I have to understand this passage through controlling ones self and not judging others and that is hard to do. An army veteran that had seen a lot of war battles once told me that Ephesians was one of his favorite books because it was about war. I read an abandoned journal entry of a person that battled from years of drug addiction that wrote that Ephesians was all about the struggle they had w meth....Ephesus was a wealthy cosmopolitan port City with many cultures and languages converging there. The harbor silted in and it was sacked by an earthquake. It suffered a slow death. It had been talked about making it the new capital but Constantinople was chosen because of these kinds of economic issues. The people that letter was written to need to be under in the geopolitical context in which they lived. I have met people that would say that the Bruderhof--and Hutterites for that matter are false teachers for a number of reasons. One is that you simply do not live your life with enough duress in it--with all that free time you have for music making and art and education...Im not attacking you. This is just an example to think about peoples different perspectives and all the fingerprinting that people do. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to your videos. The Sermon on the Mount presents a super high standard of living. Although I say that I uphold it, I have never faced being burnt at the stake. Just as Peter struggled, it is hard to know how I would act in a given circumstance until I am present in it.
I think where there can be some confusion is when people assume that "good fruit" means respectability. Whereas if we take the rest of the context, we see that Jesus eventually concludes the whole section in Matthew 7,24-27 where he says that the real difference between those who are real Christians and those who are not, is that the former live by the teachings of Jesus, whereas the others do not obey what he teaches. In other words, I think Jesus is saying the same thing over and over again in this passage: there are two ways, a narrow and wide one, a good tree and bad tree, sheep and wolves, people who do the will of the Father and people who just say "Lord, Lord", people who obey the teachings of Jesus and people who do not.
That all sounds good.. in theory. But do we know how to put this into practice? For example; we still quote (and follow) Catholic teachers, despite knowing the "fruits" of the Catholic Church teaching that includes mass murders of Inquisition, Crusades, WWII, pedophilia, and various sex scandals. And what about fruits of other Christian Denominations teachings? Can we see any "bad fruits" there?
As the scriptures say “do people look for grapes on a thistle tree?” And “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit”. Your founder, Eberhard looked for good fruit on thistle trees. He did his doctorate on Nietzsche, who was an atheist. He also quotes Zoroaster, who believed in Persian gods. Teresa of Calcutta believed you could be a good Hindu, Muslim, etc and reach God. But Jesus says you can’t have the Father without the Son. No, Jesus says you shouldn’t look for grapes in a thistle bush…..a bad tree can’t bear good fruit and I believe Him.
Interested in my thoughts? Okay, I'll share what I think of Matthew 7:15-20: First, the idea of good fruit from good trees and bad fruit from bad trees seems quite open to interpretation. The lines between what constitutes a morally bad outcome and a morally good outcome are subjective by nature. Similarly, people are both good and bad, and the extent of their goodness or badness varies based on interpretation. I won't elaborate further as to why, but if you'd like clarification, feel free to ask, and I'll provide examples. While subjectivity exists in evaluating actions and their ethical implications, the metaphor encourages individuals to assess the overall pattern of behavior rather than focusing solely on specific instances. It's also essential to consider the cultural and historical context in which Jesus spoke, emphasizing love, compassion, and ethical conduct in guiding people toward righteous living. Second, we need to keep in mind that we're not 100% sure if the Gospel of Matthew contains direct teachings from Jesus. It was written decades after Jesus's death, and authorship uncertainties exist. What we do know is that it was written by early Christian communities which Mathew may or may not have been a part of, reflecting teachings shared at that time. Whether direct or indirect, we need to consider this historical context. Third, I wouldn't consider any preacher, religious authority, or scholar a prophet. An actual prophet wouldn't come in sheep's clothing but rather as a shepherd, akin to Jesus, who was an actual prophet. Keep in mind Jesus didn't just read or interpret scripture but he was the maverick author who preached against the church which would've been considered blasphemy and I'm sure the Pharisees would've considered him both a bad tree and bad fruit. We may never have a new prophet or if we do look out for the guy performing miracles then being condemned for it especially from established religious leaders. In conclusion, we must be cautious about attributing certain books from early Christians as direct teachings of Jesus, considering the variety of texts that were written and exist but not included in the Bible. The metaphor of a good tree producing good fruit is just that-a metaphor. A bad fruit could be made to look like a good fruit when painted gold, so judgment should be based on the totality of fruits. Last but not least, if a person isn't performing miracles and preaching new ideas, they aren't a prophet, false or not. So, be wary of a homeless person claiming to cure blindness; you might still want to hear what they have to say, even if you subjectively consider homeless people as a bad tree-they might be fruiting beautiful and good outcomes.
I have to understand this passage through controlling ones self and not judging others and that is hard to do. An army veteran that had seen a lot of war battles once told me that Ephesians was one of his favorite books because it was about war. I read an abandoned journal entry of a person that battled from years of drug addiction that wrote that Ephesians was all about the struggle they had w meth....Ephesus was a wealthy cosmopolitan port City with many cultures and languages converging there. The harbor silted in and it was sacked by an earthquake. It suffered a slow death. It had been talked about making it the new capital but Constantinople was chosen because of these kinds of economic issues. The people that letter was written to need to be under in the geopolitical context in which they lived. I have met people that would say that the Bruderhof--and Hutterites for that matter are false teachers for a number of reasons. One is that you simply do not live your life with enough duress in it--with all that free time you have for music making and art and education...Im not attacking you. This is just an example to think about peoples different perspectives and all the fingerprinting that people do. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to your videos.
The Sermon on the Mount presents a super high standard of living. Although I say that I uphold it, I have never faced being burnt at the stake. Just as Peter struggled, it is hard to know how I would act in a given circumstance until I am present in it.
Great message. Ty!
I like what McKnight says 'leaders are first of all followers of Jesus before they are leaders.' This is Jesus' lesson of the basin and the towel.
I think where there can be some confusion is when people assume that "good fruit" means respectability. Whereas if we take the rest of the context, we see that Jesus eventually concludes the whole section in Matthew 7,24-27 where he says that the real difference between those who are real Christians and those who are not, is that the former live by the teachings of Jesus, whereas the others do not obey what he teaches. In other words, I think Jesus is saying the same thing over and over again in this passage: there are two ways, a narrow and wide one, a good tree and bad tree, sheep and wolves, people who do the will of the Father and people who just say "Lord, Lord", people who obey the teachings of Jesus and people who do not.
Totally agree AMEN
Great thoughts. Maybe you could provide some thoughts on the teachings in the proverbs about money/providing for your heirs, etc sometime
That all sounds good.. in theory. But do we know how to put this into practice? For example; we still quote (and follow) Catholic teachers, despite knowing the "fruits" of the Catholic Church teaching that includes mass murders of Inquisition, Crusades, WWII, pedophilia, and various sex scandals. And what about fruits of other Christian Denominations teachings? Can we see any "bad fruits" there?
This is a home run of a comment
…..having a form of godliness, but denying the power. Have nothing to do with such people. 2 Tim 3:5
As the scriptures say “do people look for grapes on a thistle tree?” And “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit”. Your founder, Eberhard looked for good fruit on thistle trees. He did his doctorate on Nietzsche, who was an atheist. He also quotes Zoroaster, who believed in Persian gods. Teresa of Calcutta believed you could be a good Hindu, Muslim, etc and reach God. But Jesus says you can’t have the Father without the Son.
No, Jesus says you shouldn’t look for grapes in a thistle bush…..a bad tree can’t bear good fruit and I believe Him.
Interested in my thoughts? Okay, I'll share what I think of Matthew 7:15-20:
First, the idea of good fruit from good trees and bad fruit from bad trees seems quite open to interpretation. The lines between what constitutes a morally bad outcome and a morally good outcome are subjective by nature. Similarly, people are both good and bad, and the extent of their goodness or badness varies based on interpretation. I won't elaborate further as to why, but if you'd like clarification, feel free to ask, and I'll provide examples. While subjectivity exists in evaluating actions and their ethical implications, the metaphor encourages individuals to assess the overall pattern of behavior rather than focusing solely on specific instances. It's also essential to consider the cultural and historical context in which Jesus spoke, emphasizing love, compassion, and ethical conduct in guiding people toward righteous living.
Second, we need to keep in mind that we're not 100% sure if the Gospel of Matthew contains direct teachings from Jesus. It was written decades after Jesus's death, and authorship uncertainties exist. What we do know is that it was written by early Christian communities which Mathew may or may not have been a part of, reflecting teachings shared at that time. Whether direct or indirect, we need to consider this historical context.
Third, I wouldn't consider any preacher, religious authority, or scholar a prophet. An actual prophet wouldn't come in sheep's clothing but rather as a shepherd, akin to Jesus, who was an actual prophet. Keep in mind Jesus didn't just read or interpret scripture but he was the maverick author who preached against the church which would've been considered blasphemy and I'm sure the Pharisees would've considered him both a bad tree and bad fruit. We may never have a new prophet or if we do look out for the guy performing miracles then being condemned for it especially from established religious leaders.
In conclusion, we must be cautious about attributing certain books from early Christians as direct teachings of Jesus, considering the variety of texts that were written and exist but not included in the Bible. The metaphor of a good tree producing good fruit is just that-a metaphor. A bad fruit could be made to look like a good fruit when painted gold, so judgment should be based on the totality of fruits. Last but not least, if a person isn't performing miracles and preaching new ideas, they aren't a prophet, false or not. So, be wary of a homeless person claiming to cure blindness; you might still want to hear what they have to say, even if you subjectively consider homeless people as a bad tree-they might be fruiting beautiful and good outcomes.
Good tree good fruit. Bad tree bad fruit. Got it
Try this; bad fruits -bad tree, good fruits - good tree.
Thank you. I was thinking of it more like good fruit: good tree, bad fruit: bad tree