Maybe good trees can bring forth bad fruit

[askandanswer]

I think I might have asked this question before in this forum under a previous name but I can’t remember the answer, so I’ll try again.

 

Given the importance of the olive tree at the time of Christ, the amount of time He spent in olive groves, and the understanding of agriculture and nature frequently expressed in His parables and teachings, it’s reasonable to assume that Christ knew a bit about olive trees and how they grow. In Jacob chatper 5, Jacob gives a parable about how the branches of an olive tree are mixed and matched with other olive trees, and that the results are quite mixed, with some bearing good fruit and others bearing bad fruit, and some bearing both at once. In Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 by John W. Welch, Stephen D. Ricks its quite clear that this is something that can and does happen with olive trees. If Christ knew this, why did He then teach that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. This is exactly what happened in Jacob’s parable, which is based on real life. The parable, accurately reflecting real life, indicates that a good tree can bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree can bring forth bad fruit but Christ clearly taught that they cannot. How can these two teachings be reconciled?

[Connie]

It can be reconciled by realizing that these are separate and distinct parables that are both highly symbolic for different reasons.  In neither case is the tree referring to an actual tree. In Jacob 5 the tree represents an entire nation or group of people.  In the other, the tree represents an individual person.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Connie

[askandanswer]

So what did Christ mean when he said a good tree (person) cannot bring forth evil fruit, not a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? This seems to deny the possibility of change, as if Christ is saying if you are good, you will always be good and if you are bad you will always be bad. I've known many good trees who have done bad things and bad people who have done good things. Very few people are wholly good or wholly bad all of the time. 

[FunkyTown]

 

So what did Christ mean when he said a good tree (person) cannot bring forth evil fruit, not a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? This seems to deny the possibility of change, as if Christ is saying if you are good, you will always be good and if you are bad you will always be bad. I've known many good trees who have done bad things and bad people who have done good things. Very few people are wholly good or wholly bad all of the time. 

 

A good tree can be sick. When it is, it becomes a bad tree and can(And often will) bring forth bad fruit, just like any diseased tree.

At first, you might see rot on a single branch that destroys that fruit. Leave the rot alone and it spreads, devouring the whole of the tree.

Think of the atonement as a tree surgeon. For the tree, it might be a painful process to lose that part that is making it die(Spiritually), but it helps the tree to grow strong again.

When the tree is good, it will bring forth good fruit. When the tree is bad, it will bring forth bad fruit.

If you are poisoned by hate, malice, greed, lust, envy, pride or sloth, while you are poisoned by that all your fruit will be tainted to a greater or lesser extent.

[Blackmarch]

I think I might have asked this question before in this forum under a previous name but I can’t remember the answer, so I’ll try again.

 

Given the importance of the olive tree at the time of Christ, the amount of time He spent in olive groves, and the understanding of agriculture and nature frequently expressed in His parables and teachings, it’s reasonable to assume that Christ knew a bit about olive trees and how they grow. In Jacob chatper 5, Jacob gives a parable about how the branches of an olive tree are mixed and matched with other olive trees, and that the results are quite mixed, with some bearing good fruit and others bearing bad fruit, and some bearing both at once. In Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 by John W. Welch, Stephen D. Ricks its quite clear that this is something that can and does happen with olive trees. If Christ knew this, why did He then teach that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. This is exactly what happened in Jacob’s parable, which is based on real life. The parable, accurately reflecting real life, indicates that a good tree can bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree can bring forth bad fruit but Christ clearly taught that they cannot. How can these two teachings be reconciled?

interesting question, generally i'd say that parables or allegories are only related to themselves altho many have themes that do overlap. But I was thinking about this, and what came to mind is that generally the core of the tree goes bad before you notice anything else first which would mean that the tree has gone bad, and then the fruit is affeced later and in that sense that could apply to both cases.

[The Folk Prophet]

So what did Christ mean when he said a good tree (person) cannot bring forth evil fruit, not a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? This seems to deny the possibility of change, as if Christ is saying if you are good, you will always be good and if you are bad you will always be bad. I've known many good trees who have done bad things and bad people who have done good things. Very few people are wholly good or wholly bad all of the time. 

 

I think choice was implicit in the saying in that He was teaching us to choose to be good trees. I'm not sure where you are drawing no choice from the matter.

[Connie]

So what did Christ mean when he said a good tree (person) cannot bring forth evil fruit, not a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? This seems to deny the possibility of change, as if Christ is saying if you are good, you will always be good and if you are bad you will always be bad. I've known many good trees who have done bad things and bad people who have done good things. Very few people are wholly good or wholly bad all of the time. 

 

This brings us to concepts of spiritual discernment and judgment.  To continue the analogy, we need to be able to discern what source the person (tree) is drawing on.  Is the source a good fountain of water or a bitter?  Is the source Christ or the devil?  It is not always easy to tell.  For example, when Nephi slays Laban.  Was the source of that action from God or Satan?  Did the “good tree” named Nephi just produce some very bad fruit? or is our own discernment off?  As an opposite example, consider Moroni 7:8, “…if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.”  One would think that giving someone a gift would always be a good thing, but in this instance it is not.  Why?  Because of the intent of the giver.  It is not always easy to discern a person’s intent or motive behind whatever action we are attempting to judge, but it is possible through the spirit of Christ and the concept of “laying hold of every good thing.”  A good chapter to study on these concepts is Moroni 7.  I would highly recommend you peruse that chapter thoroughly.

 

All that has to do with our dealings and relationships with others.  For ourselves, we need to be aware of our thoughts, intents, motivations and desires.  What source are we drawing on?  Which “tree” are we striving to become?  Perhaps we never really know which we or others are until the final judgment.  But I think we can know at least where we are at through communion with Heavenly Father, and it is even possible to know where others are at as evidenced by the above scriptural references. 

 

Perhaps it’s not so much that the “good tree” has brought forth bad fruit as that the “good tree” suddenly chooses to become a “bad tree” by drawing on a bitter source of water (which spirit they are choosing to heed, see Mosiah 2:36-37) and thereby producing bad fruit.  And, of course, there is always repentance—a choice to change which spirit you will heed—thus changing a “bad tree” to a good one.  “Virtue—even attempted virtue—brings light; indulgence brings fog” (C.S. Lewis).

 

This has all reminded me of a great talk by Dallin H. Oaks.  See link:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/the-challenge-to-become?lang=eng

[Vort]

The whole point of the olive tree parable is that "good" trees can become corrupt and thus, being evil, bring forth evil fruit. If you think that being a son of Abraham makes you good, you don't know what you're talking about. By the same token, the evil tree that brings forth evil fruit might possibly be reclaimed, even if by drastic action.

 

To be just a bit picky: Christ's parable did not teach that there are only two types of trees, "good" trees and "evil" trees. Rather, he taught that a tree that is "good" will bring forth only good fruit, and one that is "evil" will bring forth only evil fruit. He did not say that a tree that is neither completely "good" nor "evil" cannot bring forth a mixed batch.

 

I think it's worthwhile to note that some translations call the trees "healthy" and "unhealthy". This is potentially insightful in many ways, including that health is not a binary state. While a healthy tree will always bring forth good fruit and an unhealthy tree will always bring forth bad fruit, what of a mostly healthy tree? (Apologies to Miracle Max.) Most trees, like most people, are not entirely healthy or unhealthy.

 

tl;dr - I think the perceived conflict is due primarily to a naive reading and misunderstanding of the symbols involved.

[Roseslipper]

What happened to my post?

[Traveler]

I think I agree mostly with what Vort has posted.  I believe the basic problem is in understanding what a "good" tree is in opposition to an evil tree.  I believe a good tree is a tree that is cared for and worked with and responds to the care taker.  An evil tree is one left to its own or one that does not respond to the care of the Gardner.  There are many things in the teachings of Jesus that indicate that Jesus loves the disciplined person.  This is a person that does as they are taught in a disciplined manner.  In fact Jesus called his followers disciples.  The word disciple has the same root meaning as discipline.  Thus the understanding of good is not so much the natural character of a person as it is their willingness to be disciplined.   Especially that art of discipline by covenant.

[Just_A_Guy]

Late hit, but . . .

 

If we're talking about Matthew 7, I read the point of the parable as having nothing to do with whether a person can change.  The point is--how do you determine whether a self-professed prophet actually is what he claims to be?  The answer, according to the parable, is to look at what he does; and the natural consequences of following the prophet's teachings. 

 

Whether it is theoretically possible to reform a false prophet, is beyond the scope of the parable.  Jesus' point is--once you know the guy's a usurper who is teaching you baloney--quit listening to him.

[Traveler]

Late hit, but . . .

 

If we're talking about Matthew 7, I read the point of the parable as having nothing to do with whether a person can change.  The point is--how do you determine whether a self-professed prophet actually is what he claims to be?  The answer, according to the parable, is to look at what he does; and the natural consequences of following the prophet's teachings. 

 

Whether it is theoretically possible to reform a false prophet, is beyond the scope of the parable.  Jesus' point is--once you know the guy's a usurper who is teaching you baloney--quit listening to him.

 

It is my belief that Jesus taught us in order to better understand ourselves than to try to figure out everybody or any one else.

[The Folk Prophet]

It is my belief that Jesus taught us in order to better understand ourselves than to try to figure out everybody or any one else.

 

I think this is likely at the core of the message, but I don't discount that there was likely other meaning as well that does, indeed, relate to how we perceive those who would preach to us.

[askandanswer]

I'm still having trouble sorting out why Christ based His parable on a false premise - that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Both facts are clearly false and its not unreasonable to believe that Christ and the olive growers knew this. It might be only a parable but surely it would have had more weight and impact if the listeners knew it to be based on some truth? I'm hoping that the answer to this question might, as Vort has suggested, have have something to do with poor translations rather than unusual teaching techniques.

I'm also a bit doubtful about the idea that a looking at the natural consequences of following a "prophets" teachings will give a reliable indicator as to whether that prophet is good or bad. We are all familiar with the televangelists whose wonderful sermons inspire many people to do many good works, but whose personal life is full of fraud and immorality. That sounds like a case of a bad tree producing good fruit.

Edited January 29, 2015 by askandanswer

[skalenfehl]

I think I might have asked this question before in this forum under a previous name but I can’t remember the answer, so I’ll try again.

 

Given the importance of the olive tree at the time of Christ, the amount of time He spent in olive groves, and the understanding of agriculture and nature frequently expressed in His parables and teachings, it’s reasonable to assume that Christ knew a bit about olive trees and how they grow. In Jacob chatper 5, Jacob gives a parable about how the branches of an olive tree are mixed and matched with other olive trees, and that the results are quite mixed, with some bearing good fruit and others bearing bad fruit, and some bearing both at once. In Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 by John W. Welch, Stephen D. Ricks its quite clear that this is something that can and does happen with olive trees. If Christ knew this, why did He then teach that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. This is exactly what happened in Jacob’s parable, which is based on real life. The parable, accurately reflecting real life, indicates that a good tree can bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree can bring forth bad fruit but Christ clearly taught that they cannot. How can these two teachings be reconciled?

 

Throughout the phases of the allegory, in the various seasons of scattering and grafting, much corrupt fruit was produced. Our Savior does not care so much about the tree, the branches or the roots. It is the fruit that He desires, or more specifically, good fruit that He can lay up in store against the season. Branches had been burned, some scattered, some grafted in, the tree pruned, digged about and dunged all so that tender shoots could grow that "perhaps" the tree might bring forth "good fruit."

 

The Lord is doing all that He can, BUT, the tree MUST respond. In other words, each tree/branch must choose. God will not take our agency away. We must choose to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Our nature as a fallen people (Adam) is continual wickedness. By our very nature, or rather, the natural man, is an enemy to God. The Lord made covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His work is to restore us to those covenants, or rather, to give us the opportunity to become covenant people, even if by adoption. So the grafting begins that maybe an evil tree might be healed and begin to bring good fruit. He grafts the children back into the fathers, or rather, those natural shoots back into their mother tree, turning the hearts of the children to the fathers (prophets/patriarchs/covenants) and the hearts of the fathers to the children.

 

Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful. The tree must be fruitful. The tree itself and the entire vineyard is going to be burned. Who cares that the branches have become lofty? Loftiness does not save. Pride cannot be redeemed. Only if we have become fruit are we worthy to be laid up against the season. The House of Israel has produced much wicked fruit, which is why branches were gathered up and burned, others pruned, scattered, etc. that a good tree might remain, and "perhaps" bring forth some good fruit. Fruit is a genealogical symbol. It is mentioned in the allegory about 65 times. 

 

Jacob 5:60 And because that I have preserved the natural branches and the roots thereof, and that I have grafted in the natural branches again into their mother tree, and have preserved the roots of their mother tree, that, perhaps, the trees of my vineyard may bring forth again good fruit; and that I may have joy again in the fruit of my vineyard, and, perhaps, that I may rejoice exceedingly that I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit—

 

Even if a tree were to produce one single good fruit, that single fruit has within it seed sufficient to populate worlds without number. One fruit can produce a number of trees, which in turn can produce countless more and so on. So if you have been "saved," having put all enemies under your feet, including death, you have truly become fruitful.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm still having trouble sorting out why Christ based His parable on a false premise - that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Both facts are clearly false and its not unreasonable to believe that Christ and the olive growers knew this. It might be only a parable but surely it would have had more weight and impact if the listeners knew it to be based on some truth? I'm hoping that the answer to this question might, as Vort has suggested, have have something to do with poor translations rather than unusual teaching techniques.

 

I think it is a universal truth; it's just not necessarily an absolute truth.  :)  A fundamental assumption of Christ's parables--and Jacob 5--is that barring lengthy surgical intervention, a tree will tend to produce fruit of a more or less uniform quality.  If I eat five olives off a tree, and they're all terrible--will I really go for that sixth olive?  Or will I simply move on to the next tree in the grove? 

 

As a consumer, clearly I will simply move on to the next tree; and leave it to the Lord of the Vineyard and his servants to go all Jacob 5 on that rotten tree.  For the purposes of this parable, I am neither master nor servant in the vineyard; I am merely a hungry wayfarer and I'm not going to gorge myself on substandard fruit in hopes that I may find one or two good ones. 

 

 I'm also a bit doubtful about the idea that a looking at the natural consequences of following a "prophets" teachings will give a reliable indicator as to whether that prophet is good or bad. We are all familiar with the televangelists whose wonderful sermons inspire many people to do many good works, but whose personal life is full of fraud and immorality. That sounds like a case of a bad tree producing good fruit.

 

Well, Moroni 7:16-17 has a similar concept:

 

 

 

For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

 

But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

 

Going back to Matthew, it appears that Jesus used the good tree/good fruit metaphor at least one other time--in Matthew 12--and John the Baptist used it as well, in Matthew 3.  Assuming Matthew's building on a theme here, the "fruit" would see repentance; which coincides with what Mormon teaches in Moroni 7.

 

There can certainly be individual short-term exceptions to this principle to the extent that individuals are able to "cover their sins" (D&C 121).  But that shouldn't lead us to a sort of moral nihilism where we conclude that there's no harm in hearkening to certifiable Bad Guys--or that there's no benefit in listening to Tom Monson because, for all I know, he might turn out to have a secret girlfriend hidden away in Timbuktu.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[askandanswer]

 

 

Well, Moroni 7:16-17 has a similar concept:

 

 

 

 

 

The message of Moroni 7: 5-17 is very similar to the message in Matthew 7:17, so I have similar questions about Moroni 7 to the question I raised at the start of this thread. My response to the above comment takes the form of a new question, about verses 16-17 in a new thread with the heading How can we tell good from evil.