John 15:1Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

“I am the vine, and you are the branches.” What does He wish to say by this parable? That it is impossible for one who does not heed His words to live, and that the signs to come are accomplished by the power of Christ.

“My Father is the husbandman.” What then? Does the Son need help? No. The reference to the Father does not mean this.

Look, indeed, with what precision He sets forth the parable. He says only of the branches that they receive the care of the husbandman, not of the root.

The root is mentioned here only to show the disciples that without His power they can do nothing. They must be united to Him by faith as branches are united to the vine.

What, then, is the mystery He teaches them? "I," He says, "am the vine, that is, the root; you are the branches; and My Father is the vinedresser." For whom, then, does the Father care? For the root? No, but for the branches.

Desiring to show that we must strive to acquire love for Him, and also how great a benefit we gain from union with Him, He calls Himself the "vine," as in a parable. He calls those joined to Him, and as it were grown together with Him, "branches." They have already become partakers of His nature through participation in the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:4). For His Holy Spirit unites us to Christ the Savior.

The union of those who come to the Vine is voluntary. The Vine's relation to us is one of loving reception. By our good will we came to Christ through faith, and became His kin (Acts 17:29), receiving from Him the dignity of adoption. Thus, according to Saint Paul, "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor 6:17).

Elsewhere, by the voice of the prophet, He is called the foundation and support (cf. Isa 28:16). For on Him we are built, being called living and spiritual stones, "for a holy priesthood" (1 Pet 2:5), and "for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Eph 2:22). We could not be built up into this in any other way, unless Christ were our foundation (1 Cor 3:11).

So here, in a similar sense, He calls Himself the vine of the branches that grow from it, their mother and nurse. For from Him and in Him we have been reborn by the Spirit to a fruitful life. This is not the old and worn life, but the new life consisting in faith and love for Him.

We must strive to be as though grown together with Him, and to cling unfailingly to the holy commandment handed down to us. We must strive to preserve the dignity of noble birth, that is, not to grieve in any way the Holy Spirit Who has taken up His dwelling in us. Through Him, God is understood to dwell in us.

How we abide in Christ and He in us, the wise John himself will show in these words: "By this we know that we are in Him and He in us: by the Spirit Whom He has given us" (1 Jn 3:24). Again he says, "By this we know that we are in Him: he who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked" (1 Jn 2:5-6). Making this clearer for his hearers, he says again, "He who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him" (1 Jn 3:24).

If keeping the commandments is the fulfillment of love for Him, and if through love we are united with Him, is not the truth of His words revealed in this? As the trunk of the vine communicates and distributes to the branches the use of its own natural quality, proper to itself, so the Only-begotten Word of God gives the Spirit. He communicates to the saints, who are united with Him through faith and every kind of holiness, a kind of natural kinship both with God the Father and with His own nature. The Spirit nourishes them unto piety, and produces in them the knowledge of every virtue and holiness.

He calls the Father the "vinedresser." For what reason? Certainly the Father is not idle or inactive toward us when the Son nourishes and sustains us unto well-being in the Holy Spirit. Rather, our ordering in the good is the work of the whole Holy and Consubstantial Trinity. Through the whole divine nature there passes the will and power in all Its works. Therefore, in one person, the whole Trinity is wholly glorified by us.

We call God Savior. We do not offer thanks separately to the Father, separately to the Son Himself, or separately to the Holy Spirit, because we have received mercy. Rather, we call our salvation the work of the one Godhead. Although something among the things done for us, or performed in creation, may appear to be assigned to each person separately, nevertheless we believe that all things are from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

Therefore you must most rightly understand the matter thus: the Father nourishes us unto piety through the Son in the Spirit. Again, He cultivates us like the earth, that is, He oversees, watches over, and grants providential care through the Son in the Spirit. In our judgment, it is much more just to reason in this way than in any other.

If we assign separately to each person something that happens to us, which we shall not count as belonging to another, will it not be beyond doubt that. Since the Son is now called the vine and the Father the vinedresser, we are nourished separately and sustained in well-being by the Son alone, while from the Father we have only supervision? For it belongs to a vine to nourish its branches, and to a vinedresser to watch over them. But if we think rightly, we must certainly acknowledge that neither the nourishment occurs without the Father, nor the supervision without the Son or the Holy Spirit. For all things are from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, as we have said.

Very providently the Savior now called the Father the "vinedresser." The reason is not at all difficult to state. Lest anyone suppose that care for us belongs to the Only-begotten alone, He introduces God the Father as His fellow-worker, as it were. He calls Himself the "vine," communicating to its branches life and the power to bear fruit. He calls His Begetter the "vinedresser."

Through this He again teaches that another activity, as it were, of the divine essence is understood in the work of watching over us. It was necessary to teach us that God, understood in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, has not only made us partakers of His nature, but also watches over us with the greatest care. Here this is suitably and beautifully presented under the image of husbandry.

Since the "vine" and the "branches" from it have already been named, does not this give a proper indication of the one who cultivates the earth, introducing the Overseer and Provider of all, that is, God? If we have believed that the Son is naturally and truly in His Father, and Himself has His Begetter in His own nature, then all things must be accomplished through Both in the Spirit, as from one Godhead. The Father must not be thought outside our nourishment, nor the Son thought alien to cultivation in relation to us.

This is natural. Where the fullest and most perfect identity of nature is found, there also is indivisibility of activity, even if this activity may appear to someone in varied and manifold ways. If there is one essence, that is, if the true Godhead by nature is understood in three hypostases, I mean in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Is it not utterly evident that, when any action is called the action of One, it is the work of the whole and one Godhead, according to the natural power that accomplishes it?

Thus our Lord Jesus Christ, presenting the Father as His fellow-worker in all things, once addressed the impious Jews in these words: "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" (Jn 10:32). Again, concerning work on the Sabbath, He says, "My Father works until now, and I work" (Jn 5:17).

No one, I think, will suppose that He says the Father performs something separately toward creation, and the Son separately. Since the Father did all things through the Son, and never did anything otherwise, for the Son is His wisdom and power, He again called the Father the performer of His works. He said, "I do nothing of Myself, but the Father Who abides in Me Himself does the works" (Jn 8:28; 14:10).

Therefore I think we too must understand these words in no other way than this: Christ is presented as the vine, and we are joined to Him like branches. We are nourished by grace, and through the Spirit we drink power for spiritual fruit-bearing.

But since the bitter word of our opponents again deafens us who have chosen the right path, and tries to persuade us of what must not be thought, we shall briefly set before the hearers what one of them has set forth at length.

He says that the Only-begotten powerfully refuted and made ridiculous those who think that He is consubstantial with God the Father. For here, he says, He plainly calls Himself the vine and the Father the vinedresser. As the vine and the vinedresser are not the same in essence, since one is a tree and the other a man, and they are foreign to one another and altogether different in nature, so the Son is not consubstantial with the Father. He differs in many things, and the property of essence divides them, since One is the vine and the Other the vinedresser.

He says it is beyond doubt that some will groundlessly try to transfer this to the divine economy with the flesh, and refer these words to the Incarnation of the Word. For He does not call His flesh the vine, but rather His Godhead. For to whom, he says, is it not clear that our body is not joined to the Savior's flesh like branches to a vine, nor is the fruit of the saints fleshly, but spiritual? Therefore, setting the flesh aside for now, we must refer the meaning of this saying to the very Godhead of the Son, and call His Godhead the vine to which we are joined through faith.

With such chatter the heretic comes forward. In many ways, according to his own arbitrary will, he thrusts aside the correctness of the divine dogmas, and with great cunning twists them toward the goal he has set for himself. But we, holding everywhere to the truth, shall not reason so, nor anything like it. Guided by the understanding of our holy fathers, we shall follow the dogmas of truth.

We shall inquire, as far as we are able and not ignorantly, how the meaning of these words must be understood. Again we must consider how we ought to arm ourselves and fight against their arguments. If we passed over these arguments in silence, no harm would come to the minds of the simple. We could rightly disdain involvement in empty reasonings and proceed to the words that follow. Yet, since such teaching, if received by someone, may cause no small harm, should we not, moved by zeal for the love of God, enter the battle by arguments and words? Then the malice of the opponents will become completely clear.

First of all, we shall say that it is very foolish and inappropriate to understand as an indication of nature or essence what is taken as an example and introduced for comparison. Those who wish to understand each word of the sacred text correctly must, I think, pay attention to the aim of the saying. They must examine with great care what the speaker has in view when He speaks.

From the very saying before us, observe again whether our words do not seem entirely just to you. Christ the Savior did not intend to teach the disciples that He is by nature other, and that the Father differs from Him by nature. It was not for this reason that He judged it necessary to call His Begetter the vinedresser and Himself the vine. If this had been His aim, why did He not stop His speech there, adding nothing else? In our judgment, He would have indicated His aim without any obscurity if He had named only Himself and the Father.

But now, after first presenting Himself as the vine, and calling us joined to Him like branches, He then assigns the work of husbandry to the Father. Clearly and plainly, I think, He shows everyone that He is in no way indicating anything like what you suppose. Rather, through material examples set before bodily sight, He wishes to persuade His hearers that the power of all spiritual fruit-bearing in us comes from Him. Likewise, the quality of branches growing on a trunk comes from that trunk.

Everything good that we have is in us as a gift. In God it is not so. He is in Himself the first principle of His own excellences, glory, and authority, which befit Him alone. Therefore Christ is as the "vine," and we are the "branches." If He called the Father the "vinedresser," do not say that He did so as though the Father had another essence. As we have said, He does not wish to express this. He wishes to show that the divine nature has become the root and beginning of spiritual fruit-bearing and life in us. Beyond the benefits already mentioned, like a certain vinedresser, It grants and brings to those called through faith into communion with It the manifestation of love.

Thus the dissimilarity of the examples must have no bearing on essence. Christ the Savior did not intend to speak of this now. The manner of teaching here has another aim.

They say: “If the Savior is the vine, we are the branches, and the Father is the husbandman, then the branches are of one nature with the vine, while the vine is not of one nature with the husbandman. Therefore the Son is of one nature with us, and we are part of Him. But He is not of one nature with the Father. On the contrary, He is wholly other than Him.”

We shall say to them that the Savior called us branches not of His Godhead, but of His flesh. This accords with the Apostle, who said, “We are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (1 Cor 12:27). Again, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (1 Cor 6:15).

Therefore let those who divide the Son from the Father, as the vine from the vinedresser, now be ashamed. They are convinced from the Scriptures that the parable refers to the Body of the Lord, and not to His Godhead.

For when He performed the holy mystery, He blessed and said: “Drink of it, all of you; this is My Blood of the New Covenant,” which is poured out for you (Mt 26:27-28). Yet wine is the blood not of the Lord, but of the vine.

Therefore the Lord said of His own Body: “I am the vine” (Jn 15:1). Blood proceeds not from the Spirit of the Godhead of the Word, but from the Man whom He bore.

Thus, they say, blessed Dionysius wrote in a letter: “The Son of God is a product and was made. He is not akin to the Father by nature, but is foreign to Him in essence. The Father is to Him as the vinedresser is to the vine, and as the shipbuilder is to the boat. As a product, the Son did not exist before He received being.”

Dionysius did write this, and we admit that such a letter exists. But just as he wrote this letter, so he wrote very many other letters. They ought to have read them also, so that Dionysius’s faith might be seen from all his letters, not from only one.

When a shipbuilder has built many ships, his art is judged not from one ship, but from all. Therefore, if he wrote the letter they cite simply as one setting forth the faith, or if he wrote only this one letter, let them accuse him as they wish. Such thoughts are indeed worthy of condemnation.

But if the occasion of time and person drew him into writing in this way, and if he also wrote other letters defending himself against what he was suspected of, then they should not have overlooked these causes. They should not rashly stir up hatred against Dionysius.

Otherwise people will think of them that they hunt only for words and neglect the truth contained in the other letters. A farmer applies different care to each of his trees, according to the present quality of the soil. No one will blame him because he prunes one tree, grafts another, plants one, and uproots another.

On the contrary, everyone who has learned the reason well will marvel at the variety of his knowledge. Therefore, if they have not read Dionysius’s writings superficially, let them state the contents of the letter. In this way their slander and the malice of their will become manifest.

Since they either do not know or are ashamed to say it, we must do so. In the Pentapolis of Upper Libya, certain bishops then held Sabellian opinions. These inventions grew so strong that little was lacking before the Son of God would no longer be preached in the churches.

When Dionysius learned this, since he had care for those churches, he sent and advised those at fault to cease from their impiety. But when they did not cease, and instead became even more shameless in their impiety, he was compelled to write such a letter against their shamelessness.

From the Gospels he set before them what is human in the Savior. Since they boldly denied the Son and attributed to the Father what is human in Him, he thus proved that not the Father, but the Son, became man for us. He wished to persuade the ignorant that the Father is not the Son.

Then, step by step, he would lead them up to the true Godhead of the Son and to the knowledge of the Father. Such is the content of this letter. For this reason he wrote in this way, because of those who wished so shamelessly to pervert the true faith.

Therefore, wherein is the Arian heresy like the thought of Dionysius? Or why is Dionysius named as though he were Arius, when there is a great difference between them? One is a teacher of the catholic Church; the other became the inventor of a new heresy.

Arius, setting forth his own impiety, wrote the Thalia in an effeminate and ridiculous meter, after the example of the Egyptian Sotades. Dionysius wrote other letters also, defended himself against what he was suspected of, and was shown to think rightly.

Therefore, if he writes contrary to himself, let them not claim him for themselves, because in that respect he does not deserve credence. But if, after writing the letter to Ammonius, he came under suspicion, yet defended himself by correcting the former expression, and if in defending himself he did not change his thought, then it is clear that what aroused suspicion was written by him according to a particular economy.

What is written or done according to a particular economy must not be taken in an evil sense, nor interpreted by each according to his own will. A physician often applies to certain ulcers what seems unsuitable to others, as he himself knows. He has no other intention than health.

A prudent teacher also uses this method, adapting himself to the qualities of those being taught and speaking in such a way until he leads them onto the path of perfection.

But if this man of blessed memory is blamed for writing only in this way, since what the Arians display in praise of him turns into an accusation against him, what will they do when they hear the Acts of the great and blessed Apostles?

Peter says: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God among you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did through Him in your midst. As you yourselves know, this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite counsel and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:22-23).

And again: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands before you whole” (Acts 4:10). Paul also explains in Pisidian Antioch that God, “having removed Saul, raised up David to be king, to whom He also bore witness, saying: I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will. From this man’s seed God, according to promise, raised up for Israel a Savior, Jesus” (Acts 13:22-23).

And again in Athens he says: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained, giving assurance to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).

Or the great martyr Stephen says: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). It would be fitting for them now to dare, since what will they not dare, and say that the Apostles themselves thought in an Arian way. For they call Christ a man of Nazareth and passible.

Since they imagine such things, did the Apostles, when they used these sayings, consider Christ nothing more than a mere man? May this never be. It is not lawful even to admit such a thought.

On the contrary, in this they acted as wise architects and “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1). They had a sound reason for it. The Jews of that time, being themselves in error and leading the Gentiles into error, thought that Christ was only a mere man.

They thought He came from the seed of David like the other children descended from David. They did not believe that He is God and that “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14). For this very reason the blessed Apostles very prudently first explained to the Jews what is human in the Savior.

By visible signs that had taken place, they fully convinced them of Christ’s coming. Then they led them up to faith in His Godhead, proving that the works performed by Him belonged not to man, but to God.

Peter, while calling Christ a passible man, soon added that He is “the Author of life” (Acts 3:15). In the Gospel he confesses: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). In his Epistle he says that He is the “Shepherd and Overseer of souls” (1 Pet 2:25), and Lord of himself, and of angels and powers (1 Pet 3:22).

Likewise Paul, who says that Christ is a man from the seed of David, himself wrote in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “He is the radiance of His glory and the imprint of His hypostasis” (Heb 1:3). And in the Epistle to the Philippians: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil 2:6).

To say that He is the Author of life, the Son of God, the radiance and imprint, equal to God, Lord, and Overseer of souls, what else does it mean? Does it not mean that in the body was the Word of God, through whom all things received being, and that He is inseparable from the Father, as radiance from light?

Therefore Dionysius also acted in this way, having learned from the Apostles. Since the Sabellian heresy had crept in, he was compelled, as was said above, to write such a letter. In reply to them he set forth what was said of the Savior humanly and in lowly terms.

By pointing to the human element, he deprived them of the possibility of asserting that the Son is the Father Himself. He made the teaching concerning the Godhead of the Son easier for them to receive, when in other letters he would call Him, according to the Scriptures, the Word, Wisdom, power, “breath” (Wis 7:25), and radiance of the Father.

At least, when speaking thus in the letters written in his own defense, he boldly expresses himself concerning faith in Christ and piety. Therefore, as the Apostles are not subject to blame for sayings about the Lord that point to His humanity, because the Lord became man, but are rather worthy of admiration for their particular economy and for teaching suited to the time, so Dionysius is not an Arian because of his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against Sabellius.

If he used lowly words and examples, he borrowed these also from the Gospels. He has as his occasion for using them the Savior’s appearance in the flesh, according to which this and the like are written about Him.

As He is the Word of God, so later “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14). “In the beginning was the Word” (Jn 1:1), but at the consummation of the ages the Virgin had Him in her womb (Mt 1:18), and the Lord became man.

Although the one designated by both is one, because “the Word became flesh,” nevertheless the sayings used of His Godhead and of His becoming man have their own interpretation, according to what each signifies. Whoever writes of what human nature the Word assumed also knows of His Godhead.

And whoever proclaims His Godhead is not ignorant of what belongs to His appearance in the flesh. Distinguishing both, as a knowledgeable and skillful money-changer, he walks the straight path of piety.

When he presents Him weeping, he knows that the Lord, having become man, shows that to weep is human, and yet raises Lazarus as God. He knows that as He hungers and thirsts bodily, so as God He feeds five thousand with five loaves.

He knows that the human body lies in the tomb, but, as the body of God, it is raised by the Word Himself.

Teaching this also, Dionysius wrote to Euphranor and Ammonius, because of Sabellius, what is said of the Savior humanly. For it is said of Him humanly: “I am the vine, and the Father is the vinedresser”; and, “faithful to Him who made Him” (Heb 3:2); and, “created” (Prov 8:22); and, “having become so much better than the angels” (Heb 1:4).

But Dionysius was not ignorant of this either: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” (Jn 14:10), and, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). For we know that he wrote this in other letters. Even when writing the former things, he remembered the humanity of the Lord.

As He, “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:6-7), and “being rich. Became poor for our sake” (2 Cor 8:9), so with such lofty and rich sayings about His Godhead there are also humble and poor expressions about His appearance in the flesh.

That this is said of the Savior according to His humanity, we are entitled to conclude from the following. The vinedresser is foreign in essence to the vine. But the branches are consubstantial and akin to the vine and not separate from it. Like the vine, they have one and the same origin.

Just as the branches are consubstantial with the vine and come from it, so we have a body of one kind with the body of the Lord. We receive from its fullness and have it as the root of our resurrection and salvation. And the Father is called the vinedresser because through the Word He makes the wine, which is the Lord's body.

“I am the true vine,” that is, the excellent, uncorrupted, spiritual vine. The word “true” (αληθινός) is often used in such senses.

Or it may be understood otherwise. “The true vine” means the vine that bears truth instead of fruit.

Thus Jesus Christ calls Himself the grapevine because He communicates teaching that is pleasant and gladdens the hearts of men. In Holy Scripture this teaching is also called wine. He is also, as it were, the root of the disciples.

He calls the disciples branches because they have, as it were, grown from Him, from His teaching, and are nourished by Him. In this way they bring forth ripe clusters of grapes, that is, virtues, and provide for others the wine of teaching.

The vine brings forth wine, as the Word brings forth blood. Both serve men as a drink for life: wine for the body, blood for the spirit.

Question 119. If the Son of God is not merely like the Father and God, but exactly coincides with Him, is honored together with Him, and is of the same nature, why does He Himself say, “I am the vineyard, and My Father is the vinedresser” (Jn 15:1)?

The vinedresser and the vineyard do not have the same nature. The former is rational and animate, while the latter is irrational and inanimate.

Answer. I do not praise your confused cleverness, which goes around many things except what lies before us, and thinks by a contrived question to lead a man astray.

Learn whether you are rightly considering what grows. You must deal straightly, and grant me the matter straightly. What belongs to Christianity is established on faith, not on speculation.

Jesus rises and hastens to accomplish the mystery of His Passion. And now He reveals the mystery of the Incarnation.

Through His Incarnation we abide in Him, like branches of the vine. Until He became the vine, we were unable to bring forth good fruits.

He calls us to abide in Him by faith in His Incarnation. Since the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14), we may be in the nature of His flesh as branches belong to the vine.

He distinguishes the image of the Father’s majesty from the lowliness of the flesh He assumed. He does this by naming Himself the vine that unites all the branches.

He calls the Father the careful vinedresser, who cuts away useless and barren branches so that the fire may consume them.

So also the wine of His blood, gathered from the many clusters of the vineyard planted by Him, passes through the winepress of the Cross. By its own power it begins to ferment in the broad vessels of those who receive it with a devoted heart.

After leaving the house where the Mystical Supper had taken place, Jesus continued His farewell discourse with the Apostles. Wishing to explain vividly their relation to Him, He stopped near a vineyard situated along the way.

Drawing the Apostles’ attention to it, He said: “I am the true vine, you are the branches, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away. Every branch that bears fruit He cleanses, that it may bear more fruit. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.”

The Apostles were certainly familiar with the care of a grapevine. They knew that clusters of grapes grow on shoots, branches that grow from the trunk or vine.

Verses 1-6. “My Father is the husbandman,” said the Lord. “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away. And every branch that bears fruit He prunes,” that is, He cleanses it by temptations and sorrows, “that it may bear more fruit.”

Note this. The fruit sought and accepted by God from every grapevine, by which the human soul is portrayed, is its activity in Christ. This means the fulfillment of the Gospel commandments. It is in no way merely natural activity, nor the practical performance of natural good, which is defiled by mixture with evil.

“A branch,” said the Lord, “cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine. Neither can you, unless you abide in Me.”

“I am the true vine,” and so forth. If we suppose that the Lord took the outward image for His further discourse, as He often does, from the reality around Him and before His eyes, then the image of the vine may have been taken from the vineyards planted along the slopes of the Mount of Olives.

This was a beautiful image for revealing and explaining to the disciples the inward and spiritual relations in which they must always stand toward Him. This is especially so because the image was so often used in the Old Testament writings (Is 5:1 and following; Jer 2:21; Ezek 15:1-7 and following; Ezek 19:10 and following, and others).

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman.” The Savior compares Himself with the grapevine, and says moreover that He is the true vine.

When He is called the true light (Jn 1:9) and the true bread (Jn 6:32), these names indicate that in Him the reality of light and bread is expressed in the most exact and best form.

Likewise, when He names Himself the true Vine, this name teaches that in no one is the reality of this plant reflected so fully as in Him. Israel, portrayed by the Prophets as a vineyard (Is 5:1; Jer 2:21), did not acquire the good qualities of this plant.