THE IDENTITY AND OUTCOME OF THE BRANCHES IN JOHN 15:1–6

by

CHRISTINE WARING
BA in Religion, Summit Pacific College, 2011

Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of

MASTER OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES PROGRAM

in the

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

September 2025
© Christine Waring, 2025

ii

DECLARATION OF COMMITTEE
The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of
Graduate Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled:
Title

Identity and Outcome of the Branches in John 15:1–6

submitted by Christine Waring in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Theological Studies Program .
Degree Committee Members
Jonathan Numada, Ph.D., New Testament, McMasters Divinity College
Thesis Advisor
Brian Rapske, Ph.D., New Testament, University of Aberdeen
Degree Committee Member
Beth Stovel, Ph.D., Christian Theology: Biblical Studies, McMaster Divinity College
Degree Committee Member

iii

Abstract
Historically, scholars have interpreted John 15:1–6 by translating the term αἴρω in verse 2 as
‘cut off’ or “removed” and viewing the harvest and fire imagery in verse 6 as a reference to
eternal judgement. This paper challenges that reading by applying Conceptual Blending
Metaphor and Allusion Theory to engage the text from a literary and historical perspective. It
argues that αἴρω should be translated as ‘lifted up,’ identifying Peter and the disciples as the
narrative referent of the unfruitful branches and that eternal judgement is not in view in verse
6. This argument is developed by situating the text within its OT allusions, examining the
characterization of the disciples and Judas Iscariot, analyzing how “in me” functions in the
text, and comparing the fire imagery in verse 6 with the synoptic judgement imagery with
how judgement functions in John.

iv

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................................1
Literature Review: Scholarly Consensus and Disagreement .............................................................. 2
Thesis statement ................................................................................................................................. 7
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Jesus and Major Allusions in John 15:1–6 .......................................................12
Jesus in John ..................................................................................................................................... 12
John 15: Jesus and the Father in light of LXX Allusions ................................................................. 24

Chapter 3: The Identity of the Branches .............................................................................28
The Referent of “You” ..................................................................................................................... 28
Characterization of the Disciples in Farewell Discourse .................................................................. 29
Characterization of Judas Iscariot in John ........................................................................................ 35
OT References of “Branches”/Referent of the “branches”............................................................... 39
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 45

Chapter 4: The Outcomes of the Branches..........................................................................47
Judgement in John ............................................................................................................................ 47
Evaluating the use of αἴρω in John 15 and the LXX Allusions ........................................................ 55
Context: The Farewell Discourse, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Reinstatement .......................... 56
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 57

Chapter 5: Putting it All Together and Implications .........................................................59
Summary of Argument ..................................................................................................................... 59
Implications ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Future Considerations....................................................................................................................... 61
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 61

Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................62
Christine Waring L.M ...........................................................................................................67

1

Chapter 1: Introduction
While the “I am” statements in John are known to reveal the identity of Jesus, the
final statement in John 15:1–6 focuses more on the identity, character, and outcome of his
disciples. Jesus says, “I am the true vine, my father is the vinedresser… you are the
branches.” There is consensus that the imagery surrounding the vine and the vinedresser
refers to an OT symbolic network found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Psalm 80 among
others. However, the identity, character, and outcome of the branches is still up for
contention. There are two main points of view.1
The first perspective maintains that there are two kinds of branches. The ones that do
not bear fruit and the ones that do. They assume the branches being referred to in verse 2 are
the same branches referred to in verse 6. They interpret the word “abide” as key to salvation.2
The language in verse 6 is viewed as eternal judgment. The other point of view sees three
kinds of branches and separates the outcome of the non-fruit bearing branches in verse 2 with
the ones in verse 6. Rather than interpreting αἴρει as “taken away,” or “cut off,” this
perspective translates it as “lifted up.” It also views the judgement motif in verse 6 as
referring to the branches that, after having been given the opportunity to bear fruit (a second
chance), refuse to abide, and therefore experience a form of judgement. This viewpoint either
holds to the same interpretation of “abide” as the first or interprets the word “abide” as
fellowship which views the judgment in verse 6 as a non-salvation issue. This will be
addressed in the literature review.
The answer to this disagreement seems to lie in how the narrative within the Gospel
of John uses common motifs of the time (i.e. the vine, branches, and judgment metaphors).
These work together within John 15:1–6 to create a change of perspective from God’s people

1

Joseph C. Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1–6,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 147 (1990): 50. While this is an older article, it gives a concise description of the different perspectives
on the identity and outcome of the fruitless branches.
2
Laney uses the word “believing” and Keener uses the word “persevering,” but both assume that salvation is in
view with abiding and not abiding. See J. Carl Laney, “Abiding is Believing: the Analogy of the Vine in John
15:1–6,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (January-March 1989): 55–66. and Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A
Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 1001.

2

being passive participants in God's redemption story to active ones through their special
"abiding" relationship with Jesus. ,
Literature Review: Scholarly Consensus and Disagreement
There is a significant amount of consensus among scholars concerning the primary
metaphor found of John 15:1–6: “I am the true vine.” The disagreement occurs in the
subordinate metaphors regarding the role of Father, and the identity and outcome of the
branches.3 As representatives of the accepted scholarly stance surrounding Jesus’ I am
statement, Craig Keener’s commentary on John, and David Mark’s monograph ‘I Am’ in
John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications,4 meticulously
engage with historical sources or with the background and function of “I am” in the Gospel
of John.
Brief Overview of “I am” and “Vine”
The consensus is that the vine imagery references both the OT and 1st century viticulture.5
Keener points to both. He suggests Ps 80:8–16; Isa 27:2–6; Jer 2:21; Ezek 15:2–6; 17:5–10;
19:10–14; and Isa 5:1–7 as potential texts being alluded to in John 15, and the golden vine
that is in the Herodian temple. These references indicate that the nation of Israel was referred
to as a vine both in the OT and in the first century. Keener contrasts some scholars that
suggest an allusion to the Lord’s Supper,6 Wisdom (The Law),7 or a Hellenistic background.8
That said, he encourages his reader to not depend solely on an OT allusion for interpretation.
He states:

3

I have limited my range to representative works written or translated into English which also engage with the
background and interpretation of key terms associated with the vine, vinedresser, or branch imagery in John
15:1–6.
4
David Mark Ball, “I Am” in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
5
See Keener, John, 991.; Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the
Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 491; and Gary W.
Derickson, “Viticulture and John 15:1–6,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1996): 34–52.
6
See Keener, John, 990. “Bernard, John, 2:477–78; Brown, Essays, 102–3; Richardson, Theology, 377; Brodie,
Gospel, 482; cf. Hoskyns, Gospel, 474, and Barrett, John, 472, who combine the Last Supper tradition with the
biblical image of Israel as a vine. This tradition is likely early; Did. 9.2 uses Jesus as the vine as part of the
eucharistic thanksgiving.”
7
From Sirach 24:17.
8
Keener, John, 990-91.

3

[The] vine imagery was common enough without necessary specific allusions to
standard symbolism… Many scholars, nevertheless, suspect that this passage alludes
to more than merely the standard function implied in the image of vine and branches.9
While Keener is hesitant to fully commit to the vine as being solely an OT allusion, his
balanced engagement with past scholarship, and historical context point to a strong link
between the metaphorical network of Israel as a vine.10 David Mark Ball takes a stronger
stance in his study of ἐγώ εἰμι with a predicate, and states that ἐγώ εἰμι “functions as an
integral part of the unfolding narrative” and “because the ‘I am’ sayings also focus attention
on the person of Jesus, each time the words occur they further reveal something of Jesus’ role
or identity so that the narrator’s point of view first disclosed in the Prologue is reinforced.”11
He concludes:
The words ἐγώ εἰμι thus act as a formula which applies Old Testament and Jewish
concepts to the person of Jesus who embodies and fulfills them… The Gospel itself
provides clues which point to the Old Testament and Judaism as the correct
conceptual background for the use of ἐγώ εἰμι.12
He arrives at this conclusion after engaging with each relevant pericope considering its
setting, structure, character/characterization, irony, point of view, implied reader, and other
themes and titles.13
Background of “Vinedresser” and “Branches”
The scholarship on the vinedresser focuses primarily on the Father’s actions, (i.e.
pruning, taking away, etc.), rather than his character. Because of this, it is closely related to
the outcome of the branches and so I have included the discussion on the vinedresser along
with the discussion on the branches. In this section we will examine Gary Derickson’s article

9

Keener, John, 990.
He also cautions: “If the vine alludes to Israel, the designation “true” (15:1) may forcefully contrast Jesus
with Israel. One should not overstate the contrast; whereas “true” can exclude any others (17:3), it can also
simply contrast with “mere”… [F]or John, “becoming a true Jew and becoming a Christian are one and the
same thing.” See Keener, John, 993.
11
Ball, “I Am” in John’s Gospel, 149.
12
Ball, “I Am” in John’s Gospel, 259.
13
In contrast to older scholarship, Ball argues against 1) seeing a direct connection between sign, discourse, and
the ἐγώ εἰμι sayings, (29-32), 2) a Mandaean background (164-165), and 3) a sharp distinction between role and
identity dependent on whether the “I am” saying has a predicate or not (260).
10

4

“Viticulture and John 15:1–6,”14 Keener’s commentary, and Joseph C. Dillow’s article
“Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1–6.”15
Keener details how vinedressers in the Mediterranean pruned their stock in both
method and timing. He references examples of pruning in the OT16 and examples of how
pruning analogies were used in the broader Greco-Roman culture in reference to morality, or
the lack thereof. He builds a case for a moral understanding of pruning and fruit because of a
play on words between John’s use of καθαίρω (John 15:2) and καθαρός (John 13:10). The
first, while it should be properly translated as “prune,” points backwards to the previous
Johannine use of καθαρός which refers to “being clean” or “cleansed.”17
Derickson’s article primarily engages with the identity of the branches in John 15:1–
6.18 He uses historical and cultural data and argues two things: 1) that αἴρει should be
translated as “lifted up”19 and, 2) that the cutting off of non-abiding branches to be burned
refers to the wintertime pruning and specifically does not mention unfruitfulness, therefore
the branches in verses 2 and 6 are different. He concludes:
When Jesus gave the analogy of the vine and the branches, He based it on the cultural
practice of His day, which was to clean up only the fruit-bearing branches and tidy up
the rows during the early spring growth following blooming. Severe pruning and
removal of branches did not occur until the grapes were harvested and dormancy was
being induced. Since Jesus was speaking in the spring, it is more natural to see His
words in John 15:2 as referring to the spring practice. The viticultural use of καθαίρει,
which describes the removal of sprouts from fruiting branches, should inform the
meaning of αἴρει. Both actions occurring simultaneously.20
Keener disagrees with Derickson giving four reasons why αἴρει cannot be translated
as “lifted up:”
[Firstly,] it is not the vine but the branch which is lifted… [Secondly,] ‘lifting’ can
refer to removal no less than ‘taking away’ does… [Thirdly,] Palestinian farmers may

14

Derickson, “Viticulture and John 15:1–6,” 34–52.
Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 44–53.
16
Lev 25:3–4; Song 2:12; Isa 2:4; 5:6; 18:5; Joel 3:10; Mic 4:3. See Keener, John, 995.
17
Keener, John, 996. See also, George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2nd ed., vol. 36 of Word Biblical Commentary
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 272.
18
He summarizes two Calvinistic views on the passage. The first is that both kinds of branches refer to
nonbelievers who are professing Christians and who will experience judgement in hell. The second is “that
unfruitful branches represent believers who are cared for by God and later disciplined.” (36–37)
19
Derickson, “Viticulture and John 15:1–6,” 48.
20
Derickson, “Viticulture and John 15:1–6,” 52.
15

5

have often done without supports, marring the image of ‘lifting’ the vine back into
place.21
These first three reasons seem negligible. Vine and branches are semantically connected and
therefore, it would not be a stretch to see “lift” in connection with branch. The semantic
range of αἴρει is not conclusive to determine one way or the other, and that Palestinian
farmers may have done without supports has the same weight that they may have used
supports. His final point has more weight. He states:
[T]he branch is lifted away because it bears no fruit, the result in this context of failing
to “abide” (15:4–6), a condition that 15:5 explicitly claims results in being cast away
and eventually burned. Thus it is probable that the image of 15:2, like the image of
15:6, addresses apostate branches who fail to persevere.22
But with Keener’s last point, it is based on his interpretation of “abide” which has some
contention. Joseph Dillow in his article interprets “abide” as “remaining in fellowship.”23
He argues that “when Jesus used this phrase [in Me], He referred to a life of fellowship, a
unity of purpose, rather than organic connection.”24 He uses John 16:33 as an example:
The experience of peace in the midst of persecution comes only to believers who are
obediently walking in His commandments and aligned with His purposes. “These
things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace.”25
He suggests the Johannine sense of “in Me” is separate from the forensic use of Paul’s
term “in Christ.”26 He states, “To be ‘in Me’ is to be in fellowship with Christ, living
obediently.”27 Therefore, it is possible for a Christian not to be ‘in Me’ in the Johannine
sense. Thus, Dillow argues against viewing “remaining” (abiding) as the same as
“believing” in the Johannine sense.
While I agree with Dillow’s argument, Keener interprets “abide” as “persevere.”
He looks to the synoptics for support and argues “that only some who initially embrace
Jesus’ message would persevere in fruitfulness to salvation.”28 I believe “persevere”

21

Keener, John, 1001.
Keener, John, 1001.
23
Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 46.
24
Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 46.
25
Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 47. Emphasis added.
26
Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 46.
27
Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 47.
28
Keener, John, 1000.
22

6

could be an adequate interpretation of “abide” but Keener fails to account for how John
uses the term “in Me.”
Derickson and Dillow view the judgement in verse 6 from a sanctification
perspective. Dillow’s view of verse 6 connects it to Paul’s explanation of believers being
judged in 1 Corinthians 3:15.29 He states, “To what does the fire refer? Fire is a common
symbol in the Bible for God’s judgment on His people in time (e.g., Isa 5:24; 9:19). Less
frequently it is associated with the fires of hell.”30 Derickson views verse 6 as the removal
of useless branches rather than specific judgement but goes on to state:
That verse 6 looks at the Fall, postharvest pruning is seen in the practice of burning all
the wood not attached to the vine. Thus even if verse 6 is seen as teaching a judgment
on those who do not abide in Christ, it cannot be used to inform the meaning of verse
2.31
This is sharply contrasted with Keener who views the judgement in verse 2 and 6 as the
removal from the people of God.32
Conclusion
As can be seen from above, there is a division in the scholarship regarding the
outcome and identity of the branches in John 15:1–6. Each scholar approaches the problem
with a different method. Derickson primarily focuses on viticultural practices and concludes
a separation between the outcomes of the non-fruit bearing branches in verse 2 and 6. Keener
considers the non-fruit bearing branches in verse 2 and 6 as parallel as both have failed to
abide, and therefore the outcome of both is separation from the faith community. According
to Keener, “abiding” is the same as persevering in one’s faith so that to fail to abide is a
salvation issue. Dillow focuses on the Johannine use of “in Me” to argue that the vine-branch
imagery reveals, not an organic connection (believing and therefore salvation), but a
connection by fellowship, which means that the judgement motif is not eternal judgement but
only the removal of life on earth. Considering this disagreement, engaging with the identity
and outcome of the branches from a new perspective will be helpful.

29

Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 53.
Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 53.
31
Derickson, “Viticulture and John 15:1–6,” 52.
32
Keener, John, 1000.
30

7

Thesis statement
This thesis will reengage John 15:1–6 with a renewed focus on the literary and
historical background of the metaphors connected to and surrounding the imagery of the
branches. This includes not only the source material (how branches are used in the OT) but
also the target material (the disciples). I believe this focus has the potential to answer the
following question: What is the identity and outcome of the branches that do not bear fruit in
verses 2 and 6?
To answer this question a few others must also be addressed including: 1) Who is the
narrative referent of the “branches that do not bear fruit” in verse 2, and how does that inform
the translation of αἴρει? 2) How should the term “abide” be understood? 3) Does judgement
function within the text and how does that inform our understanding of verse 6?
If we hold that the outcome of the non-bearing fruit in verse 2 is that it is “taken
away” or “cut off”, the narrative referent could be Judas Iscariot.33 In that case, the outcome
of the judgement in verse 6 would mirror the judgement of Judas found in John 17:12 who
Jesus calls “the one destined to be lost.” In essence, the text would be speaking about the
removal of unfruitful people from the faith community. “Abiding,” therefore, would refer to
salvation, not fellowship.
The alternative would be that Peter and the other disciples are the narrative referent as
the “unfruitful branch” with αἴρει translated as “lifted up” which would point forward in the
narrative to Peter’s reinstatement after his betrayal of Jesus. The narrative would be
understood as follows: Peter fails to “abide” (John 18:15–18, 25–27) is then “lifted up” to a
place where he is able to “abide” once more (John 21:15–19). This would potentially
separate the outcome of the non–fruit bearing branches in verse 2 with the outcome of the
non-fruit bearing branches of verse 6. “Abiding” would, therefore, be understood to mean
fellowship.
In this thesis I will argue that Peter (and by extension the disciples) are the narrative
referent of the branch that does not bear fruit in verse 2, and therefore the proper translation

33

Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 4,
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 312.

8

of αἴρει would be “lifted up.” I will also argue that the judgement motif found in verse 6 does
not refer to final, eternal judgement but only to the removal of life here on earth.
Methodology
In this study, the above questions will be approached using Conceptual Blending
Metaphor Theory (CBMT) and Allusion Theory (AT).34 Before outlining my procedure and
parameters for the application of this methodology, I will give a brief description of CBMT
and AT, and the benefits of using them as a methodological framework.
Metaphors create new meaning by taking two different subjects and naming one in
light of the other. CBMT describes these subjects (or inputs/components) of metaphors as
conceptual domains.35 Zoltán Kövecses defines a domain as “a coherent organization of
human experience”36 and states, “A conceptual metaphor is a systematic set of
correspondences between two domains of experience.”37 The source domain (second input)
is used to name, define, or characterize the target domain (first input). For example, in John
15, “branches” is the source domain, which is used to define “You (the disciples)” who are
the target domain. The cultural and literary backgrounds for these terms are the organization
of human experience that Kövecses references.
Zoltán Kövecses describes key concepts in conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) but he
does not engage with the blending component of my chosen methodology. I chose CBMT
rather than CMT as I believe it captures the reality of how the first metaphoric component
(target domain) influences the overall meaning of the metaphor. Specifically, CBMT expands
on CMT by showing how elements from each input space interact to produce meaning not
found in either domain.38 This makes CBMT useful for biblical interpretation, where
34

This idea came about from reading Susan Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2005) and Beth M. Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King
(Leiden: Brill, 2012), but is primarily founded on the following: Mark Johnson and George Lakoff, Metaphors
We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). See also Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The
Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002).
35
Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6, 65.
36
Zoltán Kövecses, “Conceptual Metaphor Theory” in Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language, edited
by Elena Semino and Zsófia Demjén, (Milton Park: Routledge 2017), 12.
37
Kövecses, “Conceptual Metaphor Theory,” 2.
38
The idea of using metaphor theory to engage with John 15 is not new. See Ruben van de Belt, ““Refiguring
Christ, the True Vine: An Exploration of an Ἐγώ Είμι Saying Using Ricoeur’s Concept of

9

metaphors often combine theological, cultural, and narrative elements to generate new
meaning. To understand how the two domains are interacting, CBMT creates a conceptual
map. This map creates equivalences between the two inputs. A common and simple example
is the metaphor THE SURGEON IS A BUTCHER.
Surgeon = Butcher
Tools of Surgery = Tools of Butchery
Purpose of Surgery = Purpose of Butchery
Conceptual mapping looks at the text in hand, or target domain (the disciples), and
the text out of hand, or source domain (the branches) to determine what concept connects the
two inputs. This is achieved by determining the cultural and literary source of the inputs and
then comparing the source and target domains to find the shared conceptual connection. This
shared concept is called “generic space.”39 From there, the source domain is mapped and
interpreted in light of the generic space which then is used to interpret the target domain.
Practically, the metaphorical inputs must be understood within their culture and
literary background which make Allusion Theory a helpful tool. Simply, AT compares how
the current text (in our case John 15) references previous texts (OT and Hellenistic writings)
and interprets the meaning of these references by considering both contexts. The vine, branch
and judgment imagery in John 15 are allusions and therefore, must be understood within the
source domains’ literary backgrounds. In Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Richard
Hays has seven criteria for what constitutes an allusion. The first is availability, which asks
whether the proposed alluded passage could have been known to the author. The second is
volume, which looks at the degree of explicit repetition of words and syntactic patterns
between the text and the supposed text being referenced. Re-occurrence asks whether the
supposed alluded text is alluded to elsewhere in the author’s work and thematic coherence
asks whether the reference fits with the tenor or overall message of the text. Historical
plausibility asks whether the author could have intended the allusion and whether the

‘Metaphor,’” Scriptura 116, no. 1 (December 31, 2017): 1–11. He uses Ricoeur’s concept of metaphor which
uses the structure: “Jesus” is, is not, and is like “the True Vine.” The difficulty with this view of metaphor is
that as Belt describes, “All the possible meanings of the “true vine” are activated by this usage” which negates
how the context of the text informs how the metaphor is to be understood. See Belt, “Reconfiguring Christ, the
True Vine,” 8. This form of reading does reflect the mystery of Jesus, but divorces the metaphor from how it
functions within the narrative.
39
Fauconnier and Turner, The Way We Think, 41.

10

audience would have understood it. History of interpretation asks whether others throughout
history have noticed an allusion within the text. The final criterion satisfaction40 asks whether
or not the supposed allusion makes sense within the new context after all the above criteria
are met.41
Using CBMT and AT will help explain more fully Christ’s relationship with the
branches. Understanding the literary characterization of the disciples in John will inform who
the referent of the non-fruit bearing branch is in verse 2, which will lead to the proper
translation of αἴρει. Also, understanding the imagery surrounding judgement in verse 6 and
how that relates to the rest of the Gospel of John will inform not only the outcome of the
non-fruit bearing branches but also the proper understanding of “abide.”
Procedure
The question that arises at this point is how does one define the cultural and literary
background of the metaphorical components in John 15:1–6? Practically, this will involve
engaging with the different allusions found within John 15:1–6 surrounding the imagery of
the branches in the MT, LXX, and in the Gospel of John. For verse 2, I will track how Peter
(and the disciples in general) and Judas Iscariot (specifically) are characterized within the
Gospel to determine the likely referent. With the disciples, I will focus primarily on the
immediate context of the Farewell Discourse. For the branches’ imagery, I will use AT to
engage with the necessary OT and LXX texts. I will also take into account how the branches
are the subordinate metaphor to Jesus’ statement “I am the true vine.” This is important as
Jesus reveals the nature of his relationship with his followers using “true vine,” and
“branches.”
I will analyze the statements “I am the True Vine” and “You are the Branches” by
tracking the metaphors of PEOPLE/IDEALS/OBJECTS AS PLANTS in the OT using AT
focusing on key texts. This means I will focus on semantically connected metaphorical

40

Stanley E. Porter finds Hays’ criteria problematic but seems to conflate issues surrounding the language Hays
uses rather than the criteria with regard to availability, and volume. Specifically, Porter finds Hays fails to
engage with authorial intent, and would probably prefer the language of verbal coherence instead of “volume.” I
applied this criterion on well-known texts where other scholars have also seen allusions. See Stanley E. Porter,
“Allusions and Echoes” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter, and
Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 36-40.
41
Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–32.

11

references of the target domain and terms that describe a person, people group or a
personification of an ideal or object. With regard to “My Father is the vinedresser,” I will
analyze texts that use the metaphorical input of GARDENING and FARMING. The
judgement motif will be addressed by examining how the allusions of John 15:1–6 use these
metaphors. HARVEST AS JUDGEMENT and FIRE AS JUDGEMENT.
After determining the source domain of the different metaphors found in John 15:1–6,
I will determine how their use in John 15 is blended with the first metaphorical input (target
domain) to create new meaning. As mentioned above, the target domain will be found from
the context of the Gospel of John. I will engage with how Jesus, God and the disciples are
characterized throughout the text with specific focus on the Prologue, on titles given to Jesus
or God (The Father), and narrative examples of how the disciples42 and Judas Iscariot are
characterized.

42

This would include Peter, the beloved disciple, and the other disciples with the exception of Judas Iscariot.

Chapter 2: Jesus and Major Allusions in John 15:1–6
John 15:1–6 contains three specific metaphors: Jesus and the True Vine, the Father
and the Vinedresser, and “you” and the branches. The final metaphor (You are the branches)
must be understood in light of the primary metaphor of Jesus as the True Vine. This chapter
will engage with how Jesus is characterized in John by focusing on the Prologue and the “I
Am” Statements, and unpack LXX Psalm 79:9–20 and LXX Isaiah 5:1–7 which are two
major allusions in John 15 noting the implications for interpreting Jesus’ final “I am”
statement.
Jesus in John
Prologue
The Prologue functions as an introduction not only to the Gospel of John, but to Jesus who is
given the title ὁ λόγος. The background of this term is complex but it is connected with both
Jewish and Greek philosophy and theology.1 Craig Keener summarizes his discussion of
Jesus as Logos:
John’s choice of the Logos (embracing also Wisdom and Torah) to articulate his
Christology was brilliant: no concept better articulated an entity that was both divine
yet distinct from the Father. By using this term John could present Jesus as the
epitome of what his community’s opponents claimed to value: God’s word revealed
through Moses. Jesus was thus the supreme revelation of God; the Torah had gone
forth from Zion.2
J. Ramsey Michaels suggests not putting as much weight on the title Logos as other
commentators. He notes that “Light… is a dominant image throughout at least the first half
of the Gospel…”3 and that “The Gospel of John is about revelation; the text begins with
audible revelation (‘Word’), moving on to visible revelation (‘light’), and thence back and
forth between the two (embodied in Jesus’ signs and discourses) as the story unfolds.”4 The
amount of weight one gives either the theme of Logos or Light does not change the fact that
1

For a discussion on this see Keener, John, 339–363 and Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical
and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series 89, (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
2
Keener, John, 363. For a further discussion on this see Keener, John, 339–363.
3
J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT)
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 46.
4
Michaels, The Gospel of John, 46.

13

we are supposed to understand the whole story of Jesus in light of what is revealed in this
short text. Christopher Skinner in his contribution to How John Works: Storytelling in the
Fourth Gospel notes:
The audience is given the tools needed to interpret the gospel in the prologue… [and]
is expected to read the rest of John through the prologue’s spectacles, seeing in every
historical scene or moment not merely Jesus the Jew but Jesus the Word-becameflesh, who was with God in the beginning.5
Commentators note an allusion as the language Ἐν ἀρχῇ points back to LXX Genesis 1:1.6
What follows in John 1:1–3 is that this Logos, Jesus, is revealed as pre-existent, divine, and
involved in the creation of all things. He is revealed as God but distinct in person. “ὁ λόγος
ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.” Keener notes:
[The anarthrous construction] cannot note ‘a god,’ as in ‘one of many,’ given Jesus’
unique titles, role, and relationship with the Father later in the Gospel. Nor should it
mean ‘divine’ in a weaker sense distinct from God’s own divine nature… [John]
spends much of the rest of his Gospel clarifying the ambiguous distinction between
God and the Logos promulgated in the lines of this first verse.7
Beasley-Murray goes on to state that for the Jews “the Word of God, was not so much an
expression of thought as a powerful action, a concept not native to Greeks.”8 Craig
Evans’ work Word and Glory states:
Even when the Prologue is divided into two parts, reflecting the λόγος ἄσαρκος (vv.
1–5), the ‘creation’ half, and the λόγος ἔνσαρκος (vv. 6–18), the ‘covenant’ half, we
find that the biblical Wisdom materials parallel all of the principal components. With
respect to the former we hear echoes of the attributes and activities of Sophia (and, in
many instances, of God’s logos as well).9
As is seen in the scholarship, there is both consensus and disagreement on the nuances of the
background of the Prologue but, I believe that the themes of light, and logos both function to
reference Torah and Wisdom. The imagery serves to characterize Jesus as God and while
separate from the Father, as the Word of God, acts in accordance to the Father’s will. Jesus is
revealed as the creative, physical representation/revelation of God to the world.

5

Christopher Skinner, “Characterization,” in How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Douglas
Estes and Ruth Sheridan (Mill Road: SBL Press, 2007), 250–51.
6
See Keener, John, 365. Beasley-Murray, John, 10. Michael, John, 46.
7
Keener, John, 372–73.
8
Beasley-Murray, John, 7.
9
Evans, Word and Glory, 92–93.

14

I Am Statements
As Jesus is revealed as the “Logos,” the creative action of God in the world, it seems
fitting that Jesus’ declarations that He is “the bread of life” (6:35), “the Light of the World”
(8:12), “the door” (10:9), “the Good Shepherd” (10:11–14), “the resurrection and the life”
(11:25), “the way and the truth and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1–5) function to
reveal how Jesus relates to His people. David Mark Ball states:
As well as applying an Old Testament concept of a current Jewish expectation to
Jesus, the ἐγώ εἰμι of John also takes some of the main themes of the Gospel and
explicitly shows that Jesus is both the fulfillment and the embodiment of those
themes.10
Jesus’ final “I am statement” functions this way as well, but focuses more on how His people
are to relate to Him rather than the other way around.
Major LXX Allusions in John 15
In the primary metaphor of John 15:1–6, Jesus says: Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή…
“I am the true vine…” This metaphor introduces the pericope with the conceptual metaphor
of PEOPLE AS PLANTS and functions to draw the readers toward a particular metaphorical
network. Current scholarship suggests that John’s Gospel and the original audience would
have looked to the OT to interpret the imagery. So how is this metaphorical network
expressed in the OT? We will initially look at the big picture allusions found in LXX Ps 79,
LXX Isa 5:1–7, and then focus on the specific way κλῆμα is used in those passages and in
other important texts of the OT.
LXX Psalm 79:9–20 (80:1–19 MT)
Allusion Criteria
In his work in Commentary on the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament,
Andreas J. Köstenberger counts fourteen direct quotations of the OT in the Gospel of John.
Seven of those are from the Psalms.11 He also notes seventeen potential allusions to the

10
11

Ball, I Am, 154.
Köstenberger, “John,” 417.

15

Psalms throughout John in his introduction.12 Even the direct quotations of the Psalms alone
in John are good evidence of the text being available to the author.
There are also several repeated terms and themes from John 15:1–6 in LXX Psalm
79:9–20. 1) ἄμπελος is used metaphorically to refer to the nation of Israel. 2) The termκλῆμα
is present in Ps 79:12, and 3) the NETS translates the phrase τρυγῶσιν αὐτὴν πάντες LXX Ps
79:13 (80:12 MT) as “pluck its fruit…” implying the term καρπὸν which is found in John 15.
4) The phrase Κύριε ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων is a parallel to ὁ πατήρ in John 15 as Jesus uses it
to refer to God throughout that Gospel. In both cases, God is the one caring or tending to the
vine. 5) Both passages also reference fire (see Ps 79:17, John 15:6). The frequency of
repeated terms and themes in Ps 79 is significant and fulfills Hay’s allusion criterion of
volume. On top of this, in John 10:11, Jesus says, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, “I am the good
shepherd.” This corresponds to similar language in LXX Ps 79:1–3 which refers to God as Ὁ
ποιμαίνων τὸν Ἰσραὴλ. “The shepherd of Israel.” This covers the re-occurrence criterion for
allusions.
Breakdown
John Goldingay, in his commentary on Psalms, notes the intertextual connection
between Ps 79 with the preceding two psalms (Ps 77–78).13 He notes the rejection of Joseph
and Ephriam in LXX 77:67 corresponds to the cry of the psalmist in Ps 79:2:
You who shepherd Israel,14 pay
attention,
you who guide Ioseph like sheep!
You who sit upon the cheroubin,
appear!
Before Ephraim and Beniamin
and Manasse
arouse your dominance,
and come in order to save us!
(LXX Ps 79:2)15

12

And he rejected the covert of Ioseph,
and the tribe of Ephraim he did not
choose,
and he chose the tribe of Ioudas,
Mount Sion, which he loved.
(LXX Ps 77:67–68)

Köstenberger, “John,” 419–20.
John Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, Vol. 2, in Psalms: Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and
Psalms, ed. Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 533.
14
Goldingay also notes the shepherding metaphor at the end of LXX Ps. 78, connects with the beginning of
LXX Ps. 79. These connections suggest a larger context that we are to use to interpret LXX Ps. 79. See
Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 533.
15
All English translations of the LXX will be the NETS unless otherwise stated.
13

16

LXX Ps 77 is also addressed to the congregation and is a retelling of the narrative from
Exodus to 2 Samuel.16 Goldingay states:
The psalm itself introduces the narrative by an exhortation to listen and a reminder
about the need to learn from the story of the ancestors a lesson about faithfulness… it
makes one point explicit and inescapable: the vital importance of faithfulness and
obedience rather than rebellion and defiance.17
These frame the understanding of LXX Ps 79 within the context of Israel’s disobedience and
subsequent rejection by God. Goldingay suggests that Ps 79 is a response or protest against
Yahweh’s rejection of Joseph found in LXX Ps 77:67–68.18
The refrain, “ἐπίστρεψον ἡμᾶς,”19 is repeated three times in Ps 79 (vv. 4, 8, 20) and
the future passive indicative of σῴζω is used in verse 8 and 20, which reinforces that if God
was to reveal his face, they “will be saved.” There is no question in the psalm whether God
has the power to save, but the question lies in whether God will save and restore. In fact,
Κύριε ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων20 is repeated four times, the latter three connected with an appeal
for God to act.
The Psalmist uses ἕως πότε (5b) to inquire of God:
how long (ἕως πότε)
will you be angry with the prayer of your slave
Will you feed them with bread of tears,
And you will give them tears to drink in measure.21
The reason for the tears is explained in verse 7:
ἔθου ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀντιλογίαν τοῖς γείτοσιν ἡμῶν,
καὶ οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἡμῶν ἐμυκτήρισαν ἡμᾶς. 22

16

You placed us as a controversy to our
neighbors,
and our enemies mock us

Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 479.
Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 479.
18
Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 533. It is likely that “Ioseph, Ephraim, Beniamin, and Manasse” is a synecdoche
referring to all of Israel. See C. Hassell Bullock, Psalms 73–150, ed. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2017), 60.
19
The imperative heightens the plea.
20
NETS translates this as “O God of hosts…” while the LES translates it as “O Lord, the God of mighty
powers.” See Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press,
2012), Ps 79:5. And Albert Pietersma, ed., A New English Translation of the Septuagint: The Psalm (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000).
21
Pietersma, NETS: Psalms, Psalm 79: 5b–6.
22
Unless otherwise stated. I will be using Alfred Rahlfs Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1979).
17

17

This verse denotes the Northern Kingdom was either being ruled by another nation or being
oppressed by one. The superscription in the LXX states: Εἰς τὸ τέλος, ὑπὲρ τῶν
ἀλλοιωθησομένων· μαρτύριον τῷ Ἀσάφ, ψαλμὸς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἀσσυρίου. (To the completion,
over the ones who will be changed. A testimony of Asaph, a psalm over the Assyrians.) C.
Hassell Bullock notes in his commentary that some scholars propose the historical occasion
for LXX Ps 79 is the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians in 732–722 BCE., but
goes on to state “while this psalm was not likely written in the context of the Babylonian
exile, Book 3 certainly uses it in that context, which is the editorial backdrop of the
collection. 23 This suggests the readers/audience in the 1st century would have understood this
psalm within this historical context.
LXX Ps 79:9–10 introduces the vine metaphor, and it is clear from the context that
Israel is in view. The passage also references the Exodus and the seizing of the Promised
Land as God’s work. There is a similar theme introduced here as is used in John 14 with
ὡδοποίησας ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῆς (LXX Ps 79:10a) and πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν (John
14:2). In each case, a place or way has been or will be prepared for the people of God. Ps 79
also uses the term μεταίρω (v. 9) which is a compound of αἴρω. This term is translated a few
different ways. The LES translates this term as “you lifted up” while the NETS translates it
as “you transferred.” The equivalent term in the MT (Ps 80:8) is ‫ נסע‬which is translated as
“uprooted” in the LEB. ‫ נסע‬is also used in Ps 78:52 MT to refer to God leading his people. In
the LXX equivalent, LXX Ps 77:52 uses another compound of αἴρω: ἀφαιρέω. The way these
terms function in the LXX Psalms is not as judgement, but as leading and moving the people
of God from a place of slavery and destruction to a place of safety. This will become clearer
below when we engage more thoroughly with the text. If John 15 is alluding to Ps 79 and the
surrounding literary context, it brings into question the primary way that αἴρω has historically
been understood in John 15:2. This will be addressed later.
The result of God planting the vine is described in Ps 79:10–12:

23

Bullock, Psalms: 73–150, 60.

18

10

ὡδοποίησας ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῆς,
καὶ κατεφὺτευσας τὰς ῥίζας αὐτῆς, καὶ
ἐπλήσθη ἡ γῆ.
11
ἐκάλυψεν ὄρη ἡ σκιὰ αὐτῆς,
καὶ αἱ ἀναδενδράδες αὐτῆς Aτὰς
κέδρους τοῦ θεοῦ.
12
ἐξέτεινεν τὰ κλήματα αὐτῆς ἕως
θαλάσσης,
καὶ ἕως ποταμοῦ τὰς παραφυάδας
αὐτῆς.

10

You cleared the way for it,
and you planted its roots and it filled
the land.
11
Its shade covered mountains,
and its tendrils the cedars of God;
12
it sent out its branches as far as the sea,
and as far as the river its shoots.

The picture here is of a flourishing nation. Goldingay notes this passage “sums up the
narrative from Joshua to David, in whose day… Israel did occupy the whole land.”24 The
proceeding verse describes God removing his protection by introducing another question:25
13

ἵνα τί καθεῖλες τὸν φραγμὸν αὐτῆς καὶ
τρυγῶσιν αὐτὴν πάντες οἱ
παραπορευόμενοι τὴν ὁδόν;
14
ἐλυμήνατο αὐτὴν σῦς ἐκ δρυμοῦ,† καὶ
μονιὸς ἄγριος κατενεμήσατο αὐτήν.

13

Why did you bring down26 its fence,
and all who pass along the way pluck
its fruit?
14
A boar from the forest ravaged it,
and a lone wild beast fed on it.

Goldingay explains, “Literally what has happened is that enemies have invaded the land, and
they have succeeded because YHWH has declined to protect it.”27 The term καθεῖλες, is a
conjugation of καθαιρέω28 which Louw-Nida puts in the semantic domain “to do away with,
to remove, to eliminate” 29 LSJ translates this term as “take down.”30 Ps 79:13b–14 describes
the result of God removing the fence but does not move towards answering the question
“why” that is introduced. Again, the imagery is one of oppression and destruction. In verses
15–16, the Psalmist expands on the refrain from verse 4.

24

Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 539.
The neutered interrogative pronoun τί introduces the question ‘why.’ See David L. Mathewson, Intermediate
Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 45.
26
The LES translates καθεῖλες here as “destroy”
27
Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 539–40.
28
Not to be mistaken with καθαίρω found in John 15:2 or the prefixed preposition term found in LXX Ps 79.
See Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), 140.
29
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic
Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 152.
30
Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 849.
25

19

15

15 O God of hosts, do bring back;

ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων, ἐπίστρεψον δή,
ἐπίβλεψον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἴδε,
καὶ ἐπίσκεψαι τὴν ἄμπελον ταύτην·
16
καὶ κατάρτισαι αὐτὴν ἣν ἐφύτευσεν ἡ
δεξιά σου,
καὶ ἐπὶ υἱόν ἀνθρώπου ὃν ἐκραταίωσας
σεαυτῷ.

look down from heaven and see,
and have regard for this vine,
16 and restore that which your right
hand planted—
and look upon a son of man, whom
you made strong for yourself.

The psalmist pleads with God to restore the vine, and the son of man. This term, υἱόν
ἀνθρώπου is used in the Gospel of John twelve times to refer to Jesus.31 This, along with the
continued vine metaphor, builds into the connection between John 15 and LXX Ps 79.
In verse 17 the psalmist circles back to imagery of destruction32 using the following
perfect participles: ἐμπεπυρισμένη and ἀνεσκαμμέν. The judgement here is characterized as
occurring in the past, with present consequences. But, as we will see, the tone of verses 18–
19 shifts, and the repeated refrain of “restore us… and we will be saved,” (vv. 4, 8, 20) is one
of hope, not further judgement.
Verse 18–19 shifts again to appeal to God:
18

γενηθήτω ἡ χείρ σου ἐπʼ ἄνδρα δεξιᾶς
σου,
καὶ ἐπὶ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ὃν ἐκραταίωσας
σεαυτῷ·
19
καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποστῶμεν ἀπὸ σοῦ·
ζωώσεις ἡμᾶς, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά σου
ἐπικαλεσόμεθα.

18

Let your hand be upon the man at your
right hand,
and upon a son of man, whom you made
strong for yourself.
19
And we will never turn away from you;
you will revive us, and we will call
on your name.

Verse 18 begins with the aorist imperative γενηθήτω (make) in which the psalmist implores
God to strengthen the υἱόν ἀνθρώπου (the son of man). Likely within the original context of
the psalm, υἱόν ἀνθρώπου was a reference to the king, 33 but scholars suggest that this term,
and its MT equivalent, later took on a messianic interpretation.34 Bullock notes:

31

See John 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 24; 13:31.
The rendering of verse 17 in the LXX is quite different from the MT. The use of the perfect participle
ἐμπεπυρισμένη function to match the Qal absolute participle ‫ ׂשרפה‬in the MT equivalent. The MT ‫ כסוחה‬is an
absolute noun which has the preposition ‫ּכ‬. This could be better translated, “as something cut down.” The LXX
renders that MT term as the perfect participle ἀνεσκαμμένη (dug up) which still connects with the viticultural
metaphor. The LES does not capture 17b well. The NETS does it better: “at the rebuke of your face they will
perish.”
33
Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 542. See also
34
Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 543. See also Bullock, Psalms: 73–150, 63.
32

20

Even though this psalm is not quoted in the New Testament, there are messianic
overtones in the terms “the man at your right hand” and “the son of man you have
raised up for yourself.” The Targum, though from the third or fourth century AD,
likely preserves a much older messianic tradition by interpreting “son of man” as
“king messiah.”35
Verse 18 shifts from the aorist imperative γενηθήτω, to the aorist indicative κραταιόω. Why
are both not in the imperative? The translator chose to view the action of God strengthening
the son of man to himself as an already completed action.36 This along, with the future tense
found in verse 19b, “you will make us alive, and we will call upon your name…” leaves the
readers with great hope that God will answer the psalmist’s petition. Now, verse 19a has the
subjunctive ἀποστῶμεν which again, is the psalmist pleading with God that the community
“never be removed from you…”37
LXX Isaiah 5:1–7
Allusion Criteria
The Gospel of John quotes and alludes to the book of Isaiah a significant number of times.
There is a table on the next page which catalogues each quote and allusion of Isaiah in John:

35

Bullock, Psalms: 73–150, 63.
Bullock and Goldingay note that the MT equivalent could just be an idiom used to refer to the king. See
Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 542.; Bullock, Psalms: 73–150, 63.
37
The NETS translates this term as “never turn away…”
36

21

Table 1: Allusions and Quotations in John to Isaiah40

Kind
Quotation
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Quotation
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Quotation
Quotation
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion
Allusion

John Target
1:23 marked by “it is written”
1:29, 36
3:14
4:14
4:22
6:45 marked by “it is written”
7:38
8:12
8:28
8:44
9:5
10:16
12:32
12:38 marked by “in order that
Scripture might be fulfilled”
12:40 marked by “in order that
Scripture might be fulfilled”
12:41
15:1
16:22
19:18
19:38
20:23

Isaiah Source
40:3
53:6–7
52:13
12:3
2:338
54:13a
58:11
9:1–2
52:13
14:12
9:1–2
56:8
52:13
53:1
6:10
6:1
5:1–7
66:14
22:16
53:9
22:2239

As can be seen, John quotes Isaiah four times and alludes to Isaiah at least sixteen times. This
is overwhelming evidence of Isaiah being available to the gospel writer and answers the
question of Hays’ criterion, reoccurrence.
There are also several shared terms between Isa 5:1–7 and John 15.41 A declension of
ἄμπελος is found in Isa 5:2. Κυρίου σαβαὼθ of Isaiah (5:7) and ὁ πατήρ in John (15:1) both
function as the caretakers of the vineyard and the vine. Fruitfulness is also in view in each
passage. Isaiah 5:4 uses the term σταφυλή (grapes) and Isaiah 5:4, 7 uses two conjugations of
the term ποιέω: an aorist active infinitive (vv. 4, 7) and an aorist active (v. 7). The term ποιέω

38

Köstenberger has a question mark beside this potential allusion. See Köstenberger, John, 420.
Köstenberger has a question mark beside this potential allusion. See Köstenberger, John, 420.
40
Data based on Köstenberger, John, 419–20.
41
There is also interesting overlap between the song of the vineyard and LXX Ps 79 as both refer to the
Northern Kingdom of Israel.
39

22

“to make” functions within the context of the passage to connote “to produce.” In fact, both
the LES and the NETS translate this term as “produce.” These verses parallel each other in
terms and in content. The first (v. 4) is found within the context of the metaphor and the
owner sings out, “I waited for it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns.” In the second (v.
7), YHWH states: “I waited for it to produce fair judgement, but it produced lawlessness and
not righteousness but screaming.” As can be seen, the second line expands and interprets
verse 4. In John 15, the metaphor of fruitfulness is used differently. There is no mention of
bad fruit, only whether a branch is being fruitful. Bad fruit implies a bad vine. This shift in
the vine metaphor towards fruitfulness rather than good vs. bad fruit in John 15 makes sense
as Jesus is revealed as the ”true vine.” The true vine cannot make bad fruit!
Returning to Ps 79, there is also an aorist indicative μένω in verse 4 and 7. The
context of this term is not a call for the branch to abide, (as in John 15) but a statement of
how the owner of the vineyard, after doing all that he could to have a healthy vineyard,
waited (ἔμεινα) for good fruit, but got bad fruit. The volume of shared terms and themes
between Isa 5:1–7 and John 15:1–6 meets Hays’ criterion. In fact, Köstenberger suggests
John 15 is directly alluding to Isaiah 5:1–7 in his work which indicates a history of
interpretation.42
Breakdown
The song in Isaiah 543 begins with the future indicative ᾌσω” (I will sing”) and the
substantival perfect participle τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ, (to the loved one). The language and context of
the song suggests a bridegroom who sings a song of his bride (the vineyard).44 In essence, the
song is a form of judgement speech. Wildberger notes:

42

Koestenberger, John, 420, 491.
There are some significant differences between the MT and the LXX. I used Watts as a base and filled in the
gaps from a few smaller sources and my own work. In the MT the prophet is the first-person speaker introduced
in v. 1 and he uses third person pronouns to refer to his “beloved” aka “the bridegroom” or owner of the
vineyard. See, John D. Watts, Isaiah 1–33: Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 2006, 86.
The bridegroom is revealed as YHWH in v. 3 who calls for the men of Judah to judge who was at fault for the
lack of good fruit. This is in contrast to the LXX which shifts the speaker to YHWH from vv. 1ff.
44
See Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 86. And Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991), 178.
43

23

An accusation speech includes “establishing the fact that there is a mutual relation
which binds the accuser and the accused, demonstration on the part of the accuser that
his own obligations have been fulfilled, the accusation about the shortcomings in the
one who is accused, who has failed to fulfill obligations, and the summons to those in
the community responsible for justice to come together to pass judgement.” All these
elements are found in vv. 1–4.45
The song of the vineyard functions as an accusation with the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” and
“the man of Judah” serving as witnesses to the crime. Its purpose is for the hearers of the
song to state judgement even before knowing that they are in fact judging themselves.46 The
song continues with YHWH as the speaker who describes how he has cared for his vineyard
(v. 2):
2

καὶ φραγμὸν περιέθηκα καὶ ἐχαράκωσα
καὶ ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον σωρηχ καὶ
ᾠκοδόμησα πύργον ἐν μέσῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ
προλήνιον ὤρυξα ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἔμεινα τοῦ
ποιῆσαι σταφυλήν, ἐποίησεν δὲ ἀκάνθας.

2 And I put a hedge around it and fenced it

in and planted a Sorech vine, and I built a
tower in the midst of it and dug out a wine
vat in it, and I waited for it to produce a
cluster of grapes, but it produced thorns.

The imagery here speaks of the bridegroom’s protection (καὶ φραγμὸν περιέθηκα καὶ
ἐχαράκωσα), and care of the vineyard. The term “Sorech” is a Greek transliteration of the
Hebrew term ‫ש ֵֹׂרק‬, a valued, bright red species of grape. The DBD Lexicon defines it as a
“choice or valued vine.” 47 Verses 3–4 then rhetorically question the hearers (those inhabiting
Jerusalem, and the person of Judah) to judge the fruit of the vineyard in comparison to the
work and care given to the vineyard by the owner. Isa 5:5 describes the removal of the
singer/owner’s protection and care specifically with the use of ἀφελῶ and καθελῶ. These
terms are also found in LXX Ps 79:13; 19 referencing similar concepts:
5

νῦν δὲ ἀναγγελῶ ὑμῖν τί ποιήσω τῷ
ἀμπελῶνί μου. ἀφελῶ τὸν φραγμὸν αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἔσται εἰς διαρπαγήν, καὶ καθελῶ τὸν
τοῖχον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔσται εἰς καταπάτημα.

45

5 But now I will declare to you what I will

do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge,
and it shall be plundered, and I will tear
down its wall, and it shall be trampled
down.

Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 178–79.
See Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 178.
47
Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew
and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 977.
46

24

The compounds of αιρέω: ἀφαιρέω; περιαιρέω; καθαιρέω; λύω (13.38) along with ἀφίημι
(13.37) are organized within the semantic domain of “to cease, of a state…” or “to cause a
state to cease.” 48 The result of the owner’s protection of the vineyard being removed leads to
“plundering” and “being trampled.” Watts notes that the OT imagery of animals trampling
the ground is sometimes used as a simile for when people are being trampled by an enemy.49
Verse 6 continues the judgement of the vineyard. Motyer notes:
Failure to fulfil the owner’s intention brought the fourfold danger of divine
antagonism (I will), dominant external foes (destroyed … trampled), rampant alien
growth (briers … thorns) and deprivation of the means of life and fertility (no rain).50
The final verse of this pericope interprets the song.
7

ὁ γὰρ ἀμπελὼν Κυρίου σαβαὼθ οἶκος
τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Ἰούδα
νεόφυτον ἠγαπημένον· ἔμεινα τοῦ
ποιῆσαι κρίσιν, ἐποίησεν δὲ ἀνομίαν καὶ
οὐ δικαιοσύνην ἀλλὰ κραυγήν.

7 For the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth is

the house of Israel, and the person of
Ioudas is the beloved young plant; I
waited for him to produce justice, but he
produced lawlessness— nor did he
produce righteousness, but a cry!

The vineyard is revealed as the house of Israel, and the owner as the Lord Sabaoth.51 The
“person of Ioudas” is named “the beloved young plant.” The “thorns” that were produced by
the vineyard are revealed as “lawlessness” and “a cry” and the desired grapes as “justice” and
“righteousness.”
John 15: Jesus and the Father in light of LXX Allusions
How does this all relate to John 15? As was stated in the methodology, allusions
function as metaphors, where the meaning of the source material is mixed with the target
material to create new meaning. In other words, Jesus and the Father can be conceptually
mapped onto the context of LXX Ps 79 and LXX Isa 5:1–7.
This would suggest that Jesus’ words, “I am the true vine…” may refer to the
restoring of the vine (Israel) introduced in Ps 79. This would mean that “Jesus” is
48

Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 152.
Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 183.
50
J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 20,
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 70.
51
σαβαὼθ is a transliteration of the Hebrew term ‫“ צָ בָ א‬host.” See Hon-Lee Kwok, “Warfare,” ed. Douglas
Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham
Press, 2014).
49

25

conceptually mapped onto the “the vine” in LXX Ps 79 and by extension mapped onto the
phrases “man of God’s right hand,” and “the son of man who has been strengthen…” as
those terms are also used to describe Jesus in John. More specifically, Jesus is called the “son
of man” in John and the term “son of man” and “man of God’s right hand” are both
synonymous in LXX Ps 79 (vv. 16, 18). In essence, Jesus is revealed as the answer to the
psalmist’s plea for restoration. Restoration is found in the True Vine Jesus, who is revealed
as the messiah king.
In the same sense, the Father’s role as the Vinedresser in John 15 is mapped onto the
terms ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων in LXX Ps 79, the Father is responsible for restoring the vine and
saving His people. By extension, the Father’s work as expressed by the terms αἴρω, and
καθαίρω in John 15, must be understood in light of the role of the “God of mighty powers”
specifically in light of restoration as Jesus has already been revealed as the resolution to the
psalmist’s plea for restoration and salvation.
In LXX Ps 79, Jesus is mapped on a multi-faceted role using the terms “man of God’s
right hand,” “the son of man who has been strengthened,” and “the vine.” Through these
terms, the metaphor JESUS IS MESSIAH KING is revealed. If, as mentioned above, the
terms are functioning as a synecdoche, the metaphor shifts to JESUS IS THE RESTORED
PEOPLE OF GOD/ISRAEL. This changes the nuance of the John 15 passage, but not the
overall meaning. The only way for the fruitfulness God desires is through an abiding
relationship with Jesus.
The song of the Vineyard (Isa 5:1–7) functions to draw the hearers to proclaim
judgement on themselves. Verse 2 introduces a vine.52 This vine (ἄμπελος), is modified by
the term σωρήκ. It could be suggested that Jesus’ words in John 15:1, “Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ
ἀληθινή” is the fulfillment of the ἄμπελον σωρήκ, especially as we look to Isa 5:7 where “the
beloved young plant” is revealed as ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Ἰούδα (the man of Judah). However,
Wildberger notes in verse 3 the Hebrew ‫ יושב ירושלם‬and ‫ ואיש יהּודה‬are both in the absolute
singular and argues the terms should be understood as expansion. This is expressed in his
translation of verse 3 as “and now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah.”53 The LXX

52
53

Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 178.
Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 175.

26

matches the MT, with the singular term for “man” in verse 3 and 7. These terms could be
functioning in this passage as a synecdoche to refer to Jerusalem or all of Judah, but when we
look at the LXX Isa 5:3, it references the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” (οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν
Ἰερουσαλὴμ), and the “man of Judah” (ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Ἰούδα).54 The LXX shifted and
rendered the first Hebrew terms as the plural substantival participle οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες, rather
than a singular noun but followed the Hebrew for the second and rendered it as the singular
noun ἄνθρωπος. This suggests that the Greek translators understood the term ἄνθρωπος τοῦ
Ἰούδα not as expansion, but likely as the king. Verse 7 names the ἄμπελον σωρήκ introduced
in verse 2 as ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Ἰούδα though uses the term νεόφυτον ἠγαπημένον instead.
If this is the proper interpretation, this reinforces the connection between Isaiah 5 and
John 15 as Isaiah confers messianic undertones to “vine.” If the vineyard refers to the nation,
and the vine refers to the king, then Jesus, in John 15, is referring to himself as the true king
of Israel. So, Jesus is not necessarily conceptually mapped onto “the people of God,” but is
named the true leader of God’s people. The good fruit in Isaiah 5 is then conceptually
mapped onto the fruitful branches. To be a fruit-bearing branch is to have “fair judgement”
and “be righteous.” This fruitfulness is only found through the abiding relationship with the
true king. Regardless, even if ἄμπελον σωρήκ and νεόφυτον ἠγαπημένον is referencing the
nation of Israel, it shifts the generic space (conceptual mapping) from “the messianic king” to
“the people of Israel/God’s people.”
Jesus’ declaration, “I am the True Vine and my Father is the vinedresser” must be
understood within the context of John and the OT allusions. The characterization of Jesus as
the Logos, light and as the fulfillment of OT prophecy and messianic expectation as
described through the “I am” statements, matches the context of LXX Ps 79 and Isa 5:1–7.
As can be seen from these texts, the function of the vine metaphor is to refer to the messiah
king or the nation of Israel. The context of John 15 could mean either and in a sense, both
can function as a synecdoche, but both have the same application for the branches. Whether

54

Another alternative is that “ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Ἰούδα” is an expansion of the term/idea of “οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν
Ἰερουσαλὴμ” but I do not think its likely as ἄνθρωπος is singular rather than plural.

27

the branch is abiding in a relationship with Jesus the messiah king, or Jesus the restored
people of God, the result is fruitfulness, participation, and connection with God’s people.55

55

There are other references to the Vine metaphor in the OT (Ezekiel 15, 17, 19:10–14; Jeremiah 2:21, 6:8–9;
and Hosea 10:1–2.) I will be addressing the judgement themes found in LXX Ps 79:9–20, and LXX Isa 5:1–7
and how they relate in Chapter 4.

28

Chapter 3: The Identity of the Branches
The Referent of “You”
In the previous chapter we contextualized the primary metaphor of Jesus as the True
Vine within the Gospel of John and as an OT allusion. We found the metaphor functions to
name Jesus as the messiah king, or as the restored people of God. This gives us the
framework in which the secondary metaphor “You are the branches” finds itself and allows
us to shift to the main focus of this work: the identity and outcome of the branches.
The first question we must ask is, “Who are the branches referenced to in John 15:1–
6?” Jesus uses metaphoric language as is indicated with the εἰμί (“to be”) verb twice in verse
1. He names himself the True Vine and the Father the Vinedresser. Jesus utilizes εἰμί in verse
5, naming himself again as “the vine” and uses the second person plural ὑμεῖς with an
implied ἐστὲ to name the disciples “the branches.”
Verse 2 is a description of the Father’s role as He is the implied subject of the verbs
αἴρει and καθαίρει which are both in the third person singular. There are two examples of left
dislocation which correspond to their counterpart αὐτὸ as it matches in case and number.
Mathewson states, “In Greek, dislocation has the effect of announcing or shifting to a new
topic. The dislocated information is foregrounded.”1 This shifts the focus of the text from
Jesus to emphasize the work of the Father2:
πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν
αἴρει αὐτό,
καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ
ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ.

Every branch that does not bear fruit in me,
he removes it,
and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes
it in order that it may bear more fruit.

The ἵνα along with the subjunctive φέρῃ informs us3 of the purpose of the Father’s work in
pruning the fruitful branches: “that it may bear more fruit.” In verse 2, the branches have no
specific narrative referent as the direct object κλῆμα is modified by πᾶν and ἐν ἐμοὶ in the
first half of the verse. καὶ functions to make what follows a coordinate clause. πᾶν has an

1

Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, 281.
Steven E. Runge, The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament Glossary (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2008)
“Left Dislocation.”
3
The subjunctive mood indicates “projection” or “probability. See Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar,
165. For markers of dependent purpose clauses see Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, 251.
2

29

implied κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ in verse 2b creating a parallel between the two kinds of branches,
though there is no parallel dependent clause in connection with the unfruitful branches.4
In verse 3, a new participant is introduced with the use of ὑμεῖς and ὑμῖν. In the text
Jesus states, ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν· The adverb ἤδη is
modifying ἐστε, and the use of the perfect tense λελάληκα indicates a previous episode where
Jesus had interacted with the plural ὑμεῖς.5 This episode is likely John 13:1–18, as the play on
words with the use of similar terms such as καθαίρω (43.12) and καθαρός (79.48), the
perfect, passive participle of λούω, λελουμένος (v. 10), ὑμεῖς (vv. 10, 13, 14 15), as well as
the proximity of being in the Farewell Discourse, signals the likelihood that this is the
previous instance. John 13 informs us of the audience Jesus is talking to in John 15. The text
doesn’t explicitly state all the names of the attendees of the Last Supper but mentions “the
disciples” (13:5, 22) and Peter (13:6), the disciple Jesus loved (13:23), Thomas (14:5), Philip
(14:8), and Judas-not Iscariot (14:22).6 It is clear that Judas Iscariot is not a part of the
audience of John 15 as he leaves the party in John 13:26–30.
Characterization of the Disciples in Farewell Discourse
One cannot talk about the characterization of the disciples without understanding how
characterization works within the Gospel itself. John’s Prologue is the key by which the
reader is to interpret the gospel.7 It is the tool that the reader uses to “evaluate every
character’s response to [Jesus].”8 Characterization occurs within the framework of how
characters relate to, and understand Jesus. This will become evident as we look at different
pericopes concerning the disciples.
One of the main themes in the Gospel of John is misunderstanding. The implied
reader is given privileged knowledge in the Prologue that they are to use to judge each

4

There is no stated purpose in v. 2a for the Father’s action towards the unfruitful branches while there is a
stated purpose for the pruning of the fruitful branches. This will be addressed later as the purpose of this section
is to contextualize the passage and determine who the referent of the branches is.
5
Discourse analysis would also suggest that the perfect tense is foregrounding that Jesus is the one who told
them.
6
Keener notes, “From John’s own narrative… we can gather only that it was an intimate group of his closest
disciples which included the beloved disciple, Peter, Philip, Thomas, and both disciples named Judas.” See
Keener, John, 900.
7
Skinner, How John Works, 250.
8
Skinner, How John Works, 124.

30

character in their understanding of Jesus.9 The disciples are viewed as clean (13:10) and
therefore as standing in fellowship with and believing in Jesus, but the pattern of
misunderstanding continues through the Farewell Discourse. We will briefly look at the
characterization of Peter, Thomas, Philip, and Judas in John 13–14 as, from a narrativecritical perspective, they set the tone for Jesus’ words to the group of disciples in John 15.
Christopher Skinner describes characterization in John as follows:
By and large, the narrative was less concerned about the inner machinations of a
character’s thought life and more focused on the character’s special and situational
setting and ultimate purpose… their raison d’être is to confirm, deny, or question
something about Jesus that will allow the literary audience to advance in its
understanding of Jesus’[s] message, mission, and identity.10
While the disciples’ role in the Farewell Discourse follows this description, the narrative also
reveals their character.
Outline of John 13
Setting, Motivation, and Washing Feet, 13:1–17
Jesus Predicts Judas’ Action, 13:18–3011
Jesus’ Glorification, Love Command and Prediction of Peter’s Betrayal, 13:31–3812
The chapter starts with an explanation from the narrator of the setting. He emphasizes
Jesus’ knowledge that “his hour had come,” Jesus’ care and love for his disciples, (v. 1) and
his knowledge that Judas Iscariot would betray him (v. 2). The language in verse 3, that “he
had come forth from God and was going away to God” points to the privileged knowledge
the implied reader has from the Prologue. The narrative frames Jesus washing his disciples’
feet as a great act of humility for he was aware of his identity and his inevitable betrayal by
someone close to him. The focus of the narrative shifts in verse 6 to dialogue between Jesus
and Peter. Peter misunderstands the meaning of Jesus’ action as he initially questions Jesus,
then declares to Jesus, Οὐ μὴ νίψῃς μου τοὺς πόδας εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. (You will never wash my
feet for eternity). The use of the double negative Οὐ μὴ13 and εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα emphasizes
Peter’s intense conflict over, and misunderstanding of, Jesus’ actions in this text. When Jesus
9

Skinner, How John Works, 127.
Skinner, How John Works, 117.
11
I am planning on addressing this section when I discuss Judas’ characterization.
12
Taken from Willard M. Swartley, John: Believers Church Bible Commentary (Waterloo: Herald Press, 2013),
317. See also Carson, The Gospel According to John, 455–486.
13
See also Swartley, John, 318.
10

31

declares that Peter will have no share in Him if he refuses, Peter shifts gears. His response
Κύριε, μὴ τοὺς πόδας μου μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν κεφαλήν. (“Lord, not my feet
only, but also my hands and my head!”), again points to Peter’s lack of understanding. Susan
Hylen in her book, Imperfect Believers, says this:
At the Last Supper, the disciples’ lack of comprehension is again striking. The only
indication of their understanding of the footwashing is by comparison with Peter, who
repeatedly rejects Jesus’ efforts (13:6–11).14
The disciples misunderstanding is addressed by Jesus in 13:12–17, 19. He states:
Do you understand what I have done for you? 13 You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and
you speak correctly, for I am. 14 If then I—your Lord and Teacher—wash your feet,
you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that just
as I have done for you, you also do. 16 Truly, truly I say to you, a slave is not greater
than his master, nor a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you
understand these things, you are blessed if you do them… 19 From now on I am telling
you before it happens, in order that when it happens you may believe that I am he.
Hylen reflects on 13:19, “Jesus’ words presume the disciples’ future belief but imply a
current lack of understanding or belief.”15 This idea repeats itself through the Farewell
Discourse.
Peter becomes the focus again in 13:36–38. Jesus states ‘Where I am going you
cannot come (v. 33) and commands the disciples to “love one another…” (v. 34). Peter then
asks, “Κύριε, διὰ τί οὐ δύναμαί σοι ἀκολουθῆσαι ἄρτι; τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ σοῦ θήσω.”
(Lord, why am I not able to follow you now? I will lay down my life for you). Jesus’
response points to the reality of Peter’s commitment to him and replies, “Will you lay down
your life for me? Truly, truly I say to you, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me
three times!” (v. 38).
Jesus’ words to Peter (vv. 36, 38) point to Peter’s imminent failure to follow through
with “laying down his life…” but also points to restoration as Jesus tells Peter that he “will
follow later…” (v. 36). Blaine Jr. in his monograph states, “Peter’s pledge to give his life for

14

Susan Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2009), 65.
15
Hylen, Imperfect Believers, 65.

32

Jesus is sincere, but the courage needed to carry out the act is not yet mature.”16 This has
implications for our understanding of John 15.17
In John 13, the disciples are characterized as loved by Jesus. In verse 6, Peter, and by
extension the rest of the disciples, are characterized as misunderstanding Jesus’ actions to the
point where Jesus needs to clarify the meaning and purpose of the footwashing (v. 12–17).
John 14 Outline
Jesus Prepares a Place and Shows the Way, 14:1–11
Jesus and the Father Ensure the Future, 14:12–24
Jesus Consoles His Disciples in View of His Departure, 14:25–3118
Chapter 14 picks up the theme of Jesus’ imminent departure which is introduced
clearly through Jesus’ words in 13:33, “Children, yet a little time I am with you. You will
seek me and just as I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going you cannot come,’ now I say also
to you.” This chapter starts with Jesus giving three imperatives,19 the negated imperative,
ταρασσέσθω and two instances of πιστεύετε. The first command “do not let your hearts be
troubled” is resolved by the command to “believe in God, and also believe in me.” The
ability to “not be troubled” is dependant on the disciples’ ability to “believe.” Jesus goes on
to say that he is going to ‘prepare a place…” (v. 2), and that the disciples “know the way
where I am going…” (v. 4).
The first of the three questions asked by the disciples comes in verse 5 by Thomas,
“Lord, we do not know where you are going. How are we able to know the way?” This
question sets the stage for Jesus’ sixth I am statement: “I am the way, and the truth, and the
life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you have also
known my Father. From now on you know him and have seen him” (vv. 6–7).20 Philip then
16

Blaine B. Bradford Jr., Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple (Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2007), 77.
17
I will bring the implications together when I get to engaging specifically with the text rather than the
characterization of the disciples.
18
Swartley, John, 340.
19
πιστεύετε could be imperative or indicative. I believe that the imperative matches the context more clearly
than the indicative. See Carson, The Gospel According to John, 488. See also Kruse, John, 291. and Swarthy,
John, 340.
20
This is my own translation. I believe this better captures the pluperfect γινώσκω and οἶδα especially with
Philip’s misunderstanding in v. 8 and Jesus’ response in vv. 9–11. I understand that the negated perfect
γινώσκω explains the stative nature of Philip’s lack of knowledge but when weighed against the theme on
misunderstanding I believe this translation fits the Greek better.

33

uses the imperative δεῖξον as he misunderstands Jesus’ words, “Lord, show us the Father, and
it is enough for us” (v. 8).
Jesus’ response (vv. 9–14) begins rather pointedly, then shifts to a command, and
then a conditional promise. Philip’s misunderstanding of Jesus’ words in verse 9 comes to a
front with Jesus’ response, “Τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ
ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· (Am I with you so long a time and you have not known
me Philip?). The use of the negated perfect γινώσκω, points to the stative nature of Philip’s
(and by extension the disciples) knowledge of Jesus. Even over the time they have spent with
Jesus, they still do not understand the nature of Jesus and the Father. Jesus commands the
disciples to “believe… that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” He then points to his
actions as proof that the Father is in him.
While verse 12 begins as a conditional promise concerning “the one who believes,” it
is clear from the context of verses 13–14 that the disciples are in view. Here is the text:
12

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ
τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ
μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα πορεύομαι· 13 καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν
τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω, ἵνα δοξασθῇ
ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ· 14 ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν
τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω

12

Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes
in me will also do the works that I do and,
in fact, will do greater works than these,
because I am going to the Father. 13 I will
do whatever you ask in my name, so that the
Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in
my name you ask me for anything, I will do
it

The substantive participle ὁ πιστεύων informs who the promise refers to, “the one who
believes.” The promise is that they will “do greater works than these…” (v. 12) because of
Jesus’ return to the Father. While the writer uses the second person plural subjunctive
αἰτήσητε, (vv. 13, 14) which does not match the singular participle ὁ πιστεύων used in verse
12, the context of verse 13 implies that the disciples will believe as Jesus promises that he
will do whatever they ask in his name. The purpose of this promise is clear from the use of
ἵνα: “that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”
This pattern of conditional promise being obviously connected to the disciples’ future
belief and obedience continues in verses 15–17 where Jesus states:

34

Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς
τηρήσετε· 16 κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ
ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα ᾖ μεθʼ
ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 17 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς
ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι
οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει· ὑμεῖς
γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρʼ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν
ὑμῖν ἔσται

“If you love me, you will keep my
commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father,
and he will give you another Advocate, to be
with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of
truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because it neither sees him nor knows him.
You know him, because he abides with you,
and he will be in you.

The conditional clause is introduced with Ἐὰν and begins with the present subjunctive
ἀγαπᾶτέ (v. 15), shifts to the future tense τηρήσετε, ἐρωτήσω, δώσει (v. 16), and ends with the
present subjunctive ᾖ. The use of the present subjunctive at the beginning and end confirms
the conditional nature of the promise of the sending of the “Advocate” but the tense shifts in
verse 17 to the present.21 This shift in tense points to the disciples meeting the condition as
the text states that they “know” (present tense) “the Spirit of truth… because he abides” with
them. The fact that the disciples meet the condition of the two statements (vv. 12, 15) is
further clarified in verses 18–20 as Jesus comforts the disciples by promising them that he
will not leave them as orphans, that they will see him, and that they will know Jesus is in the
Father and the Father is in Him.
Jesus then declares: “They who have my commandments and keep them are those who
love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal
myself to them” (v. 21). This leads to the final question the disciples ask in this section:
“Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not
to the world?”” This very question assumes that the disciples will keep Jesus’
commandments which proves their love for him and therefore that Jesus would reveal
himself to them.
Jesus replies to Judas:
Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will
come to them and make our home with them. 24 Whoever does not love me does not
keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who
sent me. (vv. 23–24)

21

Aspect is also something to consider with this change in tense, but the context implies time as it has shifted
from future tense to present.

35

Jesus describes why he will reveal himself to the disciples and not the world: the disciples
love Jesus and keep his words. The world does not love Jesus and does not keep his words.
Jesus continues to comfort his disciples in verses 25–30. This text uses a second person
plural pronoun thirteen times in reference to the disciples and both the verb tense and mood
shift. This confirms what was said above, that the disciples are viewed by Jesus as meeting
the conditions of the promise as the disciples are told that the Father will send the Holy Spirit
to teach and remind them (v. 25).
Conclusion
What we have found in chapters 13–14 is the disciples, even though they are
confused and have inadequate belief at this part of the narrative, are characterized as being
people who Jesus and the Father love. This love for them is expressed through washing their
feet (13:1–5), correcting Peter (13:6–11), answering the disciples’ questions (14:1–24), the
promise of sending the Holy Spirit (14:25–26) and the general comforting of the disciples in
their confusion. The mixture of imperatives along with the assumption that the disciples
will/have satisfied the conditions function to show the ambiguity/messiness of discipleship.
Susan Hylen describes it in this way:
The disciples are an eschatological character; God’s redemption is not only future but
also already present in them. They clearly misunderstand Jesus, yet they are understood
to be believers already. The indications of the disciples’ perfect belief are statements by
Jesus or the narrator that attribute such belief to them without qualification.22
In other words, while the narrative reveals the disciples as imperfect believers
through their actions and questions, Jesus and the narrator speak of the disciples as having
perfect belief. The characterization of the disciples in John 13–14 confirms a mixture of
present and future belief and utter confusion. It reveals Jesus’ acceptance of them in the
present, and their future of having fulfilled the conditional promises found in these texts. We
will come back to this when we get into analyzing the branch metaphor later in this chapter.
Characterization of Judas Iscariot in John
As was mentioned in Chapter 1, we need to determine whether Judas is the narrative
referent of the “branch that does not bear fruit” in John 15:2. So we will look at how Judas is

22

Hylen, Imperfect Believers, 73–74.

36

characterized in the narrative. In contrast with the disciples who are viewed as accepted in
the midst of their confusion in John 13–14, Judas is consistently referred to within the
context of betraying Jesus. The first mention of Judas (6:71) is a narrator’s note explaining
the words of Jesus, ““Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” He was
speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to
betray him” (vv. 70–71). Carson states, “As in the other three Gospels (Mt 4:10; Mk 3:19; Lk
6:16), Judas is no sooner named than he is labelled as the betrayer.”23 Kruse notes,
“Beginning with 6:71, Judas is repeatedly and explicitly identified as the betrayer (71; 12:4;
13:2; 18:2, 5; 21:20).”24 William Wright in his 2009 article on Greco-Roman charactertyping of Judas states:
John associates Judas with the devil in his role as the betrayer, who opposes Jesus and
plays a role in his death… John develops this association of Judas and the devil on
other occasions in the Gospel narrative. Thus, from his first appearance in the Gospel,
Judas is associated with unbelievers and is characterized quite negatively as the
betrayer, an unfaithful disciple from Jesus’ inner circle and an associate of the devil.25
This negative characterization of Judas continues through the narrative where he takes on a
more active role in 12:4–8, 13:26–29 and 18:2–5. In John 12:4–8, Jesus has a meal at
Lazarus’ house (v. 2). This pericope occurs after Lazarus was raised from the dead. The
context of Judas’ involvement is his response to Mary anointing and washing Jesus’ feet with
an expensive ointment (v. 3). Verse 4–6 describes Judas’ response:
But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said,
5
“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to
the poor?” 6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a
thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)
The narrator’s note describes Judas’ motivation. He would have access to more funds if the
ointment was sold. The Greek text uses the noun κλέπτης (thief) and the imperfect verb
ἐβάσταζεν (steal) (v. 6). The use of the imperfect suggests that Judas consistently and

23

Carson, The Gospel According to John, 304.
Kruse, John, 106.
25
William Wright, “Greco-Roman Character Typing and the Presentation of Judas in the Fourth Gospel,” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71, no. 3 (2009): 553–4.
24

37

repeatedly stole.26 Judas is pictured here, not only as the betrayer of Jesus, but also as
someone more interested in dishonest gain than in caring for the poor or honouring Jesus.27
Keener, in his analysis of this passage states:
Mary’s anointing at Bethany contrasts starkly with the preceding scene of calculated
plans to have Jesus killed: “a supreme act of ignorant unbelief and a supreme act of
intelligent faith” …the two longer units… contrast the high priests (11:47–53) and
Mary (12:1–8), while linking Judas with the attitude of the Judean elite (12:4–6).” [Ηe
goes on to state,] “Judas is, however, worse than the Judean elite; the moral reasoning
of the latter may be incorrect, but at least it involves moral reasoning, whereas Judas
is portrayed as completely morally debased.”28
The next passage is in the context of the Last Supper. Jesus has told the disciples that
one of them would betray him:
“If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of all
of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate
my bread has lifted his heel against me…” After saying this Jesus was troubled in
spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” (13:17–18, 21)
This leads Peter and the ‘disciple that Jesus loved’ to investigate. The Beloved Disciple asks
who, and Jesus answers, “It is he to whom I dip the piece of bread and give it to him.” Then
after dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot” (v. 26). This,
along with Jesus’ quote of Ps 41:9 in John 13:18b, is important as there is significant
evidence to show that in the Mediterranean at this time, the betrayal by one who was shown
hospitality was an ultimate act of betrayal.29 Keener summarizes it in this way:
Judas’s discipleship and its longstanding implicit covenant of friendship make his
betrayal a heinous act of treachery, but the meal context makes the betrayal even more
heinous. For many, sharing food and drink represented the most important bond of
kindness… Injuring or slaying those who had eaten at one’s table was a terrible
offense from which all but the most wicked would normally shrink; such behavior
was held to incur divine wrath.30

26

The imperfect communicates remoteness (big picture) and an action that is durative or repeated. See
Mathewson, Intermediate Greek, 132.
27
Wright argues that the text links Judas with the devil as Judas is portrayed as a liar. He states, “Jesus calls the
devil ‘a liar and the father of lies’ and states that ‘there is no truth in him’ (8:44)” see Wright, “Judas in the
Fourth Gospel,” 555.
28
Keener, John, 859.
29
Keener, John, 913. For examples see Homer Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–535
30
Keener, John, 913.

38

The betrayal of Judas, within the context of the footwashing and meal, heightens the moral
depravity of his actions. The narrative continues:
After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do
quickly what you are going to do.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to
him. Some thought that, because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was telling him,
“Buy what we need for the festival”; or, that he should give something to the poor. So,
after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. (13:27–
30)
Satan entering Judas and the setting note that “it was night” both work together to reveal the
nature of Judas. Carson suggests that the first “expression probably signifies thorough
possession.”31 This idea of spirits possessing people was not a new idea at this time.32 With
regard to Judas, the rest of the disciples, and Jesus, Keener states:
Satan’s entrance into Judas contrasts starkly with the promise of God’s Spirit entering
the other disciples (14:20, 23). Yet, as in the OT and general early Jewish perspective,
in which God is sovereign over the devil, Jesus here remains in control, so that the
devil, like Judas essentially (even if perhaps unwittingly) executes Jesus’ will
concerning the passion (13:26–27).33
This is clear from the text as 13:1–4 and Jesus’ dismissal of Judas to betray (v. 28) inform the
audience that Jesus knows exactly what Judas was about.
The phrase “it was night” (v. 30), speaks to both a spiritual and a physical reality.
Within the narrative, it was night, but Johannine literature often gives the imagery of light
and dark spiritual meaning.34
The final scene with Judas is John 18:2–5 where he betrays Jesus by leading a mob
from the chief priest to the garden where Jesus would often go with his disciples. While this
occurs after Jesus’ words in John 15, it reveals the character of Judas concretely. He is not
just named the betrayer, or characterized as dishonest. His story climaxes and ends on his
decision to bring a military unit from the political leaders to arrest Jesus.

31

Carson, The Gospel According to John, 475.
See Keener, John, 919. “The entrance of spirits into individuals to empower them for a task, good or evil, was
already familiar in the Mediterranean world… The image of Satan’s inspiration or filling an agent’s heart
appears in Acts 5:3; T. Job 41:5/7; cf. the late Apoc. Sedr. 5:4–5; Boring et al., Commentary, 296, cite T. Sim.
2:7, where the prince error moves Satan against Jospeh.”
33
Keener, John, 919.
34
See Carson, The Gospel According to John, 476. See also Keener, John, 920. Keener also mentions that this
symbolic understanding was emphasized as “least as early as Origen.”
32

39

If we quickly compare how Judas is characterized in the Synoptics, the
characterization of Judas becomes even more clear.
Table 2: Comparison of Judas Iscariot's Characterization in the Synoptics & the Gospel of John

Book
Matthew

#
5

References
10:4; 26:14, 25, 47; 27:3

Mark

3

3:19; 14:10; 43

Luke

4

6:16; 22:3, 47, 48

John

8

6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2, 3, 5

Includes
Plan to betray with Chief Priests
Betrayal in the garden
Death
Plan to betray with Chief Priests
Betrayal in the garden
Plan to betray with Chief Priests
Betrayal in the garden
Jesus rebuking Judas (12:4)
Informing audience Judas dealt with
finances of the group.
Jesus handing Judas bread
Jesus telling Judas to go
Betrayal in the garden

As can be seen from the table above, John gives Judas more time in the narrative with
added conversations in the pericope of the woman washing Jesus’ feet, and the Last Supper.
Matthew and Mark have no mention of Judas in their respective accounts of Jesus’ anointing
at Bethany (see Matt 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9) and the information that Judas oversaw the
money is not present in the Synoptics at all; neither is Jesus’ interaction with Judas at the
Last Supper. Judas in John has a larger narrative presence than in the other gospels but in
John, in contrast to the synoptics, there is no reference to Judas meeting with the chief priests
to betray Jesus (John 11:45–54). That is replaced with the narrator’s comment in John 13:2,
“the devil had already put into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot that he should betray
him.”
Judas is motivated by greed, characterized specifically as the devil, and in contrast to
Matthew (27:3–10), there is no reference to Judas’ death by suicide. This could be John
determining that Judas’ role in the narrative was finished or an indication of John’s
eschatology. This will be unpacked later.
OT References of “Branches”/Referent of the “branches”
Now that we’ve dealt with the characterization of the referent of “you” in John 15 we
can look at the second half of the metaphor: Branches. Branches and semantically linked

40

terms are used in the OT metaphorically fairly often.35 κλῆμα is used to translate six different
Hebrew terms and is used a total of ten times in the LXX.
Table 3: Hebrew Terms Used to Translate κλῆμα

Uses
5
3
7
3
8
5

Hebrew
Term
‫קציר‬

LES
Translation
Branches,
shoot,
sprout
Tendril

Reference

Alternative Greek terms used to
translate Hebrew term
θερισμὸς, χλωρὸς,

Isa 27:11, Ps 80:12,
Job 14:9; 18:16;
29:19
‫שריג‬
Gen 40:10, 12; Joel
πυθμήν
1:7
‫ענף‬
Twig,
Lev 23:40, Ezek
παραφυάς, σταφυλή, κλάδος,
branch
17:8, 23, 31:3, 36:8;
ἀναδενδράς, βλαστός, παραφυάς
Mal 3:19, Ps 80:11
‫נטישה‬
Tendrils
Isa 18:5, Jer 5:10,
ὑποστήριγμα
48:32
‫דלית‬
Foliage
Jer 11:16; Ezek 17:6, κλάδος
7, 23; 19:11; 31:7, 9,
12
‫זְמורה‬
Shoot
Num 13:23; Isa
17:10; Ezek 8:17,
15:2; Nam 2:3
The primary way the term functions metaphorically in the LXX is as a reference to a

person, or nation. Some key examples of this usage can be found in Joel 1:6–7, Ezekiel 17,
and Ezekiel 19:10–11. These passages also reference the larger metaphorical network using
key terms such as ἄμπελος and καρπός.
The context of Joel 1 is a lament over the destruction of the land because of a swarm
of locusts. The imagery found in verse 7 references the desolation (ἀφανισμός) of a vine, the
breaking (συγκλασμός) of a fig-tree, and the whitening (λευκαίνω) of branches (κλῆμα). The
LXX frames this passage as the work of God as verse 7 starts with the verb τίθημι which the
LES translates at “I appointed.
ἔθετο τὴν ἄμπελόν μου εἰς ἀφανισμὸν καὶ
τὰς συκᾶς μου εἰς συγκλασμόν, ἐρευνῶν
ἐξηρεύνησεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἔρριψεν, ἐλεύκανεν
κλήματα αὐτῆς.

35

It has set my vine for annihilation
and my fig trees for breaking;
searching it has searched it out and thrown
it down;
its branches have turned white.

The ten uses of κλῆμα in the OT are Joel 1:7, Ps 79:12, Mal 4:1, Je 31:32, Nu 13:24, Na 2:3, Ezek 1:6, 7, 23;
19:11.

41

As the imagery is shaped within the context of God’s work, and God being the referent of
μου, it shifts from just being a literal picture of the locust’s destruction towards the
metaphoric destruction of the land. The branches becoming white pictures the bark being
pulled off to reveal the white wood underneath. The branch, κλῆμα, functions within the text
as an expansion of the destruction of the land/nation.
There are two significant allusions to Ezekiel in John 15 which use the term κλῆμα:
Ezekiel 17 and Ezekiel 19:10–14. Each fulfills Hays’ criteria for an allusion in John 15:1–6.
The first is divided into three sections: a parable (17:1–10), its meaning (17:11–21) and a
promise of restoration and strength (17:22–24).36 The parable uses key terms. Within the text
κλῆμα is a synecdoche of vine (or expansion) which references the king of Israel. Ezekiel
19:10–14 functions similarly. The prophet introduces the nation of Israel as a mother and a
vine. John Taylor explains the context:
In this allegory, the vine, planted in a well-watered land, flourishes and sends out
sturdy shoots like so many royal scepters, and these represented the nation’s
succession of rulers. When the vine was pulled up by its roots, however, its strong
stem withered away and was burnt. The vine was transplanted to a desert land and at
the same time fire came out of its chief branch and destroyed all its fruit and the rest
of its foliage. This is clearly a reference to Zedekiah, the last ruler of Israel, who was
regarded as the cause of the nation’s ultimate collapse.37
We see in verse 11 the terms ῥάβδος, στέλεχος and κλῆμα representing kings: καὶ ἐγένετο
αὐτῇ ῥάβδος ἰσχύος ἐπὶ φυλὴν ἡγουμένων, καὶ ὑψώθη τῷ μεγέθει αὐτῆς ἐν μέσῳ στελεχῶν
καὶ εἶδεν τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς ἐν πλήθει κλημάτων αὐτῆς. This has implications for how we are
to understand how the term κλῆμα is used in John 15:1–6.
“You” and κλῆμα in John 15
When we look to map the context of the OT allusions onto our target text, the
question arises surrounding the destruction of the branches and whether we are to map this
into the new context, but when we consider the primary metaphor of “I am the True Vine”
and the context of restoration, and how the disciples are characterized in the chapters leading

36

John B. Taylor, Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 22,
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1969), 142.
37
Taylor, Ezekiel, 153–154.

42

up to John 15, we find the source context of the branch’s destruction does not necessarily
map onto the target source without other contextual markers. This will be discussed more
fully in chapter 4.
As we have looked at how the disciples are characterized and the term κλῆμα is used
in the LXX, the disciples are viewed as active participants in the fulfillment of the messianic
promises realized through Jesus. In the midst of their confusion shown in John 13–14, Jesus
views them as fulfilling the conditional clauses which proves their acceptance as God’s
people. They are viewed as “in him.” The point of John 15 is not about whether the
“disciples” are “in him" but whether the branches abide and are fruitful.
Judas and the Metaphor “in me”
The text is clear that Judas was physically and socially a part of the twelve and was in
a position of trust, but throughout the Gospel of John, Judas is consistently named as the
betrayer (John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2; 18:2, 5; 21:20) even as he is revealed as a man in Jesus’
“inner circle” (as a part of the twelve). The fact that Judas carried the group’s shared finances
(12:6) implies that he was trusted, even as the narrator points to the fact that trust was
misplaced. Again, in John 13, Judas having his feet washed, sitting on the left side of Jesus38
(v. 26) and receiving bread from Jesus’ hand all point to Judas being “in” Jesus’ circle. The
quote of Ps 41:9 in John 13:18 highlights the depth of Judas’ betrayal as being worse as he is
a friend and as someone who has received Jesus’ hospitality. This, paired with the three
pericopes which make up Judas’ role in the gospel points to a man whose very closeness with
Jesus permits him not only to steal but, to betray significant cultural norms surrounding
hospitality by leading a mob to arrest Jesus.
The question that is left regarding Judas, is whether he is referenced in John 15.39
Jesus says, “every branch in me…” While this branch is indefinite, the question whether
Judas was ever considered “in me” needs to be addressed. If we look at John 13:5–11, the
term used to wash the disciples’ feet is νίπτω. This is used in contrast to καθαρὸς (clean).
Even though Judas had his feet washed, the text states:
38

See Carson, The Gospel According to John, 474. He suggests because of the ease by which Jesus was able to
pass the bread he would have been close at hand. The Beloved disciple was on Jesus’ right side so he suggests
that Judas could have been on his left. The left-hand is a place of honor. Keener also notes that the beloved
disciple and Judas “apparently share Jesus’ highest couch…” See Keener, John, 916.
39
References to “in me” in John: 6:56; 10:38; 14:10 [twice], 11, 20, 30; 15:2, 4 [twice], 5–7; 16:33; 17:21, 23.

43

Ὁ λελουμένος οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι, ἀλλʼ ἔστιν καθαρὸς ὅλος·
καὶ ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ πάντες. 11 ᾔδει γὰρ τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν· διὰ
τοῦτο εἶπεν ὅτι Οὐχὶ πάντες καθαροί ἐστε. (John 13:10–11)
This term, καθαρὸς (clean), is the same term used in John 15:3 and is a play on words with
καθαίρω (prune) in John 15:2. This could suggest that as Judas was not καθαρὸς in John 13,
that he would not be pruned (καθαίρω) in John 15:2. This argument is assuming that Judas
was considered “in me.”
In the previous section on the characterization of Judas, we see evidence that could be
interpreted both ways. As an example, in John 6:70–71 when Jesus says, “Did I not choose
you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” The narrator then goes on to name Judas as the
betrayer a.k.a., “the devil.” This specifically states that Judas was a part of Jesus’ inner circle,
a part of the twelve. Keener notes in his commentary on John 13:27:
The mention of Satan (13:27) is significant. In contrast to the Synoptics, John, who
also omits Jesus’ exorcisms, speaks only once of “Satan” (13:27) and three times of
the “devil” (6:70; 8:44; 13:2). The devil’s role in this Gospel particularly surrounds
the betrayal; Judas the betrayer was a “devil” (6:70), replacing Peter’s function in the
Markan tradition (Mark 8:33)…The devil had already put it into Judas’s heart to
betray Jesus (13:2), and once Judas prepares to execute his mission, Satan enters him
to enable him to carry it out (13:27).40
In other words, the principal focus of John’s language surrounding the devil and Satan is
Judas. John does not include the pericope where Jesus tells Peter, “Get behind me Satan”41
(Matt 16:23 and Mark 8:33). This means the only time Jesus uses the term “devil” not in
reference to Judas, is in John 8:44 where Jesus says to “the Jews believing in him” (v. 31),
“ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ”42 (you are from your father the devil [v. 44]).
There are a couple of important things to note as to why the instance in John 8 is not
the same as how John characterizes Judas. Firstly, Judas is consistently referenced and
connected with the devil by the narrator’s voice. There is no context where Judas is seen in a
good light. This is contrasted with how “the Jews” are characterized within John. Hylen
states:

40

Keener, John, 919.
John also uses the term “ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων” or “ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου” 3 times: John 12:31, 14:30; 16:11.
42
More in this pericope will be explored later with reference to the use of μένω in John 8:31–38.
41

44

At the opening of this conversation [vv. 30–31]… the Jews are characterized as
believing in Jesus, although the rest of the conversation between the Jews and Jesus
highlights an inconsistency in the Jews’ character: their behavior contradicts their
belief. This does not necessarily render their belief invalid, but it does suggest a
complex character: they believe in Jesus and they seek to kill him.43
This parallels the misunderstanding and questioning of the disciples.44
Secondly, the polemical nature of this passage impacts the weight of Jesus’ charge
against the Jews as being of the devil as the connection with the devil is linked to their
current actions and behavior rather than as with Judas who is consistently viewed as such.45
Keener explains the central theme of this discourse as the question of origins and goes on to
state, “Jesus is from above, God; his opponents are from below, from the devil. Jesus speaks
here in spiritual terms concerning the world…”46 The polemic used in this passage is
drastically different in style and purpose than the narrator’s notes surrounding the character
of Judas.47
Finally, in John 14:30, we have an interesting statement of Jesus:
οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθʼ ὑμῶν, ἔρχεται
γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων· καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ
ἔχει οὐδέν,

I will no longer speak much with you, for
the ruler of the world is coming, and he has
no power over me.

In his commentary on John, Kruse connects the title, ‘the ruler of the world’ with Satan
“whose coming was to occur through the actions of Judas Iscariot (13:2, 27) and the Jewish
leaders to whom Judas betrayed Jesus.” 48 This is intriguing as John 14:30 states; “καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ
οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν” which translated literally would say, “and he (Satan) has no claim in me.”
There are only three verses between John 14:30 and John 15:2. 14:30 seems pretty clear that
the devil has nothing “in” Christ. The evidence against Judas as the narrative referent is
weightier than the evidence for. Judas can not be considered the narrative referent of the
unfruitful branch in John 15:2.
When we look at John 17:12, Jesus is praying for his disciples:
43

Hylen, Imperfect Believers, 122.
Hylen, Imperfect Believers, 123.
45
For a brief discussion on the polemic of this passage see Keener, John, 758–760.
46
Keener, John, 743.
47
For a brief discussion on the use of “in me” in John see Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship,” 45.
He argues that “in me” refers to fellowship.
48
Kruse, John, 308.
44

45

ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν
τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ
ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ
μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ
πληρωθῇ

While I was with them, I protected them in
your name that you have given me. I
guarded them, and not one of them was lost
except the one destined to be lost, so that
the scripture might be fulfilled.

What the NRSV translates as “the one destined to be lost” is ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας: “the son of
destruction…” in this text, Judas is the son of destruction, the one who will be lost. If Judas
is understood as the unfruitful branch in John 15, it radically impacts the interpretation of the
whole passage. If he is the son of destruction and the unfruitful branch of John 15, then the
unfruitful branches must also be those who would be destroyed. But as we’ve looked at how
Judas is characterized, that interpretation or reading of the text does not connect with the
evidence. Judas cannot be considered “in Christ” because of his consistent association with
the devil.
Conclusion
Jesus’ final “I am” statement focuses on how he, as the fulfillment of OT imagery in
LXX Psalm 79, and LXX Isaiah 5:1–7 relates to his closest disciples. We saw this as we
worked backwards through the Farewell Discourse to determine the referent of Jesus’ words
in John 15:1–6. We noted how the characterization of the disciples in the text revealed them
as having a confused and partial faith but still within the framework of being considered in
him. This was made clear with Jesus’ words in John 14 which inform the reader that the
disciples are considered having completed the conditional promises which are dependant on
“belief.” As was stated above, the use of κλῆμα in John 15 and how that relates to OT
allusions, reveals that the disciples are viewed as active participants in the fulfillment of the
messianic promises realized through Jesus.
I have also argued in this chapter that Judas cannot be the referent of the unfruitful
branches as the narrative does not characterize Judas as “in Christ” but associates him with
the devil. This association is more apparent in John than in the synoptics and this association
disqualifies Judas from being considered “in Christ” as John 14:30 states clearly, “the prince
of this world has nothing in me…”
Now that we’ve determined the identity of the “branches in Christ” as being the
disciples with the exception of Judas, we can focus on their outcome. In the following

46

chapter, we will discuss how judgement functions within John, and the context of John 15:1–
6.

47

Chapter 4: The Outcomes of the Branches
Now that the identity of the branches has been discussed in Chapter 3, we need to
determine their outcome. This will be done by analyzing how judgement functions in the
Gospel of John, comparing how John uses the motifs of “harvest” and “fire” with their use in
the synoptics, evaluating how αἴρω is used in John and the LXX allusions, and by situating it
all within the context of the Farewell Discourse.
Judgement in John
John 15:1–6 contains two motifs that have historically been interpreted as forms of
eternal judgement: fire and harvest. As mentioned in Chapter 1, I believe this is a
misinterpretation of this imagery. Judgement in John functions very differently than in the
synoptics, which have many references to weeping and gnashing, eternal fire, or intense
images of destruction. Judgement in John functions on two levels: the first occurs informally
by the reader of the text. As was mentioned in the previous chapter, Skinner notes that
characters exist in the text “to confirm, deny, or question something about Jesus that will
allow the literary audience to advance in its understanding of Jesus’s message, mission, and
identity.” 1
Readers of the text, by extension, judge characters as either being “in the light” or
“loving the darkness” as introduced in the Prologue. Keener notes: “Judgement occurs in the
context of Jesus’ ministry as people’s hearts are exposed by how they respond to him and his
message (9:39; cf. 12:31).”2 The narrative and characterization in John function to invite and
teach the reader to judge every character by whether they understand Jesus as he is revealed
in the Prologue. The beloved disciple and the voice of God throughout the text, remind the
reader of Jesus’ identity as revealed through the Prologue and set the bar for how people are
to relate to Jesus.
The second level of judgement comes directly through the text by both Jesus and the
narrator’s words. This section will focus on this second level as found in John: 3:16–21,
5:19–30, and 12:44–50 where the terms κρίνω, and κρίσις are present and at how key

1
2

Skinner, How John Works, 117.
Keener, John, 571.

48

“judgment” terms found in John 15 are used elsewhere. We will first address how judgement
functions in these passages, then see how it relates to John 15:1–6.
John: 3:16–21 (14–15)
As mentioned, characterization functions to reveal the identity of Jesus, his purpose,
and his mission. This text is Jesus’ (or the narrator’s ) response to Nicodemus’ questions.3
Verse 16 starts with the adverb Οὕτως with the conjunction γὰρ. Kruse notes that the adverb
Οὕτως “always refers back to something previously mentioned, not something about to be
explained.”4 This previously mentioned situation is found in John 3:14–15 with Jesus
alluding to Moses. Kruse shows the beginning of the two main clauses in italics:
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert,
in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up,
that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life,
for in this way God loved the world;
And so [as a consequence of this love] he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
eternal life, for God did not send his Son into the world
to condemn the world,
but to save the world through him.5
On top of the Οὕτως found in verse 16, the repetition found in verses 15 and 16, give further
weight to the connection between these verses. Rather than the focus being on perishing and
condemnation (eternal judgement), which are only mentioned with the negatives μὴ and οὐ,
the focus is on the one believing in the Son of Man having eternal life. See the repetition in
verses 15–18:
Table 4: Comparison & Breakdown of John 3:15, 16, and 18a

v. 15
v. 16
v. 18a

ὁ πιστεύων
ὁ πιστεύων
ὁ πιστεύων

ἐν αὐτῷ
εἰς αὐτὸν
εἰς αὐτὸν

/
μὴ ἀπόληται
οὐ κρίνεται

/
ἀλλὰ
δὲ

ἔχῃ
ἔχῃ
…

ζωὴν αἰώνιον
ζωὴν αἰώνιον
…

In the first two, a present substantival participle is paired with the subjunctive present ἔχῃ
creating a conditional clause, which verse 18a summarizes and then builds upon in verse 18b

3

It seems unclear on whether a section of this shifts from Jesus’ words to the narrator’s comments. See Kruse,
John, 105.
4
Kruse, John, 115–116.
5
Kruse, John, 116.

49

with the conjunction δὲ. This also marks a shift from the present tense to the perfect tense
implying the stative nature of disbelief. The one believing in him is not judged, but (δὲ) the
one not believing, is already judged because he has not believed in the name of the one and
only Son of God. The shift to the perfect tense in this verse, that the past action of disbelief
continues to have implication in the present, leads into verses 19–20 where judgement is
defined not as a future destination or a consequence of judgement, but as a statement of
“right standing” or the “lack of right standing.” Verses 19–20 state:
And this is the judgment: that the light has come into the world, and people loved
darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate
the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.6
The narrative uses belief in Jesus as the marker of right standing (being in the light) and by
extension, rejection of Jesus as continuing in darkness– they did not “come into the light.”
This suggests that the judgement as revealed in John 3 is not condemnation in a
consequential sense, but as a statement regarding their “right standing-ness” before God:
those that reject Jesus do not want their evil deeds exposed. Rather than judgement as a place
of condemnation, it is descriptive of the disbelievers’ present reality that they love darkness
because “their deeds were evil.” The text does not describe where they will end up (outside
with weeping and gnashing of teeth/fire etc.) because of their disbelief and verse 20 shifts
back to the present tense from the perfect with the use μισεῖ, and ἔρχεται. This suggests the
text is not referencing eternal judgement or condemnation but instead is inviting the reader to
view those in the narrative who believe in Jesus in line with the Prologue. Verse 21 uses the
developmental marker δὲ to further build on the idea that the reader is to judge not only those
who disbelieve but also those who believe in Jesus as “practicing the truth.” The text is not
just inviting the reader to judge who is in wrong-standing with God, but also who is in rightstanding.
Judgment in this pericope deals with viewing the characters in the narrative in light of
the Prologue rather than as eternal condemnation. Judgement from a negative connotation is
a secondary theme, with the main theme focusing on eternal life given to those who believe.
This eternal life is experienced within the narrative in the present as shown through the
6

Emphasis added. The imagery in these verses points back to John 1:4–13 with the repeated use of φῶς and
σκότος.

50

present subjunctive verb ἔχῃ found in verse 15 and 16. Disbelief is characterized as a state
that has narrative consequences of current wrong-standing with God because of one’s evil
deeds, but is invitational in the sense that their situation is changeable if they believe.
This is supported in the narrative as Nicodemus’ disbelief in John 3 (meeting Jesus at
night) shifts in John 7:50–52 to openly questioning the religious leaders on their approach to
Jesus, to 19:39–42 where he prepares Jesus’ body for burial. There is a shift from Nicodemus
visiting Jesus at night to openly and actively serving. There is a move from confused
disbelief into active (though incomplete) belief.
John 5:19–30
The context of “the Jews’” displeasure over Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath and
calling God his Father, “making himself equal to God” (5:18),7 is the occasion for Jesus’
words in John 5:19–30. Jesus addresses the charge by explaining that the Father has given
him authority like “a son who imitates and obeys his father (5:19–20).”8 This authority
includes “all judgement” (5:22, 27), and the ability to give life (5:22–26). This life-giving has
present implications as Jesus states: “the one who hears my word and who believes the one
who sent me has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed from death to
life” (24).9
The main verses I would like to address are 25–30 as they contain more direct
reference to coming judgement. Verse 25 begins with Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν, and continues with the
declaration that “an hour is coming– and now is here…” Keener notes the implications:
[T]he “now is” in 5:25 is significant (cf. 4:23): the believer enters new life (3:3, 5) and
has in the present the life of the future age (3:15–16). Those who believe “hear” or
“heed” Jesus’ voice (cf. 18:37)…10
This, as stated above, focuses on this present-day nature of the new life found through Jesus.
This suggests the term “οἱ νεκροὶ” in verse 25 is referencing the spiritually dead. The new
life is present and available to the spiritually dead. Verse 28 starts similarly but with some
key differences. Here is a quick comparison of the two verses:

7

Keener notes that “equality” in this context refers to rank not “an ontological question of nature.” See Keener,
John, 648.
8
Keener, John, 648.
9
See Keener, John, 652–53. See also Kruse, John, 114.
10
Keener, John, 653.

51

Table 5: Comparison of John 5:25 and 28

25

Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν

ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα

καὶ νῦν ἐστιν

28

μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο

ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα

/

ὅτε οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσουσιν
τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀκούσαντες
ζήσουσιν.
οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις
ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς
αὐτοῦ

Both start with a call to pay attention and a repeated ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα. The first references the
dead coming to life in the present with the use of καὶ νῦν ἐστιν while the second references
life within the context of the future using the phrase πάντες οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις to reference
the actual dead.11 Verse 29 references a future resurrection– the good to a “resurrection of
life” and those “who have practiced evil things to a resurrection of judgement.” This follows
the same theme of verse 26, primarily being the authority of Christ to bring life. Carson
notes: “The voice of the Son is powerful enough to generate spiritual life now; it will be
powerful enough to call forth the dead then.”12 In verse 30, Jesus reaffirms the primary
context that he is able to do all these things as God’s divine representative. If we continue to
the end of chapter 5, after a discussion on trustworthy testimony, Jesus ends with this:
Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom
you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote
about me (vv. 45–46).
The focus in this passage primarily has to do with the authority given to Jesus to give life and
judge in the present and in the future. The resurrection to judgement referenced in verse 28 is
not qualified by any particular expression or imagery which indicates firstly, it is not the
focus of the text, and secondly, as will be shown when looking at the synoptic tradition, does
not follow the formula used to refer to eternal judgement.

11
12

See Carson, The Gospel According to John, 258.
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 258.

52

John 12:44–50
Keener notes that John 12:37–50 is a closing of sorts for the book of signs, and functions as a
summary of the people’s response to his teachings (12:37–43)13 and his actual teachings
(12:44–50).14
A simplified breakdown of Jesus’ appeal is as follows:
44–45: Jesus is God’s representative
46: He is a light, Believers will not remain in darkness (Prologue)
47–48: He does not Judge but His words will on the last day
49–50: Jesus is God’s representative
Jesus’ final appeal does not necessarily add new teaching but is a repetition of themes from
John 3:16–21 and 5:19–30 (among other places…) and sandwiches a reference to light and
darkness from the Prologue and discussion on judgement between statements surrounding
Jesus’ declaration to be God’s representative. The teaching on judgement (vv. 47–48) within
this passage recaps John 3:17 and John 5:28–29 with Jesus declaring: “I do not judge anyone
who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save
the world” and “The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the
last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge.” There is a present reality within the
text of judgement where the reader determines, by the character’s responses to Jesus, who
has come into the light and who remains in darkness. Carson notes:
As the Father’s agent, the Father’s Son, Jesus is the revealer of God (1:18). That is
why he earlier claimed, ‘I am the light of the world’ (8:12). Here the thought is
similar, the language less bold: Jesus has come into the world as a light. The
Evangelist thus continues the theme of vv. 35, 36, using the light/darkness antithesis
not only to invite the belief by making darkness repulsive, but also to stress, in
preparation for vv. 47–48, that the purpose of his coming was not to bring
condemnation but transformation.15
As can be seen, Carson notes that Jesus’ coming was to bring transformation rather than
condemnation, but the text does mention a future final judgement where Jesus’ words (rather
than Moses’ words as in John 5:45–46) will function as the judge but again, lacking in the
text is any form of destructive imagery.

13

Keener, John, 882.
Keener, John, 886.
15
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 452.
14

53

As we have looked at these three texts, final judgement is a secondary theme with the
primary one focusing on believing in Jesus as being “in the light.” In other words, being in
the light is to be in him. In John 15, the passage makes it clear that all the branches are “in
him” and what we know from our texts on judgement, that to be “in him” is connected with
the theme of light. To be “in him” is to be “in the light.” When we look at how Judas is
characterized, it is clear that he is not “in the light,” especially as when he leaves the last
supper, it mentions that “it was night.”
Harvest and Fire Imagery in the Synoptics
The argument for eternal judgement in John 15 often uses the harvest and fire
imagery to support its claim. However, those who interpret John 15:2 and 6 in this way seem
to imbue its imagery with a synoptic understanding, rather than allowing the context of John
to inform their interpretation. In the following section, I will briefly address synoptic imagery
by engaging with Matt 3:7–12 and give an overview of how these metaphors function in the
LXX.
The imagery of fire and burning is used in Matthew, Mark and Luke. The term πῦρ is
used within the context of eternal judgment. In each instance the terms “thrown into the fire,”
“fiery hell”, “fiery furnace,” or “eternal fire” are used to further characterize the term. Fire is
only used one time in the Gospel of John in 15:6 and there is no pattern in the text apart from
the context of the Farewell Discourse for how it is to be understood.
The closest imagery to the fire and harvest imagery in John 15:6 in the synoptics is
found in Matthew 3:7–10 and 3:12 and the speaker is John the Baptist. His purpose was to
call the religious leaders to produce the fruit of repentance. “Therefore produce fruit worthy
of repentance…” (v. 8) “Already now the ax is positioned at the root of the trees; therefore
every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (v. 10).
Here we see repeated terms and themes surrounding fruitfulness and a call to produce
along with the terms πῦρ and βάλλω which are also present in John 15:6. However, while the
imagery is similar, the metaphor functions differently in Matthew as the audience of the text
is the religious leaders before Jesus begins his ministry16 and the desired fruit is a life
16

Leon Morris suggests that these religious leaders “had no real repentance but only a desire to escape divine
retribution.” See Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 58.

54

changed because of repentance.17 In John 15, the narrative audience is Jesus’ closest
disciples, and the fruit is implied as doing the same kinds of works as Jesus.18 The language
surrounding the removal of the tree is also clearer than is found in John 15:2, using the term
ἐκκόπτω “cut down” in Matt 3:10. Morris notes:
John is not referring only to the remote future; for those who have eyes to see things
were already happening. This is reinforced by the present tense in the three verbs of
this verse… It is not easy to understand why the axe is pictured as lying at “the root”
of the trees; if one is using an axe a tree is generally cut down some little distance up
from the ground. But the root is that from which the tree draws its sustenance;
therefore, the picture suggests that not only will the tree be overthrown, but its source
of nourishment will be taken away.19
We also see a difference with the idea that in Matthew 3, judgement was the removal of the
tree’s root (sustenance/connection) while in John 15:6, not being connected to the vine is the
reason “he is thrown out as a branch…” and is burned.
If we continue to Matt 3:12 we see a harvest metaphor:
οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ
διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ καὶ συνάξει
τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην, τὸ δὲ
ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he
will clear his threshing floor and will gather
his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he
will burn with unquenchable fire.

Morris notes that the imagery here is of the final stage of winnowing20 but unlike Matt 3:10’s
focus on judgement as a present reality for the religious leaders, the three future tense verbs
in verse 12 indicate this winnowing will occur in the future. Jesus is in view. He is the one
who will “clean out,” “gather,” and “burn up the chaff.” The judgement in verse 12, is
characterized as done in the future and accomplished by Jesus. The modifier ἄσβεστος
denotes the eternal consequence of this judgement.
Matthew 3:7–10, 12 function as an illustration of how the synoptics use the motifs of
fire and harvest to reference judgement. When looking at John 15 and Matt 3:10, we find
similar imagery and tenses but drastically different audiences. The first instance in Matt 3
which uses themes of cutting and fire, looks at a narrative present judgement while the

17

Luke 3:10–14 expands on what fruit worthy of repentance looks like.
This idea of fruitfulness is based off of Jesus’ words in John 14:12–14.
19
Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 60.
20
See Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 62.
18

55

second which uses the harvest motif focuses on the final judgement. Only in the case of the
final judgement is a modifier used.
Using synoptic imagery as a basis to understand the fire and pruning metaphors in
John 15:1–6 as eternal judgement does not work. Not only does judgment function
differently in the gospel of John but as was shown in Matt 3, the synoptic writers often used a
modifier to “up the ante” to mark judgement as eternal.
Evaluating the use of αἴρω in John 15 and the LXX Allusions
According to Functional Linguistics, choice implies meaning.21 An author’s use of
one term over another creates the meaning. So why does John 15:2 use the term αἴρω to
mean “taken away” or “cut off” if another word like καθαιρέω (LXX Ps 79:13), ἀναιρέω, or
ἀφίστημι22 (LXX Ps 79:19a) could have been used and been clearer especially when
considering how αἴρω is used in the LXX? The use of αἴρω and καθαίρω in John 15:2 forces
interpreters to choose a term which contrasts with καθαίρω according to the context. The
term καθαίρω has more contextual clues because of the play on words with καθαρός and its
use in viticultural texts in the first century.23 The translators seem to look at verse 6 and read
in a kind of judgement24 relating back into verse 2.
Now, one could argue that John not using καθαιρέω or ἀφίστημι could mean that he
was not using the LXX as a text, was using a different manuscript tradition, or was not
alluding to LXX Ps 79. Even if all of that is true, αἴρω is not the best term to use if the author
of John 15 wants to indicate “removal.” αἴρω is used in the LXX to translate thirty-three
Hebrew terms. The primary Hebrew term translated with αἴρω is ‫ נשא‬which is primarily used
to refer to lifting or carrying.25 If the writer of John 15 was primarily concerned with a play
on words, the term καθαιρέω would have been a clearer choice as the connotations of the
term are negative.

21

For examples of this see Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, 112-115, 140-143, 160-163. See also
Constantine R. Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 165, 178.
22
This term is not connected with the viticultural image but it is a clearer term.
23
Keener, John, 996.
24
I do not believe that John 15:6 is judgement in the traditional sense. In John 15, Jesus is speaking to believers,
not non-believers. Even in verse 6 the terms ἐν ἐμοί are used.
25
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak
Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

56

As was stated above the compounds of αἱρέω (13.38) are organized within the
semantic domain of “to cease, of a state…” or “to cause a state to cease.” 26 Louw Nida puts
αἴρω (15.203) is within the lexical domain of “to carry or bear.” 27 The term καθαίρω is found
in two different lexical domains, regarding: 1) agriculture (43.12) where it means “to cut
away or cut back,”28 and 2) being clean or dirty (79.49), as in, “to make clean, to cleanse, to
clean.”29 LN specifically mentions the play on words with this term and with regard to John
15 states: “This play on two meanings of καθαίρω serves to highlight the meaning of
καθαρός as ‘clean’ (79.48) or ‘pure’ (53.29) in John 15:3.” 30
Again, as John 15 alludes to Isaiah 5:1–7, one would expect the target domain (John
15) to use similar terms as the source domain (Isa 5:1–7; Ps 79) to reference similar referents.
John’s use of αἴρω instead of a compound of αι αἱρέω suggests that he is referring to
something different than the source domain.
Context: The Farewell Discourse, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Reinstatement
In Chapter 3 we looked at how Peter and the rest of the disciples were characterized
in John 13–14. The first as one who was going to betray Jesus and the whole group as
confused with a partial faith, but viewed by Jesus as fulfilling the conditional promises. In
John 18, after Jesus was arrested, we see Peter and another disciple follow the mob to
Caiaphas’ house, only for Peter to deny Jesus three times (18:16–17; 25–27). We see, leading
up to the crucifixion, all of the disciples, with the exception of the beloved disciple, Mary the
mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, abandoning Jesus (19:25).
They did not remain or abide with Jesus in this part of the narrative. In fact the next time the
group of disciples is referenced after Jesus’ arrest they are behind locked doors because they
are afraid even after Mary Magdalene brings news that Jesus is alive (20:18–19).
Interestingly, what we find as the narrative continues is not “a cutting off and a
removing” of all those that betrayed and denied Jesus leading up to the crucifixion (a

26

Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 152.
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 206.
28
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 516.
29
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 698.
30
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 516.
27

57

legitimate lack of abiding), but a reinstatement. When Jesus suddenly appears in John 20:19b
he does nοt condemn them but declares:
Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν· καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ
πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς. καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν
ἐνεφύσησεν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε
πνεῦμα ἅγιον· ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας
ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς· ἄν τινων κρατῆτε
κεκράτηνται.

“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent
me, so I send you.” When he had said this,
he breathed on them and said to them,
“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the
sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
(John 20:21–23)

In verse 21 Jesus declares that he is commissioning the disciples in the same manner
that the Father sent him. This is a continuation of Jesus’ ministry through his disciples. This
is reinforced in verse 22 when Jesus uses the aorist imperative Λάβετε as he calls his
disciples to receive the Holy Spirit. This reflects the beginning of Jesus’ own ministry in John
2:32 when John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus. On top of this, Jesus
gives authority to his disciples to forgive sins and while this is the first mention of
“forgiveness of sins” in the gospel, it is linked with the larger commission that the disciples
are to do the works of Jesus. Kruse notes the disciples being “sent to continue the words and
works of Jesus” was foreshadowed throughout the text. 31
This commissioning and reinstatement by Jesus more easily describe how the
branches of John 15:2 are treated. Rather than αἴρω being understood as “cut off,” which we
do not see as happening to the unfruitful disciples, it is much more natural for it to be
translated as “lifted up” as it reflects the narrative of the gospel. This is further supported in
John 21:15–17 when Jesus specifically reinstates Peter.
Conclusion
When we look at how judgement functions in John in comparison to the synoptics,
the use of αἴρω in both John and the LXX allusions, and situate the text within the larger
narrative we must seriously reconsider how eternal judgement could be the outcome of the
branches in John 15:1–6. As was shown in this chapter, we found that eternal judgement was
not the main point of John 3, 5 or 12. The judgement rhetoric in John 3 is used invitationally
to help the reader believe in the privileged knowledge of Jesus that was revealed in the
31

See Kruse, John, 375.

58

Prologue. In John 5, Jesus is revealed as God’s divine representative who has the authority to
judge in the present and the future. While judgement is mentioned, the primary focus is on
Jesus’ authority to judge, not the judgement itself. John 12 is a recap of Jesus’ teachings in
John 3 and 5. Within these texts, final judgement is a secondary theme which supports the
gospel’s invitation towards believing in Jesus. As was said earlier, believing in Jesus is
revealed as being “in the light” and by extension, as being “in him.” Judgement in John lacks
the metaphoric and figurative language used in the synoptics to refer to final judgment.
After engaging with how judgement functioned in the Gospel of John, we looked at
how αἴρω was used in the source materials and situated the narrative context of John 15:1–6.
We saw that the context of the text does not share the necessary generic space to map the
judgement themes from the OT allusions into the outcome of the branches. We noted how the
outcome of the branches should be understood in light of the resurrection and the disciples’
reinstatement. Specifically, the outcome of the unfruitful branches in John 15:2 is better
described by the disciples’ experience with Jesus after the resurrection– a lifting up, rather
than a cutting off. With the language of “in me” referencing believers, the fire language in
John 15:6 cannot be viewed as eternal judgement. Instead the language in verse 6 should
probably be understood in light of 1 Corinthians 3:15: “If the work is burned up, the builder
will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.”
In the next chapter we will summarize the overall argument being made in this thesis
and discuss the implications.

59

Chapter 5: Putting it All Together and Implications
Summary of Argument
I have argued in this thesis that the identity of the branches in John 15:1–6 is Peter
and the disciples apart from Judas Iscariot, with the outcome of those unfruitful branches in
verse 2 as being lifted up into a place of fruitfulness and that the fire theme in verse 6 does
not refer to final eternal judgement. Below is a quick synopsis of my argumentation.
In Chapter 1, we looked at the disagreement concerning the identity and outcome of
the branches in John 15:1–6 along with a brief evaluation of the methodologies used. I
contended that the use of Conceptual Blending Metaphor Theory, with a focus on both sides
of the metaphorical inputs, and Allusion Theory would lead to a clearer outcome of the issues
surrounding the term αἴρω, the “in me” language in the text, and the harvest and fire imagery
in verses 2 and 6.
In Chapter 2, we contextualized the “I am the True Vine” metaphor within the context
of John by briefly engaging with the Prologue and the purpose of the “I am” statements. We
found in the first that Jesus is revealed with the themes of logos and light which point to
Torah and Wisdom. This imagery serves to reveal Jesus as God but separate from the Father.
Concerning the “I am statements” we discussed how they function to reveal how Jesus relates
and fulfills the OT expectations of the Messiah.
We then looked at two OT allusions: LXX Psalm 79 and Isaiah 5:1–7. In the first, we
noted one of the major themes of LXX Psalm 79 is God’s restoration and how the psalmist
used different compounds of αἴρω. The implications of this, along with the context of John
15 being in the Farewell Discourse is that we are to read the text in light of God’s restoration
rather than judgement.
In Chapter 3, we discussed the identity of the branches by initially determining the
narrative audience of Jesus’ words in John 15, by analyzing how the disciples are
characterized in John 13–14, by discussing whether Judas Iscariot could be considered “in
me,” and by assessing how the term κλῆμα is used metaphorically in the LXX. What we
found was that Judas Iscariot, in contrast to the rest of the disciples, could not be considered
“in me.” Where the disciples are revealed as having fulfilled the conditional promises Jesus
makes even in the midst of their confusion, Judas is consistently associated with betrayal and

60

the devil. The implication of Judas’ characterization is that he could not be the unfruitful
branch of John 15:2.
In Chapter 4, we focused on the outcome of the branches in John 15:1–6 initially
noting how judgement in John functions starting with the Prologue and working through key
texts, then contrasted Johannine judgement with synoptic imagery. The implications of the
differences were that judgement in John functions differently with a focus on the present
right-standing before God rather than a final judgement. The marked difference in the use of
harvest and fire imagery in the synoptics means that we cannot use it to determine the
meaning of the imagery in John 15:2, 6. This is made clearer when evaluating how αἴρω is
used in John 15 and the LXX allusions, as well as analyzing the wider context of the
narrative including the crucifixion and resurrection. The reinstatement in John 20:21–23 and
John 21:15–17 are the narrative examples of Jesus “lifting” his disciples into a place of
fruitfulness.
Implications
The implications of this are rather significant. If I am correct about the identity of the
branches in verses 2 and 6, this has implications for the outcomes of the branches as it
impacts the potential readings of the text. If Judas is the identity of the “unfruitful branch”
the text would have to be referencing eternal judgement as he is also called “the son of
destruction.” If he is not considered “in Christ,” then the default understanding of eternal
judgement of being “cut off” (v. 2) and “burned” (v. 6) is not necessary and in fact not
possible as the disciples do not experience eternal judgement. If that is the case, αἴρω (v. 2)
should be translated as “lifted up.” This is a radical change from how the text has historically
been understood and translated. This has consequences for biblical scholarship and Christian
discipleship.
In John 15:6, the fire motif should be understood in light of 1 Corinthians 3:15. This
reflects more clearly how judgement functions in John with the focus on God’s invitation to
belief. I am not arguing against eternal judgement as a Christian doctrine, but only against
judgement being in view in John 15:1–6.

61

Future Considerations
There were many things that were beyond the scope of my thesis but which are
important considerations. One of those is how the Early Church and Jewish sources
interpreted the allusions and key texts engaged with in this work. I briefly discussed
“fruitfulness” in chapter 4, but I believe a fuller discussion on how it functions within John
15:1–6 and the following narrative would be beneficial. I also primarily discussed the term
αἴρω and examples of how “lifting up” occurred in the narrative. I believe further work could
be done on how the term καθαίρω is understood after Jesus’ betrayal. In other words, what
are narrative examples of how “pruning” occurs within the text? There are also other
metaphorical texts that could be better understood by applying the methodology utilized in
this work.
Conclusion
A final restatement of my thesis is that the narrative referent of the branches in John
15:1–6 is the disciples of Jesus with the exception of Judas Iscariot. As a result, along with
the characterization of those disciples, the proper translation of αἴρω (v. 2) is “lifted up” and
the judgement motif in verse 6 is not referring to eternal judgement. When it all comes
together, we find that in John 15:1–6, Jesus uses metaphoric language to prepare his closest
disciples not only for his betrayal, but also for his resurrection by situating their identity,
purpose and authority as being “in him.” The phrase “every branch in me” and the use of the
verb αἴρω work together along with the context of the Farewell Discourse, to bridge the gap
of unfruitfulness reflected in the disciples’ own betrayal and rejection of Jesus after his arrest.
Understanding the text in this way takes seriously all the metaphorical components and the
narrative. I believe this is a more accurate reading.

62

Bibliography
Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary. Garden City: Doubleday, 1980.
Ball, David M. “I Am” in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological
Implications. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1999.
Belt, Ruben van de. “Refiguring Christ, the True Vine: An Exploration of an Ἐγώ Είμι
Saying Using Ricoeur’s Concept of ‘Metaphor.’” Scriptura 116, no. 1 (December 31,
2017): 1–11.
Blaine Jr., Bradford B. Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.
Brannan Rick. et al., eds. The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press,
2012.
Brouwer, Wayne. The Literary Development of John 13–17: A Chiastic Reading. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced BrownDriver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
Bullock, C. Hassell. Psalms 73–150. Edited by Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2017.
Campbell, Constantine R. Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Carter, Warren. John: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
2006.
Chennattu, Rekha M. “The Covenant Motif: A Key to the Interpretation of John 15–16.” In
Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in
Honor of Francis J Moloney, 141–59. Rome: LAS, 2005.
Choi, Richard P. “I Am the Vine: An Investigation of the Relations between John 15:1–6 and
Some Parables of the Synoptic Gospels.” Bulletin of Biblical Research 45 (2000): 51–75.

63

Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Augsburg: Fortress Press, 2007.
Collins, John J. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Missoula: Society of Biblical
Literature, 1979.
Craige, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. Jeremiah 1–25: A Word Biblical
Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1991.
Danesi, Marcel. The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2007.
Derickson, Gary W. “Viticulture and John 15:1–6.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1996): 34-52.
DeSilva, David. Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco: Baylor University Press,
2014.
De Smit, J.C. “A Perspective on John 15:1–8.” Neotestamentica 25, no. 2 (1991): 251–272.
Dillow, Joseph C. “Abiding is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1–6.”
Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 44-53.
Evans, Craig A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s
Prologue, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 89. Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Farmer, Williams Reuben. Anti-Judaism and the Gospels. Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1999.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the
Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Gibbs, Raymond W., and Herbert L. Colston. Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Goldingay, John. Psalms: Vol 2, Psalms 42–89, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament
Wisdom and Psalms, Editor Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2006.
Green Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1993.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1995.
Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989.

64

Holmes, Michael W. The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Bellingham: Lexham Press,
2011-2013.
Hubbard, David Allan. Hosea, Tyndale OT Commentaries. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1989.
Hummel, Horace D. Ezekiel 1–20: A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture. Saint
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.
Hutchison, John C. “The Vine in John 15 and Old Testament Imagery in the ‘I Am’
Statements.” Bibliotheca Sacra 168, no. 669 (2011): 63–80.
Hylen, Susan. Allusion and Meaning in John 6. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005.
Hylen, Susan. Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.
Jamieson, Robert. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol 1. Oak
Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997.
Johnson, Mark and George Lakoff. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1980.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
________. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 volumes. Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2003.
Klink III, Edward W. John. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids
MI: Zondervan, 2016.
Koester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. 2nd ed.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003.
________. The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
________. “John.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited
by G.K Beale and D.A Carson, 415–512. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Kövecses, Zoltán. “Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” In Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and
Language, edited by Elena Semino and Zsófia Demjén, 13-27. Milton Park: Routledge,
2017.
________. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2020.

65

________. “Recent Developments in Metaphor Theory: Are the New Views Rival Ones?”
Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (June 2011): 11–25.
Kruse, Colin G. John: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2003.
Kwok, Hon-Lee. ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook. Lexham Bible
Reference Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.
Laney, J. Carl. “Abiding is Believing: the Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1–6,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 146 (1989): 55-66.
Liddell, Henry George et al. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. New York: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2005.
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:
Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: Prophet Like Moses. Cascade Companions. Eugene: Cascade
Books, 2015.
Macintosh, A. A. Hosea: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1997.
Manns, Frédéric. “Some Jewish Traditions in the FG III.” Antonianum 87, no. 4 (October
2012): 743–83.
Mathewson, David L. Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Motyer, J. Alec. Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries 20. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Myers, Alicia D. Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s Use of
Scripture in its Presentation of Jesus. London: T & T Clark, 2012.
Pasco, Allan H. Allusion: A Literary Graft. Charlottesville: Rookword Press, 2002.
Pietersma, Albert ed., A New English Translation of the Septuagint: The Psalms. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000.

66

Pisarek, Stanisław. “Christ the Son and the Father-Farmer in the Image of the Vine (Jn 15.1–
11, 12–17).” In Testimony and Interpretation Early Christology in its Judeo-Hellenistic
Milieu: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný, 240–46. London: T & T Clark, 2004.
Porter, Stanley E. “Allusions and Echoes.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of
Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter, and Christopher D. Stanley, 29-40. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: JSOT, 1999.
Rahlf, Alfred. Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.
Runge, Steven E. The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament: Glossary. Bellingham:
Lexham Press, 2008.
Skinner, Christopher. “Characterization.” In How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth
Gospel, edited by Douglas Estes and Ruth Sheridan, 115–132. Mill Road: SBL Press,
2007.
Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Standford:
Stanford University Press, 1998.
________. “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle
Eslinger.” Vetus Testamentum 46 (October 1996): 479–489.
Stein, Robert H. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Stevick, Daniel B. Jesus and His Own: A Commentary on John 13–17. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2011.
Stovell, Beth. Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King.
Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah: Word Biblical Commentary Vol 31. Waco: Word Books,
1987.
Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old
Testament). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
Swartley, Willard M. John: Believers Church Bible Commentary. Waterloo: Herald Press,
2013.
Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909.

67

Szymik, Stephan. “Jesus’ Intitulation of God as Abba: Its Sources and Impact on the Idea of
the Fatherhood of God in the New Testament.” Verbum Vitae 38 (December 2020): 485502.
Taylor, John B. Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries 22. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1969.
Thompson, Marianne Meye. John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015.
Turner, David L. Matthew. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Uusimäki, Elisa. “Trees of Wisdom: Visual Piety in Sir 24 and John 15.” In Theology and
Anthropology in the Book of Sirach, 203–17. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020.
van de Belt, Ruben. “Refiguring Christ the True Vine: An Exploration of an ἐγώ είμι Saying
using Ricoeur’s Concept of ‘Metaphor.’” Scriptura 116 (January 2017): 1–11.
Wassell, Blake E. “Fisher of Humans: The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, and
Conceptual Blending Theory.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (Fall 2014): 627-646.
Watts, John D. Isaiah 1–33: Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.
Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13–27: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H.
Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Williams, Catrin H. I am He: The Interpretation of A̓nî Hû in Jewish and Early Christian
Literature. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
Wright, William M. “Greco-Roman Character Typing and the Presentation of Judas in the Fourth
Gospel.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009): 544–59.