Matthew 7:15

The Warning Against False Prophets (7:15).

In Matthew 5:10 the disciples were seen as prophetic men, and on that basis Jesus expected them to be persecuted for His Name's sake. But wherever there are such prophetic men, false prophets will also arise making even greater claims and seeking to muscle in on the success of others. So here in parallel with Matthew 5:10 in the overall chiasmus of the Sermon, He now deals with prophets who will not be persecuted for His sake, because they are false prophets. For as Jesus knew, that is in the nature of man. In the Old Testament Moses anticipated the arising of false prophets from the beginning who were to be severely dealt with lest they led the people astray (Deuteronomy 13:1; Deuteronomy 18:19), and the persecution of the prophets was later regularly connected with the opposition of such false prophets (Isaiah 9:15; Isaiah 25:7; Jeremiah 5:31; Jeremiah 6:13; Jeremiah 8:10; Jeremiah 14:14; Jeremiah 23:16; Jeremiah 27:14), thus the idea that God's truth would regularly be opposed by ‘false prophets' became the norm. That is why we must see it as quite to be expected that Jesus would recognise the danger of ‘false prophets' arising now that He was Himself ministering as a prophet and would be sending out His own prophetic men, and would even possibly recognise that they were already at work. Indeed, He must have recognised that some of these very men who were listening to Him might turn out to be false prophets, and moreso as their numbers grew.

It is sometimes stated that to speak of false prophets in this way would have been an anachronism. However, such a statement is unjustified. In Antiquities 13:11:2 Josephus describes how, well before the time of Jesus, Judas the Essene had called himself a ‘false prophet' because he had prophesied the death of Antigonus and it had not happened. While Josephus goes on to say that on Antigonus' sudden death ‘the prophet was thrown into disorder' Thus Josephus too could speak of prophets and false prophets in respect of the not too distant past.

Indeed the kind of people Jesus had in mind are defined in Matthew 7:22, they preach and even possibly foretell, they cast out evil spirits, they perform ‘wonders', and as is demonstrated there, some even do it in the name of Jesus. It is easy for us to get the idea that in 1st century AD only John the Baptist were around to be seen as ‘prophets', but there is good reason for thinking that that was not so. We can tend to overlook the fact that a number of Jewish wonder-workers and exorcisers were wandering around at this time, some of whom could attach themselves to Jesus name (see Acts 19:13; and compare Acts 13:6), and even possibly become disciples. There may well have been a number of such in unorthodox Galilee, some of whom could easily have attached themselves to Jesus, whether genuinely or with false motives (consider Luke 9:49). And there is no reason to doubt that men would look on such people as ‘prophets' and deeply respect them (like some tend to respect faith healers today). Josephus would later speak of ‘Theudas' and ‘the Egyptian', two self-proclaiming ‘wonder workers' who appeared in Palestine, as ‘prophets'. And Jesus no doubt saw that some who did attach themselves to His name could well become a danger to His followers once He Himself had moved on elsewhere. They might then well appear to some of the people to be a place to look to for advice (as no doubt some looked for advice to the man described in Luke 9:49). Agabus, an early Christian foreteller from Jerusalem, was called a prophet, and was one of a number (Acts 11:27), and we must ask, from where did these Christian Jews get the title? The probability would seem to be that it initially arose from an already exiting background of seeing seemingly spiritually gifted people as ‘prophets'. The name was then later applied both to some who were officially appointed (1 Corinthians 12:29) and to some who had a charismatic gift (1 Corinthians 14). But it seems reasonable to suggest that it first arose from the original Jewish background, especially as we can compare with this use of the term ‘prophet' the ease with which the Galilean crowds began to call Jesus a prophet. Again it was simply because a part of their background caused them to express such a view about an inspired teacher, exorciser and wonder-worker. Furthermore in Matthew 10:42 Jesus appears to be likening his disciples to prophets and wise men. Possibly the difference there was that some performed wonders, while others simply testified. In Matthew 14:5 Jesus activities had convinced the people that He was a prophet, probably for a similar reason (compare Matthew 21:11; Luke 7:16; Luke 7:39; Luke 24:19). All this suggests that in Galilee at least the idea of prophets was still alive and active.

It is true that the Scribes and Pharisees may have been partly in Jesus' mind in this description as ‘false prophets' (compare Matthew 16:6), but not as the main culprits at this point in time. For we have to recognise from what we have said above that there may well already have arisen actual false prophets doing things in the name of Jesus in Galilee, just as there were genuine ones. Indeed we are quite taken by surprise to learn of someone going around casting out evil spirits in Jesus' name (Luke 9:49 - note that we only know of this case because of the question of the Apostles) because we do not think like that, but we should note that it seems to have been no surprise to the Apostles, only a cause for anger because he was doing it independently. And in that particular case Jesus seems to have been quite happy about what the exorciser was doing. Furthermore in His reply Jesus clearly considered the possibility that there were others, and He must have been aware that not all of them would be as genuine as that one was.

We must not measure Galilee by Judea. Charismatic preachers, exorcisers and wonder-workers (Matthew 7:22) might not have been quite so welcome in Judea, although the fact that Jesus could say to the Pharisees, ‘if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do yours sons cast them out?' (Matthew 12:27) probably indicates that there were some. However, in more open and unorthodox Galilee where the Jews mingled with Gentiles, it would be a different matter. We also learn of such false Jewish prophets and wonder-workers in the days just before Jerusalem was destroyed, and they did not come from nowhere. They must have had their predecessors. For the 1st century AD was a time of great expectation among the Jews, especially in Galilee, and it is during such times that spurious ‘prophets' always arise. Indeed Josephus (who had had connections with Galilee) actually came to see himself as having prophetic gifts. He would not describe himself as a prophet, but he probably hoped that others would see him in that way. Taking all things into account therefore there was good reason why Jesus should have recognised the need to warn His wider disciples against being taken in by ‘false prophets' who acted in His name, even around the time that He was preaching. We only have to consider some types of faith healer today to recognise what influence they could have exercised. And this would have made Him even more aware of the need to warn them about such false prophets arising in the future, under whatever guise. History had demonstrated that there would after all always be ‘false prophets', a term firmly based on the Old Testament.

Analysis of Matthew 7:15.

a Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you will know them (15-16a).

b Do men gather grapes of thorns, Or figs of thistles? (Matthew 7:16 b).

c Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit, but the corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit (Matthew 7:17).

b A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matthew 7:18).

a Every tree which does not bring forth good fruit, is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them (Matthew 7:19).

Note that in ‘a' the false prophets are known by their fruits, and in the parallel because they are known by their fruits they will be cut down and cast in the fire. In ‘b' is the recognition that good fruit cannot come from bad sources, and in the parallel the same applies. Centrally in ‘c' is the fact that the good tree produces good fruit, and the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.