3. The Orchard Test

The setting for the test of fruitage is found in the Sermon on the Mount, as it deals specifically with “false prophets“: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.... Therefore by their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:15-20).MOL 31.2

What kind of person do the prophet’s contemporaries see and hear? What is the general tenor of his or her life? Reliable or inconsistent? Worldly or godly? Faithful to commitments or unfaithful? Do his or her teachings exalt the written Word, or do they create new and exotic paths that do not find their basis in the Word? Above all else, Does the prophet reflect accurately the clear, consistent Biblical message? What is the result of the prophet’s leadership? Under his/her guidance, does the work of God prosper in ways that best fulfill the gospel mission? Do others see the prophet’s walk with the Lord as consistent? Do sinners find the Lord through his or her writings?MOL 31.3

Unfortunately, through the years many have followed ecstatic, charismatic men and women who have assumed the credentials of a prophet. Great money-chests have been collected and massive religious empires have been created. But we must ask, Does the leader reflect the simple life style exemplified by Biblical prophets and by the Lord Himself? Most times, this test quickly categorizes self-promoted “prophets” as pretenders.MOL 31.4

Unlike the first two tests, the orchard test often takes time; “fruit” develops slowly. But careful evaluation of results flowing from the “prophet’s” ministry is as necessary as the first two tests. What may appear to be Biblical, and what may be argued as “fulfilled predictions,” may, in the long run, prove to be otherwise. The most valid test for authentic prophets is seen in the consequences of their teachings. Do they turn minds and conduct Godward so that the life pattern reflects the spirit and practice of Jesus? Do their theological teachings show simplicity while maintaining the fullness of the written Word? Or, do their teachings create “new” doctrines not rooted in Scripture?MOL 31.5

Prophets, of course, are human. Moses was a prophet who spoke with God “face to face” (Exodus 33:11), but his prophetic gift did not guarantee that he would not make mistakes. Because of his lack of patience, he was not permitted to enter the Promised Land, a prize worthy of his long and courageous leadership.MOL 31.6

Many other Biblical examples could be noted to show that the prophetic container, at times, has been subject to the weaknesses of humanity. But the content transcends the container. The prophetic message is self-authenticating; the messenger is appreciated but not canonized.MOL 31.7

Further, even though the prophet’s message is precisely what God wants communicated, his/her own ministry may not appear to make a positive impact. Think of the heroic but “unsuccessful” ministries of Jeremiah and Isaiah. When these men lived, they seemed to be “failures.” But not so today!MOL 31.8

Think of Ezekiel’s predicament: “As for you, son of man, the children of your people are talking about you beside the walls and in the doors of the houses; and they speak to one another, everyone saying to his brother, ‘Please come and hear what the word is that comes from the Lord.’ So they come to you as people do, they sit before you as My people, and they hear your words, but they do not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but their hearts pursue their own gain. Indeed you are to them as a very lovely song of one who has a pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but they do not do them. And when this comes to pass—surely it will come—then they will know that a prophet has been among them” (Ezekiel 33:30-33).MOL 31.9

Ezekiel was saluted and lauded, but rarely was he followed. Because his contemporaries did not join him in genuine reformation, was that the prophet’s fault? Does this “failure” show that the consequences of his ministry were negative and unfruitful? What might have been the fruit of his ministry if his listeners had followed his counsel?MOL 32.1

Many godly men and women, consistent and faithful to their calling and to the highest Biblical standards, have been church leaders through the centuries. But their fruitful lives did not prove that they were prophets. The tests of a prophet are cumulative in the sense that all the tests must apply; but without the test of “good fruit,” all the other tests should be suspect.MOL 32.2