Matthew 12:33

Mat_12:33

Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt.

Trees of righteousness

There are two kinds of religion in the world: one teaches that men are not so holy as they should be, but that by a little attention they may be improved; the other that men are only evil, and must be made new creatures. The one mends, the other makes. Christ says, Make the tree good.

I. Although the tree has been made good by engrafting, and has consequently begun to bear good fruit, the young trees that spring from the seed of that good fruit, when it is sown again, take after the original bitter root of the parent tree, and not after the sweetness subsequently imparted to it. The child of a Christian man is not by birth a Christian.

II. As the first lesson is one of warning to those who presume upon their privileges, the second is one of encouragement to those who have had in youth no privileges to presume upon. Although a young tree has sprung from the seed of an evil tree, it may be made good by engrafting as effectually as if its parent had been the best in the garden. The unprivileged need not despond.

III. Although an evil tree ought to be made good by engrafting while it is young, it may be made good by engrafting after it has grown old. Some are converted in youth; some have mark and date of conversion more distinct than others.

IV. A tree that has been made good does not again become vii; but latent evil in its roots may, if it be not watched, spring up and bear bad fruit, and mingle with the good, and to a great extent outgrow and choke the good.

V. Although the natural head of the tree, either in youth or age, is cut off, and the new, good branch brought near to touch it, unless the new branch take to the old tree, and the old tree at its wound take to the new branch, so that they become one, no change will be affected in the old tree. The wounds of conviction prepare the way for Christ; but if the wounded do not in the end close with Christ, his wounds will not make him safe or holy. (W. Arnot.)

The grafting mark

In fruit-trees fully grown you may sometimes observe a ring round the stem, midway between the ground and the branches, resembling somewhat the mark of a healed wound on a living man. This indicates the place where the natural stem was cut off and a new branch inserted. You perceive at a glance that this tree has been engrafted, and that it was well grown ere it was made good. In the same garden another tree may grow which exhibits no such mark; yet the owner does not value it less on that account. These two trees are equally good and equally prolific. They differ not in their present character, but in the period of life at which they were severally renewed. This latter tree must have been engrafted when it was very young: the cut was made close to the ground when the stem was very slender; and thus the mark has been obliterated by the subsequent growth of the tree. The cicatrice is concealed under the grass, or perhaps under the ground. The renewing has certainly taken place, but when or where no man can tell. The date of its new birth is no longer legible. Such similarities and such differences obtain also among converted men. Some who were born when they were old bear the mark of their regeneration all their days. When the old nature was matured and developed before the change, the memory of the fact is more distinctly retained, and the contrast more vividly displayed. It was thus in the experience of the Apostle Paul. The spiritual man did not in his case obtain the sway while the natural was yet young and tender and easily moulded. Paul was a man, every inch of him, before he was a Christian. I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. (W. Arnot.)

Two kinds of fruit

One clear example of this tendency I knew well in my youth. I think it remains to this day, and I could point to the spot. A grove given over, by the time I knew it, for the purpose of affording shady pleasure-walks, had originally been a fruit-garden. Some of the old fruit-trees had been left standing as ornaments, when the owner no longer looked for a profitable return. These trees were left growing for the sake of their beauty merely, not for the sake of their fruit. They were allowed, accordingly, to run wild, that their appearance might be more picturesque. An aged pear-tree stood there, with a tall, bare, straight stem and round bushy head like an Eastern palm. But while not a single branch grew on the naked trunk, from where it emerged out of the moss to where its head began to spread at three times the height of a man, a number of lively vigorous shoots sprang from its roots, or rather from its stem where it touched the ground. Thus the long bare stem had a bushy head of branches on either extremity. These lower branches had been permitted to grow freely till they reached maturity on their own account, and bore fruit of their own kind. I have seen fruit growing on these suckers, and fruit hanging at the same time high over them on the trees towering head, with a large portion of the bare stem between. I have compared them, and found that which grew from the old root hard and bitter, while that which grew on the head that had been made new, although somewhat deteriorated, retained still the sweet flavour of its best days. Here were two kinds of fruit growing at the same time on one tree-evil fruit growing on the original root, and good fruit growing on that which had been made new. If the tree had been rightly cultivated for the sake of its fruit, those suckers would have been without pity torn off in the bud as soon as they showed themselves, and never have been permitted to open their blossoms or bring forth their fruit. You do not ordinarily see these out-growths from the old stock growing to the size of bearing, on fruit-trees. This, however, is not because they do not manifest a tendency to throw out these shoots, but because the shoots are, in ordinary cases, wrenched off by the husbandman as soon as they appear. (W. Arnot.)

Grafting an old tree

You may see this glory of grace reflected from the field of nature. Perhaps you have looked over the hedge and seen, in a garden by the wayside, a sight that attracted your eye and excited your curiosity. A tree, old, thick, and rusty, has been cut off, not by the ground, but about the height of a man, and the bare stump left standing. On a closer inspection you see one or more small fresh twigs fastened to the bark on the top of the desolate trunk. They are budding and putting out green leaves. It is a tree that had grown old, either barren or bearing bad fruit. Its owner would not longer permit it to occupy uselessly the precious ground. But it is not necessary that he should cut it down and cast it away, in order to make room for another tree. Even this tree, grown old in evil, may be made good. It is not cut down, but cut off, and a new nature engrafted on its stem. Even in old age it will yet be fresh, and flourishing, and fruitful. The owner of the garden counts that he will sooner get a large return by engrafting the old tree than by rooting it out and planting another. The tree was full grown and in vigorous health. The owner will utilize all these powers by sending the sap through a new and better head. It is thus that our Father, the husbandman, takes full-grown vigorous natures, charged with gifts of understanding, and eloquence, and zeal, that have been hitherto occupied with evil, and makes them new creatures by His power. Forthwith they are fit for able-bodied service in the work of the Lord. (W. Arnot.)

The danger of delayed grafting

Let the warning be distinctly, fully given on the other side. If the tree is permitted to grow up and grow old in evil, there is danger lest, by storm or fire, it should be destroyed, and so never be made good. But even although it were insured against all accidents, there is no reason why another, and yet another year an evil tree should cumber the ground, merely to put off the time of its change. (W. Arnot.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:33-35. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, &c. — That is, you must allow they are both good, or both bad: for if the fruit be good, so is the tree; if the fruit be evil, so is the tree also. “Judge, therefore, by my works, of the power by which I work: if it be not a good work to heal the sick, and blind, and lame, and cast out devils, and preach repentance and forgiveness of sins, to convert and save souls, then God is not the author of them. If they be bad works, they have a bad cause; if they be good works, they have a good author: either say plainly, (you that ascribe them to the devil,) that the works are good and the devil is good; or else that the devil is bad and the works are bad: or, if you confess that the works are good, confess that they are done by the Spirit of God.” —

Baxter. O generation of vipers — Perverse, venomous, deceitful creatures; how can ye, being evil — Being envious and malicious, speak good things — It is surely a force upon nature whenever you do so; and you will easily return to such uncharitable and impious language as we have now been hearing from you; the thoughts of your hearts showing themselves by the words of your mouths. For out of the abundance of the heart — The overflowing pride, envy, and malice thereof, the mouth speaketh — Utters words of the same nature with the corrupt source from whence they flow. A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart — The wisdom and piety, the truth and grace lodged there, bringeth forth good things. — Freely and abundantly, to the edification of all with whom he converses. And an evil man — A man full of corrupt affections and dispositions; a man of an earthly, sensual, and devilish mind, out of the evil treasure — The corrupt principles and inclinations which are within him, bringeth forth evil things — Wicked words and actions, and that naturally and readily: “and even when he labours most artfully to disguise himself and his character, breaks out, like you, in some unguarded moment, into such language as betrays the shame he would conceal.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matthew

‘MAKE THE TREE GOOD’

Mat 12:33.

In this Gospel we find that our Lord twice uses this image of a tree and its fruit. In the Sermon on the Mount He applies it as a test to false teachers, who hide, beneath the wool of the sheep’s clothing, the fangs and paws of ravening wolves. He says, ‘By their deeds ye shall know them; for as is the tree so is its fruit.’ That is a rough and ready test, which applies rather to the teacher than to his doctrine, but it applies, to some extent, to the doctrine too, on the hypothesis that the teacher’s life fairly represents it. Of course, it is not the only thing that we have to take into account; but it may prick many a bladder, and unmask many an error, and it is the way by which the masses generally judge of systems and of their apostles. A saintly life has more power than dusty volumes of controversy.

But in our text Christ applies the same thoughts in rather a deeper fashion. Here the lesson that He would have us draw is of the connection between character and conduct; how what we do is determined by what we are, and how, not of course with the same absolute regularity and constancy, but still somewhat in the same fashion as the fruit is true to the tree, so, after all allowance made for ups and downs, for the irregular play of will and conscience, for the strife that is waged within a man, for the temptations of external circumstances, and the like-still, in general, as is the inner man, so is the outward manifestation. The facts of a life are important mainly as registering and making visible the inner condition of the doer. Now, that seems very elementary. Everybody believes that ‘out of the heart are the issues of life,’ as a wise man said long ago, but it is one of the truths that, if grasped and worked into our consciousness, and out in our lives, would do much to revolutionise them. And so, though it is a very old story, and though we all admit it, I wish now to come face to face with the consequences of this thought, that behind action lies character, and that Doing is the second step, and Being is the first.

I. I would ask you to notice how here we are confronted with the great problem for every man.

‘Make the tree good.’ It takes a good man to do good things. So how shallow is all that talk, ‘do, do, do,’ this, that, and the other thing. All right, but be; that is the first thing; or, as Christ said, ‘Make the tree good, and the fruit’ will take care of itself. So do you not see how, if that is true about us, we are each brought full front up to this, ‘Am I trying to make my tree good? And what kind of success am I having in the attempt?’ The water that rises from some spring will bring up with it, in solution, a trace of a bed of salt through which it has come, and of all the minerals in the soil through which it has passed. And as its sparkling waters come out into the light, if one could analyse them completely, one might register a geological section of the strata through which it has risen. So, our acts bear in them a revelation of all the hidden beds through which they have risen; and sometimes they are bitter and salt, but they are always true to the self whose apocalypse they are to the world, or at all events to God.

Therefore, brethren, I have to urge this, that we shall not be doing our true work as men and women, if we are simply trying to better our actions, important as these are. By this saying the centre of gravity is shifted, and in one aspect, the deeds are made less important. The condition of the hidden man of the heart is the all-important thing. Christ’s word comes to each of us as the briefest statement of all that it is our highest duty and truest wisdom to aim at in life-’Make the tree good.’

If you have ever tried it honestly, and have not been contented with the superficial cleaning up of outsides, which consists in shifting the dirt into another place only, not in getting rid of it, I know what met you almost as soon as you began, like some great black rock that rises in a mountain-pass, and forbids all farther advance-the consciousness that you were not good met you. I am not going to talk theological technicalities. Never mind about phrases-they have been the ruin of a great deal of earnest preaching-call it what you like, here is a fact, that whenever a man sets himself, with anything like resolute determination and rigid self-examination, to the task of getting himself right, he finds that he is wrong. That being the case, each of us has to deal with a tremendous problem; and the more earnestly and honestly we try to deal with it, the more we shall feel how grave it is. You can cure a great deal, I know. God forbid that I should say one word that seems to deny a man’s power to do much in the direction of self-improvement, but after all that is done, again you are brought short up on this fact, the testimony of conscience. And so I see men labouring at a task as vain as that of those who would twist the sands into ropes, according to the old fable. I see men seeking after higher perfection of purity than they will ever attain. That is the condition of us all, of course, for our ideal must always outrun our realisation, else we may as well lie down and die. But there is a difference between the imperfect approximation, which we feel to be imperfect, and yet feel to be approximation, and the despairing consciousness, that I am sure a great many of my audience have had, more or less, that I have a task set for me that is far beyond my strength. ‘Talk about making the tree good! I cannot do it.’ So men fold their hands, and the foiled endeavour begets despair. Or, as is the case with some of you, it begets indifference, and you do not care to try any more, because you have tried so often, and have made nothing of it.

There is the problem, how ‘make the tree good,’ the tree being bad, or, at all events, if you do not like that broad statement, the tree having an element of badness, if I may so say, in and amongst any goodness that it has. I do not care which of the two forms of statement you take, the fact remains the same.

II. Note the universal failure to solve the problem.

‘Make the tree good.’

Yes. And there are a whole set of would-be arboriculturists who tell you they will do it if you will trust to them. Let us look at them. First comes one venerable personage. He says, ‘I am Law, and I prescribe this, and I forbid that, and I show reward and punishment, and I tell you-be a good man.’ Well! what then? It is not for want of telling that men are bad. The worst man in the world knows his duty a great deal more than the best man in the world does it. And whether it is the law of the land, or whether it is the law of society, or the law written in Scripture, or the law written in a man’s own heart, they all come under the same fatal disability. They tell us what to do, and they do not put out a finger to help us to do it. A lame man does not get to the city because he sees a guide-post at the turning which tells him which road to take. The people who do not believe in certain modern agitations about the restrictions of the liquor traffic say, ‘You cannot make people sober by Act of Parliament,’ which is absolutely true, although it does not bear, I think, the inference that they would draw from it, and it just puts into a rough form the fatal weakness of this would-be gardener and improver of the nature of the trees. He tells us our duty, and there an end.

Do you remember how the Apostle put the weakness of law in words, the antique theological terminology of which should not prevent us from seeing the large truth in them? ‘If there had been a law given which could have given life, then righteousness should have been by the law,’ which being translated into modern English is just this, If Law could impart a power to obey its behests, then it is all that we want to make us right. But until it can do that it fails in two points. It deals with conduct, and we need to have character dealt with; and it does not lift the burden that it lays on me with one of its fingers. So we may rule Law out of court.

And then comes another, and he says, ‘I am Culture, and intellectual acquirement; or my name is Education, and I am going to make the tree good in the most scientific fashion, because what makes men bad is that they do not know, and if they only knew they would do the right.’ Now, I thoroughly believe that education diminishes crime. I believe it weans from certain forms of evil. I believe that, other things being equal, an educated man, with his larger interests and his cultivated tastes, has a certain fastidiousness developed which keeps him from being so much tempted by the grosser forms of transgression. I believe that very largely you will empty your gaols in proportion as you fill your schools. And let no man say that I am an obscurantist, or that I am indifferent to the value of education and the benefits of intellectual culture, when I declare that all these may be attained, and the nature of the tree remain exactly what it was. You may prune, you may train along the wall, you may get bigger fruit, you will not get better fruit. Did you ever hear the exaggerated line that describes one of the pundits of science as ‘the greatest, wisest, meanest of mankind’? The plain fact is that the cultivation of the understanding has little to do with the purifying of the depths of the heart.

And then comes another, and says, ‘I am the genius of Beauty and Art. And my recipe is pictures and statues, and all that will refine the mind, and lift the taste.’ That is the popular gospel of this day, in a great many quarters. Yes, and have we never heard of a period in European history which was, as they call it, ‘the Renaissance’ of art and the death of morality? Do we not know that side by side there have been cultivated in all ages, and are being cultivated to-day, the most exclusive devotion to the beauty that can be expressed by art, and the most intense indifference to the beauty of holiness? Ah! brethren, it wants something far deeper-going than pictures to purge the souls of men. And whilst, as before, I thankfully acknowledge the refining influence of this new cult, I would protest against the absurdity of putting it upon a pedestal as the guide and elevator of corrupted humanity.

And then come others, and they say, ‘Environment is the thing that is to blame for it all. How can you get decent lives in the slums?’ No, I know you cannot; and God bless every effort made to get the people out of the slums, I say. Only do not let us exaggerate. You cannot change a man, as deeply as we need to be changed, by any change of his circumstances. ‘Take the bitter tree,’ as I remember an old Jewish saying has it, ‘take the bitter tree and plant it in Eden, and water it with the rivers there; and let the angel Gabriel be the gardener, and the tree will still bear bitter fruit.’ Are all the people who live in good houses good? Will a ‘living wage’-eight shillings a day and eight hours’ play-will these change a man’s character? Will these go deep enough down to touch the springs of evil? You cannot alter the nature of a set of objects by arranging them in different shapes, parallelograms, or squares, or circles, or any others. As long as you have the elements that are in human nature to deal with, you may do as you like about the distribution of wealth, and the relation of Capital to Labour, and the various cognate questions which are all included in the vague word Socialism; and human nature will be too strong for you, and you will have the old mischiefs cropping out again. Brethren, you cannot put out Vesuvius by bringing to bear on it the squirts of all the fire engines in creation. The water will go up in steam, and do little or nothing to extinguish the fire. And whilst I would thankfully help in all these other movements, and look for certain limited results of good from them, I, for my part, believe, and therefore I am bound to declare, that neither singly, nor all of them in combination, will they ever effect the change on human nature which Jesus Christ regarded as the only possible means for securing that human nature should bear good fruit.

For, if there were no other reason, there are two plain ones which I only touch. God is the source of all good, of all creatural purity as well as all creatural blessedness. And if a life has a blank wall turned to Him, and has cut itself off from Him, I do not care how you educate it, fill it full of science, plunge it into an atmosphere of art, make the most perfect arrangements for social and economical and political circumstances, that soul is cut off from the possibility of good, because it is cut off from the fontal source of all good. And there is another reason which is closely connected with this, and that is that the true bitter tang in us all is self-centring regard. That is the mother-tincture that, variously coloured and compounded, makes in all the poisonous element that we call sin, and until you get something that will cast that evil out of a man’s heart, you may teach and refine and raise him and arrange things for him as you like, and you will not master the source of all wrong and corrupt fruit.

III. Lastly, let me say a word about the triumphant solution.

Law says, ‘Make the tree good,’ and does not try to do it. Christ said, ‘Make the tree good,’ and proceeds to do it. And how does He do it?

He does it by coming to us; to every soul of man on the earth, and offering, first, forgiveness for all the past. I do not know that amongst all the bonds by which evil holds a poor soul that struggles to get away from it, there is one more adamantine and unyielding than the consciousness that the past is irrevocable, and that ‘what I have written I have written,’ and never can blot out. But Jesus Christ deals with that consciousness. It is true that ‘whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap,’ and the Christian doctrine of forgiveness does not contradict that solemn truth, but it assures us that God’s heart is not turned away from us, notwithstanding the past, and that we can write the future better, and break altogether the fatal bond that decrees, apart from Him, that ‘to-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant,’ and that past sin shall beget a progeny of future sins. That fruitfulness of sin is at an end, if we take Christ for our Saviour.

He makes the tree good in another fashion still; for the very centre, as it seems to me, of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that into our spirits He will breathe a new life kindred with His own, a new nature which is free from the law and bonds of past sin, and of present and future death. The tree is made good because He makes those who believe in Him ‘new creatures in Christ Jesus.’ Now, do not turn away and say that that is mysticism. Be it mysticism or not, it is God’s truth. It is the truth of the Christian Revelation, that faith in Jesus Christ puts a new nature into any man, however sinful he may have been, and however deep the marks of the fetters may have been upon his limbs.

Christ makes the tree good in yet another fashion, because He brings to the reinforcement of the new life which He imparts the mightiest motives, and sways by love, which leads to the imitation of the Beloved, which leads to obedience to the Beloved, which leads to shunning as the worst of evils anything that would break the communion with the Beloved, and which is in itself the decentralising of the sinful soul from its old centre, and the making of Christ the Beloved the centre round which it moves, and from which it draws radiance and light and motion. By all these methods, and many more that I cannot dwell upon now, the problem is triumphantly solved by Christianity. The tree is made good, and ‘instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle tree.’

You may say, ‘That is all very well in theory. What about the practice? I do not see such a mighty difference between you Christians and us.’ Well, for myself and my brethren, I accept the rebuke. There is not such a difference as there ought to be. But do you know why? Not because our great Gardener cannot change the nature of the plant, but because we do not submit ourselves to His power as we ought to do. Debit us with as many imperfections and inconsistencies as you like, do not lay them to the charge of Christ.

And yet we are willing to accept the test of Christianity which lies in its power to change men. I point to the persecutor on the road to Damascus. I point to the Bedfordshire tinker, to him that wrote Pilgrim’s Progress. I point to the history of the Christian Church all down through the ages. I point to our mission fields to-day. I point to every mission hall, where earnest, honest men are working, and where, if you go and ask them, they will let you see people lifted from the very depths of degradation and sin, and made honest, sober, respectable, hard-working, though not very intelligent or refined, Christian people. I suppose that there is no man in an official position like mine who cannot look back over his ministry and remember, some of them dozens, some of them scores, some of them hundreds, of cases in which the change was made on the most hopeless people, by the simple acceptance of the simple gospel, ‘Christ died for me, and Christ lives in me.’ I know that I can recall such, and I am sure that my brethren can.

People who are not Christians talk glibly about the failure of Christianity to transform men. They have never seen the transformations because they have never put themselves in the way of seeing them. They are being worked to-day; they might be worked here and now.

Try the power of the Gospel for yourselves. You cannot make the tree good, but you can let Jesus Christ do it. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin, nor the leopard his spots, but Jesus can do both. ‘The lion shall eat straw like the ox.’ It is weary work to be tinkering at your acts. Take the comprehensive way, and let Him change your character. I believe that in some processes of dyeing, a piece of cloth, prepared with a certain liquid, is plunged into a vat full of dye-stuffs of one colour, and is taken out tinged of another. The soul, wet with the waters of repentance, and plunged into the ‘Fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness,’ the crimson fountain of the blood of Christ, emerges ‘whiter than snow.’ Let Him ‘make the tree good and fruit will be good,’ for if not we shall be ‘hewn down and cast into the fire,’ because we cannot bear any fruit unto holiness, nor can the end be everlasting life.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12:33-37 Jesus got to the heart of the matter: The Pharisees did not accept him or the divine origin of his ministry because they were wicked (see 7:15-27).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 12:33. Καὶ, and) Understand again ποιήσατε, make; resolving the imperative into the future.—καλὸν, good) The Jews wished to be a good tree with bad fruit, though they plainly knew it to be contrary to the truth.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_12:33. Euth. Zigabenus says correctly (comp. Hilary, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Jansen, Raphel, Kypke, Kuinoel, Schegg, Grimm): ποιήσατε ἀντὶ τοῦ εἴπατε. Καταισχύνει δὲ πάλιν ἑτέρως αὐτοὺς, ὡς ἀνακόλουθα καὶ παρὰ φύσιν κατηγοροῦντας. Ἐπεὶ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἀπελαύνεσθαι τοὺς δαίμονας οὐκ ἐκάκιζον … τὸν δὲ ἀπελαύνοντα τούτους διέβαλλον, παραδειγματικῶς αὐτοὺς ἐλέγχει, τὸ μὲν ἔργον παλὸν κρίνοντας, τὸν δὲ ἐργαζόμενον κακόν, ὅτερ ἐστὶν ἐναντιότητος καὶ ἀναισχυντίας. Either make the tree good (i.e. judge it to be good), and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad (see on Mat_7:17),do not proceed in the same absurd way as you did when you pronounced an unfavourable judgment upon me, when you made the tree bad (declared me to be an instrument of the devil), and gave him credit for good fruit (the casting out of demons), ποιεῖν, similarly to our make, is used to denote the expression of a judgment or opinion, therefore in a declarative sense. Joh_5:18; Joh_8:53; Joh_10:33; 1Jn_1:10; 1Jn_5:10; Xen. Hist. vi. 3. 5 : ποιεῖσθε δὲ πολεμίους, you declare them, to be enemies. Stephanus, Thesaurus, ed. Paris, VI. p. 1292, and the passages in Raphel, Herod. p. 154; Kypke, I. p. 66; among Attic writers usually in the middle voice, τὸ δένδρον denotes the tree on which you pronounce a judgment, and nothing is to be supplied after τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ. Some (Grotius, Fritzsche), who, however, attach substantially the same meaning to the figurative terms, take ποιεῖν in the sense of to suppose, assume, animo fingere (Xen. Anab. v. 7. 9; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 136 f.), though the imperative is not so well suited to the second clauses, καὶ τὸν καρπόν, etc. Others, understanding ποιεῖν as meaning, partly to judge, as well as partly to assume, refer it to the evil disposition of the Pharisees, which can be detected in the kind of language they indulge in. So Munster, Castalio,[445] Maldonatus, and others; also de Wette, Neander, Bleek (comp. Olshausen). But in that case the imperative is no longer appropriate to the second clauses. According to Ewald (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, and Holtzmann, p. 187), the connection and meaning may be thus stated: Let it not be supposed that these are but mere words! It is exactly the words … that spring from the deepest source, and proceed as it were from the root of a man; like tree, like fruit. ΠΟΙΉΣΑΤΕ is a bold expression in reference not only to the fruit, as has been supposed, but also to the tree itself (cultivate the tree well, and thus make the tree good). But ΠΟΙΕῖΝ is not used in this sense (which would have required ΦΎΕΙΝ instead); and, once more, the imperative expression would scarcely have suited the second clauses, for an alternative so imperious might, with much more propriety, be addressed to persons who were undecided, neutral. Similarly Keim, though without any further grammatical elucidation (man either makes himself gooda tree which bears good fruitor makes himself evil).

[445] Hoc pro certo habere necesse esse, quae arbor sit bona, ejus fractum esse bonum.… Atqui ista vestra verba malus fructus est: ex quo consequens est vos stirpem esse malam.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:33-37 . Kindred Logia . With the word concerning blasphemy the self-defence of Jesus against Pharisaic calumny reached its culmination and probably (as in Mark’s report) its close. The sentences following seem to be accretions rather than an organic part of the discourse. They substantially reproduce sayings found in Sermon on Mount (Mat 7:16-20 ), there directed against false prophets, here against false religionists.

Mat 12:33 . ποιήσατε = εἴπατε (Euthy. Zig.), judge, pronounce; call both tree and fruit good, or evil; they must both be of one kind, in fact and in thought ( vide Kypke, ad loc. ). The reference of the adage has been much discussed: to the Pharisees or to Christ? Kypke replies: to Christ if you connect with what goes before, to the Pharisees if with what follows. As an adage the saying admits of either application. The Fathers favoured the reference to Christ, whom Meyer follows.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

33-37.

Here follows the statement that some of the scribes asked for a sign, v. 38, and a discourse in answer, vv. 39-45. The question of relationship is complicated by the parallels in Lk. Lk. omits Mar 3:22-30 in its order. It should come at Luk 6:19 or 8:4. But later in his Gospel he has a discourse which is very similar to that in Mt. Thus:

Mat 12:22-23 = Luk 11:14.

24-26 = Mar 3:22-26 = 15, 17-18.

Lk. has here combined the request for a sign which in Mt. comes later with the charge of demoniac agency.

Mat 12:38 = Luk 11:16.

27-28 = 19-20.

29 = Mar 3:27 = 21-22.

30 = 23.

43-45 = 24-26.

Lk vv.27-28 have no parallel in Mt.

Mt vv.31-37 have no parallel in this discourse in Lk.

Mat 12:39-42 = Luk 11:29-32.

It will be seen that both Mt. and Lk. prefix an introductory miracle. Both have parallels to Mk 23-26, but in this section Mt. and Lk. have verbal agreements against Mk. E.g.:

εἰδὼς δὲ τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Mat_25 = αὐτὸς δὲ εἰδὼς αὐτῶν τὰ διανοήματα εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Luk_17.

πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα, Mat_25 = πᾶσα βασιλεία—διαμερισθεῖσα, Luk_17. Mk. has καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία—μερισθῇ.

ἐρημοῦται, Mat_25, Luk_17. Mk. has δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη.

πῶς—σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, Mat_26, Luk_18. Mk. has οὐ δύναται στῆναι ἀλλὰ τέλος ἔχει.

Both have parallels to Mk 27, but here Mt. agrees closely with Mk., whilst Lk. considerably diverges. Mt. embodies Mk 28-30. Lk. omits. Further, in Mt. the whole discourse falls into two portions, one an answer to the charge of demoniac agency, the second an answer to a request for a sign. In Lk. the charge and the request are combined, but the discourse is divided by vv. 27-28, which have no parallel in Mt. And, lastly, Mt. has a section, 31-37, which has no parallel in the discourse in Lk. It is not easy to explain adequately this complex relationship. The fact that Lk. omits Mk.’s paragraph at the place where it would naturally occur in his Gospel, and gives instead a longer discourse later in his Gospel, would naturally suggest the explanation that he had before him a second source containing this longer discourse at a later period in Christ’s life, and that he abandoned Mk. to follow this source. Cf. his omission of Mar 1:16-20 at Luk 4:15, because he proposes to insert a little later, 5:1-11, a similar narrative from another source. Cf. his omission at 8:56 of Mar 6:1-6, because he has inserted a similar account in 4:16-30. It seems, therefore, necessary to suppose that Lk. had a second narrative before him containing matter parailel to Mar 3:22-30. That being so, it is natural to suppose that Mt. also had a discourse longer than Mar 3:22-30, and containing many features parallel to Lk.Their divergence in many points makes it unlikely that they were copying from the same document. More probably they had before them different sources containing discourses in many respects parallel to one another. To some extent their agreement may be due to Lk.’s reminiscence of Mt. Mt.’s source is probably the Logia.

33-35. The editor here inserts a paragraph which is similar to one which he has already recorded in the Sermon on the Mount, 7:17-20. Lk. in his Sermon, 6:43-45, also has a similar sections, which, however, is more closely in agreement with Mat_12 than with Mat_7; that is to say, Luk 6:43 and 44b = Mat 7:18, Mat 7:16, whilst Luk 6:44a, Luk 6:45 = Mat 12:33c, 34b, 35. Lk. is here perhaps conflating the words of his source for the Sermon with reminiscences of Mat_12.

(L) 33. Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree rotten, and its fruit rotten: for by the fruit the tree is known.] Cf. 7:17, 18, Luk 6:43. The meaning here is “Be consistent. Either allow My acts of casting out devils to be good in result, and attribute the power to do such good acts to the Holy Spirit; or condemn them as evil in result, and attribute them to Satanic agency.”

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Either make the tree good, &c.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 33. Either make the tree good] That is, the effect will be always similar to the cause; a bad tree will produce bad fruit, and a good tree, good fruit.

The works will resemble the heart: nothing good can proceed from an evil spirit; no good fruit can proceed from a corrupt heart. Before the heart of man can produce any good, it must be renewed and influenced by the Spirit of God.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(33) Either make the tree good.—Like most proverbs and parables, the words present different phases, and admit of various applications. As spoken to men of neutral, half-hearted character, they might seem a call, not without a touch of indignant rebuke, to consistency. “At least be thorough; lot principles and actions harmonise. Do not think you can produce the fruit of good works from the tree of a corrupt heart.” This, however, is not their meaning here. The men to whom our Lord spoke were not neutral, but in direct hostility to Him, and here, therefore, He presses on them logical rather than practical consistency; “make,” i.e., reckon, the tree and the fruit as having the same character. If to cast out demons be a good work, then the power from which it flows must be good also. Works of that kind do not come from a corrupt source.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

33. Either make the tree good, &c.] The meaning and connection are; “Be honest for once; represent the tree as good, and its fruit as good, or the tree as evil and its fruit as evil; either say that I am evil and that my works are evil, or, if you admit that my works are good, admit that I am good also and not in league with Beelzebub.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then certain of the Scribes and Pharisees answered,.... Not the same that charged him with casting out devils, by the prince of devils; but others, that were present, as appears from Luk 11:16 and who do not take upon them to make a proper reply to what he had said, or return an answer to that, but address him on another account; being willing to divert the discourse, and try what they could do with him in another, and more gentle and crafty way; saying, master, not fellow, magician, Samaritan, thou that hast a devil, and casts out devils by Beelzebub, and art a devil, and Beelzebub himself; but doctor, teacher, allowing him, at least, in a flattering way, that he was an instructor of mankind, though they would not own him to be a prophet, unless he would give such signs, as would make it appear he was one; hence they say,

we would see a sign from thee: that is, a sign from heaven, as they desired at another time, Mat 16:1 and, as Luke says, they did now, Luk 11:16 they had seen a sign from him on earth, in the cure of the man that had a withered hand; and another, in dispossessing the devil out of the man, that was blind and dumb; but these they looked upon rather as signs from hell, and done by confederacy with the devil; and therefore desire, or rather, in an imperious way, demand one from heaven, where they thought Satan had not such power, as on earth; and where there could not be such collusion and deception, as they wickedly imagined were in this last action: they seem to require some such things to be done, as were on Mount Sinai, at the giving of the law, when there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud, and the voice of a trumpet, and some visible appearances of the divine majesty; and intimate, that if something of this kind was done, if there was any visible and miraculous appearance in the heavens, produced by him, they should believe him to be the prophet that was spoken of, and the true Messiah; but if not, should give no credit to him: however, this is to be learned from hence, that the Jews, in Christ's time, expected signs and wonders to be wrought by the Messiah, in proof of his being so, though now they reject them as needless (g).

(g) Maimon. Hilch. Melachim. c. 11. sect. 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Ver. 33. Either make the tree good, &c.] q.d. Your blasphemy is therefore irremissible, because it is the fruit of so base a root of bitterness, as the desperate malice of your hearts, wilfully crossing your consciences; a wretched despising and despiting of God, and the work of his Spirit, out of revenge, Heb 10:29. Draw not therefore a fair glove over so foul a hand, but show yourselves in your own colours.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Either make ... - The fact asserted in this verse is, that a tree is known, not by its leaves, or bark, or form, but by its fruit. The application to the argument is this: “You are to judge of man’s being in league with Satan by his works. If my doctrines and works be properly the works of Satan, then I am corrupt; if not, then your charge is blasphemy. So, on the other hand, if, notwithstanding your professions, your works are the works of the devil, and your doctrines are such as he would teach, it would prove respecting you that which you charge on me.” In this indirect but powerful manner he advances to the charge against them, which he urges in the following verses.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Either make the tree good, &c. This is connected with what had been said of their attributing his works to Beelzebub. He condemns them for blaspheming him on all occasions, when at the same time they were not able to find fault with his life and doctrine. Christ therefore tells them, that the tree is known by its fruit; and that if they cannot blame his actions, and his doctrine, they ought to allow him to be good, to be like the good tree; and that if they continue to blame him, they ought consequently to condemn his doctrine, yet this they were not able to do. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

We met with much the same Mat 7:16. The words here spoken may be understood to have reference to the devil, to the scribes and Pharisees, or to Christ himself.

1. You say I do these things by the devil: you cannot but say the things I do are good; the fruit followeth the nature of the tree: the devil is evil, a corrupt tree, how can he produce good fruit? Or thus;

2. You show yourselves to be corrupt trees by the fruit you bring forth; you indeed are not lewd and profane, but put on a mask and vizard of godliness, but your fruit showeth what you are. Or;

3. If the fruit which I produce be good, why should not you judge me good? Speak things that are consistent; if the fruit be good, the tree must be good; convince me of any evil things that I do, from whence you can rationally conclude that I am a corrupt tree.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

33-37. Our Lord in this passage first argues in regard to himself, that as his fruit is good, namely, his miracles of mercy, it follows that he is good, and not, as they have blasphemously charged, on the side of evil. He then retorts the same principle on themselves. They cannot do right and good so long as their hearts are evil. Nothing but the change of heart can produce the beneficent change of life.

33. Either make the tree good — That is, consider or hold the tree to be good. There cannot be a permanent contrariety between a moral agent’s moral actions and his moral dispositions.

There is a sort of religious doctrine which teaches that men are not depraved in their natures, but only in their actions. Their nature back of their actions, it is claimed, is either innocent or it is neutral — neither good nor bad; and all of human depravity consists in the fact that men do freely act bad, and always will do so. Now, in opposition to this doctrine, our Lord teaches that there is in men a moral nature back of moral action; just as the tree is back of the fruit, just as the fountain is back of the stream, and just as the treasury full of good or evil is drawn from by the owner. It follows from this fact of man’s fallen moral nature, that in order to be pure in life he must become pure in heart. There must be a change in heart in order that there should be a complete change in moral action. This does not indeed deny that in individual acts (as in the fall of the angels or of man) their free will may choose wrong from a right nature. But in their permanent history, the actions and the character will conform to each other.

Now no nature can change itself. If the nature is bad, the resulting action is bad; and if the action is bad, that bad action cannot react and make the nature good. So that no mere natural man can regenerate himself; that is, make his own nature good and pure. No filthy stream can make its fountain clean. No corrupt fruit can send back a stream of pure sap and regenerate the tree.

There must then be a divine aid. A gracious power must be able to enter our nature, and there, by power, make all right, or must communicate to the fallen nature the power to perform those conditions by which it may come right. Fatalism teaches that God by arbitrary power seizes some part of the human race, and absolutely makes them right. Our own Church teaches that God gives the power to all men by his Holy Spirit to do works meet for repentance; that grace used obtains further grace and power; so that by a gracious ability, and not by a natural ability, man may attain reformation, regeneration, and salvation. Yet that grace is not irresistible, nor necessarily unresisted, but accepted and used in action, with a full power of willing and acting otherwise instead.

Tree corrupt — Moral corruption of nature lies to a great degree in the state of the dispositions. It consists in a permanent temper and purpose to indulge the appetites, passions, and desires, with little or no regard to the divine law or the obligations of absolute right. Hence sin is either a state or an action which is a transgression of the law.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 33-37. You wonder that I make so much of words; words are not trivialities, but are really the legitimate and normal fruit of the heart, and therefore by them each man will be judged.

(1) Take your choice; half-heartedness is not enough (cf. ver. 30); the fruit tells the nature of the tree (ver. 33).

(2) Our Lord addresses the Pharisees directly, showing them their true character. They only speak according to their spiritual condition (ver. 34).

(3) Man can only bring out what is already in his heart (ver. 35).

(4) A solemn close, in which he applies the principle generally; for every idle word an account shall be given, since words are always the source of the verdict upon each man"s case (vers. 36, 37).

Vers. 33-35. Parallel passage: Luk_6:43-45. (cf. Mat_7:16-18, notes)

Either make (h poihsate). Not "suppose" (fac, pone), still less "declare," but "make." The Lord is speaking in a parable. You would not, surely, make a tree in any other way; it would be against nature; how then imagine it can be so in your own persons? Mat_7:18 and Luk_6:43 state as a fact that the reverse case does not take place in nature. The tree good, and his fruit good (i.e. one if the other); or else make the tree corrupt, (Mat_7:17, note) and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. "By his own fruit" (Luke).

The tree and its fruit.

This illustration is applied by our Lord to the use of the tongue. Words are the fruits of the heart that prompts them. But they are the simplest and least considered forms of action, and they stand for the extreme representatives of a process that applies to all conduct. Let us consider the laws of life thus set forth in their widest range.

I CONDUCT IS THE FRUIT OF LIFE.

1. It is not possible without life. Growth in the tree is only produced when the sap is flowing and the cells are active. Animal.activity depends on vitality; the dead animal is stiff and stark; lowered vitality results m torpor. Mental work springs from a living mind. Spiritual movements are only possible when there is spiritual life.

2. It is determined by the character of the life. No manoeuvres can make a fig tree bring forth anything but figs. If the fruit is poor we cannot improve it by doctoring it. Here is a law of necessity. We are constantly finding in practice that our wills and energies and capacities are limited by our nature. Free-will is not enjoyed without many checks. Not only do our natures determine what we can accomplish; our habits very largely decide it.

II LIFE MAY BE ESTIMATED BY CONDUCT. We judge of the tree by the fruit it bears, and we judge of the man by the conduct he displays.

1. Other estimates are delusive.

(1) Profession. This may be hypocritically false; or, if not so bad, it may still be enormously enlarged by self-flattery.

(2) Promises. These may be well meant; yet there may not be energy to keep them, or they may be forgotten or neglected when they are due. The leaves may be green and yet the fruit may be bitter.

2. Conduct is a sure test. This is real. It requires energy, employs faculty, and produces a tangible result. Still, it needs to be fairly judged.

(1) At the right time. The tree is not barren just because it is bare in winter. We must wait for a harvest.

(2) By the true standard. The most beautiful fruit is not always the sweetest. There is a flashy conduct which arrests the attention anti claims the admiration of all beholders, and yet which is hollow and useless.

3. Slight actions are tests of serious conditions of character. We shall be judged by our words. Even thoughtless, light words will be taken account of, because they too spring from the tone and temper of the mind. They are the straws that show which way the stream is flowing. Sometimes they are better tests than more important actions, because they are unpremeditated, and therefore true to our characters. We reveal ourselves when we are off our guard.

III THE REFORMATION OF CONDUCT DEPENDS ON THE, REGENERATION OF LIFE. This practical conclusion necessarily follows on the principles which determine the growth of conduct. Manners may be improved by a superficial polish. But the really moral character of our actions cannot be transformed by any external process. Do what we will, the fruit must come according to the nature and character of the stock on which it grows. Therefore Christian work must be directed to the deep inner needs of the soul. This is not unpractical, as some assert. Lectures on ethics are not the best means of improving the morals of a people. Evangelical teaching is the source of moral improvement. We cannot imitate Christ until we have the life of Christ in our hearts. W.F.A.

Vers. 33-37. The heart in the tongue.

The subject of the Pharisees" blasphemy is continued in these verses. From them we learn

I THAT THE LICENCE OF THE TONGUE IS A PREGNANT EVIL.

1. It is fruitful in robbery.

(1) Slander filches the reputation of the innocent. A man"s character is his reputation with his Maker, whatever may be his reputation with his fellows. Reputation is a man"s character as estimated by his fellows. Next to the favour of God men esteem that of their fellows. It is a moral power the loss of which is serious injury.

(2) Slander robs a man of his friends. We are constituted for society. Solitary confinement is intolerable. No man can afford to be deserted of his friends. But who would be the friend of a blasted reputation?

(3) Slander deprives a man of property. The robber may not be enriched, but the robbery is real. A man without a character is shut out of the markets.

2. It is prolific in murder.

(1) Murder is held among men of all crimes the most heinous, and is therefore visited by the extreme penalty or" law. But hatred is incipient murder. (cf. Mat_5:21, 22 1Jn_3:15) Slander is the hatred of the cowardly knave. The Pharisees who first maligned Christ then took counsel to destroy him (see ver. 14).

(2) If slander does not aim at the life of the body, it stabs the life of character. Character is moral life. It is a more sacred thing than the life of the animal. A virtuous man would part with the life of the flesh rather than sacrifice his character.

(3) The poison of the nettle or of the sting of an insect is not the less real because it may elude the tests of chemistry. The murder is not the less real because it is not overtaken by the civil law.

3. It is emphatically diabolical.

(1) Calumny is the favourite weapon of the "father of lies." This is expressed in his very name. "Devil" means traducer. Satan slandered God to Eve. (see Gen_3:1, Gen_3:4, Gen_3:5) Satan slandered Job to God. (Job_1:11 Job_2:4)

(2) Therefore the blasphemy of the Pharisees is here fittingly compared to the venom of the serpent. "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (see also Mat_3:7)

(3) The malignity of the slanderer is devilish. Its wickedness is as gratuitous as it is cruel. A burglar may benefit by his plunder; but this species of robbery benefits nobody. A man whose reputation is preserved may replace his property; but filched of his "good name" he is "poor indeed.

II THAT THE CONQUEST OF THE TONGUE IS A WORTHY AMBITION.

1. Words are the vehicles of thought.

(1) They are the instruments of thought. We think in words. We cannot think without them. Try. Clear ideas are shaped in appropriate language. The vocabulary of the savage is too rude for him to be capable of profound or philosophic thought.

(2) They are the conveyancers of thought. Perceptive ideas may be conveyed by other signs, as gesture, or facial expression; but profound thoughts and delicate distinctions require the more perfect instrument of speech.

2. By words thought stirs worlds.

(1) The world of commerce. Educated hands and inventive minds are linked by words. Words guide the transport of the products from the factory to the market. In the market they preside in all exchanges.

(2) The world of politics. The speech of an orator may shape the destinies of an empire. By a word the peace of a continent may be settled or disturbed. Words have created revolutions.

(3) The world of morals. Witness the connection between the preaching of Peter the Hermit and the Crusades; the relation of the preaching of Luther to the Protestant Reformation.

3. What an engine for good or evil is here!

(1) Skilfully used, steam will set a factory in motion. Mismanaged, it will wreck it. So words.

(2) Eternal happiness or misery turns upon the quality of a word. A good word may awaken memories and start trains of thought to issue in a regenerated life. A malignant word, at a moment of indecision, may so determine the will as to damn an immortal destiny.

(3) The value of words will be seen in the day of judgment. For by their words will they be judged (vers. 36, 37).

(a) Wicked words will pass in review. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The word against the Son of man.

(b) Idle words words wanting in seriousness and caution; discourse that does not tend to the glory of God; the desecration of the solemn language of Scripture in garnishing idle talk. (cf. Pro_10:9 Eph_4:29 Eph_5:4 1Ti_5:13)

(c) Of these we shall have to give an account. Picture the Pharisee explaining his blasphemy in the very presence of the Blessed One whom he had attempted to identify with the devil!

III THAT THE TONGUE IS CONQUERED IN THE HEART.

1. Speech is the natural vent of the heart.

(1) The heart will have expression or it will break. The growing tree will displace rocks. The overflowing fountain will carry away obstructions. Pent-up feeling is like steam in a close vessel.

(2) The heart will have adequate expression. This it can only find in speech. It is ready. ":Nearest tile heart, nearest the mouth." The idea most forcibly impressed on the mind wilt naturally claim first utterance. The tongue also is flexible and mobile, and words are versatile and apt.

2. Language is the sure index to character.

(1) This follows, for the heart is the character. Jesus is the good tree whose fruit is good. The Pharisee is the evil tree whose fruit is evil.

(2) As the tree is known by its fruit, so is the heart by the conversation. "The kind of speech in a man betokens the kind of action you will get from him" (Carlyle).

(3) The tree after its kind is folded up in the seed, and can be evolved from it again; so from our words the Judge of all will evolve again our character in the great day or" doom.

(4) Every word has its moral history.

(5) Though Jacob may simulate the raiment of Esau, he cannot simulate his voice.

3. Therefore the tongue must be cured in the heart.

(1) They begin at the wrong end who would reform the heart by reforming the tongue. "A man may beat down the bitter fruit from an evil tree until he is weary; but whilst the root abides in strength and vigour, the beating down of the present fruit will not hinder it from bringing forth more" (Dr. Owen).

(2) Resolution can only transiently cure, viz. while the matter is present to the mind. But thought cannot evermore remain upon any single subject. The most vigilant sentinel must sometimes sleep, and the truant heart will out.

(3) But let the heart be full of love to God and man, and its malice may be trusted anywhere.

(4) Nothing but the salt of grace will heal the bitter spring of the bad heart. Nothing but a good graft can convert an evil tree. (see 1Sa_24:13 Isa_32:6)

(5) It should be more our care to be good than to seem good. J.A.M. (cf. Pro_25:26 Jer_6:7)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt - That is, you must allow, they are both good, or both bad.- For if the fruit is good, so is the tree; if the fruit is evil, so is the tree also. For the tree is known by its fruit - As if he had said, Ye may therefore know me by my fruits. By my converting sinners to God, you may know that God hath sent me. Matt. vii, 16; Luke vi, 43.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Kindred warnings:

v. 33. Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by his fruit.

v. 34. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

v. 35. A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things.

v. 36. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment.

v. 37. For by thy words thou shall be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

These words no longer describe the sin against the Holy Ghost, but they characterize the conduct of such as may be in danger of hardening their hearts against the benign influences of Christ and His Gospel-message. It is the nature of a good tree to yield good fruit; it is the nature of a putrid, rotten tree to have rotten, bad fruit. All depends upon the relation to Christ, whether a person does good or evil works. As for those that followed the Pharisees in their hatred and its consequences: generation of vipers He calls them. The malice, the hypocrisy, the deceit of serpents is their outstanding trait, Mat 3:7; Psa 140:3. John the Baptist and Christ agree in their judgment of them. Satanic evil is all that one may expect from a morally hopeless brood. The poison of their nature must come out in the filthiness, in the malevolence, in the enmity of their tongue. A significant fact: In the midst of His scathing denunciation Jesus uses a proverb that has a good interpretation as well as an evil. The heart, filled to the brim with certain thoughts, naturally overflows in the words expressing the condition of the heart. If the heart be a treasure-house of good, edifying thoughts and desires, they strive to come out in kind, edifying speech. But if sinful desires have taken possession of the heart, there will be passionate outbursts in words directed against all the commandments. Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21. And this is no small matter: Every idle, vain, empty, superfluous word, spoken without need or the purpose of edifying, is a matter of record before God, and must be answered for at the final Judgment. For the word, as the ancient Greeks were wont to say, is the revelation of the soul. Words are the index of a good or a bad heart, of a heart firm in the faith in Christ and full of love toward Him, or of a heart that has never taken thought of the will of the Lord, and is bad out of pure inertness toward that which Christ has declared to be good—the poorest species of unbelief.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These words may either refer to the Pharisees, or to Christ himself.

If to the Pharisees, the sense is, You hypocritical Pharisees show yourselves what you are by our words and actions, even as the fruit showeth what the tree is.

If they refer to Christ, then they are an appeal to the Pharisees themselves, to judge of our Saviour and his doctrine by the miracles which he wrought.

If he wrought by the devil, his works would be as bad as the devil’s; but if his works were good, they must own them to be wrought by the power of God.

The expression implies, that a man may be known by his actions, as a tree may be known by his fruit; yet not by a single action, but by a series of actions; not by a particular act, but by our general course.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

33. Either make the tree good, and the fruit good. The principle is announced in Matt. 7:20 that the tree is known by its fruits. If his own life and works were evil, then he might be evil and aided by Satan, but if good, then his power was from God.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to respond to the Pharisees.

Make a tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad

Possible meanings are 1) "If you make a tree good, its fruit will be good, and if you make the tree bad, its fruit will be bad" or 2) "If you consider a tree to be good, it will be because its fruit is good, and if you consider it tree to be bad, it will be because its fruit is bad." This was a proverb. People were to apply its truth to how they can know whether a person is good or bad.

good ... bad

"healthy ... diseased"

a tree is recognized by its fruit

"Fruit" here is a metaphor for what a person does. This can be stated in active form. AT: "people know whether a tree is good or bad by looking at its fruit" or "people know whether a person is good or bad by looking at the results of that person's activities" (See: Active or Passive and Metaphor)

You offspring of vipers

Here "offspring" means "having the characteristic of." Vipers are poisonous snakes that are dangerous and represent evil. See how you translated a similar phrase in Matthew 3:7. (See: Metaphor)

You ... you

These are plural and refer to the Pharisees. (See: Forms of You)

how can you say good things?

Jesus uses a question to rebuke the Pharisees. AT: "you cannot say good things." or "you can only say evil things." (See: Rhetorical Question)

out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks

Here "heart" is a metonym for the thoughts in a person's mind. Here "mouth" is a synecdoche that represents a person as a whole. AT: "what a person says with his mouth reveals what is in his mind" (See: Metonymy and Synecdoche)

The good man from the good treasure of his heart produces what is good, and the evil man from the evil treasure of his heart produces what is evil

Jesus speaks about the "heart" as if it were a container that a person fills with good or evil things. This is a metaphor that means what a person says reveals what the person is truly like. If you want to keep this imagery, see the UDB. You can also translate the literal meaning. AT: "A man who is truly good will speak good things, and the man who is truly evil will speak evil things" (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

fruit

offspring

heart

evil

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

33. ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλόν κ.τ.λ. The meaning and connection are; ‘Be honest for once; represent the tree as good, and its fruit as good, or the tree as evil and its fruit as evil; either say that I am evil and that my works are evil, or, if you admit that my works are good, admit that I am good also and not in league with Beelzebub.’

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.