Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.
Galatians 6:6
There is one other
passage of Scripture that is claimed as authority for the payment to teachers
of a salary by the congregation taught. Because a salary is a "good
thing," therefore Paul enjoins amongst other "good things" the giving
of a salary, contracted for, arranged and understood beforehand; so that, if it
is not given afterward willingly, it can be forced by law. It does not
matter to some people how interpretations represent one Apostle to contradict
another, or even the same Apostle to contradict himself, so long as a point is
gained or an argument apparently answered. The "Harmony of the
Gospels" has been a fruitful theme, and has exhausted much learning in
establishing the fact that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
harmonize. A very useful work might be written in answer to those who
claim to be friendly to apostolic inspiration, but who have misrepresented them
by erroneous translations or interpretations of the apostolic teaching, and
have made one Apostle appear at variance with another, or an Apostle at times
at variance with himself. This ought to be avoided. That kind of
interpretation and translation has encouraged sceptical tendencies, and is the
last thing the friends of truth ought to be guilty of.
The passage referred
to is Gal. 6:6: "Let him that is taught in the word communicate with him
that teacheth in all good things." We would translate as follows:
"Let him that is taught in the word participate with the teacher in every
good work." There are two important words different in
these translations. The word "communicate" changed to
"participate," and the word "things" to
"work." The word "participate" represents koinoneito in
the original. The word "things" stands for no distinct word in
the original. Agathois is translated "good things"
in the Common Version. I translate it "good works."
Now, if this
passage is held to mean, as is commonly claimed, that the person taught is to
pay his teacher, then Paul contradicts himself when it is compared with Acts
20.35; and Paul contradicts Peter, who wrote also to the Galatians (1 Peter
1.1), when this is compared with 1 Peter 5.3. Such a result should be a
reminder that something is wrong somewhere; not in the Apostles
certainly. Where then? Why in the Apostle's translator or
interpreter! The translation we present makes everything and every person
harmonize; and it is also in harmony with the context, and all other
Scripture. Koinoneo is "to have a thing in common,
have a share of a thing with another, to take part in a thing, to go shares
with, have dealings with a man"--to do an act in common with another.
Participate is a better translation in this place than
"sharing" would be, and exactly represents the original. It is
not "sharing" when one gives one thing, and another some other thing
in return as an equivalent. When two or more jointly and unitedly give,
they "share" in giving; when two or more jointly or unitedly receive,
they "share" in receiving; but when one "gives," and
another "receives" what is given, and at the same time the giver
becomes a receiver of something as an equivalent, then it is not sharing in
giving or receiving, for each does only one thing relating to one subject; but
in sharing, two or more persons are joint in one action, do the same thing, and
for one and a common object or purpose.
The word translated
in the Common Version "communicate" has two ideas resulting from its
use--based always on the ground idea of "sharing;" one is to
"participate," the other is to "contribute;" both always in
common. The participation is a common or united partaking, and the
contribution is a common or united giving. The context has to determine
which word is to be used, depending on whether something is bestowed or
something is received, enjoyed, or participated in. If the taught is to
"share" with the teacher "in all good," not
"of all good," the teacher is to contribute his
"share" as well as the taught, and the idea commonly attached is
reversed or modified. To say the taught is to "contribute"
"in all good" is not very sensible; but to say that the
taught is to "participate" "in all good" is
quite reasonable and in harmony with the context. The original word is in
the Common Version translated distributing (Rom. 12.13) and
once communicated (Phil 4.15). In all other instances it
is partakers (Rom. 15.27; 1 Tim. 5.22; Heb. 2.14, 1 Peter
4.13; 2 John 11).
The other word is
"good," something which must also be determined by
the context. The context in this instance is "burdens," verse
2; "work," verse 4; "burden," verse 5; "doing
well," verse 9; and "do good" (agathon), verse 10.
"Agathos, good; since agathos merely denotes good
in its kind, it serves as an epithet to all sorts of nouns, as
opposed to kakos, bad in its kind. In Homer,
usually persons, especially with the action of brave. Hence
it became the usual epithet of heroes, and later was used pretty nearly equal
to noble, opposed to base, ignoble.
But in Attic, more usually in moral signification, good, virtuous."
The words are en pasin agathois; "in all good," not
"of all good." The translator, with the view of
supplying the noun to which the word agathois "serves
as an epithet," should look to the context and not to his imagination; and
the natural world to supply is "works," and not
"things." It is "work"--"doing" something
that is spoken of--which is in fact the governing idea both before and after,
and should therefore be supplied. Is it better to say "do (agathois)
good" things, or to say "do good works"? Hence the person
taught is not to let the teacher do all the good; but he is to share or
participate with the teacher "in every good work."
The common idea is
foreign to the subject and the context, and the text is made to do duty in
supporting a practice otherwise plainly condemned in the Scriptures. The
form of the word is not agatha, but agathois. The
words ta agatha, as a technical expression, are explained to mean
"the goods of fortune, wealth, advantages," or "good fare,
dainties." Ta agatha are said to mean "good
things" (Parkhurst). Literally, ta agatha means
"the goods." The article ta makes all the
difference in that connection; like the article hoi in hoi
polloi, or the English article the, in "the deep,"
when we intend to express sea or ocean, by that form of words; but without the
article the it would simply be "deep" something, to
be determined by the context, as polloi without the hoi would
simply be "many" something, not the technical expression "the many,"
the crowd, the multitude.
Let the reader turn
to Gal. 6.10, and read it with "things" or "works" or
"deeds," and see which would make the better sense. Turn also
to Luke 12.18, for an instance of ta agatha; and see if the words,
as well as the context, do not settle their meaning. "I will pull
down my barns and I will build larger ones; and there I will store all my
produce, and my good things."
Turn also to Matt. 12.34, where we have agatha without
the ta, and say whether it can be there translated
"benefits" or "goods of fortune," or, strictly speaking,
even "good things." Is it not accurate to say, "How can
you, being evil, speak good words"? Words are
what are spoken. "Ideas" are expressed by words; or even
"thoughts" would be a more appropriate term than "things"
to supply, because of the context. We have the very word (agathois)
under discussion in 1 Peter 2.18: "Let servants be subject to their
masters with all respect, not only to the (agathois) good (things)
and gentle, but also to the perverse." How perverse it would be to
insist on "things" being supplied instead of "masters," the
subject of observation as shown by the context! One translator
translates: "Let him that is instructed in the word share with his
instructor in all good things" (Anderson). Does that not enjoin on
the teacher the obligation to allow the taught to "share" with him
"in all good things," or "in all good things" which the
teacher possesses?
But if it is said:
"Let him that is instructed in the word share with the teacher in all good
works," is it not intelligent and intelligible? That is, the teacher
should not be asked to do all the "good work," and the taught do
nothing; but the person taught should unite with the teacher, or participate
with him "in every good work," and not throw all the labour or burden
on "visiting the widows and fatherless in their afflictions," or in
visiting the sick, the needy and distressed in general, on the teacher's
shoulders, but the taught ones should do their share, should work in common in
this service, and not leave one, and that one the teacher, to do all.
This is largely the practice of modern times. The people pay a man to
teach them, and he is expected also to do nearly "every good work"
besides: except raise the money to pay himself. Even that work has to be
done by the poor pastor at times. Read carefully the first ten verses of
Gal. 6, with this translation included, and judge whether it does not better
suit the surroundings than the old one. The words, however, expressing
the injunction are to determine what it means; and do they not, as we have been
at pains to show, clearly express a law different from one to support
teachers. We think they do; and doing so, they are in harmony with all
other Scripture. But "all good things" cannot be said to mean
money only; although Solomon says "money answereth all things."
The taught ones ought to reciprocate, and amongst the "good things"
given to the teacher, give him the lessons we have ascertained the Scriptures
teach on this important subject. They cannot do better.
--James Beaty, Paying the Pastor: Traditional and Unscriptural, p.75-80
--James Beaty, Paying the Pastor: Traditional and Unscriptural, p.75-80