John 15

CHAPTER XV

7. Abiding in Jesus as Branches in the Vine, Bearing Much Fruit, 15:1–17

John 15:1

1 After rising from the Passover supper, and while still in the upper room (see 14:31), Jesus utters some of the οὑπολλά (14:30) for which there is still time. He speaks of the disciples as they will fare after his death: first of their connection with him (v. 1–17), then of their position in the hostile world (v. 18, etc.). The rising from the couches caused a slight interruption.

He begins with what Trench, Parables of our Lord, has well termed Biblical allegory. Reality and figure are blended together so that interpretation need not be brought in from without. Two kinds of thread are woven together: the silver thread of the imagery, and the golden thread of interpretation. Those who find fault with the tapestry thus woven do not perceive the beauty of the weaving.

It has often been asked how Jesus came to use the imagery of the vine. It is supposition to think of a vine with its tendrils spreading near an open window of the upper room, or that a view through the open window showed the ornamental golden vine at the gate of the Temple, or revealed a distant vineyard with a fire consuming dead branches, or that such a view was afforded when Jesus passed over the brook Kidron—supposing that he spoke this allegory after reaching the brook. Suppositions such as these cannot be supported by pointing out that Jesus does not merely compare himself to a vine, or call himself the vine, but implies a contrast with other vines by describing himself as “the true vine.” For these other natural vines are certainly also true vines, and Jesus might compare himself with them, but he would certainly not contrast himself with natural vines. The adjective “true” deals with a far deeper contrast, one lying not in the mere imagery but in the actual reality. The comparison used by Jesus may have been suggested by the wine, called “the fruit of the vine” in one of the blessings, used at the Passover. The image of the vine was not new or strange, Isaiah (5:1, etc.), the Psalmist (80:8, etc.), and Jeremiah (2:21) having employed it, the two former with great fulness.

Thus Jesus comes to use this image in a natural, though not a superficial, way. At once it is made to assume a new depth and richness, it is filled with truth and grace, and because of the truth a touch of judgment is added.

I myself (reality) am the genuine vine (figure), and my Father (reality) is the vinedresser (figure). In this new, great I AM statement the predicate again appears with the Greek article, which makes it identical and interchangeable with the subject (R. 768), a point not to be overlooked. Here, too, the adjective is added with a second article, which gives it great emphasis, “as a sort of climax in apposition” (R. 776). Jesus is not merely like a vine, he is more: the actual original, of which all natural vines, genuine in the domain of nature, are only images. As the real and genuine vine in this supreme sense he exceeds all others who may in some way also be called vines, and he stands forever in contrast with all those who are not real but only spurious and pretending vines. Jesus alone embodies the complete will and purposes of God, which others only foreshadow or reveal in part, and which still others only pretend to reveal.

We must distinguish ἀληθινός, verus, real, genuine, from ἀληθής, verax, true in the sense of truthful. In the present connection the latter would be out of line.

The point of comparison intended by the image of the vine is brought out in the elaboration of the allegory. It centers in the one word “fruit.” As the natural vine through its branches and the care they receive brings abundant fruit for the delight of the owner of the vine, so does Jesus in a far higher sense through his disciples for the glory of God. The tertium comparationis is, therefore, not that a vine has branches even as Jesus has disciples. This lies in the concept itself: every vine has branches as a matter of course. In v. 2 Jesus introduces the branches without further explanation—the vine and its branches naturally go together. The entire development of the allegory is positive and deals only with the relation of the disciples to Jesus, their remaining in him in order to produce as much fruit as possible, or their separation from him in judgment.

The allegory intends to elaborate the thesis expressed in 14:20: “You in me, and I in you.” The picture as drawn by Jesus does not concern itself with false Christs who pretend to be vines but are not, nor with the Old Testament Israel in which the true vine, Jesus, was foreshadowed. These contrasts might also have been elaborated, starting from the keyword ἡἀληθινή, but Jesus has a different aim. He will dwell in his disciples after he leaves them; they are to understand what this their spiritual relation to him means for all the days to come; they are to bear much spiritual fruit by the power they constantly draw from him, and by their fruit they are to glorify God. What was begun in Israel of old in connection with the promised Messiah is now to be consummated in the new Israel in connection with the Messiah actually come and established in glory forever.

“I myself am the genuine vine” does not yet indicate the point for which the comparison is made. It still lies veiled in the two emphatic words ἐγώ and ἡἀληθινή. The veil is lifted a little in the next statement: “and my Father is the vinedresser,” γεωργός, one who tills the ground, in this case one who tends the vine. The point in this figure is at once revealed in v. 2: this vinedresser busies himself with the branches. That is really all that lies in γεωργός. The term itself does not say that this person owns the vine, that he has planted it, cultivates it, etc.

These are thoughts that we ourselves generally add, drawing them, not from the imagery, but from the actual relation of the Father to Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Usually the earthly picture is unable to reflect the reality in all its fulness. Here the reference to the vinedresser intends to point only in the direction of fruit.

John 15:2

2 The work of this particular vinedresser is described: Every branch (figure) in me (reality) not bearing fruit he takes away (figure); and everyone bearing fruit, he cleanses it, in order that it may be bearing more fruit (figure). Here the point of the entire allegory is fully revealed: it is “fruit,” mentioned no less than three times. Here, too, we see that only such features of the figure are used as fit the great reality, and other features are purposely omitted as not applying. Ordinary vines are cultivated and tied to supports; this vine, Jesus, needs no cultivation. Only the branches need attention. The objects are placed forward for emphasis, suspended as it were: “every branch in me not bearing fruit … and everyone bearing fruit”; and then each is picked up with αὑτό.

When Jesus speaks these words, his disciples cluster about him—he the vine, they the branches. Judas has left shortly before, the unfruitful branch that had to be removed from the vine.

The branches are at once arranged in two classes: fruitless, fruitful. The vinedresser has a task with regard to each. We need not puzzle about the unfruitful branches being “in me”; for evidently these are disciples whose hearts have lost the faith and the love that once dwelt in them and joined them to Christ, and who thus adhere to Christ only outwardly until even this connection is broken. It is idle to think of branches which are unfruitful from the start because Jesus uses this phrase “in me”; for no man becomes a branch unless fruitfulness is in him from the start. But he may lose his faith, and then he is promptly cast away. How this comes about—who will tell?

We, indeed, know the power of the devil, the world, and the flesh, and we see the spiritual wrecks produced by this power. Yet how one who has gained the life in Christ can consent to have it destroyed in his soul remains a mystery of darkness—unnatural, unreasonable, devilish. The fault lies entirely in the branch that dies, not in the vine that once gave that branch life.

The unfruitful branch the vinedresser “takes away,” αἴρει he removes it, the tense being a timeless present. The point is regarding fruit alone, which means that we must not think of dead branches in a natural vine—the withering is mentioned in v. 6 when the branch is cut away. It is fruitlessness that seals the fate of the branch. Leaves, shade, beauty, etc., are not the purpose of the branch but only fruit. As a branch is cut from the vine, so the fruitless disciple is severed from Jesus. The Father rejects him. That is enough at this point.

Strange things have been said about the term “fruit,” καρπός, making the branches themselves the fruit of the vine, and then reasoning that the fruit of the branches must be similar, namely other branches, souls joined to Christ by us. Such thoughts only confuse and spoil the allegory. No branch ever grafts another branch into the vine. The production of branches is wholly the business of Christ, the vine. The fruit of the branches consists in grapes. What this fruit in reality is, is plainly told in Scripture: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” Gal. 5:22, 23; “in all goodness and righteousness and truth,” Eph. 5:9; “the peaceable fruit of righteousness,” Heb. 12:11. “And this I pray that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ; being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God,” Phil. 1:9–11. A branch may have but little of such fruit, but as long as it draws life from the vine, some of the fruit will be found.

The fruitless branches also need the vinedresser’s attention. For the unfruitful, αἴρειν, for the fruitful, καθαίρειν, and Bengel notes the suavis rhythmus. The two are absolute alternatives: either—or. A taking away occurs in either case, either of the branch itself, or of that which hinders its increase in fruit-fulness. Since the fruit consists in all manner of Christian virtues and in the thoughts, words, and deeds in which they manifest themselves, the cleansing will consist in the removal of what remains of our old sinful nature, the flesh with its outgrowths and its manifestations. The Father’s work is negative; the positive power for greater fruit rests in Jesus, the vine.

Thus the more the flesh is checked, the more the fruits will increase. This is why the Lord and the apostles admonish, reprove, rebuke, and warn us so constantly against the workings of the flesh. Sometimes their words cut deeply, but they must in order that the Spirit may triumph over the flesh and bring forth more fruit meet for repentance. Allied with this cleansing by means of the Word is the tribulation, which also helps to overcome the flesh. 2 Corinthians 4:16; 1 Pet. 4:1, 2; 2 Corinthians 12:7.

John 15:3

3 This cleansing of the fruitful branches must be distinguished from another cleansing, namely that which first makes us branches. Already you are clean on account of the word which I have spoken to you (reality). This is the cleansing of justification as distinguished from the other which constantly works upon the branches, namely sanctification (in the narrow sense: the production of good works). “Clean” means justified, cleansed by the forgiveness of sins. “Already you,” ὑμεῖς (emphatic) implies that many others will follow the eleven. This cleansing is due to “the word which I have spoken to you” as the great means of justification. The entire gospel is referred to, including the Word in the Sacraments. Luther adds the explanatory remark, “when received and embraced by faith.” That the Word must be so received in order to cleanse and to justify appears in Acts 15:9, where it is said that God put no difference between Jews and Gentiles, “purifying their hearts by faith”; and in Acts 10:43, “Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” In ascribing this cleansing to the Word, Jesus takes all the credit and glory to himself and leaves none to us.

The cleansing by the Word through faith (justification) does not exclude the cleansing which follows throughout life in the putting away of all the defilements of the flesh (sanctification). This second cleansing Jesus had just illustrated for the benefit of the disciples by washing their feet: “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit,” 13:10; 1 John 1:7; 3:3. By ascribing this second cleansing to the Father, the credit for this is also taken away from us. The Scriptures refer both justification and sanctification to anyone of the three divine Persons; opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa. Thus sanctification is here predicated of the Father whereas otherwise per eminentiam it is ascribed to the Spirit.

John 15:4

4 Remain in me, and I in you (reality). Just as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine (figure); thus neither you unless you remain in me (reality). In the first three verses the great fundamental facts are set before us: the vine, the branches, the vinedresser working for fruit. On these great facts rests the mighty admonition, “Remain in me,” etc., fortified by a simple elucidation on how essential this remaining in him is. Μείνατε—count the number of times this word is repeated as if to impress it indelibly upon our hearts. “Remain in me, and I in you” (14:20) implies that the disciples are in Jesus, and he in them; also that this vital connection might be broken. We must not reduce the greater reality to the lesser figure and thus let ἐν mean: “you attached to me, and I to you.” This ἐν contains the unio mystica; it is like the constantly used phrase “in Christ,” “in the Lord,” R. 587. Note the aorist imperative with its peremptory and constative force: “Remain!” once for all.

To remain in Jesus is to believe in him always; and since the chief business of faith is to receive from him, remaining means ever receiving grace for grace, day by day, in ever greater fulness. So the branch remains and receives life from the vine, and so it develops and grows. This remaining and receiving is mediated by the Word and the Sacrament and is impossible without these divine means. This remaining and receiving will invariably manifest itself in two ways: it will turn against every influence that would draw us away from Jesus and would substitute something in place of him and his Word; likewise, it will constantly respond with good works or fruit (praise, prayer, and all spiritual activities). “And after God through the Holy Ghost in Baptism has kindled and effected a beginning of the true knowledge and faith, we should pray him without ceasing that through the same Spirit and his grace, by means of the daily exercise of reading and practicing God’s Word, he would preserve us in faith and his heavenly gifts, strengthen us from day to day, and keep us to the end.” Concordia Triglotta, 587, 16. “Remain in me!” is one of the true gospel ἐντολαί (14:15, 21, 23, 24), a commission to take, to enrich ourselves, to open and to keep open our hearts, that he may be able to fill them with his grace, gifts, spirit, and power. He is the eternal treasure house.

“And I in you” sounds as though he were giving himself a command to remain in us. But the words are really a promise that he will remain in us. We in him, and he in us. These always go together. Jesus himself is in us when by faith we remain in him. The very Word and the Sacrament through which we remain in him convey him to us, to rest in us and to lodge his gifts in us. The Sacrament in particular is rightly called “a consolation of all distressed hearts, and a firm bond of union of Christians with Christ, their Head,” C. Triglotta, 987, 44. Since the disciples are already in Jesus, no stress should be laid on the order, as though we must first be in him, and then he will be in us. The two are simultaneous. As our hearts expand under his grace, so he fills them with his grace.

The thought is now elucidated by placing side by side the illustrative figure and the corresponding reality. Thus the main point of the allegory is again brought forward, namely “fruit.” The comparison is worded in negative form because this form is more suited to bring out the absolute necessity of remaining in Jesus. We meet this negative again in the last clause of v. 5 and in the fullest form in v. 6. From the start it contains a note of warning. In nature it is absolutely self-evident, a branch bears no fruit except it remain in the vine. “Of itself” it is fruitless because it would then be dead. So it is with us.

Unless we remain in Jesus we are fruitless, because we are spiritually dead. Alas, that such branches, too, are found on the vine! The present tenses μένῃ and μένητε denote continuous remaining; others prefer the reading that has the aorist μείνῃ and μείνητε, permanent remaining. “The cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holy commandment, grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves again in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the heart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first.” C. Triglotta, 1077, 42.

John 15:5

5 I on my part (reality) am the vine (figure), you on yours (reality) are the branches (figure). The first clause is a repetition, emphasizing the fundamental proposition of the allegory. Beside it is now placed the second clause which reveals our relation to Jesus, the vine. Ever he is the vine, and this makes his disciples the branches. To make ourselves something else, to give up this relation of ourselves to Jesus, is fatal for us. In Luther’s words we should then be nothing but brambles, fit only for the fires of hell.

When Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches, it follows self-evidently: He that remains in me, and I in him (reality), he alone bears much fruit (figure); because apart from me you can do nothing (reality). From the plural Jesus turns to the singular since remaining in him is a personal matter; “he that remains,” etc.; then, however, he returns to the plural, for regarding all alike it is true that apart from Jesus they can do nothing. “Wherever fruit is borne, which pleases the vinedresser and is sweet to his taste, this hangs upon the branches, but it is the vine which bears both the branches and the fruit, and penetrates them with its sap. All the holy thoughts, words, and works of Christians, which, made sweet by the taste of love, delight God, are altogether fruit of the branches which remain in the vine, with the vine’s living sap in them, are altogether gifts received from the abundance of Christ, who is the heart’s treasure of love, the mouth’s spice of love, the hand’s power of love.” Besser. The expanded subject is taken up by the demonstrative οὗτος in the sense of “he—he alone.”

The point of the allegory is not mere fruit but “more fruit” (v. 2), “much fruit” (v. 3 and 8). For this is no ordinary vine but one with unlimited life and vitality. Thus throughout the assumption is that its branches will bear with the greatest possible abundance. This is the glory of the vine, and no true branch will attempt to make it less. Those who are bearing but little fruit have reason to examine their connection with the vine, whether this is sound and true, lest presently they drop away from the vine.

The reason why he that remains in Jesus bears much fruit is put into negative form: “for apart from me you can do nothing.” οὑ … οὑδέν, “nothing whatsoever.” The positive implication, therefore, is not: “joined to me you can do at least something.” We have only two alternatives: much—nothing at all. Joined to Jesus and under the Father’s care, so much grace comes to us that the result is always “much fruit”; the alternative is separation from Jesus and the Father’s care, hence no fruit of any kind. From these alternatives and their causal relation only one conclusion may be drawn, namely that where in spite of all the Father’s care only little fruit appears, the connection with Jesus is in jeopardy, the branch has begun to die. A strange interpretation is at times introduced in connection with χωρὶςἐμοῦ, as though this applies to actual branches that are still joined to the vine, such branches trying to produce fruit of themselves without Jesus. The reality would be disciples of Jesus trying to serve God by means of their own powers alone and thus producing nothing. We may at once answer that these would cease to be disciples, except, perhaps, in their own opinion. “Apart from me” means just what it says: severed from Jesus, having fallen back into their former state, without saving faith.

The deduction is wrong that nothing is here said about the total inability of man, of non-disciples, to do works acceptable to God. The very reverse is said, and that not by way of a deduction but in so many words. All who are “apart from Jesus,” those who have never been joined to him, as well as those who have lost their connection with him, are able “to do nothing” in the way of acceptable service to God. They may think that they are doing much, works which the world lauds and applauds, in the eyes of Jesus they are doing “nothing.” Read Matt. 7:22, 23. The world is full of people doing “nothing” in this sense. “Therefore let others whittle and trim as they can until they make a new birth out of works and a tree out of fruit, they must still prove the truth of this saying, and out of all of it there shall come nothing.” Luther. “Man, when brought to the life in Christ, is not like a clock which, when once wound up, runs twenty-four hours, but is like a spring of water which ceases to flow the moment its hidden reservoir beneath the earth is cut off.” Besser. Augustine has well said that Jesus spoke as he did “in order to answer the coming Pelagius.”

John 15:6

6 This doing nothing has its dreadful consequences. If anyone remains not in me (reality), he is thrown out as the branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned (figures). Here is the exposition of v. 2, the vinedresser “takes away” the unfruitful branches. “Every branch that does not bear fruit,” in v. 2, is now explained by stating the reality: “if anyone remains not in me,” μένῃ, present tense, “continues to remain”; some prefer μείνῃ, aorist, “remain permanently.” The condition of expectancy (ἐάν with the subjunctive) intimates that some will, indeed, fail to remain in Jesus. Yet Jesus says only, “if anyone remains not in me,” and does not add, “and I not in him”; for he never refuses to remain in us if only we remain in him. It is never a question of his willingness but only of ours. He casts no one out, but some cast him off. Jesus does not say, “if a branch bears not fruit”; he at once goes to the inner cause, “if anyone remains not in me,” thus, of course, becoming unfruitful.

Now follows the darkest part of the allegory, the fate of the unfruitful branches with the warning this implies for us. First the singular is used in order that every man may smite upon his breast and ask, “Lord, is it I?” Then the plural for, alas, many will meet this fate, and the last part of that fate shall affect them jointly. We note five stages: he is thrown out; is withered; they gather them; they throw them into the fire; they are burned. The first two are aorists, ἐβλήθη and ἐξηράνθη, which Winer and the older grammarians are unable to explain. These aorists have nothing to do with the past; nor do they make the actions so certain, as if they were already done and beyond recall. These aorists are in full harmony with the future idea in the protasis and with the three present tenses following the aorists.

R. 836, 847 is sure that they are timeless, not so sure that they are gnomic; B.-D. 333, 1 frankly calls them gnomic, designating acts valid at any time. These infrequent gnomic aorists appear in the New Testament chiefly in comparisons or in connection with them. Here we find them combined with three timeless present tenses, all five expressing actions that invariably follow upon a supposed future case, a man’s failure to remain in Jesus.

The unfruitful branch that is taken away by the vinedresser “is thrown out” ὡςτὸκλῆμα, like the branch cut off from a natural vine. The inner separation is followed by the outer. The unfruitful branch is removed from the midst of the great crowd of fruit-bearing branches. The soul that no longer believes in Jesus betrays its condition by no longer using Word and Sacrament, by no longer enjoying the spiritual fellowship and the worship of the true disciples of the Lord, by no longer cherishing the ἐντολαί of Jesus. Nothing remains but to throw it out. The supposition that this is not done at once, but that time is given for repentance, misconceives the allegory, which states only the results not the steps by which they are reached.

The passive “is thrown out” leaves the agent unnamed; he is the vinedresser. The actuality of the divine act is hidden from us, but it usually appears in the outward separation from the church, except in the case of hypocrites who, though outwardly in the church, are no longer of the church.

The passive of ξηραίνω is used in the sense of the middle. The last show of life disappears as when leaf and tendril shrivel up and dry up, all vitality being gone. So King Saul withered, and Judas. God’s grace and Word no longer enter the heart; worldly, vain, godless, often vicious and blasphemous thoughts rule the heart. It is terrible to see a poor, stricken human body wither under the blight of death; it is unspeakably worse to see a similar process going on in the soul.

The indefinite plurals: “and they gather them and throw them into the fire,” resemble the German indefinite man and may be substitutes for the passives: “they are gathered and thrown,” R. 392, 820. The preliminary gathering is aptly described by Besser: thus the company of Korah gathered itself together against Moses; Herod, Pilate, and the Jews gathered themselves together against Jesus; the Psalmist (26:5) sees the evildoers as a “congregation”; who will count the associations and organizations that are marked by unbelief, worldliness, Christless worship, worldly pleasures, and all manner of deception? They seem to be gathered into bundles even now, in advance, for the burning. The final gathering is made by the angels at the time of the judgment, when they will bring in the sinners of every kind, the traitor Ahitophel with the traitor Judas and others like them, Jezebel together with Herodias and others of their kind, the Pharisees whom Jesus blasted as hypocrites with Ananias and Sapphira and the rest. Terrible will be these companionships of the wicked; each shall see his own sin in the other.

“And they are burned,” the final καί piled inexorably upon the others. The wood of the branches is fit only for one of two things: to bear fruit, or to burn. We may regard καίεται as a middle, “they burn.” The readings vary between αὑτά and αὑτό, yet “they gather” matches the former, and the shift from the singular to the plural occurs throughout allegory. The verb is not κατακαίεσθαι, “to burn up,” and affords no support for the annihilation of the wicked—the castoff branches are burning. While the noun “the fire” and the verb “are burned” belong to the figure, like Matt. 3:10; 5:22; 13:30, these terms are, to say the least, highly suggestive of hell fire, Matt. 7:19; 13:42; 25:41; the more so since τόπῦρ, “the fire,” denotes a fire that is burning.

John 15:7

7 Again the solemn condition, pounding itself into our memories and hearts: If you remain in me, μείνητε, aorist, “remain permanently”; but now the explanation is added: and my utterances remain in you, for this is how we remain in Jesus: by receiving and permanently holding (μείνῃ, aorist) his utterances, the ῥήματα that come from his lips. He in us, and we in him, the medium and bond of his spiritual union being his spoken Word. Compare 14:15 and 21 for the same thought: when we cherish Jesus’ “precepts,” his utterances and he himself remain in us; likewise 14:23, 24, when we cherish his “word” and “words,” he will make his abode with us. The relation of the two conditional clauses is not that of cause and effect: “you in me” (cause), “my utterances in you” (effect); but of explication, the second elucidating the first.

We have heard that this union of Jesus and the disciples will make them bring fruit, the supreme desire of the Father (2), so that he even removes the branches that refuse to bear fruit. The power to produce this fruit in us comes entirely from Jesus, for which reason it is so vital that we remain in him. In fact, we are to bring much fruit. At this point we are shown the great aid that is ours for producing much fruit, the aid we possess by being in Jesus, and he in us. What you may will, ask for yourselves, and it shall be done for you. The object is placed forward in order to make it emphatic.

We may ask anything for which we have the will, θέλητε, present tense, at any time. We—as remaining in Jesus with our will; we—with his utterances remaining in us;, we—who will thus seek and will nothing “apart from Jesus,” nothing contrary to him and to his Word. Our will will be to bring much fruit.

The aorist imperative “ask for yourselves” is peremptory. We not merely may ask, we must ask. This is one of the gospel ἐντολαί or precepts. Of course, the verb is αἰτεῖσθαι, the common word for wanting something, not ἐρωτᾶν, the loftier word (C.-K. 91). The vine orders the branches to ask of it all that it is able to give. And there is no question about the receiving: “it shall be done for you.” No limit exists for the vine; the only limit is in our faith, which may not ask though it has the right to ask. Here the verb is impersonal: “it shall take place,” γενήσεται; in 14:13, 14 it is personal: “that I will do”; also in 16:23: “the Father will give it to you in my name.” These statements elucidate each other.

John 15:8

8 The fact that Jesus is thinking of the chief point of the allegory, namely “much fruit,” appears when he continues: In this is my Father glorified, that you keep bearing much fruit and definitely appear as disciples of mine. The older interpretations which operate with ἐδοξάσθη as a past tense and with ἵνα as denoting purpose are superseded. This means that ἐντούτῳ cannot refer back to v. 7: “in this that you obtain what you ask,” but is to be construed with ἵνα which is its apposition: “in this that you keep bearing,” etc. We are relieved of making ἐδοξάσθη “an aorist of anticipation” and laboring with the stilted thought that thus ensues. This aorist is exactly like the two in v. 6, gnomic, and as such timeless. In English we are compelled to use the present tense to translate it, yet when we do so, we do it without reference to time: “in this is my Father glorified,” i.e., at any time when “this” occurs (R. 843, 837); we must drop the future notion to which B.-D. 333, 2 still clings, and also the future perfect idea: “shall have been glorified.” The grammar of ἵνα is equally simple.

It is not a substitute for ὅτι but, as in so many instances in the Koine, crowds out the infinitive: ἐντούτῳ … ἵναφέρητεκτλ. = ἐντῷφέρεινὑμᾶςκτλ., “in this … that you keep bearing,” etc. = “in your bearing,” etc. The ἵνα clause is simply appositional, R. 1078, and we decline to follow B.-D. 394 who retains the notion of “will” against that of simple “fact.” The Father is glorified, not by his or our will to bear fruit, but by the fact that we actually bear fruit; and not simply some fruit but “much fruit,” as this was explained in connection with v. 5. In this abundance of fruit all that the love, grace, power, etc., of the Father is able to accomplish is fully displayed; thus the glory of his blessed attributes shines forth before the eyes of men and of angels.

The present tense φέρητε makes this durative: “keep on bearing fruit.” The reason for the subjunctive is only the construction after ἵνα. Since this clause is appositional and not in any way final, there is no need to find a future force in this subjunctive. The thought is simply this: whenever we go on bearing much fruit, “in this fact” the Father is glorified. The present tense merely pictures the process as an extended one. A second verb is added: καὶγένησθεἐμοὶμαθηταί. The aorist of this clause contrasts with the durative present of the preceding clause: “and definitely appear as disciples of mine,” reading ἐμοί, not as a dative: “to me,” but as a plural nominative from ἐμός, even as John loves these possessive adjectives.

The verb γίνομαι is not to be taken in the sense of “become.” We drop the comments which try to explain how the eleven, who already are disciples of Jesus, should yet “become” such disciples. In part this explanation still clings to the idea that ἵνα expresses purpose and futurity. This aorist is exactly like the preceding present save that the latter pictures the bearing of fruit as being extended, while the former pictures the discipleship as definite and fixed (punctiliar). And γίνομαι = to prove oneself, to appear, sich zeigen, sich beweisen, especially when it is used, as here, with a predicate. To go on bearing fruit is to prove conclusively that we are disciples. The two facts glorify the Father—do so at any time when these facts exist.

Some texts have the future indicative γενήσεσθε. In the Koine this form may properly follow ἵνα and is often used with a second verb after this conjunction. We may regard it as practically identical with the more usual subjunctive. In the present case this must be done. For the alternative, which would regard this future as a separate sentence: “and so you will prove disciples of mine” (like the R. V.) is not possible since “in this” God is glorified, that we bear much fruit and show ourselves disciples of Jesus.

It is best, then, leaving the ἵνα clause as appositional to “in this,” to regard this future as equal to a subjunctive. The only question would be whether to make the future punctiliar or durative, for it may be either in this connection. The thought is plain: “much fruit” on our part and established discipleship glorify the Father, who sent Jesus to be our Savior and Lord for this very purpose.

John 15:9

9 The main point in the preceding allegory is the production of “much fruit.” That this thought is consistently held to we see in v. 16 where the “fruit” is again emphasized. Essential to this main point is the necessity of remaining in Jesus, which has been repeated from the start (“every branch in me,” v. 2) and is thus made prominent. Just what remaining in Jesus means is now fully cleared up. Just as the Father did love me, I, too, did love you. Remain in my love. The two aorist indicatives state two past facts, and they are bound together: the one love is exactly like the other.

This leads to the conclusion that Jesus here speaks of the Father’s love for him as the incarnate Son, not of the ineffable love between the Persons of the Godhead irrespective of the incarnation and the mission of Jesus. This view is established by v. 10, Jesus remaining in his Father’s love by keeping his Father’s precepts. We may thus think of Matt. 3:17, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Father loved the incarnate Son for doing his will in the mission of redemption.

This same love filled Jesus and evidenced itself at every turn in his relation to the disciples and in his dealings with them. Looking back to the day when they first met Jesus, they had to say, “He did love us.” What makes this love of Jesus for the disciples exactly like the love of the Father for Jesus is by no means the thought that the disciples are on a par with Jesus, but that both kinds of love deal with the mission of Jesus, with its saving purpose. The Father loved him who executes this mission, and Jesus loves those in whom this mission is executed. Thus these two kinds of love are alike.

After laying down these two preliminary facts, their purpose is revealed: “Remain in my love,” ἐντῇἀγάπῃτῇἐμῇ, “in this love of mine,” so like that of the Father to me. Jesus explains that to remain in him means that we remain in his love. He and his love are one. The aorist imperative means, “remain once for all!” Let its golden circle surround you permanently. Let it ever shine upon you and carry out all its saving purposes for you. On the force of the verb ἀγαπᾶν see 3:16, and on this verb applied to the disciples alone in distinction from the world see 14:23, 24. “In my love” means only Jesus’ love for the disciples and cannot be extended to include our love for him, and still less our love for the brethren.

John 15:10

10 The bidding to remain in Jesus’ love opens the question as to how the disciples are to do this bidding. In his answer Jesus points to himself and shows how he himself remains in his Father’s love. If you guard my precepts you shall remain in my love, just as I have guarded my Father’s precepts and remain in his love. On guarding the precepts of Jesus (τηρεῖν and ἐντολαί) see 8:51 and 14:15. There Jesus presents this guarding of his precepts as the proof of our love for him; here as the condition for our remaining in his love to us. The two go together in a reciprocity of love: one love answering the other.

The great and blessed model for us is Jesus himself. He has cherished and guarded the precepts (Auftraege) of his Father. The perfect tense presents all that he has done in this respect as finished and now present before his disciples; compare 12:49, 50 and 10:17, 18 on this faithfulness of his carrying out his Father’s will. It includes his act of this night in giving himself into the hands of Satan for his sacrificial death, 14:31. All that Jesus did for our salvation = the Father’s “precepts” to Jesus; to believe, follow, love, serve Jesus = his “precepts” to us. Both center in God’s love for us. “I remain in his love,” with its present tense following the perfect “I have guarded,” declares that now, when all is done, Jesus leaves his disciples with the Father’s love completely enfolding him.

Thus the disciples are to remain in Jesus’ love. Nothing need be added about their remaining also in the Father’s love, for the oneness of the love of the Father and of Jesus toward them has already been stated in 14:23.

John 15:11

11 The love of Jesus for the disciples is for them not merely to have but to enjoy. These things have I spoken to you in order that my own joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. “These things” is best taken to embrace all that Jesus said in v. 1–10 about bringing much fruit in accord with Jesus’ “precepts” and the love of the Father and of Jesus. The purpose of them is the joy of the disciples. For these “precepts” are not grievous, 1 John 5:3, like the burdens of the scribes and of the Pharisees, Matt. 23:4; Luke 11:46. They arouse nothing but joy. While Jesus does not directly identify the Father’s love for him with his love for the disciples, since the difference in spite of the close relation is plain, he does identify his own joy with that of the disciples, for it is one and the same.

This identification precludes the explanation that Jesus’ joy lay in guarding the Father’s precepts and that of the disciples is to lie in guarding the precepts of Jesus. For these two classes of precepts differ, and thus the joy would likewise differ. While no object is mentioned as producing the joy, we at once see that, if the joy of Jesus is to be found also in the disciples, the object of this joy must be one and the same. The disciples are to drink from the same cup of joy from which Jesus drank. What rejoices him is to rejoice them.

This can be only the blessed state of the disciples, their union with Jesus (μένειν, so oft repeated), they in him, and he in them. To attain this union and its permanency was the purpose of the Father’s precepts to Jesus and the purpose of Jesus’ precepts to the disciples. The accomplishment of the union with Jesus is the net result of all these precepts, and in the union thus accomplished lies the joy of Jesus and of his disciples. In Jesus this joy is already made full, for he beholds all that the union of his disciples with him means both for himself and for them. This is not as yet the case with the disciples, in fact they are now troubled (14:1 and 27), and sorrow has filled their heart (16:6). But the joy of Jesus which is in them and thus is also their joy is eventually also to be made full.

Note the tenses: first the present subjunctive to indicate the joy now continuing in the disciples; then the aorist πληρωθῇ, to designate the final complete fulness of joy—like a measure at last filled to the brim. The passive points to Jesus as the agent who will fill this joy to the full. Compare 17:13. Examples of this great joy are seen in Phil. 2:17, 18; 4:4; Gal. 5:22; Rom. 14:17.

John 15:12

12 We cannot agree that when Jesus now names the precept of brotherly love, this one precept constitutes the summary of the plural “precepts” of which he speaks in v. 10 and otherwise. Still less are we able to appreciate the motive back of this summary, namely that the disciples are not to fear the many precepts as though they were like those of the scribes and Pharisees who delighted in multiplying the outward regulations, making as many as possible, and that, therefore, Jesus reduces all his precepts to one only. How does this conception harmonize with 13:34, where the precept of fraternal love is called “a new precept”? We ought to be willing to admit both that Jesus nowhere indicates that brotherly love forms a summary of all his ἐντολαί, and that the nature of this precept is not such as to serve as a summary. What Jesus really does by here introducing this one precept, which he has already laid down as distinctive of our connection with him (13:34), is to offer this one as a sample and illustration of what all his precepts are like. This is my precept, that you keep loving each other just as I did love you. “My precept” = the one that is mine and as such distinct, and as such both natural and distinctive for all who are mine (“in me”).

Note the strong emphasis on the possessive pronoun. The older grammar must be corrected: ἵνα is non-final, it introduces a clause in apposition with αὕτη (feminine because of ἐντολή), one which states the contents of the precept. The sense is not, “that you should love,” nor is will and intention expressed by ἵνα; it is simply, “to love each other,” the verb naturally being a durative present, “keep loving.”

This precept, however, includes as its integral part the clause, “just as I did love you.” This means with the same kind of ἀγάπη, having the same insight and intelligence, the same motive and purpose. The disciples are not merely to be attached to each other, devoted to each other, helpful to each other. Many who are not disciples show this kind of love, even calling each other brother. To love as Jesus loved is to see what he sees, the soul’s needs, the eternal interests; and since these are fellow-disciples with us, these needs and these interests in connection with our mutual discipleship, i.e., what our brethren need as brethren in the bond which binds us most intimately together. Secondly, besides this insight and understanding our fraternal ἀγάπη includes that we have the same purpose and will toward our brethren that Jesus showed toward us. He was bent on one thing and one alone toward his disciples: to keep them in the Father’s love which is life and salvation, to further and advance them in God’s grace, to multiply God’s spiritual gifts to them.

This is the love that is “his own,” which is different from the common love of men; and this love is to animate all his disciples in their relation toward each other. This, too, makes his precept of love “new” (13:34), although this newness is not emphasized in the present connection. We must note the aorist: just as “I did love” you during all my earthly contact with you.

John 15:13

13 Jesus indicates how far this love is able to go, how great a sacrifice it is able to make. Greater love no one has than this, that one lays down his life in behalf of his friends. This is a general proposition. The world over it is acknowledged as the supreme evidence of love that a person voluntarily gives up his own life for the sake of his friends. Measured by this common human standard, Jesus is even now in the act of manifesting this supreme love, he is laying down his life in behalf of his friends, the disciples. And they, not merely witnessing this act of his but as his friends reaping all the benefit of this love of his and of this free surrender of his life for their sakes, are to let the same love fill their hearts and, when called upon, are to prove their love by making the same kind of sacrifice for each other. “Herein perceive we the love of God, that he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren,” 1 John 3:16.

We must resist the tendency to crowd too much into the comparison here made. Jesus, we note, in this connection says nothing about again taking up the life laid down for others. This act places his sacrifice absolutely in a class by itself as we see in 10:17, 18. Here he contents himself with the mention of the sacrifice as such. He does not even mention himself as the one giving this supreme proof of his own love, he allows us to make this application to his love just as we make this application to our own love. This means, furthermore, that in the present connection the redemptive effect of the sacrifice of his own life for us is left out, for none of us, by laying down his life for the sake of the brethren, could possibly duplicate this redemptive effect.

Furthermore, Jesus does not intend to say that we must lay down our life for the brethren and that, unless we do, our love will not be like his. For the supreme sacrifice is demanded only in rare instances, such as that of Aquila and Priscilla referred to in Rom. 16:4; and even these two were not required actually to die. What Jesus says is that our love for our brethren must be willing to rise to this height, thus following his own example.

On the expression “to lay down the life” see 10:11 and 17, 18. It is peculiar to John. The tense is properly the aorist, punctiliar because this is a single act. On ὑπέρ see 10:11. In the present connection it is broad: “in behalf of” in any sense of bringing benefit to the brethren. Yet even here this includes the narrower and specific sense, found so plainly in 10:11 and 17, 18, “instead of,” with the thought of substitution. It is in vain to deny the thought of substitution in our passage and then to transfer this denial into chapter 10. After μείζονα we need no ἥ; and ἵνα is so certainly non-final and merely appositional to ταύτης, that the point need not be argued, R. 393, 699, 992, etc.

John 15:14

14 The term “friends” in v. 13 is purposely chosen, for it has two sides: the disciples are friends in relation to each other, and at the same time they are friends of Jesus. You are my friends if you keep doing what I bid you. “Friends,” φίλοι, is derived from φιλεῖν, to love with affection, and denotes an affectionate and intimate relation. The condition on which this relation exists and continues is that the disciples keep doing the Lord’s bidding, was ich euch auftrage; and ἐάν expects that they will do so. Note the verb ἐντέλλομαι which is identical with the noun ἐντολή used so often. Jesus and the disciples are unequal friends. He condescends greatly when accepting them as friends, they are lifted high by being accepted as his friends.

This relative position is not abolished, hence these lowly friends receive directions and orders from their supreme Friend. They remain the δοῦλοι they are, “slaves,” 13:16; 15:20; yet these “slaves” are treated as “friends” by their divine Lord.

John 15:15

15 How they are, indeed, his friends Jesus at once explains. No longer am I calling you slaves, because the slave does not know what his lord does; but you I have called friends because all that I heard from my Father I did make known to you. How long Jesus had been calling his disciples “friends” is not indicated, but note Luke 12:4, where this designation is introduced as a matter of course. The slave or bondservant simply receives his master’s orders and carries them out; his master would not confide his plans and his purposes to him. Such is the status of the δοῦλος. That of the disciples has been far different.

It has been that of friends in the fullest sense of the word, for Jesus confided to them all that he had heard from his Father. This embraces everything pertaining to his mission, that he was to be the light and the life of the world, to make the blind to see, to satisfy the hungry and the thirsty, to make the dead alive, that he is now giving his life for the world, is now returning to the Father, is coming again spiritually, and is returning at the last day to judge the world and to take his own to himself into the heavenly mansions.

We cannot reduce πάντα to refer only to all things intended for impartation to the disciples, or to all things they now needed for their salvation. He, indeed, says that he has yet many things to say to the disciples (16:12), but these are not new revelations, they are fuller presentations of what he has already said to the disciples (14:26), and thus are delegated to the Paraclete (16:13). Jesus never wanted his disciples to be mere δοῦλοι, blindly obeying orders, but δοῦλοι that were friends, intimately acquainted with all his heart’s desires and all his work and mission. He is now parting from them as such friends, still revealing to them his most intimate concerns. The Greek has “I did make known,” whereas our idiom would use “I have made known,” R. 845.

John 15:16

16 But the term “friends” must be safeguarded. Ordinarily it denotes mutuality and reciprocity. Friends choose each other. This is not the case regarding these friends. You on your part did not choose me, but I on my part did choose you and did appoint you that you go and bear fruit, and that your fruit remain; that whatever you ask the Father in my name he give you. By placing the negative and the affirmative side by side Jesus makes the statement strongly emphatic.

The negation, “you did not choose me,” is proof that the affirmation, “I did choose you,” cannot refer to predestination but must refer to the choice of the disciples as the friends whom Jesus selected for himself (middle voice) for the apostleship (6:70; 13:18). Read the sentence aloud with full accent on all the pronouns, which helps to bring out the sense. The action of Jesus was twofold: I on my part chose you and appointed you, ἔθηκα, placed you in an important position (no examples of this use are cited in M.-M.).

The two ἵνα clauses are parallel, and both are equal to accusatives; in sense they are like infinitives (R. 992–3). These non-final ἵνα clauses do not express purpose and should not be translated as formerly, “that you should go,” etc., “that he may give,” etc. Both simply express the substance of the appointment: for you to go and to bear fruit; for your fruit to remain; for the Father to give you, etc. To “friends” chosen entirely by himself Jesus commits his great work. But he speaks of it not as a task, a burden, or the like, but as an honor, a gift, a blessing. In the doubling “that you go and bear fruit” the first verb is not merely circumstantial but denotes the actual going of the apostolic mission, Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8. “Bear fruit” reverts only incidentally to the previous allegory and affords no jurisdiction for making ἔθηκα mean, “I planted you,” or for bringing in the figure of planting a tree. “You,” says Jesus, are to go and to bear fruit, and “your fruit” is to remain.

The tenses are presents, picturing the actions as they proceed. What a high and glorious position for these friends of Jesus: one graced with abiding fruit! Compare 4:38 and 14:12.

A second ἵνα clause is subjoined, but not as denoting purpose. These apostles are not to bear fruit “in order that the Father may do what they ask”; nor did Jesus make his appointment “in order that” their petitions may be heard. Both thoughts are incongruous and are entertained only because the old idea that ἵνα must be final has not been shaken off. This ἵνα states what Jesus furthermore appointed. He knows that these friends of his, when they are to go to produce fruit of their own accord, may hesitate and fear their inability. Their very appointment takes care of this; the second ἵνα, like the first, depending on ἔθηκα.

Jesus has appointed that the Father give them whatever they may ask him. The words are really a great promise, one that is here connected with fruit bearing, just as in 14:13 the same promise is connected with the doing of the greater works. The same limitation applies also to “whatever you shall ask,” and “in my name” has the same sense, see 14:13. The aorist subjunctives αἰτήσητε and δῷ refer to any individual case in which the disciples shall ask, and the Father shall give. In 14:13 it is Jesus who answers their prayers, here it is the Father. Both persons are equal; all works are ascribed equally to all three Persons.

So also as regards the asking. Here it is the Father who is asked; in Acts 7:58; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8; Rev. 22:20 it is Jesus.

John 15:17

17 These things I bid you that you keep loving each other. This repeats v. 12, only changing the noun ἐντολή, “precept” or “bidding,” into the verb ἐντέλλομαι, “I bid you,” “give you precept.” This ἵνα, too, like the one in v. 12 and the two in v. 16, is non-final for the same reason as the others; it states what the Lord bids his disciples do. The Greek is able to use the plural ταῦτα where the appositional clause is but a single act, “that you keep loving.” In such a neuter plural the Greek seems to view the single act as composed of detailed parts: “keep loving” now in one, now in another way, as each circumstance requires. This explanation would be completely satisfactory if we could point to other examples in which ἵνα is appositional to ταῦτα, yet these are lacking. For this reason, and since in the present instance the apposition really cannot be questioned, one may be inclined to regard ταῦτα as not only covering the ἵνα clause, but also as referring back and taking in the great motivation for the love of the disciples which Jesus has introduced since v. 12. They are to love each other as the chosen friends of Jesus, to whom he has made his entire mission known, who are going forth to bear fruit, and whose every prayer in their work the Father answers. Linked together in this supreme way, how can the disciples do otherwise than to love each other with that love of mutual intelligence and purpose restricted to them in their union with Jesus and with each other?

8. The Disciples Facing the World, 15:18–16:4

John 15:18

18 The friendship of Jesus means the enmity of the world. On this subject Jesus informs the disciples most fully in advance. If the world hates you, realize that it has hated me in advance of you. The protasis is one of reality: the world actually hates the disciples of Jesus, and they have already experienced this hatred. “Hates you” includes both the hostile animus of the world toward the disciples and the hostile manifestations of this animus in word and in deed. The entire context shows that “the world” signifies all those opposed to Jesus, who reject him when he and his saving grace are brought to them. Both of our English versions translate with the indicative, “you know,” but the commentators prefer the imperative, “know,” “realize.” The decision must be made on the basis of the context and the tone of what Jesus says, and these favor the imperative.

Jesus bids the disciples to keep in mind and to consider how the world treated him. This will make it seem less strange to them when they find themselves treated in the same way. The perfect “has hated me” covers the entire past hatred Jesus experienced and spreads it out for the disciples to consider. “Me in advance of you” both differentiates between Jesus and the disciples and yet implies a connection between them, the one now set forth.

John 15:19

19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I on my part did choose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. The conditional sentence expresses present unreality, “if you were”—but you are not; “the world would love”—but now it does not. To be “of the world” means to have a nature and a character derived (ἐκ) from the world and thus to be inwardly one with it, i.e., “its own.” Naturally the world would “love” its own; and the right word is φιλεῖν, natural affection and passion, and not ἀγαπᾶν, the high, intelligent, purposeful love of an ethical state. The condition is axiomatic and is a major premise.

This is followed by what we may call a minor premise: “but you are not of the world.” That, indeed, is the fact, but it needs elucidation. It is by an act of Jesus, reflecting all credit upon him, that the disciples are “not of the world.” “I on my part (ἐγώ, emphatic) did choose you for myself (ἐξελεξάμην, middle voice) out of the world.” Once the disciples, too, were “of the world,” in harmony with its thoughts and its ways. But Jesus separated them from the world. The phrase ἐκτοῦκόσμου, used three times, really has the same meaning throughout; the difference lies in the verbs, twice the copula: you were, you are not “from the world,” and once a verb, itself compounded with ἐκ: I chose you “from out the world.” The context forbids that we think of an act taking place in eternity; this choice occurred when the disciples were drawn to Jesus. Nor must we make the choosing too narrow, for, as John himself shows us in the first chapter, the Baptist had an instrumental part in it. Likewise, since this choice is here conceived as separating the disciples from the world, its object is only discipleship in general and not apostleship in particular. The world hates all who believe and trust in Jesus.

Now the syllogistic conclusion: “therefore the world hates you,” διὰτοῦτο, “for this reason.” It is thus Jesus himself who after a manner has brought the world’s hatred upon the disciples. He himself is the opposite of the world, and when he joined the disciples to himself, they as well as he suffered the world’s hate. The world “hates you,” μισεῖ, durative, with a steady, unchanging antipathy. In the case of the disciples one motive of this hatred is that the world feels that the disciples originally belonged to it and have been snatched away from it, have really turned traitors to the world.

John 15:20

20 The case of the disciples may be stated in a still clearer and stronger way. Remember the word which I said to you, the slave is not greater than his master. If me they persecuted, you, too, will they persecute; if my word they guarded, your word, too, will they guard. The imperative “remember” is unquestioned, and this helps to make us certain that we must have the imperative in v. 18. Verbs of emotion govern the genitive (R. 508), and among them is “to remember,” which accounts also for οὗ, attracted to the case of its antecedent. Note the tense: the disciples are always to remember this word of Jesus.

He refers to the word he spoke in 13:16 and in Matt. 10:24, now utilizing it as in the latter instance. A δοῦλος, one bound as a slave or bondservant to his κύριος, his master or lord, cannot possibly be greater than this master. The statement is again axiomatic. It is negative, thus a litotes, a stronger way of affirming that a slave is always less, always lower than his master. The reference to a δοῦλος matches what Jesus has just said about his having chosen the disciples. By his choice Jesus acquired the disciples as his δοῦλοι.

A slave is not allowed to choose his master, the reverse is the case. Jesus has made these disciples his own. To be sure, it is a thousand times better and higher to be slaves of this glorious Master, who makes his slaves his confidants and friends, than to remain imaginary masters of ourselves but in reality slaves of the devil. But, belonging as we do to Jesus as our Master, this is certain, we cannot hope to enjoy a better fate than he has had with regard to the world.

First, the axiomatic general principle, next, two obvious, undeniable deductions from that principle. They run in opposite directions, yet each is a complement and a corollary of the other: to persecute—to cherish. Both deductions are stated in conditional form, and both in identical form; yet they are obviously opposed to each other, the first “if” contemplating what will be, the second “if” what will not be. The plural indefinite subjects of the verb forms are drawn from the collective “the world.” The emphasis is on the objects: “me … you, too,” “my word … your word, too”; for this reason the objects are placed before the verbs. Since there are no other modifiers in the clauses, the verbs are put in the last place, thus also being emphatic, the emphasis being heightened by the repetition and by the constrasting sense of the two pairs. This likewise makes the tenses pointed, two pasts in contrast with two futures.

Jesus chooses two activities of the world which apply equally to himself and to the disciples: persecution and guarding the Word. In both Master and disciple fare alike in the world.

The “if” clauses are clauses of reality and have the force of questions: Did they persecute Jesus? did they keep his Word? They most certainly did the one and did not do the other. Exactly so will they do with the disciples and with their Word. And here we see how the hatred of the world actually shows itself: by persecution back of which lies hostile unbelief. The commentators are not agreed in regard to the second deduction because its implication is the direct opposite of that involved in the first deduction. All are satisfied with, “If me they persecuted, you, too, will they persecute,” because this is affirmative: they did—they will.

But some think it would be ironical to go on, “if my word they guarded, your word, too, will they guard,” because this sounds negative: they did not guard—they will not guard. But why should this be irony? We have no indication whatever that Jesus in the first instance means that the majority of the world did and will persecute and in the second instance that at least a minority did keep and will keep the Word. As Jesus speaks of “the world” it is one; he does not in either instance indicate a class that will allow itself to be won from the world. “The world” means those permanently opposed to Jesus. Nor is he concerned about gradations, some worldlings raging with hostility, some being mildly adverse, some being merely cold and indifferent. To be sure, “the world” shows these gradations, but even those who politely turn from the Word are “world” and, when occasion forces the issue upon them, even these will bear malice toward Jesus and his disciples in no gentle measure.

The hatred and the opposition are always in the world and come out as occasion offers. “My word” and “your word” are not two different words, teachings, or doctrines, but identical in substance, once presented by Jesus in person, then by the disciples as his representatives.

John 15:21

21 From the manifestations of the world’s hatred Jesus turns to its inner cause, on which especially the disciples must be clear. On the contrary, all these things will they do to you because of my name, because they do not know him that sent me. The adversative ἀλλά implies a preceding negative and justifies our explanation: they did not keep my Word and will not keep your Word, “on the contrary,” ἀλλά, etc. They (the world) “will do all these things to you,” which Jesus has just briefly summarized, “all” indicating that these hateful things will be many, “because of my name,” the emphasis resting on this weighty phrase. Here is the taproot of the world’s hatred for the disciples. The case of Jesus and that of the disciples are not mere parallels, even as in the very first place Jesus and the disciples are not mere fellows or associates, both being devoted to the same cause.

No; he chose them, not they him; he is the master, they the slaves whom he raised to his side as his friends. Thus all that happens to the disciples is wholly because of Jesus, “because of my name.” Here again the significant term ὄνομα denotes the revelation by which Jesus is made known. By his “name” or revelation he comes to men, he and all that he is and has for men. Thus we believe in his name, confess his name, pray in his name, and, as we are now told, suffer because of his name. Always it is his NAME. Of course, we could not suffer because of his name if we were not in vital connection with that name and with the person this name reveals, a connection that is apparent also to the world.

The implication is that by word and by deed we confess Jesus’ name. This is what the world resents in us. So, not on our own account will the world hate us, but only on account of Jesus. The more it sees of him in us, the more it turns against us. Here we have a hint as to how some disciples manage to evade the hatred of the world: they are not as true to Jesus’ name as they should be; they sometimes leave that name at home and fail to confess it before men.

Back of this aversion to Jesus and to all that reveals him to men lies something still deeper. Why will the world persecute the disciples because of his name? Jesus answers, “because they do not know him that sent me.” This is not intended to excuse the world but to blame the world in the highest degree, for the next verse brings out the guilt of this ignorance. “They do not know” = they do not as much as know. The world, indeed, talks of God and may even call him Christian names like Father, but theirs is only a figment of the mind, an idol of human invention, constructed according to the ideas of the world; compare 8:19, 38, 42, etc. The true God, who alone exists, who sent his Son to redeem the world, the world does not know; and, holding to its self-made god, the world fights against this true God and his Son and persecutes those who confess this Son and his great Sender. This is the inner reason for the world’s hatred, and the disciples of Jesus must understand it fully.

John 15:22

22 What lies in the phrase “because of my name,” and what makes the world’s lack of knowledge regarding the Sender of Jesus so blameworthy, needs explicit statement. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. The conditional sentence has a protasis of past unreality and an apodosis of present unreality. That we must so read it appears from the clause that follows which refers to the present, R. 921, 1013. In the apodosis ἄν is omitted, as is often the case in conditions of unreality; and the form εἴχοσαν is the imperfect with the ending σαν instead of ν. Our versions mistranslate the apodosis by making also it past unreality. “If I had not come and spoken to them” refers to the Messianic coming and teaching of Jesus by which his “name” and revelation was fully made known to the world. “To them” refers to the world as it was at that moment represented in the Jews who rejected Jesus, and thus to any and to all unbelievers who at any time hear the “name” and revelation and turn against it. The coming of Jesus (or of his gospel) to men is always a serious thing; it means either faith or unbelief and, if the latter, unbelief robbed of all excuses.

“They would not have sin” does not mean sin in general but, as the thought indicates, the sin of wilful, obdurate unbelief which rests upon all who definitely spurn Jesus. “But now they have no excuse for their sin” does not imply that otherwise they would have an excuse for their sin of unbelief; for the simple reason that then they would not be in this fixed unbelief at all, they would be only like others who have never as yet heard of Jesus. What Jesus means is that these determined unbelievers have not even as much as an excuse, πρόφασις, Ausrede, an “ostensible reason” (M.-M., 555), the figleaf of some pretext behind which to hide. So perfectly has Jesus done his work, so completely did he reveal himself (his name), that no unbeliever is able to find even the shadow of an excuse for rejecting him. On the day of judgment every wicked unbeliever will be like the guest at the king’s son’s wedding—dumb: “and he was speechless,” Matt. 22:12. To all the other sin and guilt for which Jesus offers the richest forgiveness the world only adds this most inexcusable and thus most damnable of all sins for which no forgiveness is possible, namely persistent unbelief. We now also see just what type of ignorance Jesus has in mind in v. 21 in the clause, “because they do not know him that sent me.” This is not the vincible ignorance which yields to the light of truth but the invincible ignorance which loves darkness rather than the light, 3:19, 8:45.

The world knows the Sender of Jesus because Jesus reveals him; yet the world does not know this Sender because, when he is revealed, the world shuts its eyes against him. For this sin not even a sham excuse can be found.

John 15:23

23 In v. 21 Jesus states two reasons why the world mistreats the disciples: 1) because of my name, 2) because the world does not know my Sender. He now combines these two. The fact that they are really one already lies in the formulation of the second reason, “him that did send me.” The “name” reveals that the Father sent Jesus. The world’s hatred flows from the combined rejection of Jesus and of the Father. Jesus now lifts this into full clearness. He that hates me hates also my Father.

He whose characteristic mark is enduring hatred of me (the substantivized present participle) by that very hatred hates also my Father (durative present main verb). These are not two kinds of hatred, they are one. It is impossible to hate Jesus alone. No man is able to separate Jesus and his Father. We know the Father only in Jesus whom he has sent, 1:18; 14:7; and the whole coming of Jesus, his whole work, is to show us the Father, 14:8–11. It is a deep delusion for any man to think that he can love God, honor, and obey God, while he rejects the Son of God and the redemption and atonement which the Son was sent to work out, 8:42, 43.

John 15:24

24 The simple proposition of v. 23 is expanded by introducing the ultimate proof, the works of Jesus. This at the same time amplifies v. 22, which speaks of the words of Jesus. These words alone should have been enough to produce faith; but to cut off the last hope of even specious excuse Jesus now adds the works. If I had not done the works among them which none other did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and have hated both me and my Father. The entire sentence structure is exactly like that of v. 22, a mixed conditional sentence of unreality (past—present), ἄν omitted, followed by νῦνδέ, “but as it is,” R. 1147. Jesus stresses the works he has done as the ultimate convincing proof that should bar out unbelief; and when they are met with unbelief, this is absolutely inexcusable.

He has done this before in 5:36; 10:38; 14:11. The supreme character of these works is stressed: “which none other did,” we should say, “has done”; compare 9:32. These works were intended to lift Jesus far above all the prophets the Jews ever had, and they did this. Their Messianic power struck the pilgrims as being beyond question, 7:31. The Jewish leaders dreaded the effect of these works and for this reason especially wanted Jesus out of the way, 11:47, 48. Rationalism, which glibly does away with these miraculous works, had not yet arisen to bring a show of comfort to Jewish unbelief.

The miracles of Jesus, once wrought and recorded by inspiration, now stand for all time; their original effect goes on through the ages. “If I had not done the works” puts every unbeliever, be he old or new, fatally in the wrong. What is your answer to “the works”? This decides your fate and mine.

“They would not have sin” (now εῖ̓χον) is to be taken in the same sense as in v. 22, i.e., such sin as they now have, the unbelief that damns. In v. 22 the final adversative statement mentions only the fact that they are now without excuse for their sin. The parallel adversative statement in v. 24 goes deeper and declares how they come to be without excuse: “but now they have both seen and have hated both me and my Father.” We have two “both … and,” and the two objects “me and my Father” belong to both verbs. The perfect tenses of these include the effect as it continues in the present: what they once saw they still see; as they once hated they still hate. This seeing of “both me and the Father” in the revelation made by the miracles of Jesus revealed Jesus as that Father’s Son, and the Father as his Father who had sent this Son to do these mighty and gracious works. In v. 21 Jesus says, “they do not know,” and here, “they have seen.” Both the negative and the affirmative are true, but the thought is different.

They do not know although they know; they have seen and yet have not seen. Real knowing is denied, outward seeing is affirmed. The two statements are keen complements of each other.

“They have both seen and have hated” coordinates two opposite facts and thus brings out the unreasonableness which proves the guilt. How could they, how can they see (both ideas lie in the perfect tense) Jesus and his Father in the works, and then how could they, how can they still hate (both ideas again in the perfect tense) the one as well as the other? To do so is not merely unnatural, it is damnable. The combination of these two actions damns and brands itself. This hatred of the world directed against both Jesus and his Father, guilty to the core, self-condemned from its very start, is the hatred Jesus tells his disciples they will meet in all its viciousness when he is gone.

John 15:25

25 But let not the disciples imagine that this hatred is new and without parallel. Yea, in order that the word that has been written in their law may be fulfilled, They did hate me without cause. Of course, ἀλλά is elliptical, something must be supplied between it and ἵνα. But we cannot agree with the idea that in this case ἀλλά is adversative. Our versions, B.-D. 448, 7, and others supply, “but this cometh to pass” (τοῦτογέγονεν); some prefer, “but they that hated me,” supplying the last preceding verb. Zahn perceives that what follows ἀλλά is not adversative to the hatred described in v. 24, yet he finds a strong adversative in ἀλλά, seeking the adversative idea in “they have seen.” Careful thought leads us to conclude that the adversative idea is incorrect; this ἀλλά, like the one in 8:26 and in a goodly number of other places, is copulative and equal to our “yea” or “now”; read R. 1185, etc., and note how simply and perfectly the copulative idea fits the present context, and how it then matters little whether we supply, “yea (this comes to pass) in order that,” etc.; or, “yea (they have hated me and the Father) in order that,” etc.

In no case could we leap over “they have hated” and supply “they have seen”; such a leap would not merely be impossible, the very sense would forbid our making it. Jesus tells the disciples that this hatred of the world toward him and toward his Father accords with what is written in the Scriptures. The idea is copulative not adversative or contrary to the Scripture word.

Jesus refers to Ps. 35:19, or 69:4 (69:9 is quoted in John 2:19). But there are two ways—not merely one—in which the fulfillment of Old Testament words took place. In the one case we have a direct prophecy of a coming event, and the words originally uttered and recorded referred to that future event. The fulfillment occurred when this predicted event took place. Then we find other statements in the Old Testament which are not intended as direct prophecies of future events but concerning which we are told in the New Testament that these words were fulfilled by happenings that occurred at this time. The New Testament events are of the same kind as those mentioned in the Old Testament, they are like parallels.

The holy writers, including Jesus, recognize this correspondence and use it with striking effect. This is the case here. Jesus applies to himself what David uttered concerning himself. The words that fit David in his suffering fit Jesus even more perfectly. They would, of course, fit any righteous man suffering wrongfully and might thus be rightly applied to him. Since Jesus is absolutely righteous, the application to him is the most pertinent and perfect of all. “Fulfilled” is here to be taken in the sense that once again these words of David are applicable to a case which they fit perfectly.

The divine intention (ἵνα) did not cause the hatred of the Jews against Jesus; this intention was to the effect that all the works of Jesus should be of such a character that those who hated him should have no shadow of an excuse for doing so. Every impartial judge would have to corroborate the words appropriated from David by Jesus: “They did hate me without cause.” The LXX translated the Hebrew chinnam, Latin immerito, “in an unmerited manner,” δωρεάν, which means “gratuitously” and may here be rendered “without cause.”

This statement (λόγος), Jesus says, “has been written” (perfect tense) and thus stands permanently as so written, “in their law,” the term νὸμος, as in 8:17, designating the entire Old Testament. Note the pronoun “their” law and in 8:17 “your own” law and the fact that Jesus never says, “our law.” His relation to the Old Testament is different from the relation of the Jews to that volume, and Jesus carefully marks that difference. In pointing to “their law” Jesus indicates that the Jews who had this law as theirs, given especially to them for their guidance, should have been warned by this λόγος in their law against this causeless hatred; but they read their own law with blind eyes, and even while they read it repudiated and hated both the Father and the Son of whom this law spoke, to say nothing of giving way to a passion which this their own law brands as utterly godless. Those who hate without a cause carry their verdict in their own sin. And this verdict stands to this day against all who repudiate the Father and the Son now revealed in both Testaments.

John 15:26

26 In v. 18–21 Jesus tells the disciples how the world shall hate them just as it has hated him, and in v. 22–25 he describes fully this hate against him, utterly causeless and damnable as it is. When foretelling this hatred of the world toward the disciples, something is implied, namely that the disciples will not withdraw from the world but will face the world just as Jesus faced it and will bring the testimony of Jesus to bear upon the world just as Jesus bore his testimony. That is why Jesus now says that the disciples will have the Spirit with them and that he and they will both testify. The hatred of the world against the disciples will go on because they will go on with the testimony of Jesus, now having the Spirit at their side. Nothing is said in this connection about the success of this testimony; how it will win many from the world to faith in Jesus. The fact that the testimony of the Spirit and of the disciples certainly will not be in vain but will bear “much fruit” has already been indicated in v. 1–16; so here this is understood.

But when the Paraclete shall come (the aorist to indicate the single act of Pentecost) whom I myself will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of the truth who proceeds from the Father, he shall testify concerning me; and you, too, testify because from the beginning you are with me. On the coming of the Paraclete and on this designation for the Spirit see 14:16. The thing to be noted here is the fact that after saying that the Father shall give the Paraclete at Jesus’ request, we are now told that Jesus himself will send the Paraclete. The Father’s giving is accomplished by the Son’s sending; the Son’s sending is accomplished by the Father’s giving. We know that the opera ad extra sunt indivisa, but why they are stated with reference to the Persons in the peculiar ways found in the Scriptures is a mystery to us; compare the remarks on 14:16. Once more the Paraclete is called “the Spirit of the truth” (see 14:16), here evidently because of his work in the world, testifying to the world concerning Jesus.

When Jesus says that he will send this Spirit of the truth, we understand that he is speaking of the mission of the Spirit. Jesus sends him for a mighty work and purpose. The dative ὑμῖν, “to you,” is best explained by the Spirit’s actual coming, Acts 2:1–4; he came upon the disciples and filled them with his presence.

The added phrase “from the Father” does not indicate a subordination of Jesus to the Father. The same is true in 14:16 with regard to the request of Jesus to the Father. There is an assumption that because he does not act independently of the Father he must be lower and less than the Father. Applying this assumption to the Spirit, he would be still lower and less than the Son, for he, too, does not act independently but comes only at the Son’s sending. This stressing of the acts of the Persons in relation to each other in order to make one lower than the other is unwarranted. Against this procedure stands every Scripture passage which places the Persons on an equality.

Where equals are a unit in a purpose and a work, the equality remains undisturbed when one of these equals requests another, sends another, allows himself to be sent by another, to perform one or the other great part of that work. All these acts reveal only the perfect harmony of these equals in carrying out their one work, each acting with the other, each with the other’s consent. A reconstruction of the Trinity which would make each Person act independently in order to conserve the equality of the three is infeasible. The alternative, either such independence or subordination presupposes a full comprehension of what the Trinity must be when no human mind is capable of comprehending even the little this Trinity has revealed of itself, due to making known to us what God has done and still does for our salvation. As regards the phrase “from the Father,” why disregard what Jesus so often repeats, that he is now going to the Father and that, therefore, when he sends the Spirit, this will naturally be from the Father? As far as subordination is concerned, the human nature of Jesus always was and always will be subordinate; everything it has even in its exaltation it has as a gift.

The incarnation of one of the three Persons in no way affects the relation of the three Persons as such.

Some commentators claim that the second relative clause, “who proceeds from the Father,” denotes the procession of the Spirit from the Father in time, i.e., his coming for his mission at Pentecost, and has nothing to do with the Spirit’s inner-Trinitarian relation to the Father, his proceeding from the Father in eternity. This claim overlooks the climax in the three statements regarding the Spirit: Jesus will send him—he is the Spirit of the truth—he proceeds from the Father. These three, piled the one on the other, reveal the greatness, the absolute competence of the Paraclete who is to stand at the side of the disciples in their battle with a hating world. This claim ignores the separation of the two relative clauses by means of the apposition, “the Spirit of the truth.” If the two relative clauses refer to Pentecost, why this separation? Again, why the second clause when Jesus already in the first says what the second would repeat with a tautology, namely that the Spirit sent from the Father comes from the Father? Finally, why the change in tense: “I will send—he proceeds”? It is assuming a good deal to claim that the present tense “receives its modification” from the preceding future tense, in plain language, that “he proceeds” means “he will proceed.” Moreover, Jesus himself shuts out such a “modification” by placing the apposition between the relative clauses. “Whom I shall send” refers to Pentecost; “who proceeds from the Father” does not.

Quite the contrary. Just as behind the incarnation and the mission of Jesus we have his eternal generation by the Father, so here behind the sending and the mission of the Spirit we have the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father. The blame cast upon the ancient fathers for here finding the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father is unjustified. Those fathers were right, and these newer men might well learn from them. “Even as the Lord Jesus is the true revelator of the mysteries of God because as the only-begotten Son he has his sole abiding place in the bosom of the Father (1:18); so the Holy Spirit is the trustworthy witness of the heavenly things because he proceeds from the Father.” Besser. As the ray is like the sun, the stream like the source, so the Spirit is of the same essence with the Father because he proceeds from him. The fact that this procession is not from the Father alone but, when fully revealed, also from the Son, we see from Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6; Rev. 22:1; etc., where the Spirit is in various ways called the Spirit of Christ.

What the procession of the Spirit really means no man knows. God revealed this much concerning the inner relation of the divine persons because in the work of salvation we must know that each of these persons is wholly divine and yet that each is distinct and in a peculiar relation to the others.

The procession of the Spirit is misconceived when it is made a past act, or when the present tense ἑκπορεύεται is made progressive, “is proceeding” in a continuous progress. These notions carry the idea of time into eternity. But eternity is the very opposite of time, the utter absence of time, it is timelessness. The trouble is that our minds are chained to the idea of time so that our conception of eternity always expresses itself in terms of time, a sort of endless time. Our minds do not actually visualize timelessness. So we must constantly tell ourselves that our limited brain cannot possibly reach to the bottom of this vast ocean deep.

Human language had to use the present tense “proceeds,” for this was all it could do if it wished to express this divine fact by means of a verb. This tense, however, is what the grammarians properly call a timeless present; it intends to express an act that lies above and beyond all conception of time.

The emphatic ἐκεῖνος (R. 708) takes up the subject with all its modifiers: this Spirit so described, “he shall testify concerning me.” No limitation as to means or extent is added. The entire revelation of Christ in the world since the day of Pentecost is here summed up in one brief expression. All that the Spirit was to do by means of inspiration, by means of the inspired Word, in and through the apostles, in and through the church, all of it is included. So the work will be carried forward by one who is as great as Jesus himself, one who is at the side of the disciples, working ceaselessly through the ages just as Jesus had worked at the side of his disciples until this hour.

John 15:27

27 Yet Jesus adds, “and you, too, testify,” δέ meaning “and” and καί “too” or “also,” R. 1185. Some regard μαρτυρεῖτε as an imperative, “and do you, too, bear witness!” Yet an imperative would certainly be strange at this point, especially one with a reason attached which indicates only the qualification necessary for witnessing. The imperative is chosen because a future tense precedes, “the Spirit shall testify,” which, it is thought, would not harmonize with a following present indicative. But this view overlooks the present tense in the added ὅτι clause, “because from the beginning you are with me.” “From the beginning” reaches back to the very start of Jesus’ ministry, and the present tense “you are” implies that the disciples are still with Jesus now to witness the last part of his redemptive work. R. 879 thus lists ἐστέ as a progressive present and quotes Moulton to the effect that this tense “gathers up past and present time into one phrase,” to which, however, we must add that it allows this present to continue. In view of this qualification of the disciples Jesus can well use the present tense, “and you, too, (already) testify” as witnesses who were always with me and continue with me even now.

The ὅτι clause thus indicates why Jesus says, “and you, too,” “you also on your part.” The disciples are needed to testify of all that they have heard and seen while they were with Jesus. Their testimony takes care of the historical realities concerning Jesus, and most of these they already have.

Some, however, contend that Jesus is thinking of two kinds of testimony: one by the Spirit, the other by the disciples. They admit that the Spirit aids the disciples in giving their testimony and in that way testifies through them; yet they maintain that there is a special testimony of the Spirit, namely one that consists in his very presence in the world, in the miracles which he works, in the powers and the gifts he bestows, in the church which he places into and maintains in a hostile world. The world is nonplussed by this testimony of the Spirit and by the evidence it affords of the living presence of Jesus in heaven with the Father and of the work he still does in the world. The effort to secure two testimonies makes δέ adversative: “but you also,” etc., placing the testimony of the disciples beside that of the Spirit as being different. The Spirit, however, is present only in the disciples, the miracles he wrought were done through these men, and so it is with all the other testimony that in any way comes from the Spirit. Down to this day the Spirit uses the Word which he had the holy writers record and the church which he has built and maintained.

The testimony of the Spirit and of the disciples goes out to the world as one. The disciples are the Spirit’s instruments. He and they are joined together, and thus the testimony is delivered.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.