How to Reconcile Jesus and Spiritual Fruit

[Sudsy]

I think most of us would agree that Jesus was filled with the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit was obvious in His ministry. However, when I look at the list of the fruit of the Spirit given in Gal 5:22-23 - 'But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.' it can be more challenging to reconcile these descriptions of the fruit with how He responded to some circumstances.

There are many things Jesus said and did that, to me, are quite obvious that one or more descriptions of this fruit is evident. But then there are others where it can appear as contradictory even though I believe they can't be.

For instance, when Jesus called out the Pharisees on their religious ways, it does not appear to me to be very gentle. Or when Jesus chased people out of the temple area with a whip, is not too gentle or having self-control. So, my understandings of just how the fruit of the Spirit will be manifested in those who follow Jesus can be wrong or just not quite rightly understood.

I won't go further and give any of my own thoughts on this right now and welcome everyone's input on how they reconcile the description of the fruit of the Spirit with how Jesus responded and if we can be Spirit filled believers and respond as He did ?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

A common observation I like to correct is the claim that Jesus' cleansing of the temple showed a lack of self control or was an example of reactionary anger. In fact, it was measured, collected, thought through. Why do I say this? In one gospel account (I believe it is Mark) we are told that Jesus actually went to the temple, loomed around and left. He didn't go back to drive out the money changers until the next day. He gave himself at least a full 12 hours to consider the situation and sleep on it before he acted.

Was it gentle? No, I am not gonna even try to argue that, lol. But I think there's a case to be made that he exercised self control in that situation. It might seem extreme, but i think it was a measured response.

[MaxPC]

Reading John 2 it seems to me that the prophecy regarding Jesus' character (Psalm 69:9) is part and parcel of the entire episode:

And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for thy house will consume me.”

Prophecy that describes the Messiah (so that he may be recognised) is, in my opinion, consistent with Jesus' Fruits. He exhibited a healthy zeal for the Lord as a part of those gifts.

[Sudsy]

A common observation I like to correct is the claim that Jesus' cleansing of the temple showed a lack of self control or was an example of reactionary anger. In fact, it was measured, collected, thought through. Why do I say this? In one gospel account (I believe it is Mark) we are told that Jesus actually went to the temple, loomed around and left. He didn't go back to drive out the money changers until the next day. He gave himself at least a full 12 hours to consider the situation and sleep on it before he acted.

Was it gentle? No, I am not gonna even try to argue that, lol. But I think there's a case to be made that he exercised self control in that situation. It might seem extreme, but i think it was a measured response.

This is an interesting story and I wonder what Jesus might do in our churches today to return it to a 'house of prayer'. When I was a youngster our church was very keen on prayer times. There was even two nights of the week that were dedicated to prayer meetings. Even before and after prayer services were quite common in the Pentecostal church in those days. I remember Sunday morning services especially were given times of prayer during the service where we knelt and prayed sometimes for an hour or so as various people in the congregation would lead in prayer.

My guess is that Jesus might overthrow some of what is commonly done today as 'church services' especially those things that may appear as more entertainments of sorts.

But regarding this being 'gentle'. I really doubt those he drove out of the temple and perhaps the animals did not think He was being very gentle. Perhaps the main manifestation that stood out in this action was 'goodness' from a pure heart to correct the ways which were not good.

With that said, is it possible that not all of these manifestations of the fruit of the Spirit need be active at the same time but rather one or more of these manifestations will be evident when being led by the Spirit and all of these will be evident when the situation requires ?

[ohio jones]

I was listening to a podcast today that mentioned the cleansing of the temple, and quoted R.C. Sproul. I don't generally pay much attention to Sproul, but I think he has a point in the discussion of Mark 11.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... ent-temple (emphasis added)

... the Lord established His covenant with the Israelites in order to finally expand the covenant community to include people from all nations. This intent is implicit in God's call to Abraham and promise to bless the nations through the patriarch (Gen. 12:1–3). We also see in Isaiah 56:1–8 God's desire for even the Gentiles to be counted among His people. Isaiah foresees a day when foreigners to Israel will join themselves to the nation and worship the Lord. Like the Jews, they will pray in the temple, which will be "a house of prayer for all peoples" (v. 7).

Among the other failures of the Lord's old covenant people was that as a whole, they never fulfilled their call to reach the Gentiles and invite them to worship the one, true God. In the first century, the Jerusalem temple did have a court of the Gentiles that measured some thirty-five acres where non-Jews could come and pray to Yahweh, the God of Israel. However, the Gentiles were not really welcome there. The popular Jewish mind-set hoped that the Messiah would cleanse the temple of all Gentiles. Moreover, when the Gentiles came to the court of the Gentiles in first-century Jerusalem, there was no welcome awaiting them. Instead, the court was filled with merchants who sold animals for worshipers to bring as sacrifices and money changers who exchanged Roman coins for shekels that had no image of the emperor on them and thus were fit for payment of the temple tax. That is the scene described in today's passage.

Josephus, the famous first-century Jewish historian, reports that 255,600 lambs were sacrificed during the Passover, which gives us a good idea of the scale of the merchants' operation in the temple. There really was no place there for Gentiles to worship the Lord. Seeing this, Jesus drove the merchants and money changers out of the temple. They had no business conducting their business in that place and violating God's design for the Gentiles to pray there (Mark 11:15–17). Jesus used judgment language, calling the place a "den of robbers" (v. 18), giving us another enacted parable of judgment (see vv. 12–14). The worship of the people and their leaders was thoroughly corrupted, and Jesus was going to cleanse it.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I'm not sure Jesus' ire in the temple can be used to gauge his reaction to modern prayer-meeting practices or worship gatherings. It seems specifically leveled at the fact that merchants had come into the house of God. God's presence is defined by grace (giving without recieving anything in return), while the merchants had "turned it into a house of trade" (giving only with the explicit expectation to receive something in return).

Although trade is the most common form of human commerce, it isn't the ideal God wants for his followers, especially when it has to do with direct dealing with God. "You have received without payment; now give pay" Jesus tells his disciples. Also: "What good is it to lend expecting repayment? Even sinners lend to sinner expecting the same amount in return. But give you those who would ask of you; give, and expect nothing in return."
God's grace should be the defining feature of his presence here on Earth, in the person of Jesus, in his temple, in his church, etc. Although "trade" (giving with the expectation of receiving in return) isn't the same as theft (taking without permission and without giving anything in return), Jesus compares the merchant turning the temple into a "house of trade" to theft by also calling it a "den of robbers". That's how badly God's grace is distorted when we don't reflect it in all ways that we relate to him.

[Sudsy]

I'm not sure Jesus' ire in the temple can be used to gauge his reaction to modern prayer-meeting practices or worship gatherings. It seems specifically leveled at the fact that merchants had come into the house of God. God's presence is defined by grace (giving without recieving anything in return), while the merchants had "turned it into a house of trade" (giving only with the explicit expectation to receive something in return).

Although trade is the most common form of human commerce, it isn't the ideal God wants for his followers, especially when it has to do with direct dealing with God. "You have received without payment; now give pay" Jesus tells his disciples. Also: "What good is it to lend expecting repayment? Even sinners lend to sinner expecting the same amount in return. But give you those who would ask of you; give, and expect nothing in return."
God's grace should be the defining feature of his presence here on Earth, in the person of Jesus, in his temple, in his church, etc. Although "trade" (giving with the expectation of receiving in return) isn't the same as theft (taking without permission and without giving anything in return), Jesus compares the merchant turning the temple into a "house of trade" to theft by also calling it a "den of robbers". That's how badly God's grace is distorted when we don't reflect it in all ways that we relate to him.

Yes, I side-tracked when I read His reply to it being a 'house of prayer'. Perhaps I will start a new thread regarding that and the use of the 'Lord's Prayer' (or Disciples Prayer) in our churches.

What Spiritual Fruit do you see as active from the Gal 5 list of fruit manifestations when Jesus drove them out ? And does this example give room for a Jesus follower to physically resist evil doings in a similar way with force ?

[barnhart]

Sudsy, one reason I am slow to admit Jesus needs to reconcile with the fruit of the spirit is suspicion around the motives of the questioner. It didn't take long for your purpose to be revealed.

[Heirbyadoption]

And does this example give room for a Jesus follower to physically resist evil doings in a similar way with force ?

Sudsy, maybe what Barnhart meant to say is, "your speech betrayeth thee..."

Serious answer though: no. Speaking from a simplistic (and admittedly Anabaptist) hermeneutic here, what Gal 5 fruit Jesus did or did not manifest there in the temple is irrelevant to this last question. In His Divine identity, Jesus had full authority to exercise in ways He has forbidden His followers to engage in (and looking at the text itself, whether he used physical force against anything more animals and furniture is speculative at best...).

Perhaps a simple example for clarity - If I tell my 7 year old child he cannot drive a truck on the Interstate, because I know the harmful effects his lack of experience and inability to handle the situation could/would create, is he then justified to defy my instructions on the basis that I drive a truck on the Interstate (being both authorized and able to control that which he is not and cannot? Obviously not.

I realize there may be some disagreement on whether the followers of Jesus are forbidden (whether by Jesus directly or through Spirit-led Apostolic teaching) from using physical force to resist evil doings, and that's a post or three in their own right, but we should at least try to be consistent in our logic, yes...?

[Sudsy]

And does this example give room for a Jesus follower to physically resist evil doings in a similar way with force ?

Sudsy, maybe what Barnhart meant to say is, "your speech betrayeth thee..."

Serious answer though: no. Speaking from a simplistic (and admittedly Anabaptist) hermeneutic here, what Gal 5 fruit Jesus did or did not manifest there in the temple is irrelevant to this last question. In His Divine identity, Jesus had full authority to exercise in ways He has forbidden His followers to engage in (and looking at the text itself, whether he used physical force against anything more animals and furniture is speculative at best...).

Perhaps a simple example for clarity - If I tell my 7 year old child he cannot drive a truck on the Interstate, because I know the harmful effects his lack of experience and inability to handle the situation could/would create, is he then justified to defy my instructions on the basis that I drive a truck on the Interstate (being both authorized and able to control that which he is not and cannot? Obviously not.

I realize there may be some disagreement on whether the followers of Jesus are forbidden (whether by Jesus directly or through Spirit-led Apostolic teaching) from using physical force to resist evil doings, and that's a post or three in their own right, but we should at least try to be consistent in our logic, yes...?

Thankyou for your reply. What I was thinking when I asked that question was just how certain actions of Jesus could be explained and related to the fruit of the Sprit. I also used an example in my opening post of Jesus way of speaking to the Pharisees as not appearing very gentle which is one of these descriptions of Spiritual fruit.

I was hoping we could compare and try to explain how Jesus ways can be seen as fruit of the Spirit as we know He was filled with the Spirit and His actions would be in tune with the Spirit and whether we can act in a similar way. You gave your view saying 'In His Divine identity, Jesus had full authority to exercise in ways He has forbidden His followers to engage in (and looking at the text itself, whether he used physical force against anything more animals and furniture is speculative at best...)'. So, if I understand you correctly, Jesus is our example but not in certain ways that He acted as He was Divine and we are not, right ?

I guess I was perceived by what I asked to be challenging nonresistance and this was some way of doing that. I can only say God knows what I was really looking for and my real purpose. What others read into my motives I can't do much about.