John 15:2 - a somber verse

John 15:2 “He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit He prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.” (NIV)

The NIV translation flows seamlessly from the introduction of the Father as the vinedresser to the pruning actions He takes. While the NIV and other modern translations flow smoothly from verse one, they mask elements of the debate this verse has sparked, and the paronomasia, or play on words, which is visible in the original Greek text is lost altogether in any English translation. A crude translation that imperfectly reflects this paronomasia:

Every branch in Me not bearing fruit, He airō;
And every fruit bearing, He kathairō;

airō : “to lift, to take off or away what is attached to anything, to cut off”

kathairō : “to cleanse or purge” from filth, impurity; or in an agricultural context, “to prune” trees and vines of useless shoots

The ASV captures more of the literal rendering of this verse, albeit not as flowing to our modern ears:

“Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit, He taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, He cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit.” (ASV)

kathairō is only used the one time here in the NT, and while it is not uncommon in the Greek relative to agricultural processes, it would be, used by itself, an atypical selection of term to describe the pruning process for a vine. The use of airō, while frequently used in the NT, is an even more peculiar choice to denote cutting off of branches for pruning purposes. John appears then to have crafted this paronomasia not so much for the primary applicability to viticulture, but to accentuate the related but dichotomous (positive and negative) work of the Father in relation to Jesus, and to those who make claim (valid and invalid) to Him.

The actions of the Father here as the vinedresser are decisive, as clearly indicated in the NIV. There are only two possible scenarios, represented by two types of branches: 1) ones that do not bear fruit and 2) ones that do. These two scenarios lead conclusively to two and only two outcomes. The actions of the Father are predictable, to be anticipated, definitive and ongoing: “He takes away” and “He cleanses.” There is no alternative outcome, no shades of gray, no compromise, no purgatory – only purgation.

The word used here for branches, klēma, is only found four times in the NT and only in this mashal (vv. 2, 4, 5, & 6). klēma typically refers to vine tendrils or shoots, versus the branch in our familiar sense or usage of the term, as used elsewhere in the NT, which would be klados.

For the vineyard keeper, a vine tendril has one purpose and one purpose only – to bear fruit. That is the sole point of the vineyard. Given the immense investment in time and labor a vineyard requires, as discussed previously, lush green growth is not the desired end. Fruitfulness – at a high degree of quality and abundance – is the only desired and expected end. A branch therefore that does not bear fruit is good only for burning, as a vine tendril hardly has the composition to be used as lumber for building or other form of carpentry, as noted by Ezekiel (15:1-6). Accordingly, a branch that does not bear fruit must be cut off from the vine and taken away – there’s simply no other value or purpose for the branch.

Pruning therefore is critical for any vine. The pruning process is the most important part of any viticulture enterprise, and the people who do it are carefully trained. Pruners may undergo two or three years of training as they learn when to cut, what to cut, where to cut, how much to cut, and even the precise angle of the cut. The lack of proper pruning can literally destroy an entire crop.

In order for a vine to be healthy and produce a rich harvest of grapes, the one doing the pruning cannot take half measures. All dead wood must be ruthlessly removed. Dead wood can harbor insects or disease and may cause the vine to rot and decay. Dead branches clearly must go. The same also holds true for branches that are not bearing any fruit, no matter how lush and healthy they look. Such branches are simply siphoning off the nutrients needed by the branches that are bearing fruit, potentially hindering the achievement of the ripest and richest harvest. Philo of Alexandria in his writings refers to “superfluous shoots … which are a great injury to the genuine shoots, and which the husbandmen cleanse and prune.”

Early in the spring, sometime in February or March, the first evidence of life becomes visible on the branches. If branches don’t show life at this stage, there will be no fruit on them later, so these barren or dead branches are removed from the vine. Later in the summer, around July or August, the second stage of pruning takes place, where the vinedresser removes the overgrowth, ensuring all the vital essence of the vine is nourishing the young fruit.

Consider the somber ramifications of this short verse. Jesus’ words anticipates that there will be branches (“in Me”) that will not bear fruit and therefore can have no part in Him, and that even the branches that do bear fruit will need pruning. Here in verse 2, Yahweh, as the divine vinedresser, wields His pruning knife and “takes away” or “cuts off” all branches that do not bear fruit. If Jesus is the vine and these branches that are “in Me” are cut off and then later burned (v. 6), who do these branches represent? How can one be a part of Christ and then later cut off and burned? Are these branches representative of non-believing Jews who will ultimately be cut off? Perhaps they are non-Christians simply used to depict dead wood for the sake of this imagery of the vine, or maybe Christians who were living branches at one time and who have lost their salvation and become dead?

In order to understand this properly, we must consider this mashal within the construct of this imagery and the context of the full canon of Scripture. We must avoid over-reaching on conclusions by excessive or over-interpreting the vine metaphor, and clearly we must not interpret a meaning inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. As stated previously, the nation of Israel was frequently likened to God’s vineyard or vine. Though Israel was God’s vineyard, His chosen people, not all who were in Israel chose to follow God. The nation of Israel had become degenerate to the point the resulting fruit was rotten (Jer 2:21).

Jesus as the “true vine” supersedes Israel, and His body, the Church, constitutes those who have been called by God as a part of the “new covenant.” Jesus is speaking here at the end of the Passover dinner to “the eleven” – His remaining disciples. Judas had already left (John 13:31), as had a larger number of disciples who had left Him earlier (John 6:60-66). These remaining 11 disciples (with Paul included later) would become the building blocks of the foundation upon which Jesus established His church, with Himself being the chief corner stone (John 17:20; Eph 2:20).

In the context of this allegory then, Jesus is saying that there will be those who may profess to be His followers, or “in Him,” and perhaps may even show forth initial growth (not fruit) as in the Parable of the Sower. However, if a branch does not bear fruit, it is truly not a part of Him and must be permanently severed. The irrefutable sign of a true Christian in this vineyard imagery is that there must be good fruit. Again, that is the only point of a vine – to bear fruit.

Throughout Jesus’ teachings, and the entire New Testament as a whole, we find many references to individuals who at one point display some degree of connection with Jesus and/or His Church, but who later “fall away” and never manifest the perseverance and the tell-tale fruit of a life truly transformed and spiritually reborn in a relationship with Christ (Matt 24:12-13; John 6:60-66). In one of John’s later writings, he refers to certain individuals who were once a part of the Church, but left the fellowship of the Christians because they really had no part in abiding in Christ and in His Church (1 John 2:18-19). In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus gave two examples of individuals whose lives showed initial growth, but who were later scorched or choked-off (Matt 13:3-23; Mark 4:2-20; Luke 8:4-15).

Accordingly, these dead branches are people who, like Judas, profess to believe, but their lack of fruit indicates genuine salvation has never taken place, and they have no life from the vine. Let’s look at an earlier conversation from that very same evening, when Peter protested at Jesus washing his feet:

“Jesus said to him, ‘The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.’ For He knew who was to betray Him; that was why He said, ‘Not all of you are clean’.” (John 13:10-11)

It is clear from these verse that Jesus has Judas in mind as the one who was not clean, even though Judas, up until he walked out of that upper room, had been identified as being with Jesus, one of the select 12 disciples. While he was not a part of the inner circle of Peter, James and John, clearly he was one who, using the construct of this mashal, had been “in Him.” Very few had closer contact than he did, yet clearly he was not one who had truly given his life over for Christ. Rather, he gave Christ’s life over to others. Not hardly one who would have been “cleansed” as with the other 11, he was cut off as “one doomed to destruction” (John 17:12, NIV), or more literally, “son of perdition” or “son of the destruction.” Not so coincidentally, in these two verses from John 13, all three usage of “clean” are the Greek term, katharos, the root word from which kathairō is derived.

Now possibly in the immediate context of the mashal tragic Judas was in view, but the imagery extends more broadly from him to all those who make a profession of faith in Christ but do not truly have a conversion experience and thereby are saved. These branches cannot be Christians who truly had a conversion experience but then later lost their salvation. That scenario would be a contradiction to Scripture and therefore must be dismissed (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 10:28-29; Rom. 8:1). A branch that bears no fruit is dead or will soon be dead. Therefore, like Judas, it is cut off. These have no life in them; they have never borne fruit nor will they ever bear fruit, or else they would be “trimmed clean,” not cut off.

Some commentators hold that airō here should be interpreted as “lifted up” to signify fruitless branches are lifted up for better exposure to the sun and away from the dirt. This then would allow such branches a better opportunity for fruitfulness. Here the vinedresser’s purpose is not to judge but to produce fruit, thereby rendering aid to a faltering vine.

Proponents of this school of thought point out there are eight occasions in John where airō could be rendered “lift up” or “pick up.” However, even a cursory review of the context of the passages where airō could reasonably be translated in such a manner clearly indicates a temporary scenario vs. the permanent removal obviously intended here. It should also be noted that airō is rendered “take away” or “remove” for a total of 16 times in John. Compare these twin sets of two references:

“Jesus said to him, ‘Get up, pick up your pallet and walk.’ Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk.” (5:8-9)

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.” (8:58-59)

“The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’” (1:29)

“So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. Jesus said, ‘Remove the stone.’” (11:38-39)

Moreover, such an interpretation of “lift up” or “pick up” is not consistent or substantiated with common viticulture practice; and it does not fit with the paronomasia, as its very awkwardness would otherwise have been pointless. It would also be discordant with the broader context of the mashal (as clearly evidenced in the verses to follow); and we must go back to the original intent of the vine and the obvious dichotomy in this vineyard metaphor. The antithetical parallelism of the first part of each statement (“every branch in me that bears no fruit”/“every branch in me that does bear fruit”) is matched by corresponding divine action, be it judgment (negative) or discipline (positive). The whole point of a vineyard is to bear fruit. Branches that do not bear fruit are met with one action, while branches that do bear fruit another. In the case of Jesus’ followers, Judas was an example of the former, Peter of the latter. (Köstenberger)

Some may find this interpretation as narrow and unduly harsh since it holds out no hope for the unproductive branches. However, there is no middle ground or alternative option in relation to Jesus. It’s either fully accept God’s plan of salvation offered through faith in Jesus, or to reject Him. There is no third choice – He didn’t intend there to be any other options. He did not leave room for compromise, neutrality or ecumenical peace:

“He who is not with Me is against Me.” Matt 12:30; Luke 11:23

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matt 10:34

“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.” Luke 12:51

Dead branches aren’t the only ones to encounter the pruning knife of the vinedresser. Live branches also must be pruned. An unattended vine will produce a good deal of growth lacking in fruit. An untrimmed vine will develop long rambling branches that produce heavy growth with little or no fruit, because the life of the vine is given to growing foliage – not grapes. While it may have the appearance of lush, green health and attractiveness to the world, it has no value. It has no more value than a common weed.

The point of a vineyard is to produce grapes, not merely green growth. Dead or non-fruit bearing, anything that could possibly divert the vital strength of the vine must be decisively removed. The unquestionable and fully expected task of any skilled vinedresser, then, is to be able to discern between productive and unproductive branches, and then to act appropriately and decisively.

Many churches across our country and abroad are filled with dead, fruitless and unproductive branches, who claim either loosely or falsely to be “in Him.” These churches, hobbled by our inherent humanity, lack the ability or even the desire to actively and decisively address this lack of fruitfulness. Clearly much of that may be attributable in our complacent, western society to be a function of the preeminence placed upon enrollment or membership numbers and flashy programs vs. a focus on worship and discipleship/teaching (Matt 28:19-20).

This modern church culture, that so often attempts to replace a relationship with Christ with the religion of playing church and casual Christianity, is so prevalent today that it can detract from or outright depart from the true purpose and meaning of worship and the Great Commission – what Dallas Willard refers to as “The Great Omission.” A stark contrast, however, can be seen in some parts of our world still today, where claiming to be a Christian requires one to truly count the costs – including the cost of their life. In such settings it makes as little point to claim to be a Christian when you’re truly not, as to have a vineyard that doesn’t produce fruit. It’s only in our complacent and “inclusive” society that one would choose to play church and Christianity, even to the extent of claiming to be “in Him.”

However, the modern church does not the pruning knife wield. We are all accountable to a much higher vinedresser. Where we may be fooled or lulled by seemingly healthy, luxuriant growth, the all-seeing and all-knowing eyes of Jehovah discerns both which branches need to be cut off, as well as trimmed cleaned. Churches and individuals may appear to have rich, lush growth that is sprouting up everywhere in endless activities, programs, services and numbers. All of this may look healthy and vibrant, and the activities may truly be good ones, but it is all for naught if the fruit God desires is missing. Jesus gave a solemn warning that “not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven;” instructing us that we “will know them by their fruits” (Matt 7:15-23). Green growth and a flurry of activity cannot substitute for an abundance of good fruit. We must never mistake activity for productivity.

A true branch, united with the vine, will always bear good fruit. With Jesus as the true vine, a life that is truly connected to Him cannot but bear fruit. Not every branch bears the same amount of fruit, just as not every field yield the same harvest (Matt 13:8, 23), but there is always fruit where there is life. Why? Because the Father “trims clean” for more fruit.

Note the progression here in this mashal: no fruit, fruit, more fruit, much fruit. The repeated references to “does not bear fruit … does bear fruit … bear even more fruit” draw attention to the fact that the bearing of fruit is one of God’s primary creative (“be fruitful and multiply” Gen 1:11–12, 22, 28) and redemptive purposes (John 15:8, 16). The Old Testament prophets envisioned a time when Israel would “bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit” (Isa. 27:6; cf. Hos. 14:4–8). Paul, in his opening remarks to the Romans, openly shared his desire to “obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the Gentiles” (1:13).

For maximum fruitfulness from a vine, extensive pruning is essential. Likewise, the fruitfulness of a Christian life is never the result of our being left to our own devices. Rather, it’s due to the work of the Father, trimming us clean to bear more fruit. Isn’t it ironic how many Christians pray that God will make them more fruitful, but then chafe and fret at the pruning that must necessarily take place in order for their prayer to be answered? We must understand and accept that not even fruit-bearing branches are exempted from the pruning knife.

He prunes us by taking away that which hinders our fruitfulness, however much we may be attached to that which He is trimming, and as painful as that may seem at the time. Yet we can be assured our Heavenly vinedresser is never nearer to us than when He is pruning us. We must also bear in mind that pruning does not simply mean spiritual surgery that removes what is bad. It can mean trimming off the good and the better, so that we can produce the best. Can pruning hurt? Absolutely. We may not enjoy it, and perhaps not even want it, but we need it. The vinedresser’s purpose may be loving, but that doesn’t mean the pruning won’t be painful:

“He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.” (Heb 12:10b-11, NASB)

The vineyards in the early spring look like a collection of barren, bleeding stumps; but in the fall they are filled with luxuriant grapes. As the vinedresser wields the pruning knife among His branches, so God cuts dead wood out from among His people, and often cuts back the living wood so far that His methods may seem harsh. Nevertheless, from those who have been pruned the most, there often comes the greatest fruitfulness (Tenney).