Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 The Project
The purpose of this research is to show that communal holiness is at the heart of the vine metaphor in John 15:1-17.1 Johannine holiness is portrayed as the participation of humankind in the mutual abiding of the Triune God,2 which has strong implications for the ethical life of the new covenant people of God.3 In 15:1-17 the disciples, who represent a holy community and the new covenant people of God, are portrayed as participants in the mutual abiding of the Holy Triune God. They are holy insofar as they participate in the life of the divine family. They are called to reflect the life modelled by the divine family by rejecting all individualism and practising communal holiness expressed in hospitality and sharing of God-given resources.
Recent studies on the vine metaphor in 15:1-17 and on the GOJ as a whole show that Johannine metaphors, particularly the vine metaphor, have strong corporate aspects to their interpretation.4 However, the call to communal holiness that is so integral to the vine metaphor has conspicuously been neglected. This research provides a fresh look at John’s corporate metaphors, unearthing the holiness emphasis embedded in them. These metaphors are read in the light of the covenant theme in the OT and 2TP including its strong emphasis on holiness.
Taken at face value, the vine metaphor appears to have nothing to contribute to the subject of holiness. The term “holiness” does not appear in 15:1-17. However, the language the writer uses with reference to the disciples demonstrates that he regards them as the holy people of God: 1) the use of OT covenant motifs suggests that the disciples are in a covenant relationship with God. In the OT and 2TP the vine/vineyard is a covenant motif used with reference to the holy people of God (Ps 80:8-18; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21; Jub. 1:16; 1 En. 10.18, 19). 2) The description of the disciples as branches mutually indwelling Christ, the holy one of God (6:69), suggests that the disciples are holy in relation to Jesus’ holiness. Jesus’ holiness is a contagious power that cleanses and transforms those around him, bringing them into the new holy people of God. 3) The description of the disciples as those who are already made clean by Christ’s word (15:3) suggests moral purity5 in line with receiving the words of Jesus (3:34; 6:63; 14:10). As early as the first chapter they believe in the “Word” of God and are identified as “children of God” (1:12).6 4) The presentation is of the disciples as fruit-bearing branches. Fruit-bearing is understood in relation to holiness in early Judaism.7
A close examination of the verb “sanctify” in its context, used elsewhere (17:17, 19) with reference to Jesus’ disciples, shows that the GOJ treats the holiness of the disciples’ community as a significant theme closely related to the holiness of God.8 This thesis, therefore, argues that John’s vine metaphor is a picture of the renewed people of God centered in Jesus and is an appeal to the people of God to live in holiness and bear fruits befitting their new status. Holiness is an obligation of the people of God because God is holy.
However, a common feature in contemporary scholarship is that it makes no connection between the intimacy described by mutual indwelling and the holiness of the people of God. In this research we draw this connection and further elaborate it by highlighting its connection to John’s Trinitarian theology. We show how John’s Trinitarian hospitality functions at different levels, emphasizing how the hospitality modelled by the divine family can be reflected by the new people of God. We further elucidate hospitality by showing how it works within the context of the African Bantu communities. The ideas of communality, kinship, and ubuntu, which are pertinent to Bantu culture and tradition, though not idealized, are postulated as human models. The underlying thought is that John 15:1-17 clearly describes the divine-human intimacy and its implications for the ethical life of the people of God.
1.2 Problems and Necessity of Research
Five problems are identifiable in current scholarship on the vine metaphor.
First, the wealth of background knowledge on the vine in ancient Near Eastern (ANE)9 viticulture and religion has not been adequately considered. As a result the metaphor is often removed from reality and fails to invite change in its hearers. If patterns of viticulture were properly investigated and allowed to illumine our understanding of the metaphor, the metaphor may retain its initial power to call readers into action. The works of Goodenough, Seltan, and the recent works of McGovern and Unwin are helpful in providing historical background.10 However, few of the scholars use this background when interpreting the Johannine vine metaphor. Where attempts are made,11 some historical details are lacking and there is no effort to invite response from readers.
Second, although there is a scholarly consensus on the importance of the OT vine image for interpreting 15:1-17 there has been no significant effort to investigate the relevant texts or the ANE religious system as the milieu of those texts.12 The relevant OT texts are cited without attempts to show how they impact on the interpretation of John’s vine metaphor. Thus it is not clear how the vine image in John relates to the vine image in the OT and 2TP and whether lessons can be learned from the negative portrayal of the vine in the OT and 2TP. Present scholarship does not show how scripture takes readers from the vine that bears injustice and cries of pain to the true vine that bears justice and right living (Isa 5:7; John 15:1).
Third, interpretation of the vine metaphor as an appeal for the communal holiness of the people of God as they live in union with the holy God through the holy One of God remains fertile ground for research. Although some scholars identify the vine as a covenant metaphor,13 the holiness issue that is so pertinent to a covenant relationship with God has been neglected. John 15:1-17 contains important motifs that the writer uses in relation to the holiness of the disciples: branches, mutual abiding, fruit-bearing, pruning, cleansing, and love. No scholarly work identifies these motifs as John’s chosen language of referring to the holiness of the new people of God.
Fourth, although mutual abiding is properly identified as the main theme of John’s vine metaphor,14 scholars do not interpret it within the context of Trinitarian theology. As a result they miss the implications for shared life suggested by the metaphor’s mutuality. Mutual abiding suggests the participation of one in another and has significant implications for hospitality and caring for the poor and marginalized of society. The theme of hospitality that is illustrated by the image of mutual abiding is introduced in the prologue and runs through the Gospel as Jesus is hospitably received by some and rejected by others. The failure to employ the Trinity as an important interpretative context for the metaphor equals the failure to see in the metaphor an emphasis upon hospitality and a polemic against injustice.
Fifth, current scholarship does not engage with relevant inter/intratexts of the key motifs of 15:1-17. When interpreting the metaphor scholars seldom allow scripture to interpret scripture; as a result they do not show how the various aspects cohere and fit into the overall plot of the Gospel.15 An inter/intratextual approach to the text of 15:1-17 will, therefore, show that themes addressed in John’s vine metaphor are coherent with other themes raised in the Gospel and they all together contribute to the purpose of John.
1.3 Methodology
A brief statement of methodology will clarify how this research will achieve its aims. At least three methodologies will be juxtaposed.
First, the thesis follows a historical-cultural approach to the Johannine text. It is “historical” not in the sense of concern for historical accuracy or recourse to details of composition such as authorship, source, and dating. Rather, the Johannine vine metaphor is interpreted in the light of its historical cultural background in the Mediterranean world where it was first heard. Like other Johannine images (e.g. water and sheep/shepherd) the vine imagery is alive and developed over time in Jewish culture and usage. Indeed “the fourth evangelist and his readers were also surrounded in their day by a Mediterranean world in which syncretistic, pagan religions, themselves influenced by the orient, flourished.”16 It is in this religious culture where the vine metaphor was particularly active in various ways.
To some extent we follow Keener, who interprets the GOJ in the light of its socio-historical context, which he defines as the eastern Mediterranean cultural, social, political, religious, and ancient literary settings in which the GOJ would have been originally read. Keener asks historical questions in order to reconstruct John’s text in keeping with his ideal audience in the ancient Mediterranean context. He maintains that “the more familiar a reader [is] with the circumstances of a document or speech, the better the reader [will] comprehend it.”17 It is in the “supply of specific social data” that Keener makes his “contributions of the longest range value.”18 For this he must be given credit. However, this thesis differs in two distinct ways: 1) it does not include specific historical details (i.e. date, authorship and composition) that the historical critical method includes. Also, although occasionally referencing cultural traditions outside 2TP Judaism our scholarly contribution draws heavily upon 2TP Judaism. 2) While offering a similar contribution to scholarship in regards to specific cultural data, we go beyond Keener by answering the question that Keener does not address: so what?19 Like Keener, however, this thesis treats the GOJ as a coherent whole.
The importance of reading the text in the light of the cultures within which it developed is acknowledged by other scholars. Indeed it is necessary to read the text in conversation with the demands of its own world.20 Kysar writes about the “secularity” of John’s metaphors in that “they speak of the mundane, daily reality of their hearers, lifting up the most common activity or occurrence.”21 The vine metaphor and its images “draw on common realities of the first century world and use ordinary commonsense knowledge as the occasion for new meaning.”22 The implied reader, a first century reader with specific cultural assumptions, can identify with the metaphor and probably attach to it a culturally nuanced meaning.
Second, we follow the narrative critical approach. According to Smalley, “narrative criticism adopts a synchronic stance, and treats the material concerned as a unified whole.”23 Smalley stresse...