airo in John 15:2 (Monday with Mounce 29)

I recently received this question, and I thought the answer would be helpful for those learning to determine the meaning of words.

"I was wondering if you could answer why most of (I have not read all) the different translations translate airo in John 15:2 as "take away"? I’ve only had an introduction to Greek, but it seems to me that "raise up" (or something similar) would be more contextually appropriate, especially in light of vs. 3, so I was wondering if it is translated the way it is because of some other textual reasons."

Before answering the question, please note two good parts of the question. (1) Humility. The writer sees his lack of experience as a potentially limiting factor. (2) His question is based on the context of John 15. Both are very good. Congratulations.

Here are the two verses in question: "Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away (airo), and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you."

I am not sure why he thinks verse 3 suggests a translation of "raise up," and I am not sure what "raise up" would mean in verse 2. How would God raise up unfruitful branches. So that is part of the answer. The context of v 2 requires a meaning that fits the image of vine husbandry, contrasts properly with "prune," and parallels v 6. "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."

Having said that, the issue here is semantic range. airo has a range of meaning as listed by BDAG as (1) to lift up, take up, pick up; (2) to lift up and move from one place to another; (3) to take away, remove, or seize control without suggestion of lifting up; (4) take away, remove. So the range of meaning is between removing, and picking up to remove. I am not seeing in BDAG any special category for horticulture, but the idea of picking up and removing fits the picture of grapes being lifted up to be examined and then pruned. Hence the TNIV: "He cuts off." The suggestion of "raise up" really is not part of the semantic domain.

It is to "raise up" for the purpose of removing, and that is what "take away" does, and hence its common use in translation.

But let me say again, there is much in this question to commend it, even though it is not correct. The person recognized his limitations, and sought help from the context. That’s a good start.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

Comments

[will]

thanks for the informative discussion! but i think you need to change the verse citation in the title; or maybe i'm missing something about 1 Tim 3:2?

[Jesse Hillman]

Will: That was my fault! I've corrected the title for the post. Thanks.

[Christian]

Thanks for the post.

Sorry for not clarifying my original question with more detail. Sometimes I forget people don't have the contexts and information from my other conversations :).

The reason I thought/think vs. 3 suggests a different translation is because it has been suggested by others that vine dressers will lift up the branches from the dirt and clean them/or keep them clean so that they can produce fruit. If this is the case, Jesus' statement in vs. 3 makes more sense to me. Otherwise in vs. 3 Jesus is introducing an idea that is not connected to the rest of the teaching.

Also, abiding in the vine is a major, if not the major theme in this passage. Vs. 6 talks about throwing away branches that do not abide in the Vine. Vs. 2, however, says that the branch is "in Me."

I've got more thoughts, but I'll continue the conversation with that.

Thanks again.

[Andrew Faris]

Dr. Mounce,

I've written a detailed response to your post at Christians in Context.

I realize that you are no doubt a busy guy, but I do think there is very good reason to take airo as "to lift up," including a plausible answer to your question: "I am not sure why he thinks verse 3 suggests a translation of "raise up," and I am not sure what "raise up" would mean in verse 2. How would God raise up unfruitful branches. [sic]"

On that note, my post is informed especially by an article by Gary W. Derickson, originally published in BibSac in 1996. The article's first footnote indicates that Dr. Derickson has a B.S. and M.S. in horticulture (to go along with his Th.M. and Ph.D. from DTS) and has actually taught grape-pruning. It makes for an interesting perspective, to be sure!

I'd be curious for a response if you think I'm wrong, even if you understandably don't have time enough for something so detailed.

I should also express my thanks for your Monday column generally. I consistently learn from it and am edified by it, and I so appreciate your execution of the scholar-pastor tone. It is great stuff, even when I disagree with you as I have this week.

Andrew
Christians in Context

[Bill Mounce]

It is always interesting as to what posts will encourage responses. I thought this would be a dead post and almost didn't do it. I was wrong!

Having never walked the rows in a vineyard, I really don't know anything about grapes. So I assume you are saying that if a certain vine is not bearing fruit, it is cared for by picking it up, cleaning, etc. But from pictures I have seen, aren't all the grapes up off the ground?

Here again is the verse: "Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit." So are you saying that you think every branch that is part of the vine is cared for, whether it is bearing fruit or not?

I still think the issue is v 6 and the destruction of non-productive branches, which fits the larger biblical theme of judgment based on works. The issue is that we are to produce fruit in our lives, and if we do not (i.e., if we do not pursue discipleship) then (whatever flavor of theology we hold to) we will be punished with destruction. In that sense this is the same point being made by the parable of the four soils; only one type of soil is acceptable to the farmer -- productive sopil.

[Andrew Faris]

Dr. Mounce,

Thanks for the response!

Two thoughts.

(1) According to Derickson, initially they let vines simply grow along the ground. They lifted up unfruitful ones onto trellises only as needed during pruning season. So the answer to your first question is basically "no"! "Lifting up" would be "lifting up onto a trellis" so that the branch would get airflow.

I've never walked vineyards either btw: this is just from my reading on this passage, including from Derickson, who as I said certainly has!

I am saying that as long as the branch is in the vine, it will be cared for and eventually bear fruit, yes. This seems to be the whole point of v. 1, doesn't it? Jesus is the true vine (unlike faithless Israel; cf. Isa. 5; Jer. 2:21) and the Father is the vinedresser who will perfectly tend the plants. If Jesus and the Father are so good at their respective jobs that the main command of the rest of the passage is to make sure we abide in Jesus, wouldn't it seem odd for the very next verse after that initial statement to be about a branch that definitely is in the vine (note the perhaps even emphatic en emoi in v. 2) getting taken away?

(2) V. 6 is the reason most take your view. They read it back into v. 2. But I don't think that's necessary.

For one thing, you say "I still think the issue is v 6 and the destruction of non-productive branches..." But v. 6 says nothing about "non-productive" branches. It only talks about people who are not "abiding in me." It is a question of being in Jesus first and foremost. As long as we abide in Jesus, we'll bear fruit. If we don't abide in Jesus, we're thrown away.

I would also refer you to my full response at our blog for further discussion of the shift in pronouns (hymin in vv.2-5, tis in v. 6, then hymin again in the following verses- it seems quite intentional!).

Thanks again for your response, Dr. Mounce. I certainly mean no disrespect in my disagreement and greatly appreciate all of your work, both in terms of your publications and this weekly column.

Andrew Faris
Christians in Context

[Matt Sees]

Thanks for addressing this. You caught my interest immediately, as I've heard the "raise up" explanation in the past, but it's not reflected in any major translations (or perhaps any translations at all), and until now I've never seen anything written about it.

The appropriate translation of airo does have significant bearing on the meaning of the text. Does this vine get removed and thrown away, or tended in such a way that it will bear fruit? The difference could hardly be greater.

The primary question that comes to my mind is, what is the relationship between "in Me" (v 2) and "abide in Me" (v 4 and especially v 6)?

It does seem to me that the driving principle in this passage is not bearing fruit, but being connected to Christ. Bearing fruit is a non-negotiable, of course, but the promise is that if we are connected in vital union to Christ, we will bear much fruit (v 5). I fear that many Christians reverse the order of relationship between abiding and bearing, and in doing so impede their progress. I'm still not entirely decided as to how v 2 should be translated, but I am convinced that the correct answer has direct bearing on this discussion.

I want to echo Andrew's appreciation above for the work you do here and elsewhere, and for your willingness to interact with those of us who are still poking away at the surface.

[dac]

Interesting - understanding the context is everything - even in agriculture. agriculture today is not agriculture of 1000's of years ago, except of course, when it is.

[Bill Mounce]

Bill:

This indeed is a very odd rendering of Jn 15:2. When I worked on my commentary on John (and the farewell discourses) I never came across it. But I can see how one might develop this if a) they were not looking at the range of meanings for airo, b) not looking at the wider interpretative context, and c) committed perhaps to some notion of eternal security -- a theme that is very actively discussed in Johannine studies.

All of your advice here is excellent. We do indeed check the semantic range for a word and BDAG is the first place I look. I was also looking at Louw and Nida and there found an excellent range of examples where airo is used as it is in Jn 15.2. For example in Mk 6.29 it is used for the disciples "taking away" Jesus crucified body. In Jn 2.16 it is used when Jesus tells the traders in the Temple to "take away" the pigeons and things being marketed. In Mt 24.39 it is used for the flood of Noah that "carries away" those who are not prepared. Of these, I am also keen to know how a particular author uses a word since each writer will have a peculiar vocabulary as well. In this case, airo is used in John 26x which gives me a really solid basis for understanding John's range of meaning. And this closes the argument: John uses the word frequently for moving something "from here to there" or for "removing away" something (such as the stone closing the tomb of Lazarus, Jn 11.39, 41).

The use of airo in 15.2 is really tied to what John is saying in the context of viticulture (vineyard production, grape farming, etc.) in ancient culture. A quick trip to Hebron or the hills around Bethlehem will illustrate methods that haven't changed since biblical times. Unproductive vines are cut off and discarded so that main vines are more fruitful. Otherwise the vines grow small branches (suckers) that have lots of nice leaves, but no fruit! The trimmed vine is the productive vine. Then the good vines are elevated from the soil with stones. (Today we use sticks, tying the vines to them or wire stretched between posts.) This keeps the vines from spoiling on the ground.

So 15.2 is actually a warning: that those who feign some 'attachment' to the vine but do not have its life-giving reality within can be removed. And here launches the theological discussion about eternal security. Every Calvinist now can step forward and begin the debate!

This is a great blog. And I'm impressed that you have thoughtful students of the scriptures raising all of the right questions.

Gary M. Burge
Wheaton College & Graduate School

[Andrew Faris]

Dr. Burge,

I'm frankly shocked that you think that semantic range closes the deal here. The question is: does airo mean "lift up" or "take away" in 15:2? All you prove is that it can mean "take away" here. But no one is debating that point. Of course the semantic range allows for "take away", but it certainly allows for "lift up" as well.

By my count there are at least 8 instances where the term means "lift up" in John (5:8-12; 8:59; 10:18, 24), and at least 15 in which it means "take away" (1:29; 2:16; 11:39, 41, 48; 16:22; 17:15; 19:15, 31, 38; 20:1-2, 13, 15). The point is, BDAG and John's usage certainly allow for both possibilities.

So the question really is context. Regarding viticultural background, do check Gary Derickson's BibSac article (linked in my post on this passage). I've written enough on that, but suffice to say that there is good reason to see "lift up" as "to lift up on a trellis." Again, Derickson I think is a great authority on this because of his horticultural background.

You say, "So 15.2 is actually a warning: that those who feign some 'attachment' to the vine but do not have its life-giving reality within can be removed." The problem is that you are completely reading the "feigning" aspect into the text. The text doesn't even remotely suggest that. All it says is that the unfruitful branch is en emoi just like the fruitful one is.

This presents real problems with how you read the text as a whole. What is Jesus even saying then about how "true" of a vine he is? Is it really possible, in this context (all systematic theological discussions aside- just consider the emphasis of this particular context), to say that a branch that is said to be in the vine will simply not bear fruit and that's that?

Most problematic for you is v. 6. It's common to equate the two branches, but that's the opposite impression that the text gives. In v. 2, the unfruitful branch is specifically said to be en emoi. In v. 6, the one cast away is specifically said to not be en emoi. How then are they the same branch?

I'm very interested in your response, and appreciate your input so far- even though it's clear enough that I disagree! Thanks Dr. Burge.

Andrew Faris
Christians in Context

[Wendy]

I'm appreciating this discussion. A while back I read Bruce Wilkinson's Secrets of the Vine (also authored Prayer of Jabez), and he takes the position that airo means "lifts up" in this verse. He explains it based on his studies of how vinedressers care for their vineyards. He explains it very well and seems to make some excellent points. I feel a bit troubled by these verses because there seems to be major ramifications depending on which interpretation you hold. I've gone back and forth on this, and this discussion is causing me to want to lean toward the "lifts up" interpretation again.
Can you touch on the parable of the barren fig tree in Luke 13:6-9 and how it might relate to this passage? The man threatens to cut down the barren tree, but the vinedresser asks for an additional year to fertilize the tree. This passage seems to indicate to me that if we are truly IN CHRIST, he will provide the necessary care (such as lifting up of the branch) to ensure that we remain and become fruitful.

[Doug Cameron]

Thank you all for your thoughtful debate on the meaning of airo. This has been very informative for me.

I was first introduced to this concept through Bruce Wilkinson's book, alluded to above. The suggestion was intriguing, and I thought helpful. So, as I prepare to preach on this passage, I'm asking myself "was Wilkinson correct"?

My own study of the John 15 led me to the same conclusion that Andrew Faris drew. Specifically - that there is a clear distinction to be made between verses 2 and 6. Verse 2 is clearly directed toward those who are 'in' Christ. Verse 6 is clearly directed toward those who do not abide in Christ.

My tentative conclusion was that there are three different types referred to in John 15 - those who are in Christ, and not currently fruitful; those who are in Christ and are currently fruitful; and those who are not abiding in Christ.

My only question was, does the word 'airo' support the definition 'lifted up'.

Andrew, you have convinced me. I have checked the references that you gave. I am reviewing Derickson's article (incidentally the URL link on your blog is broken - I had to Google to get it). I have also reviewed the instances of 'airo' in John's gospel, and confirmed your assessment of the range of possible meaning.

One observation that I would make: Whenever we address an issue like this, we need to approach it with fresh eyes. My concern is that not all responses have adequately dealt with the points that Andrew raised. It seems to me that Dr. Burge's response, is rooted in traditional interpretations of this passage. And, with respect, I wonder if you may have done the same sort of thing, Bill.

I respect the traditional interpretations, and believe that we need to take them seriously; and we need to do so carefully so as not to be locked into them.

As Christians, I believe that we would all agree that the only infallible source is the scriptures. Our interpretation of scripture is always open to correction. Gary Derickson's article gives us an opportunity to review the traditional interpretations, and discover new truths.

Bill, you observed and commended the humility of the person who first raised this question to you. I think its important that we all show the same humility when we attempt to exegete the scriptures. Otherwise we risk what I like to refer to as 'eisogesis' - reading into the scriptures, rather than reading out of the scriptures.

Every time we interpret the scriptures, we need to do so with open minds - minds open to discovering that what we believed before was in error.

In this spirit, I remain completely open to discovering that the tentative conclusion I have reached, is wrong.

Blessings on you Bill and Andrew for your respective blogs. They both are tremendously valuable sources of insight and understanding as we continue to wrestle to understand God's Word.