Note, in John 15 to verse 8, it looks upward in dependence; from verse 9 downwards in love. In verse 16, as Christ had chosen them to go and bring forth fruit; and of course His choice was owned, and the Father would do all for Him (and indeed was Himself glorified by it, v. 8), they, in pursuit of their mission, had only to ask the Father in His name, and He would do whatever they asked. This, in our little measure, so far as we are sent, is a very great comfort. Note also the difference between verses 2, 6, and 4, 7. In the last two the question is of fruit-bearing and help, not of cutting off. Verses 2, 6, it is taking away, casting off. But query further: is not the passage, in its first words, much more Jewish than we have at all yet supposed? I mean in this, Israel (as often observed) was, though a vine, not the true vine. Messiah, called as Jehovah's Son out of Egypt, was the True Vine. But, as first so looked at, are not all professing Jews then in the land at first sight branches in Him; His Father, whom they called their God, the husbandman? Those now therefore who did not bear fruit (not merely such as Judas), all who did not bring fruit (which they could not do unless deriving living grace from Christ) were cut off. The Jews have been so. But there were some (the eleven, and others) who did. These Jehovah, His Father, purged.
Now, this, as to them, had already taken place by His own word to them. They were not therefore to be thus cut off. But then another exhortation comes to abide in Him, so as to bear fruit. Leaving at any time deprived a man of any possible fruit-bearing. In verse 5 a new paragraph begins, where the disciples alone are taken up as branches; and thence professing disciples then (and afterward) on the earth come on the scene. Verse 5 gives the way, and exclusive way, of blessing; verse 7 the extent of it. From verse 4 on we easily see abiding is the question. Verses 1 and 2 is what was. Verse 3 makes the distinction of the disciples. Verses 1, 2, we have Israel. Verses 3, 4, now they are clean the need of abiding not to be in the case of verse 2.
If any exclude open adversaries as already distinct from branches, and reckon only those who in a public way (the world had gone after Him, followed Him), I have nothing to say. It does not, to my mind, alter the case: but I add that the epistle seems to me to go greatly on this ground; only, of course, further on in the history; only abiding was the grand question; but even then not of neglecting the great salvation preached by the Lord; though, on the other hand, the heavenly character of the calling is pressed, and they were then pressed to go outside the camp, bearing Christ's reproach. Still, as to the past position (now breaking up) they are told that Jesus suffered without the gate, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood. Adversaries, of course, have for themselves taken an outside position; but the non-abiders seem then to get into it. On the whole, the path is dependence and obedience; the comfort, full supply, and perfect love. The position of the Lord in the seven churches is not the exercise of judgment; but He stands in a judicial position, and takes judicial cognizance of them.
It is remarkable, the severity with which He speaks, compared with His patient and forgiving grace to individual saints; because it is the professing Church, and a public witness to be given to the glory of God. Losing first love is enough to warn of excision, in spite of labor and toil and patience. But there is a great principle in this. It was departure, the great principle of ruin in the creature. Indeed, in Laodicea this is the ground of judgment. “Kept my word” is a great thing at the close; for “he that keepeth my commandments, he it is that loveth me." The Judge, too, is remarkably characterized. Not Jehovah and the Son of Man, but the divine Person of the Son of Man. So He judges, and from the beginning I rather think somewhat is right, chap. 2: 4; compare verses 14-20; for there "oti" seems better translated "because."