Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | John 15:2, "cut off" or "lift up"? | John 15:2 | Parable | 47483 | ||
My question is about how we come to understand the meaning of scripture. I use the example of John 15:2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (NKJV) Some have used this verse to support the idea that salvation can be lost due to poor performance as a servant of Christ. This idea is hard to understand in light of Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," and Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." Also, the footnote on John 15:2 provided at www.biblegateway.com, suggests the word for "takes away" can be translated "lifts up". How are "takes away" and "lifts up" related? Given these questions, how are we to understand what Jesus is really saying? In his book "Secrets of the Vine", p. 33, Bruce Wilkenson offers this: "..a clearer translation of the Greek word 'airo', rendered in John 15 as 'take way, would be 'take up' or 'lift up'. We find accurate renderings of airo, for example, when the disciples 'took up' twelve baskets of food after the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew 14:20), when Simon was forced to 'bear' Christ's cross (Matthew 27:32), and when John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God who 'takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)." He continues, "In fact, in both the Bible and in Greek literature, 'airo' never means 'cut off'. Therefore, when some Bibles render the word as 'takes away' or 'cut off' in John 15, it is an unfortunate interpretation rather than a clear translation." Clearly, Wilkinson is critical of the many Bibles that translate 'airo' in a way he does not accept. He goes so far as to say "in the Bible and Greek literature, 'airo' NEVER means 'cut off'." This is a bold statement, considering that so many Bibles do translate the meaning as 'take away' or 'cut off'. (See John 15:2 at www.biblegateweay.com and compare versions.) Also, he appeals to Greek literature, a non-biblical source, to support his position. Is it acceptable to question the Bible in this way? Is it acceptable to compare the Bible with other sources? I say YES to both. First, the Bible itself instructs us to "Test everything. Hold on to the good." -- 1 Thess 5:21 Second, the Bible often uses comparisons with life to make its point. Parables are the clearest example of how comparisons with things we already understand from life help us to understand God's truths. Third, Jesus' intent simply is not faithfully conveyed by "takes away" or "cut off". In light of everything the Bible teaches about grace, mercy and love, especially the redeeming work of Christ on the Cross and the meaning of His resurrection, the fact one verse may be translated in a way that is contrary to that global meaning should cause us to question that translation rather than the global meaning. Furthermore, if there is a reasonable way to translate that verse such that it supports the global meaning of Scripture, rather than confound it, we are duty-bound to examine the evidence in support of that translation and its consequences for interpretation. Given this responsibility, how does "take up" or "lifts up" faithfully convey Jesus' meaning? Wilkison explains it this way, in a conversation with a vinedresser he met. He stresses that the vinedresser wants each and every branch to be fruitful. Vinedresser: "New branches have a natural tendency to trail down and grow along the ground. But they don't bear fruit down there. When branches grow along the ground, the leaves get coated in dust. When it rains, they get muddy and mildewed. The branch becomes sick and useless." Wilkinson: "What do you do? Cut it off and throw it away?" Vinedresser: "Oh, no! The branch is much to valuable for that. We go through the vineyard with a bucket of water looking for those branches. We lift them up and wash them off. Then we wrap them around the trellis or tie them up. Pretty soon they're thriving." This is the understanding Jesus wants us to have because it is what the disciples and everyone else of that day would have understood. No one then would have accepted the idea of discarding an entire branch and neither should we. Pruning, on the other hand, is a different matter, and it is likewise understood to be loving discipline, not disposal. My questions to the forum? 1. Is this a biblical understanding of John 15:2? 2. Is there anything wrong in the method used to support this interpretation? 3. If you disagree, what do you suggest is the proper method and interpretation? Parable |
||||||
2 | John 15:2, "cut off" or "lift up"? | John 15:2 | kalos | 47502 | ||
"The prototypical branch who has not remained is Judas, who departed in [John] 13:30. He did not bear fruit, and is now in the realm of darkness, a mere tool of Satan. His eternal destiny, being cast into the fire of eternal judgment, is still to come." ------------- New English Translation (Net Bible) John 15:2 He takes away[3] every branch that does not bear fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. '[3]tn Or "He cuts off." sn The Greek verb aijrevw (airew) can mean "lift up" as well as "take away," and it is sometimes argued that here it is a reference to the gardener "lifting up" (i.e., propping up) a weak branch so that it bears fruit again. In Johannine usage the word occurs in the sense of "lift up" in 8:59 and 5:8-12, but in the sense of "remove" it is found in 11:39, 11:48, 16:22, and 17:15. In context (theological presuppositions aside for the moment) the meaning "remove" does seem more natural and less forced (particularly in light of v. 6, where worthless branches are described as being "thrown out"-an image that seems incompatible with restoration). 'One option, therefore, would be to understand the branches which are taken away (v. 2) and thrown out (v. 6) as believers who forfeit their salvation because of unfruitfulness. However, many see this interpretation as encountering problems with the Johannine teaching on the security of the believer, especially John 10:28-29. 'This leaves two basic ways of understanding Jesus' statements about removal of branches in 15:2 and 15:6: (1) These statements may refer to an unfaithful (disobedient) Christian, who is judged at the judgment seat of Christ "through fire" (cf. 1 Cor 3:11-15). In this case the "removal" of 15:2 may refer (in an extreme case) to the physical death of a disobedient Christian. (2) These statements may refer to someone who was never a genuine believer in the first place (e.g., Judas and the Jews who withdrew after Jesus' difficult teaching in 6:66), in which case 15:6 refers to eternal judgment. In either instance it is clear that 15:6 refers to the fires of judgment (cf. OT imagery in Ps 80:16 and Ezek 15:1-8). 'But view (1) requires us to understand this in terms of the judgment of believers at the judgment seat of Christ. This concept does not appear in the Fourth Gospel, because from the perspective of the author, the believer does not come under judgment: note especially 3:18, 5:24, 5:29. The first reference is especially important because it occurs in the context of 3:16-21, the section which is key to the framework of the entire Fourth Gospel and which is repeatedly alluded to throughout. A similar image to this one is used by John the Baptist in Matt 3:10, "And the ax is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Since this is addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees who were coming to John for baptism, it almost certainly represents a call to initial repentance. More importantly, however, the imagery of being cast into the fire constitutes a reference to eternal judgment, a use of imagery which is much nearer to the Johannine imagery in 15:6 than the Pauline concept of the judgment seat of Christ (a judgment for believers) mentioned above. 'The use of the Greek verb mevnw (menw) in 15:6 also supports view (2). When used of the relationship between Jesus and the disciple and/or Jesus and the Father, it emphasizes the permanence of the relationship (John 6:56, 8:31, 8:35, 14:10). The prototypical branch who has not remained is Judas, who departed in 13:30. He did not bear fruit, and is now in the realm of darkness, a mere tool of Satan. His eternal destiny, being cast into the fire of eternal judgment, is still to come. It seems most likely, therefore, that the branches who do not bear fruit and are taken away and burned are false believers, those who profess to belong to Jesus but who in reality do not belong to him. In the Gospel of John, the primary example of this category is Judas. In 1 John 2:18-19 the "antichrists" fall into the same category; they too may be thought of as branches that did not bear fruit. They departed from the ranks of the Christians because they never did really belong, and their departure shows that they did not belong.' New English Translation (http://www.netbible.com) |
||||||
3 | the barren branch never was a branch? | John 15:2 | Parable | 47525 | ||
In other words, as I understand the conclusion of the commentary you provided, the barren branch never was a genuine offshoot of the Vine. Is this an accurate description of what you believe? |
||||||
4 | the barren branch never was a branch? | John 15:2 | inmyheart | 47655 | ||
Once again, greetings my friend, I happened to come across this commentary that gives the information that you seek. I find this this view was very helpful. Here it is; When Jesus is gone, they must still abide in Him and bear fruit. 1. John 15:1-3, Jesus: the true vine a. Jesus may have said this in view of, or as they passed the great golden vine on the front of the temple; the vine that symbolized the nation Israel. b. The vine is a familiar Old Testament symbol for Israel (Psalm 80:8-9) but is often used in a negative sense (Isaiah 5:1-2,7 - Jeremiah 2:21) c. In contrast, Jesus is the true vine: one must be rooted in Him, not Israel, if one is to bear fruit for God. d. The branches that are taken away were never properly abiding in the vine; the ones that bear fruit are "cleansed (not "removed" by pruning), and that through the Word. i. The Word is a cleansing force: it condemns sin, it inspires holiness; it promotes growth; it reveals power for victory. ii Boice believes that the verb "airo" commonly translated "takes away" here is more accurately translated "lifts up" - the Father lifts up unproductive vines off of the ground (as is common in vinedressings), that they may get more sun and bear fruit better. Praying that this is what you were after, but anyway, it's always good to hear someone's point of view. It's my belief that the Holy Spirit will give revelation of the Word. Thank you again my friend for taking the time to review this post. Again this is just another view, always confirm with the Word of God. God bless you as He draws you closer to Him. |
||||||
5 | the barren branch never was a branch? | John 15:2 | Parable | 47658 | ||
I rather like Boice's view that "airo" means to "lift up" off the ground rather than "take away". To me, it is more consistent with the idea of branches actually being in Christ and His intention of making them fruitful. Otherwise, we must read into His words that some branches He referred to as "in Him" really were not or that barreness really means "dead", requiring us to explain how branches once alive in Him actually died or finally that He is expecting US, and not the Holy Spirit, to be the agent of our fruitfulness. Thanks for the commentary notes! Parable |
||||||