De árboles y
frutos – Padre Maldonado S. J.
José María
Hernández
Nota de NP:
el presente artículo trata del análisis exegético que hace el P. Juan de
Maldonado sobre el pasaje de los árboles y frutos buenos y malos de Mateo 7,
17-18. Como complemento, conviene hacer notar que, según la muy prestigiosa
Biblia de Mons. Straubinger, Nuestro Señor, en el lugar paralelo de
Lucas 6, 43, no habla de árboles y frutos “buenos” y “malos”, sino de árboles y
frutos “sanos” y “podridos”. Pues bien, todo el mundo sabe que un árbol puede
estar más o menos sano o más o menos podrido, y que un fruto puede estar más o
menos sano o más o menos podrido; como también que un árbol sano puede dar
frutos podridos y que un árbol podrido (en cierto grado) puede dar algunos
frutos sanos. Sirva esta entrada a los que, negando absurdamente lo que a todos
fácilmente consta por experiencia y pensando equivocadamente que Cristo intenta
dar enseñanzas en el ámbito de las ciencias naturales acerca de árboles y
frutos, condenan a los que afirman que un árbol bueno puede dar frutos malos,
que uno malo puede dar frutos buenos, y que puede haber árboles medio sanos o
medio podridos y frutos medio sanos o medio podridos.
Hemos
destacado con negrita y subrayado ciertos pasajes.
El P. Juan
de Maldonado (Casas de la Reina, 1534-Roma, 1583), teólogo español, Jesuita
desde 1562, fue profesor de filosofía y de teología en París y trabajó en la
contrarreforma católica. Visitador de la provincia de Francia, el papa Gregorio
XIII lo llamó a Roma para la revisión del texto de los Setenta. Escribió, entre
otras obras, un Comentario a los cuatro Evangelios (1596-1597) y un Comentario
a los principales libros del Antiguo Testamento (1643).
El P.
Maldonado habla de parábola de los árboles y frutos buenos y malos en su Commentarii
In Quatuor Evangelistas. Se trata de una obra clásica en materia de
exégesis bíblica, que contó con todas las aprobaciones exigidas por la Iglesia
en una época marcada por la “Reforma” protestante y por la Contrarreforma
católica. Hemos tenido a la vista una versión en inglés de esa obra: A
Comentay on the Holy Gospels, 2ª. ed., Catholic Standard Library, John
Hodges, London, 1888, pp. 242-246.
Ponemos
acá, en español, algunos extractos más relevantes de la obra:
«Cristo
llama “árbol” al hombre que tiene fe [en el sentido de conciencia,
según el cual se habla de “buena fe” y de “mala fe”], sea buena o mala;
buen árbol si su fe es buena, árbol malo si ésta es mala. Se puede
objetar que un hombre que tiene buena fe frecuentemente da malos frutos. Esto
no se puede negar; pero Cristo no habla de lo que sucede ocasionalmente, sino
de lo que sucede la mayor parte de las veces, no de lo que suele pasar por
la perversidad humana, sino de la naturaleza de la fe; por la fe, por su propia
naturaleza, si es buena, no da malos frutos, si es mala, no da buenos frutos.»
«Estas
palabras parecen oponerse a la experiencia diaria: pues vemos muchos malos
convertirse en buenos, y buenos convertirse en malos. Muchas explicaciones
de ellos han sido ofrecidas: 1. Muchos lo toman como significando que el buen
árbol, mientras es bueno, y un árbol malo, mientras sea malo, no puede dar el
primero buenos frutos y el otro malos frutos. (San Agustín, El Autor, S. Juan
Crisóstomo, Beda). 2. Otros vieron que de este modo la verdad y la experiencia
no están satisfechas, pues aunque un buen árbol, esto es, un hombre justo, que
continúa siendo tal, no pueda dar frutos malos, un árbol malo, que permanece
siendo malo, sí puede dar algún buen fruto. Ni es una opinión para sostenerse
(condenada últimamente, con justicia, por el Concilio de Trento) que todas las
obras de los pecadores, o incluso de los infieles, son pecado…»
«No se
afirma, por lo tanto, que un buen árbol no pueda dar malos frutos, ni que un
árbol malo no pueda dar buenos frutos; con seguridad un árbol malo puede dar
algo bueno, y un buen árbol algunos frutos malos; pero de su propia naturaleza
no pueden; y un buen árbol habitualmente no da malos frutos, ni un árbol malo
buenos frutos.»
«Los
Escribas y Fariseos de quien hablaba […] eran ciertamente malos porque sus
vidas eran malas; y aun así ellos pronunciaban buenas palabras porque lo que
decían se debía hacer.»
«Se
objetará: “Si un buen árbol puede dar malos frutos, y un árbol malo buenos
frutos, ¿cómo es que se nos enseña que los conozcamos por sus frutos?”
[…] Cristo no quiso dar un indicio cierto, sino solo un signo
probable, y enseñar que los falsos profetas, que probaron falsa su
doctrina por su pretensión de santidad, no hubieran podido ocultarse mucho bajo
la piel de oveja, sino que la del lobo que está debajo aparecería en un tiempo
u otro. Pues la pretensión no puede pasar mucho tiempo por verdad.»
«Es
increíble cómo muchos errores han salido de este árbol bueno y malo. Primero
vinieron los maniqueos, quienes decían que algunos hombres eran buenos por
naturaleza y nunca malos; y que había otros malos por naturaleza, por lo que
nunca podrían ser buenos. San Jerónimo (in loc.) y San Agustín (i. 3, Cont.
Julian. Disput.; ii., Cent. Fortunat.) los refutaron con la Escritura. Los
pelagianos negaron el pecado original, porque el matrimonio, decían, era un
buen árbol y no podía dar malos frutos, es decir, generar el pecado original.
San Agustín (ii. 26, De Nupt. et Concupis.) respondió a esto. […]”
EL
TEXTO EN INGLÉS:
Verse 16. By their fruits.
As Christ had uttered a warning against false prophets,it was necessary
to give some mark by which they might be known. He could not give any single
certain one, as their disguises were many, and God alone is the examiner of the
human heart, but He gave a probable one adapted to ordinary intelligence and
most commonly true, “ By their fruits “ (S. Luke vi. 43).
S. Luke (vi. 43) seems to imply that these words were spoken in another
sense and in another place ; for he unites them to the injunction recorded by
S. Matthew (v. 5) “ Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye
“ as if the meaning were : Thou hypocrite, why wilt thou pretend to be a good
tree when thou bearest evil fruit ? for, however thou mayest wish to dis semble
thy evil deeds, from thy fruits shalt thou be known ; for there is no good tree
which brings forth evil fruit, and every tree shall be known by its fruits. In
this sense S. Matthew says (xii. 33) that Christ used the same simile of the
tree and its fruits, as if He had said : “ If you would seem to be good, do not
feign goodness, but practise it”. The leaves are pretence, the works are the
fruit, and the tree is known not by its leaves, but by its fruit. Hence it is
clear that Christ used the same comparison more than once ; either, therefore,
S. Luke is not reciting the same as S. Matthew, or he is not keeping the order
and connection of the words of Christ ; for in S. Matthew it rmonises so well
with the preceding sentence that it cannot be separated from it without one or
both being destroyed. We must see, therefore, what Christ calls the tree, and
what the fruits. Tertullian (i., Cont. Marc.) thinks faith the tree. This
agrees well with the text, which treats of the distinguishing between true and
false faith. But S. Augustin (xv., Euchirid., and i. 3, Cont. Julian.) and
Bede, on this pas sage, think that the man s will is the tree and the man
himself the ground ; for as a good and evil tree can spring from the same
ground, but good and bad fruit cannot come from the same tree, but good from
good and evil from evil : so from the same man may proceed at one time a good
will, at another a bad will, but rom the same will both good and bad works
cannot proceed. S. Augustin (De grat. Christ., i. 18, 19), The Author (Horn,
xix.), S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxiv.), Theophylact, and De Lyra call the man who
has a good will a good tree, and the man who has an evil will an evil tree.
This view would agree well per se with the context, if the latter were not
concerned with the discerning of true faith, but of a good will ; but it is
concerned with true faith : “ Beware of false prophets “. Christ calls the man,
then, who has faith, whether good or bad, “ a tree “ a good tree if his faith
be good, an evil tree if it be bad. It may be answered that a man who has a
good faith frequently brings forth evil fruit This cannot be denied ; but Christ
does not speak of what is so occasionally, but of what is so for the most part
not of what is used to happen from human perversity, but from the nature of
faith ; for faith, by its own nature, if good, does not bring forth evil fruit,
nor if evil, good fruit. Verse 18. Cannot.
These words seem to be opposed to daily experience ; for we see many
from evil become good, and from good become evil. Many explanations of them
have, therefore, been offered.
1. Many have taken them to mean that a good tree, while it is good, and
an evil tree, while it is evil, cannot bring forth he one good and the other
evil fruit (S. Augustin, The Author, S. Chrysostom, Bede). 2. Others have seen
that in this manner truth and experience are not satisfied. For, although a good
tree, that is, a just man, continuing to be such, cannot bring forth evil
fruit, yet an evil tree, remaining evil, can bring forth some good fruit. Nor
is the opinion (lately con demned, with justice, by the Council of Trent) to be
held, that all the works of sinners, or even of infidels, are sin, although S.
Augustin himself (iv. 3, Cont. Julian., and iii. 5, Cont. Epist. duos Pelag.)
and Prosper (Sentent. cvi.) seem to have held it, and some Catholic divines
have defended it. They have, therefore, asserted that a good tree, in that it
is good, cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree, as it is evil, bring
forth good fruit. But we cannot by this means distinguish a good from a bad
tree, which is the question at issue.
It is not asserted, therefore, that a good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit ; for this cannot possibly be, for assuredly
an evil tree can bring forth some good, and a good tree some evil fruit ; but
that of their own nature they cannot ; and a good tree does not habitually
bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit For, each of its own
nature, “ out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” ; and “a good
man out of a good treasure ringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of an
evil treasure bringeth forth evil things “. And when Christ had previously
said, “ Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree evil and
its fruit evil” (S. Matt. xii. 33-35), He added, “How can ye, being evil, speak
good things ? “ but not as meaning that it could not be. For the Scribes and
Pharisees of whom He spoke (xxiii. 2, 3) were certainly evil, because their
lives were evil ; and yet they uttered good words, because what they said was
to be done. This only shows, however, that in this they acted against their
nature, and were not accustomed to do so.
It will be objected : “ If a good tree can bring forth evil fruit, and
an evil tree good fruit, how are we taught to know them by their fruit ? “ It
may be objected, again : “ If the Pharisees, when they brought forth evil
fruit, were yet the good tree, that is, were not false prophets, but true
Doctors of the Law, how could they be known by their fruits ? For if the
hearers had followed this rule of Christ, and judged of their doctrine by their
lives, they would have rejected the former as false.” Christ did not will to
give a certain text, but only a probable sign ; and to teach that false
prophets, who proved their doctrine to be false by their pretence of holiness,
would not be able to conceal themselves long under the sheep s clothing, but
that the wolf which underlay it would, some time or other, appear. For pretence cannot long pass for truth.
It is wonderful how many errors have sprung from this good and evil
tree, (i) First of all there came the Manicheans, who said that some men were
good by nature and never evil ; and (2) that there were others evil by nature,
who never could be good. S. Jerome (in loc.), and S. Augustin (i. 3, Cont.
Julian. Disput.; ii., Cent. Fortunat.) have refuted them out of scripture. (3)
The Pelagians denied original sin, because marriage, they said, was a good
tree, and could not bring forth evil fruit, that is, generate original sin. S.
Augustin (ii. 26, De Nupt. et Concupis.) has answered this. Again, they said
that free-will was inherent in us, like a kind of root, and could, of itself
and by itself (ipsa per se), produce either a good tree, that is, a good will,
or an evil tree, that is, an evil will (S. Augustin, i. 18, De Graf. Christ).
