THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15
CHARLES R. SMITH
Professor of
English Bible and Theology
INTRODUCTION
The text of John 15 has been one of
the historical battlegrounds of doctrinal interpretation. Perhaps only the passage in Hebrews 6 has
been the scene of more battles between the Calvinistic and Arminian
schools of interpretation concerning the matter of eternal security. Not only has this text provided the field for
many battles between these two schools of theology, but there have also been a
great many skirmishes ~~ the two camps upon this same battlefield. Particularly
among Calvinists there has been disagreement as to the interpretation of this
passage.
Though there are other important
problems in the parable of John 15:1-8, the most significant question concerns
the identification of the unfruitful branches mentioned in the parable.
Arminians
have generally understood the unfruitful branches as representative of true
believers who, because they become unfruitful, lose their salvation and
consequently are ultimately cast into the fires of hell.
Calvinists have been divided as to
the identification of these branches. Some have taught that they represent true
believers. Most have taught that they represent unbelievers who profess to be
believers. Still others have taught that two kinds of unfruitful branches are
discussed: professing Christians, and true Christians who do not produce the
fruits of Christianity.
Though Arminian
views will be rebutted briefly, the primary purpose of this study is to investigate
the major interpretations of the passage that have been suggested by Calvinists
and to determine, by a careful study of the text and its context, wherein these
interpretations have departed
from the intent of the Speaker. The identification of the unfruitful branches
will be the principal concern.
THE
OCCASION AND BACKGROUND FOR THE PARABLE
The parable of John 15: 1-8 is part
of a very lengthy series of instructions given by our on the last evening
before His crucifixion. The scope and significance of the revelations
3
given by Christ on
that evening have never been exceeded. On no other single occasion has much of
God's revelation been given to man. Christ knew that His crucifixion was near
and every moment was spent in imparting important information to His disciples.
Since the time was so short only vital matters were discussed. The fact that the
parable under discussion was given during the middle part of that evening’s instruction
is indicative of its importance.
The evening had begun with the
"Last Supper" and the institution of the Christian memorial of
Christ's death--the ordinance of the "Lord's Supper." During the
supper He had washed the disciples' feet and had taught them that this was a
picture of the daily cleansing from sin that is necessary after the original
bath of salvation if believers are to have fellowship with Him
("part," In. 13:8). Then He had told them that one of their number
was actually a pretender, it not "a real believer, and would that night
betray Him. He then proceeded to teach Peter and the others that they had no
strength of themselves to be faithful disciples, rather the strength and comfort
which they needed was to be supplied only through their relationship with Him.
This relationship was soon to assume a new form in that He was leaving, but the
Holy Spirit would come as His Representative. With the arrival of the Holy
Spirit there was to begin a new and vital relationship (John 14). The parable
of John 15:1-8 was given at this point in His instruction, in order to
illustrate this new relationship.
After the parable the Lord explains that
this relationship. this union of the disciples with their
Lord, would mean that they would be persecuted. Only the Holy Spirit's ministry
could sustain them in this persecution and enable them to perform the task set
before them (John 16). Just before His
arrest, He prays earnestly that the unity of believers with Himself and with
one, another may be fully realized by His disciples (John 17).
There have been numerous suggestions as
to the specific occasion for the choice of the figure here employed.
1. Meyer, Trench, and others have suggested that
the figure was prompted by the
wine that had been
used in the Lord's Supper just initiated. This does not seem likely. however, since they were no longer in the upper room (
2. Others have suggested that there may have been
a vine which hung over or into the window of the upper room. This should be
rejected for the same reason as the preceding view was rejected.
3. Jerome thought that the great golden vine
which was on the wall of the temple was in view. Many have followed this
interpretation. This vine was one of the chief ornaments of the temple.
"Many a great man had counted it an honour to
give gold to mould a new bunch of grapes, or even a new grape on to that vine."l But again,
this does not seem to be a likely explanation. During Passover season the
temple was kept open at night but because of the huge crowds it seems unlikely
that such an intimate discussion would be appropriate, or even possible, in the
busy temple area.
4. Some have suggested that a real vine was
encountered, either on the side of a
city street or more
likely, on the walk down to Cedron. While this is, of
course, possible, it
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 5
is not required by the context.
This view may be combined with one or both of the following
5. Lange and others have taught that
this was the time of year for pruning-fires,
and that it was very likely that the
slopes of the Cedron valley were dotted with the
fires which indicated to Jesus and his disciples that the worthless prunings were being burned. The same comments apply with this
as with the preceding view.2
6. Others suppose that the figure was
used by Jesus because of the usage of the figure of the vine and vineyard in
the Old Testament. A mental reflection would thus furnish the occasion for the
parable, rather than any external stimulus. As has been suggested, however, it
is entirely possible that Jesus had in mind the Old Testament figure and also
used some visible-object such as a vine or a pruning-fire, as an object lesson.
A careful study of the passage clearly
indicates that Jesus did have in mind the familiar Old Testament usage of the vine
as a symbol of
The figure of the vine was suggested by
numerous Old Testament passages.
Now will I sing
to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his
vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard m a very fruitful hill: And he
fenced it,
and gathered out
the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and
built a tower in the
midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he
looked that it should
bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And
now, 0 inhabitants
of
me and my vineyard.
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that
I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth
grapes, brought it
forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I
will do to my
vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be
eaten up; and break
down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: And
I will lay it waste: it shall not be
pruned, nor digged; but
there shall come up
briers and thorns: I
will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon
it. For the
vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of
of
for righteousness,
but behold a cry (Isa. 5:1-7 AV).
Yet
I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou
turned Into the
degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?
Thou
hast brought a vine out of
planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep
root, and it filled
the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it,
and the boughs
thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs
unto the sea, and
her branches unto the river. Why hast thou then broken
down her hedges, so
that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The
boar out of the wood
doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour
it. Return, we beseech
thee, 0 God of hosts: look down from heaven, and
behold, and visit this
vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted,
and the branch that
thou madest strong for thyself. It is burned with
fire, it
is cut down: they
perish at the rebuke of thy countenance (Ps. 80: 8 -16 A V).
And the word of
the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, What is
the vine tree more
than any tree, or than a branch which is among the trees
of the forest?
Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work? or will
men take a
pin of it to hang
any vessel thereon? Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel;
the fire devoureth both the ends of it, and the midst of it is
burned. Is it meet
for any work?
Behold, when it was whole, it was meet for no work: how much
less shall it be
meet yet for any work, when the fire hath devoured it, and it
is burned?
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: As the vine tree
among the
trees of the forest,
which I have given to the fire for fuel, so will I give the
inhabitants of
out from one fire,
and another fire shall devour them; and ye shall know that
I am the LORD, when I set my face
against them. And I will make the land
desolate, because they
have committed a trespass, saith the Lord GOD
(Ezk. 15 A V).
Israelis an empty rluxuriantwith
many leaves but little fruit] vine, hebringeth
forth fruit unto
himself. . . [but not unto God] (Hos.
10:1 AV).
Many other Old Testament passages use
this figure, but the major thoughts from which Jesus drew and which would have
been aroused in the disciples' minds may be found in the passages quoted above.
For this reason these passages should be examined in detail, and for reason
they have been quoted in full.
It is clear from the way that Jesus
introduced the parable that He had in mind this unproductive Jewish vine. He
begins by saying, "I am the vine, the genuine one,"--the one that is all
that a vine should be. He is thus placing Himself in sharp contrast to the
unproductiveness of
In contrast to that vine, Christ is the true
vine that must produce fruit.
With this as background, preparation has
been made for an attempt: to identify those who are represented by the
unfruitful branches.
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 7
AN INCORRECT INTERPRETATION:
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES REPRESENT
BELIEVERS
WHO LOSE THEIR
SALVATION
Arminians have
consistently argued that those represented by the unfruitful branches are those
who were once true believers, who had once been born again, but who
subsequently lost their salvation. Because they are lost they are consequently
doomed to ~ell (15:6) as are all whose names are not written In the Lamb's book
of life (Rev. 20:15). This means that the Arminians
must teach that a true believer's name may be blotted from the book of
life--something which the Scriptures clearly state will never happen (Rev. 3:5).
They must also teach that the Holy Spirit is taken from such a person after a
period of indwelling--something which is never intimated in Scripture and is
clearly denied by several Scriptural concepts. When Christ promised the Holy
Spirit, He said, "I will come to you" (in the person of the Spirit),
He also said, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee" an. 14: 18;
Heb. 13:5).
Adam Clarke seems to have given one of
the clearest presentations of this Arminian interpretation.
As the
vinedresser will remove every unfruitful branch from the vine,
so will my Father
remove every unfruitful member from my mystical body,
even those that have
been in me by true faith (for only such are branches).
But such as have given way to iniquity,
and made shipwreck of their faith and
of their good
conscience, he taketh away. . . . Our Lord, in the
plainest
manner, indicates that
a person may as truly be united to him as the branch
is to the tree
that produces it, and yet be afterward cut off and cast into the
fire. A branch
cannot be cut off from a tree to which it was never united: It"
is .absurd, and contrary
to the letter and spirit of the metaphor, too talk of
being seemingly In
Christ--because this means nothing. If there is only a
seeming union, there
could only be a seeming excision; but that which is here
spoken of is terribly
real.5
This Arminian
view is also strongly stated by Sadler.
It is impossible to avoid the inference
from this that a branch may abide for
a time in Christ,
and then be taken away. All attempts to get rid of this con-
clusion are dishonest
and futile. . . .6
It is admitted that this parable
contains difficulties, but it is not dishonest to attempt to harmonize its
teaching with clear Scriptural statements elsewhere. It is certainly as bad as dishonesty,
however, to interpret this passage as contradicting Christ's clear statement on
security only a few chapters earlier.
And I give unto them eternal life; and
they shall never perish, neither shall
any man pluck them
out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is
greater than all; and
no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand
On. 10:28-29 A V).
To build upon a parable, such as this
one in John 15, a doctrine that contradicts clear Scriptures elsewhere is
certainly a dangerous procedure. It should be remembered that a parable or type
is for the purpose of illustrating truth that is being taught. No doctrine, not
clearly taught elsewhere, should be deduced from a parable.
A POSSIBLE
INTERPRETATION:
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES
REPRESENT BELIEVERS
WHO ARE CHASTENED
A number of recent conservative and
Calvinistic Bible teachers have taught that the unfruitful branches represent
true believers who are chastened because of their failure to produce spiritual
fruit. Some have varied this view by teaching that the unfruitful branches in
verse 2; are true believers, but the unfruitful branches in verse 6 are only
professors. A. W. Pink is one who has suggested this interpretation. This view,
however, runs into grammatical difficulties in both verse
2 and verse 6.
The interpretation of verse 2 in this
manner is built upon a special significance of the word airo.
It cannot be a mere professor who is
here in view--taken away unto judgment.
Again a difficulty has been needlessly
created here by the English rendering:
of the Greek verb.
Airo is
frequently translated in the A. V. "lifted up.".
For
example: "And they
lifted up their voices" (Luke
"And Jesus lifted up his eyes"
(John
etc. In none of
these places could the verb be rendered "taken away." There-
fore, we are
satisfied that it would be more accurate and more in accord with
the "analogy
of faith" to translate, "Every branch in me that beareth
not fruit
he lifteth up from trailing on the ground.
Since Pink's suggestion has been
accepted by so many, it should be helpful to list the usages of airo. It is used
101 times in the N. T. and in its various forms is translated in the King James
Version in the following eleven ways:
TRANSLATION
NUMBER OF TIMES SO
TRANSLATED
"bear"
3
"bear
up" 2
"carry"
1
"lift
up" 4
"loose"
1
"put
away" 1
"remove"
2
"take"
25
"take
away" 25
"take
up" 32
"away
with" 5
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 9
This list should make it obvious that airo only
indicates a removal of some kind and that the object, purpose, and direction of
that removal can be determined only from the context--not just from the word
itself. This can be supported by examining any good lexicon.8
Since the context must determine what
kind of removal is in view, it is certainly not the best method of exegesis to
interpret the word in a manner that is contradictory to the context. But that
is exactly what has been done by Pink and the others who make airo mean "lift up" or “take up" in a good
sense. In the context, verse 6 describes the taking away in no uncertain terms
as a taking away to judgment.
Dr. L. S. Chafer of Dallas Theological
Seminary was one who followed Pink's interpretation. When he wrote his book
Salvation, he thus sharply distinguished between the unfruitful branches in
verses 2 and 6.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.
The reference is
evidently to true
branches, which is not the case in verse six. From the fact
that the Greek word airo has the
meaning lifting up out of its place,' . . . it
would seem probable
that the reference is to the last form of chastisement
mentioned in I Cor.
11:30. Such branches are taken home to be with the
Lord. . . .9
As has been pointed out, this
interpretation makes the removal of verse 2 a loving one involving believers,
whereas the removal of verse 6 is understood as referring to the doom of believers.
But it should be noted that believers taken to heaven are not removed from the
“Vine." Apparently because there is no contextual support for so sharply
"distinguishing between the two kinds of removals and thus requiring two
kinds of unfruitful branches, Dr. Chafer in his later work, Systematic Theology
presented the view that both verses refer to believers. His understanding of
verse 2 remained as quoted above, but concerning verse 6 he wrote as follows:
With the background of what has gone
before, approach may be made to
John 15:6, in which the truth is
declared that if a man abide not in Christ, he
will come under the
condemning judgment of men. The believer's testimony
to the world
becomes as a branch "cast forth" and "withered." The
judgment
of the world upon
the believer is described in the severest of terms. . . . If
it be asked how in
practical experience men burn each other, it will be seen
that the language is
highly figurative, for men do not in any literal sense burn
each other; but they
do abhor and repel an inconsistent profession.10
Dr. Charles Ryrie, also of Dallas
Theological Seminary, agrees with Pink and Chafer that the unfruitful branches
in verse 2 refer to believers. He differs from Chafer, however, in that he does
not understand airo
to refer to the taking of a believer to heaven, rather he understands that the
believer is encouraged or "lifted up" in this life. 11 But again it
may be objected that the passage seems to indicate a removal from association
with the Vine. This view allows no such removal. Concerning verse 6, it is
frequently taught that the being "cast
10
GRACE JOURNAL
forth and
withered" refers to the believer's loss of testimony, and that the
judgment of fire
refers to the judgment
of the believer's works as described in II Corinthians 3. There is no
warrant, however, for
interpreting ~ in a bad sense in verse 6, while declaring that it
used in a good sense
in verse 2. In fact, as it will be pointed
out later, verse 6 requires the
burning of the
"branch" itself--not its "fruit" (works) or its
"leaves" (testimony).
From the above discussion it can be
clearly seen that there is no legitimate basis,
grammatical or otherwise,
for interpreting verse 2 and verse 6 as referring to two different kinds of
unfruitful branches. To be consistent and true to the context one must say that
both verses refer to the same kind of branches.
Those who try to interpret both verses
as referring to non-producing believers, however, run into serious difficulty
with verse 6. To use Dr. Chafer's terminology, they must interpret the verse in
a "highly figurative manner." In fact it would be hard to choose
words that would better picture the fate of unbelieving professors than those
used in verse 6. More will be said about the interpretation of this verse in a
later section of this study.
A PREFERABLE
INTERPRETATION:
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES REPRESENT
UNSAVED PROFESSORS
That the unfruitful branches represent
unsaved professors, has been the standard interpretation
of the great majority of Calvinistic commentators. But neither is this view without
its difficulties. The major difficulty with this view is the phrase "in
me" in verse 2. Those who hold that
the unfruitful branches represent Christians base their interpretation largely
upon this phrase and allow it to determine their view of the rest of the
passage. Most commentators, however, have felt that the rest of the passage is
so clear that this one phrase should be carefully weighed in the light of the
whole context.
It should be recalled that the baptism
of the Holy Spirit whereby a believer is place the body of Christ was not
explained until Paul wrote about it in I Corinthians 12:13. The familiar
technical usage of the phrase "in Christ, "
as it is found in Paul's prison epistles, was not until many years later. At the
time when Jesus spoke these words no one was "in Christ” in this technical
sense because the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not begin until Pentecost.
When these Words were spoken, to be "in Christ" was no different from
being "in the kingdom.” Jesus' parables about the kingdom being composed
of wheat and tares, good and bad, fruitful and unfruitful, are very familiar.
It is true that the word “kingdom"
is sometimes used in a more restricted sense of
believers only. But there
is a “kingdom" during this age which contains unbelievers, and even the
millennial kingdom after the first few years, will contain unbelievers. It is
also true that those who merely profess to be in right relationship to God will
be excluded from entering the millennial kingdom. “But the children of the
kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness there shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth" (Mt.
Some have suggested that there is a
mystical sense in which all humanity may be said be "in Christ." In
the very first chapter of this book, John says that every man receives life,
and therefore light, from Christ an. 1:3-9). As life-giver and Creator there is
a sense in which all are in Him and share in His Life. 12 But this is obviously
not what Jesus had in mind in John 15. He is not referring to all of humanity
but only to those who profess a certain relationship but do not evidence that
relationship by their lives. Also, by designating Himself as the "genuine
vine," He has implied the existence of a non-genuine vine (or vines). The
"in me" of verse 2, then, is not a designation for all of humanity.
Concerning the phrase "in me,"
John Gill has commented as follows:
There are two sorts of branches in
Christ the vine; the one sort are such who
have only an historical faith in him, . .
. they are such who only profess to
believe in him, as Simon Magus did; are
in him by profession only; they sub-
mit to outward ordinances,
become church members, and so are reckoned to
be in Christ, being in a church-state,
as the churches of
lonica, and others.,
are said, in general, to be in Christ; though it is not to
be thought that every person in these
churches was truly and savingly in him)3
Alexander MacClaren
has presented in masterful fashion the view that the unfruitful branches
represent unsaved professors.
It seems to me that the very language of
the metaphor before us requires us
to interpret the fruitless branches as
meaning all those who have a mere super-
ficia1, external adherence to the True Vine.
For according to the whole
teaching of the parable, if there be any
real union there will be some life,
and if there be any life, where will be some
fruit, and,. therefore, the branch
that has no fruit has no life, because
It has no real union. And so the appli-
cation, as I take it,
is necessarily to those professing Christians, nominal
adherents to Christiainity
or to Christ's church, people that come to church
and chapel, and if you ask them to put
down in the census paper what they
are, they will say Christians. . . . but
who .have no real hold upon Jesus Christ,
and no real reception of anything from Him.14
As Dr. MacClaren
has stated, verses 4 and 5, taken alone, would most naturally lead one to
conclude that the unfruitful branches represent professing unbelievers.
Likewise, it should be conceded by all that the judgment of verse 6 can most
naturally be understood as the judgment that lies ahead for professing
unbelievers.
But not only do verses 4, 5, and 6
support this identification- -verse 3 also supports it. In fact, it can hardly
be denied that Jesus' choice of the word "clean" in verse 3 was
intended to remind the disciples of His discussion with them only a little
earlier that evening. In His conversation with Peter concerning the washing of
his feet, Jesus remarked that the disciples were all "clean" except
for one, the son of perdition, who was about to betray him (cf. Jn. 13:10, 21;
6:70-71; and 17:12). With this usage in mind, the disciples would have
understood that Jesus, in John 15:3, was telling them again that he knew them
to be true believers and not just
12 GRACE
JOURNAL
professors
as was Judas. His terminology clearly implies that there are (and will be)
others, who, like Judas, are mere pretenders. These eleven, however, are true
believers. As such, He wishes them to realize that their only source of
strength was in Him, not in themselves.
Verse 1 also supports the identification
of the unfruitful branches as false professors. By introducing Himself as the
vine, "the genuine one," Jesus is clearly contrasting Himself to the
well-known unproductive vine--
Hengstenberg believed that
Jesus had in mind, throughout this whole parable, the unbelieving Jews who were
to be severed from the "True Vine" because of their unbelief.
Concerning, the phrase, "Every branch in me that beareth
not fruit," he makes the following remarks:
. . . the Jewish branch is primarily
meant; as by the contrasted fruit-bearing
branch we are to understand primarily
the Apostles, the Christian church ,
having its germ in them. That even the
Jews were a branch in Christ the True
Vine, is as certain as that, according
to chapter
Jews, He came to His own property. ..But
the evidence that Jesus had prima-
rily in view the
Jews, when He spoke of the branches not bearing fruit, is found
in the fact that the same thought recurs
in verse six, where the reference to
Ezekiel 15 places the allusion to the
Jews beyond doubt.15
The validity of these statements is
obvious and will be supported by an exegesis of the passage, but application
should not be limited only to the Jews. Any who merely profess to be in union
with God face the consequences stated by Jesus in verses 2 and 6. The Jews, of
course, would have been particularly in view at the time when Jesus spoke these
words.
The famous Greek exegete, Godet, suggested that the phrase "in me" may
refer to the "branch" or to the participle "bearing." In
the latter case the verse would read, "every branch which is not bearing
fruit in me He takes away.”16 The text, however, while it allows
this construction, favors the common reading.
With these considerations in mind it is
evident that it is not impossible to harmonize the "in me" with the
identification of the unfruitful branches as merely professors. The later exegetical
sections of this study will further support this identification.
Do All
Christians Produce Fruit?
Another problem that has sometimes been
urged against this interpretation is that
requires
that all true believers will produce fruit. It is objected that the Scriptures
clearly
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 13
teach
that it is possible for Christians to be carnal, out of fellowship, and walking
in darkness. That such a condition is possible is admitted by all, but this is
not the same as saying that such Christian does not, never has, or never will
produce fruit. In fact, it must be insisted, on the basis of Scripture that all
who are truly saved do produce fruit.
But what is this fruit? A popular conception, frequently heard in
testimonies, is that a Christian sole purpose is to win souls and that soul-winning
is therefore the fruit bearing for which a Christian is responsible. But of the
sixty-six times the word fruit is used in the New Testament, only one verse
uses it for soul-winning (Jn. 4:36).17 The other non-literal usages of the word all
refer to spiritual fruit; the fruit of the Spirit, or the fruits of
righteousness which are the general result of the Holy Spirit's work in and
through the believer. These "fruits" are primarily attitudes produced
in the believer. These attitudes are of course, manifested in the believer's
actions.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, good-
ness, faith [fulness],
meekness, temperance r self-control]: against such
there is no law (Gal.
Can a believer conceive of a Christian
who has never experienced the love, joy, or
peace,
that the Holy Spirit produces? If such fruit has never been produced, then it
may be affirmed that the Holy Spirit is not resident in such a person.
This present generation of Christians
has emphasized the doctrine of carnality while de-emphasizing the doctrine that
a true faith must produce fruit. Earlier generations of Christians were more
insistent upon this latter point as well as the first. Only a generation ago
Dr. Ironside spoke emphatically upon this point.
. . . when you are born again, you love
to follow Jesus, and if you do not, you
are not a Christian. Take that home.
Examine your own foundations a bit. . . .
It makes a tremendous difference what
you do. If you do not behave yourself,
it shows that you are not a real
Christian. I know that a real Christian may
fail, but the difference can be seen in
Peter and Judas. Peter failed, and failed
terribly, but he was genuine, and one
look from Jesus sent him out weeping
bitterly; his heart was broken to think
that he had so dishonored his Lord.
But Judas companied with the Lord almost
three-and-a-half years, and was a
devil all the time; he was a thief, and
was seeking his own interest. He was
even made the treasurer of the company,
and he held the bag, but we read,
"He bare away what was put
therein" (John 12:6), as this has been literally
translated. At last remorse overtook
him, not genuine repentance, and what
was the result? He went and hanged
himself. He was never a child of God.
There is a great difference, you see,
between a Christian and a false profes-
sor.18
The only proof that a person is a real
Christian is the "fruit" produced in his life. "By their fruits
ye shall know them" (Mt.
14
GRACE JOURNAL
. . . no one can be a branch in Christ,
and a living member of His body, who
does not bear fruit. Vital union with
Christ not evidenced by life is an impos-
sibility and a
blasphemous idea.19
Can anyone who is ingrafted
into Christ be without fruit? I answer, many are
supposed to be in the vine, according to
the opinion of men, who actually have
no root in the vine. . . . By these
words He declares that all who have a liv-
ing root in him are
fruit-bearing branches.20
So, one should not consider himself to
be a branch of the Vine just because he
is a Jew. Rather, is the test a matter
of bearing "fruit" (15:2). Indeed many
professed to believe in Jesus who really
did not (see
fruit-bearing 'branches' the Cultivator
would remove.21
. . . by their fruitfulness or
unfruitfulness they declare themselves to be true
or counterfeit branches, and to be
really, or in show only, engrafted in
Christ. . . The true touchstone whereby
to discern one sort of branches from
another is, not their leaves or profession,
but their fruit. . . . 22
Can one be in Christ yet remain
fruitless? ...This at least is certain, that
as the fruitless branch can have no
living Connection with the vine, no more
can the fruitless professing Christian
with Christ. Something is as it should
not be; though man's eye may not detect
the cause, the union is not the same
kind of union as that of the fruitful
branch or Christian.23
. . . so will God take away from his
church all professed Christians who give
no evidence by their lives that they are
truly united to the Lord Jesus. . .
'Every branch that beareth
fruit,' that is, all true Christians; for all such
bear fruit.24
These quotations represent the consensus
of conservative commentators on this subject. They agree that true Life is
evidenced by fruit. Where there is no fruit, there is no Life. This is what
Jesus said in Matthew
Beware of false prophets, which come to
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know
them by their fruits. Do men gather
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth
good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every
tree that bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know
them.
Fruit will be produced if the union with
Christ is real. Paul tells believers that they
were
saved "unto good works" (Eph.
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 15
The
objections, then, do not prohibit the identification of the unfruitful branches
as
merely
professors.
In view of his recognition as a godly
defender of the faith, Dr. Ironside's
endorsement
of
this view is noteworthy.
There are a great many believers who
bear very little fruit for God, but all
bear some fruit for Him. There are many
people in the Vine (and the Vine
speaks of profession here on earth) who
bear no fruit for Him, and will even-
tually be cut off
altogether when Jesus comes. There will be no place with
Him because there is no union with Him.25
Contextual
Support for this View
It has already been mentioned that verse
6 provides perhaps the strongest support for this view. "If a man abide
not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them,
and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
It should be noted that the preceding
verse used personal pronouns and was addressed directly to the Apostles. It is
not insignificant, then, that the Holy Spirit here changes to the indefinite
pronoun "anyone" (t is). Jesus knew that the disciples, who were true
believers ("clean," v. 3), would not come into the judgment here
described.
But what is meant by "abiding"
in Him? According to I John 4:15, the one who confesses that Jesus is the Son
of God "abides" in God. Also according to I John
Thus to "abide in Christ:' is
equivalent to "believe in Christ." The relation-
ship of abiding is initiated by saving
faith and is continued by walking in
faith.26
Marcus Dodds
translates this phrase, "If anyone shall not have abided in me. . . .“27
This would be the equivalent of saying, "If anyone does not produce
fruit because h.e is not vitally united to the vine
and consequently is removed (as verse 2 describes) then that one has nothing to
look forward to but the, same type of judgment that awaits literal branches
that have been cut off." John Owen's comment on
this phrase is appropriate.
The expression 'if a man abide not in
me,' does not imply the termination of
a living connection, but that true union
and fellowship with Christ was never
enjoyed by this worthless branch.28
The
"withering" described may well be taken as a graphic picture of what
happens to the
unbeliever's
body during the period between his death and the resurrection of his body in
order that it may be cast into hell.
16
GRACE
JOURNAL
The phrase in the King James text,
"men gather them," is incorrect and should be
simply,
"they gather them." The statement was undoubtedly made without a noun
or pronoun as subject so as to include men in the case of the literal branches
and angels in the case of the unbelievers represented.
The phrase, "they are burned,
" is again an incorrect translation. The Greek text uses a present passive
singular verb which should be translated simply "it burns," or “it is
burning.” The present tense is for vividness and allows for a continual burning
in hell. The singular verb is in agreement with the singular noun
"branch." It is thus the unfruitful branch itself that burns.
The view that this branch is a believer and that only his testimony is destroyed
during this life does not satisfy the grammar of this verse. Neither is the
view that the burning refers to the judgment of the believer's works
satisfactory. The change from the plural to the singular specifically rejects
both views. The judgment described is the same as that described by Jesus in
Matthew 13:49, 50 (A V).
So shall it be at the end of the world:
the angels shall come forth, and sever
the wicked from among the just, and
shall cast them into the furnace of fire:
there shall be wailing and gnashing of
teeth.
It is interesting to note that in the
same chapter Jesus had just described a sowing which had produced two kinds of
plants that for a time looked like the real thing, but never produced any fruit
and consequently withered and died (Mt.
A proper exegesis of verse 6 not only
supports the identifying of the unfruitful branches as unsaved professors, but
eliminates any view which would make them represent believers. It is admitted that the verse is figurative
but to make it apply to believers it must be taken as "highly
figurative," as before noted. The following comment by Powell is an
example of the treatment which must be given to this verse by those who make it
refer to believers: "There is no doctrinal significance in the burning of
the branch; this was the natural procedure, with dead wood."29
But if verse 6 is determinative, the
other verses in the parable also support the same conclusion.
In verse 1, the usage of the adjective
"genuine" has already been mentioned as support.
In verse 2, the expression "he taketh away" offers strong support for this view. As
before noted, the basic idea of airo involves a removal. If this refers to the removal of
unbelievers, then the removal is from any supposed connection with Christ.
Unbelievers may be removed from the sphere of profession (as was Judas), by
discipline, by persecution, by tribulations, by temptations, or by death.30
Any and all of these removals will result in the judgment of verse 6.
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 17
But if these branches be taken as
Christians, what can the removal signify? The taking heaven of sinning
believers, as suggested by Chafer, does not remove them from Christ or from profession
in Christ. If Jesus wanted to teach the truth that sinning believers may be removed
to heaven it does not seem likely that He would have chosen this figure. What
happens to dead and removed branches is not good.
Nor is it satisfactory to say that airo refers to a
"lifting up" or encouragement during this life, as Pink, Powell, and
others have stated. Again this is no removal from Christ—the true vine, or from
profession in him, and therefore, does not fit the common usage of airo or the remainder
of the context. Powell's comment indicates the force of these considerations.
This verse as it stands suggests
severance from the main vine, the result of
cutting or pruning by a husbandman who
had lost patience with an unproductive
branch. But this is not true.31
The meaning of the word, however, and
the context, support the contention that a removal is described.
Concerning the "purging"
mentioned in verse 2, Barnes has given a helpful comment.
'He purgeth
it,' or rather he prunes it, or cleanseth it by
pruning. There is
a use of words here --a paranomasia in the original- -which cannot be retained
in the translation. It may be
imperfectly seen by retaining the Greek words.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away
(airei);
every branch
that beareth
fruit, he purgeth it (kathairei) now ye are clean(katharoi). . . .32
The "purging," or
"pruning," or "cleansing" is something quite different from
the "taking away" of the unfruitful branches. As has been noted, all
Christians bear some fruit, so when He said "every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it, that
it may bring forth more fruit," He was referring to a work done with all
believers. This is the same truth as that stated in Hebrews 13:8. "But if
ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards,
and not sons. "
Dr. Tenney has
properly noted the distinction between the two actions involved in verse 2.
"In pruning a vine, two principles are generally observed: first, all dead
wood must be ruthlessly removed; and second, the live wood must be cut back
drastically.”33
The use of the word "clean" in
verse 3 has already been cited as evidence to support the view being presented.
Hutcheson's comment on this verse is adequate at this point.
In this verse is contained a declaration
what sort of branches they were --
namely, not fruitless; but
"clean" ones, that is, who, by being purged and
cleansed from their superfluities, (as
is promised, ver. 2), are assured that
they are fruitful branches, really and
internally engrafted in Christ; and so
were they regenerated, justified, and
sanctified in part.34
18
GRACE
JOURNAL
Verse 4 harmonizes with all that has
been said. Using John's definition of "abiding" (I In.
To continue in the vine is for a branch
the condition of life, and consequently
its only law.35
They went out from us, but they were not
of us; for if they had been of us, they
would have continued with us: but they
went out, that they might be made mani-
fest that they were not all together' of
us (I In.
To "abide," then, is to
maintain a vital connection to Him by virtue of believing in Him. This
relationship is initiated and continued by faith. "As ye have therefore
received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him (Col. 2:6).
Verse 5 repeats the theme that union
with Him is necessary for fruitfulness. The phrase translated "without
me," is literally, "apart from me"--meaning "not simply
without my help, but separated from me.”36 In other words, a branch
that is not united to the vine cannot produce fruit. This again supports the
view that the unfruitful branches represent unsaved people because believers
are not separated from him even when they have sin in their lives.
For true believers the variable factor
in verse 7 is not whether they abide, but whether they allow His Word to abide
in them. "If you abide in me (that is, if you are a true believer), and
(if you allow) my Words (to) abide in you, whatever you wish you shall ask and
it shall come to pass for you."
The remainder of the passage is of
interest to all believers but has little bearing on the question of identifying
the unfruitful branches and so will not be discussed.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion drawn from this study is
that our Lord, in His remarks about the unfruitful branches and what happens to
them, is referring to unbelievers.
Many reasons for this conclusion have
been discussed, the major reasons found in the passage itself may be summarized
as follows.
1.
Verse 6 seems to demand this conclusion and the rest of the contextalsofavors it.
2. The word airo, in verse 2, best hannonizes with this view since it usually signi-
fies a removal.
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 19
3. Verses 4 and 5 seem to teach that a
branch truly united to the Vine must produce fruit. Any branch, therefore,
which does not produce fruit is a dead branch not vitally united with Him, and
will eventually be removed.
4. Verse 3, and also the whole passage,
seems to indicate that the example of Judas was in mind. Judas was certainly an
unsaved pretender.
5. By the statement, "I am the
vine, the genuine one," Jesus was most certainly
drawing
the disciples' attention to the familiar Old Testament figure of the vine. Gill
and
others
have remarked that not only was the nation
Since the disciples would have thought
of the Old Testament imagery it is interesting that several Old Testament
passages describe the burning of unfruitful branches (see particularly Ps.
80:15-16). There can be no question but that in these passages the fire refers
to the judgment of unbelievers.
There is much merit to Hengstenberg's "dispensational" interpretation of
the passage.
. . . Jesus, in the whole verse [v. 6],
has primarily in view the unbelieving
people of God: the Jews had originally
stood in relation to Christ--He was
their divinely-appointed Shepherd, and
they His flock; but they did not abide
in Him, they violently sundered
themselves from Him. A comparison with
Ezekiel 15 makes this allusion to the Jews
indubitable. There the Jews appear
under the image of a degenerate and wild
vine, which was fit for nothing in
the world but to be burnt . . . 38
It appears certain that Jesus had in
mind those unbelieving Jews who pretended to be in right relationship to God
(like the Pharisees--even like the high priest), but who were actually not united
to the true Vine. The figure is wide enough to insist that He also had in mind
those who "believed in his name" (superficially) but in whom He did not believe (Greek text, Jn.
In Romans 11, Paul gives a similar
analogy which describes the removal of branches because of unbelief.
And if some of the branches be broken
off, and thou, being a wild olive
[branch], wert grafted in among them,
and with them partakest of the root and
fatness of the olive tree; Boast not
against the branches. But if thou boast,
thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches
were 'broken off, that I might be grafted
in. Well; because of unbelief they
were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded,
but fear: For
if God spared not the natural branches,
take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness. and
severity of God: on them which fell, severity;
but toward thee, goodness, If thou continue
in his goodness: otherwise thou
20
GRACE
JOURNAL
also shalt be
cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall
be grafted in: for God is able to graft
them in again. For if thou wert cut out
of the olive tree which is wild by
nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature
into a good olive tree: how much more
shall these, which be the natural
branches, be grafted into their own
olive tree? (
6. The word "branch" (klema) used in
John 15 is not used elsewhere in the New Testament. It means a
"cutting" or a “slip."39 Our Lord may have chosen
this word as a designation for branches that are grafted into the vine. Based
upon this possibility, Dr. Ironside’s comment is very interesting.
There are no natural branches in the
living vine. We are grafted in by faith.
I do not know much about grafting, but I
do know that it is one thing to put a
graft in, and it is another thing for a
graft to strike. It is one thing for a per-
son to be outwardly linked with Him, and
quite another for that person to have
life in Christ. What is the test that
proves whether he is really in the vine?
If he bears fruit. All who have life
bear some fruit for God.. If there is no
fruit, you can be sure there is no life,
no real union with Christ.40
Such a grafting, then, would be to make
a profession of faith in Him--to profess a relationship with God. With this
agree the words of Jesus, "every planting which my heavenly Father hath
not planted, shall be rooted up" (Mt.
The words of another famous Bible
teacher of the past generation, Dr. Gaebelein, are an
appropriate conclusion.
The branches which bear no fruit, which
are taken away and finally perish do
not represent true believers at all.
Whenever a person takes upon himself
the profession of a Christian, he claims
by that outward profession to take the
place, the position, the privileges and
responsibilities of a believer in Christ,
a separated one and also a branch in the
vine. But while his profession in
church membership indicates all this, in
reality this person is only nominally
a follower of Christ. He has not the
reality of it, he does not possess what he
has taken upon himself in profession,
for he was never born again. As a re-
suit there is no fruit, because there is
no life. . . . That there are thousands
upon thousands of such branches, dead
and unfruitful in the professing church,
does not need any demonstration. . . . It
is only too evident.41
DOCUMENTATION
1.
William Barclay, The Gospel of
John (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956),
II, 201
2.
John Peter Lange, Commentary on
the Holy Scriptures, The Gospel According to
John, translated and edited by
Philip Schaff (
House: 1960), p. 461. Dr, Lange and
Dr. Schaff have given here a useful
summary of these various views.
THE UNFRUITFUL BRANCHES IN JOHN 15 21
3.
Barclay, p. 201.
4.
Ibid.
5.
Adam Clarke, The New Testament with Commentary and Critical Notes (New
6. M.
F. Sadler, The Gospel According to
1890), pp. 369-70.
7.
A. W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (
Depot, 1929), III, 337.
8.
See William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur
Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature
(
Press, 1964) 23-4
9.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation (
1917), p. 110.
10.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (
Press, 1962), III, 300. These
volumes were originally published m 1948. In this
writer's opinion these volumes offer
the most Scriptural presentation available of
the whole system of Christian
theology.
11.
Charles C. Ryrie, Unpublished class
lectures on Soteriology
(Dallas Theological
Seminary, Dec. 1957). Dr. Ryrie's
skill as a theologian is highly respected and
consequently it is with a certain
amount of reluctance that the writer prefers
another interpretation.
12.
George Reith, The Gospel According to
II, 103.
13.
John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (
Collingridge,
1960), I, 740.
14.
Alexander MacClaren,
Expositions of Holy Scripture (
Eerdmans Publishing
Company), Publishing Company, 1952), VII, 5.
15.
E. W. Hengstenberg,
Commentary on the Gospel of John (Ediriburg: T & T Clark,
1865), p. 245.
16.
See Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on
the Gospel of John (
Zondervan PublIshmg House, n. d.), II, 294.
17.
It is even possible that this verse
may be interpreted so that soul-winning is not
the fruit designated.
18.
H. A. Ironside,
The Eternal Security of the Believer
(
Brothers, 1934), p. 18.
19.
J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (
Publishing House, n.d.), John
20.
John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. by William
Pringle (
21.
V. Wayne Barton, The Gospel of John, Shield Bible Series
(
Book House, 1965), p. 73.
22.
George Hutcheson, An Exposition of the Gospel According to John,
Puritan
Classic Series (Evansville, Indiana:
The Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959),
p. 314.
23.
Reith p. 102.
24.
Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the New Testament
(
25.
Ironside,
p.47.
22
GRACE
JOURNAL
26.
Homer A. Kent, Jr., "The Gospel
of John," (unpublished class syllabus, Grace
Theological Seminary, n.d.), p. 81.
27.
Marcus Dodds,
"The Gospel of
edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (
Company: 1956),
28.
John J. Owen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (
and 1869), p. 363.
29.
Ivor
Powell, John's Wonderful Gospel (
Houose,
1962), p. 320.
30.
Barnes, p. 352.
31.
Powell, p. 316.
32. Barnes, p. 352-3.
33.
Merril C. Tenney, John: The
Gospel of Belief (
Publishing Co., 1953), p. 227.
34.
Hutcheson, p. 315.
35.
Godet, II,
295.
36.
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to
Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1964), p. 218.
37.
Gill, p. 739.
38.
Hengstenberg,
pp. 250-1. Hengstenberg, however, failed to
distinguish between
the individual Jewish
"branches" and the nation. The individual unbelievers are
eternally condemned. The nation will
be revived and its future members will
again be in the place of blessing.
39.
Robert Young, Analytical Concordance
to the Bible (
Eerdmans
Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 109.
40.
Ironside,
p. 48.
41.
A. C. Gaebelein,
The Gospel of John (
1925), pp. 296-7.
:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium