Given the relational mess in Galatia, where people were in danger of "devouring one another" (Paul's phrase), Paul's letter to the Galatian community of Christians is understandably strong and hard hitting. He is angry, anxious, stressed out and seriously upset at the possibility the Galatian Christians will give up their freedom in Christ, start playing the safe game of rule-keeping and never learn the call of God to walk in freedom, be constantly led by and faithfully keep in step with the Holy Spirit, who purs the love of God into their hearts and calls to the risks of commitment and transformational discipleship.
Paul has no hesitation in using every rhetorical trick in the book, has no compunction about using arguments that are manipulative, persuasive, adversative and at times downright dogmatically assertive. At the same time his genuine concern for them, and for the truth of the Gospel of Jesus is couched in language of approach, with invitation to dialogue, but not to negotiation if that means compromise on the central principle of their faith in the faithfulness of Jesus, to empower, enable and ensure their freedom in Christ to live for God in the power of the Spirit.
It's against that background that we come across Galatians 5.22-23, that cluster of virtues called the fruit of the Spirit. Love, joy, peace,patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control. Having enumerated earlier in chapter 5.16-21, and in graphic detail, the works of the flesh, and described the chaotic, destructive impulses that drive ambition, selfishness and uncontrolled egotism, he contrasts these with the fruit of the Spirit. And while each virtue refers to individual character and personal transformation, Paul is writing not to an aggregate of individual, but to a troubled community. The Fruit of the Spirit is communal as well as individual, social as much as personal, describes the ethos of the community as well as the inner climate of the individual.
These nine virtues, together the fruit of the Spirit, are not exhaustive. Paul lists precisely the virtues of Christlikeness that most fully contradict the in-fighting, factionalism, relational breakdown, competitive rivalry, nasty back-biting, self-righteous condemning, habitual hostility and serial offensiveness of people so sure of their own rightness they have no idea how wrong they are. Pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, anger and the desire for payback are forms of blindness to the other, and of deafness to the words and the heart of the other.
By contrast the fruit of the Spirit describes a disposition that is open, receptive, courteous, kenotic, disciplined by love, focused on peace, respectful of otherness, community building, relationally healing, intentionally generous, assuming the best, utilising an hermeneutic of trust rather than an hermeneutic of suspicion, and in all these senses, Christlike. Because only the one who can say Galatians 2.20:
"I have been crucified with Christ. I n o longer live, but Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me".
And when that life is lived in us the fruit of the Spirit of Christ is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control. And as Paul says, no law achieves that, only the transformative presence of the crucified and risen Christ, active in the world, the church and our lives.
Going into 2014, the ninefold fruit of the Spirit would be a powerful and enlightening set of key performance indicators in a healthy church - how far are these Christlike dispositions evident in the ethos of the community, the inner climate of those who call themselves the people of God?
Lost in Translation: Ephesians 1.11
Language is a funny thing - and a very serious thing. Words never convey exactly 'the thing in itself'. But then if two people use the same word, it will resonate with different tones and notes depending on experience, personal usage, accepted meaning and much else. It gets more complex translating words into another language where none of the foregoing can be assumed, and where questions of accuracy oscillate between literal and dynamic equivalents. Add to that a gap of two thousand years and a cultural gulf between Greco-Roman and Postmodern Western civilisations and ways of life, and translation becomes pure dead complicated. (Pure dead is a compound adjective used in the West of Scotland for 'very', as in its phonetic use puredeadbrilliant) Oh, and by the way, I have a friend who also uses the term 'pure disgrace' as his ultimate term of moral opprobrium by oxymoron.
Anyway, I was reading Stephen Fowl's commentary on Ephesians, and his translation of verse 11a. I'm used to the phrase, 'In Christ we have an inheritance....' Fowl translates 'In Christ we have an allottment...'. a long footnote justifies this choice of word because 'it does not invoke the image of passing on property through death.' The commentary explains this further, quite persuasively. However. Language is a funny thing. The word 'allottment' may not invoke the inheritance theme, but to one brought up in the West of Scotland it certainly evokes the image of a fertile vegetable allottment. Those collective squares of quilted horticulture, 10 metres square or so, have been so important in staving off starvation, and then during the two World Wars providing fresh produce, and now husbanded by many an amateur gardener. You can read the history of the British Allottment movement here. Of course land development has bulldozed over many of them, to build yet more business opportunities. But the word allottment is still a powerfully evocative word for soil cultivation, food production and many a productive hour of gentle labour.
I will forego the children's talk formula, "That's a bit like Jesus.... In Jesus we have an allottment." But I think I'll have to retrain my mind if I'm to manage to read this verse in Fowl's translation without the extraneous connotations of something entirely different. Which of course is one of the major headaches for a translator - what seems fitting and appropriate to one mind, seems strange to another, because, well, words do not contain all the resonances and associations from one mind to another. Stephen Fowl in Baltimore, Maryland, cannot possibly be expected to know that his chosen word when heard by Scottish ears evokes very different images.
That aside, I think Fowl's commentary is puredeadbrilliant. :))
The photo of allottments is by Kate Davies whose own blog you can find here. I hope you don't mind its reproduction here Kate.
Posted at 10:14 AM in Bible Commentaries, The text as critic | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)