Tag Archives: John 6:37

He Takes Away, Part 3

Posted on by

In 1882 George Matheson wrote:

O Love, that wilt not let me go,

I rest my weary soul in Thee;
I give Thee back the life I owe,
That in Thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be.

I quote it here—especially “O Love, that wilt not let me go” —as the testimony of two witnesses.  One witness, the author of this verse, is the epitome of the righteous as I understand it, according to a comment on hymnal.net by Ana Lara, March 27, 2020.  George Matheson struggled to serve God against the undeserved evils of blindness and loneliness.  The other witness is a sinner who has struggled against almost every sin of the flesh and most sins of doubt and confusion.

I, that sinner, further affirm that God is patient, God is kind, He is not envious.  He does not brag, He is not puffed up.  He is not rude, He is not self-serving, He is not easily angered or resentful.  He is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth.

The Bible is translated into English by committees of the righteous, not by committees of sinners.  I don’t have a lot of personal experience to know what it feels like to be the righteous.  I have Jesus’ word (Luke 15:11-32) that they may feel that God has treated them unfairly when He shows mercy to a sinner like me.

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, Jesus said, and the one who comes to me I will never send away.[1]

I’m led to examine the Greek.

John 6:37
 NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus
πᾶν ὃ δίδωσιν μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει, καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς |ἐμὲ| οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω παν ο διδωσιν μοι ο πατηρ προς εμε ηξει και τον ερχομενον προς με ου μη εκβαλω εξω

NET

KJV
Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The Greek word translated Everyone (KJV: All) is πᾶν (a form of πᾶς).  It is listed as an adjective that may be in the nominative case or the accusative case, but stands as the subject of this clause in both translations.  It is singular and neuter while πᾶς is singular and masculine. But πᾶν (everyone or all) is limited and specified by what follows.

The next word is the relative pronoun ὃ, a singular neuter form of ὅς, translated whom in the NET signaling the translators’ choice of the accusative case over the nominative case.  The KJV translators’ choice, that, is more difficult to ferret out.  The verb δίδωσιν, a form of δίδωμι in the present tense, active voice and indicative mood follows this relative pronoun.  Jesus makes a factual statement here as opposed to proposing a hypothetical situation.

The personal pronoun μοι, a first person singular form of ἐγώ in the dative case follows the verb.  So I have: “Everyone whom [an as yet unspecified third person singular] gives me” or gives “to me.”  Then the giver is specified: ὁ πατὴρ, the Father, unequivocally in the nominative case.  “Everyone whom the Father gives me…”

The preposition πρὸς is next, followed by the personal pronoun ἐμὲ, the first person form of ἐγώ in the accusative case.  This signifies that ἐμὲ is the direct object of πρὸς, and that the meaning of πρὸς is selected from the following pool: “to; toward, in the direction of; beside; against; with; at; toward daybreak.”  So I have: “Everyone whom the Father gives me, to me…”

The verb ἥξει, a third person singular form of ἥκω, completes this clause.  It is in the future tense, active voice and indicative mood.  This remains a factual statement through and through: “Everyone whom the Father gives me, to me will come.”

Frankly, my knowledge of Greek is insufficient to see why—other than word order—this wasn’t translated: “the Father gives me everyone who will come to me.”  The grammarian in my head actually prefers it.  Of course my grammarian is still more familiar with American English than Koine Greek.  The logician in my head hears “everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me” and “the Father gives me everyone who will come to me” as logically equivalent, so long as I’m not confused by will.

The English word will in the NET doesn’t refer to any forms of the Greek verbs θέλω or βούλομαι (to will), or any forms of the nouns θέλημα or βουλή (the will).  It was simply half of the two word phrase, will come, the NET translators chose for the Greek verb ἥξει.  And though both verbs, δίδωσιν and ἥξει, are in the active voice, I hear no cause and effect between them here necessarily.

Yes, one could argue that, No one can come to me (ἐλθεῖν πρός με) unless the Father who sent me draws him,[2] adds a sense of cause and effect to this clause retrospectively.  But in context it’s not yet the point of this clause.  The logical equivalence of the one the Father gives Jesus with the one who will come to Jesus is really leaping off the page at me.

Imprisoned in time as I am, I’m unqualified to use this clause to judge another negatively.  In other words, I can’t say, it appears to me that you have not come to Jesus yet, therefore the Father has not given you to Jesus.  I may have a limited qualification to judge positively: It appears to me that you have come to Jesus, therefore the Father has given you to Jesus.  But it seems to me, as one who will stand before Jesus to give an account, that the best understanding of this clause is that anyone who appears to me to have come to, toward, in the direction of, beside, with, even against Jesus, should be recognized as at least potentially a precious gift of God the Father to God the Son.

The next clause begins with the conjunction καὶ.  This is followed by τὸν ἐρχόμενον.  Apparently, placing a definite article before a verb (a form of ἔρχομαι here) transforms it into something like a gerund, a verb functioning as a noun, “the coming one,” translated the one who comes (NET) or him that cometh (KJV).  Since τὸν and ἐρχόμενον are both in the accusative case, the one who comes is the direct object of this clause.

The prepositional phrase πρὸς |ἐμὲ| in the NET parallel Greek text or προς με in the Stephanus Textus Receptus follows ἐρχόμενον.  So I have: “and the one who comes to me…”

The negation which follows is οὐ μὴ.  It is nothing like a double negative in English.  Rather, it is an emphatic negation.  The verb it negates is ἐκβάλω, a 2nd aorist tense form of ἐκβάλλω in the active voice and subjunctive mood.   Though it is not the future tense ἐκβαλῶ, it was translated as a potential future event, I will…send away (NET) or I will…cast out (KJV), relative to the time one comes to Jesus.

Here is Justin Alfred again on the emphatic negation of a future event in the aorist tense.[3]

However, when these two Greek negative particles are combined in the form of οὐ µή (ou mē) with reference to a future event, what results is an intensified form of the negative: “οὐ µή (ou mē) is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.” Thayer adds, “The particles οὐ µή in combination augment the force of the negation, and signify not at all, in no wise, by no means; . . .”

However, when this combination is attached to an Aorist Subjunctive, what occurs is what has been termed the Subjunctive of Emphatic Negation. As was pointed out above, the Subjunctive Mood indicates the probability of an event, and the Aorist Tense emphasizes an action as simply occurring, without any specific reference to time, apart from the use of an adverbial modifier (e.g., that which would describe when, where, how much, or how often). Thus, when you have οὐ µή (ou mē) in combination with the Aorist Subjunctive, what occurs is the absolute and unequivocal denial of the probability of an event EVER OCCURING at any moment or time in the future.

The Greek word ἔξω, translated away (NET) or out (KJV), may be an adverb or a preposition.  I’ll assume that it’s an adverb here modifying ἐκβάλω, since no object of the preposition is present.  I don’t think it diminishes the power of the “Subjunctive of Emphatic Negation” as described by Mr. Alfred above.

The Father and I are one,[4] Jesus said: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.

I’ve already encountered ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ, “I and the Father.”  The adjective ἕν (a form of εἷς) is the number one.  And ἐσμεν is a 1st person plural form of εἰμί in the present tense, active voice and indicative mood: “I and the Father one are.”  In other words, God the Father and God the Son exist as one God.  He is not divided against Himself.

So I have “the absolute and unequivocal denial of the probability” that one God will “EVER…at any moment or time in the future” send away the one who comes to Jesus, as a fact before I even come to the metaphor in John 15:1-8.  This fact must be the basis for any assumptions I make when translating that metaphor into English.

When Jesus said to his disciples, I am the vine; you are the branches,[5] he clarified the meaning of a metaphor.  He didn’t transform human beings into the branches of a vine.  Human beings they remained, fully capable of autonomous motion, with agile minds, easily bored, easily captivated by other people and other concepts than Jesus and his word.  Such a hypothetical human being “[is] not one remaining in [Jesus], [and is] like a branch [that] was thrown out and dried up, they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and it burns.”  This is a description of this hypothetical human being’s present condition, not a prophecy necessarily of this hypothetical human beings’ future.

On the contrary, Jesus’ point was: Remain in me, and I will remain in you.  Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me [Table]…The one who remains in me—and I in him—bears much fruit, because apart from me you can accomplish nothing,[6] as far as bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit is concerned.

Don’t be fooled.  To other human beings imprisoned in time the human being not remaining in Jesus may appear exceptionally accomplished professionally, politically, academically, artistically, commercially, even, dare I say it, religiously as a “soul winner.”  But as far as the fruit of the Spirit of God is concerned, this one can accomplish nothing, “like a branch [that] was thrown out and dried up, they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and it burns.”

On the other hand, when Jesus spoke of “every branch in me that does not bear fruit,” He speaks of a human being in Jesus, captivated by Him and his word.  And here I’ll mix Jesus’ and Paul’s metaphors: This one participates in the richness of the olive root;[7] this one is continuously filled with God’s own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.[8]  But what proceeds out of this one is not very loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle or self-controlled at present.

I’ll take me for an example, talking politics.  God help me I’m neither Democrat nor Republican but a bomb-throwing anarchist at heart.  And I in this area, even as a branch in Jesus that does not yet bear the fruit that is so generously supplied, can be assured that the gardener, God our Father, will lift us up, move us upward, raise us to a higher level, carry us along, bear with us, endure with us until He causes his fruit to emerge through us.

We can know this for certain by faith in Jesus Christ, who said takes away ain’t no option in Greek for an English translation of αἴρει in John 15:2 concerning the One true God regarding the one who remains in Jesus.  My Father is honored by this, Jesus said, that you bear much fruit and show that you are my disciples.[9]

A table comparing John 6:44 in the NET and KJV follow.

John 6:44 (NET)

John 6:44 (KJV)
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, καγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ουδεις δυναται ελθειν προς με εαν μη ο πατηρ ο πεμψας με ελκυση αυτον και εγω αναστησω αυτον τη εσχατη ημερα ουδεις δυναται ελθειν προς με εαν μη ο πατηρ ο πεμψας με ελκυση αυτον και εγω αναστησω αυτον εν τη εσχατη ημερα

He Takes Away, Part 2

Posted on by

A gnat of a notion that takes away may not be the best translation of αἴρει (a form of αἴρω) in, He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me,[1] became important enough to address directly.  Here is a table of possible translations.

Meanings of αἴρω Possible Translations of αἴρει in John 15:2a
to lift up, take up, pick up He lifts up every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to look up (in prayer) He looks up (in prayer) every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to move upward, raise vertically He moves every branch that does not bear fruit in me upward.
to raise to a higher level He raises every branch that does not bear fruit in me to a higher level.
to take up and carry along He takes up and carries along every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to lift up and carry away, remove He lifts up and carries away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to take away, remove (no suggestion of lifting up) He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to bear with, endure He bears with every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to carry, transport He carries every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to bear and uphold He bears and upholds every branch that does not bear fruit in me.
to be dressed as an office-bearer He dresses every branch that does not bear fruit in me as an office-bearer.
to cause to emerge He causes every branch that does not bear fruit in me to emerge.

The previous essay went in a direction I didn’t expect.  Though I enjoyed diagramming sentences in elementary school, I had no idea I could begin to do it in Greek.  Comparing the Greek construction of the clauses of John 15:2a to Mark 4:15b and Luke 8:12b I realized that Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away[2] was structurally more like with their hands they will lift you up[3] than either immediately Satan comes and snatches the word that was sown in them,[4] or then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.[5]

Here I want to consider Paul’s usage of a similar metaphor.  I realize this can be frustrating.  I’m well past the point where at other times in my life I’ve abandoned Jesus and done whatever I wanted instead.  But ever since I prayed my slightly insulting prayer of miniscule faith—“If you’re really out there, I really want to know you”—something has changed.  “Whatever I wanted instead” has never turned out to be exactly what I wanted then or now.  For the flesh has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh, for these are in opposition to each other, so that you cannot do what you want.[6]  I eventually wound up back with Jesus studying the Bible.

With this history between us, we laugh at my frustration now, go to bed, get up and do it again the next morning.  Now[7] I am speaking to you Gentiles, Paul wrote believers in Rome (Romans 11:13-21 NET).

Seeing that[8] I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? [Table]  If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches.

Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root,[9] do not boast over the branches.  But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.  Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in” [Table].  Granted!  They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith.  Do not be arrogant, but fear!  For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.

The Greek words translated perhaps above in the NET parallel Greek text and NA28 were μή πως, and μήπως in the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text.  The former were in brackets indicating a suspicion that μή πως may not be original.  For all I know that is a suspicion that μήπως is more original.  I’m not studying the manuscripts.  From a logical perspective, however, I could argue that perhaps is not original to Paul.

For if God did not spare the natural branches (those in Israel who did not believe Jesus), he will not spare you (Gentiles who do not believe Jesus).  Gentiles (ἔθνεσιν and ἐθνῶν, both forms of ἔθνος) do not comprise a special favored class with potentially unique rights and privileges in Paul’s theology.  And will…spare you (σοῦ φείσεται) here means to spare one from being broken off in the future as some were broken off (ἐξεκλάσθησαν, a form of ἐκκλάω) in the past from participation in the richness of the olive root (NET) or partaking in the root and fatness of the olive tree (KJV).

Viewed from the perspective Paul revealed in this passage the question was not: is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?[10]  Rather, the question was: “is this the time you are restoring Israel to the kingdom?”  But Jesus didn’t correct his disciples’ question (Acts 1:7, 8 NET).

He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” [Table].

So how does this relate to He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me?  I made the connection initially through the English word branches.  I got in trouble for that kind of thinking once.

I had written an essay much like one of these, comparing/contrasting various passages from the Bible, but had made my linkages in English translation only.  I showed it to my brother.  He was not very far into it before he got red in the face and tore it up.  This wasn’t something stored on disc somewhere that I could easily reprint.  It was my only copy laboriously typed.  But I don’t want to make it sound worse than it was.  I was a musician, an athlete and a sinner.  I was used to being yelled at, didn’t necessarily like it, but very accustomed to it.

What hurt the most was that I had been sincerely excited about what I thought I was learning in my new NASB Bible.  When my brother calmed down, he showed me how to use Strong’s Concordance.  It was a big book only keyed to the KJV at the time.  So I began the habit of reading the NASB, checking with the KJV, looking up words in the concordance and writing out lists of verses which contained the Greek or Hebrew word in question.  When I looked back at my lists of verses and couldn’t recall the sense they had made to me, I copied longer passages.  Eventually I got a Commodore 64 and started typing verses and passages.  Different computers and more notes later, I looked back at my lists of Bible passages.  When I couldn’t remember what I was thinking at the time I had compiled them, I began to write essays again.

Here are some of the differences between the two passages in question.

Romans 11:16, 17 (NET)

John 15:1, 2 (NET)
11:16 root ρίζα 15:1 vine ἄμπελος
branches κλάδοι, a form of κλάδος 15:2 branch κλῆμα
11:17 κλάδων, another form of κλάδος
broken off ἐξεκλάσθησαν, a form of ἐκκλάω takes away αἴρει, a form of αἴρω

A Greek reader wouldn’t necessarily make any connection between these metaphors based on these words.  The only potential connection is the imagery conjured by the words.  I took the following for comparison: If anyone does not remain[11] in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the[12] fire, and are burned up.[13]  Jesus is trying to get me to slow down and pay particular attention to the Greek.  So here goes.

Romans 11:21

 John 15:6
 NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus  NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus
εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, [μή πως] οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται ει γαρ ο θεος των κατα φυσιν κλαδων ουκ εφεισατο μηπως ουδε σου φεισηται ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται εαν μη τις μεινη εν εμοι εβληθη εξω ως το κλημα και εξηρανθη και συναγουσιν αυτα και εις πυρ βαλλουσιν και καιεται

NET

 KJV NET

KJV
For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed[14] lest he also spare not thee. If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

There is a factual statement in Romans 11:21 indicated by the negation οὐκ and the verb it negates: God did not spare the natural branches.  Or if I put the words back closer to their order in Greek: God the natural branches did not spare.  The phrase did…spare was the way the NET translators rendered ἐφείσατο, a form of φείδομαι in the aorist tense and the indicative mood.

Then he used that fact (εἰ γὰρ, translated For if) to deduce another: he will not spare you.  Or if I put the words back closer to their order in Greek: neither you will he spare.  The phrase will…spare was the way the NET translators rendered φείσεται, another form of φείδομαι in the future tense and the indicative mood.  The negation οὐδὲ is a negation of fact as well.

So, if Paul actually felt the necessity to place μή πως or μηπως in the midst of this deductively valid if-then statement, it says something extraordinary, not about Gentiles but about being in Christ.  And though the originality of μή πως is questioned in the NA28 and NET parallel Greek text, it still stands.

Jesus proposed a hypothetical situation.  This is indicated by the qualified negation μή and the verb μένῃ.[15]  Justin Alfred in a posting on the BLB Blog, “EMPHATIC NEGATIONS IN BIBLICAL GREEK,” quoted from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

µή, the Septuagint for אַל , אַיִן , אֵין, a particle of negation, which differs from οὐ (which is always an adverb) in that οὐ denies the thing itself (or to speak technically, denies simply, absolutely, categorically, directly, objectively), but µή denies the thought of the thing, or the thing according to the judgment, opinion, will, purpose, preference, of someone (hence, as we say technically, indirectly, hypothetically, subjectively).

The Greek verb translated does…remain (NET) is μένῃ, a form of μένω in the present tense and subjunctive mood.  “It is an important distinction to understand…that the only place in which ‘time’ comes to bear directly upon the tense of a verb is when the verb is in the indicative mood.  In all other moods and uses the aktionsart of the verb tense should be seen as primary.”[16]

What is the aktionsart?

In English, we think of the tense of a verb as denoting the “time” of the action. In Greek also time is indicated by tense, but only absolutely so in the Indicative mood. And time is not the primary significance of Greek tenses. Fundamentally, Kind of Action, rather than Time of Action, is indicated by tense…

The kind of action indicated by the use of the present tense is durative…

The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless (ἔστιν ὁ θεός) or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment: γράφω ‘I am writing [now]’;…The present stem may also be iterative: ἔβαλλεν ‘threw repeatedly (or each time)’. (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)[17]

So a word like μένῃ is durative (in progress).  I can grasp that.  Except for tense If anyone does not remain in me (present tense) was translated as if the Greek was identical to if God did not spare the natural branches (past tense).  It gives me the impression that one has remained in Jesus at some point in the past but presently does not.  The qualified negation μή does not immediately precede the verb μένῃ, however, as the absolute negation does (οὐκ ἐφείσατο) in Paul’s factual statement.  In Jesus’ hypothetical statement μή immediately precedes the pronoun and creates something more like a logical category, μή τις μένῃ (if not one remaining in me).  Granted, remaining may not be the best translation of the present tense, but I’m trying to avoid adding the helper verb to do.

The translators assumed that the verb ἐβλήθη (a form of βάλλω) had no subject, so they supplied he: ἐβλήθη ἔξω, he is thrown out.  The aorist tense is so weird I’m sure a clever translator can justify the present tense here.  But the main reason ἐβλήθη ἔξω was translated he is thrown out rather than “he was thrown out” is the assumption that it has no subject.  The supplied subject he seems to refer back to the first clause, so the aorist verb must be conformed to the present tense because the verb μένῃ is in the present tense.

A table of the verbs in John 15:6, excluding μένῃ, follows.

Verb A Form Of… Syntactical Classification NET KJV
ἐβλήθη βάλλω Aorist Tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Singular is thrown is cast
ἐξηράνθη ξηραίνω Aorist Tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Singular dries up is withered
συνάγουσιν συνέχω Present Tense, Active Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Plural are gathered up gather
βάλλουσιν βάλλω Present Tense, Active Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Plural thrown cast
καίεται καίω Present Tense, Middle/Passive Voice, Indicative Mood, 3rd Person Singular are burned up are burned

I think I can do more justice to these verbs by assuming that τὸ κλῆμα was the intended subject of at least the singular verbs: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up.”  (The NIV translators did this for the first two singular verbs.)

The next two plural verbs are tricky.  The KJV translators supplied men as the subject.  A note (21) in the NET acknowledged that “they gather them up and throw them into the fire” is an appropriate translation of the Greek.  But I think the NET translators were onto something (despite translating the two active verbs in a passive voice) treating αὐτὰ as an implied subject/object of this sudden intrusion of plural branches, such branches: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up, such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire.”

The final verb is singular again and refers back to the singular branch, τὸ κλῆμα: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up, such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and it burns.”  Or if I want to be a stickler about the active voice: “If not one remaining in me, like a branch was thrown out and dried up, they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and it burns.”  I need to add some words to make this anything like an English sentence: “If [he is] not one remaining in me, [he is] like a branch [that] was thrown out and dried up, they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and it burns.”

About this time it dawned on me that maybe that was the translators’ intent all along and my own tendency to read a sin/punishment motif into things prevented me from understanding it that way.  Another note (20) in the NET makes this supposition doubtful as far as the NET translators are concerned.  But then, that‘s what I’ve grown to appreciate about the NET, the sense that the translators and I are from the same socially constructed reality, the same religious milieu, unlike the KJV translators.

So, just about the time I began to feel like I was straining out a gnat, I was reminded of the camel I was compelled to swallow if I didn’t entertain this particular one.

The Greek words translated thrown out are ἐβλήθη (a form of βάλλω) ἔξω.  It is not, “If anyone does not remain in me, he throws himself out;” ἐβλήθη is in the passive voice.  The implication is that the one who does not remain in me (ἐν ἐμοί) is thrown out by someone else.  The gardener, Jesus’ father, is the most likely referent in this metaphor.  This gardener (our Father to all who believe) would do two things then: 1) He takes away every branch in Jesus that bears no fruit; and, 2) He throws out every branch that does not remain in Jesus.

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, Jesus said, and the one who comes to me I will never send away[18]…(but the gardener, my Father, might).

I’ll pick this up in another essay.  Tables comparing Luke 8:12; Romans 11:13; 11:17 and John 15:6 in the NET and KJV follow.

Luke 8:12 (NET)

Luke 8:12 (KJV)
Those along the path are the ones who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες, εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν οι δε παρα την οδον εισιν οι ακουοντες ειτα ερχεται ο διαβολος και αιρει τον λογον απο της καρδιας αυτων ινα μη πιστευσαντες σωθωσιν οι δε παρα την οδον εισιν οι ακουοντες ειτα ερχεται ο διαβολος και αιρει τον λογον απο της καρδιας αυτων ινα μη πιστευσαντες σωθωσιν

Romans 11:13 (NET)

Romans 11:13 (KJV)
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles.  Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· ἐφ᾿ ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω υμιν γαρ λεγω τοις εθνεσιν εφ οσον μεν ειμι εγω εθνων αποστολος την διακονιαν μου δοξαζω υμιν γαρ λεγω τοις εθνεσιν εφ οσον μεν ειμι εγω εθνων αποστολος την διακονιαν μου δοξαζω

Romans 11:17 (NET)

Romans 11:17 (KJV)
Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root, And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
Εἰ δέ τινες τῶν κλάδων ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ ἀγριέλαιος ὢν ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ συγκοινωνὸς τῆς ρίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας ἐγένου ει δε τινες των κλαδων εξεκλασθησαν συ δε αγριελαιος ων ενεκεντρισθης εν αυτοις και συγκοινωνος της ριζης και της πιοτητος της ελαιας εγενου ει δε τινες των κλαδων εξεκλασθησαν συ δε αγριελαιος ων ενεκεντρισθης εν αυτοις και συγκοινωνος της ριζης και της πιοτητος της ελαιας εγενου

John 15:6 (NET)

John 15:6 (KJV)
If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

 

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται εαν μη τις μεινη εν εμοι εβληθη εξω ως το κλημα και εξηρανθη και συναγουσιν αυτα και εις πυρ βαλλουσιν και καιεται εαν μη τις μεινη εν εμοι εβληθη εξω ως το κλημα και εξηρανθη και συναγουσιν αυτα και εις το πυρ βαλλουσιν και καιεται

[1] John 15:2a (NET)

[2] John 15:2a (KJV)

[3] Matthew 4:6b (NET)

[4] Mark 4:15b (NET) Table

[5] Luke 8:12b (NET)

[6] Galatians 5:17 (NET) Table

[7] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had δὲ here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had γαρ (KJV: For).

[8] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had οὖν (not translated in the NET) here.  The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text did not.

[9] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had της ριζης και της πιοτητος της ελαιας εγενου (KJV: of the root and fatness of the olive tree) here, where the NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had τῆς ρίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας ἐγένου (NET: in the richness of the olive root).

[10] Acts 1:6b (NET) Table

[11] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had μένῃ here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had μεινη (KJV: abide).

[12] The NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text had the article τὸ here.  The Stephanus Textus Receptus did not.

[13] John 15:6 (NET)

[14] The Stephanus Textus Receptus is the closest Greek text that I have found online to serve as parallel Greek for the KJV.  Here is one of the places it falls short.  According to Strong’s Concordance circa 1890 a form of ὁράω (ὁρᾶτε possibly) occurred somewhere in this verse, translated take heed.

[15] The verb was μεινη (another form of μένω) in the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text.  I don’t think that would alter what I’m saying here about a “hypothetical situation” but I am struggling with both the qualified negation and aorist tense.

[16] Greek Verbs (Shorter Definitions), Verb Tenses, Time & “Kind of Action” in Greek Verbs

[17] Aktionsart & the Present Tense

[18] John 6:37 (NET) Table