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.”160

Paul flips the script: “Us” vs. “them”

This passage gives instructions for Christians with wealth. It describes their past and continuing identity. It describes the treasure they can build up for themselves. It describes the life they can take hold of. It tells a story. It’s a story about wealthy Christians.

But in the middle of this story, Paul switches the perspective. He’s been writing about “them” – the wealthy Christians. But then, he reverses. Paul does not describe

“God, who richly supplies them with all things.”

Nor does he describe simply

“God, who richly supplies all things.”

Instead, he does something different. He describes

“God, who richly supplies us [hemin] with all things”.

Professor Bill Mounce explains,

“By using hemin, ‘to us,’ and not autois, ‘to them,’ Paul shows that he is stating a general truth applicable to all people, whether they are rich or not.”161

The message switches. In English, this switch can appear subtle. It’s easy to miss. But in Greek, it’s not subtle. The “us” is emphatic. It’s special.

In Greek, the person referenced is not normally stated separately. An “I,” “you,” “us,” or “them” is inferred by the form of the main word. (For example, from its conjugation.) But here, it is stated separately. It’s stated as its own word. The word is hemin. This word is “only expressed when emphatic.”162 It creates special emphasis or force. It grabs the reader’s attention.

Why is this “us” so important? It’s important because it affects the meaning of all three verses in 1 Timothy 6:17-19.

Sharing is for “us” not “them”

The passage describes,

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

In English, this often ends the first sentence. In Greek, it does not. All three verses are a single sentence. This phrase if followed by a list:

“… to enjoy [eis apolausin]

The list explains the first item. This reads as,

“God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy: to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share” (1 Timothy 6:17b-18).

Because the list explains how “to enjoy,” the list applies to “us.” God richly supplies “us” with all things “to enjoy.”

Adding a sentence break and new words (“Instruct them”) in English changes this meaning. It implies that receiving and enjoying is for “us,” but sharing is only for “them.” This is incorrect.

The list explains “for enjoyment.” It explains how to enjoy the things God richly supplies to “us.” The list doesn’t apply just to “them.” It also applies to “us.”

An alternate approach takes “to enjoy” as part of a list explaining the various uses for “all things.”164 The result is still the same. The list still applies to “us.” It spells out the intended uses of God’s gifts of all things. This intent applies to everyone who receives those gifts. It’s not just for the rich. It’s for “us” all.

The “us” language applies to both receiving and sharing. Otherwise, God would be supplying all of us richly, but only the rich would then use it,

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

That would make no sense. And that’s not what it says.

Where does “us” end?

After “ready to share,” Paul returns to “them” language. He describes the results of sharing as

“treasuring up for themselves [heautois]”.

Does this “them” refer back only to the rich? No. It refers back to those who have shared generously. Professor Stan Porter explains,

“Paul defines those who are generous sharers as ‘those storing up for themselves a good foundation for the future’ … The generous sharers are here said to be storing up ‘for themselves’ (heautois), the reflexive dative plural pronoun of the complement indicating that the action is in relation to themselves.”165

Professor Richmond Lattimore’s New Testament translation emphasizes this understanding. He renders the passage with,

“God, who provides us richly with all means for enjoyment, to do good, to be rich in good deeds, to be liberal, sharing, laying away for ourselves a good foundation for the future so that all may partake of what is really life.”166 (1 Timothy 6:17b-19, emphasis added).

The idea is this. God richly provides all of us with all things. But not all of us will use it for the purpose he intended. Not all of us will use it for enjoyment. Some will use it to feed a life of excess and addiction, leading to despair. Some will just bury it and die with it.

But others will follow God’s intended purpose. They will use it “for enjoyment.” They will enjoy it by using what He has richly provided

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

It is these people who will be

“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).

This opportunity is not limited to

“those who are rich in this present world” (1 Timothy 6:17b).

It’s available to all. It’s available to “us.” God richly supplies us with all things. We’re all in this together. We’re not all rich, but we’ve all been richly supplied. We’ve all been richly supplied, just in different ways.

Other scriptures make the same point.167 We each must decide what to do with the gifts God has given. This applies whether God has richly supplied us with wealth or something else. It applies to all of us.

We’re all in this together

In any interpretation, this “us” phrase is a departure. The passage begins with “them” language. Then, it breaks from that.

So, why this shift? Why this abrupt change in who is being described? The beginning of the message is about “them” – Christians with wealth. The next part is not. It’s about “us.”

Paul’s message might feel more attractive if it were only about the rich. It’s tempting to think,

“Those rich people over there are different. God has given them so much! It should be so easy for them to be generous.”

This feeling is natural. It’s comfortable. But it’s not reality.168 And it doesn’t encourage generosity.169 This feeling implies that their generosity doesn’t really count. It doesn’t count because they’re different. They’re different from us.

This attitude increases separation. It compounds an existing problem. The rich already have a natural tendency towards isolation. They may feel that they can’t trust others. They may feel that they are above others.

These feelings lead to separation. They separate rich Christians from the rest of the fellowship community. Paul combats this separation. He pulls them into the fellowship community [koinōnia]. He pulls them in through sharing [koinōnikous].

The message here is not that rich Christians are different. The message is that they’re the same. No, not everyone is wealthy. Not everyone must decide what to do with their wealth. But each of us has been richly supplied in different ways. We each must make the same choice. We must answer the same question. What will we do with the things God has richly supplied to us?

Paul’s phrasing emphasizes this shared experience. The rich are to be rich “in good works.” This phrase is ergois kalois. Paul uses this exact phrase only twice. These two uses appear just a few sentences apart. In 1 Timothy 6:18, it describes the responsibilities of the richest Christians. In 1 Timothy 5:10, it describes the responsibilities of the poorest Christians. It’s required of elderly widows seeking financial support from the church. As one commentator explains,

“The community benefits from the good works of both the widows (cf. 5:10) – the poorest of the poor – and the wealthy people in its midst.”170

The parallels continue. In 1 Timothy 6:18, the rich person is also to do good [agatho-ergein]. The poor elderly widow must do the same. In 1 Timothy 5:10, she must “work good” [ergō agathō].

The rich person is also to be a good sharer [eu-metadotous]. So, too, the poor person. In Ephesians 4:28, Paul directs,

“The one who steals must no longer steal; but rather he must labor, producing with his own hands what is good [agathon], so that he will have something to share [metadidonai] with the one who has need.”

The rich person’s decision to share wealth is not different. It’s not special. It’s not above. It’s the same. Everyone must make the same decision. They are like us. We all face the same scenario. We all face the same choice. We’re all in this together!

Social norms: People like us enjoy doing things like this

This passage is about sharing wealth. At first, that decision appears to be special. It’s only for the wealthy. Here, scripture explains that it’s not special.

The decision to generously share what God has supplied is universal. Because of this, others’ examples can be motivational. They create a “social norm.” They show that generous sharing is normal. It’s what we all do.

This “social norm” message works in fundraising. Showing that others who are like the donor have made similar contributions is powerful. Paul’s message does this. It shows how others have made similar decisions to share generously. Only the specific gift varies from person to person.

Paul uses the “social norm” fundraising message elsewhere. His fundraising appeal to the Corinthians doesn’t start with how exciting the project is. It doesn’t start with how great the need is. It starts with a donor story. It starts with an example of others who have already given.

The Macedonians gave joyfully. Relative to what they had, they also gave much. He opens with,

“Now, brothers and sisters, we make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave voluntarily, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints” (2 Corinthians 8:1-4).

Paul’s donor story sets an example.171 It sets a “social norm.” But for a “social norm” to work, it’s not enough to show that other people do things like this. The message must be that people like us enjoy doing things like this. The effective donor story is about someone who is, in some way, “like me.”

Paul’s donor story does this. He motivates the Corinthian church by using the example of the Macedonian church. These were nearby regions. These areas shared a long history of connections. These churches were part of the same fellowship. These connections make the donor story more powerful.

The same idea is at work in our passage. Using the things God richly supplies to share generously is what we all do. Together, the fellowship community mutually shares. The donor is part of a community of mutual, reciprocal sharing. The donor is part of “us.”

Social norms: People like us enjoy doing things like this

In giving experiments, social norms are powerful. People look for what is normal. They look for what is socially expected. Examples of others’ giving set this expectation. If the example gift is $1, people are more likely to give $1. If the example gift is $50, they’re more likely to give $50.

It might seem like the best fundraising answer is easy. Just set the expectation to a high amount. Then, we’ll raise more money. But that’s not how it works.

People rarely make a gift that is lower than the example amount. Instead, they will choose not to give at all. Giving something less than the accepted amount makes no sense. It’s costly, but it still violates the social norm. So, people instead give nothing.

Using just one example amount for everyone is problematic. Those planning to give much less will instead give nothing. Those planning to give much more will instead give only the example amount.

Consider this example. Suppose a church needs $100,000 for a project. Often, someone will suggest,

“We just need to find a hundred people to give $1,000.”

This feels natural. But it’s a bad idea. It’s the most difficult way to raise the money. What works better is to find one person to give $50,000, three people to give $10,000, ten people to give $1,000, and twenty people to give $50.

This works better. Any experienced fundraiser will agree. But notice something else. This also allows more people to give generously. A single amount, like $1,000, will be the best gift for only a few. For most, it will be either stingy or unattainable.

People like us give abundantly and generously

Our passage creates a social norm. It implies, “people like us enjoy doing things like this.” But what, exactly, do people like us do? The social norm is not giving a set amount. It’s not easier for the wealthy to meet. The social norm is giving abundantly or generously. It’s giving abundantly or generously from what God has supplied.

Scripture inspires by using donor stories. These set a social norm. The social norm is abundant, generous giving. The Macedonian church wasn’t as rich as the Corinthian church. But the Macedonian church still set the social norm. They gave even beyond their ability. They gave abundantly and generously. In our passage, the social norm is the same.

Conclusion: Following the social norm

The rich Christian must decide what he will do with his temporary wealth. But he is not alone in this decision. He is surrounded by the examples of others who share generously.

They may not have wealth. But God has supplied them richly, too. They have taken what God has supplied and used it. They’ve used it

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

The rich Christian will do the same. He will do the same because,

“People like us enjoy doing things like this!”