Galatians & Giving (part 1)

Now the one who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with the one who teaches it. – Galatians 6:6  (NET)

The sixth verse of the sixth chapter of Galatians.  It is a verse that has been held up as the basis for giving to one’s church, or specifically, one’s pastor.  More than that, it has been used as a veritable theological brickbat for many years, and by many people, justifying the demand that Christians pay the people that instruct them in the Christian faith, presuming that this was the Apostle Paul’s demand as well.  More than that, verse seven is brought into play, adding the insistence “Do not be deceived.  God will not be made a fool.  For a person will reap what he sows” (6:7), and presumably, if one gives to his or her pastor, thereby demonstrating a respect for the teaching of the word, that said person is one “who sows to the Spirit,” and therefore, “will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (6:8b).  Alternatively, if a person does not give to their teacher, presumably disrespecting the teaching of the word and the man (or woman) of God that delivers it, that person “sows to his own flesh,” and will therefore “reap corruption from the flesh” (6:8a). 

Inevitably, verse nine is brought into play, insisting that even in times of struggle, when it may seem difficult to tithe or to give in any way, “we must not grow weary in doing good, for in due time we will reap, if we do not give up” (6:9).  The fact that this is the language of public benefaction is usually ignored, even though Paul follows up with “So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith” (6:10).  Some even use the language of verse ten to justify giving exclusively within one’s particular congregation, putting undue weight on the “especially” of the verse, while allowing “let us do good to all people” fall to the wayside. 

While it is undeniable that Paul is here insisting that respect be given to those who offer instruction in the words of faith, what is also undeniable is that he writes to a congregation that does not at all reflect the type of church structure with which we are all familiar.  In this congregation, existing very early in the era of the church, there would be no particular pastor who was primarily responsible for the instruction of the congregation.  Teaching would most definitely not have taken place in a setting with which most of us are familiar, which is a setting in which a single person, usually the same person week in and week out (with the occasional guest speaker or associate pastor mixed in) stands at the head of a gathered crowd, with said crowd dutifully listening to the instruction week in and week out, nodding their heads in agreement and offering up the occasional “amen” in support of the teacher’s assertions.  Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with such a setting, and it must be said that the setting to which the vast majority of Christendom has grown accustomed has served the church of Christ relatively well.  It is simply to say that this is not the setting into which Paul wrote, or which he would have had in mind as he wrote. 

The setting into which Paul wrote, and in which his letter would be read aloud to the assembled congregation, would be that of a meal.  Paul makes clear the primacy of the meal table in his dealings with the Galatian church, utilizing the example of his experience in Antioch because it would most likely resound with them.  Hearing Paul’s letter read to them while they were at their standard gathering around the meal table would heighten the sensitivity to the issues that he is addressing in this church---with their giving practices being ancillary to the larger issues at hand.  Surely, we cannot imagine Paul employing an example that had no bearing on the issue with which he deals in this letter to the church of Galatia. 

In the second chapter, Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision” (2:11-12).  As was the case at Antioch, this church must have been failing to come together at an undivided meal table, as they continued to recognize the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, and therefore allowing for the upholding of the covenantal markers of Judaism (dietary laws denoting clean and unclean, circumcision, and Sabbath-keeping).  Paul saw this as highly problematic and will use the dichotomy to make his points concerning what is meant by justification.  More on this anon. 

We need to spend a bit more time recognizing the structure of the church’s gathering.  In their adherence to the Jesus tradition, and very much in tune with prevailing custom and culture, the earliest Christian assemblies were centered on the meal table.  In this respect, they would have looked very much like the familiar associations of the day.  The major difference for the Christians would be (or ideally, should be) the fact that the table was not stratified according to the social order of honor and shame.  There was to be no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor, but all were to share equally in status at the table and in the food and wine that was available for consumption.  Paul calls the Corinthian church to account for their failure to live out the model of the meal demonstrated by Jesus, pointing out their failure to have all at the table share in the same food and drink, in both quantity and quality. 

This shared meal would consist of two parts, the first of which was the deipnon, the second part of which was the symposium.  The deipnon is where the meal would be shared and where bread would be broken.  At the close of the deipnon, a libation would be presented in honor of the god of the association.  For the Christians, who were those who looked to Jesus as King rather than Caesar (the Caesareans), the libation would be presented, poured out, or consumed in honor of Jesus (think of Jesus and His taking of the cup “after supper”).  With this portion of the meal complete, they would move on to the symposium.  The symposium was the part of the event of the meal in which discussions were to be had, songs could be sung, people could speak in tongues, messages could be delivered, etc…  We see Paul speaking to this situation in the first letter to Corinth. 

He writes “When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation.  Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church” (14:26b).  He goes on to offer some helpful guidelines for how the symposium should be conducted, but at no point can we insert any ideas of a single person always presiding over the service or being the primary, regular teacher in the mold of our current conceptions of a pastor.  All were to be equal participants, and in fact, it was most likely the case, in accordance with standard association customs in those days, that the presidency of the meal (the one who presided over the meal) was a shared responsibility, rotating amongst the members of the group.  We can imagine that this would be even more prevalent in the churches, especially as they were to prefer one another and serve one another in a spirit of humility with a consciousness of the cross of Christ, so that one person could never be in a position to dominate another or dominate the group.