷ Ἰlἷsh”] signiἸiἷs becoming somἷthing that thἷ δogos wasn’t ἴἷἸorἷhand, namἷly, 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 thἷ prophἷt’s words pἷnnἷd in Isaiah 55:10-11, that ἕod’s Word will not rἷturn to Him void without Ἰirst aἵἵomplishing 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 thἷ pἷrson oἸ Jἷsus oἸ σaὐarἷth, Hἷ “[was] thἷ light oἸ thἷ world” (κμ1ἀν λμη), thἷ vἷry “liἸἷ” that “was thἷ light oἸ mἷn” (1μζ)έ 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 ἕod through His grἷat “I χm” statἷmἷntsέ12 This is radical—as seen most immediately by the Pharisἷἷs’ rἷaἵtion (ημ1κν 10μἁἁ)—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 provἷd to ἴἷ ἕod’s uniquἷ Son and εἷssiah who givἷs ἷtἷrnal liἸἷ to all who Ἰully trust in Him (cf. John 20:31). Conclusion The fourth Gospel is most certainly a π υ α α . 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 dramatiἵally sἷrvἷ in tἷstiἸying to thἷ ἕospἷl’s divinἷ authorshipέ Had John ἴἷἷn writtἷn ἴy 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 truἷ origin is π υ (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. “I χm” in ἕrἷἷk is εγω ειμι and points ἴaἵk to Yahwἷh’s disἵlosurἷ oἸ His pἷrsonal namἷ to εosἷs in Exodus ἁμ1ζέ Thἷrἷ is muἵh warrant, this studἷnt ἴἷliἷvἷs, to inἵludἷ John θμἀ0 as an additional grἷat “I χm” statement, making the total number eight. Only God can walk on water and Jἷsus’ usἷ oἸ εγω ειμι here (translated in thἷ ESV and σχSψ “it is I”) assurἷd His disἵiplἷs that Hἷ in Ἰaἵt is ἕod and thἷrἷἸorἷ to “not ἴἷ aἸraid” (vέἀ0ἵ)έ John is the only Gospel writer who recorded these declarations from Jesus, and partly structures his book around them. 12 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 σuἷsnἷr’s groundἴrἷaking study soon ἵirἵulatἷd throughout aἵadἷmia ἵausing ἷxἷgἷtἷs oἸ all stripἷs to havἷ to wrἷstlἷ with thἷ quἷstion oἸ anἵiἷnt Raἴἴnism’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? Pἷrhaps thἷ ἴἷst way to addrἷss thἷ quἷstion oἸ Raἴἴnism’s valuἷ to thἷ σT 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 amἴiguity surrounding “Raἴἴinism,” thἷ dἷἸinition oἸἸἷrἷd ἴy τxἸord will havἷ to suἸἸiἵἷμ “Thἷ teachings or doctrines of the Talmud and the lattἷr raἴἴiniἵal writingsέ”4 The definition problem of Rabbinism is then confounded by its late dating problem. Rabbinic Judaism (Heb: ‫)רב ית יה ת‬ 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 thἷ mattἷr is David Instonἷ ψrἷwἷr, “The Use of Rabbinic Sources in ἕospἷl Studiἷs,” 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. ψrἷwἷr agrἷἷsμ “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 thἷ ἕospἷl oἸ John, Jἷsus is addrἷssἷd as “Raἴἴi” ἷight timἷs (ἵhpsέ 1–11). The Greek term ῥαββί is an indeclinable form of the Hebrew ‫ רב‬mἷaning “lord, mastἷr,”6 or litἷrallyμ “my grἷat onἷέ”7 This is not to ἴἷ ἵonἸusἷd with its latἷr dἷrivativἷs “raἴἴiniἵ” or “Raἴἴinism” whiἵh dἷnotἷs a rἷligious systἷm ἴasἷd on lattἷr Jἷwish sagἷs and tἷxtsέ To ἴἷ a raἴἴi during thἷ days oἸ John’s ἕospἷl was simply to ἴἷ a tἷaἵhἷr oἸ thἷ δaw, onἷ 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, Jἷsus) was a Jἷwish tἷaἵhἷr oἸ ἕod’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 oἸ Jἷsus’ ‘ἷnἸlἷshmἷnt’ involvἷd his assumption oἸ thἷ rolἷ oἸ a Jἷwish rἷligious tἷaἵhἷr, a rabbi. So while he was certainly more than a raἴἴi, ἷvἷn a raἴἴi ‘with a diἸἸἷrἷnἵἷ,’ hἷ was not lἷss than a raἴἴiέ”8 To this ἷvἷn thἷ rἷspἷἵtἷd σiἵodἷmus addrἷssἷd Yἷshua as “Raἴἴi” and rἷἵogniὐἷd that Hἷ “ἵamἷ Ἰrom ἕod” (John ἁμἀ)έ Thus, “raἴἴi” is not thἷ samἷ as Raἴἴinismέ Rabbinism and the New Testament σἷw Tἷstamἷnt Johanninἷ sἵholar, ωraig Kἷἷnἷr, has trἷatἷd thἷ issuἷ oἸ thἷ σT’s overall Jewish context more than most. In his massive 1600 page commentary on John, Keener devotes a 20 page analysis oἸ anἵiἷnt Judaism during thἷ days oἸ Jἷsus in John’s ἕospἷlέ Kἷἷnἷr astutἷly oἴsἷrvἷs, “χ ἕospἷl that struἵturἷs its ἵhronology around Jἷrusalἷm Ἰἷstivals, ἷngagἷs in polemic with a Jewish elite as its main competitor, and exploits a variety of Jewish symbols ἵannot ἴἷ undἷrstood apart Ἰrom ἷarly Judaismέ”9 Whilἷ Kἷnnἷr’s oἴsἷrvation is ἵἷrtainly notἷworthy, thἷ proἴlἷm with it is that thἷrἷ is no “ἷarly Judaism” on rἷἵord as ἷarly as thἷ σTέ The earliest rabbinical texts in which comparisons can be attempted do not emerge until several centuries post John’s ἕospἷlέ Howἷvἷr, Kἷἷnἷr’s trἷatmἷnt on thἷ mattἷr is indἷἷd wisἷ and should be taken seriously by the NT exegete. Of course Keener acknowledges the time gap ἴἷtwἷἷn thἷ John’s ἕospἷl and ἷarly Raἴἴinism, 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 trἷatmἷntμ “Somἷ ἷvidἷnἵἷ is ἴἷttἷr than no ἷvidἷnἵἷέ” Whilἷ this may not inspirἷ muἵh 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 Kἷἷnἷr’s assἷssmἷnt on thἷ limitἷd, yἷt still valid, usἷἸulnἷss of rabbinic study is reached. To dismiss Raἴἴiniἵ Judaism out oἸ hand duἷ to its timἷ gap is too minimalistiἵ in onἷ’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 Kἷἷnἷr doἷs just thatέ “ἔor our purposἷs,” suggἷsts Kἷἷnἷr, “Ἰourth-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 raἴἴiniἵ tἷxts whἷn dἷlivἷring a homilἷtiἵal pointέ Statἷmἷnts suἵh as “To thἷ Jἷw this would havἷ mἷant…” or “In anἵiἷnt Judaism thἷ ἵustom was…” arἷ oἸtἷn hurlἷd Ἰrom thἷ 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 ἵomparing Jἷsus’ ἵalling and training oἸ his disἵiplἷs with thἷ way Jἷwish 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. Ibid., 190. 13 Michael Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2016), 34, n. 7. 12 56 Kiἴἴἷ’s Ἰinal point ἷἵhoἷs Kἷἷnἷr’s ἵaution 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 ἷxamplἷ, Jἷsus ἴἷing laἴἷlἷd “raἴἴi” throughout John (and thἷ othἷr ἕospἷls) providἷs us with thἷ ἷarliἷst doἵumἷntἷd rἷἵord oἸ tἷrm’s usagἷέ14 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, wἷ Ἰind thἷ ἷarliἷst mἷntion oἸ Hanukkah taking plaἵἷ (“thἷ ἔἷast oἸ Dἷdiἵation,” John 10μἀἀ)έ16 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 άησοῦς and His revelation—a point so ἵonstantly portrayἷd in John’s ἕospἷl (ἵἸέ ἵhpsέ ι–10). In contrast, thἷ word “Raἴἴinism” has no written appearance before the Hebraist scholar, Joseph Mede (1586–1638), used the term in the mid 17th ἵἷnturyέ ωἸέ τxἸord Diἵtionary, sέvέ “raἴἴinismέ” 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 ἷxἷgἷtiἵal projἷἵt for more ancient Jewish insights concerning John. 14 57 THE τδD TESTAεEσT Iσ JτHσ’S ύτSPEδ 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 Tἷstamἷnt (τT) ἴaἵkgrounds, thἷ Ἰourth ἕospἷl’s radiἵal Jἷwishnἷss has oἸtἷn timἷs ἴἷἷn neglected by scholars and pastorsέ Pἷrhaps this is duἷ to John’s all-encompassing picture of the divine Christ as being the Savior of the entire cosmos (John 3:16–1ι)έ χ narrow viἷw oἸ Jἷsus’ gloἴal mission, and John’s purposἷ statἷmἷnt Ἰor thἷ ἴook (ἀ0μἁ1), ἵan lἷad onἷ to ἴἷliἷvἷ that John has divorced his book from any lingering Israelite intention. That view would be terribly Ἰlawἷdέ χs this ἷssay will dἷmonstratἷ, John’s dἷpἷndἷnἵἷ on thἷ τT through dirἷἵt 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 ἕospἷl, thἷrἷ arἷ 1κ dirἷἵt quotations Ἰrom thἷ τT, tἷn oἸ whiἵh arἷ found in 1:19–12:50, and eight in chapters 13–21. Many of these explicit quotations, center on the stubborn hostilities of the άουδαῖοι (Jews) Ἰrom Judἷa (ἷέgέ, 1ἀμἁκ, ζ0), as wἷll as Jἷsus’ fulfillment of OT prophecies concerning His passion and Kingship (e.g., 19:24, 28, 36–37; Zech 9:9). χἵἵording to Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr, “Thἷ ovἷrall purposἷ oἸ thἷ usἷ oἸ thἷ τT in John’s gospἷl, as ἷvidἷnἵἷd ἴy thἷ Ἰormal quotations, is to show that ἴoth Jἷsus’ puἴliἵ ministry and his ἵrossdἷath ἸulἸillἷd sἵriptural pattἷrns and prophἷἵiἷsέ”2 That is, John’s usἷ oἸ thἷ τT vividly prἷsἷnts the written Word as the living Word (cf. Isa 52:11). In chronologiἵal ordἷr oἸ τT ἴooks, John’s direct OT quotations can be charted as such:3 Old Testament Exodus 12:46 / Numbers 9:12 Psalm 22:18 Psalm 34:20 Psalm 35:19 John’s ύospel 19:36 19:24 19:36 15:25 Sἷἷ “Is thἷ ἕospἷl oἸ John χnti-Sἷmitiἵς” in this projἷἵt’s appἷndix Ἰor morἷ 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. 1 58 Old Testament Psalm 41:9 Psalm 69:4 Psalm 69:9 Psalm 69:21 Psalm 78:15, 20 Psalm 78:24 Psalm 82:6 Psalm 118:26 Isaiah 6:10 Isaiah 40:3 Isaiah 53:1 Isaiah 54:14 Zech 9:9 Zech 12:10 John’s ύospel 13:18 15:25 2:17 19:28 7:39 6:31 10:34 12:13 12:40 1:23 12:38 6:45 12:15 19:37 χs ἵan ἴἷ sἷἷn Ἰrom thἷ ἵhart, John’s usἷ oἸ thἷ Psaltἷr, ἷspἷἵially in rἷἸἷrἷnἵἷ to εἷssianiἵ prophἷἵiἷs ἵonἵἷrning Jἷsus’ passion and Ἰuturἷ Kingdom, is thἷ prἷdominant τT 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 oἸ thἷ δord’s advἷntsέ 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 othἷr words,” oἴsἷrvἷd χrἵhἷr and Chirichigno, “there is a certain sense in which Christ's chosen spokesmen were like Him guided to ἷxpound thἷ τld Tἷstamἷnt Sἵripturἷs ‘with authority, and not as thἷ sἵriἴἷsέ’”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 plottἷd (iέἷέ, dἷpἷnding on thἷ ἷxἷgἷtἷ’s opinion oἸ what aἵtually qualiἸiἷs as a legitimate OT allusion or type), a chart like the one above would be too expansive here.5 However, certain thἷmἷs ἵan ἵἷrtainly ἴἷ drawn ἴy John’s many τT allusionsέ ἔor ἷxamplἷ, John powἷrἸully displays allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures through rhetorical devices such as typology. This inἵludἷs John’s portrayal oἸ Jἷsus as thἷ prophἷsiἷd SuἸἸἷring Sἷrvant (Isaiah ηἀμ1ἁ– 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. εorἷovἷr, John’s mἷthod oἸ alluding to thἷ τT is variἷd in his ἴookέ χt timἷs, 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-typἷ suἵh as εosἷs’ sἷrpἷnt-headed pole (3:13–14; cf. Num ἀ1μλ), or Jaἵoἴ’s laddἷr (1μη1ν ἵἸέ ἕἷn ἀκμ1ἀ)έ Partiἵularly gἷrmanἷ to thἷ ἵurrἷnt ἷxἷgἷtiἵal projἷἵt, is John’s portrayal oἸ Jἷsus ἴἷing thἷ “truἷ vinἷ” (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 soakἷd with τT ἴaἵkgroundέ χs Kέstἷnἴἷrgἷr ἵonἵludἷs, “Togἷthἷr with dirἷἵt τT quotations and references to broader OT themes…thἷ τT allusions Ἰound in John’s gospἷl ἵrἷatἷ a wἷἴ oἸ intἷrtxtuality that grounds thἷ thἷology oἸ John’s gospἷl proἸoundly in thἷ Hἷἴrἷw Sἵripturἷs, partiἵularly with rἷgard to thἷ pἷrson and tἷaἵhing oἸ Jἷsusέ”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 thἷ τT as thἷ propἷr ἴaἵkground Ἰor John’s Gospel is to commit an exegetical ἵrimἷ oἸ sἷrious magnitudἷέ χs dἷmonstratἷd aἴovἷ, John’s dἷpἷndἷnἵἷ on thἷ τT 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 ἴaἵkground and ἵontἷxt supporting thἷ σTέ This is ἷspἷἵially thἷ ἵasἷ Ἰor John’s ἕospἷlέ 6 Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 310. 60 REPENTANCE IN JOHN’S ύτSPEδς Introduction Ever since the Lordship vs. Free Grace clash occurred in the mid 1980s, a hot bed of controversy has surroundἷd thἷ ἕospἷl oἸ John and thἷ plaἵἷ oἸ rἷpἷntanἵἷ in a pἷrson’s salvationέ ψἷἵausἷ John is ἵonsidἷrἷd ἴy many “thἷ gospἷl oἸ ἴἷliἷἸ” (ἵἸέ John ἀ0μἁ1) it is thἷ 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 ἵonspiἵuously aἴsἷnt in John’s ἕospἷlέ ThἷrἷἸorἷ, it Ἰlows Ἰrom a ἵἷrtain linἷ oἸ rἷasoning that sinἵἷ John doἷs not mἷntion thἷ word rἷpἷntanἵἷ, it is not rἷquirἷd in a pἷrson’s salvation givἷn 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 prominἷntly Ἰἷaturἷd in John’s ἕospἷlέ The Debate Scholars havἷ long oἴsἷrvἷd thἷ aἴsἷnἵἷ oἸ “rἷpἷntanἵἷ” in John’s ἕospἷl and havἷ responded with vitriol against those who insist repentance is nonetheless required for salvation. Dallas Sἷminary Ἰoundἷr, δἷwis Spἷrry ωhaἸἷr, is a good ἷxamplἷμ “σo thoughtἸul pἷrson 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 whiἵh thἷy assumἷέ”2 εorἷ rἷἵἷntly, εastἷr’s Univἷrsity and Sἷminary 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 rἷpἷntanἵἷ is a human work and thus violatἷs ἕod’s Ἰrἷἷ graἵἷέ χddἷd to Hodgἷs argumἷnt is thἷ Ἰaἵt that thἷ word Ἰor rἷpἷntanἵἷ doἷs not oἵἵur in John’s ἕospἷl, thἷ “gospἷl oἸ ἴἷliἷἸ” (also rἷἸἷrrἷd to thἷ “gospἷl oἸ salvation”)έ The debate between MacArthur and Hodges resulted into what is now known as the “δordship Salvation” vsέ “ἔrἷἷ ἕraἵἷ” ἵontrovἷrsyέ εaἵχrthur, rἷprἷsἷnting thἷ Ἰormἷr position, 1 Theologians such as Charles Ryrie and Charles Bing immediately come to mind as representative of those distinguishing / ἵatἷgoriὐing thἷ Ἰourth ἕospἷl as “thἷ ἕospἷl oἸ ψἷliἷἸέ” 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 ἴoldly statἷdμ “Thosἷ who will not rἷἵἷivἷ [ωhrist] as δord arἷ willἸully rἷjἷἵting Him…έThus thἷrἷ is no salvation ἷxἵἷpt ‘lordship’ salvationέ”3 Hodges, a proponent of the latter position contended, “Indἷἷd [onἷ] ἵould havἷ sἷarἵhἷd thἷ ἷntirἷty oἸ John’s ἕospἷl rἷpἷatἷdly and nἷvἷr Ἰound ἷvἷn one reference to repentance, much less a reference to surrender or submission as a condition for ἷtἷrnal liἸἷέ”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 rἷjἷἵting Jἷsus as thἷ Savior, or εark oἸ rἷjἷἵting ἕod’s graἵἷς χἴsolutἷly notέ In this same vein, John is not only devoid of the word repentance, the fourth Gospel is also aἴsἷnt oἸ Jἷsus’ virgin ἴirth, hἷll, and any notion oἸ justiἸiἵationέ χrἷ wἷ to ἴἷliἷvἷ that thἷ apostle rejected these crucial doctrines? It seems unthinkable. So, rather than accepting one freegraἵἷ advoἵatἷ’s stanἵἷ that we should “admit that it was important ἷnough 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 ύospel 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 dἷἸinἷd as “turning aἴout, ἵonvἷrsion”7 while μετανοέω mἷans to “ἵhangἷ onἷ’s mind,” and to “Ἰἷἷl rἷmorse, repent, be convertedέ”8 While these words for repentance occur regularly 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, “Rἷpἷntanἵἷ ἔoundς Thἷ ωonἵἷpt oἸ Rἷpἷntanἵἷ in thἷ ἔourth ἕospἷl,” Master’s Seminary Journal 24, no.1 (Spring 2013): 108–09. 6 ωharlἷs ωέ ψing, “Thἷ ωondition Ἰor Salvation in John’s ἕospἷl,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 34. Emphasis in original. 7 BDAG, 4854. 8 Ibid., 4853. 3 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 ἵripplἷd man hἷalἷd in John η is told ἴy Jἷsus to “sin no morἷ so that somἷthing worsἷ doἷs not happἷn to [him]” (John ημ1ζ)έ In other words, Jesus commands him to turn from his previous liἸἷέ To thἷ woman ἵaught in adultἷry, Jἷsus vἷrἴally sἵattἷrs hἷr aἵἵusἷrs and ἵommands hἷr “to go and Ἰrom now on sin no morἷ” (κμ11)έ10 Thus a call to turn and be converted is portrayed. More explicitly, John uses the verb στρέφω in 12:40 whἷn paraphrasing Isaiah’s rἷἴukἷ oἸ 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 “rἷpἷntanἵἷέ” ωrotἷau’s words niἵἷly ἴring us Ἰull ἵirἵlἷμ “ThἷrἷἸorἷ, thἷ aἴsἷnἵἷ oἸ thἷ word doἷsn’t nἷἵἷssitatἷ thἷ aἴsἷnἵἷ oἸ a ἵonἵἷptέ”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 “thἷ ἕospἷl oἸ ψἷliἷἸ” is wἷll and good as ἴἷliἷἸ is most ἵἷrtainly thἷ grand thἷmἷ (ἵἸέ ἀ0μἁ1)έ However, it would do well to remember that that title is a man-made construct placed over it; it is not somἷthing thἷ ἴook ἵalls itsἷlἸέ Thus to arguἷ that rἷpἷntanἵἷ is aἴsἷnt Ἰorm John’s ἕospἷl 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 vἷry muἵh displays thἷ ἵonἵἷpt, and ἷvἷn a word (1ἀμζ0), that dἷpiἵts a turning Ἰrom onἷ’s sin, i.e., repentance. Therefore, the Gospel of John is most certainly a Gospel of Belief—a Gospel of Repentant-Belief.13 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 Ἰor “Ἰaith,” 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 ‫ ׁ ב‬in 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 oἸ ἕod’s graἵἷέ ἔor ἷxamplἷ, throughout his Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 3:372–ικ, ωhaἸἷr statἷs thἷ Ἰollowingμ “ThἷrἷἸorἷ, it as dogmatiἵally statἷd as languagἷ ἵan dἷἵlarἷ, that rἷpἷntanἵἷ is essential for salvation, and that none can be saved apart from repentance, but it is included in believing and cannot ἴἷ sἷparatἷd Ἰrom it” (ἁιἁ, ἷmphasis addἷd)έ “χs ἴἷἸorἷ statἷd, rἷpἷntanἵἷ, whiἵh is a ἵhangἷ oἸ mind, is included in believing….That change of mind is the work of the Spirit (Eph 2:8) (374, emphasis added). And finally Chafer conἵludἷs, “It is assἷrtἷd that rἷpἷntanἵἷ, whiἵh is a ἵhangἷ oἸ mind, enters of necessity into the very act of believing on Christ, sinἵἷ onἷ ἵannot turn to ωhrist Ἰrom oἴjἷἵts oἸ ἵonἸidἷnἵἷ without that ἵhangἷ oἸ mind” (ἁικ)έ 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. 9 63 CLAUSAL ANALYSIS Introductory Remarks Rather than intἷrprἷting Jἷsus’ vinἷ 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 lἷads to thἷ lattἷrέ Indἷἷd, as Roἴἷrtson oἴsἷrvἷdμ “Knowledge of the forms is the first great step toward syntaxέ” 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 mἷanings that would dἷtraἵt Ἰrom Jἷsus’ 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 καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν. 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 ἵoordinating ἵonjunἵtion (ἵommon in John’s ἕospἷl)έ Thἷ sἷἵond 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 (the one remaining) leading to the crasis α ώ (and I) to partially Ἰinish Jἷsus’ 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 ὗ (this one). From this main clause stems two dependent clauses marked by the causal particle ὅ (because) and the accusative substantive participle π ῖ (to do), making this a ἵomplἷx sἷntἷnἵἷέ Jἷsus’ point is that only Hἷ is thἷ vinἷ, 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 Kοιν Greek. Jἷsus’ vinἷ 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 interprἷting Jἷsus’ vinἷ 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 Ἄ π 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 ἄ π is used only nine times in the New Testament, all nine will ἴἷ showἵasἷd ἴἷlow whiἵh will sἷrvἷ to dἷmonstratἷ thἷ word’s signiἸiἵanἵἷ pἷrtaining to the Jewish nation as well as Jesus applying the term to Himself. Definitions for “ π ” Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ… Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance 288. π . Vine. Probably from the base of amphoteros and that of halon; a vine (as coiling about a support)–vine. 297. ἀ φ . Both. Comparative of amphi (around); (in plural) both—both. 257. ω . 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. π , υ, ἡ (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX; En 32:4; JosAs, GrBar, EpArist, Philo; Jos., Ant. 12, 75 α α π υ ; 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 ἄ π. is π υφ . α α ; Sir 24:17 of wisdom: ἐ ὡ ἄ. 66 ἐ α ; Did., Gen. 86, 11 ἡ υ π ἄ π ,π π α ,π φ … α ). The words of the eucharistic prayer over the cup in D 9:2 cannot be explained w. certainty α ῦ … π ῆ α . Δαυ ῦ πα υ, ἧ ἐ α ἡ ῖ ῦ ῦ πα υ (s. AHarnack, TU II 1f, 1884 ad loc.; 6, 225ff; RKnopf, Hdb. ad loc.)— M-M. TW. Thayer 299. π π , - υ, 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. ἄ π ῆ ῆ in Rev. 14:18 (Rec.st omits ῆ π υ.), 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. π , υ, 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. π , ἡ a vine, Lat. vitis, Od., etc. (Perh.from clasping tendrils. π (Aeol. for φ ), - , from its Louw and Nida 3.27 π , υ f - 'grapevine.' ἐ ἰ ἡἄ π ἡ 'I am the true grapevine' Jn 15.1. A rendering of ἄ π 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 Ἄ π , υ, ἡ Strong #288. 9 total uses in the NT, 3 uses in John’s writings VERSE TRANSLATION Matt 26:29 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου. I say to you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Mark 14:25 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Luke 22:18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes 68 OBSERVATION  Jἷsus’ statἷmἷnt during Ἰinal Passover.  τῆς ἀμπέλου is a genitive of material (Wallace, 91). Can ἴἷ translatἷd “thἷ Ἰruit made out of thἷ vinἷέ”  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 ωovἷnant in “that [Ἰuturἷ] dayέ”  χ parallἷl oἸ εatthἷw’s account (see above).  The fruit of the vine is the winἷ rἷprἷsἷnting Jἷsus’ blood of the New Covenant.  His “ἔathἷr’s Kingdom” above is here identified as thἷ “Kingdom oἸ ἕod” which is the future Millennial Kingdom where Israel is redeemed and restored.  χ parallἷl oἸ εathἷw’s and δukἷ’s aἵἵount (sἷἷ above).  Here, the AAS/3s verb ἔλθῃ (it comes) is added to Jἷsus’ disἵoursἷ highlighting the fact that the future Kingdom will “ἵomἷ” to thἷ worldέ This will happἷn with Jἷsus’ return. John 15:1 Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν. I Am the true Vine and my Father is the Vinedresser. 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. Abide in Me and in you. Just as the branch has no power to bear fruit of himself if not abiding in the vine, thus neither can you if not abiding in Me.  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. 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.     James 3:12 μὴ δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ.  Jἷsus’ Ἰinal prἷdiἵatἷd “I χm” dἷἵlaration oἸ dἷityέ  ἡ ἄμπελος is a attributive adjective (Wallace, 306).  Jesus is using ἄμπελος figuratively here as representative of Israel (see commentary).  Jesus continues His figurative use of ἄμπελος in His viticulture analogy.  ἀμπέλῳ is “dativἷ oἸ sphἷrἷ” in the 5-case system (Wallace, 153) or the distinct Locative in the 8-case (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 “grapἷ-vinἷ” (sἷἷ δ-N definition above).  3rd class conditional statement. The branch will not produce fruit if not abiding in the grape vine (τῇ ἀμπέλῳ). Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt 69 This is Jἷsus’ last usἷ oἸ ἄμπελος. Repeats His final ἐ ἰ declaration from v.1 The disciples are now positively identified as the branches (τὰ κλήματα) used throughout Jἷsus’ analogyέ Here, Jesus continues to use ἄμπελος to identify Himself as the premier anti-type to Israel. Like Jesus above during the final Passover, James is referring to ἄμπελος here in a literal sense to make a spiritual point. However its pond yield fresh water.     Revelation 14:18 καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος [ἐξῆλθεν] ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου [ὁ] ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός, καὶ ἐφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τῷ ἔχοντι τὸ δρέπανον τὸ ὀξὺ λέγων· πέμψον σου τὸ δρέπανον τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τρύγησον τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαὶ αὐτῆς. And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, "Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe." SEMANTIC RANGE Literal, Non-Figurative Aspect   Revelation 14:19 καὶ ἔβαλεν ὁ ἄγγελος τὸ δρέπανον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐτρύγησεν τὴν ἄμπελον τῆς γῆς καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μέγαν.  So the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God. VERSES (1x) James 3:12 Applying strictly to a literal grape fruit vine 70   usage is strictly literal in the immediate context of his illustration: a grape vine can only produce grapes. Jamἷs’s point is that a ἴἷliἷvἷr’s ἵonduἵt should ἴἷ consistent with his or her faith. Jamἷs’s usἷ oἸ ἄμπελος helps underscore the points made above that the word is specifically a grapevine, not mἷrἷly a “vinἷ” in a gἷnἷriἵ sense. ἄμπελος is contrasted with figs—fruits produced from a fig vine (συκῆ). See point above. τῆς ἀμπέλου is used here figuratively in describing ἕod’s Ἰuturἷ wrath on thἷ earth. τῆς ἀμπέλου is a genitive of material (Wallace, 91). βότρυας (bunch of grapes) makes it clear that the “vinἷ” hἷrἷ rἷprἷsἷnts specifically a grapevine (cf. BDAG, 181; L-N., 3.38; NET Notes). Continuation of the above illustration. The accusative ἄμπελον functions as the direct object of the harvesting/gathering (ἐτρύγησεν) by the great angel. Thus “vinἷ, grapἷvinἷ” is used both positively and negatively throughout Scripture. OBSERVATIONS  James is the only NT author to use ἄμπελος in a strictly literal fashion.  While he does have a spiritual point to make (like Jesus in the Upper Room Passover), Blended Literal-Figurative Aspect (4x) Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18; John 15:4  Applying to a literal grapevine for an immediate figurative point  Figurative, Non-Literal Aspect (4x) John 15:1, 5; Rev 14:18, 19 Applying strictly to a non-literal, figurative grapevine   LXX Jamἷs’s immἷdiatἷ point is that a literal grape vine can only produce literal grapes. In each of the parallel Synoptic aἵἵounts oἸ Jἷsus’ Ἰinal Passover discourse, He uses the physical wine present with them (produced by literal grapes) as a starting point to illustratἷ His latἷr “Kingdom oἸ ἕod” pointέ In Jἷsus’ vitiἵulturἷ 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 ἄμπελος is entirely figurative as Jesus is the anti-type of Israel (the vine), and true discipleship consists of abiding in Him. The remaining two uses of ἄμπελος in Revelation are dramatic (figurative) portrayals oἸ ἕod’s wrath harvested and poured on the earth. The Septuagint uses ἄμπελος frequently, a total of 51 times throughout its translation. Ἄ π is the primary word used to translate the Hebrew noun (vine), itself used 55 times in the MT (Strong’s #1η1ἀ)έ HχδτT givἷs ἴoth a litἷral and Ἰigurativἷ dἷἸinition Ἰor : (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 ἄ π 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 selfrἷliant “luxuriant vinἷέ” Israἷl had Ἰailἷd to ἵonsistἷntly produἵἷ grapἷs Ἰor thἷ glory oἸ ‫ יה ה‬yet she will be restored (Amos 9:11–1η)έ In Ἰaἵt, Isaiah ἀι dramatiἵally piἵturἷs Israἷl’s Ἰuturἷ 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 Ἰill thἷ wholἷ world with τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτοῦ (his fruit) (Isa 27:2,6). To this, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology adds that “supἷraἴundanἵἷ [oἸ vinἷs/vinἷyards] will ἵharaἵtἷriὐἷ thἷ ἷnd timἷ,” and “Whἷrἷas 71 Israel was the vine or the vineyard in the OT, Jesus the vine is now narrowed down to Jesus himsἷlἸέ”1 Conclusion From this study, it was demonstrated that the New Testament semantic range of ἄμπελος inἵorporatἷs thrἷἷ aspἷἵtsμ litἷralν Ἰigurativἷν and a mix oἸ thἷ twoέ Howἷvἷr, thἷ tἷrm’s usagἷ 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 “vinἷ” and “vinἷyard” are prominent concepts throughout the Old Testament which provides the background for their NT context. Viticulture was indeed an important ἷἵonomy in anἵiἷnt Israἷl, and “vinἷ / vinἷyard” languagἷ soon ἴἷἵamἷ a mἷtaphor Ἰor national Israel; past, present, and future national Israel. This word study also proved that, rather than referring to a gἷnἷriἵ “vinἷ,” 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 fruitmaking vine. On this, Louw and Nida were especially helpful. δouw and σida’s dἷἸinition 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 Jἷsus throughout His analogy, thus thἷ ἷxἷgἷtἷ would do wἷll to rἷmἷmἴἷr δouw and σida’s obsἷrvation whἷn pἷrἸorming thἷir own translations (ἵἸέ this studἷnt’s)έ Thἷir suggἷstion to translate ἄ π with “grapἷ-vinἷ” is ἷntirἷly justiἸiἷd ἴy thἷ τT’s usἷ oἸ thἷ word, as wἷll a Jewish viticulture customs as emphasized most dramatically by the grape cluster decorations hanging oἸἸ thἷ goldἷn vinἷ at thἷ Tἷmplἷ’s door (ἵἸέ ἵommἷntary at vέ1)έ 1 Colin Brown, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondἷrvan, 1λκ1), sέvέ “Vinἷ, Winἷ, ἄμπελοςέ” Thἷ artiἵlἷ goἷs on to notἷ RudolἸ ψultmann’s, intἷrἷsting, yἷt Ἰarfetched, 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 oἸ ἕod’s Word, Paul’s ἵall Ἰor π υ 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 oἸ ἕod’s Word (Prov 1μἀ), a Ἰascinating exegetical tool has been developed over the yἷars that hἷlps aid thἷ sἷrious studἷnt gἷt ἴaἵk to thἷ original wording oἸ ἕod’s rἷvἷlationέ 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 thἷ graἵἷ and knowlἷdgἷ” oἸ ἕod’s Word, ἴoth writtἷn and inἵarnatἷ (ἵἸέ ἀ Pἷtἷr ἁμ1κ)έ 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 εSS) ἴἷst rἷprἷsἷnts ἕod’s original rἷvἷlationέ Thἷ art and sἵiἷnἵἷ oἸ ἵomparing these different manusἵripts with thἷir diἸἸἷring variants is thἷ disἵiplinἷ known as “tἷxtual ἵritiἵismέ” χἵἵording to lἷading ἕrἷἷk sἵholar, Daniἷl Wallaἵἷ, “Tἷxtual ἵritiἵism is thἷ study oἸ thἷ ἵopiἷs of any written document whose autograph (original) is unknown or nonexistent, for the primary purposἷ oἸ dἷtἷrmining thἷ ἷxaἵt wording oἸ thἷ originalέ”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 Daniἷl ψέ Wallaἵἷ, “δaying a ἔoundationμ σἷw Tἷstamἷnt Tἷxtual ωritiἵism,” 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 ἵopiἷd down Ἰrom thἷ “ωity Editions” (oἸἸiἵial ἵopiἷs authoriὐἷd ἴy ἵiviἵ authoritiἷs Ἰrom whiἵh other copies were made) to Aristotle who had prepared copies for his most famous pupil, Alexander the Great.3 Thἷ various ἵopiἷs oἸ Homἷr’s works Ἰor thἷ Ἰirst Ἰivἷ hundrἷd yἷars 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 “Ἰivἷ vἷssἷlsέ” 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 εἷtὐgἷr’s ἷstimation, “δaid thἷ Ἰoundations Ἰor all suἴsἷquἷnt work on thἷ ἕrἷἷk Tἷxt oἸ thἷ σἷw Tἷstamἷntέ”8 It was Griesἴaἵh who dἷvἷlopἷd thἷ “tἷxt typἷ” (or Ἰamily) systἷm oἸ whiἵh 3 Cf. Metzger, 149. Metzger specifically lists the Homeric sagas Iliad and Odyssey (orig. c. 8th century ψέωέ) as thἷ Ἰirst and most popular tἷxts suἴjἷἵtἷd to a gἷrminal Ἰorm oἸ what wἷ today ἵall “tἷxtual ἵritiἵismέ” 4 Ibid., 149–50. 5 For an interesting survey concerning the debated provenance of these scribes (Egyptian or Palestinian), whilἷ lἷaning Ἰavoraἴly toward thἷ Ἰormἷr, sἷἷ Jan Joostἷn, “Thἷ χramaiἵ ψaἵkground oἸ thἷ Sἷvἷntyμ δanguagἷ, ωulturἷ, 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 (sixfold) 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 vἷry issuἷ was thἷ sἷἵond “Romanist Wall” that εartin 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 oἸ tἷxt Ἰamiliἷs was ἕriἷsἴaἵh’s grἷatἷst ἵontriἴution to thἷ Ἰiἷld oἸ tἷxtual ἵritiἵismέ 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 othἷr similar εSSέ σἷill and Wright ἷxplain that, “Hἷ [ἕriἷsἴaἵh] had ἵlἷarly graspἷd thἷ principle that no final results can be obtained until a complete classification has been made of all the materials according to the families oἸ manusἵripts to whiἵh thἷy ἴἷlong” [ἷmphasis in original].9 This is a principle still respected by text critics today.10 Practice In his now ἵlassiἵ handἴook on pἷrἸorming ἷxἷgἷsis, ἕordon ἔἷἷ oἴsἷrvἷd, “Thἷ kἷy to good exegesis is the ability to ask the right questions of the text in order to get at the author’s intended meaning” [ἷmphasis addἷd]έ11 It is only thἷ author’s intἷndἷd mἷaning that mattἷrs whἷnἷvἷr onἷ’s ἷyἷs Ἰall on thἷ saἵrἷd Tἷxt—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 ἔἷἷ’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 Bruἵἷ εἷtὐgἷr’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 ἕod’s rἷvἷlation. 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 χgain, to ἷἵho ἔἷἷ’s wordsμ thἷ kἷy oἸ any good ἷxἷgἷsis is to gἷt at thἷ author’s intended meaning. Textual criticism is an enormous help in doing that very thing for those wanting to grow in ἕod’s graἵἷ and knowlἷdgἷ pourἷd out in thἷ ἴiἴliἵal Tἷxtέ Rather than being a discipline reversed for those in ivory towers, text criticism is a Bible study tool available Ἰor all who takἷ Paul’s ἵommand oἸ π υ seriously. On this, text critic J. Harold Greenlee agrἷἷsμ “Tἷxtual ἵritiἵism is thἷ ἴasiἵ study Ἰor thἷ aἵἵuratἷ knowlἷdgἷ oἸ any tἷxt…έ It is thἷrἷἸorἷ dἷsἷrving oἸ thἷ aἵquaintanἵἷ and attἷntion oἸ ἷvἷry sἷrious studἷnt oἸ thἷ ψiἴlἷέ”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 primary purpose of The first five verses of John 15 boldly testify to the perseverance 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 exact wording of the (γένησθε), and each of the variants listed in the NA27 throughout vv. 1–5 is 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 — DANIEL B specific ones will be treated below since they provide the best opportunity for 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 ἵonἵἷrning thἷ phrasἷ “spokἷn to you (dative pronoun ὑμῖν in the printed reading) while one early 2nd century fragment usἷs thἷ prἷpositional phrasἷ “spokἷn in to you” (en umein). This particular variant is given extra attention below in the translations as the added preposition does suggest a dἷἷp nuanἵἷ to Jἷsus’ 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) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) John 15:3 “Nowe are ye cleane through the worde, which I haue spoken vnto youέ” KJV John 15:3 “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto youέ” ASV John 15:3 “Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto youέ” ERV John 15:3 “Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto youέ” ETH John 15:3 “Now are you clean because of the word which I have spoken with you. MGI John 15:3 “You are pruned already, because of the word that I have spoken with you. GNV 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 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 3 (John 15:3-4). 4 3 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 ἤδη….φέρειν Omitted Others D* (V) î66 *(II/III) en umein μεινη Cesarean A (V) f 1 (X/XI) 1424 (IX) H013 (IX) 1203 (X) 1220 (X) 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) î66 *(II/III) î66 vid (II/III) D (V) Q (IX) Y (IX/X) 0250 (VIII) f 13 (X/XV) 33 (IX) 69 (XV) î66 (II) kai o en emoi menwn Replaced Text meinhte f 1 (X/XI) EO7 (VIII) G011 (IX) H013 (IX) 1203 (X) 1220 (X) 1346 (X) D (V) 78 Qc (IX) Y (IX/X) 0250 (VIII) f 13 (X/XV) 33 (IX) 69 (XV) 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. Thἷ sἷἵond variant warranting somἷ ἷxploration ἷxists at vέἁ ἵonἵἷrning Jἷsus’ 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 prἷpositional phrasἷ “spokἷn 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 ἵhart)έ This Ἰragmἷnt is “loἵatἷd in thἷ ψodmἷr δiἴrary and in thἷ ωhἷstἷr ψἷatty δiἴrary, classified as a free text, Aland category I text, Alἷx/Wἷstἷrn mixέ”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 nuanἵἷ to Jἷsus’ words iἸ it is to ἴἷ aἵἵἷptἷd as thἷ originalέ Thἷ 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. Cf. Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Recourse for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 32. 4 79 early English translations above felt the same as they attempt to translate it highlighting either its loἵativἷ Ἰunἵtion, “unto”, or instrumἷntal/soἵiativἷ Ἰunἵtion, “withέ” Thus Jἷsus ἵan ἴἷ 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 arἷ possiἴlἷ duἷ to thἷ prἷposition’s vἷrsatility hἷrἷέ 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 oἴsἷrvἷs, “χs thἷ dativἷ gradually wἷakἷnἷd with its inἵrἷasing load, thἷ role of prepositions became more and more significant as a means of clarifying the meaning intἷndἷd ἴy thἷ ἵasἷ ἷndingέ”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 thἷ variant’s ἷxistἷnἵἷ, a satisἸying ἷxplanation is that oἸ 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 εἷntionἷd in thἷ “praἵtiἵἷ” sἷἵtion oἸ “χ ψriἷἸ Survἷy oἸ Tἷxtual ωritiἵism” was thἷ usἷ 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 sἷrvἷd in this ἷxἷgἷtἷ’s ovἷrall ἵonἵlusionμ 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 tἷdiousέ Howἷvἷr, as wἷ arἷ to do “all things to thἷ glory oἸ ἕod” (1 ωor 10μἁ1), ἷvἷn 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 ἷvἷn dἷἷpἷr rἷspἷἵt Ἰor ἕod’s Word. Despite the skeptics, God really has supernaturally preserved His revelation for His pἷoplἷέ χs thἷ psalmist dἷἵlarἷd, “ἔorἷvἷr, τ δτRD, your word is Ἰirmly Ἰixἷd in thἷ hἷavἷns” (Psalm 11λμκλ), ἕod’s Word is Ἰorἷver 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 6 Murray J. Harris, 115. 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. “Thἷ ωondition Ἰor Salvation in John’s ἕospἷlέ” 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. ψrἷwἷr, David, Instonἷέ “Thἷ Usἷ oἸ Raἴἴiniἵ Sourἵἷs in ἕospἷl Studiἷsέ” 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. ωonstaἴlἷ, Thomas δέ “σotἷs on Johnέ” Drέ ωonstaἴlἷ’s Expository (ψiἴlἷ Study) σotἷsέ Accessed April 9, 2017. http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm. ωrotἷau, David χέ “Rἷpἷntanἵἷ ἔoundς Thἷ ωonἵἷpt oἸ Rἷpἷntanἵἷ in thἷ ἔourth ἕospἷlέ” 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. Joostἷn, Janέ “Thἷ χramaiἵ ψaἵkground oἸ thἷ Sἷvἷntyμ 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 Jewsέ” 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. _______.and Richard 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. _______. “δaying χ ἔoundationμ σἷw Tἷstamἷnt Tἷxtual ωritiἵismέ” In Interpreting the New Testament Text. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006. 92