How can you tell if a prophet is true or false? Jesus has a very simple solution: "By their fruits you can recognize them" (Matthew 7:15-20). False prophets deceive in appearance but inwardly are ferocious wolves. Fruit, Jesus says, is what enables us to discern them. And fruit has to do with behaviors.
Thornbushes don't produce grapes; thistles don't produce figs. Bad people don't produce good works -- so Jesus is saying. Good trees produce good fruit; bad trees produce bad fruit. So says Jesus. There is a correlation between heart and behavior.
Jesus is speaking here about folks who claim to be his followers, who are known for prophetic gifts and behaviors, but are frauds. And the way to know the fraud from the follower is by fruit. Plain and simple (and not that this solves everything), how one behaves tells alot.
Jesus' point is that we are to recognize when leaders are not genuine and when they are "ferocious wolves" -- that is, leaders who are intent on devouring others, using others, consuming others for their own advantage, for their own benefit -- the picture seems clear to me. And Jesus is dealing here with clear stereotypes. Just wait, he says, the ravenous will soon be eating and devouring other folk.
It may take time; and we may find ourselves committed to them and listening to them and learning them but, eventually so it seems, character will win out and we will see them for who they are by the way they behave. As Dale Allison says, "False face cannot hide false heart forever."
The text encourages two things: first, it exhorts to inspect ourselves and, second, it exhorts to watch and discern the ravenous from the shepherd who feeds his or her flock with God's embracing grace.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Robbymac,
I think doctrine is assumed in Matthew, since Christ is talking to the covenant community. There aren't any statements about false prophets being judged by worshiping the devil and believing in UFO's either, but we need to remember the context of Matthew's purpose---his Gospel is to those who are already in the visible Kingdom and would already believe Biblical teachings, so everyone looks like wheat outwardly. The Gospel of Matthew deals with how one knows, within that community, whether they are a member of the invisible Kingdom (whether they are wheat or tares). So doctrine is assumed, but being a Christian takes more than doctrine (but not less).
Testing individual prophecies can often be difficult. What every Church needs is a prophet who has a proven track record, a person who is known for speaking the word of the Lord. It is easier to test prophets than individual prophecies. A prophet can be watched over time to see if his life is bearing fruit for the Lord (Matthew 7:15-20). Every church needs a proven prophet who can be trusted to bring a reliable word when one is required.( Testing Prophets).
Bryan,
So, are we saying then, that Jesus wasn't speaking a universal truth at this point, but only to the future audience of Matthew's gospel? That presupposes a duplicity in Jesus' teaching style that I think is erroneous.
The Greek word that Jesus uses here is karpovß, which means "that which originates or comes from something, an effect, result" -- so Jesus is clearly talking about the effect that these false apostles have on people, they are "ferocious wolves" who tear people apart. Doctrine may or may not be implied, but the fruit is seen in how they interact with the rest of the community.
Robbymac, I didn't say that the fruit is talking about doctrine. I said that Matthew is to the covenant community and therefore doctrine is assumed and not the issue with which Matt is dealing. It is not dealing with unbelievers, but those who would already have made a commitment to certain doctrines of God, etc. To try to make an argument from Matt that Christ doesn't really care about doctrine because He focusses on actions is erroneous. Doctrine is assumed by the audience. I'm not sure what you mean by future audience? The Jews had a set of doctrines just like Christians do. I place them all into the one covenant community. It's clear from the NT that doctrine is an "IN or OUT" issue when it comes to those who deny what seems to be essential points of it, but that is not the issue here in Matt. Everyone here has a claim to be of the covenant community, they would believe the things of the covenant community already. I'm not sure how anyone reading the entire Gospel could not see that from Chapt 1 all the way to the end of the book. It's everywhere. Wheat and tares, sheep and goats, trees that look the same, but don't produce the same, the entire Sermon on the Mount, etc.
That's a little much to put into the one word karpos. It just means fruit. The context determines the extensions or limitations of it, so it would be dependent on the context to illustrate whether this is simply talking about how people are treated by these false prophets. It is clear that they are cast out because of their "lawlessness/disobedience (disregard for God's instructions to them)" that is connected to not hearing and doing what Jesus commands in the Sermon on the Mount. I think the tearing apart in Matt is spiritual because of its application to Rabbinical teachings and ideas of covenant membership in the 1st Cent.
Bryan, I see where you're coming from. Not sure I completely agree, as I would suggest that in the whole of the NT, there is sufficient warning of people arising from WITHIN the Body to draw people away after themselves. When I read this passage in Matthew, I think of those kind of wolves whose motivation is for people to follow them. "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30 NIV) So, yes, doctrine is a part of it, but the "fruit" is not necessarily the teaching itself as much as the fractious relational damage that it causes.
As far as Matthew's future audience, it sounded like you're suggesting that -- by recognizing Matthew's purpose for compiling the his gospel in the way he did -- Jesus' words should be understood in light of Matthew's future audience (there was a significant number of years between the Sermon on the Mount and the writing of Matthew's gospel), and not in light of how His hearers would have understood those words right there at the Sermon on the Mount.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.