John 15:1-8

¹ I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
² Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
³ You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
⁴ Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
⁵ I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
⁷ If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
⁸ My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.

John 15:1-8

I have been debating a man online (let us call him IMP as an acronym for his username) who believes that it is possible for a Christian to forfeit his/her salvation. One of IMP's arguments pertains to John 15:1-8, where he has latched onto the phrase "in Me" in John 15:2 at the expense of the context of this passage and of the rest of Scripture. So, here is an exegesis of the passage to expose his flawed logic and his false interpretation.

Verse 1. Jesus stating "I am the true vine" is Him saying that He is the true Israel. Just as Jesus is the new Adam, likewise He is also the new Israel. Where Israel failed, Jesus succeeded in every way. In the Old Testament, it was Israel who was frequently referred to as a vine (Ps. 80:8-18; Is. 5:1-7; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:1-5; 17:1-2; 19:20-14; Hos. 10:1-2). Now, Jesus says, "I am the true vine."
Verse 2. The "that does not bear fruit" must be understood in the context of verses 4 and 5. It is only through abiding in Christ (being truly "in Him") that one can bear fruit. Apart from Him, "you can do nothing."
Verse 4. There is a co-abiding here. Only those abiding in Christ have Christ abiding in them. Those said to be "in Him" that did not produce any fruit are not said to have Christ abiding in them. They did not produce fruit because they were not abiding in Christ and Christ was not abiding in them.
Verse 5. Again, there is a co-abiding here.  Only those abiding in Christ have Christ abiding in them. Those said to be "in Him" that did not produce any fruit are not said to have Christ abiding in them. They did not produce fruit because they were not abiding in Christ and Christ was not abiding in them.
Verse 6. The result of not abiding in Christ, which "does not bear fruit," is the discarding, gathering, and casting into the fire.
Verse 8. The bearing of fruit is the evidence they are Jesus' true disciples. Ergo, the lack of bearing fruit is the evidence they were never Jesus' true disciples.

NOTE: The co-abiding found in verses 4 and 5 does not contradict the rest of Scripture as some would have it do. The rest of Scripture makes it quite clear that it is God who keeps us, guards us, preserves us, etc., etc., etc. God is the primary cause; everything else is the secondary cause. My ability to abide in Christ is because God has caused me to abide in Christ.

Premise 1: Christ only abides in those branches that abide in Him. Ergo, there is no life-giving connection to the vine for those that do not abide.
Premise 2: Only those branches that abide in Christ produce fruit. Ergo, there is no life-giving connection to the vine for those that do not bear fruit.
Conclusion: There is no life-giving connection to the vine for those that do not abide in Christ and bear fruit.

First of all, this passage of Scripture is not a parable. A parable uses "like," "as," or "than" for comparison. This passage of Scripture is an allegory, an extended metaphor. This passage of Scripture describes Jesus as the vine and His followers as the branches. Yes, His followers. But do not supposed that all followers of Jesus are born-again believers. John 6:66 says, "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." There are other passages of Scripture we could consider, but these are sufficient. What these passages reveal to us is: All born-again believers are disciples of Jesus, but not all disciples of Jesus are born-again believers. Jesus had many followers, but only a fool would claim that each and every single one of them was a born-again believer. The "in Me" in verse 2 refers to those followers who were such by name only, which the context of this passage supports (as well as various other passages of Scripture).

Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13 both inform us that those with temporary faith have "no root." Temporary faith does not equal saving faith. Jesus makes it clear that you will know the difference between genuine believers and false believers by their fruits (Matt. 7:6, 20). A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit (Matt. 7:18). Behavioural modification is no substitute for genuine heart transformation. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that just because people call him "Lord, Lord" and do many good deeds in His name does not mean that He knows them (Matt. 7:21-23). In other words, His Spirit does not indwell them (2 Cor. 5:12). If it did, His Spirit would testify with their spirit that they were indeed children of God (Rom. 8:6). They believed themselves to be saved, but Jesus called them workers of lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

IMP is asking this one passage, verse 2, to say things that he wants it to say, deliberately and purposefully ignoring the truth of the rest of Scripture, which thoroughly, soundly, and conclusively tells him what the "in Me" in verse 2 means. IMP uses a flawed logic. In spite of what the rest of Scripture says, informing him that the "branch in Me that does not bear fruit" is a mere professor of Christ and not a possessor of Christ, IMP wants to believe against all evidence that it somehow had a life-giving connection to the vine and then voluntarily forfeited its salvation. Can clay voluntarily do anything (Rom. 9:20-23)? The "in Me" in verse 2 simply corresponds and corroborates with the truths Jesus revealed in His parables about the kingdom (Matt. 13). If it can be forfeited, it is not "eternal." If it can be forfeited, then salvation is based entirely upon our works. If it can be forfeited, then Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to procure salvation for us or to keep us in that salvation (something he might want to examine John 17 for).

IMP attempted to argue that "No where does this state that the fruitful branches ever bore fruit or not. Any conjecture here is reading into the scripture." Try reading verse 2 again: "every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit." Ergo, it clearly does state that the fruitful branches bore fruit. If IMP's argument meant to say "No where does this state that the unfruitful branches ever bore fruit or not. Any conjecture here is reading into the scripture," he would be in error yet again, as evidenced not only from the exposition of this entire post, but also again from verse 2: "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit." Verse 2 destroys IMP's theory of whether the fruitless branches ever produced any fruit or not as the entire contrast between the two branches is those that did "not bear fruit" and those that did "bear fruit." The final nail in the coffin is that if they did produce fruit, even if it was a little, the Father would have pruned them so that they would have produced more fruit. As it is, they never produced any fruit because they did not abide in Christ and Christ did not abide in them.

If Christ Jesus is not in you, then YOU are not in Christ Jesus. If Christ Jesus is not in you, then YOU will not produce any fruit (evidence of genuine faith). If Christ Jesus is not in you, then YOU never had a life-giving connection to Him. This is what John 15 is teaching. This is what the "in Me" in verse 2 refers to. Genuine converts and false converts growing up together in the kingdom of God until God separates them at the end of the age. Good soil from the bad soil, wheat from the tares, good fish from the bad fish, wise virgins from the foolish virgins, sheep from the goats. Those who commit apostasy (rebellion) never had Christ in their hearts to begin with. It is impossible for a blood-bought, born-again, Spirit-filled believer to rebel against the Saviour Who gave them a new nature, made them spiritually alive, regenerated them, gave them a new heart, and caused them to love God. IMP's theology is bankrupt. He can perform all the linguistic and eisegetical gymnastics he wants, but he cannot squirm his way out of these facts.

Πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ clearly does not show a life-giving connection to the vine. Hence the μὴ φέρον καρπόν. Why would God αἴρει αὐτό otherwise? Μὴ φέρον καρπόν is contrasted against πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον. The one that πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον, even if it is a little, God καθαίρει αὐτό for the purpose ἵνα πλείονα καρπὸν φέρῃ. The ἐν ἐμοὶ in verses 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 does not change meaning. The details surrounding each ἐν ἐμοὶ (known as context) is what determines its meaning. The meaning of πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ, then, is one who has no life-giving connection to the vine and has never bore any fruit. How do we know that it never bore any fruit? Because if it did, καθαίρει αὐτό, ἵνα πλείονα καρπὸν φέρῃ. The fact it is contrasted against πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον is proof that it never bore any fruit. The fact it μὴ φέρον καρπόν, is proof that it never μείνατε in Christ and Christ never μείνῃ in it. Verse 5 states the one that μένων is the one that αὑτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν. The fact χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποῖεν οὐδέν demonstrates positively and soundly that πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ was never in Christ to begin with.  It is conclusive that both branches are not "in Christ." IMP is guilty of hermeneutical reaching in order to try and prove his false thesis. If he allowed the Golden Rule of Hermeneutics (which states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.") and the Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics (which states, "God says what He means and means what He says.") to speak, he would not make such grave hermeneutical errors.

As far as whether a Christian can forfeit their salvation, see these other articles:
Can You Lose Your Salvation?
Apostasy in Galatians
You can find more under the Apostasy section in the Table of Contents.

---

Concerning the phrase "in me," John Gill has commented as follows:

There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one sort are such who have only an historical faith in him, . . . they are such who only profess to believe in him, as Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only; they submit to outward ordinances, become church members, and so are reckoned to be in Christ, being in a church-state, as the churches of Judea, and Thessalonica, and others, are said, in general, to be in Christ; though it is not to be thought that every person in these churches was truly and savingly in him.¹

Alexander MacClaren has presented in masterful fashion the view that the unfruitful branches represent unsaved professors:

It seems to me that the very language of the metaphor before us requires us to interpret the fruitless branches as meaning all those who have a mere superficial, external adherence to the True Vine. For according to the whole teaching of the parable, if there be any real union there will be some life, and if there be any life, there will be some fruit, and, therefore, the branch that has no fruit has no life, because it has no real union. And so the application, as I take it, is necessarily to those professing Christians, nominal adherents to Christiainity or to Christ's church, people that come to church and chapel, and if you ask them to put down in the census paper what they are, they will say Christians. . . . but who have no real hold upon Jesus Christ, and no real reception of anything from Him.²

As Dr. MacClaren has stated, verses 4 and 5, taken alone, would most naturally lead one to conclude that the unfruitful branches represent professing unbelievers. Likewise, it should be conceded by all that the judgment of verse 6 can most naturally be understood as the judgment that lies ahead for professing unbelievers. But not only do verses 4, 5, and 6 support this identification--verse 3 also supports it. In fact, it can hardly be denied that Jesus' choice of the word "clean" in verse 3 was intended to remind the disciples of His discussion with them only a little earlier that evening. In His conversation with Peter concerning the washing of his feet, Jesus remarked that the disciples were all "clean" except for one, the son of perdition, who was about to betray him (cf. John 13:10, 21; 6:70-71; and 17:12). With this usage in mind, the disciples would have understood that Jesus, in John 15:3, was telling them again that He knew them to be true believers and not just professors as was Judas. His terminology clearly implies that there are (and will be) others, who, like Judas, are mere pretenders. These eleven, however, are true believers. As such, He wishes them to realize that their only source of strength was in Him, not in themselves.

Verse 1 also supports the identification of the unfruitful branches as false professors. By introducing Himself as the vine, "the genuine one," Jesus is clearly contrasting Himself to the well-known unproductive vine--Israel. So He is saying in effect, "I am God's true vine, the One through whom all of Israel's promises will be fulfilled, and the One in and through whom Israel, and the rest of redeemed humanity, will at last produce fruit for God." Just as there were those in Israel (the old unproductive vine) who were not really "of Israel" (Rom. 9:6), that is, who were not true believers, there were also some who, outwardly at least, appeared to be "of Christ," but who were not inwardly united with Christ. These were in the "Jesus movement" just as the Sadducees were in the "Jewish movement."

Matthew Poole also presents the unfruitful branches representative of unsaved professors:

Men may be said to be branches in him, by a sacramental implantation, being baptized into him, Rom. vi. 3; and are hereby members of the visible church, and make a visible profession of adhering to him, with respect to their own good opinion and persuasions of themselves, though they be not so in respect of any true, spiritual, and real implantation.³

Matthew Henry does likewise:

It is here intimate that there are many who pass for branches in Christ who yet do not bear fruit. Were they really united to Christ by faith, they would bear fruit; but being only tied to him by the thread of an outward profession, though they seem to be branches, they will soon be seen to be dry ones. Unfruitful professors are unfaithful professors; professors, and no more.⁴

Hengstenberg believed that Jesus had in mind, throughout this whole parable, the unbelieving Jews who were to be severed from the "True Vine" because of their unbelief. Concerning, the phrase, "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit," he makes the following remarks:

. . . the Jewish branch is primarily meant; as by the contrasted fruit-bearing branch we are to understand primarily the Apostles, the Christian church , having its germ in them. That even the Jews were a branch in Christ the True Vine, is as certain as that, according to chapter 1:11, when He came to the Jews, He came to His own property. But the evidence that Jesus had primarily in view the Jews, when He spoke of the branches not bearing fruit, is found in the fact that the same thought recurs in verse six, where the reference to Ezekiel 15 places the allusion to the Jews beyond doubt.⁵

The validity of these statements is obvious and will be supported by an exegesis of the passage, but application should not be limited only to the Jews. Any who merely profess to be in union with God face the consequences stated by Jesus in verses 2 and 6. The Jews, of course, would have been particularly in view at the time when Jesus spoke these words.

The famous Greek exegete, Godet, suggested that the phrase "in me" may refer to the "branch" or to the participle "bearing." In the latter case the verse would read, "every branch which is not bearing fruit in me He takes away.”⁶ (This is also acknowledged by both Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole.) The text, however, while it allows this construction, favors the common reading.

With these considerations in mind it is evident that it is not impossible to harmonize the "in me" with the identification of the unfruitful branches as merely professors.

The only proof that a person is a real Christian is the "fruit" produced in his/her life. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:20). Indeed, this very truth is taught by the parable under consideration. The following comments are appropriate:

. . . no one can be a branch in Christ, and a living member of His body, who does not bear fruit. Vital union with Christ not evidenced by life is an impossibility and a blasphemous idea.⁷

Can any one who is ingrafted into Christ be without fruit? I answer, many are supposed to be in the vine, according to the opinion of men, who actually have no root in the vine. Thus, in the writings of the prophets, the Lord calls the people of Israel his vine, because, by outward profession, they had the name of The Church. . . . By these words He declares that all who have a living root in him are fruit-bearing branches.⁸

Did you catch that? "No root," as in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13. Outward profession means absolutely diddly! (That's the technical term.) These people were professors, NOT possessors.

So, one should not consider himself to be a branch of the Vine just because he is a Jew. Rather, is the test a matter of bearing "fruit" (15:2). Indeed many professed to believe in Jesus who really did not (see 2:23-25). These non-fruit-bearing 'branches' the Cultivator would remove.⁹

. . . by their fruitfulness or unfruitfulness they declare themselves to be true or counterfeit branches, and to be really, or in show only, engrafted in Christ. . . The true touchstone whereby to discern one sort of branches from another is, not their leaves or profession, but their fruit. . . . ¹⁰

Can one be in Christ yet remain fruitless? ...This at least is certain, that as the fruitless branch can have no living Connection with the vine, no more can the fruitless professing Christian with Christ. Something is as it should not be; though man's eye may not detect the cause, the union is not the same kind of union as that of the fruitful branch or Christian.¹¹

. . . so will God take away from his church all professed Christians who give no evidence by their lives that they are truly united to the Lord Jesus. . . 'Every branch that beareth fruit,' that is, all true Christians; for all such bear fruit.¹²

. . . the reader can at least infer that the absence of “fruit” implies the absence of life, that is, of a life-giving relationship to the vine.¹³

No Reformed writer has matched Owen’s profound thinking, thorough exposition, and rigorous application in the matter of perseverance and assurance (see Works of John Owen, Volume XI: Continuing in the Faith). John Owen's comment is appropriate:

The expression 'if a man abide not in me,' does not imply the termination of a living connection, but that true union and fellowship with Christ was never enjoyed by this worthless branch.¹⁴

As such...

We should not regard this as a proof that true believers may fall away. It is part of the viticultural picture, and the point could not be made without it. The emphasis is on the bearing of fruit.¹⁵

---

¹ An Exposition of the New Testament, John Gill,  vol.1, p.740.
² Expositions of Holy Scripture, Alexander MacClaren, vol.7, p.5.
³ Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew Poole, vol.3, p.359.
⁴ Matthew Henry's Commentary, Matthew Henry, vol.5, p.906.
⁵ Commentary on the Gospel of John, E. W. Hengstenberg, p. 245.
⁶ Commentary on the Gospel of John, Frederick Louis Godet, vol.2, p.294.
⁷ Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, J. C. Ryle, John 10:10 to end, p.335.
⁸ Calvin's Commentaries, John Calvin, vol.18, pp.108-9.
⁹ The Gospel of John, V. Wayne Barton, p.73.
¹⁰ An Exposition of the Gospel According to John, George Hutcheson, p.314.
¹¹ The Gospel According to St. John, George Reith, p.102.
¹² Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the New Testament, Albert Barnes, vol.2, p.352.
¹³ The Gospel of John, J. Ramsey Michaels, p.452.
¹⁴ A Commentary on the Gospel of John, John J. Owen, p.363.
¹⁵ The Gospel According to John REVISED, Leon Morris, p.427.