text:
Services on Demand
Related links
- Cited by Google
- Similars in Google
In die Skriflig
On-line version ISSN 2305-0853
Print version ISSN 1018-6441
In Skriflig (Online) vol.47 n.1 Pretoria Jan. 2013
Indicators of the church in John's metaphor of the vine
Aanwysers van die kerk in John se metafoor van die wingerdstok
Johann Fourie
Faculty of Theology, Northwest University, South Africa
This article aims to answer the question of what belongs to the essence of the church, as God intended it to be, by identifying certain indicators of the essence of the church through a study of one of the central metaphors of the New Testament: the vine in the Gospel of John. Through structural analyses, commentary and metaphorical analyses, several indicators of unity as part of the essence of the church emerge in this metaphor. These indicators are the primacy (or authority) of Christ, trinitarian balance, equality, interdependence, inclusivity, growth and unity (in diversity).
Hierdie artikel poog om die volgende vraag te beantwoord: Wat behoort tot die essensie van kerkwees soos God dit bedoel het? Dit word gedoen deur sekere aanwysers van die essensie van kerkwees te identifiseer vanuit 'n studie van een van die essensiele metafore vir kerkwees in die Nuwe Testament, naamlik die Wynstok in die Evangelie van Johannes. Deur middel van struktuuranalise, kommentaar en metaforiese analise kom verskeie eenheidsaanwysers as deel van die essensie van kerkwees in hierdie metafoor na vore. Hierdie aanwysers is die hoer gesag (of outoriteit) van Christus, die balans van die Drie-eenheid, gelykheid, interafhanklikheid, inklusiwiteit, groei en eenheid (in diversiteit).
We live in a world with many people and churches. We find countless denominations and independent churches on every continent. These churches have many differences. They include different buildings, styles of worship, leadership structures and contexts (Barrett, Kurian & Johnson 2001:16-18).
It is possible for churches to differ a lot. However, the essence of the church, that which makes the church God's church, should not change. This invariably leads one to ponder the question of what belongs to the essence of a church as God intended it to be. This article aims to identify certain indicators of the essence of the church by looking at one of the central metaphors of the New Testament: the vine in the Gospel of John.
Three matters are to be clarified from the outset:
- This article will only comment on unity as part of the essence of the church with regard to what one can learn about this subject from the metaphor of the vine in the Gospel of John. Therefore, it will not contain, or claim to contain, a complete description of the unity or of the essence of the church.
- Although John's Gospel does not use the word ekklesia, it does have a lot to say about ecclesiology.1 John's Gospel is both history and theology (Bauckham 2007; Holladay 2005:201203). Du Rand (1996:61) chooses to refer to it as a 'Theological Narrative'.
- This article uses an exegetical and linguistic review of a metaphor. Therefore, it will use a problem-orientated methodological approach, rather than an ideological-paradigmatic approach, with the text of the Bible as its primary basis of study.
Background to the Gospel of John
Introduction to the Gospel2
Scholars have described the Gospel of John as 'the most influential book of the New Testament' (Culpepper 1998:13). The reasons include that it is the only book in the New Testament to depict Jesus as the Logos, and how it has added to the doctrine of the Trinity, its description of the humanity and divinity of Jesus, as well as the fact that it contains more information about the Holy Spirit than any other writing in the New Testament (Culpepper ibid:13-14). Holladay (2005:191) writes that the Fourth Gospel's sheer capacity to engage readers has lifted it from its position as Fourth Gospel, whilst Brown (2003:26) describes the Gospel of John as one of the principal foundational documents of Christianity.
This article now turns to the background of this remarkable book of the New Testament. As Van der Watt (2000:14) rightly points out: 'The socio-historical framework within which a metaphor was originally created also plays an important role in the continued cognitive and emotive functioning of a metaphor'.
The Book of John as a Gospel
Scholars generally accept that the genre of the book of John is that of a gospel.3 Therefore, it is a combination of a historical narrative - in describing the life of Jesus - and theology since it gives us a unique insight into various theological themes because of its choice of material (Jn 21:25) and style of writing.
John 15 and the structure of the Gospel of John
Scholars have proposed many structures for this Gospel (cf. Van der Watt 2007:12; Kostenberger 2004:vii; Brown 2003:298-310; Keener 2005:xi-xxiv; Moody Smith 1999:710; Stibbe 1993; Whitacre 1999:45-48; Carson 1991:105-108; Sloyan 1988; Beasley-Murray 1987:xci-xcii; Barret 1978:v-vi; Lindars 1972:70-73; Brown 1966:CXXXIIX). Some are extremely detailed and others less so. One example is that of Van der Watt (2007:12) in his Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters, shown in Table 1.
In Table 1, it is clear that Van der Watt sees John 13:1-17:26, the section in which we find the metaphor of the vine, as a separate section of the Gospel (as do others). For Van der Watt (2007:12), it is 'Jesus' ministry to his disciples'. For Brown (2003:298-310), it is 'the last encounter' and is the first part of the 'Book of Glory'. Keener (2005:xvii-xxi) refers to it as the 'Farewell Discourse'.
When we look to the pericope, in which we find the metaphor of the vine, we note that Van der Watt (2000:31-54) sees John 15:1-8 as a pericope because all relate to one thing - the metaphor of the vine. Note that John 15:9-17 deals with love as the fruit of the vine and that John 15:18-27 deals with the notion that if the world hates Jesus (the vine), it will also hate his followers (its branches).
This article agrees with Van der Watt (2000:31-48) about where the pericope starts and ends.
The metaphor of the vine - John 15:1-8
Introduction to the metaphor
This article now focuses on the metaphor of the vine, which has been described as 'one of the most powerful descriptions of eternal life to which John is bearing witness' (Whitacre 1999:370) and 'one of the most memorable passages in the farewell speech' (cf. Stibbe 1993:161; Bultmann 1971:529).
This metaphor, should one accept it to be one, as this article does, 'is a complex one' (Minear 1960:42). Scholars have challenged even the figurative nature of these verses, as Van der Watt (2000:27-28) shows when he categorises the main opinions and their proponents - opinions that include a 'gleichnis', a 'parabel', 'imagery or bildrede', 'allegory', 'figure', 'symbolic speech', 'mashal' and finally 'metaphor'.4
Whether or not one should see John 15:1-8 as a pericope is also a matter for debate.5 This article agrees with Van der Watt (2000:28) in identifying John 15:1-8 as a metaphor, with John 15:9-17 dealing with love as the fruit of the vine and John 15:18-27 dealing with the fact that if the world hates Jesus (the vine) it will also hate his followers (the branches).
This is discussed in the structural analysis (Figure 1).
The words Έγώ είµι in verse 1 introduce a new pericope as a new Έγώ είµι saying. Furthermore, we find that verses 1 to 8 are a separate pericope. It uses the semantic and contextual cohesion that the use of the complex imagery of vine farming and the figurative use of semantically related words like vine, branches, pruning and fruit creates. Together they present a single but complex facet of reality in more or less one textual locality (Van der Watt 2000:28). Therefore, we need to make an introductory statement on the whole of this pericope: that µείνατε (έν έµοί) dominates these verses.
John 15:1-2 presents the metaphor (Kellum 2004:170) and contains two separate statements: that Jesus is the vine and that the Father is the vinedresser. This frames the whole metaphor from verse 2 to verse 8.
In verse 2, we have an antithetical parallelism that highlights the possible positive or negative consequences: if a branch abides in Jesus as vine or fails to do so. Verse 3 flows from this. It links to verse 2 because we find the idea of being clean or cleaned (καθαιρεί) in both.
Verse 4 introducesthe refrain of these verses with the words µείνατε έν έµοί. The verse comprise a parallelism ('abide in me as I abkle in you') and then a compara tive ρarallelism that further describes the consequences of µείνατε έν έµοί.
Verse 5 introduces the second half of the metaphor by extending the metaphor to include the disciples ('I am the vine, you are the branches'). The verse continues with the first of three groups of consequential statements that flow from these words. We find one positive ('he that abides in me'), followed by a negative ('if one does not abide in me') and followed again by a positive ('if you abide in me').
Therefore, we see that verse 1 introduces and frames the extended metaphor, verses 2-4 form a unit as the first half of the metaphor, verses 5-7 form the second half of the metaphor by extending the metaphor and verse 8 glorifies the Father. This would be true if the disciples decide to listen to the words of Jesus because of the first and second halves of the extended metaphor.
Now that the structure of the argument in these verses has been established and a structural analysis has shown that it is a single and cohesive pericope, the commentary and metaphoric analysis of these verses follow.
Commentary on John 15:1-8
These verses form part of the final words of Jesus to his disciples that he spoke 'in the light of his impending betrayal and death' (Ball 1996:129; cf. Kostenberger 2004:11; Keener 2005:893-1066; Moody Smith 1999:262-308; Carson 1991:107; Barret 1978:470). Some refer to it as 'Farewell Discourses'6 that are 'narrative commentary on discipleship against the background of Jesus' death and resurrection with an emphasis on the unity motif' (Du Rand 1991:321).
When Carson (1991:510-524) comments on these verses, he begins by doing so under the heading 'the extended metaphor' related to vine farming. In this extended metaphor of John 15:1-8, we also find a certain 'mutuality in which Jesus [...] maintains the priority or primacy' (Smith 1995:146147), something that Ball (1996:131) has noticed. Ball points out that the first person ('I am') establishes and emphasises the dominance of Jesus' character in the metaphor.
Minear (1960:42) also sees Christ as central to this metaphor. Although interpreting this metaphor is complex for him, from reading these verses one can, at the very least, say that the central focus is the total dependence of the branches (the disciples) on the vine (Jesus Christ). This is true of many New Testament images of the church. Here also the 'Christological reality is absolutely basic to the ecclesiological reality' (Minear 1960:42). This article argues that the primacy of Jesus is the first indicator of unity as part of the essence of the church.
Vine imagery was extremely common7 in the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 21:23-41; Mk 12:1-9; Lk 20:9-16; Mt 20:1-16 and 21:28-32 and Lk 13:6-9; cf. Barret 1978:471; Keener 2005:988), as well as in the ancient world (cf. Brown 1966:669-672; Dodd 1968:411; Carson 1991:513; Van der Watt 2000:26-29; Kostenberger 2004:448-450; Whitacre 1999:371). However, John's use probably has an Old Testament background because of the frequency with which John refers to the Old Testament through allusion or reference, as well as the dominance of replacement as a motif in John's gospel - in this case, Jesus is the true vine whilst Israel is the vine.8 In other words, in Jesus' reference to himself as the true vine, he takes an image for Israel from the Old Testament9 and applies it to himself.
This, the last of John's syro sipi sayings (cf. Whitacre 1999:371) about Jesus, is the only one that has an 'additional assertion, and my Father is the gardener' (Carson 1991:513), or that is spoken differently where we have such an extended metaphor. Schnackenburg (1982:96) goes as far as to say that, compared to the other syro sipi sayings, this image, figuratively speaking, develops more powerfully.
The metaphor begins in verse 1 so that the emphasis falls clearly on Jesus10 as the vine and not on the Father as the gardener (Brown 1966:659). This again emphasises the primacy of Jesus, with the addition of if ddr|9ivf after the noun as the striking feature that emphasises itself (Schnackenburg 1982:97) and the vine that it describes.
The purpose of f ddr|9ivf seems to be the same as in John 4:23 and 6:32, where it also points to a certain qualitative character (Schnackenburg 1982:97) - to show that the name applies fully to Jesus as the vine (cf. Bultmann 1971:530-531).
However, it does not stop here. Jesus, as the true vine, replaces Israel in the Old Testament as a vine that God planted in the Promised Land. Therefore, the people of God are no longer associated with a territory (Whitacre 1999:372). Finally, the people of God are those who abide in11 the true vine - that is, they live in relationship to Jesus. Du Rand (1996:68-69) goes as far as to say that we learn about the development of the plot in the whole of John's Gospel through relationships of which the true vine (Jn 15) is an example.
Munzer (1978:225-226) comments on this (isrvaTS sv [remain in] in John 15 by pointing out that the root occurs 118 times in the New Testament, of which 40 times are in the Gospel of John, and that John's use of the term with regard to the believers' relationship to Christ resembles its use by Paul. According to Munzer (1978), in John 15 it refers specifically to:
the closest possible relationship between Christ and the believer [...] abiding in Christ makes a man Christ's property right down to the depths of his being. It is not confined to spiritual relationship [...] but means present experience of salvation. (pp. 225-226)
Anderson (2008) sees this 'abiding in' as proof that John's gospel here shows:
a first-order engagement with living christological content (abiding in Jesus - Jn 15:1-8) rather than a second-order learning of the 'right-answers' theologically (abiding in the teachings about Jesus - 2 Jn 9). (p. 344)
'Although the principal idea in this discourse is that of "abiding in Jesus" (vv. 4-7),12 the Father does not play a secondary part' (Schnackenburg 1982:97). As the gardener,13 his role is to prune the branches for better growth and cut away those branches that have died and do not bear any fruit (cf. Carson 1991:514). It is clear in the context that the vine appears here primarily as a fruit-producing plant and only secondarily as life-bearing (Schnackenburg ibid:98).
Verse 3 shows that the words of Jesus have cleansed the disciples and that this will remain true as long as they abide in him and listen to his revelatory words that contain Spirit and life (Jn 6:63; Schnackenburg 1982:98; cf. Carson 1991:515; Keener 2005:374-375). Therefore, 'abiding' is a condition for bearing fruit and for the perseverance of the disciples to stay in the vine (Keener 2005:998). We must point out that with Jesus as the vine and the Father as the gardener, the words of Jesus, which contain the Spirit (Jn 6:63), cleanses the disciples. Therefore, we see the whole of the Trinity playing a part in the metaphor, pointing to the indicator of trinitarian balance.
Verses 4 and 5 apply the metaphor more directly to the followers of Christ - they are the branches that need to abide in Jesus, the true vine (µείνατε έν έµοί; cf. Bultmann 1971:534536). Scholars contend that the way in which the phrase 'you in me and I in you' (verse 4) uses the έν is a 'reciprocal immanence formula' (Schnackenburg 1982:99) that expresses the intimate relationship between Christ and his disciples.14 It is also strikingly similar to the words of Jesus that we find in John 6:56.
These words introduce the theme of mutual indwelling (Köstenberger 2004:451; cf. Lindars 1972:489) and create a relationship. The use of έν shows this relationship and strengthens the point that without it the disciples, as branches, lose the ability to bear fruit because they depend on that relationship remaining intact (cf. Carson 1991:515): the disciples of Jesus cannot bear fruit except in a relationship with him (cf. Barret 1978:470-471; Carson ibid:514; Whitacre 1999:375). It does this in a fashion that is not moralistic, but as the basis of fruitful activity. Therefore, it emphasises the notion of unity between the vine and the branches (Schnackenburg 1982:99), as well as their interdependence. It is another indicator of unity.
In verse 5, another έγώ είµι statement (cf. Schnackenburg 1982:100) stresses the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. We should note that Jesus does say that any disciples are excluded from the vine. As we see throughout the metaphor, all who abide in the vine (that is, live in a relationship with Jesus) and bear fruit are part of the vine. Therefore, we see the indicator of inclusivity.
Verse 6 turns the positive statement in verse 5 on its head by stating the negative consequences15 of not 'abiding in' and not 'bearing fruit': it is cut off and burned - an image that reminds one of the judgement in John 12:31 and of Jerusalem as a vine in Ezekiel 15 (cf. Carson 1991:517; Whitacre 1999:376). One could even say that, if the branches do not grow, they will not bear fruit and they will die. This metaphor implies the indicator of growth.
Verses 7 and 8 swing to the positive16 side again and remind the readers that if they take these words to heart they will stay firm in their close relationship with Jesus, continue to bear fruit and, in so doing, glorify (cf. Bultmann 1971:539) the Father (Whitacre 1999:377; Barret 1978:475; Carson 1991:518). Again, this shows interdependence.
We need to say that John takes great pains to show that Jesus is the Spirit inspired (Jn 1:26-34) in the vine part of the metaphor and that the Father is also involved as the gardener.
Therefore, in a sense, we find the indicator of trinitarian balance17 presented in John's extended metaphor of the vine, something that Köstenberger (2009:241) also comments on in 'note the trinitarian theme'. Schnackenburg (1982:97), in turn, refers to this as 'a theocentric view'. Therefore, we find the indicator of trinitarian balance here: Father, Son and Spirit are all involved in their own unique ways.
By using this extended metaphor,18 John wants his readers to realise that being part of the vine has nothing to do with nationality. Jesus is the vine and all those (an indicator of inclusivity), who are in a right relationship with him, are incorporated into the vine as its branches (Carson 1991:514). Brown (1966) expresses it as:
[I]n presenting Jesus as the real vine, the Johannine writer may well have been thinking that God had finally rejected the unproductive vine of Judaism still surviving in the Synagogue. (p. 675)
This confirms the situation from which this gospel was born.19
John 14:20 introduces the theme of mutual indwelling, which we find in this metaphor, between Jesus and the believer when Jesus says 'you are in me and I am in you'. The metaphor of John 15:1-8 builds on this by saying that the branches (believers) get life from the vine20 and that the vine (Jesus) bears fruit through the branches. It is an indicator of interdependence and growth. The role of God the Father, as gardener, is to prune those that bear fruit to ensure more fruit and to cut away those that bear no fruit. This illustrates the fact that, for John, carrying fruit was part of faith in, and connection with, Jesus (Carson 1991:516-517).
Interestingly enough, it is exactly at this point that Smith (1995:136) asks the question of whether one should infer a theology of the church from John 15:1-8 in which church offices and hierarchy are of no importance because every believer, disciple and follower of Jesus must relate directly to him. This leads one to conclude immediately that, through this extended metaphor, John is saying that there is equality between branches within the church - the followers of Jesus who abide in him. It is an indicator of equality.
A closer look at the metaphorical language of John 15:1-8 follows.
Analysis of the metaphorical language in John 15:1-8
The metaphorical analysis uses the model that Van der Watt (2000) proposed as its basis. Consequently, there will not be many references to commentators or writers because:
- The commentary above includes these.
- The method is quite new. Therefore, one does not find a lot of work that applies it as Van der Watt (2000) has.
Analysis of John 15:1
a. Έγώ είµι ή άµπελος ή αληθινή
b. και ό πατήρ µου ό γεωργός έστιν.
This verse literally reads: 'I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener'.
As Van der Watt (2000) explains:
In the copulative metaphor Έγώ είµι ή άµπελος ή αληθινή [I am the true vine], incongruence exists between Έγώ [I (tenor)] and ή άµπελος [vine (vehicle)], since Έγώ [I] requires a noun associated with human attributes and vine a noun associated with inanimate attributes; this incongruence causes semantic tension. (p. 29)
Figure 2 shows the distinction between the human and inanimate attributes.
When one reads this on its own, one automatically asks oneself which of the attributes that are true of a 'vine' are also true of 'I' to warrant this connection? The reader has no way of answering this question and determining what this phrase is trying to say about Jesus. The interesting thing is that the context also does not answer the question because the comparative relation that this metaphor creates between I and vine does not develop it further (Van der Watt 2000):
The stated link between I and vine has another function. Although Jesus is the vine, the emphasis does not fall on the person of Jesus as such, in the sense that the context provides the reader with all kinds of indications of how qualities of the vine indeed expounds the personality of Jesus (as will be looked for when applying a metaphor theory which emphasizes semantic interaction between tenor and vehicle). (pp. 29-30)
This metaphor simply functions as an introduction to the vine imagery and functions as a central alternative element within the broader image. The vehicle (true vine) in verse 1(a) contains no incongruities. It could simply be an indication that this vine is true when one compares it to another that might be false. It is only through its connection with I that vine becomes a metaphor (Van der Watt 2000:30). Therefore, it becomes part of a metaphorical expression and functions as an adjectival metaphor with the adjective (true) as the vehicle:
'In the context where vine is metaphorically related to Jesus, "true" qualitatively identifies this "vine" in contrast to all other vines' (Van der Watt 2000:30). One sees this as relation C in Figure 3. The adjective αληθινή, a common Johannine term, is associated with God (and Jesus) in the rest of John's Gospel (cf. Jn 1:14, 17; 3:33; 4:23-24; 7:28; 8:14, 26; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:13; 17:3, 17). The author used it to project divine qualities onto the vine. Therefore, it intensifies the qualitative description of the vine because Jesus is the vine (relation B in Figure 3) and the vine is true (relation C in Figure 3). One can illustrate these semantic interrelations as in Figure 3 (Van der Watt 2000-30-31).
Therefore, we see that I and true correspond semantically (relation A in Figure 3 above) as I is the tenor of this metaphor (Ί am the tme vine'). Consequently, some or οther quality of I determines true. Therefore, true as an adjective attributes certain specific qualities to the vine that I shares. 'These qualities are related to the divinely authentic and true as opposed to the inauthentic, in comparison to the divine' (Van der Watt 2000:31)
Nerertheless, the reader still has no clear indication as to why John compares Jesus to a vine and what one should make of Shis comparison. Therefore, She metaphor is still open and unspecified. Tie information the con text supplies should help the reader to find an answer to this question. By leaving this question unanswered, John succeeds in creating a sense of suspense and expectation (Van der Watt 2000:31).
The article has now shown that the phrase, ό πατήρ µου ό γεωργός έστιν [my Father is the gardener] (Jn15:1b), is not incongruent if one takes it on its own. However, its figurative status is clear in this context. The copulative και [and] links 'my Father' directly to the preceding metaphor of the vine. John 15:2 confirms this further where we see that the Father prunes the branches that are έµοϊ [in me (Jesus)]. This confirms it as figurative language. As with 'I am the true vine', one cannot determine the exact semantic function of 'my Father is the gardener' from the local expression alone. However, the context somehow makes it easier to do so.
A particular image is beginning to unfold.
The relationship between Jesus and the Father is analogous to the relation between a vine and the gardener (Van der Watt 2000:31-32). John starts his gospel with Jesus receiving the Spirit at his baptism. This implies that, in Figure 4, the Spirit, the Son and the Father are involved. It is an indicator of trinitarian balance.21
Analysis of John 15:2
This verse literally reads: 'He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, whilst every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful'.
As Van der Watt (2000) explains:
This antithetical parallelistic statement about the pruning of the branches has no apparent incongruence on a local level. However, the subject of the indicative verbs is the Father, and 'in me' refers to Jesus, which implies that the metaphorical application is continued, which was already constituted by the use of the phrases vine and gardener in verse 1. The reference to Jesus with the phrase 'in me' further links a person (animate) to the branches (inanimate). The Father's function as gardener is narrowed down by the context to the action of pruning and thus it becomes semantically more specified. (p. 32)
By creating a OTnnectkm between Faiher, Jesus, branches and By creating a connection between Father, Jesus, branches and pruning in this way, it defines clear contextual borders within which the metaphorical interpretation of these images should happen.
Therefore, in verses 1 and 2, John creates a multi-level basis of communication in which he compares Jesus with the vine, the disciples with the branches and the Father with a gardener. It is an indicator of interdependence.
He can now substitute vine with a personal reference to Jesus (έν έµοϊ: v. 2) in a sentence that uses vine farming terminology, and in which ή άµπελος instead of έν έµοϊ would probably have been more suitable had it not been figurative speech (Van der Watt 2000:03). Therefore, phrases like 'I am the vine', 'the Father is the gardener', and 'you are the branches' now have a clear meiaphoriral function. We need to interpret them on a literal and figurative level.
This means that, on a figurative level, one should replace vine, gardener or branch with Jesus, Father and disciples. Therefore, the implication is that the literal and figurative levels run parallel to each other, at least as far as the objects are concerned. We should replace, or identify, an object we find on the literal level with an object on the figurative level (Van der Watt 2000):
This should, therefore, be seen as a form of (metaphorical) substitution in which the literal phrases (vine, gardener, etc.) have the function of drawing the figurative objects (Jesus, Father, etc.) into a comparison, with objects related to vine farming and thus elicits the figurative applications which are indeed being made. (p. 33)
All of this happens through analogy. The connection of the vine to the branches is analogous to Jesus' relationship with his people, as is the gardener's pruning οf the branches with the action of the Father towards those who are in Jesus (Van der Watt 2000:33).
Analogy, as a stylistic feature, is especially important where we find an extended image - like that of the vine in John 15. Therefore, the relationship that the extended metaphor establishes between the figurative aspects of the image (vine-branches-gardener, etc.) is analogous to that of the literal aspects (Jesus-those who belong to him-God, etc.). This includes John's repetition of the word παν [every] as a literal indication of the inclusivity of the actions of the gardener and it illustrates the indicators of inclusivity and equality.
A possible schematic presentation (Figure 5) of this analogy follows (Van der Watt 2000:34).
This article has established the links between the figurative and the literal worlds. However, what exactly pruning or bearing fruit means remains unanswered. The reason is that in this extended metaphor the vine represents Jesus, the gardener represents the Father and the branches are the people in a positive or negative relationship with Jesus.
However, it is a different story with the verbs pruning and bearing fruit because nothing can substitute them. The same words occur on both the literal and figurative levels (Van der Watt 2000):
The Father prunes just as the gardener prunes. The use of the same verb in both these cases indicates where the point of analogy lies. By using pruning for the disciples, vine-farming language is used to create interaction between the world of branches and the lives of people. This seems to be the point where an important semantic transfer occurs. A point of similarity exists (i.e. something is cut away or cleaned), but the same verb also suggests a point of difference (the way in which the cutting away or cleansing functions, on literal and figurative levels respectively, is completely different). Metaphorically speaking, interaction takes place. By identifying the associated similarities (e.g. cleaning) the differences (e.g. branches and people are not cleaned in the same way) are also accentuated. In this way the verb pruning creates interaction (= creative movement of meaning) between the figurative and literal worlds respectively. (p. 34) the cutting away or cleansing functions, on literal and figurative levels respectively, is completely different). Metaphorically speaking, interaction takes place. By identifying the associated similarities (e.g. cleaning) the differences (e.g. branches and people are not cleaned in the same way) are also accentuate. In this way the verb pruning creates interaction (= creative movement of meaning) between the figurative and literal worlds respectively. (p. 34)
Seen in this light, the question of how one should understand the individual elements of verse 2 remains. What is t interaction between them? There is no clear indication as to what exactly κλήµα [branch], φέρον [bear], αίρει [cut], καθαίρει [prune] and τό καρτόν [fruit] refer to figuratively.
Although they are all part of extended metaphors, the reader is still only sure as to what the 'vine' and the 'gardener' (v. ) refer. Luckily, contextual information assists one to determine the answer. Verse 3 explains pruning (καθαίρει). In verse 6, the cutting away (αίρει) of branches receives attention, whilst verses 4-5 and 7 covers έν έµοί [in me]. Verse 5 explains κλήι [branch].
It seems that the rest of the context explains or elaborates on all the elements that were unclear in verse 2, except for τό καρπόν [fruit]. The context also covers this, but in a different way (Van der Watt 2000:35).
Therefore, John restricts the openness of the imagery that verse 2 created and limits the interpretation of these vers es (Van der Watt 2000):
It should, therefore, be noted that cohesion is created between t different phrases due to the shared imagery, which also implies that this 'natural cohesion' of the imagery forms the semantic basis on which the different facets of the figurative message are interrelated. Different phrases, semantically related on the basis of shared imagery, therefore, form an interpretative network in which this inter-relatedness serves to specify the meaning of the phrases. (p. 35)
Analysis of John 15:3
ήδη ύµεΐς καθαροί έστε δια τόν λόγον δν λελάληκα ύµΐν. This verse literally reads: 'You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you'.
As Van der Watt (2000) explains, when one reads the verse it is clear that, on the surface, it:
... does not seem to reflect the idea of 'vine farming', except for the subtle word play between καθαίρει [pruning] (v. 2) and καθαροί [clean] (v. 3). In this way verse 3 is shown to be part of the larger metaphorical network, although καθαροί is (seemingly) used in a double sense in these two verses, namely in the sense of pruning in order to clean (15:2), but also merely in the sense of being purified or cleansed (15:3; see 13:10,11). (p. 35)
The question now becomes how exactly should one understand the function of verse 3 against the background of the metaphorical network of which it is a part. This verse elaborates on how the pruning, or cleansing, of ύµεΐς [you] occurs. It is δια τόν λόγον [through the word]. The phrase τόν λόγον has the function of cleaning a person (ύµεΐς) to ensure that the person it has cleaned bears more fruit, as is the case when one prunes a branch. Therefore, we see(Van der Watt 2OOO):
... elements of the literal world [...] substituted with the elements of the figurative world. The reference to the cause is actually an addition and extension to the image of verse 2. The writer feels himself free to extend the image in his own way in order to communicate a specific aspect of his message. (p. 36)
Whilst staying within the boundaries of the image of vine farming, John explains new dimensions of his message by extending the image he created in verses 1 and 2.
What is gradually becoming clear is that the writer moves from the figurative to the literal with ease; he does not feel himself bound to the imagery in the sense that he should only speak in terms of that. He freely mixes elements of the imagery with elements of the literal application within the same sentence. This gives an indication of how the author wants the figure to be interpreted, for instance, the pruning action is not just any action. It should be seen as the way in which the work of Jesus is influencing the lives of his disciples in order to bear more fruit. (Van der Watt 2000:36)
Analysis of John 15:4
This verse reads: 'Remain in me, and I will remain in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit by itself except if it remains in the vine, you cannot bear fruit unless you remain in me'.
With this verse, the interpretation becomes quite complicated. However, Van der Watt (2000:37-39) interprets this verse masterfully:
How the expression of immanence in the phrase: Remain in me and I will remain in you, should be understood, is a well-known problem in this Gospel. In the immediate context, the opening metaphor (I am the vine) as well as the remark in verse 2 (every branch who remains in me) suggests a figurative reading, which means that 'you' is associated with the branches and 'I' with the vine. However, the verse illustrates an interesting aspect about applying images. It violates the limits of the imagery in order to express their messages to the full. (pp. 37-39)
It shows the importance of the message to the formal restrictions of the imagery itself. With regard to the image of the vine-branches, it seems to be impossible for the vine to stay in the branches because the smaller branches can stay in the larger vine. However, the larger vine cannot logically stay in the smaller branches.
With regard to the inanimate image of the vine, the expression in verses 4a-4b does seem impossible. The substitution of the inanimate vine and branches with the animate Jesus and the disciples respectively ascribes personal qualities to the inanimate vine.
This makes the expression of immanence more plausible. For example, the influence of Jesus might be on his disciples and his disciples might live in the sphere of that influence. This implies 'immanence'. In verses 4c-4f, the expression grounds the expression: 'Remain in me, and I will remain in you'. Without staying in Jesus, the disciples will not be able to bear fruit. The relations between the different objects (vine, branches and fruit), and what happens to them, create the logic of the imagery. As Neyrey (2007:254) expresses it: 'It makes horticultural sense to state that branches are "in" the vine and the vine "in" the branches, but Jesus' remarks is not spatial, but relational'.
Verses 4c and 4d describe a basic relationship between different objects. A branch stands in a specific relation to the vine - it stays in the vine. This is (logically) a prerequisite for the branch if it wants to bear fruit. If one reasons logically, it cannot bear fruit by itself. Therefore, it states the importance of the vine for both the branch and the fruit.
Verses 4e-f substitute the objects of this logical imagery frequently. You (the disciples) stand in a specific relation to me (Jesus) - they stay in the vine. This is a prerequisite for the disciples if they want to bear fruit. They cannot bear fruit out of themselves. They substitute the objects (Jesus for the vine and the disciples for its branches), but maintain (stay in, bear fruit) the logical relations. This reminds us of the indicators of interdependence and mutual edification.
In Figure 6, Van der Watt (2000:38) illustrates the important function of what he calls analogical interaction through the gospel writer's use of verbs.
We see clearly how John uses substitution - a replacement on the figurative side - between Jesus and the vine, as well as the disciples and the branches (A in Figure 6), whilst the verbs ('stay in' and 'bear') remain unchanged regardless of whether he uses them on a literal or figurative level. As Van der Watt (2000) explains:
The disciples have to remain in Jesus as the branches remain in the vine, since both the branches and the disciples must bear fruit. However, the way in which the branches remain in the vine or bear fruit is not the same as the way in which the disciples remain in Jesus or bear fruit. Although the same words (stay or bear) are used, they differ semantically when used with the different objects. (p. 38)
Analysis of John 15:5
a. έγώ είµι ή άµπελος,
b. ύµεΐς τα κλήµατα.
c. ό µένων έν έµοί κάγώ έν αύτω
d. ούτος φέρει καρπόν πολύν,
e. δτι χωρίς έµοΰ ού δύνασθε ποιεΐν ούδέν.
This verse reads: 'I am the vine, you are the branches, He who remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit; because apart from me you can do nothing'.
The first part of this verse repeats the basic metaphor from John 15:1, but without the adjective ή αληθινή [the true].
However, John's purpose was not simply to repeat the metaphor, as Van der Watt 2000 explains:
... here a shift in emphasis takes place in relation to the basic metaphor of Jesus being the vine. In verse 1 the vine is mentioned in connection with the gardener (v. 1b) [...] the emphasis [here is] on the devastating consequences for the branches if they do not stay in the vine. (pp. 39-40)
When we turn our attention to verse 5c (ό µένων έν έµοί κάγώ έν αύτω), we see this is almost a word for word repetition of verse 4a-b. On the surface, it is a literal statement. However, in its context it becomes an extension of the vine farming metaphor. Verse 5d, in turn, is figurative with its explicit reference to 'vine farming', whereas verse 5e is a literal statement again and echoes verse 4e (Van der Watt 2000:40).
Therefore, this verse underlines and emphasises the dependence of the branches on the vine. However, from this verse and indeed from the whole metaphor, one could also argue that the author is trying to make a strong point about the unity between the vine and the branches and, by implication, the branches with each other because they are part of one vine.
From this, one could reason that the metaphor gives us unity as an indicator of the essence of the followers of Christ. One could even go further and say that this unity is actually unity in diversity because you have one vine with many branches of which no two are the same. However, John's metaphor does not state this explicitly.
Analysis of John 15:6
a. έαν µή τις µένη έν έµοί,
b. έβλήθη εξω ώς τό κλήµα
c. καί έξηράνθη
d. καί συνάγουσιν αύτα
e. καί είς τό πΰρ βάλλουσιν
f. καί καίεται.
This verse reads: 'If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers, such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned'.
In this verse, John describes what happens to branches that do not remain in Jesus as the vine and do not bear any fruit. Therefore, this verse refers to the results of pruning that John mentioned in verse 2. However, the branches are merely cut off in verse 2. They are also thrown away in verse 6. Van der Watt (2000:41) is correct in pointing out that an 'important question is whether a figurative counterpart should be found for each and every one of the actions mentioned in verse 6'. Van der Watt (ibid) also answers this question by saying:
This does not seem to be the intention here [... ] It seems as if the author wants to create a specific atmosphere of destruction by giving such a climactic description of what happens to the branches. The description should be regarded as a unit (cf. the progressive use of καί, as well as the vocabulary of related terms), and should not be interpreted allegorically, or in detail, since no indication is given by the author of how this should be done in the narrower or broader context. The focus is on the ultimate destruction as a result of alienation from Christ. Not particulars, but the general message, should be applied comparatively, which means that the precise detailed explication of the destruction should not be attempted. (p. 41)
At this point it makes sense to point out that, throughout the extended vine metaphor, the one thing that one may assume about or that lies under the surface of the metaphor is that of growth. The branches cannot bear fruit and there cannot be branches in the vine if there is no growth. Therefore, the indicator of growth in the metaphor of the body is also present in the metaphor of the vine.
Analysis of John 15:7
a. έαν µείνητε έν έµοί
b. καί τα ρήµατά µου έν ύµΐν µείνη,
c. δ έαν θέλητε αίτήσασθε,
d. καί γενήσεται ύµΐν.
This verse reads: 'If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given to you'.
Verse 7a, έαν µείνητε έν έµοί [if you stay in me], forms an antithetical parallelism to verse 6a and it echoes the µένω έν [stay in] sections in the rest of John 15:1-8 (Van der Watt 2000:41-42). In these verses, John replaces Jesus' words with the implication that Jesus is present in the disciples through his words. Therefore (Van der Watt 2000):
... if the words of Jesus are in you, you will be guided by them. Jesus has a definite influence on the disciples in the sense that their wishes (7c-7e) and their actions (fruit) are adapted to and changes according to the will of God. In terms of the imagery τα ρήµατά (words) can be seen as a way by means of which the vine or Jesus influences the branches, which of course makes the incongruent reference of the vine remaining in the branches even more intelligible. (p. 42)
Analysis of John 15:8
a. έν τούτω έδοξάσθη ό πατήρ µου,
b. ίνα καρπόν πολύν φέρητε
c. καί γένησθε έµοί µαθηταί.
In this verse, John writes: 'This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourself to be my disciples'. One sees that '[n]o new metaphors are to be found here. What is said here, is echoed in the rest of the context' (Van der Watt 2000:42).
In short, in these verses (Van der Watt 2000):
John linked up with a general and well-known agricultural phenomenon in those days. The themes he metaphorizes are well described in ancient literature. Bearing fruit was the purpose of vine farming, pruning was done twice a season and was imperative for a good harvest and the gardener was important for taking care of the vine as he was was emotionally involved with what happened with the harvest. John even uses the idea that the branches, which were cut off, were burnt. The impression, which is left, is that this was a well-cared-for vine which belonged to a family, because the Father is the Gardener. The purpose of his care is fruit. (p. 44)
The theme of unity in the Gospel of John
This article would be remiss if it did not emphasise once more the point that has already been made in the commentary on the metaphor of the vine - that of unity.
The theme of unity is clear, especially through the motif of µείνατε έν [abiding in] (cf. Barret 1978:470). Some scholars feel that this 'abiding' reflects something of the Deuteronomic emphasis (cf. Dt 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20) on cleaving to the Lord, albeit with a much greater sense of union because the Greek term John 15 used has a much broader function (Keener 2005:999).
The image we find in John 15 is probably a development of John 14:2-3, which describes the believer as the dwelling place of the Father, the Son and the Paraclete (again, we find a trinitarian accent). With regard to the vine, 'abide' refers to 'complete and continued dependence for the Christian life on the indwelling Christ' (Keener 2005:999).
This image is symbolic of, for example, Jesus supplanting Israel as the vine (cf. Bühner 1997:217). It is also organic - and in this organic sense, it is close to Paul's use of the body as a metaphor for the church in 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12 and Ephesians 4 (Keener 2005:999). It is an interesting remark if one keeps in mind the metaphor of the body, which is closely related to that of the vine.
The organic union that the image of 'abiding in the vine' establishes is extremely effective. It makes the nature and depth of the relationship between Christ and his followers, as well as the relationship of the followers with each other, clear. By applying the metaphor in the verses that follow the metaphor, we see that if one rebels against love, we endanger the health of the other branches. It might require removal from the community, that is, mutual dependence (Keener 2005:1000).
Unity is also an extremely important and recurring theme in the whole of the Gospel of John. John speaks of the one fold of sheep (Jn 10:16), the gathering together as one of the children of God (Jn 11:52), and the prayer that those who reach faith in Christ might be one as Jesus and the Father are one (Jn 17:11, 21-23).
Scholars have established the importance of unity in this Gospel (cf. Brown 1966:759, 769-771, 774-777; Dodd 1968:187-200; Van der Watt 2000:353-354, 438-439; Neyrey 2007:283-284 and 286-287). For example, Dunn (2005:128129) writes on John 17:20-23 that:
Jesus does pray for the unity of believers, which again speaks of community, but even here the unity John has in mind is comparable to the unity of the Father and Son and is both rooted in and dependent on the individual believer's union with Jesus. (pp. 128-129; italics added)
We see this unity in the metaphor of the vine and in the whole of John's Gospel. Therefore, it must be part of the essence of the Christian community - and a relationship with Christ is what establishes it. This unity, as we see in the verses that follow this metaphor, carries the fruit of love (Smith 1995:145).
Consequently, unity in the metaphor of the vine is, in the words of Jesus, ¡isívaxs sv spot [abiding in me]. The unity is relational and this unity comes to the fore in the different characteristics attributed to the vine. This article calls them indicators.
Results of the study of John 15:1-8
This article's structural analyses, commentary and metaphorical analyses,22 have shown that several indicators of unity, as part of the essence of the church, emerge in the metaphor of the vine and the branches.
These indicators are (in no specific order):
- The primacy (or authority) of Christ. Jesus is central to the metaphor. If the branches do not abide in him, they are cut off. He determines the identity of the vine as the true vine.
- Trinitarian balance. In this metaphor, we see that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are one, by implication, because Jesus was filled by the Spirit at his baptism. We see, in John 3:34, that it is through the Spirit that the words of Jesus cleanse the branches. Later, the Spirit is also given to the disciples, that is, the branches (in Jn 20:22). They are all part of the metaphor, each in their own unique way.
- Equality. All branches linked to the vine are equal. No branch is singled out in anyway as being bigger or better, and all branches are called to do the same: abide in the vine and bear fruit, and submit to being pruned.
- Interdependence. The branches depend on the vine and both depend on the Father who tends to the vine.
- Inclusivity. All who abide in the vine and bear fruit are part of the vine. It excludes nobody.
- Growth. The branches receive life from abiding in the vine and, through this, bear fruit. Growth of the individual branches of a vine, as well as in the number of branches, is also something universally true of vines.
- Unity (in diversity). Although these indicators characterise unity as part of the essence of the church, the diversity of unique and different branches that abide in the same vine leads to unity in diversity. They also show this unity.
It is possible to draw a diagram (Figure 7), using this summary, which contains the insights we have gained from a better understanding of the metaphor of the vine.
In this diagram, we can see, from the metaphor of the vine in John 15, that unity is central to, and part of, the essence of the church (as a collective of the disciples and/or followers of Christ). 'Abiding in Christ' establishes this unity. It is a relational unity, coloured in a rainbow of seven indicators.
The metaphor of the vine, in John 15:1-8, does contain indicators of the essence of the church. If the indicators are missing, it would cause any church to cease being a church. It will become just another man-made institution because these indicators belong to the essence of the church as God intended it to be.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C., Metzger, B. & Wikgren, A., [c1979] 1993, The Greek New Testament, 4th edn., United Bible Societies, Frankfurt. [ Links ]
Anderson, P., 2008, 'On guessing points and naming stars: Epistemological origins of John's Christological tensions', in R. Bauckham & C. Mosser (eds.), The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. [ Links ]
Ball, D., 1996, 'I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. [ Links ]
Barret, C., 1978, The Gospel according to St John: An introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek text, 2nd edn., SPCK, London. [ Links ]
Barrett, D., Kurian, G. & Johnson, T., 2001, World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world, Oxford University Press, Oxford. [ Links ]
Bauckham, R., 2007, 'Historiographical characteristics of the Gospel of John', New Testament Studies 53, 17-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688507000021 [ Links ]
Beasley-Murray, G., 1987, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36, A. Hubbard & G. Barker (eds.), Word Books, Waco, Texas. [ Links ]
Brown, R., 1966, The Gospel according to John (I-XII, XIII-XXI), Anchor Bible, vol. 29&29A, W. Albright & D. Freedman (eds.), Doubleday, Garden City, New York. [ Links ]
Brown, R., 2003, An introduction to the Gospel of John, Doubleday, New York. [ Links ]
Buhner, J., 1997, 'The exegesis of the Johannine "I-Am" sayings', in J. Ashton (ed.), The interpretation of John, T&T Clark, Edinburgh. PMid:9296279 [ Links ]
Bultmann, R., 1971, The Gospel of John, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. [ Links ]
Burridge, R., 1992, What are the Gospels? A comparison with Graeco-Roman biography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Burridge, R., 2007, Imitating Jesus: An inclusive approach to the New Testament ethics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Carson, D., 1991, The Gospel according to John, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Cassidy, R., 1992, John's Gospel in new perspective, Orbis Books, New York. [ Links ]
Culpepper, R., 1998, The Gospel and Letters of John, Abingdon Press, Nashville. PMCid:PMC2277720 [ Links ]
Culpepper, R., 2009, 'The quest for the church in the Gospel of John', Interpretation 63(4), 341-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002096430906300402 [ Links ]
DeSilva, D., 2004, An introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, methods and ministry formation, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. [ Links ]
Dodd, C., 1968, The interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Dunn, J., 2005, Unity in diversity in the New Testament: An inquiry into the character of earliest Christianity, SCM Press, London. [ Links ]
Du Rand, J., 1991, 'Perspectives on Johannine discipleship according to the Farewell Discourses', Neotestamentica 25(2), 311-326. [ Links ]
Du Rand, J., 1996, 'Repetitions and variations - Experiencing the power of the Gospel of John as literary symphony', Neotestamentica 30(1), 59-70. [ Links ]
Holladay, C., 2005, A critical introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the message and meaning of Jesus Christ, Abingdon Press, Nashville. [ Links ]
Keener, C., 2005, The Gospel of John: A commentary, vol. 1&2, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts. [ Links ]
Kellum, J., 2004, The unity of the Farewell Discourse: The literary integrity of John 13:31-16:33, T&T Clark, London. [ Links ]
Kostenberger, A., 2004, John, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Kostenberger, A., 2009, A theology of John's Gospel and Letters, Zondervan, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Kümmel, W., 1975, Introduction to the New Testament, SCM Press, London. [ Links ]
Kysar, R., 1986, John, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, Minnesota. [ Links ]
Lindars, B., 1972, The Gospel of John, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London. PMid:4647225 [ Links ]
Minear, P., 1960, Images of the church in the New Testament, Westminster Press, Philadelphia. [ Links ]
Moody Smith, D., 1999, John, Abingdon Press, Nashville. [ Links ]
Munzer, K., 1978, 'Remain', in C. Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 3: Pri-Z, pp. 223-226, Paternoster Press, Exeter. [ Links ]
Neyrey, J., 2007, The Gospel of John, The New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge University Press, New York. [ Links ]
Ringe, S., 1999, Wisdom's Friends, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville. PMCid:PMC2144100 [ Links ]
Schnackenburg, R., 1982, The Gospel according to St John, vol. 3, Burns & Oates, London. [ Links ]
Sloyan, G., 1988, John. Interpretation: A Bible commentary for teaching and preaching, John Knox Press, Atlanta. [ Links ]
Smith, D., 1995, The theology of the Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819865 [ Links ]
Stibbe, M., 1993, John, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. [ Links ]
Van der Merwe, G., 1997, 'Towards a theological understanding of Johannine discipleship', Neotestamentica 31(2), 339-360. [ Links ]
Van der Watt, J., 2000, Family of the King: Dynamics of metaphor in the gospel according to John, Brill, Leiden. PMCid:PMC1852400 [ Links ]
Van der Watt, J., 2007, An introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters, T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies, T&T Clark, London. [ Links ]
Whitacre, R., 1999, John, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove. [ Links ]
Johann Fourie
PO Box 4467, Tzaneen 0850, South Africa
Received: 02 Aug. 2012
Accepted: 22 June 2011
Published: 26 Sept. 2013
1.Du Rand (1991:322) points out that the way John's gospel pictures discipleship 'contributes to a new model of ecclesiology'. Köstenberger (2009:481) argues - an argument that this article supports - that the Fourth Gospel contains 'corporate metaphors for Jesus' messianic community, such as "flock" (Jn 10) or "the vine" (Jn 15)'.
2.This article rests on the shoulders of work that various scholars have done. These include, amongst others, Holladay's introductions to the New Testament (2005:190-224, 303-332, 348-369, 392-408 & 409-419), DeSilva (2004:37-193, 391-448, 555-639 & 690-732), and Kümmel (1975:188-246, 252-254, 269-278, 305-319, 335-347 & 350-365). With specific reference to the Gospel of John, one needs to add the Introduction on the Gospel of John by Brown (2003). In providing a background to the Gospel of John, this article will not try to find out anything new. It will only summarise current insights in order to ensure effective exegetical results..
3.What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Burridge (1992) discusses this in-depth. See also Köstenberger (2009:104), Van der Watt (2007:1), Neyrey (2007:1), Culpepper (1998:13), Cassidy (1992:1), Kysar (1986:11), Kümmel (1975:200) and Dodd (1968:3).
4.Stibbe (1993:162) adds to this list by calling John 15:1-11 'the paroimia, the symbolic word-picture'.
5.See, amongst others, Whitacre (1999:371-380) who sees it as an extended metaphor (but only Jn 15:1-6 with Jn 15:7-17 as its application); Carson (1991:510-524) who shares the opinion of this article that the extended metaphor occurs in John 15:1-8, but sees John 15:9-16 (not 17) as the 'unpacking' of the metaphor; Moody Smith (1999:279) who simply comments that John 15:1-17 is a unit that contains the 'allegory' of the vine; Barret (1978:470-478) who follows this by seeing John 15:1-17 as a pericope that deals with the 'symbolism' of the vine; and Kostenberger (2004:448-509) who shares the opinion of treating John 15:1-17 as a unit.
6.Burridge (2007:301) refers to these Farewell Discourses as 'an extended meditation on the unity and divine love between Jesus and his Father in the Spirit, as it applies to his disciples'. Van der Merwe (1997:344) points out that one cannot understand these words, which he spoke in the light of his imminent departure, fully unless one remembers where Jesus came from (that is, the Father), what he accomplished (as John's Gospel shows), and where he is going (that is, back to the Father).
7.See Keener (2005:993): 'not completely unexpected'.
8.See, amongst others, Psalms 80:9-16; Isaiah 5:1-7; 27:2ff.; Jeremiah 2:21; 12:10ff.; Ezekiel 15:1-8; 17:1-21; 19:10-14 and Hosea 10:1-2. See Barret (1978:470-471), Kostenberger (2004:449-450) and Keener (2005:990-993) for an overview of the possibilities of the background being the Old Testament (Jewish), New Testament (Christian) or Hellenistic (or even a combination of them).
9.See chapter 1 ad loc.
10.See Ball (1996:131): 'In the image of the vine as well as in the use of the first person [...] the dominance of Jesus [...] is again emphasized'.
11.Stibbe (1993:162) believes that remaining together, with fruit bearing, are the two main motifs of the imagery in John 15:1-11. Culpepper (2009:344) writes: 'Abiding in Christ and the promise of Christ's abiding in his followers is only possible in the church'.
12.See Keener (2005:998): '(µένω and cognates) appears eleven times in 15:4-16, dominating the theology'. There is more on this later in this chapter. See also Whitacre (1999:371) and Carson (1991:514).
13.See Carson (1991:514): 'As in Psalm 80, God plants and cultivates the vine'.
14.Carson (1991:516) points out that we can read µείνατε έν έµοί, κάγώ έν ύµΐν, in verse 4, in one of three ways: (1) as conditional - if you remain in me, I will remain in you, (2) as comparative - remain in me, as I remain in you, or (3) as a mutual imperative - let us both remain in each other.
15.See Bultmann (1971:538): 'Alongside the promise stands the threat'.
16.See Bultmann (1971:538): 'After the threat comes a further promise'.
17.This article uses this term for want of a better one, albeit a dogmatic one, to refer to the balance between the involvement of the Father, the Son and the Spirit (in the church).
18.Kysar (1986:236) refers to it as a 'more developed metaphor'.
19.See Kysar (1986:236): 'Christ is God's servant who stands in the place of Israel. This was possibly the original setting for the metaphor in the life of the Johannine community'.
20.Brown (1966:660) points out that this is one of the main points of this 'allegorical parable', as he chooses to refer to it.
21.This article uses this term for want of a better one, albeit a dogmatic one, when it refers to the balance between the involvement of the Father, the Son and the Spirit (in the church).
22.Ringe (1999:5-8) believes that one cannot form a view of Johannine ecclesiology if one does not take his metaphors seriously because John's ecclesiology is metaphoric.


text:
Hanover Monaco 6-Piece Aluminum Outdoor Dining Set with Tan Cushions with Cushioned Bench and Tile-Top Table
Browse all deals at Home Depot
See more in Outdoor Living
See more from Hanover
* This offer may contain time-sensitive information and offers. Please check with Home Depot to confirm actual price & availability.
- Be the first to comment!
Home Depot
937 Westridge Dr
Saint George, UT 84770
Home Depot
725 W Telegraph St
Washington, UT 84780
Home Depot
1518 S Providence Center Dr
Cedar City, UT 84720

subset: commoncrawl


text: I think in the end they will end up keeping 7 guys because they have the luxury of only keeping 2 qbs. Plus with Hines hamstring injury not being completely healed your going to need to be as deep in that position as you can be going into the year. That's why I say Ward,Wilson,Nate,Holmes,Reid,Morgan and yes even Morey make the team to start the year. Morey will only play on special teams but he is a vital part of special teams and I think he needs to be on the roster. It also looks like at this point that the Steelers will stick with Duce and that Cedric Humes could be shown the door and John Kuhn could be kept in favor of Humes. What are your guys thoughts on the running back and receiver situation? How do you see it all playing out??


text:
Donna Anderson
May 20, 2013
According to Center for Immigration Studies, if the amnesty bill proposed by Senators Schumer and Rubio should pass as it stands, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal convictions will automatically become full-fledged United States citizens. Who knows? One of them might become your neighbor.
Jessica Vaugh, Center for Immigration Studies, examined the most recent data from ICE's Secure Communities program. This program alerts ICE when a non-citizen with a record in the DHS databases is arrested by a local or federal law enforcement agency.
"I found that nearly half of the criminal aliens who were removed under this program in the last six months are offenders who would qualify for legal status under the terms of the Schumer-Rubio bill. This amnesty would significantly curtail ICE's interior enforcement programs, benefiting tens of thousands of criminal aliens."
"In the most recent six-month reporting period (October 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013), ICE removed 38,547 aliens who had been identified as a result of an arrest by another agency. Of these, 45 percent (17,208) were lesser offenders who would be eligible for legalization under the Schumer-Rubio amnesty. These were classified as Level 3 offenders in ICE parlance (convicted of fewer than three misdemeanors on separate occasions), fugitives, prior removals and returns, illegal border-crossers, and over-stayers and visa violators."
Vaughn also found that, of the total, 55 percent (21,339) were convicted of a felony or at least three misdemeanors, categorized as Level 1 and Level 2. The majority of these offenders would still be deportable, unless the Homeland Security Secretary waived their ineligibility for amnesty, which is entirely allowable under the bill.
Under the Schumer-Rubio bill, the DHS can waive ineligibility if the applicant was convicted when he was under the age of 18, or if he was originally admited as a refugee or someone seeking asylum. But it can also be waived if the offender was convicted under state laws aimed at immigration crimes, "such as alien smuggling, human trafficking, harboring illegal aliens, or identity theft, and anyone convicted after pleading 'no contest' instead of 'guilty.'"
Vaughn also says the bill includes provisions that would require ICE to offer a bond hearing every 90 days to allow higher level offenders the opportunity to challenge deportation in court, and even aggravated felons would be eligible for options such as home confinement instead of actually going to jail.
According to Vaughn, Texas has the highest number of convicted criminals who would be granted amnesty instead of deported, followed by California, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New York, Washington, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Illinois.
Not only are these people illegal aliens, they've also committed violent crimes while they've been hiding out in our country. Kenneth Palinkas, the president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, issued a statement today explaining why his union has officially decided to oppose the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill.
"The USCIS Council was not consulted in the crafting of the Gang of Eight's legislation," Palinkas writes. "Instead, the legislation was written with special interests, producing a bill that makes the current system worse, not better. S. 744 will damage public safety and national security and should be opposed by lawmakers."
And all those interviews, miles of paperwork and astronomical fees that Sanderson and Silber think will block the "Pathway to Citizenship?" Not to worry. Palinkas says the Department for Homeland Security and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are already waiving fees for illegal aliens applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Currently there's a 95 percent approval rating, so it would appear that the requirements to become a legal, law-abiding U.S. citizen really aren't all that steep, after all.
The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!


text:
Getting Active Directory information into SCCM Database can be done by configuring Active Directory discovery Methods in SCCM Configmgr but there are cases, wherein some of the computers may not be discovered or Computers do not exist in AD but do available in SCCM Database.
I used MaikKoster Old blog post as reference and made some customization's/Updates to the query to retrieve information about only Active Computers (Exclude disabled Machines).
Comparing AD Computer information with SCCM Database sometimes interesting to know about client health and are there any missing clients that did not discovered by SCCM into Database.
This also helps you to focus more on clients inventory issues .There are cases ,wherein User will be logged into domain(using last logon timestamp) but client will not report to site .With this you can create hardware inventory report for computers not reported with in X number of Days with AD last logon Timestamp. (if your discovery is not customized and run frequently).
You can use this procedure in SMS 2003, SCCM 2007 and SCCM 2012 environments.
Updated : Please be clear what information ,you want to retrieve from AD into SCCM Database in the initial phase else you may lead to an issue to update the existing table with custom attribute values.
I tried adding more attributes from AD to the existing SQL Job what is already been created but i failed . I have to drop the table ,Change the query and run the job to make it Work.
This procedure requires you to download Log Parser (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=24659) and install it on CM server.If your SQL hosting on different Box,Install it on SQL Box with default settings (next,next,next,close 🙂 )
Start SQL server Management Studio
Move onto SQL server Agent—>Jobs—>Create New Job
On the General Tab,Enter the required Fields as per appropriate.
Move to Next tab Steps .This is the step where you Create Job to execute and get AD computer Information into SCCM Database.
Click on New
You are prompted to select Different fields like Step Name (AD info), Type(ActiveX Script) and Run as(SQL server Agent Service Account).
Next is to import the the script to execute. Download the Script from Maikkoster website here and Import it using Open.
Once you are imported , you are required to supply values for the below Objects :
strLDAP = "LDAP://eskonr.com"
strSQLServer = "sccmSQL"
strDatabase = "SMS_CEN"
strTable = "ADComputersInfo"
Note: Strtable is Table not view
Replace the below customized query with existing One after ' Create query text
strQuery = "SELECT cn, objectpath, operatingSystem, operatingSystemServicePack"
strQuery = strQuery & ", CASE LastLogonTimestamp WHEN 0 THEN NULL ELSE "
strQuery = strQuery & " TO_TIMESTAMP(ADD(DIV(TO_REAL(LastLogon), 10000000.0), TO_REAL(TIMESTAMP('1601','yyyy')))) END AS [LastLogon]"
strQuery = strQuery & ", CASE pwdLastSet WHEN 0 THEN NULL ELSE "
strQuery = strQuery & " TO_TIMESTAMP(ADD(DIV(TO_REAL(pwdLastSet), 10000000.0), TO_REAL(TIMESTAMP('1601','yyyy')))) END AS [PwdLastSet]"
strQuery = strQuery & " INTO " & strTable & " FROM"
strQuery = strQuery & "'" & strLDAP & "'" & " where "
StrQuery = strQuery & "userAccountControl" & "=" & "4096"
Note : You can do customizations to the above query depends on your requirement.
"Please replace the Quotes as the blog converts them to fancy "
I have uploaded the modified script here. You just need to replace the domain ,SCCM SQL server info ,SQL table and LAP path.
Click Ok.
Go to Schedule Tab,Click New
Schedule it as per the requirement.
Click on Ok, OK
Start the job which we created now.
You see from below,Job is executed successfully.
Now its time to create Various reports based on your needs.
Simple report to list Computers which are not available in SCCM but do Exist in AD as Active.
SELECT [cn] AS 'Computer Name'
,[ObjectPath] AS 'Path'
,[operatingSystem] AS 'OS'
,[operatingSystemServicePack] AS 'SP'
,DATEDIFF(dd, [LastLogon], getdate()) AS 'days LastLogon'
,DATEDIFF(dd, [PwdLastSet], getdate()) AS 'days PwdLastSet'
FROM [DatabaseName].[dbo].[tablename]
WHERE cn NOT IN (SELECT name0 FROM v_GS_Computer_System)
ORDER BY LastLogon
Replace the Database name and table what you given in VB Script earlier.
Until Next !


text:
A strong handshake and assertive greeting may not be the best way to make a good first impression. New research suggests that people respond more positively to someone who comes across as trustworthy rather than confident.
Social psychologist Amy Cuddy
Social psychologist Amy Cuddy of Harvard Business School is studying how we evaluate people we meet. Cuddy is known for her research on power posing, which she presented last year at TedGlobal and the annual PopTech conference in Maine. This research suggests that if you strike a strong pose—where you take up as much space as possible—your levels of testosterone rise, while cortisol levels drop. The result: If you do it for two minutes before going into a job interview or other public performance, you will have more confidence and perform better.
Cuddy returned to PopTech this year with an all-new talk about how we form first impressions. Turns out that when we meet individuals or groups for the first time, we mostly evaluate two metrics: trustworthiness and competence. And the best part is that once you understand this, you can learn to make a better first impression. We asked her to tell us how this all works.
Wired: What have you learned about how we form first impressions?
Amy Cuddy: When we form a first impression of another person it's not really a single impression. We're really forming two. We're judging how warm and trustworthy the person is, and that's trying to answer the question, "What are this person's intentions toward me?" And we're also asking ourselves, "How strong and competent is this person?" That's really about whether or not they're capable of enacting their intentions. Research shows that these two trait dimensions account for 80 to 90 percent of an overall first impression, and that holds true across cultures.
Why did you get into this line of research?
Since just after World War II, social psychologists have been studying prejudice, really trying to understand what drives it. And the classic social-psychological model was that it's all about love for the "in-group" and hatred for the "out-group." The problem with this is that it assumed there's a single evaluative dimension: You either have negative or positive feelings toward a person or group. And because that's not really what's happening, social psychologists were not able to use the in-group/out-group evaluation to predict discrimination. Ultimately, what we really want to know isn't just what you think and feel about somebody but also how do you treat them. We didn't know who was going to be a target of genocide, who was going to be neglected, who was going to be mocked.
Discrimination comes in very nuanced forms these days. And we wanted to be able to predict discrimination. Our research group was interested in how people categorize each other. When we meet somebody, what determines whether we see them as a member of a group or see them as an individual? And how do we determine if we like the other person or not? Through research we found that it really comes down to two traits: trustworthiness and competence. People universally sort groups in a two by two matrix. And what you end up getting is that most groups are seen as high on one trait and low on the other. You don't actually have many groups that are both not trusted and not respected, or that are both loved and respected.
How did you determine all this?
We would literally just go into a society and do a preliminary study asking people to freely list all the groups in their society. After going into about two-dozen different cultures we found that people tended to come up with about 15 to 20 groups in their society. Some of them are overlapping, so you have women and men, but then you also have race, and you've got profession and religion and all these other categories. Then we go in again and ask a different sample of people to rate all those groups on a long list of traits. Through factor analysis we were able to show that people assess groups largely by these two main factors. Now, when you ask people "how much do you like a given group?" often they're not going to tell you the truth. There's too many social desirability concerns. But when you give them, say, 20 traits to evaluate, they're much more willing to actually give you variance in the responses.
And you can somehow use this to predict who is at risk of genocide?
When the economy or the status quo is threatened, often it is the high-status minority groups that get targeted for genocide. If you look over the last 100 years at the groups that have been the targets, they are not groups that were seen as incompetent. They're groups that were seen as highly competent. So the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Jews in Germany, educated people in Cambodia. These aren't groups that were both not liked and not respected. They were groups that were hated but respected. That is the quadrant that gets targeted for genocide. Again this goes against the former popular thinking in social psychology, that it was just a mater of one group hating another.
What else do these two traits tell you about how one group views another?
The thing we found after sorting people into these four quadrants is that they predict four unique emotions and four unique behavioral responses. So groups that are seen as competent but disliked elicit a lot of respect and admiration but also a lot of resentment and antipathy. Groups that are seen as warm and trustworthy but incompetent illicit pity, which is about both compassion and sadness.
What if you see a group as warm and competent?
You think they're just great all around. But this is rare, as is viewing someone as both cold and incompetent. We usually see one trait or the other.
At Poptech you also talked about how these reactions occur on a personal level. You mentioned that when we first meet someone we're often looking for warmth or trust, but trying to project competence and confidence.
We want to see others as trustworthy but we want them to see us as competent or strong.
So knowing this when you're going into interactions with people, can you use this knowledge to better make and give first impressions?
To make an accurate judgment of somebody, you want to bring out their true nature. People need to trust you in order to be themselves. So trying to be the more dominant one in the interaction is probably going to make it harder for you to get accurate information about the other person, because it's going to shut them down. Or they're going to feel defensive, or they're going to feel threatened, or they're going to try to out alpha you. It's not going to be any sort of natural interaction. So I'm such a big believer in trying to establish trust, and there's evidence that shows that trust begets trust. I know people find this very controversial but it's true. If you are trusting, if you project trust, people are more likely to trust you.
How do you convey trust in a first interaction?
There are a lot of things that you can do. One is to let the other person speak first or have the floor first. You can do this by simply asking them a question. I think people make the mistake, especially in business settings, of thinking that everything is negotiation. They think, "I better get the floor first so that I can be in charge of what happens." The problem with this is that you don't make the other person feel warmth toward you. Warmth is really about making the other person feel understood. They want to know that you understand them. And doing that is incredibly disarming.
You can also establish trust by collecting information about the other person's interests—get them to share things about themselves. Just making small talk helps enormously. Research proves that five minutes of chit-chat before a negotiation increases the amount of value that's created in the negotiation. What's funny about all this is that the things that you do to increase trust actually often are things that are seen as wastes of time. People say, "Oh, I don't have time for small talk." Well, you should make the time for small talk because it will really help.
But are there times when it's better to project dominance and confidence?
I'm sure there are, but it's an empirical question and I'm not ready to answer it yet. We're doing some work on that now. We'll see. But in general I really think people make the mistake of over-weighting the importance of expressing strength, at the expense of expressing warmth and trustworthiness. I think this is a mistake. How can you possibly be a good leader if the people who are supposed to be following you don't feel that you understand them? How is it possible? No one is going to listen if they don't trust you. Why would they? Why should they? Trust opens them up to what you have to say. It opens them up to your strength and confidence. Trust is the conduit through which ideas travel.
Can you rule through fear? Of course you can. But not for long.
Image: ____ Wirawat Lian-udom/Flickr


text:
Trip Report: McDonald's Espresso
Posted by TheShot on 07 Sep 2009 | Tagged as: Beans, Café Society, Consumer Trends, Local Brew, Machine, Quality Issues, Restaurant Coffee, Starbucks
For the better part of a year, a running gag from the casual coffee lovers who know me is to ask, "So have you tried McDonald's espresso yet? How does it rate?" Mostly they ask as a curious, sick joke — knowing that I subject myself to the worst kinds of coffee punishment. But now that I have donated my taste buds to science once again, it may be surprising to many of them that I've definitely had a lot worse.
Which isn't saying a whole lot. But this is McDonald's we're talking about — one of the world's most vilified entities in the fights against worldwide obesity, factory farming, and environmental atrocities. Up until recently, we've long remarked how visiting the McDonald's Web site was like viewing an inner city billboard advertising cigarettes: nowhere was there a mention of anything so much as a hamburger, but there were plenty of glossy lifestyle photos of ethnic-friendly families and friends — enraptured in open-mouthed, white-toothed laughter — frolicking about at hillside picnics and poolside parties. By branding themselves like cigarettes, how was that not like a McDonald's admission of guilt?
We suppose the good news today is that the company with the audacity to create the "Shamrock Shake" now proudly announces the new "Third Pounder" on their Web site. (Because we apparently don't feel we're getting fat fast enough on a diet of Quarter Pounders? The Three Pounder can only be around the corner.) But the McCafé concept is heavily promoted on the site as well.
The 16-year-old McCafé concept
And McDonald's has invested heavily in the U.S. rollout of the McCafé concept. Although much of McDonald's PR campaign in the States tries to brand the McCafé as "new!", it is anything but. The McCafé was first spawned in 1993 in Australia, infiltrated some countries in Europe, and it was first introduced to the U.S. in 2001. Since its U.S. introduction, McDonald's has opened and quickly shuttered various McCafés across the country — such as the one that opened in Mountain View in December 2003 and shut down just 14 months later.
The first generation of U.S. McCafés were dedicated, separate chain stores. McDonald's latest move has been to integrate the McCafé as a workstation within existing McDonald's — first starting with suburban McDonald's chains with more real estate and less coffee competition. The McCafé has arrived in San Francisco, however, and we chose a downtown location for our first experiment.
The tepid and stock flavors of McCafé
The branding for McCafé was laid on thick and heavy. And not uncommon to McDonald's in expensive commercial real estate districts, this is a tight spot with mirrored walls trying to make the place seem less like a closet. In front is an ever-present refugee-from-a-methadone-clinic as your doorman. (For tips, of course.) In part, the attraction for voluntary doormen is due to the heavy tourist traffic that flows through here — a lot of it from Asia for some odd reason. And at one corner of their serving station is the McCafé setup.
The McCafé signs even provide an espresso-drink-ordering procedure as follows:
- Size
- Drink
- Milk
- Syrup
Naturally, for us it was only steps #1 & #2, and they use dueling superautomatic Franke machines to pull shots with a large pour size and a blonde, even crema. The existence of any crema thickness was actually a little surprising, given the machines and staff skills, even if its color is way off. Served in a large, insulated McCafé-branded paper cup, it has a tepid flavor of cedar and some pepper. While it isn't ashy, like some Starbucks and their blackened coffees, it is one-dimensional but not entirely unpleasant. Their ads may call out "the bold and rich flavors of McCafé," but we find that statement to be accurate only if you've been mostly nursed on Maxwell House.
Their coffee is supplied by three main roasters — Distant Lands, Gaviña, and S&D Coffee. And just as McDonald's buys food staples from multiple suppliers in huge lots to blend out the flavor profile to a single, consistent stew spread across entire nations, their coffee is little different. Although their supply chain for coffee appears to be a lot more thoughtful than the one for, say, beef, another difference is that McDonald's makes bigger, nameless vats of "mutt" coffee from multiple suppliers who each produce vast nameless lots of "mutt" coffee.
When McDonald's can make espresso this mediocre, who needs Starbucks? Or Nespresso?
But as we mentioned up top, the espresso here may not be good, but it isn't outright awful. And therein lies the marketing foolishness of Starbucks: years of dumbing down their product to fill an ever-expanding armada of cafés has made it rather push-button and brain-dead. So much so, that any fast food chain with an ounce of ambition, such as McDonald's, can make a relatively legitimate quality play for their customers. Slap on a recession and a cheaper price tag, and Starbucks is suddenly dog-paddling to stay afloat in the deep, rapid waters of fast food competition.
McDonald's espresso quality also depreciates the value of many superautomatic home espresso machines, such as the Nespresso. Why should consumers spend hundreds of dollars on a home machine, plus a subscription of premium-priced coffee capsules, to essentially achieve McDonald's quality at a similar price point? That just doesn't cut it.
In a way, this all makes us commend McDonald's espresso for helping to draw back the curtain on the "Great Oz" of Starbucks — or superautomated home machines such as the Nespresso system. When you are charging a premium for your product, or if you are promoting it as some premium espresso experience, you had better set your standards above McDonald's (for crying out loud) to be taken seriously.
While we would never go to a McDonald's McCafé for the espresso unless we were extremely desperate, we like the McCafé if for nothing other than shining some humbling truth behind the many hot-air claims of "luxury" mass-produced espresso out on the market today.
Read the review of McDonald's at 609 Market St. in San Francisco.
7 Comments »
7 Responses to "Trip Report: McDonald's Espresso"
[…] McCafés hit actually been around for 16 years, despite their newborn promotion. Excerpt from: Trip Report: McDonald's Espresso | Espresso News and Reviews … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: been-around, despite-their, have-actually, highlights-the, […]
"…But as we mentioned up top, the espresso here may not be good, but it isn't outright awful."
I think that's always been the point… McDonalds, Starbcks, chains in general, provide a consistent 80% product (that may be generous) while independent diners or coffeehouses have a far variable record on quality and consistency.
You'll never get a completely terrible drink at a chain with a factory mentality, but just the same you'll never get better than that 80%.
Independents leave you the possibility of hitting that 90%+ fantastic drink, but just as often they just leave a bitter taste in your mouth. I understand why people might choose the "safe" and familiar route, but it still hurts to see it happen.
I've definitely gotten truly awful espresso at a McDonald's. The difference may be accounted for by location (I was in the Central Valley), but I suspect Greg is being generous with his rating.
thx for your dedication
[…] pretty much the same conclusion a coffee reviewer came up with when he recently tried the coffee for the first time. "Just as McDonald's buys food staples from multiple suppliers in huge lots to blend out […]
Honestly I think McDonald's espresso tastes better then Starbucks. It has a real smooth, smokey taste to it and I really like it. So much that I had to buy an espresso machine to get rid of my 8 dollar a day habit.


text:
An Early Hybrid Vehicle. Lovely Prize for the first party who can identify the Hybrid Nature of this Vehicle
Chris yes, similar- it sems to be the about the same year too.Russ, my dad told me a story that happened in the sixties; we had a huge flood and the security forces was commisioned to help vacate lowlying rural areas. They had nowhere to go but hills in the area that was, because of the rain, a bitch to get up the slopes. Land Rovers and Bedford 4x4 trucks had a tough time at it as it was bush and there were no roads. One morning the chaps heard a strange sound coming up the very slippery slopes (by that time)and found it to be a bearded professor (an entomologist) in a powder blue Beetle, pipe hanging from the corner of the mouth coming to find out what all the fuss was about. When he found out he said "oh" and drove back down the mountain. The policemen thought they had too much to drink the previous night as it seemed like a dream.
Is that a DUKW or similar amphibious vehicle?
I think you're on to something here. One lever to transfer to FWD and the other to engage the propeller...hmmmm
Nice lines, Justan! And Steve, that first one's pretty sweet too! Seeing the girl in the tiger cage seems somewhat ironic, but probably safer overall. A
You mean like this one? (obviously a later model): http://camillc.com/terrawind.htmMike.
By looking at the transfer case levers it could be CJ 2 Willys, then again the CJ3's and early 5's had something similar if I remember correctly. Steering wheel I have no clue.
Yep... that's my neighborhood... surrounded by losers!
My accountants must have been robbing me.Rob C
Don't they all?


text:
Consistent play contributed to an outstanding fall sports season as Hope's teams put the college on track for winning yet another conference Commissioner's Cup for the best all-around program.
Consistent play contributed to an outstanding fall sports season as Hope's teams put the college on track for winning yet another conference Commissioner's Cup for the best all-around program.
The fall season is the school year's busiest with eight sports teams competing for conference championships. No fall Hope team finished below third place in their Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association (MIAA) standings. The consistency has put Hope in first place in the Commissioner's Cup and the Men's and Women's All-Sports standings heading into the winter season.
Hope's lone conference championship came in volleyball and there were runner-up finishes in four sports - men's and women's cross country, men's soccer and men's golf. Finishing third were teams in football, women's golf and women's soccer.
The most amazing finish came in football. After losing their first seven games of the season, the Flying Dutchmen rallied to win their final three, including a season-ending victory on a snow-covered field. The game against Alma had been delayed two weeks because Parents Weekend was canceled when an illness that swept across the campus caused the college to close for five days.
Two athletes were voted the most valuable in their MIAA sport - junior golfer Steven Strock of Grandville, Mich. and senior soccer midfielder Allison Van Beek of Libertyville, Ill.
Senior Seth Weener of Grandville, Mich. qualified for the NCAA Division III cross country championships, finishing 109th in a field of 280 runners.
Volleyball coach Becky Schmidt '99 achieved her 100th Hope coaching victory in her fifth season at the helm of the Flying Dutch who qualified for the NCAA playoffs.
Cross Country
Hope's cross country teams each finished second in the seasonal standings of the MIAA.
Coach Mark Northuis' squads placed second at the nine-team conference championship meet. Over the past two decades the Flying Dutchmen and Flying Dutch have finished third or higher in the conference standings every year.
Seniors Seth Weener of Grandville, Mich. (Grandville HS) and Rob Bailey of Portage, Ind. (Portage HS) achieved All-MIAA first team honors for the second time in their careers. Weener was also an All-MIAA honoree in track & field last spring.
Receiving All-MIAA second team recognition were sophomore Emily Fischer of Naperville, Ill. (Naperville Central HS); senior Zach King of Portage, Mich. (Portage Northern HS); freshman Kelly Luftkin of Houghton, Mich. (Houghton HS); freshman Kate Nelson of Williamston, Mich. (Williamston HS); senior Paul VanderVelde of Lawrence, Kan. (Free State HS); and junior Matt Wiersum of Minnetonka, Minn. (Minnetonka HS).
Coach Dean Kreps' Flying Dutchmen tied for third place in the MIAA standings, posting
a 3-3 record in league games. The team ended 3-7 overall. Four players were voted to the MIAA all-conference football teams.
Senior offensive tackle Erik Ladomersky of Grandville, Mich. (Grandville HS)
was voted to the All-MIAA first team for the third consecutive year. He is just the second Hope offensive tackle in school history to receive All-MIAA first team recognition three straight years, joining Craig Groendyk (1977-78-79).
Sophomore Kyle Dietrich of Gobles (Gobles HS) was honored as an All-MIAA second teamer
at two positions, wide receiver and return specialist. Dietrich led the MIAA in all-purpose
yardage, catching 40 passes (league games) for 606 yards and averaging 25.3 yards
on kickoff returns (12). For the entire season he had the fourth best
pass reception total in school history with 64 catches for 966 yards.
Also named to the All-MIAA second team are junior tight end David DeBoer of Grosse Pointe, Mich. (Grosse Pointe South HS), and junior linebacker Chris Batterbee of Gladwin, Mich. (Gladwin HS). DeBoer caught 44 passes for 462 yards.
Men's Golf
Junior Steven Strock of Grandville, Mich. (Grandville HS) won MIAA men's golf medalist honors, bringing the recognition to a Hope golfer for the tenth time in the last 11 years. Strock averaged 73.0 strokes over the league's eight tournaments. It was the fourth best seasonal average by a Hope golfer since the current tournament format started in 1978.
Coach Bob Ebels' Dutchmen finished second in the MIAA's seasonal standings. Olivet captured the championship, finishing 35 strokes ahead of the Flying Dutchmen. It ended Hope's string of five straight titles. The Comets ended at 2,395 strokes followed by Hope 2,420, Trine 2,425, Albion 2,465, Calvin 2,513, Adrian 2,536, Kalamazoo 2,556, and Alma 2,586.
Nick Campbell, a freshman from Saline, Mich. (Saline HS) achieved All-MIAA second team recognition. He finished 10th in the seasonal player standings with an average of 76.6 strokes.
The seasonal MIAA averages of other Hope golfers were Don (DJ) Scholten (senior from Grand Rapids, Mich./GR Christian HS) 78.0, and Don Kring (senior from Williamsburg, Mich./St. Francis HS) 78.0.
Women's Golf
The Flying Dutch finished third in the MIAA women's golf seasonal standings behind champion Olivet and runner-up Saint Mary's.
The finish marks continued improvement for coach Eva Dean Folkert's Flying Dutch who were sixth in 2006 and fourth in 2007.
Freshman Megan Scholten of Grand Rapids, Mich. (GR Christian HS) achieved All-MIAA first team honors, finishing third in the seasonal standings while junior captain Cassie Sneller of Holland, Mich. (Hamilton HS) is an All-MIAA second team honoree.
Scholten's season average of 81.2 strokes per 18-hole round was the fourth best in school history. Sneller placed seventh in the player standings, averaging 83.4 per round.
Freshman Sasha Burau of Grand Blanc, Mich. (Grand Blanc HS) also qualified for the seasonal player standings finishing with an 88.5 average.
Men's Soccer
The Flying Dutchmen, coached by Steven Smith, finished second in the MIAA standings and posted an overall 14-2-4 record. Seven players were named to the coaches' MIAA all-conference teams.
Four players received first team recognition -- senior forward Jack Abe of Naperville, Ill. (Naperville North HS), senior midfielder Kevin McMahon of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Forest Hills Central HS), junior midfielder Ausable Schwiebert of Chelsea, Mich. (Chelsea HS), and senior back James Trebilcock of Haslett, Mich. (Haslett HS). Abe and Trebilcock are being honored for a second time.
Three players were named to the second team -- junior midfielder Chris Harrison of Plymouth, Mich. (Wayzata HS), junior midfielder Kevin Bartosek of Traverse City, Mich. (Traverse City West HS), and senior back Mitchell Currie of Fort Collins, Colo. (Fort Collins HS).
Women's Soccer
Four members of the women's soccer team received all-conference honors from the MIAA, including the league's top honor.
Coach Leigh Sears' Flying Dutch posted a 13-6 season record and finished third in the MIAA standings.
Senior midfielder Allison Van Beek of Libertyville, Ill. (Libertyville HS) was named the MIAA's most valuable player by conference coaches.
She was joined on the All-MIAA first team by sophomore defender Courtney Cook of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Forest Hills Central HS). Van Beek is being honored on the first team for the third consecutive year while Cook is being recognized for the second time.
Players named to the All-MIAA second team were sophomore midfielder Kristen Schwenk of Midland, Mich. (Dow HS) and senior forward Sarah Sosolik of Oswego, Ill. (Oswego HS).
Van Beek led Hope in scoring this fall with 12 goals and two assists. Over her four-year career she scored 31 goals and had 16 assists. She is the third Hope player to receive MIAA MVP honors joining Tina Gill (1996) and Dawn Gillam (2004).
Four members of Hope's conference champion volleyball team were named to the All-MIAA team by the league's coaches.
Coach Becky Schmidt's Flying Dutch won the regular season conference championship and received the MIAA's automatic berth in the NCAA Division III tournament. The team ended with a 26-8 season record.
Three Hope players received All-MIAA first team honors -- junior Andrea Helminiak of Maumee, Ohio (Anthony Wayne HS), senior Nora Slenk of Holland, Mich. (Holland Christian HS), and sophomore Kara VandeGuchte of Hamilton, Mich. (Hamilton HS). Slenk was honored for the second consecutive year.
Sophomore Cassidy Bolthuis of Nunica, Mich. (Spring Lake HS) was voted to the All-MIAA second team.