CHAPTER 3

Message 1: You’re the kind of person who makes gifts like this!

The Biblical Fundraiser in Ancient Words · The Historical Ministry of Major Gifts Fundraising

Biblical fundraising starts with the donor’s past and continuing identity: They will give because of who they are.
Ordinary fundraising starts with the charity’s identity: They’re supposed to give because of who we are.

1 Timothy 6:17-19, “Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to set their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy [. Instruct them] to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.”^⁹⁰

Language problems

In English, 1 Timothy 6:17 can read like an attack. It can read like an accusation. It’s as if the idea is to yell,

“Hey, you! Rich guy. Stop being conceited! And stop setting your hope on riches! Repent! Change your life. Start setting your hope on God instead.”

That sure set him straight! Mission accomplished, right? Actually, no. There are two problems with this approach. First, it doesn’t work. Second, it doesn’t match scripture.

We already know it doesn’t work. Don’t believe it? OK. Try opening with that approach the next time you’re talking with a major gift prospect. See what happens. That conversation probably won’t end well. It certainly won’t end with a large gift. That’s not how it works. No successful donor conversations start this way.

So, if it doesn’t work, why does scripture tell us to do it? Simple answer: It doesn’t. The actual message of scripture is very different. It communicates a very different idea. It delivers the single most powerful message in major gift fundraising. That message is this:

“You are the kind of person who makes gifts like this.”

To see this, let’s start with the words from scripture.

Not an accusation: We’re all in this together

This message begins with “not to be conceited.” The phrase is mē hypsēlophronein. Literally, this is “not” [mē] “high-minded” [hypsēlo-phronein].^⁹¹ This can sound like an accusation. It can sound like it’s singling out the rich for condemnation. It’s not.

Paul says the same thing to everyone. But it can feel different when it’s about “us,” not “them.” He writes in Romans 12:3,

“I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself [mē hyperphronein] than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.”

The message to rich Christians is mē hypsēlo-phronein. The message to all Christians is mē hyper-phronein. Hypsēlo- means “high.” Hyper- means “high.” Both hypsēlophronein and hyperphronein are present active infinitives. Both mean “high-minded.”

It’s the same message. When Paul directs it towards us, it feels like good advice. When we get to tell it to the rich, it feels more fun to turn it into an attack. It’s not an attack.

Romans 12 describes how our identity motivates our sharing. 1 Timothy 6:17-18 describes how their identity motivates their sharing. Both encourage sharing. Both begin with the same identity statement: “not high-minded.”

The parallels continue. Next, both discuss the source of what we will share. Timothy is to instruct about

“God, who richly supplies us with all things” (1 Timothy 6:17b).

Each of us is richly supplied, just in different ways. Romans 12 makes the same point. It says,

“However, since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us” (Romans 12:3a)⁹²

We all get different things. God provides these different things for a reason. The reason is

“to enjoy: to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share” (1 Timothy 6:17b-18).

Regardless of what God has richly supplied us with, we can use it in these ways. We can enjoy it by using it to do good. Sharing wealth is just one example among many. Romans 12 makes the same point. It says,

“each of us is to use them properly: if prophecy, in proportion to one’s faith; if service, in the act of serving; or the one who teaches, in the act of teaching; or the one who exhorts, in the work of exhortation; the one who gives, with generosity; the one who is in leadership, with diligence; the one who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.” (Romans 12:6-8).

1 Timothy 6:18 ends with einai koinōnikous. Einai is the “I am” verb. It’s an identity statement. Being koinōnikous is being a sharer with the koinōnia, the fellowship community. We share as part of the body. The message in Romans 12 is the same.

“For just as we have many parts in one body and all the body’s parts do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually parts of one another.” (Romans 12:4).

1 Timothy 6:17-18 parallels Romans 12:3-8. We share because of who we are. We are not “above” or separated from the fellowship community. We are not high-minded. We are not hypsēlo-phronein. We are not hyper-phronein. We share because we are bound together. We are different parts of the same body.

The message to the rich is not an attempt to attack. It’s an attempt to embrace. It’s not separating [diekrithēte] the rich from the poor in the fellowship community as James warns against.⁹³ It’s connecting the rich more strongly into that fellowship community [koinōnia] through sharing [koinōnikous].

Paul’s message is not attacking rich Christians as being different. It’s showing that they’re the same. We’ve all been richly blessed, just in diverse ways. And we’re all doing the same thing with it. We’re all sharing together. We’re all sharing because we’re not separated from or “above” the fellowship community. We’re all parts of the same body.

Stop doing this, don’t do this, or continue not doing this?

This is not an attack on the rich. It’s encouraging them. These Christians are to continue their already in-progress, ongoing process of being not high-minded. To understand this, let’s look at some grammar.

The phrase is “not [mē] to be high-minded [hypsēlophronein]”. Hypsēlophronein is a present infinitive. The present infinitive references an in-progress, continuing process. One text explains,

“The present infinitive … pictures the action expressed by the verb as being in progress.”^⁹⁴

The present tense represents an in-progress, continuing event. Mē (not) negates the verb. This combination can mean

Stop continuing to do this. (Negative presumption)
Continue to not do this. (Positive presumption)
Don’t do this. (Permits positive, negative, or neutral presumption)

For example, Professor A. T. Robertson gives two translation options for mē with the present imperative as, “‘continue not doing,’ or ‘do not continue doing.’”^⁹⁵ Professor Andrea Taschl-Erber explains all three options in more technical terms:

“Since the present stem in the Greek verbal system expresses continuous, linear (or iterated) action, this durative (or iterative) Aktionsart also has to be taken into account with regard to present imperatives. Accordingly, a prohibition (with the prohibitive particle mē) could be paraphrased as follows:

Do not be acting in this way. Here it is left open whether the action is already underway or not. The prohibition therefore can mean
continue not being[/]acting in this way, or
do not keep on acting in this way, stop acting in this way (if the action has already begun).

(2) Be (or keep) not-acting in this way.”⁹⁶

Thus, there are three options for mē + the present tense. “Continue not acting in this way” has a positive presumption. “Stop acting this way” has a negative presumption. “Do not be acting in this way” allows a positive, negative, or neutral presumption.

Example translations using “do not” without a negative presumption read,

“Tell people who are rich at this time not to become egotistical” (1 Timothy 6:17). ⁹⁷

Or,

“1 Timothy 6:17: ‘To those endowed with the riches of this world, direct this charge: ‘Don’t become haughty’”.⁹⁸

The phrase, “Don’t become,” reflects that the negative behavior would be a new state. (Thus, the previous state was either neutral or positive.) It’s a prohibition without a negative presumption.

The “continue to not” approach is even more strongly positive. For example, one commentator explains,

“They must remain humble.”⁹⁹

Similarly, Professor Daniel Wallace explains of mē + the present imperative,

“It is not, then, safe to say that when an author uses the present prohibition the audience is being indicted for not heeding this command.”^¹⁰⁰

Professor Sean du Toit gives another example of the positive presumption in 1 Peter 4:4. The phrase is “not running with them.” (This is mē + the present tense syntrechontōn “joining with.”) He explains,

“Peter states this in a way that assumes their lack of participation…. We must therefore conclude that the audience is encouraged to continue to not participate in the vices listed … [it] is something they are exhorted to continue to avoid.”¹⁰¹ (Emphasis added.)

When talking about “them” – the rich – making a negative presumption may feel more comfortable. (The message would be: “Stop it!”) When talking about us – making a neutral or positive presumption may feel comfortable. (The message would be: “Do not,” or “Continue to not.”) But this self-serving tendency is not what determines the meaning.

So, which approach is correct? Is it positive, neutral, or negative? Fortunately, the rest of the text answers this question. The tone, grammar, logic, and context all lead to a positive approach. Let’s look at each.

The positive message: Continue not doing this

The tone of this passage is not an attack. Many have pointed this out.^¹⁰² Professor Donald Guthrie explains,

“There is no suggestion of denunciation.”¹⁰³

Professor Arthur Peake and colleagues write,

“They [the rich] are not attacked.”¹⁰⁴

Professor Ernest Findlay Scott writes,

“he [Paul] does not denounce them.”¹⁰⁵

John MacArthur explains,

“(1 Timothy 6:17-19). Timothy was not instructed to rebuke or neglect the rich.”¹⁰⁶

John Kelly of Oxford University labels his commentary on this passage as,

“POSITIVE ADVICE FOR THE RICH v. 17-19.”¹⁰⁷

The context of the full sentence is intensely positive. It’s about God richly providing. It’s about massive personal impact. It’s about an inspiring personal identity. It’s about wonderful, lasting personal benefits.

Using a positive presumption form of mē hypsēlophronein matches this message and tone. It says, “Continue to be not high-minded.” It describes a desirable long-term, ongoing identity. It describes character. It explains why this person is going to be generous. He shares [koinōnikous] because he is and continues to be not separated from (not “above”) the fellowship community [koinōnia].

In fundraising, this positive presumption works. It’s effective. The next words show why it is also grammatically necessary.

The perfect tense: An already completed action with continuing results

Next in the sentence is,

“nor to set their hope [ēlpikenai] on the uncertainty of riches, but on God”.

The word ēlpikenai is surprising. It’s surprising because it’s in the perfect tense.^¹⁰⁸ What is this tense? One source explains,

“The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe a completed action which produced results which are still in effect all the way up to the present…. Notice that the perfect tense carries two ideas: (1) completed action and (2) continuing results. The action was completed at some time in the past, and the results continue up to the present.”^¹⁰⁹

This word, ēlpikenai, is a perfect active infinitive.¹¹⁰ In a commentary on the Greek text, Charles Ellicott translates the word here as,

“to have hoped and continue to hope.”^¹¹¹

Other literal or Greek interlinear New Testaments translate ēlpikenai here as simply,

“to have put hope.”^¹¹²

Paul uses ēlpikenai. It’s a perfect infinitive. But Paul is telling Timothy what to say. That makes the statement “indirect discourse.” This matters because,

“The perfect infinitive in indirect discourse generally represents a perfect indicative of the direct form.”^¹¹³

Thus, Paul is telling Timothy to deliver his message as a perfect active indicative. This is precisely the same form – and the same word – Paul uses moments earlier. One commentary notes of “nor trust in uncertain riches” that,

“it is the same perfect as 1 Timothy 4:10 and 1 Timothy 5:5”.^¹¹⁴

There, as a perfect active indicative, the verb reads as:

“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope [ēlpikamen] in the living God,” (1 Timothy 4:10), and

“Now she who is actually a widow and has been left alone has set her hope [ēlpiken] on God”. (1 Timothy 5:5).

Notice the parallels:

Paul writes, “We have set our hope in the living God.” (1 Timothy 4:10).
He then writes, “She has set her hope on God.” (1 Timothy 5:5).
He then tells Timothy to say, “You have not set your hope on uncertain riches, but on God” (1 Timothy 6:17b).

The repeated message is the same. We have done this. The poorest among us have done this. The richest among us have done this. All three groups of Christians are the same. All three have set their hope (perfect tense) on God.

An already completed action with continuing results: So what?

Our verb, ēlpikenai, is a perfect active infinitive. This tense references [1] an already completed action [2] with continuing results.¹¹⁵

So what? Why does this matter so much? It matters because it prevents misunderstanding Paul’s instructions. If we try to read this verse as an accusatory command, it becomes nonsensical.

Think about it. How can we instruct (or command) someone not to have done a past action? How does that even make sense? Can you start a marriage retreat by saying,

“I command you not to have committed adultery!”

No. That makes no sense. A person either has or hasn’t committed adultery. No amount of commanding (or instructing) will change the past!

Taken this way, the perfect tense message becomes nonsensical.¹¹⁶ This has even led some to argue that it must be a manuscript error. The argument is that it must be changed to a present tense.^¹¹⁷ (And indeed, many English translations do just this.)

Yet, there’s no evidence of an error. All the manuscripts agree. No variations appear. The word is always the same. It’s always perfect tense. This might disappear in an English translation. But it would have stood out to Paul’s audience.¹¹⁸ So, what’s going on here? What is Paul telling Timothy to say?

The positive message: You are the kind of person who makes gifts like this

The instruction to be generous begins with the donor’s past and continuing identity. The donor is not high-minded. He’s not above the fellowship community. He doesn’t separate himself. That’s why he’ll share [koinōnikous] with his fellowship community [koinōnia]. The donor has not placed his hope in riches but in God. That’s why he’ll be generous with those riches.

The perfect tense verb makes this meaning obvious.^¹¹⁹ We can’t instruct a person to have already done something in the past. We can’t say, “Stop having done this in the past.” (Negative presumption.) We can’t say, “Do not have done this in the past.” (Neutral presumption.) These make no sense.

But there is something we can do. We can instruct them to continue these past actions. We can show them how being generous matches their past and continuing values, character, and identity. We can instruct them to be generous because they have not placed their hope in wealth but in God.

This instruction to give begins with the donor’s backstory. This backstory motivates the action. The donor gives because it reflects his identity. The donor is the type of person who makes gifts like this. This is a compelling message. It’s how we effectively instruct someone to be generous.

The text dictates the message. It’s a message that connects the donor’s life history [past action] with the donor’s current identity [continuing results]. In the context of our passage, it’s part of a story. It’s the donor’s story. It’s a story that starts with the donor’s history. It starts with their backstory. Their backstory motivates their decision to accept the challenge.

The positive message: But is it true?

Paul is describing an entire group of people – the rich. How can he say they are not high-minded or “above” the fellowship community? How can he say they have already set their hope on God, not riches?

His statements are true because he is not simply describing the rich. He is describing the rich who have joined the church.^¹²⁰ Despite all the costs, they have decided to follow Jesus.

This letter is about managing the church household. It’s not about warning outsiders to repent. This is a post-repentance, post-conversion message. It’s an instruction for those in the church.

The ministry to older widows is not to all the widows in the city. It’s to widows in the church. The ministry to older men is not to all the older men in the region. It’s to older men in the church. The same is true for the ministry to the rich.

Thus, these are not simply rich people. These are rich believers. They have put their hope in God. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be believers. They have not put their hope in riches. Otherwise, they would never have accepted the teachings of Jesus. If they were high-minded, they would never have joined the fellowship community. They wouldn’t have connected themselves with these, mostly poor, Christians.¹²¹

Paul’s statements aren’t just flattery. They are true statements. He begins the argument by pointing to their character. He explains why they are the kind of people who share generous gifts.

The negative message: Nonsense results

We’ve looked at the technical reasons why this is not an attack. Now, let’s consider the logic. This is a message to an entire segment of people in the church. What do we know about these rich, other than their temporary economic circumstances? We know they’ve decided to follow Jesus. They’ve decided to join the church.

Suppose the message had a negative presumption. Suppose it was, “Stop doing this!” Does that make sense? Does it make sense to say,

“You joined the fellowship community because you think you are ‘above’ the fellowship community”?
“You (in the past) joined the church because you have not (in the past) placed your hope in God”?
“You decided to follow Jesus because you have placed your trust in money”?

None of these make sense. This approach leads to nonsense results.

There is yet another problem with the negative presumption. These people are going to heaven. That’s actually part of the sentence itself. In their giving, they are

“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” (1 Timothy 6:19).

It would be hard for them to store up treasures in heaven “for themselves” if they weren’t going there.

If they have not placed their hope in God, this result makes no sense. Why are these Godless people going to heaven? The only explanation then becomes even more ridiculous. It becomes this: right now, all rich church members are Godless. They’re all trusting in riches rather than God. But if they give, then they get to go to heaven. The message becomes absurd and even offensive.¹²² It becomes nonsense.

All of these nonsense results disappear with a positive presumption. The attack becomes an encouragement. The message is,

“Keep doing the right thing! Continue to be not high-minded. You have not placed your trust in money but in God. So, too, today, keep on doing this. Keep doing this through your generosity.”

The positive presumption makes sense. It fits. And it works. The negative presumption doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t fit. And it doesn’t work.

The positive message: It’s how to instruct effectively

Paul’s instruction begins with the rich person’s past and continuing identity. It begins with their positive backstory. This positive backstory will motivate their current generosity. We’ve looked at the grammar. We’ve looked at the context. We’ve looked at the logic.

But let’s say you don’t buy it. Suppose you’re unconvinced. You still see this as a directive to instruct the rich Christians to stop their bad behavior. Or maybe it’s to warn them not to start it in the first place. That still leaves a question. How? How can we get them to stop? Or how will we warn them not to start? What instruction will produce that result?

We could simply attack and depart. We could lob an accusatory grenade and run. But here’s the problem. That doesn’t work. And it’s not ministry.

The point of Paul’s instruction is to produce a result. It’s to produce a specific understanding and behavior by the rich. Attacking and condemning might feel good. But if it doesn’t produce the result, then it’s not effective instruction. It’s not effective ministry.

So, suppose we ignore the timing of the tense.^¹²³ Suppose these are all bad people who need to repent. How do we make that happen? What’s the most effective approach?

It actually doesn’t change. The practical implementation still looks the same.¹²⁴ Paul’s many examples of effective instruction and persuasion show exactly how this works. He uses it with bad people. He uses it with good people. He uses it with pagans and the godless. He uses it with believers.

The effective story is still the same. It still begins with the person’s positive history and identity. That’s still the motivation for their action. The universal message is still this:

“You are the kind of person who does things like this.”

Timothy is the kind of person who does things like this

Our passage begins with the donor’s identity. It cites their personal history. Their past action motivates their present choice. Their life history confirms that they are the kind of person who does things like this.

This appeal to life history was not new for Paul. He did it just a few sentences earlier. The charge to Timothy parallels the charge to the rich Christians. The rich are instructed to

“take hold of the real life.” (1 Timothy 6:19b).

[epilabōntai tēs ontōs zōēs]

Timothy is instructed to

“take hold of the eternal life” (1 Timothy 6:12b).

[epilabou tēs aiōniou zōēs]

The rich Christians will accept this challenge because of their life history. They have (perfect tense)

“not set their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God” (1 Timothy 6:17).

Timothy will accept this challenge because of his life history. He will:

“take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and for which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” (1 Timothy 6:12b).

As one commentary puts it,

“Here Paul emphasizes a past event when Timothy responded to public confirmations.”^¹²⁵

Another writes,

“Paul is clearly referring here to a definite fact in Timothy’s life.”^¹²⁶

Paul begins his next letter to Timothy using a similar approach. He describes Timothy’s backstory. This backstory motivates accepting Paul’s challenge.

Paul will get to his challenge. He’s going to make big asks of Timothy. He’s going to ask him to

“Kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you” (2 Timothy 1:6).
“Not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me” (2 Timothy 1:8).
“Join with me in suffering for the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:8).
“Hold on to the example of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Timothy 1:13).

The challenge is big. But the message to Timothy doesn’t start with this challenge. It starts with Timothy’s backstory. It starts with his identity. It starts by explaining why Timothy is the kind of person who will do things like this. It starts with:

“For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelled in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.” (2 Timothy 1:5).

He begins with Timothy’s backstory. Timothy’s identity compels him to follow Paul’s instructions. Timothy is the kind of person who will do things like this.

Paul’s repeated message of persuasion

The message in our passage starts with the rich Christian’s backstory. It shows how their identity compels them to accept Paul’s challenge. This is a standard method Paul used to persuade others. It was probably his favorite approach.

He starts his message with the listener’s identity. He starts by explaining why they are the kind of person who will follow his instructions. Paul did this in his writings. He also did it in his speaking.

When Paul entered Athens, he saw that it was a center of pagan worship. This was not a happy circumstance!

“Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he observed that the city was full of idols.” (Acts 17:16).

Paul is brought before the city’s leadership council (the Areopagus). He wants to instruct them to follow Jesus. Does he begin with condemnation? No. He does the opposite. He begins with their positive identity. He begins by explaining why they are the kind of people who will listen to his teaching. Luke writes,

“So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects.’” (Acts 17:22).

When Paul is brought before Agrippa, he begins,

“King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that I am about to make my defense before you today, especially because you are an expert in all customs and questions among the Jews;” (Acts 26:2b-3a).

Paul begins with Agrippa’s positive identity. Agrippa is,

“an expert in all customs and questions among the Jews.”

He is the kind of person who will understand Paul’s argument. Given Agrippa’s life history, Paul considers himself “fortunate” to make his defense there.

When first brought before Felix, Paul begins,

“Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense,” (Acts 24:10b).

Paul begins with Felix’s positive identity. Felix is an experienced judge. Felix is the kind of person who will wisely consider Paul’s argument. Given Felix’s life history, Paul “cheerfully” makes his defense.

In each of these examples, Paul makes factually true statements. He is not inventing nice things to say. This is not just random flattery. Instead, he describes those characteristics of the person consistent with the desired decision. He explains why their life history and identity compel them to listen to his teachings.

You are the kind of person who makes gifts like this

Our passage is not an accusation. It’s not a command to stop being a certain type of person. It’s not a command to start being a certain type of person. Instead, it’s an instruction to continue being a certain type of person.

The message will challenge the listeners to be generous. They will accept this challenge because of their past, present, and continuing identity. This identity compels them to share generously.

Why will they share generously? Because they are the type of people who make gifts like this!

Notes and references

Tois plousiois en tō nyn aiōni parangelle mē hypsēlophronein mēde ēlpikenai epi ploutou adēlotēti, all epi Theō tō parechonti hēmin panta plousiōs eis apolausin, agathoergein, ploutein en ergois kalois, eumetadotous einai, koinōnikous, apothēsaurizontas heautois themelion kalon eis to mellon, hina epilabōntai tēs ontōs zōēs. (Note: All Greek text is ALA-LC Romanized throughout including quotations.)
↩
Hypsēlo [high] – phronein [minded]. For example, Matthew 4:8, “Again, the devil took Him along to a very high [hypsēlon] mountain …”; Matthew 17:1, “Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James, and his brother John, and led them up on a high [hypsēlon] mountain by themselves.”
The verb form, hypsēlophroneō, appears nowhere else prior to Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 6:17. “Here, Paul uses the rare hypsēlophronein, a verb that appears here for the first time in extant Greek literature” [Pao, D. W. (2017). Set our hope on God who richly provides us with all things. In P. N. Jackson (Ed.), Devotions on the Greek New Testament, Volume Two: 52 Reflections to inspire and instruct (pp. 116-118). Zondervan Academic.]
In one of only two known appearances of the noun form, Plato uses the word in a parallel way in Republic 8.550. Plato describes a wealthy family’s son. His family backstory is positive. His father gives good advice. But nefarious nearby voices give evil advice. The son appears to occupy the same middle ground as the rich in vs. 17. They are in a different category from those in vs. 10-11 whose love of money is a root of all kinds of evil [kakōn]. The son is not an evil person [mē kakou andros einai]. Sadly, he falls into “evil communications” [kakai kechrēsthai]. The result is, “under these two solicitations he comes to a compromise and turns over the government in his soul to the intermediate principle of ambition and high spirit and becomes a man haughty [hypsēlophrōn] of soul” [Plato. (1969). Plato in twelve volumes. Vols. 5 & 6 (P. Shorey, Trans.). Harvard University Press.] Similarly, Paul’s ministry to the rich Christians may seek to replace alluring bad communications with a call back to their position in the family of the fellowship community.
↩
An echo of this sentiment is also expressed in one translation of Romans 12:3 as, “I ask you not to think of yourselves more highly than you should. Instead, your thoughts should lead you to use good judgment based on what God has given each of you as believers.” GOD’S WORD® Translation
↩
“have you not discriminated [diekrithēte] among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” James 2:4 (New International Verson)
↩
[HellenisticGreek.com. (2015). Lesson 14: Infinitives in English and Hellenistic Greek. https://hellenisticgreek.com/14.html ]; See also, “The Present Infinitive refers to action in progress usually shown by the context to be contemporaneous with the action of the principal verb.” [Burton, E. D. W. (1900). Syntax of the moods and tenses in New Testament Greek. University of Chicago Press. p. 50.]; “The present represents action in progress’” [Hildebrandt, T. (2003). Mastering New Testament Greek textbook. Baker Academic. p. 131]; “The most important kinds of action (Aktionsarten) retained in Greek (including the NT) are the following: (1) The punctiliar (momentary) in the aorist stem … (2) The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless (estin ho Theos) or as taking place in present time ... (3) The present stem may also be téerative: eballen ‘threw repeatedly (or each time)’. (4) The perfective in the perfect stem: a condition or state as the result of a past action is designated” [Blass, F., & Debrunner, A. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. (R. W. Funk, Trans.). The University of Chicago Press. p. 166.]
↩
“Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 164) says: “mē with the present imperative has to do with a course of action and means sometimes ‘keep from’ (resist), sometimes ‘cease to’ (desist).” So, ‘continue not doing,’ or ‘do not continue doing.’” [Robertson, A. T. (1934). A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research. 4^th Ed. Broadman Press. p. 853.]
↩
Taschl-Erber, A. (2016). Between recognition and testimony: Johannine relecture of the first easter witness and patristic readings. In R. Bieringer, B. Baert, & K. Demasure (Eds.), (Vol. 283). Noli me tangere in interdisciplinary perspective: Textual, iconographic and contemporary interpretations (pp. 77-110). Peeters. p. 79-80
↩
Common English Bible
↩
It continues, “nor trust confidently in ephemeral wealth, but in God, who offers everything to us richly for our enjoyment.” [Bream, H. N. (1974). Life without resurrection: Two perspectives from Qoheleth. In H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, & C. A. Moore (Eds.), A light unto my path: Old Testament studies in honor of Jacob M. Myers (pp. 49-65). Temple University Press. p. 65. fn 14.] Note that the use of “don’t become” rather than simply “don’t be” implies a positive presumption that this negative outcome would be a new state. The “nor trust” phrase employs the more neutral language of a general precept without a presumption of previous behavior.
↩
Allen, D. P. (2012). What Paul might say today: Critiques in the practical theology of 21st century western Christendom. LaRue Publications. p. 96. (emphasis added).
↩
Wallace, D. B., (2000). The basics of New Testament syntax. Zondervan. p. 321.
↩
du Toit, S. (2021). Practising idolatry in 1 Peter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 43(3), 411-430. p. 424. (emphasis added); Other writers take this approach with other mē + present tense passages. See e.g, Bruce Hurt who writes of mē + enkakein (present infinitive active “to lose heart”) in Ephesians 3:13, “Not to lose heart is present tense, middle voice meaning ‘you, yourselves, continue to not lose heart.’” [Hurt, B. (n.d.). Ephesians 3:13 Commentary. Precept Austin. https://www.preceptaustin.org/ephesians_313]; William Wenstrom explains of mē + thaumazete (present imperative active “be surprised”) in 1 John 3:13, “they must continue to not be taken by surprise” [Wenstrom, W. E. (2018). Exegesis and exposition of First John 5:20-21. Wenstrom Bible Ministries. p. 66]; He writes of mē + pikrainesthe (present imperative passive “be embittered”) in Colossians 3:19, “It is expressing the idea that by continuing to exercise the love of God in relation to their wives, their husbands would continue to not be embittered against them” [Wenstrom, W. E. (2016). Exegesis and exposition of Colossians 3:19-20. Wenstrom Bible Ministries. p. 3.]
↩
E.g., “This verse is perhaps the least severe to the wealthy in the whole New Testament.” [Gore, C., Goudge, H. L., & Guillaume, A. (Eds.), (1928). A new commentary on Holy Scripture: Including the Apocrypha. SPCK (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge) Publishers. p. 588.]; “(1 Timothy 6:17-19). Timothy was not instructed to rebuke or neglect the rich” [MacArthur, J. (2009). Right thinking in a world gone wrong: A Biblical response to today’s most controversial issues. Harvest House Publishers. p. 135.]
↩
“The approach to wealth is strikingly moderate. There is no suggestion of denunciation.” [Guthrie, D. (1990). The Pastoral Epistles: An introduction and commentary (Vol. 14). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 117.]
↩
“They are not attacked, but reminded of the true riches in the world to come which will be their reward for being rich in good deeds in this.” [Rowley, H. H., Black, M., & Peake, A. S. (1962). Peake’s commentary on the Bible. Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. p. 1004.]
↩
“With his usual moderation he does not denounce them or bid them surrender everything. He only tells them that in their worldly prosperity they must not forget God, and that they must use what He has given them to a right purpose.” [Scott, E. F (1936/1957). The Pastoral Epistles. Hodder and Stoughton. p. 80.]
↩
MacArthur, J. (2009). Right thinking in a world gone wrong: A Biblical response to today’s most controversial issues. Harvest House Publishers. p. 135.
↩
Kelly, J. N. D. (1963). A commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Adam & Charles Black. p. 147. (Note: Kelly was both Oxford faculty member and occasional university fundraising campaign administrator.)
↩
The previous present tense infinitive may also be used to reference the past due to the context of indirect discourse. As Goodwin explains, “The Present Infinitive has three distinct uses: 1. First, in its ordinary use (either with or without the article), whenever it is not in indirect discourse, it denotes a continued or repeated action without regard to time, unless its time is specially defined by the context... 2. Secondly, the Present Infinitive in indirect discourse is used to represent a Present Indicative of the direct discourse, and therefore denotes a continued or repeated action, which is contemporary with that of the leading verb, that is, relatively present … 3. Thirdly, the Present Infinitive belongs also to the Imperfect, and is used in indirect discourse to represent an Imperfect Indicative of the direct discourse. It here denotes continued or repeated action which is past with reference to the leading verb, thus supplying the want of an Imperfect Infinitive.” [Goodwin, W. W. (1879). Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb. 7^th Ed. Ginn and Heath. P. 12-16.]
Thus, we have options of no time, continued action, or past action. Two things help to clarify the best usage. First, we are helped by the next infinitive being in the perfect tense. The perfect tense of the paired instruction provides insight as to the intended time focus.
Second, the context speaks to this as indirect discourse. This holds despite using a verb of instruction or command, which does not normally introduce indirect discourse. See, e.g., “verbs of commanding, wishing, and others … although they may imply thought, yet never introduce an indirect quotation in the sense here intended, as an Infinitive after them never stands for an Indicative, but is merely the ordinary Infinitive used as a verbal noun, without any definite time.” [Goodwin, p. 14]. Here, the verb does not describe Paul’s instruction or command. Instead it describes for Timothy what Timothy’s instruction should be. Paul is essentially telling Timothy, as in The Voice translation, “Here’s what you say.” This usage is indirect discourse. As such, the tense options shift from “no time” to either continued action or a past action that is continual.
Similarly, treating this as indirect discourse shifts the tense options for the perfect infinitive to either perfect or pluperfect. As Herbert Weir Smyth explains in A Greek grammar for colleges, “Each tense of direct discourse is retained (with its proper meaning as regards stage of action) when it becomes infinitive in indirect discourse; but an imperfect is represented by the present infinitive; a pluperfect, by the perfect infinitive.” [Smyth, H. W. (1920). Infinitive as object in indirect discourse. In A Greek grammar for colleges. §2019. American Book Company. p. 449].
Thus, the reference to “not high-minded” and “not having placed hope” as past and ongoing characteristics of those rich Christians being encouraged to share appears either permitted (if the present infinitive makes no particular time reference) or, more likely, explicitly directed, given the use of the paired perfect infinitive. In a parallel passage, Job says, “If I have made gold my hope, or have said to the fine gold, Thou art my confidence;” (Job 31:24 KJV). In the Septuagint, this passage uses the aorist etaxa (have made) and the pluperfect epepoithēsa (relied upon).
↩
The Ezra Project (2022). The tenses explained: Basic meanings of each Greek tense. https://ezraproject.com/greek-tenses-explained/
More technically, this is taking the perfect infinitive as expressing anteriority. The anterior perfect “emphasizes the anterior event, whereas the state it refers to should be understood in a ‘loose sense’ … The anterior perfect is usually described as the perfect referring to an anterior event with current relevance.” [Kavčič, J. (2016). The decline of the aorist infinitive in Ancient Greek declarative infinitive clauses. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 16(2), 266-311.]
This use of the anterior perfect is here dictated first by the context because the rich person is the actor, not the one being acted upon. Kavčič explains, “This is one of the basic distinctions between the resultative and anterior perfect: whereas the latter is patient-oriented, the former is agent-oriented.” Also, anteriority is dictated by the context of following a verb of communication. Professor Klaas Bentein explains, “The perfect infinitive denotes anterior propositions after various verb classes, including verbs of communication such as graphō “I write” (e.g. BGU.16.2635, ll. 8–9 (ca. 21 B.C. – 5 A.D.)); legō “I say” (e.g. P.Ryl.2.pg381, ll. 4–5 (40 A.D.)); mēnuō “I declare” (e.g. P.Giss.61, ll. 7–8 (119 A.D.)); phēmi “I say” (e.g. P.Brem.13, ll. 3–4 (II AD));” More generally, he explains, “Since the aorist infinitive seems to have been avoided already in Classical times for anterior propositions, one could ask what the reason for this avoidance might have been: rather than attributing it to a tendency for ‘stativity’, or the omission of temporal distinctions (see above), I would like to suggest that the aorist tense was less frequently employed because (i) the aorist infinitive was already used quite frequently for proposals, not only after verbs of ordering, but also after verbs of communication; (ii) the perfect infinitive could be used as a specialized device conveying anteriority, whereas the aorist was ambiguous between a perfective or a current relevance interpretation.” [Bentein, K. (2018). The decline of infinitival complementation in Ancient Greek: a case of diachronic ambiguity resolution? Glotta, 94(1), 82-108, 94-95.]
↩
As an example of an imperative followed by mē + a perfect infinitive in the papyri, see, “g{e}inōske ton siton on apesteiles moi mē eilēphenai me auton (BGU.16.2618, ll. 4–5 (7 B.C.)) ‘You should know that I have not yet received the grain which you sent me’.” [Bentein, K. (2018). The decline of infinitival complementation in Ancient Greek: a case of diachronic ambiguity resolution? Glotta, 94(1), 82-108. p. 96.]
↩
Ellicott, C. J. (1883). The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul: With a critical and grammatical commentary and a revised translation. Longmans, Green & Co. p. 100. (A pluperfect sense of the perfect infinitive can also be appropriate when used, as here, in indirect discourse.)
Other commentaries note of this passage, “the perfect tense in the infinitive, ēlpikenai, conveys the sense of action completed. However, as is the normal characteristics of the perfect, the past action has effects in the present,” [Joshua, N. N. (2018). Benefaction and patronage in leadership: A socio-historical exegesis of the Pastoral Epistles. Langham Publishing. Referencing Hanson, A. T. (1982). The Pastoral Epistles: New century Bible commentary. Eerdmans. p. 114.]
“The phrase ‘to have hope set” is a perfect tense form, which suggests that the “hope” commenced in the past and substantially has settled into a fixed disposition.” [Jackson, W. (2007). Before I die: Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. Christian Courier Publications. p. 184.]
“the perfect tense … looks back to the beginning of the rich man’s hopes” [Lock, W. (1924). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy and Titus. Charles Scribner’s Sons. p. 23.]
↩
See ēlpikenai as “to have put hope” in a literal translation of this verse in Magill, M. J. (2011). Disciples’ literal New Testament. Reyma Publishing. See this translation also in interlinear Greek translations such as Christian Publishing House. (2020). The Greek-English New Testament interlinear (GENTI). https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2020/10/26/the-first-letter-to-timothy-genti/ ; New World Bible Translation Committee. (1985). The kingdom interlinear translation of the Greek Scriptures online; Walker, D. (2020). The learner’s Greek New Testament series (LGNT) (2^nd ed.). Independently published. https://lgreeknt.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/LGNT-PEEK-INSIDE-1-AND-2-TIMOTHY.pdf
Another interlinear translates this with the unusual phrase “to-have-had-come-to-expect-to” http://qbible.com/greek-new-testament/1-timothy/6.html
↩
Goodwin, W. W. (1890). Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb. 133. Perfect infinitive. Ginn & Company. p. 40.
↩
Humphreys, A. E. (1895). The Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges: The epistles to Timothy and Titus, with introduction and notes. University Press. p. 149.
↩
This dual sense can sometimes be difficult to translate into English. For example, in Acts 12:14, Rhoda “announced that Peter was standing [hestanai] before the gateway.” It seems like a simple idea. Peter “was standing.” The problem is that this verb is also a perfect active infinitive. So, “was standing” isn’t a complete translation. One commentator notes of this word, “Perfect active infinitive. Literally, ‘She announced Peter to have stood and still be standing before the gateway.’” [Aymer, M. (2016). Outrageous, audacious, courageous, willful: Reading the enslaved girl of Acts 12. In G. L. Byron & V. Lovelace (Eds.), Womanist interpretations of the Bible: Expanding the discourse (pp. 265-90). SBL Press. p. 280. fn 27]. This is a literally correct translation. But it does make for a clunky reading! Who wants to read “to have stood and still be standing” rather than simply “was standing”? In the same way, it isn’t easy to read, “to have not put hope and still be not putting hope in riches but in God” although this may give a better sense of the meaning.
Often, translations emphasize either [1] the past completed action or [2] the continuing results rather than simultaneously expressing both. Several translations of other verses emphasize the past completed action aspect of the perfect active infinitive, such as: “I have fully preached [peplērōkenai] the gospel of Christ.” (Romans 15:19b); “because Claudius had commanded [diatetachenai] all the Jews to leave Rome.” (Acts 18:2); “thinking that he was dead [tethnēkenai].” (Acts 14:9); “they heard that He had performed [pepoiēkenai] this sign.” (John 12:18); “he had astounded [exestakenai] them” (Acts 8:11); “he had committed [peprachenai]” (Acts 25:25); “they had also seen [heōrakenai]” (Luke 24:23); “it had [gegonenai] thundered” (John 12:29); “has found [heurēkenai]?”(Romans 4:1).
Other verses tend to emphasize the continuing results aspects. See, e.g., NASB translations of perfect active infinitives in 1 Corinthians 8:2; Philippians 3:4; Luke 13:25; John 14:5; 1 Corinthians 10:12; 2 Corinthians 11:5; Ephesians 1:18; Titus 1:16; Hebrews 11:5; Hebrews 10:15. The strongest emphasis on the continuing results aspects of the past action arises in the “intensive perfect.”
Some passages or contexts convey the dual sense of both [1] the past completed action and [2] the continuing results, such as “so that what is seen has not been made [gegonenai] out of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:3); or “When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, thinking that the prisoners had escaped [ekpepheugenai].” (Acts 16:27)
Thus, a translation might emphasize past action or ongoing effects, but the original tense contains both concepts.
↩
The Disciple’s Literal Translation, for example, employs this approach, rendering the passage as, “Be commanding the ones rich in the present age not to be-high-minded, nor to have put-hope on the uncertainty of riches, but upon God …”
↩
See, e.g., “Elliott, 66, argues that the perfect infinitive is rare (Acts 14.19; 2 Timothy 2.14; Tit 1.16), and that the present infinitive fits in with the other present tenses in the context. This is not a strong enough argument to upset the MS [manuscript] evidence.” [Marshal, I. H. (1999). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. T & T Clark. p. 670. Referencing Elliott, J. K. (1968). The Greek text of the epistles to Timothy and Titus. Studies and Documents XXXVI. University of Utah Press.]
↩
It would have been even more notable to them for another reason. Paul is alluding to a Psalm. See, e.g., “1 Timothy 6:17 alludes to Ps 61:11 LXX” [Kim, K. S. (2011). God will judge each one according to works: Judgment according to works and Psalm 62 in early Judaism and the New Testament (Vol. 178). [Doctoral Thesis, University of Aberdeen]. Walter de Gruyter. p 200 fn. 8]
Paul alludes to this Psalm, but he changes the tense. In the New International Version, Psalm 62:10 reads, “Do not trust in extortion or put vain hope in stolen goods; though your riches increase, do not set your heart on them.” Timothy’s audience would have read this in the Greek Septuagint. There, the verse begins with the present tense of elpizō (to hope or trust), “mē elpizete epi … ploutous.” In 1 Timothy 6:17, Paul makes a parallel statement, but he alters the tense. He replaces the present tense with the perfect tense, “mēde ēlpikenai epi ploutou.” It’s a familiar passage. And Paul changes it. This change would have stood out for this audience. (Note that in the Septuagint, Psalm 62:10 appears as Psalm 61:11 reading, “Mē elpizete epi adikian [Do not set your hope on extortion] kai epi harpagma mē epipotheite [and on stolen goods do not lust] ploutous ean ren mē prostithesthe kardian [if wealth flows in do not set your heart upon it.)”
↩
For example, Paul’s use of “not” [mē] with a present tense verb to describe the continuation of a current state is explicit in Colossians 1:23, which reads, “if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not shifting [mē metakinoumenoi] from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.” 1 Timothy 6:17 combines the present tense “not high-minded” [mē hypsēlophronein] with the perfect tense “to have put hope” [ēlpikenai] in infinitive form. In a parallel fashion, Colossians 1:23 combines the present tense “not shifting” [mē metakinoumenoi] with the perfect tense tethemeliōmenoi [“established”] in participle form. One text notes, “Notice the perfect form tethemeliōmenoi (from themeliō ‘lay a foundation [for a building]’). The perfect conveys that the foundation has already been laid, but the Colossian Christians are to remain founded on this base. The state of being founded continues even though the act of laying the substructure is completed; one does not lay a foundation again (1 Corinthians 3:11).” [Baugh, S.M. (2009). Introduction to Greek tense form choice in the non-indicative moods. Author. p. 63] The notion in 1 Timothy 6:17 is similar. Rich Christians have already (perfect tense) set their hope in God, not in the uncertainty of riches. They, too, “are to remain founded on this base.” Their continuing state of being not high-minded – not separated from the fellowship community – matches with this past choice.
↩
Commenting on 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Dr. Todd Cederberg writes, “The pastoral epistles also presume the presence of faithful yet wealthy members in their congregations.” [Cederberg, T. (2003). A strategy to promote spiritual and financial healing at the Church of the Good Samaritan. [Doctoral Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary] p. 40.]; This also matches the placement of the 6:17-19 passage, which separates, by use of a long break, the discussion of those who are “faithful yet wealthy” from the previous discussion of false teachers who seek money and the sufferings of those who love money in 6:3-10.
↩
For an interesting analysis of economic status within the early church, see Stark, R. (2009). Early Christianity: Opiate of the privileged? Faith and Economics, 54, 1-18.
↩
Acts 8:20, “But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire the gift of God with money!”
↩
I’ve made an argument for reading the perfect infinitive as referencing a past event with continuing effects. However, it need not be taken so narrowly in its time reference in this context. It can be viewed as past and/or non-past. In other words, “perfectivity indicates the view of the situation as a single whole, without distinction of the various separate phases that make up that situation.” [Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge University Press. p. 16.] Removing the sense of time entirely, however, does not lessen the emphasis on beginning the message with the donor’s character, state, or identity. (Indeed, the grammatical argument to ignore anteriority here is based on treating the perfect infinitive as stative or describing the donor’s state of being.) In either approach, the practical application results in the story beginning the same way. It starts with the donors’ identity. The donors will give because of who they are. Not being high-minded and not placing their hope in money but in God is their identity. It is their future identity, their current identity, their past identity, their ongoing identity, and their desired or ideal identity. It is who they have been, who they want to be, and who they are being. That basis in personal identity is the motivation for their generous actions.
↩
Similarly, Gregory the Great (540-604), bishop of Rome, takes 1 Timothy 6:17-19 as being a strong negative charge. Yet he concedes that as a practical matter, “Sometimes, however, even the proud rich man must be appeased by the flattery of exhortation: for even the most severe wounds are softened by soothing fomentations, and the fury of madmen is often reduced to safety by the flattering physician: when he condescends to them in sweetness, the languor of madness is mitigated. For it must not be overlooked that when the spirit attacked Saul, David took hold of the lyre and calmed his agitation. 1 Samuel 18:10. For what is intimated by Saul but the elation of men in power, and what by David but the humble life of the holy?” Gregory, P. (1849). Sancti Gregorii Papae I Regula pastoralis. Typis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. p. 65-66. [See also https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/36013.htm ]
↩
The quote continues, “— in prophecy and liturgy — of his sacred call to ministry. He ‘confessed the good confession’ (6:12) before a panel of witnesses that includes God, who called him, and Christ Jesus, who exemplifies the faithful response to God’s bidding (6:13).” [Robinson, A. B., & Wall, R. W. (2012). Called to lead: Paul’s letters to Timothy for a new day. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 109.]
↩
Meyer, H. A. W. (1885). Critical and exegetical commentary on the New Testament.
↩