|
16–20 The test of “fruits” is set out at some length, from a variety of aspects.
(1) The basic principle is in vv. 17–18: trees produce only the kind of fruit
which reflects their basic character, good or bad. (2) That general point is
illustrated by the specific instance of thorn bushes and thistles (v. 16b),
which from the point of view of human usefulness are “bad”²² and therefore
cannot produce the useful (“good”) fruits of grapes and figs. This
illustration depends on the species of the plant rather than its condition as
“good” or “rotten,” but the principle is the same. (3) Verse 19 adds a note
which is parenthetical to the issue of testing as such, the ultimate fate of the
unfruitful tree, but in context this additional note fits into the general
pattern of these four warnings (see introductory comments above) by
indicating what is in store for the false prophets and for any who like them
do not produce the “fruits” they promise (cf. the destruction of the
unfruitful fig tree in 21:18–20, and comments there on its symbolic
intention). Verse 19 repeats word for word the warning by John the Baptist
in 3:10 (see comments there). (4) Finally, the pericope is framed by the
repeated practical guideline which the fruit metaphor was introduced to
support, “It is by their fruits that you will recognize them.” (vv. 16a, 20)
In the OT a variety of tests for prophets are suggested. In Deut 18:21–22 we find
the test of subsequent events: if what they have predicted does not happen, they
are false prophets. But in Deut 13:1–6 there is also a theological test: even if a
prophet’s words do come true, they are to be rejected if they call God’s people to
follow other gods. In Jer 23:9–15 and elsewhere there is the ethical test: their
ungodly behavior gives them away. This last seems the closest to what is
intended here. The “fruits”²³ 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. Carson, 191, adds the pertinent comment that while the test of fruit is
reliable, it is “not necessarily easy or quick;” fruit may take some time to
develop, and the pernicious results of false teaching may not be obvious at first.
c. Scene 3: Insiders and Outsiders: Things May Not Be as They Seem (7:21–23)
The third contrast²⁴ presses even closer to home. Whereas v. 15 warned the
insiders against interlopers who would pretend to belong to the group, here there
is apparently no pretense. We meet people who profess their allegiance to Jesus
as “Lord,”²⁵ and who can back up that claim with impressive spiritual
achievements (“fruits”?) all carried out explicitly “in his name.” Unlike the
consciously fraudulent prophets of v. 15, these people are apparently themselves
more surprised than anyone when they find themselves rejected from the
kingdom of heaven. They really thought they had made the grade; like the
“goats” of 25:44 they are quite unaware of where they have failed. But the basis
of their rejection is expressed not in terms of what they have done or not done,
still less in terms of the allegiance they professed, but in the poignant words, the
more desolating when addressed to professed disciples, “I never knew you.”
This is the more surprising when v. 21 has contrasted merely professed adherents
with those who do God’s will. “Doing” and “being known” sound like quite
different criteria. And it is on their “doing” that they base their claim in v. 22,
listing a series of charismatic activities done in Jesus’ name, surely in themselves
all appropriate marks of those who belong to the kingdom of heaven, and indeed
characteristics of Jesus’ own ministry and that expected of his disciples (10:7–8);
the repetition of the verb poieō in v. 22 echoing v. 21 seems to clinch the point.
Yet when they are rejected in v. 23 it is not merely on the basis that they have not
been known, but that what they have done is itself no more than “lawlessness.”
It seems then that a new dimension is now added to the question of “fruits.”
Even good works by themselves are not enough. Prophecy, exorcism and
miracles can hardly be described as “bad fruit,” but even these spiritual activities
can apparently be carried out by those who still lack the relationship with Jesus
which is the essential basis for belonging to the kingdom of heaven. There are
good people who claim to follow Jesus as “Lord” and who do good works and
think they are doing them in Jesus’ name who are nonetheless on the broad road.
“Doing the will of my Father in heaven” is not a merely ethical category; that
will includes also to know and be known by Jesus the “Lord.” A professed
allegiance to Jesus falls short of that, and so even does the enthusiastic
performance of charismatic activities “in his name.”²
This is, then, a profoundly searching and disturbing pericope for all professing
disciples. It raises sharply the issue of assurance of salvation, and taken alone it
can be a cause of great distress to some more sensitive souls. But such
questioning is not a new phenomenon. It was apparently in the light of just such
painful spiritual self-examination that the pastoral treatise we know as 1 John
was written, with its recognition of the need for reassurance when “our hearts
condemn us” (1 John 3:19–22) and its painstaking examination of the grounds
for assurance: “by this we know …” (1 John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
