Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 6:6 - 6:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_6:6. In contrast to the referring of every one to himself (Gal_6:4-5), there is now, by the κοινωνείτω δέ , which is therefore placed emphatically (in opposition to Hofmann) at the beginning, presented a fellowship of special importance to a man’s own perfection, which he must maintain: Fellowship, on the other hand, let him who is being instructed in the doctrine ( κατʼ ἐξοχήν , in the gospel; comp. 1Th_1:6; Php_1:14) have with the instructor[252] in all good (Gal_6:10), that is, let the disciple make common cause (endeavour and action) with his teacher in everything that is morally good. So, following Marcion (?) (in Jerome) and Lyra, in modern times Aug. Herm. Franke (in Wolf), who, however, improperly connects ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς with ΚΑΤΗΧΟῦΝΤΙ , Hennicke, de nexu loci Gal. vi. 1–10, Lips. 1788; Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. p. 70, Matthies, Schott, Keerl, Diss. de Gal. vi. 1–10, Heidelb. 1834, Trana, Jatho, Vömel, Matthias; also not disapproved by Winer. Usually, however (as by Winer, Rückert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others), there is found in the words a summons to liberality towards the teachers, so that ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς is taken as referring to the communication of everything good (Ewald), or more definitely, of all earthly good things (“in omni facultatum genere, ut usu venit,” Bengel), or of good things of every hind (Ellicott, Hofmann); and κοινωνείτω is taken either transitively (so usually, also by Ewald), as if the word were equivalent to κοινοῦν (as to the distinction between the two, see especially Thuc. i. 39. 3): communicet (which, however, cannot be conclusively established in the N.T., not even in Rom_12:13; and in the passages from Greek authors in Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, and Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 317, Goth, it is to be referred to the idea: “to share with any one”), or intransitively (so Usteri, de Wette, Wieseler): “let him stand in fellowship,” namely by communication, or in the sense of the participation in the teacher, which is perfected ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγ . (Hofmann, comparing Rom_15:27). But against the whole of this interpretation may be urged: (1) the singular want of connection of such a summons, not merely with what goes before,[253] but also with what follows,[254] wherein Paul inculcates Christian morality generally. (2) Since in Gal_6:1-5 moral faultiness was the point in question, the reference which most naturally suggests itself for ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς is a reference to moral good. (3) At the conclusion of this whole section in Gal_6:10, ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν κ . τ . λ ., τὸ ἀγαθόν is nothing else than the morally good. (4) The requirement itself, to communicate with the teacher in all good things, would, without more precise definition (Luther, 1538: Paul desires simply, “ut liberaliter eos alant, quantum satis est ad vitam commode tuendam,”—an idea which is not suggested in the passage), be so indeterminate and, even under the point of view of the possession as common property, Act_4:32 (de Wette), which we do not meet with in Paul’s writings, so little to be justified, that we cannot venture to attribute it—thus thrown out without any defining limitation—to the apostle, least of all in a letter addressed to churches in which misinterpretations and misuse on the part of antagonistic teachers were to he apprehended. Through the stress laid by Wieseler on the spiritual counter-service of the teacher (comp. also Hofmann), the expression ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς , seeing that it must always involve that which is to be given by the disciples to their teacher, is by no means reduced to its just measure (the bodily maintenance as recompense for the ΠΝΕΥΜΆΤΙΚΑ received, 1Co_9:11; Php_4:15); whilst Ewald’s interpretation, “communication in all good things,”[255] cannot be linguistically vindicated either for κοινων . or for ἘΝ (= á , according to Sprachl. p. 484 f.). Paul would have said perhaps: κοινὰ ποιείτω ὁ κ . τ . λ . τῷ κ . πάντα ἀγαθά , or something similar in correct Greek. The objection raised against our interpretation (see Rückert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler), that it is difficult to see why this particular relation of disciple and teacher should be brought into prominence, is obviated by the consideration that this very relation had been much disturbed among the Galatians by the influence of the pseudo-apostles (Gal_4:17), and this disturbance could not but be in the highest degree an obstacle to the success of their common moral effort and life. But in reference to de Wette’s objection that κοινωνεῖν , instead of μιμεῖσθαι , is a strange expression, it must be observed that Paul wished to express not at all the idea of μιμεῖσθαι , but only that of the Christian κοινωνία between disciple and teacher. The disciple is not to leave the sphere of the morally good to the teacher alone, and on his own part to busy himself in other interests and follow other ways; but he is to strive and work in common with his teacher in the same sphere. In this view, the expression is (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) neither too wide nor too narrow. Not too wide, because the sphere of moral good is one and the same for teachers and learners, and it is only the concrete application which is different. Not too narrow, because moral fellowship in Christian church-life finds its most effective lever in the fact that learner and teacher go hand in hand in all that is good.
ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον ] Comp. Act_18:25. It is self-evident that Paul means only the relation to true, Pauline teachers.
ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙΝ ἈΓΑΘΟῖς ] the sphere, in which common cause is made. Comp. Mat_23:30. A classical writer would say, πάντων ἀγαθῶν (Heb_2:14; Plat. Rep. p. 464 A; Soph. Trach. 543), or εἰς πάντα ἀγαθά (Plat. Rep. p. 453 A), or even ΠΕΡῚ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ἈΓ . (Polyb. xxxi. 26. 6). On the plural τὰ ἀγαθά , as applied to moral good, comp. Joh_5:29; Mat_12:35; Sir_11:31; Sir_17:7; Sir_39:4; Sir_13:25; and frequently in Greek authors. Paul might also have written ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ (Col_1:10); but ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς is more comprehensive. The dative τῷ κατηχ . is the dativus communionis everywhere common (Dem. 142, ult. 789. 2).
[252] The question, whether the persons here meant were permanent teachers of the church, or itinerant evangelists, is to be answered by saying that neither of these two kinds of teachers is excluded. For although at that time there were no διδάσκαλοι specially instituted except the presbyters (see on Eph_4:11), there were nevertheless members of the church endowed with the χάρισμα διδασκαλίας , who devoted themselves to the function of continuous instruction in their churches. Rom_12:7.
[253] The connection with what goes before might be dispensed with, for Paul might (through δέ ) have passed on to a fresh subject. Winer, indeed, conceives the connection to be: “cum vv. 4, 5 ea tetigisset, quae priva sibi quisque habere debeat, nunc ad haec descendere, quae cum aliis communicanda sunt” (comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.). But, with the precept of liberality towards teachers, so entirely alien to what goes before, this connection appears forced; and it would be better to forego any connecting link with what precedes (Rückert) than to bring out an illogical relation of the contrast. De Wette discovers a satisfactory connection with vv. 1–5 in the circumstance that there, as here, the apostle has in view defects of Christian social life. This, however, is to specify not a connection, but merely a logical category. According to Ewald, the previous counsels are to be conceived as for the most part addressed to the Pauline teachers of the Galatians, and Paul therefore now adds a word as to the correct behaviour of the non-teachers also. But the former idea is assumed without ground in the text, which speaks quite generally. According to Wieseler the conception is, that the care for worldly maintenance was a species of the βάρη (ver. 2), which the readers were to relieve them of in return for their being instructed in the word. But those βάρη are necessarily of a moral nature, burdens of guilt. According to Hofmann, Paul has previously exhorted every one to serve his neighbour with that which he is, and now exhorts every one to employ that which he possesses, as his Christian position requires. A scheme of thought purely artificial, and gratuitously introduced.
[254] The sequel down to ver. 10 is indeed referred by Luther (most consistently in 1538) and others, including Olshausen and de Wette, with more or with less (Koppe, de Wette, Hilgenfeld) consistency, to the behaviour towards the teachers, by the despising of whom God is mocked, the support of whom is a sowing of seed for spiritual objects, etc. But looking at the general nature of the following instructions, which there is not a word to limit, how arbitrary and forced is this view! Not less far-fetched and forced is the explanation of Hofmann, who considers that, because by means of the κοινωνεῖν κ . τ . λ . the teacher is enabled to attend to his own business, Paul in vv. 7 ff. warns against the erroneous opinion that people might, without danger to the soul, deal lightly with that κοινωνεῖν κ . τ . λ .; that by means of this κοινωνεῖν people devote that which they possess to the Spirit, etc.
[255] Comp. Grotius: “per omnes res bonas, i. e. non per alimenta tantum, sed et alia obsequia et officia.”