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.

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.

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.

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.

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.