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.

Vines says:

‘Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.’

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.

Jim Hamilton writes:

‘In the repeated appeals that Vines makes to what Jesus says about a tree and its fruit he always treats a view (that all same-sex relations are sinful) as the tree and how that view makes people dealing with same-sex attraction feel as the fruit’

Similarly:

‘In Vines’ world, good fruit and bad fruit have nothing to do with obedience or disobedience, godliness or ungodliness. Rather, Vines seems to suggest that good fruit is feeling good about oneself, while bad fruit is depression, frustration, isolation, and even suicidal tendencies. Repeatedly he uses these phrases to describe the frustration and discouragement felt by those who try to resist their desires for homosexual intimacy. Using words Jesus spoke may seem to put Vines on Jesus’ side of the argument (or Jesus on Vines’ side of the argument), but in reality Vines is twisting the words of Jesus to fit his own position.’

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 (The Moral Vision of the New Testament):

‘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.

As Sean McDowell writes, our Lord’s meaning is clarified by the context:

‘If you read the larger context for this passage, it becomes clear that “bad fruit” is not stressed out people who feel marginalized from society, as Vines suggests. Rather, according to Jesus’ words in context, bad fruit is “everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them” (v. 26 ESV). And “good fruit” is “everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them” (v. 24 ESV). In other words, good fruit is characterized by obedience to Christ and to God’s commands. And bad fruit is sin.’

Morris says that

‘we should probably understand their teaching also as part of their fruits, for their teaching proceeds from what they are and it is by our words that we will be condemned or justified on Judgment Day (12:37).’