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.”127

Part I

Wealth Sharing, Not Income Sharing

It’s about wealth

This passage outlines the Biblical ministry of major gift fundraising. It’s about wealth. It’s about the wealth holders. It’s about wealth sharing. The wealth focus isn’t subtle. This one Greek sentence references wealth at least seven times.

The message is to those who have wealth. The message is about the use of wealth. The message is not just about giving; it’s about wealth sharing. The defining characteristic of this passage and this ministry is a focus on wealth.

This wealth focus makes the passage different. It makes the message different. It makes the ministry different. Understanding why starts by understanding wealth.

Wealth sharing is not income sharing

This passage references wealth. Wealth is not income. This is true in economics. It’s also true in the language used here.128

This simple distinction matters. It matters in giving. Wealth sharing is not income sharing. These are two different types of gifts.

The Bible describes many kinds of gifts. Each gift type has its own rules. Tithing, for example, is a gift of income. It’s giving from “the fruit of the tree.” (Leviticus 27:30). It’s giving from “the produce of what you sow.” (Deuteronomy 14:22).

Giving from income is important. But our passage is not about income. It’s not about weekly budgets. It’s not about “pocket change” decisions. It’s about wealth sharing. Wealth sharing is not sharing “the fruit of the tree.” It’s giving the tree itself. It’s not giving from “the produce of what you sow.” It’s giving the land itself.

We see examples of such sharing in the first days of the church:

“and they would sell their property [ktēmata] and possessions [hyparxeis] and share them with all” (Acts 2:45).

Such sharing continued in the church:

“For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land [chōriōn] or houses [oikiōn] would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales” (Acts 4:34).

A specific named donor, Barnabas, gave

“a tract of land [agrou].” (Acts 4:37).

What were they sharing? They were sharing 129

These were not gifts of income. This was not tithing. These were gifts of wealth. This wasn’t a gift of the produce from the land. It was a gift of the land itself. This wasn’t a gift of rental income from a house. It was a gift of the house itself.

This was not just wealth giving. It was wealth sharing. These gifts weren’t given away to outsiders. They weren’t given to the poor of the city. They were shared with the

“congregation of those who believed.” (Acts 4:32).

These same concepts apply to our passage. Timothy’s instruction is not a message about income. It’s a message about wealth. It’s not a message about giving wealth away. It’s a message about sharing wealth.

The audience: The world’s banking center

Paul instructs Timothy on how to minister to the rich Christian. He explains how to have wealth conversations. There’s a special reason for that. Timothy was ministering in Ephesus. This was a global financial center.

At about the same time that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, the Greek orator Dio Chrysostom wrote,

“You know about the Ephesians, of course, and that large sums of money are in their hands, some of it belonging to private citizens and deposited in the temple of Artemis, not alone money of the Ephesians but also of aliens and of persons from all parts of the world, and in some cases of commonwealths and kings, money which all deposit there in order that it may be safe.”130

The temple of Artemis in Ephesus wasn’t just a place for worship. It was a bank. Indeed, the temple was

“the largest and most important bank on the west coast of Asia Minor.”131

Thus,

“It is very likely that Ephesians, strangers, private people, cities or kings kept huge amounts of money in the temple.”132

Ephesus also attracted wealthy exiles from across the world because of its asylum law.133

Ephesus was wealthy. Beyond this, its economy centered on wealth holding. In modern financial terms, it was Wall Street, the Cayman Islands, Zurich, and The City of London. For those who wanted hidden wealth, Ephesus is where they would hide it!

Paul’s focus on wealth and the wealthy fit Timothy’s location. Timothy’s audience understood accumulated wealth. They understood hidden wealth. And they understood the difference between income sharing and wealth sharing.

Part II

Wealth Words

The first five wealth words

1 Timothy 6:17-19 is one sentence in the Greek. In the first half of this one Greek sentence, Paul uses ploutos [wealth] four times. He uses it as

“a personal noun, an objective noun, an adverb, and a verb.”134

1 Timothy 6:17-19 is a sentence about wealth. It describes a ministry focused on the wealthy and the use of wealth.

If you happen to miss these first four wealth references, don’t worry. There are more. The result of generous sharing is a different pile of valuable stuff. The result is:

“thus storing up treasure [apothēsaurizontas] for themselves as a good foundation for the future.” (1 Timothy 6:19a, ESV).

The word for “storing up treasure” is apothēsaurizontas. Like ploutos, this describes a stockpile of valuable stuff. We see this word, for example, in Josephus’s “The War of the Jews.”135 He writes,

“Within this fortress was laid up corn in large quantities, also wine and oil in abundance, with all kinds of pulse and dates heaped up together. There was also found a large quantity of all sorts of weapons of war, which had been treasured up [apothēsaurizmenon] by that king.”136

Or, alternatively, “that had been stored there [apothēsaurizmenon] by the king.”137

The word apothēsaurizontas is a compound word. It’s from apo [from, away from] and thēsaurizō [to lay up, store up]. Centuries before Paul, Herodotus used thēsaurizō, writing in “Histories,”

“This king (they told me) had great wealth [plouton] in silver, so great that none of the succeeding kings could surpass or come near it. To store his treasure [thēsaurizein] safely, he had a stone chamber built, one of its walls abutting on the outer side of his palace … So when the chamber was finished, the king stored his treasure [thēsaurisai] in it.”138

In another story, Herodotus shares,

“The tribute is stored [thesaurizei] by the king in this fashion: he melts it down and pours it into earthen vessels; when the vessel is full he breaks the earthenware away, and when he needs money, coins as much as serves his purpose.”139

This word means a pile or an accumulation of valuable stuff. It’s not income. It’s an accumulation. It’s wealth. It’s yet another wealth reference.

A sixth reference to wealth

Got the point? This sentence is about wealth. In fact, it doesn’t stop there. It has yet another reference to wealth. Rich donors are,

“thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation [themelion] for the future.” (1 Timothy 6:19a, ESV).

Themelion, foundation, has a double meaning. It parallels the double meaning of the English word “foundation.”

Themelion can reference a physical stone. It can be the foundation at the base of a building. It can be a metaphor. It can reference the first principles of a system. But, like the English word, it also has a financial meaning.

We use the word for charitable foundations. This might be the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, or others. These foundations are piles of wealth. In Greek, themelion can have this same financial meaning. It can reference a financial deposit or fund. It can also reference a bond instrument.140

Professor E. F. Scott writes,

“It is possible, too, that he plays on the double meaning of the Greek word, which can signify a ‘fund’ as well as a ‘foundation.’”141

Indeed, several have explained the passage in this way. Another commentary notes of themelion,

“Thus, the word seems to have taken on a meaning approaching the ambiguous word ‘funds.’”142

Different translations render the phrase as

“storing up for themselves a good reserve”143

“laying up for themselves a good deposit”144

“treasuring up for themselves a good fund”145

Allusions, music, and the sixth wealth reference

Like the English word “foundation,” themelion has a double meaning. It can reference a financial fund, deposit, or bond instrument. But it can also reference a heavy rock at the base of a building.

However, themelion is a compound word. Separating the two parts, thema and lian, narrows the meaning. The definition of thema is:

“1. Money deposited; (of grain) deposit; treasure; 2. (of loaves) Pile.; 3. Coffer.”146

When separated, this word no longer has a double meaning. It’s just a pile of treasure or valuable stuff. It’s an explicit wealth reference.

Some have even suggested separating these two parts as a correction to the text.147 This separated form matches a related passage on giving. The Septuagint’s Tobit 4:9 also describes the results of giving. It reads,

“For thou layest up [thesaurizeis] a good treasure [thema] for thyself against the day of necessity.” (KJV).148

In comparison, 1 Timothy 6:19 reads,

“Laying up in store [apothēsaurizontas] for themselves a good foundation [themelion] against the time to come” (KJV).

The book of Tobit was written around 200 B.C. Paul’s audience would have been familiar with this parallel passage. Thus, they would likely have understood themelion as a wealth reference.

Still, a reference to thema would have been clearer. It’s purely financial. It has no double meaning as a big heavy rock. So why use the compound word themelion with its double meaning? Why not use thema and lian separately instead?

One commentary suggests an interesting reason. Using themelion matches a beat. Using thema and lian separately do not. The word choice is necessary if this is a hymn. Professor Luke Timothy Johnson explains,

“Everything from v. 15b through v. 16 is indented by the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland critical text, indicating its editorial judgment that this is another hymnic fragment. It is possible: the clauses are well balanced, and there are elements of rhyme, which occur frequently in hymns as well as in other forms of prayer. We find a deliberate wordplay in 6:17-18 using variations on ‘rich’ (plousiois, ploutou, plousios, ploutein) … We can note as well that there is some assonance in v. 19 in the sequence themelion kalon eis to mellon (a noble foundation for the future), which may help account for the choice of themelios ...”149

This “hymn” idea has additional support.150 In fact, Paul already quoted another hymn earlier in this letter.151 His doing so again would be no surprise.

Also, Paul’s argument matches and extends that made in a well-known theatrical scene about generosity.152 This playwright’s works were often repurposed into short segments or maxims. Thus, that scene itself may have been sung or adapted into song lyrics. The idea of Paul “Christianizing” a well-known song matches his rhetorical approach in other places.

Whether or not this was a hymn, Paul’s letters were often read aloud.153 He commands this practice in other epistles.154 Thus, Paul was writing, in part, for public performance. This makes memorable sound patterns particularly valuable. Using themelion achieves this. It creates the lyrically balanced:

themelion kalon eis to mellon.

Substituting thema and lian ruins the cadence.

There’s another reason to read themelion as a financial deposit or fund. It’s simple. Otherwise, the words don’t make sense. Why would someone

“store up for themselves the treasure of” a big heavy rock?

It’s like saying,

“You’ll store up for yourselves the treasure of a chunk of concrete.”

That’s not exactly a persuasive argument.

The solution to this metaphorical awkwardness is obvious. As one commentary notes,

“The language of the clause is awkward, for storing up (the Gk. Verb is apothesaurizein: lit. ‘to amass treasure’) and foundation represent two quite different ideas (although the Greek word for the latter, themelion, can also, in a transferred sense, mean ‘fund’).”155

As Professor Linda Belleville explains,

“A good foundation is not the concrete slab of a building but a substantial nest egg or retirement account.”156

A seventh wealth reference: This “generous” means wealth sharing

The word generous (or generosity) appears frequently in the New Testament. It appears in Romans 12:8, 2 Corinthians 8:2; 9:11, 13, and James 1:5. Each time, it’s from the Greek word haplotēs.

Our passage is an exception. When 1 Timothy 6:18 references “to be generous” it’s not haplotēs. It’s eumetadotous.

What’s special about eumetadotous? For one thing, it’s a new word. Paul made it up. He added the eu- prefix to metadotous. Metadotous means sharing. Eu-metadotous is a special kind of sharing. The eu- prefix often references wealth. We see this in Greek words such as:

Eu-sharing, eu-metadotous, is a special kind of sharing. It’s wealth sharing. It’s not just normal generosity. It’s the generosity of wealth sharing.

But wait, there’s more!

This is a single sentence with seven references to wealth. One commentary argues for yet another. It argues that both “treasuring up” [apothēsaurizontas] and “they may take hold” [epilabōntai] in verse 19 are financial terms. It explains that both

“belong to the same semantic domain as the ‘riches’”157

One translation adds a ninth reference. It translates koinōnikous in verse 18 as

“to be sharers of possessions.”158

This is sharing from one’s accumulated stock. It’s wealth sharing, not income sharing.

But by now, you get the point. This message is not about income. It’s about riches. It’s about wealth. It’s not about sharing income – whether a tenth or otherwise. This message is about a different type of giving. It’s about sharing wealth. It’s not about a paycheck. It’s not about a weekly budget. It’s about what a person owns.

The reason for the repetition

Why this semantic overkill? Why use riches as

“a personal noun, an objective noun, an adverb, and a verb”?159

Why reference wealth seven, eight, or even nine times? And all in one sentence! Is this really necessary?

Paul thought so. He repeats it for a simple reason. Wealth conversations are scary! We don’t want to talk to other people about their wealth. It’s uncomfortable! It’s the scariest thing about this ministry. It’s the thing we’re most likely to avoid.

Given the chance, we would skip over this part. We would slip back into talking about disposable income gifts. We would talk about weekly giving or tithing. We would talk about small, easy, comfortable gifts. Paul doesn’t give us this chance. He makes clear that this ministry is about assets. It’s about wealth. It’s about riches.

This is a different kind of giving. It’s also a different kind of fundraising. And, it’s what actually works. Focusing on gifts of wealth can dramatically transform all kinds of charities, churches, and ministries. The words are true. They worked two thousand years ago. They still work today.