Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 7:17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 7:18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 7:20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.”

In his book God and the Gay Christian, Matthew Vines develops what might be called a ‘consequentialist hermeneutic’ based on this text.

Vines’ argument runs like this: if obedience to a biblical command leads to bad consequences (such as emotional distress), then our interpretation of that command must have been faulty in the first place.  According to Vines, ‘Jesus’ test is simple: If something bears bad fruit, it cannot be a good tree. And something bears good fruit, it cannot be a bad tree.’

Of course, Vines applies this principle specifically to the experience of gay people.  He says that traditional interpretations of texts such as Romans 1:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 are harmful to gay people.  Therefore, they must be reinterpreted in ways that affirm gay relationships.

But Vine’s method of interpretation is flawed.  The subject of this text is not ‘teaching’ and its ‘consequences’, but ‘people’ and their ‘deeds’.  (Jesus regularly uses the metaphor of ‘fruit’ to refer to behaviour – see Mt 3:8; 12:33; 13:8,23).  Fruit is judged to be ‘good’ or ‘evil’ not on the grounds of its subjective consequences for a person’s life, but on the grounds of its conformity to the revealed will of God.

If Vine’s reasoning were applied consistently, it would lead to moral anarchy.  As Denny Burk comments:

‘It may cause someone personal distress and psychological “harm” to tell them that stealing is wrong. That distress would be a “bad fruit” on Vines’ definition, yet it would be absurd to conclude that the 8th commandment itself is a bad tree. Would Vines justify stealing in order to avoid the “bad fruit” of making a thief feel badly?’

Burk quotes Richard Hays:

‘How strikingly indifferent is the New Testament… to consequentialist ethical reasoning. The New Testament teaches us to approach ethical issues not by asking ‘What will happen if I do x?’ but rather by asking ‘What is the will of God?’

What, then, is the teaching of Jesus in this passage?  It is that we should beware of ‘wolves in sheeps’ clothing’ – of ‘prophets’ whose teaching appears to be innocent and harmless, but which in fact tears people apart.  Observe these peoples’ behaviour, counsels our Lord, and their evil deeds will expose the evil of their teaching.