Hardships come in all shapes and sizes. They often harden the people that survive them. Sometimes we are surrounded by so many troubles, their downpour is palpable. Our political climate resides on a hairpin trigger; any response to the “pandemic” seemly places you at odds with various camps at once.

There is remote education, remote working, adjusted schedules, reduced workforce and its accompanying reduced income and on we may go. Never have we had to adjust so quickly in so many fields, and rethink all of our social/cultural connections at once. It has not been done without incurring major trauma and frustration. The medical sector has gone to such protective measures that people have died alone, void of human touch; people are fighting diseases without the side by side support of their loved ones and communities. Yet, we somehow find the strength to cheer, “we’re all in this together.”

Many of our churches have likewise had to adjust and adopt methods that have been viewed, for the most part, as luxuries, out of reach and impractical. Among the many churches, broadcasting sermons and worship is for the bigger, tele-evangelist type churches. Embracing a new way to gather together, embracing additional formats allowable in the scriptures for assembling and spiritual communion. This has not happened without various forms of turmoil, infighting, the testing of fellowship, and in some cases suspicion.

It makes me think that the church needs to be reminded to be gentle.

The Fruit of the Spirit

A study on “the fruit of the Spirit” is badly needed right now. It is the outflow of our relationship with God. These fruits provide us the resources for enduring and succeeding as God’s people during stormy weather.

What was Paul getting at in the “fruit” of the Spirit”? The word “fruit” (karpós) has a wide range of meaning: it may be translated as “fruit, grain; harvest; result, outcome; deed, action; return, gain, advantage; tribute, praise (of the lips); offspring (Lk 1:42) descendant (Ac 2:30).”[1] The word ranges from the literal to the metaphoric and context helps to limit how fruit should be understood.

Fruit is the natural outcome from a plant, a living being, or a process. Fruit bears the distinguishing characteristics of its source. A banana is the fruit of the banana tree, an apple is the fruit of an apple tree, etc. A child is the offspring (fruit) of her/his parents. An error is the outcome of misinformation or a distortion.

For example, Jesus speaks of the spiritual caliber of a person based upon the fruit of their actions and teaching:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15–20; English Standard Version)[2]

The Psalms, likewise, speak of one’s spiritual outgrowth based on a connection to the Word of God:

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:3–4)

These examples are samples of a greater body of biblical examples for the spiritual character of the fruit metaphor.

This metaphor directs our attention to a spiritual harvest procured from the child of God’s relationship with the Spirit. It certainly points to the important spiritual realm of our activity. Paul does not point to a spirituality detached from the world. No, God’s people must embrace that the spiritual realm bleeds over into our natural (flesh/human) world because our faith is grounded in both realms of activity.[3]

This means that Christians derive the wellspring for their actions from God’s leading, and this then frees us from any obligations to act like the customary fallen fleshly/human world. We are freed to live a life anchored to our relationship with God.

This is part of the big picture drama of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Throughout Galatians, he displays how freedom and obligation work together in tension as Christians live freed by Christ to be obligated by the ethic of love.

For freedom Christ has set us free [theology of freedom]; stand firm therefore [ethic of obligation], and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:13–15)

These are not competing themes. I like how Charles K. Barrett (1917–2011) puts it,

There is no conflict but rather an indissoluble union between the theology of freedom and the ethics of obligation. Nor is there any equation of a compromise between the two in which each is watered down so as to accommodate the other. Freedom is real freedom, and any attempt to restrict it must be firmly refuted. But obligation is real obligation too, and there must be no attempt to evade it.[4]

Freedom and Obligation (1985)

In other words, the regenerated child of God is freed by the gospel and a life that is lived in light of God’s redemption will their obligation anchored in loving others. God’s people must certainly live with this tension: (1) a theology of freedom to live out in the natural world the love of God bred by the gospel message, and (2) the ethic of obligation that a Christian and the church is bound by to embrace the grace of God and the purpose of Christ’s death.

Making Sense of Gentleness

The most important way to understand how a word is to be understood is its context, otherwise, we may import misleading ideas into a text. Word studies are additional way to appreciate the limits of a word’s meaning. I like to look at how the ancients used the words of the New Testament, as it often provides a better sense of what Paul is saying and means.

Secular Sense. New Testament Scottish scholar, William Barclay (1907–1978), was one of the best wordsmiths of his era. His knowledge of the classics and Greek literature was astounding. In his little book, Flesh and Spirit (1962), he illustrates six ways the concept of “gentleness” (praútēs) was used in ancient secular Greek.[5]

1. Gentleness as a soothing quality in the face of difficulty, hardship, or bitterness.
2. Gentleness of conduct breeds a spirit of cooperation, especially when those with the power to act behaved differently.
3. In the midsts of any argument, gentleness is the attitude and culture created where “cooler heads” prevail without losing one’s temper.
4. The ability to take things lightly, whether going through an unpleasant experience, or, to not overreact to important things.
5. It is used to speak of animals which have become obedient and have learned control and discipline.
6. The most common use: Gentleness is seen in the portrayal of a person’s character in which strength and gentleness go together, where passion and gentleness find a balance in high degree.

The modern sense of “gentleness” carries more of the qualitative sense of “mildness of manners and disposition” (Merriam-Webster), or being “kind, calm, or soft…” (Cambridge Dictionary). There is some similarity to the ancient sense, but as Barclay points out the ancients held a more robust sense of the power and impact of “gentleness.”

New Testament Usage. I want to use Barclay’s spectrum to illustrate how the New Testament uses “gentleness” (praútēs), a term that appears eleven times (1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:23, 6:1; Eph 4:2; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:25; Tit 3:2; Jas 1:21, 3:13; 1 Pet 3:15). We are illustrating here how to best understand the word in the context of four New Testament case studies, and then we will look at our passage in Galatians 5:23 (and 6:1).

1 Corinthians 4:21: What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness? 

In a context of correction and restoration, Paul offers this rhetorical question. The phrase “spirit of gentleness” may be translated as “a gentle spirit” (cf. Gal 6:1). In other words, this is a question about the kind of “frame of mind” the Corinthians wish Paul to arrive in.[6] The emphasis is on either whether the Corinthians want Paul to arrive with a soothing attitude (1), or with a culture of love generated by a cool temper (3). These seem to be the better options of the sense here.

2 Corinthians 10:1: I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away! 

When Paul addressed a slanderous charge against him that in person he was timid and in letter he is aggressive,[7] the apostle appeals to the Corinthians by “the meekness of Christ” or “Christ’s meekness.” This is clearly a reference to the balanced character of Jesus Christ who is both meek (praútēs) and gentle/forbearing (epieíkeia). In the face of conflict, Paul will appeal to the disciplined character of Jesus to be his guide (6).

Colossians 3:12: Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved compassionate hearts kindness humility, meekness, and patience...

As in Galatians 5:22–23 and Ephesians 4:2, our word appears in a list of virtues of proper conduct. In fact, much has been said about the parallels between Colossians and Ephesians, where in the latter walking in a manner worthing of the Christian calling includes walking “with all humility and gentleness, with patience bearing with one another in love” (4:2). As part of a virtue list, these contexts provide a “big picture” character portrayal to which the child of God must endeavor to pursue. It is vital to breed unity and cooperation in the body of Christ by being actively gentle (2).[8]

2 Timothy 2:25: correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth...

Paul outlines a program for Timothy on how to engage his opponents. It should not be done through bitter quarreling (2:24) but through “correction… with gentleness” (2:25). Quarreling and correcting are opposites in this context, all quarreling is inconsistent with a servant’s method of engagement, but not all correcting is quarreling. Gentleness must shape the quality of the correction. The emphasis is perhaps on the cool headed attitude (3) or a lack of overreaction to these confrontations (4).

The key takeaway from these examples is that we must make an attempt to understand how the original readers of the text would have understood praútēs, the word often translated “gentleness” or “meekness.” It is not a passive “Clark Kent” unassuming mildness, instead it is a proactive personal virtue necessary to create a culture of community.

The Fruit of Gentleness (Gal 5:23; 6:1)

When Paul lays the vice list of the “works of the flesh” side by side with the virtue list of the “fruit of the Spirit,” he is outlining what freedom in Christ looks like. The realm of the flesh enslaves whether it be the Law of Moses or it be living exclusively by our natural conventions.

The realm controlled by the Spirit, provides freedom from such constraints. We are no longer bound by the Law (for the Jews) or our vice-filled conventions (for gentiles), but are lead by the Spirit to produce a new character (the fruit/outcome).

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:22–24

The character portrayed here gives us the content of the ethic of obligation. We are free in Christ to create a new creation, an Israel of God (Gal 6:15–16). This obligation has communal implications. God’s people are must look out for each other and hold each other accountable.

Paul moves quickly from “the fruit of the Spirit” to one example of application in Galatians 6:1 which has to do with restoration:

Brothers if anyone is caught in any transgression you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Galatians 6:1

I repeat what I said earlier, gentleness is part of a “big picture” character development necessary for the child of God. It must be pursued. When Christians are actively gentle its breeds unity, cooperation, and healing in the body of Christ. This fruit of the Spirit “enables the Christian to correct the erring brother without arrogance, impatience, or anger.”[9]

This fruit of the Spirit provides the gentleness and tolerance in the face of difficulties to do the better–often harder–thing.[10] Sometimes church discipline is practiced in such a punitive way that that permanent expulsion is the only outcome. We should meditate, however, on the following words,

Do not amputate [them], as a piece of gangrene flesh, from the church body, but so handle [them] as to restore [them]. Also do not do this in a proud, Pharisaical spirit.[11]

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Pendleton,
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916)

The process of restoration requires the connective tissue of a Spirit-led gentle community and a humble self-evaluation. J. Louis Martyn rounds out my thinking here:[12]

The restoration, then, is to be completely devoid of lasting stigma. It is to be carried out with the gentleness that is one of the marks of the Spirit-led community […] and also with circumspection. For, as the next clause indicates, all are subject to missteps. Indeed, because every member of the community […] is on the battlefront pictured in 5:17a, everyone is subject to the tempting power of the Flesh.

Galatians (2008)

Freedom and Obligation

Gentleness provides us with one virtue where the theology of freedom and the ethic of obligation are found in Christ is clearly illustrated. Here we conclude with a few examples.

• When church controversies occur that leave us upset, heart broken, or disheveled, God’s people are free in Christ to break from the destructive behaviors we were once bound to. Our obligation is to be gentle in the face of conflict with those that have hurt us and that we disagree with.
• When our society is embroiled in controversy and unrest, remember we have been liberated from any cultural tests of loyalty (political party, hashtag movements, etc.), because our obligation is to love our neighbor with cool-headedness and Christlike character.
• When we are tempted to act out in self-righteous anger, we are freed to acknowledge our own sins that God has forgiven, and can then look in the mirror to see that our commitment to the gospel obligates us to treat others with Spirit-led community.

Love is the obligated ethic of the Christian (Lev 19:18) and it is the proving ground of true discipleship (John 13:35):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)

By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

Gentleness is the method and shape of how we administer love during the various difficulties the Christian faces.

This means I must learn to do things differently. I must learn to be cool headed and kind when dealing with fallen Christians. I must learn to face the prospect of things out of my control with the balance of calmness and patience.

All of God’s people must learn to reflect the character of Jesus described by Isaiah in the following way:

a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20)

Endnotes

1. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 92.
2. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
3. Walter Russell, “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26,” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.
4. C. K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 70.
5. William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 112–14.
6. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 378.
7. Wayne Jackson, A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publication, 2011), 359.
8. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 152, 334.
9. Friedrich Hauck and Seigfried Schulz, “πραΰς, πραΰτης,” TDNT 6:650.
10. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (1953; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 208.
11. John W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916; repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950), 284.
12.  J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 547.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5:19–23. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962.

Barrett, Charles K. Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1985.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Hauck, Friedrich, and Seigfried Schulz. “πραΰς, πραΰτης.” TDNT 6:645–51.

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB. Vol. 33A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

McGarvey, John W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. 1916. Repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950.

Newman, Barclay M., Jr. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to he Churches of Galatia. NICNT. 1953. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Russell, Walter. “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26.” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.