What kind of fruit was Jesus talking about? Matthew 7:15-20

[DustinM]

I've been in many apologetic interfaith discussions about epistemology and that passage has come up a lot. "By their fruit you will recognize them . . ." I've heard a variety of interpretations of what fruit Jesus was talking about, mainly fitting in three categories.

• Fruit is moral behavior. If a prophet or teacher has a pattern of wanton sinfulness, that's an example of bad fruit.
• Fruit is positive outcomes. If you join a different church and your life improves in some way, that's an example of good fruit and evidence the church is true.
• Fruit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. If you experience that fruit in yourself or other members of a church, that is evidence the church is true.

But I don't see how any of those could be what Jesus was talking about because they conflict with Galatians 1:8-9 and 2 Timothy 3:16-4:4. Paul didn't leave a loophole open if the person teaching a different gospel produces any of that good fruit. He made it clear scripture was the standard useful for teaching, correction, and not being deceived by myths. He also taught about the fruit of the spirit, but nothing in that passage suggests it was meant as a reliable way to know which church is true. If any of those three types of fruit was Jesus' intended meaning, that would put Paul in conflict with Jesus. I don't see how any interpretation of fruit makes sense if it means we assume Jesus and Paul taught completely different models of epistemology.

Besides, even if I give those three categories the benefit of the doubt, they still leave some serious questions open.

• No one in my discussions has claimed their prophets or leaders have been perfect. So if a true prophet can still be less than perfect, what level of moral behavior should be seen as good fruit or what sins should be seen as bad fruit?
• Some of the positive outcomes people have mentioned occurred week, months or even years after joining their church. How do we know a positive outcome was a result of following a teaching? Some of the results are obvious. An alcoholic will likely see many positive outcomes by following what the Bible teaches about drunkenness, but does that mean every church with AA meetings is a true church?
• Many atheists or people in other religions appear to have some form of love, joy, peace, etc. in their lives. That either means the fruit of the spirit is available to people in a wide variety of belief systems or humans are incredibly unreliable when it comes to discerning their feelings. Either way, how can that be a reliable way to know a church is teaching the true gospel of Christ?

Jesus and the Apostles didn't address any of those questions. Does that mean we're supposed to assume they expected their followers to figure it out for themselves? Or am I missing something in scripture?

In my opinion, it makes a lot more sense to harmonize Jesus and Paul. Since Jesus didn't specify what kind of fruit he was talking about, the most reasonable interpretation is reading his words through the lens of what Paul taught on the issue. The most direct and obvious fruit a prophet or teacher produces is their teaching, so we're supposed to judge any religious teacher and certainly any prophet by comparing the gospel they teach with the gospel the Apostles taught, which we have in scripture. Does that sound like a valid interpretation of what Jesus and Paul taught?

 

[Edward]

If you join a different church and your life improves in some way, that's an example of good fruit and evidence the church is true.

Sounds like you may be drifting into health and wealth territory there.

 

[DustinM]

Sounds like you may be drifting into health and wealth territory there.

Yes, that interpretation of fruit is basically a type of prosperity gospel. I don't agree with it at all, but I have heard people mention it as an interpretation of what Jesus said.

 

[Polanus1561]

How does 2 Peter 2/// say v.10 inform your thoughts on this question?

 

[EvanF]

I don't think interpreting it as spiritual fruit puts Jesus' words in conflict with Paul's. False teachers can't bear true spiritual fruit. True teachers can't preach a new or false gospel. Yet, men can't judge fruits as well as God can, and human teachers can also be in error without being false teachers.

 

[DustinM]

How does 2 Peter 2/// say v.10 inform your thoughts on this question?

I don't see anything in that verse related to this issue. What do you see in it?

 

[Faithhopelove24]

What came to my mind was James 3:1-12

 

[Polanus1561]

I don't see anything in that verse related to this issue. What do you see in it?

It’s a chapter on false teachers.

 

[DustinM]

It’s a chapter on false teachers.

I see that, but it doesn't say anything about what type of fruit we're supposed to look for in teachers. It doesn't say anything to suggest something other than the gospel or scripture should be the primary way to recognize a true/false teacher.

 

[Polanus1561]

v.14 has nothing relevant at all?

 

[DustinM]

v.14 has nothing relevant at all?

"They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!"

That verse? Sure, I agree that kind of behavior from a "prophet" would be strong evidence they're a false prophet. But that doesn't mean the inverse is true. If we accept good moral behavior as evidence or confirmation someone is a true prophet of God, we leave ourselves wide open to false teachings.

 

[DustinM]

What came to my mind was James 3:1-12

If anything, it sounds like it supports what I said about harmonizing Jesus and Paul on the issue. Verses 10-12 compares figs with things people say, which is basically what I'm saying about Matthew 7.

 

[No Other Name]

Fruit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. If you experience that fruit in yourself or other members of a church, that is evidence the church is true.

What exactly do you mean originally when you refer to "experiencing that fruit" in other members of a church? What would that look like as an example?

 

[Elias_Amare]

R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew

"The “fruits” are not specifically identified, but the metaphor recurs several times in Matthew. In 3:8 it represents behavior which demonstrates true repentance, in 12:33 probably the words by which a person’s true allegiance is revealed, in 13:8, 23 a lifestyle which responds to the preaching of the word; in 21:19 fruitlessness illustrates the failure of the temple establishment, and in 21:33-43 the fruit of the vineyard represents the life and loyalty which God expects of his people. It is thus predominantly an ethical metaphor, based on the assumption that true loyalty to God will issue in appropriate behavior by his people. However plausible their words, it is by the life they live that you can recognize those who are not true prophets of God. Thus this pericope, like those that follow in vv. 21-23 and 24-27 (each of which also gives prominence to the verb poieō; see above), is concerned, as the discourse as a whole has been, with the way disciples live. The word “righteousness” does not occur in these concluding pericopes, but that is what they are about. Only those prophets whose lives reveal the righteousness of the kingdom of God are to be credited. The constant refrain of the NT is that bad teaching is reflected in bad living; it is by their fruits that you will recognize them.

D.A Carson, Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition

From a distance the little blackberries on the buckthorn could be mistaken for grapes, and the flowers on certain thistles might deceive one into thinking figs were growing (v.16). But no one would be long deceived. So with people! One’s “fruit”—not just what one does but all one says and does—will ultimately reveal what one is (cf. Jas 3:12). The Semitic way of expression (i.e., both positive and negative—namely, every good tree bears good fruit; no good tree bears bad fruit, etc.) makes the test certain but not necessarily easy or quick. Living according to kingdom norms can be feigned for a time, but what one is will eventually reveal itself in what one does. However guarded one’s words, they will finally betray him (cf. 12:33–37; Lk 6:45). Ultimately false prophets tear down faith (2Ti 2:18) and promote divisiveness, bitterness (e.g., 1Ti 6:4–5; 2Ti 2:23), and various kinds of ungodliness (2Ti 2:16). Meek discernment and understanding the dire consequences of the false prophets’ teachings are needed. But at the same time, censoriousness over minutiae must be avoided.

 

[DustinM]

What exactly do you mean originally when you refer to "experiencing that fruit" in other members of a church? What would that look like as an example?

To be clear, I don't agree with that interpretation of the fruit Jesus was talking about. This is just my secondhand understanding of the idea. I think the implication is that if you visit a church and everyones seems loving, joyful, peaceful, etc., that is evidence the church is true.

 

[DustinM]

It is thus predominantly an ethical metaphor, based on the assumption that true loyalty to God will issue in appropriate behavior by his people. However plausible their words, it is by the life they live that you can recognize those who are not true prophets of God.

That makes sense, but is the inverse true? It's quite obvious someone is not a true prophet if their lifestyle includes throwing drunken orgies every weekend. But does that mean we should trust anyone who claims to be a prophet and appears to lead a moral life?

One’s “fruit”—not just what one does but all one says and does—will ultimately reveal what one is (cf. Jas 3:12). The Semitic way of expression (i.e., both positive and negative—namely, every good tree bears good fruit; no good tree bears bad fruit, etc.) makes the test certain but not necessarily easy or quick.

I don't understand how the test can be certain when none of those verses give any clear guidance on how we can know what "good/bad fruit" looks like.

 

[No Other Name]

That makes sense, but is the inverse true? It's quite obvious someone is not a true prophet if their lifestyle includes throwing drunken orgies every weekend. But does that mean we should trust anyone who claims to be a prophet and appears to lead a moral life?

What is a "true prophet"? Are you only speaking in NT context? If so, ok. Now, it is important to remember that we are not to only go to the verses referencing "fruit" to look for clear guidance but to the whole of Scripture.

Are you fully reading the passages cited for you here?

In 3:8 it (the metaphor of "fruit") represents behavior which demonstrates true repentance, in 12:33 probably the words by which a person’s true allegiance is revealed, in 13:8, 23 a lifestyle which responds to the preaching of the word; in 21:19 fruitlessness illustrates the failure of the temple establishment, and in 21:33-43 the fruit of the vineyard represents the life and loyalty which God expects of his people.

Living according to kingdom norms can be feigned for a time, but what one is will eventually reveal itself in what one does. However guarded one’s words, they will finally betray him (cf. 12:33–37; Lk 6:45). Ultimately false prophets tear down faith (2Ti 2:18) and promote divisiveness, bitterness (e.g., 1Ti 6:4–5; 2Ti 2:23), and various kinds of ungodliness (2Ti 2:16). Meek discernment and understanding the dire consequences of the false prophets’ teachings are needed. But at the same time, censoriousness over minutiae must be avoided.

I am confused how you can read these quotes and say they make sense and then follow that up with: "I don't understand how the test can be certain when none of those verses give any clear guidance on how we can know what "good/bad fruit" looks like."

The implicit factors not spelled out are: a) use the whole of Scripture for guidance on what to look for and b) let time pass and it will ultimately reveal the fruit for its ripeness or its rottenness.

 

[DustinM]

What is a "true prophet"? Are you only speaking in NT context? If so, ok. Now, it is important to remember that we are not to only go to the verses referencing "fruit" to look for clear guidance but to the whole of Scripture.

Yes, I'm speaking in NT context. By "true prophet," I'm talking about whatever is the opposite of the "false prophets" Jesus warned about.

The implicit factors not spelled out are: a) use the whole of Scripture for guidance on what to look for and b) let time pass and it will ultimately reveal the fruit for its ripeness or its rottenness.

I agree with (a), but I don't see how you apply (b) in a practical sense. Can you give an example of how you use that principle to know who is a true prophet?

I've had many discussions with Mormons and they insist Joseph Smith produced good fruit. They make it clear he wasn't perfect, but he did promote faith in Christ in some sense. He certainly didn't promote divisiveness, bitterness, or ungodliness in any overt way. We could disagree with them on that and point to various bad things the Mormon church has taught, like their racial priesthood ban for over 100 years, but that just shows how unreliable that type of fruit is. Millions of people believe Joseph Smith, and the Mormon church as a whole, have produced enough good fruit to know it's the only church with the fulness of the gospel of Christ.

Did Jesus really want us relying on our own discernment of that type of fruit to know the true church? That example alone seems like strong evidence that humans do not have a reliable sense of good fruit vs. bad fruit. When I said those passages don't give clear guidance on the topic, I'm highlighting the fact that none of them specifically explain what good fruit is. Should we assume Jesus expected people to just figure it out on their own?

 

[No Other Name]

They make it clear he wasn't perfect, but he did promote faith in Christ in some sense.

But not in the true sense - the gospel sense. In Joseph Smith's case, time is not even needed, he is proven false right from the start by his unbiblical and self-serving teaching.

(I thought you were talking about people who proclaimed Biblical truth yet were so unknown as of yet whether they were truly saved or hiding an agenda of apostasy yet to be revealed).

Even in NT days, the average churchgoer had apostles to lead them while the canon was ongoing. So there still is acces to Biblical truth such as our Chapter 14 "Of Saving Faith":

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.3

---

1 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8
2 Rom. 10:14,17
3 Luke 17:5; 1 Pet. 2:2; Acts 20:32

By this faith a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself,4 and also apprehends an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world,5 as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth consequently believed;6 and also acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,7 trembling at the threatenings,8 and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come;9 but the principle acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.10

---

4 Acts 24:14
5 Ps. 19:7-10, 69:72
6 2 Tim. 1:12
7 John 15:14
8 Isa. 116:2
9 Heb. 11:13
10 John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Gal. 2:20; Acts 15:11