A word for the Twelve

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

I remember well a friend of mine calling me one Sunday afternoon 20 years ago to discuss a topic he had heard in a Sunday sermon.  The topic moved my friend and changed his understanding of one of Jesus' analogies.  The topic was found in the first two verses of John 15 about pruning grapevines.  The author referred to in the sermon was saying the current slate of translations had not translated accurately, that the analogy was not to pruning unproductive vines, but in lifting the vines running along the ground so that they could produce since they couldn't produce while lying on the ground.

Translation of any language to another is full of explosive mines, so it could be credible that perhaps a new understanding of ancient Greek could change a usual translation, especially if new manuscripts had been discovered.  This was not the case, however, with these verses.  We talked about the topic, but I remember that the follow-up conversation, after a little study, didn't end with any kind of definitive answer on the accuracy of the concept of what was happening with the grapevine.

Today another person raised the exact same topic referencing the same author that my friend had called me about 20 years earlier.  It's strange how things keep getting circulated even it's a generation apart.  In sociolinguistic studies, I have seen how outsiders to a culture don’t always know how insiders are using terms.  The famous matter of having 24 different words for snow in the language of the Eskimo Innuit Indians is a good example.  Erroneous information from an amateur linguist was perpetuated for two generations in that case.  There simply aren’t that many words for snow in the Innuit culture.  Outsiders don't do well when they translate without knowing the culture intimately.  I think what happened in the case of the passage about the grapevine is that the translators of traditional versions didn't know what was involved in growing grapes.  On the other hand, it would appear that the man challenging the traditional concept of pruning didn't allow for or know the number of methods and reasons for trimming, so he overstated his case. A person can watch the video below and be able to discern more properly how to translate the two verses. 

Sometimes, people challenge translations when they have an agenda such as an idea that doesn’t fit a particular philosophy they have about God.  Perhaps the author my friend listened to had such a philosophy and the idea of pruning didn’t follow his idea of a loving God.  It could also be that he didn’t like the judgmental nature of pruning, so he opted to promote a more remote notion of the word’s meaning to his primary definition.  If the author had looked into the context of Jesus’s words and had had more knowledge of tending a vineyard of grapes, he could have written a really nice context for the usual translations. 

Important to the context of this passage is knowing who Jesus is addressing in the different portions of his dialog.  In verse 3, the παν of verse 2 changes to  υμεις, presumably you all meaning the Twelve, but maybe everyone hearing   his voice at the time if there were more people around him than the Twelve.  υμεις continues to be the pronoun of choice in verses 3, 4, and 5. Verse 5 ends the use of υμεις in the phrase  υμεις τα κληματα, claiming the Twelve or the group hearing Jesus represent branches.  However, in verse 5, there is a transition to the one, which becomes the impersonal τις (anyone) in verse 6.  So, the story starts with παν (all or everyone) narrows to υμεις (you all - the Twelve or the group around Jesus) then changes to singular, impersonal using o (the one) and τις (someone), which in reality could still mean one of the group or someone in the group rather than someone in general .  By verse 8, υμεις is again used, but identified as μαθηται (disciples).  Jesus appears to be addressing his close followers rather than all Christians in general.  Given that the lives and deaths of the Twelve would require them knowing that they would undergo some trimming, Jesus knew they would need to have words to draw on for their trials.  This context preempts a view of a judgmental, vengeful vinedresser pruning his vines.

But here’s the tasty morsel.  If one focuses on the word γεωργος (the vinedresser) in the first verse of John 15, one would have a different idea of what the trimming idea was all about.  The man you hear in the video above is a true "vinedresser."  He is deliberate in his descriptions, a slow-talking, country man who knows from vast experience what he is talking about.  In Greek the word is derived from a compound word meaning to work the earth.  The γεωργος watches carefully and knows how to make grapes grow by properly trimming in the right places at the right times of the growing season, not vengefully inspecting branches to yank and tear off the branches without fruit. Verse 2 is also clear that παν το καρπο φερον (all who bear fruit) also get a trimming.  The γεωργος isn’t looking to burn people in Hell for not producing fruit, he is carefully looking to direct and redirect events in our lives so that those events illustrate his personal attention.  The cultural overlay of knowing how to grow grapes helps in knowing a context for words that would motivate the Twelve after Jesus’s ascension.

The point of the analogy is probably not getting rid of those who don't bear fruit since the pronoun referents change, nor is it in helping those who need lifting from the ground so that they can't grow fruit because καθαιρει in verse 2 clearly means to remove or trim, not to lift up off of the ground.  Instead, the point is to show a caring owner of a vineyard tending his grapes by stimulating healthy, growing vines, trimming leaves for sunlight, trimming clusters for large grapes, and removing a certain number of stems.  Thus, he nurtures the branches growing from the main vine, which is the summary of the analogy found in verse 8.  Jesus was being very deliberate in developing the Twelve, making sure they knew his mind.

Beyond words

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!





The gospel of John features a number of human interest stories rich in the little nuances they offer into Jesus' thinking or into the cultural understanding that can't be translated without adding a lot of other words  That is certainly the case in the story of the woman at the well.

The first 41 verses of John 4 highlight the story.  There are four junctures that perfectly show how Jesus leads the Samaritan woman to a full awareness of who he is.  They build one on the other, stair-step fashion.

The first incident is one that has appeared in sermons many times (and rightfully so).  In verse 9 Jesus asks the woman for a drink of water as she draws from the well.  The woman answers, "Why do you, a Jewish man, ask from me, a Samaritan woman?"  The cultural nuances behind that question have applied to situations all over the globe since every culture seems to have to deal with discrimination in all of its forms even in religion. Jesus' answer lets the woman know he is more than your average Jewish man (realization #1) and offers her life-giving water.

The woman is sharp, so she asks if Jesus is greater than their ancestor Jacob whose well Jesus is sitting on, especially since he doesn't have a water bucket to put into the well. Jesus tells her that he can give her life-giving water and she will never be thirsty again. Now, Jesus has the woman's attention.  One can see that the woman doesn't believe him because she attempts to call Jesus' bluff (to prove that he isn't greater than Jacob) and says that she wants that kind of water.  What appears to be an abrupt change of topic is a way to meet her objection because the life-giving water he has requires belief in who Jesus is.  So, Jesus asks the woman to bring her husband out to him.  

Jesus want to jump the level of awareness doubly.  Not only is he greater than Jacob, but he knows that she has had 5 men before the one she is living with now.  It worked.  She sees that Jesus is a prophet (realizations #2 and #3 simultaneously).  The word used is προφητης (prophet) which is the word used in the Greek world for an oracle's attendants, priests and priestesses, like the ones at the famous oracle of Delphi.  The word applies to those who see the future.  John seems to have had this idea in mind since he knew the Old Testament apparently both the Septuagint and the Hebrew because in the Old Testament, the translation for נּבּאּ (seer) was prophet in Greek.  Jesus's "seeing" the woman's marital status without being told about it gives the impetus for using the word προφητης.




This seer quality ups the ante to the higher realization Jesus wants her to have.  However, the woman isn't so quick to jump on board with her new realization.  She is coy, cross-checking to see if this prophet is as special as she may think he is.  She begins a statement to introduce a question.  "Our people worship on this mountain... Your people worship in Jerusalem..."  Jesus didn't let her continue.  He understood the question without its being asked.  "The father seeks true worshipers to worship him in spirit and truth," he replied.

Now, something got the woman's attention with that statement.  Maybe it was Jesus' authority with which he spoke.  Maybe it was such spiritual, non-judgmental handling of the implied question.  Maybe it was something unwritten.  The woman gets an inkling that this prophet may be someone very special, but she wants to reserve judgment until she asks one more cross-checking question.  The woman says that a Messiah would come and tell his people everything they need to know.  He would be the authoritative one for her to listen to.

Here's the tasty morsel.  Jesus says, "Εγω ειμι."  A Jew or Samaritan wouldn't miss what Jesus just said.  They are the people that knew the name of God, YHWH, I AM.  That's just what Jesus said, "I am."  Translations use, "I am he," which may be accurate, if and only if "he" is implied and that was the customary form of the expression.  However, in this case the predicate nominative is stated as, "Ο λαλων σοι" (the one speaking to you), not "he." The woman surely missed a heartbeat or two as she studied his eyes for truth value.  "Did he just say, 'I AM - the one speaking to you?' " (realization #4).



You know the rest of the story.  The woman ran into the town and grabbed everyone who would listen to her to bring them out to meet the one who said that I AM was speaking to her.

Begin at the beginning

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

The gospel of John starts with the beginning:  Εν αρχη.

What  follows  is a description in very abstract terms of a progression of events.  But, the progression is not complicated.  It’s just that it takes acceptance through believing it is true.  It’s not a scientific explanation.  It’s a series of statements that invite a person to believe without the usual method of scientific inquiry.  It’s not a hypothesis to prove with observation and replication.  It’s just offered for one to accept as it is.

The progression is: Εν αρχη Ο Λογος ην -> Ο λογος ην προς τον Θεον -> Ο Θεος ην ο λογος - > παντα δι΄ αυτου εγενετο -> εν αυτω ζωη ην -> η ζωη ην το φως     (verses 1-4).

The series of actions serves as the basis for going forward.  One cannot really continue to any other idea about John’s writings without accepting the above progression.  However, if accepted, the logical conclusion for John is what follows:

Το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει          και          η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν       (verse 5).

Several ideas are worthy of discussion from the opening verses of John.  First, Jesus is not mentioned in these verses at all.  God is mentioned, but not Jesus.  If one follows John’s progression, then (s)he sees that in the beginning was λογος.  There’s really not a good English equivalent for λογος.   Translations in this day and age have favored the word word.  I certainly understand why word was used.   Jesus’s message is in words, so when these words were written and transmitted, the word word embodied the ideas of God through Jesus's words.  Others prefer the idea of message.  Certainly Jesus’s words carry God’s message.  Both ideas carry the idea of what God wants us to know and do.

But, it doesn’t appear to me to be sensible to say God’s words or his message was in the beginning. He didn't need his message at that time.   So, what was in the beginning?  It was the essence of God – the spirit of God that moved over the void and began the creation of the Earth.  God’s essence is the concept behind the message or the words of Jesus.  It’s what God is all about, his expression of himself.  That’s impossible to translate into a one word synonym.

Second, word order in Greek is many times not as important as it is in English because of case endings on nouns and adjectives, but even so, case languages have structure that includes some order.  Semantically that matters.  The third part of the progression above states that God was the expression of himself.  Many translations have reversed the terms to say that “the Word was God.”  In that view, the terms λογος and θεος are synonymous and equal in their coordination. Thus, it doesn’t matter which term is first.  The terms are reversible.  That leads people to say that God and Jesus are the same, because λογος is identified as Jesus in verse 14. 

However, since God is placed first in the text, the semantics could be very different.  The order is not reversible because it shows which noun is being reidentified as something else.  The orientation is different.  The noun following the verb is saying that God is reidentified (the function of predicate nominative) with his own essence, which is not the same as saying that God is Jesus. The translation would read, "God was the expression of himself" or "God and his essence were one and the same."  It would be the same idea as is expressed in the Old Testament for the name YHWH, "I am who I am." Only much later is Jesus brought into the picture.  John is doing the same thing Paul did in an earlier writing when he quoted the song to the Christians at Colossae about Jesus's being the image of God . 

Here's the tasty morsel.  God created everything through his spirit or essence because life was in himself.  The final statement in the progression then shows that life and light are identified together as synonyms since they are subject and predicate nominative as well.  The whole progression is a series of reidentifications to show that the essence of God in the beginning is the same God of life, the Jews's light in a dark world like they had always thought of him.  John was preparing them for accepting more of the progression of thought that would follow.



One might say that the first 5 verses, then, are a summary statement of the whole Old Testament.  That is where every good Jew would begin.  I doubt that John would have been an exception to that rule.

The next set of verses begin to weave  the Old Testament story into the New Testament story by bringing it up to date.  The first five verses are about the unmistakable virtues and attributes of God.  The following verses continue the progression begun in verses 1-5 by making the appearance of John the Baptist the point of transfer from God of the old to God of the new.  Verse 14 finalizes the progression by going back to the essence of God, λογος, then illustrating how  λογος wrapped itself in flesh and lived among humans.  God had reshaped himself into Emmaunel, God with us.