Chapter 15:1-11 (israel, Joseph And Jesus)

Vine“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 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. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.

For better viewing click HERE.

Jesus’ allegorical reference to himself as the true vine is no coincidence. We have already seen that the Gospel of John continuously echoes several prophetic voices of the Hebrew Bible, notably Isaiah, Zechariah and Ezekiel. The book of Isaiah contains significant content regarding the concept of the vineyard. In short, according to this Isaiah reference, Israel is God’s vineyard and its wellbeing depends upon its bearing or not bearing fruit.

We read in Isaiah 5:1-30 “Now I will sing for my friend a song about his vineyard. My friend had a vineyard on a hill with very rich soil. He dug and cleared the field of stones and planted the best grapevines there… He hoped good grapes would grow there, but only bad ones grew… Now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will remove the hedge, and it will be burned. I will break down the stone wall, and it will be walked on. I will ruin my field… The vineyard belonging to the Lord All-Powerful is the nation of Israel; the garden that he loves is the people of Judah. He looked for justice, but there was only killing. He hoped for right living, but there were only cries of pain… 16 The Lord All-Powerful will receive glory by judging fairly; the holy God will show himself holy by doing what is right. … They have refused to obey the teachings of the Lord All-Powerful and have hated the message from the Holy God of Israel.

Remember in the previous section we saw that Jesus, in his Israel-renewing agenda, appointed the twelve apostles to be the new/renewed heads of Israel. Therefore his instructions to them about remaining in him are crucially important to their remaining as the renewed/new leaders/shepherds of Israel.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 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. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.

Jesus calls himself the true vine, and as usual in John he does not directly quote from the Hebrew scriptures as do synoptics. He usually only alludes to a powerful old testament references. It is possible (though not at all certain) that John’s Jesus not only refers to Isaiah 5, but also to Gen. 49:22 where we read that “Joseph is a fruitful vine, even a fruitful vine by a well; whose branches run over the wall.”

This and the remainder of the passages speak of mighty blessings placed upon Joseph.

It is clear that Joseph is in some ways a type of Christ. We see this in his betrayal, suffering, his departure from his father, and his return from the dead (though obviously in Joseph’s case only symbolically). You may recall that Christ and the Samaritan woman converse in Samaria at the site of the burial of Joseph’s bones. Joseph was pictured in Gen. 49:22 as the unstoppable vine that overcomes obstacles and is full of life that’s irreversibly blessed by God. Its branches will even climb over a wall.

So it is likely that John’s Jesus is shown here as the ultimate Joseph who is the blessed vine. This is the vine to which all members of Israel, especially its leaders, must be connected so that they may be blessed, survive, and bear fruit.

If this is the case, then my hypothesis that John may have been written to particularly reach Samaritan Israelites (though obviously not only) with the Gospel of Christ is strengthened by this connection to Joseph. You may recall that for the Israelite Samaritans Joseph was one of the great figures of their history and identity. Therefore this connection would be logical, especially to those Israelites who identified with Joseph far more than did other Israelites at this time.

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.

If I am correct in my hypothesis of a connection with Joseph (incidentally thanks go to my mentor David Loden for pointing this out to me), it is clear that Joseph’s blessing itself originated with God. From there, through Joseph – the blessed vine –blessing can flow to all branches of the vine and they will bear much fruit; first because of their connection to the vine, but ultimately because of God’s blessings upon the vine itself (Joseph/Jesus).

About the author

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-EyzenbergTo secure your spot in our new course “The Jewish Background of New Testament” - CLICK HERE NOW

You might also be interested in:

Join the conversation (30 comments)

Leave a Reply

  1. ginette kelley

    how can you equate these men with Jesus they are and were all sinners. Our Lord Jesus was without Sin.
    Moses was not only theLawgiver he was the lawbreaker and was forbidden to enter the promised land
    It was Josephs actions that led to the captivity of the Hebrews and their slavery needing God to rescue them and as for David, well he started out ok but went downhill from there, starting with killing Bathshebas husband and seducing her, his saving grace was that he never denied God or worshipped false idols unlike their son Solomon who asked God for wisdom then built temples to other gods and idols for his wives and concubines and worshipped them as well, not the picture of the man who built the first temple, so i think you need to rethink this, if you choose to insult my intelligence so be it.
    JESUS IS MY LORD AND PART OF THE TRIUNE GOD there is no other for me

    1. Harriett

      Ginette, maybe you should look up the terms type and antitype. Maybe it will help. Harriett

  2. Harriett

    In response to Ginette, of course Joseph was a type of Christ. Christ was the antitype, All things in the Old Testament were shadows of the real that was to come. Even now ” we see through a glass dimly” and “know in part” ( 1 Cor. 2:12). All shall not be known until all is fulfilled at the last Advent. Moses was also a type of Christ leading the children of Israel to the promised land. They all gave a picture of the Coming One. I have one response to the disrespectful way you addressed Dr. Eli.

    “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise ; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent.” Proverbs 17:28.


  3. Janis Moller

    Dr Eli, your Bible study is totally different from any other study and I am so glad that You invited me to study with you…

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Glad you feel so. Enjoy!

  4. Kat Hobaugh

    I am particularly interested in the translation of the word clean (3). There seems to be no action on our part associated or required to be clean, yet I see two possible outcomes (fruit, withering).

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Tahor is the word for clean.

  5. Premkumar Samuel

    Dr. Eli thanks for another informative article.Even today when i read genesis 49 and 50 i was thinking about the Prophecy about JUDAH being fulfilled in Christ and JACOB twice mentioning GOD as his Shepherd but i missed JOSEPH the fruitful vine. Thanks many for the insight.

    I also believe when JESUS said IAM the true vine (one of the 7 IAM statements recorded by John) .the initial hearers (religious heads and theologians) would been astonished with the word IAM while the common men would have understood the allegory about abiding in the vine as their thoughts would have gone to the vineyards around them and may be they would have grasped the real meaning.

    I love the way JESUS was very open and unambiguous when he said my father will prune every branch that does bear fruit , that it may bear more fruit.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Samuel, shalom. Thank you for your comment. Dr. Eli

  6. ginette kelley

    We seem to be having a language and a problem understanding each other, surely you mean ‘ unacceptable’, so i will withdraw from this study group to further no more acceptable/unacceptable comments or disagreements between us.
    This is in fact how i read it, that you had in fact linked them (Joseph and now David) as “types of Jesus”

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Dear Ginette,

      Our group is completely free this means that people should feel free to come or go as the may :-). I honor your request to leave group. I wish you well and may the Lord continue to bless your inquisitive and critical mind to the glory of His Name. Dr. Eli

    2. Rafael

      To call something ridiculous is paramount to claiming that it has no value and that anyone who holds such a position is worthy of nothing but ridicule. This is the reason why that term is unacceptable here in this forum.

      The theory of evolution may be ridiculous to me. But saying so borders upon me calling its adherents “fools”. And they may well be. But saying so is to expose them to public disgrace. And that is not right. There are Bible-believers who are on both sides of the issue. But will such an issue affect anyone’s salvation? I doubt it.

      Now examine the ridicule Elijah directed toward the 850 false prophets, who were leading the nation away from God. That WAS a salvation issue. In fact, every one of those false prophets was put to death in the end because of how serious that issue was.

      But I don’t think that being “a type of Christ” is what you perceive it to be Ginette. I suspect that, without knowing what that term was, you made your own conclusion, and in error.

  7. ginette kelley

    I cannot agree with your conclusions. Any similarities between Jesus and Joseph are purely coincidental and cannot be used as a reference, there are many others in the Bible who could be concluded to be forerunners of just about anyone
    To intimate that Joseph was a type of Christ is totally ridiculous, there is only one Son of God, and it was He who walked with us from the Creation of the Garden of Eden and through out the Old Testament.
    I’m disappointed with your statements with regard to this
    The only thing i agree with is the statement by Jesus that He was and is the True vine.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Dear Ginette,

      That Joseph or David are types of Christ does not at all mean that they are is second or third Son of God or Christ. It means something entirely different. In other words type he is use in terms prefiguring something and not in terms of “another type of Jesus” (an alternative to Jesus).

      I suggest you read carefully and with an open mind this article although hundreds of others like it are also available.

      I further ask that in the future you display your disagreement in humbler tone and more appropriate words (Using words like “ridiculous” is unacceptable). The key to participation in this forum is respect for one another even if disagree with each other sharply. Dr. Eli

  8. Jesiel Monteiro de Miranda

    Fiquei muito satisfeito em ter visto a relação de tipo entre José e Jesus. José ressuscitado para Jacó, a vida mantida por ele para Israel.

  9. Mary Anne

    Lovely post. From my perspective, all the Old Testament writings and the Gospels delineate between the true believers in God and non-believers in God. To me, John’s verse brings out the inextricable intertwining of Jew and non-Jew and how utterly dependent they are on one another for God’s graces and salvation. The Gentile (the wild olive) has no access to Father without the Jew (i.e. “salvation if from the Jews”); the Jew (the rich root) has no continuance with the Father without the Gentile (the root olive branches will be cut off without Jesus). The wild olive tree’s branches must be grafted into the richly rooted olive tree in order to live; the branches of the richly rooted olive tree require the grafting in of new branches in order to continue and expand their life’s sustenance.

    In your example, I believe Joseph is the richly rooted olive tree; Jesus ( spawned from the richly rooted olive tree) is also the new vital olive tree branch, infusing and spreading the saving sustenance of God to all its branches. With the rich root and the wild olive now a part of one root, the two become one with God. I think these verses say it well:

    (Message to the wild olive tree – Gentiles): Romans 11:18 – “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”…

    (Message to the rich root – Jews): John 10:16 – “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Mary, shalom. First of all welcome to our study group. I trust you will find it helpful and encouraging to you in your faith journey.

      May I disagree with you?

      I think that you are confusing two metaphors 1) true vine in John and 2) Olive tree in Paul. (incidentally, in Paul the Jews are not the root (as is commonly held), but the natural brunches, I think the root for Paul in that imagery is actually Jesus himself (the root of Jessee). Olive tree technically does not have a trunk. It is branches of the olive tree that are woven together into a trunk in other words they go down into the root itself that gives the life giving nourishment, but this is not my main point of disagreement).

      I think that Gentiles in difference to Paul are not at all concern to the author of John’s Gospel. It is thoroughly intra-Jewish family gospel. No before you think that I am may be a heretical or that I am simply loosing my mind :-), do go through this I think (and you need to read my previous commentary) you an do it here – to see why I think that Vineyard in John does not have ANYTHING to do with Jewish-Gentile “branching” together (an idea that I otherwise accept and cherish) in fact it does not even connect directly to all the believes (though of course by extension and application it does), but to the Twelve alone as the new heads of renewed Israel.

      Anyways once again welcome to our forum. Let’s keep thinking together. We agree to disagree often.

      Dr. Eli

  10. Richard Stanbery

    I am like you are in this eye opening connection with Joseph and the Samaritan woman at the well.
    Some Christians use this scripture as an example of losing on salvation. I believe like you, in that John
    had a much deeper message, that only the connection with Joseph would bring to light.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Richard, welcome to our forum. I saw your email among those who joined us recently. May the Lord bless you and keep you. Dr. Eli