Story elements: The Call to Adventure (Challenge)

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.”211

Part I

Enjoying Wealth: The “How-To Manual”

What is not there

Exegesis starts with the text. But not this time. This time, we’re not starting with what is there. Instead, we’re going to start with what is not there.

Our translation has a period after “enjoy.” That’s not in the Greek. In Greek, 1 Timothy 6:17-19 is all one sentence.

Adding a new sentence creates a new problem. We can’t have a sentence without a verb. But there’s only one verb, not two. So, our translation adds that as well. It restates the earlier verb. It adds, “Instruct them”. Those extra words aren’t in the Greek, either. (The italics in this translation reflect that.)212

What is there

In Greek, there is no sentence break. There is no restatement of “Instruct them”. There is just an unbroken list. It’s this:

“to enjoy [eis apolausin]

to do good [agathoergein]

to be rich in good works [ploutein en ergois kalois]

to be generous ready-to-share [eumetadotous einai koinōnikous]”

This list213 is not broken into two sentences. There is no repeated verb. This matters because it affects the meaning.

The infinitive phrases, starting with “to do good [agathoergein],” explain the previous phrase. Professor Abraham Malherbe writes,

“The infinitives thus describe how wealth is to be enjoyed, namely in the ways it is used: first, simply by doing good, stated in a verbal form (agathoergein) that captures the favorite ergon agathōn of the Pauline Epistles; second, stating the same thing with a similar favorite expression, erga kala, but explicitly describing the doing of such works as being rich in them (ploutein en ergois kalois); third, giving specificity to these general directions, to be generous and sharing (eumetadotous, koinōnikous).”214

We are to enjoy what God has richly supplied. That’s why he supplied it. But how do we do that? The list explains how. The text sequence is this:

Replacing the period: A colon? A comma?

We know there is no period. This is not two sentences. There is no second statement of “Instruct them”. Professor Robert Yarbrough explains that

“the imperative is not actually restated here. By not restating the command, the rhetorical feel is of a list of positive outcomes the rich can attain, not on Timothy’s need to be in their face.” 215

This is just one sentence with one verb. So, what should go here instead of a period and “Instruct them”?

The list shows how to enjoy what God has richly supplied. For the rich Christian, these are examples of how to enjoy wealth. This meaning becomes explicit with a colon. This would read 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).

Using a comma after “enjoy” allows for this meaning as well. However, that also allows another meaning. It might appear to be giving separate purposes. God richly supplies. We use some for enjoyment, some for sharing, some for good works, etc.216 (Of course, these different purposes can still be interrelated. One gift can do several of these things.)

Yet, that’s not the likely meaning. Why not? Because this isn’t a list of separate purposes. There is only one purpose. The first item is the purpose. This translation uses “to” in each phrase. But the first item, “to enjoy,” is actually different. (Several translations use “for enjoyment” to distinguish this first phrase.217) It’s not a simple infinitive like the others. Instead, it uses eis.

Using eis can be a big deal.218 It shows the purpose of a thing. In this case, it shows the purpose for which God richly supplies all things.219 He provides them for the purpose of enjoyment.

This is a unique distinction for the first phrase. This isn’t a list of different purposes. It’s one purpose. The purpose – the eis – is enjoyment. What follows that one purpose is a list of examples. What follows is the “how-to manual” for accomplishing that purpose.

Other translations: A colon, comma, period, semi-colon, space, or dash

So, what is the right marking here? The Greek is one sentence, not two. Thus, literal English translations don’t use the period. Neither do the older English translations. What do they use instead?

The various punctuation choices in English translations have shifted over time. The Wycliffe Bible of 1397 uses a space.220 The Tyndale Bible of 1526 uses a space followed by “and”.221 The Coverdale Bible of 1535 uses a colon and a closing parenthesis. The Bishops’ Bible of 1568 uses just the colon without a closing parenthesis. The Geneva Bible of 1587 uses just the closing parenthesis without the colon. The King James Version of 1611 and subsequent classic translations use the semi-colon.222 William Whiston’s 1745 translation uses a colon.223 So does John Wesley’s 1755 translation.224 Alexander Campbell’s 1826 translation uses a colon followed by an em-dash.225

Modern translations have added a few more options. Some use a comma.226 One uses a comma and a closing parenthesis.227 Two use an em-dash.228 One uses both a semi-colon and an em-dash.229

So, what’s the answer? The options, depending on the translation, include:

That’s a lot of options! So, which one is right? Let’s consider the earliest evidence.

Back to the first manuscripts

What’s going on here? What is actually in the Greek text? Modern Greek texts may show a comma,230 but these markings are not original. The oldest appearances of this passage231 are in

What was the original punctuation? Unfortunately, it’s complicated. These earliest manuscripts rarely use punctuation.232 When they do, it’s not our modern punctuation. For example, English uses the period – a lower dot. Early Greek texts can use a lower dot, a middle dot, or a raised dot. They can also use an overdot or underdot. Thus, a word might end with any of the following markings:

Ancient Greek punctuation symbol composed of dots surrounding a letter.
Early Greek punctuation example.

And it gets worse. The scribes run all words together. And every letter is capitalized. So, there’s no split between words. And they’re often written in fixed-width columns. So, line breaks frequently occur in the middle of words.

The earliest punctuation

We’re considering the best English punctuation between two items: “for enjoyment” [eis apolausin] and “to do good” [agathoergein]. In the Codex Sinaiticus, the letters run together in narrow columns. So, we don’t get the modern, “panta plousios eis apolausin agathoergein ploutein en ergois kalois eumetadotous”. Instead, we get this:

TAPLOUSIOSEISA

POLAUSINAGATHO

ERGEINPLOUTEINE

NERGOISKALOISEU

This is still a list of items. It still makes sense to separate them in an English translation. But how? What marking should we use? We get no guidance from this earliest manuscript. However, the next one gives us something different.

The Codex Alexandrinus uses wider columns. Our words (underlined here) appear as follows:

CHONTIHEMINTAPANTAPLOUSI

OSEISAPOLAUSIN AGATHOERGei̅

PLOUTEINENERGOISKALOIS

EUMETADOTOUSEINAIKOINO

NIKOUSAPOTHESAURIZONTAS233

There is a mid-line space between “for enjoyment” and “to do good.” The space is the width of a single wide letter. Additionally, we get several middle dot notations. They appear like this:

CHONTIHEMINTAPANTAPLOUSI

OSEISAPOLAUSIN ∙ AGATHOERGei̅∙

PLOUTEINENERGOISKALOIS ∙

EUMATADOTOUSEINAIKOINO

NIKOUS∙APOTHESAURIZONTAS

Thus, this text contains divisions between our items. It appears as follows:

“for enjoyment”

[Mid-line space + middle dot] “to do good”

[Middle dot] “to be rich in good works”

[Middle dot] “to be generous and ready to share”

[Middle dot] “treasuring up”

The setumah

How do these influence meaning? First, let’s consider the mid-line space. Writing of such intralinear spacing in the Codex Vaticanus, Dr. Jesse Grenz references,

“a similar feature in the Judean Desert texts, in which these mid-line breaks represent Masoretic ‘closed sections’—small ‘thematically related’ units.”234

In Masoretic terminology, this spacing is called a “setumah.” (Others have noted the use of setumah in the Codex Alexandrinus as well.235) Professor Marjo C. A. Korpel explains,

“A fairly wide space in the middle of a line indicates the beginning of a “closed” section after the space.

              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 setumah →xxxxxxxx  xxxxxxxxxxxxx
              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”236

This notation of a closed section could be relevant for our interpretation because

“scholars have established that setuma (‘a closed section’) denotes a subdivision of a larger unit.”237

Or, as Professor Emanuel Tov explains,

“the closed section often referred back to a previous unit of a larger order.”238

Thus, this spacing in the Codex Alexandrinus matches the idea that what follows “for enjoyment” is a closed section. It is a subdivision referring back to “enjoyment.” It gives examples or types. To communicate a closed section in English, we use the colon. A closed section would read,

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

The middle dot

In addition to this mid-line space, The Codex Alexandrinus also uses middle dots. These separate the items in this list. The Codex Freerianus uses similar middle dot notations in the passage.239 (The Codex Claromontanus divides the passage in similar places, using line breaks rather than middle dots.240)

So, what is the best way to translate these middle dots? In this case, it may be to keep them as middle dots. In other words, these middle dots act as bullet points in a list.241 This would appear as

“God, who richly supplies us with all things for enjoyment:

This matches the idea of one purpose followed by different examples. As Professor Malherbe writes,

“The infinitives thus describe how wealth is to be enjoyed, namely in the ways it is used.”242

Writing a century earlier, Professor Marvin Vincent notes,

“The true character of such enjoyment is shown in the next verse.”243

A quarter century before that, Henry Spence explains,

“These words – coming directly after the statement that the good and pleasant things of this world … are, after all, the gifts of God, who means them for our enjoyment – these words seem to point to the highest enjoyment procurable by these ‘rich’ – the luxury of doing good, of helping others to be happy, the only enjoyment that never fails, never disappoints.”244

The eis clause gives the purpose; the infinitives give the examples. This makes sense logically. And it also matches the oldest punctuation.245 If one were trying to convey exactly this meaning in the late 300’s A.D., what punctuation would be the best way to do so? It would be exactly that found in the Codex Alexandrinus.

The language, the logic, and the punctuation all match. What follows “for enjoyment” explains how to achieve that enjoyment. It’s a “how-to manual” for wealth enjoyment.

Part II

Enjoying Wealth: Don’t Miss the Point!

The why and the how of wealth enjoyment

This passage has a purpose. Professor Stanley E. Porter writes,

“the purpose of God’s bringing about these things is ‘for enjoyment’ (eis apolausin). The preposition eis indicates the intention of the action, which is apolausin, with the noun appearing here and in Hebrews 11:24 and denoting enjoyment or pleasure”246

The purpose – the eis – is enjoyment. Everything before it explains why those who are rich should enjoy their wealth. Everything after it explains how they can enjoy their wealth.

Why should they enjoy their wealth? In other words, why shouldn’t they just hold on to it tightly? The passage explains why:

That’s why they should enjoy their wealth. Next, the passage explains how they can do so:

It’s an enjoyable process

If God richly supplies us, but we don’t enjoy it, we’re missing the point. How can we enjoy what God has richly supplied? We put it to work. We use it,

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

This is enjoyable. It’s an enjoyable process. Making an impact – doing good – is enjoyable. Becoming rich in good works is enjoyable.

Being a generous person is also enjoyable. In fact, the word itself implies enjoyment. Professor Ceslas Spicq explains that the prefix (eu) in “generous” (eu-metadotous),

“emphasizes the nuance either of liberality, or the ease, promptitude, and joy with which one makes one’s wealth useful to others.”249 (Emphasis added.)

Finally, being connected to the fellowship community through sharing is enjoyable. This describes an entirely enjoyable process. It’s the way to use what God has richly blessed us with for enjoyment.

This enjoyable process gets even better. It leads to outcomes that are even more enjoyable. Sharing in this way helps the donor to

“store up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Timothy 6:19a)

So, the enjoyment isn’t just for today. It’s for the future, too. Sharing in this way also helps the donor to

“take hold of that which is truly life.” (1 Timothy 6:19b)

What could be more enjoyable?

The point of giving and receiving

The central focus of the passage is enjoyment. Enjoyment is the purpose. This purpose is accomplished through an enjoyable process. This enjoyable process produces results that are even more enjoyable.

Being richly supplied isn’t the purpose. It’s an external circumstance. Giving isn’t the purpose. It’s an external action. The purpose is enjoyment. Professor Malherbe explains it this way:

“What is striking is that the purpose for the gift of wealth is not the proper use of it, which is attended by enjoyment; rather, the purpose is enjoyment, which is explicated by the three infinitives that follow.”250

We can receive what God richly supplies. But if we don’t enjoy it, we’re missing the point. Being richly supplied just to bury it in the ground is pointless.

We can also give. But if we don’t enjoy it, we’re missing the point. Giving grudgingly and under obligation is pointless. Without enjoyment, both giving and receiving are pointless. The purpose – the point – is enjoyment. Don’t miss the point!

Poetry with a point: Chiasmus

The point of the passage is wealth enjoyment. This is clear from the words. But Paul goes even further. He uses a special poetic form called chiasmus to emphasize this point. Chiasmus is

“the use of bilateral symmetry about a central axis.”251

More formally, it is

“the use of inverted parallelism of form and/or content which moves toward and away from a strategic central component.”252

Writing of Paul’s letters, Professor Kenneth Bailey explains,

“The key to Biblical poetry has long been recognized as parallelism. The relationships between two parallelistic lines can best be described as ‘correspondences’ … it is a rhyme of ideas that dominates the poetry along with a very sophisticated structure.”253

Chiasmus is a literary form common in the Old Testament,254 as well as in Greek255 and Roman256 literature. Paul uses it repeatedly in his letters.257 He uses it here in his discussion of wealth. Adding the wealth references in 1 Timothy 6:7, 9-10 to our passage results in this chiastic structure:

A-Riches [Death]258

B-Riches [Now/temporary]259

C-Riches [Leading to community separation]260

D-Riches [Tightly grasped as one’s hope]261

E-Riches [Hidden/disappearing/uncertain]262

F-Riches [Godly source/inflow]263

G-Riches [Purpose: for enjoyment]264

F'-Riches [Godly use/outflow]265

E'-Riches [Visible/beautiful good works]266

D'-Riches [Open-handedly shared]267

C'-Riches [Leading to community connection]268

B'-Riches [Future/permanent]269

A'-Riches [Life]270

The point in the structure is “for enjoyment.” Enjoyment is the “central axis.” It’s the “strategic central component.” It’s the purpose of God’s rich provision. For wealth, the key yes/no decision is enjoyment. The miser and the ascetic say no. Paul says yes.

The structure points to the centrality of enjoyment. Professor John Breck explains,

“the uniqueness of chiasmus, as distinct from other forms of parallelism, lies in its focus upon a pivotal theme, about which the other propositions of the literary unit are developed.”271

What precedes “enjoyment” answers the “Why” question. Why should the rich person say yes to enjoying wealth in this way? It’s the justification.

What follows “enjoyment” answers the “How” question. How can the rich person best enjoy his wealth? It’s the “how-to manual.” It explains how God’s rich provision can be enjoyed.

Enjoyment is also the central point of the story. The challenge is to enjoy wealth (rather than to bury it and die with it). This is the story’s “call to adventure.” Accepting this “call to adventure” leads to the rest of the story. It leads the rich Christian

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

It leads to

“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Timothy 6:19a).

It leads them to

“take hold of that which is truly life.” (1 Timothy 6:19b).

Paul’s poetic structure emphasizes this call to adventure. It emphasizes this central point. The point is enjoyment. In giving, receiving, and fundraising the best advice is this: Don’t miss the point!

Missing the point of receiving

It’s possible to have the exterior circumstances without the interior enjoyment. This is true in giving. It’s also true in receiving. We can receive what God richly supplies, but if we don’t enjoy it, we’re missing the point.

Don’t miss the point of receiving. The point is to enjoy it.

In 1899, J. H. Bernard explained the passage this way:

“riches (as all other gifts of God) are not given to be possessed merely, but to be enjoyed, and (as is immediately explained in the next verse) to be used for good purposes.”272

Professor David Downs explains the passage this way,

“One’s true enjoyment of wealth is found in the employment of material resources to perform good works, most specifically through the generous and charitable disposal of wealth.”273

This idea applies for each of us. We can do this with whatever God richly supplies. If God supplies us with the ability to build wealth, this is how we enjoy that gift.274 If God supplies us with the ability to teach or to serve, this is still how we enjoy that gift. We use it.275 We put it to work. We use it to do good. We use it to be rich in good works. We generously share it.

This is how we enjoy whatever God has richly supplied. Enjoyment is the point. It’s the purpose – the eis – for which God provided it to us in the first place. If we don’t enjoy the gift, we’re missing the point.

Missing the point of giving

We can be richly supplied by God and not enjoy it. That misses the point. We can also be charitable and not enjoy it, either. This, too, misses the point. Professor Malherbe explains of 1 Timothy 6:17-18,

“the author wishes the benevolent use of one’s wealth to be an expression or means of enjoyment rather than, say, something done out of duty or compulsion.”276

God is not looking for joyless givers. Paul explains,

“Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

God loves a cheerful giver. That’s what He wants. But it is possible to give without joy or love. What’s the result? Paul explains,

“And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have love, it does me no good.” (1 Corinthians 13:3).

Giving is not the goal. Joyful giving is the goal. Giving willingly, wholeheartedly, with joy and love is the goal. Giving without enjoyment misses the point.

The point of giving has always been the same

Even in the Old Testament, giving was about the emotion attached to the gift. David led the “capital campaign” for the temple. After reaching the campaign goal, they celebrated. The celebration wasn’t about the amount raised. The celebration was about the donors’ hearts:

“Then the people rejoiced because they had offered so willingly, for they made their offering to the Lord wholeheartedly, and King David also rejoiced greatly.” (1 Chronicles 29:9).

David then spoke, “in the sight of all the assembly”. What was his message? First, he acknowledged that God was the one who richly supplied all these things. Then, he focused on the heart of the donors. He said,

“Since I know, my God, that You put the heart to the test and delight in uprightness, I, in the integrity of my heart, have willingly offered all these things; so now with joy I have seen Your people, who are present here, make their offerings willingly to You. Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, our fathers, keep this forever in the intentions of the hearts of Your people, and direct their hearts to You;” (1 Chronicles 29:17-18).

David’s message mirrored that from an earlier “capital campaign.” This was the fundraising campaign to build the Tabernacle. God said to Moses,

“Tell the sons of Israel to take a contribution for Me; from everyone whose heart moves him you shall take My contribution.” (Exodus 25:2).

Notice that God didn’t want every kind of gift. He wanted only a specific kind of gift. He wanted only gifts accompanied by the right feeling. Moses later said to them,

“Take from among you a contribution to the Lord; whoever is of a willing heart is to bring it as the Lord’s contribution.” (Exodus 35:5).

This same idea applies to other gifts, too. Deuteronomy 15 directs giving to “your poor brother.” It explains,

“You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him” (Deuteronomy 15:10a).

The point is enjoyment

Giving is not the goal. It never has been. The goal is giving with the right emotion. It’s giving willingly, wholeheartedly, with joy and love. This is not just giving wealth. It’s not just sharing wealth. It’s wealth enjoyment.

Is it possible to pressure a reluctant giver into giving? Yes. Is it possible to put someone under compulsion to give? Yes. Giving under obligation can generate a gift. But it misses the point.

The point is not just giving; it’s joyful giving. The point is not just to donate wealth. The point is to enjoy the wealth. The point is to enjoy it by using it

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

Part III

Enjoying Wealth: The Enjoyment Is Extreme

What’s the point?

The message in this passage centers on enjoyment: apolausin. That’s the purpose of the purpose clause: eis apolausin. What comes before this explains why wealth should be enjoyed. What comes after it explains how wealth should be enjoyed. Enjoyment – apolausin – is the point.

So, what, exactly, is this? What is apolausin? English translations are similar. Almost all use for “enjoyment” or to “enjoy.” The few alternatives include for “our comfort,”277 for “profit,”278 to “enjoy life,”279 to “make us happy,”280 or for “our happiness.”281

These translations work. But they miss something. Paul is not just using a normal word for enjoyment. He’s using an extreme word. He’s using a shocking word. It’s over the top. It’s outrageous.

This is not just enjoyment; this is “party-time” enjoyment. In the Bible, the word appears in only one other place:282

“By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy [apolausin] the temporary pleasures of sin,” (Hebrews 11:24-25).

The enjoyment of 1 Timothy 6:17 is the same word that Hebrews applies to “the temporary pleasures of sin” in Pharaoh’s palace. This is extreme. It’s shocking.

This sensual nature is how the word is normally used. Professor Linda Belleville explains,

“Eis apolausin does not have to do with spiritual enjoyment but instead with material pleasures.”283

In 1910, The Expositor’s Greek Testament explained,

“eis apolausin: This is a greater concession to the sensuous view of life than the eis metalēmpsin of 1 Timothy 4:3. It approaches the declaration of the Preacher that for a man to ‘eat and drink, and make his soul enjoy good in his labour … is from the hand of God’ (Ecclesiastes 2:24), ‘the gift of God’ (Ecclesiastes 3:13; Ecclesiastes 5:19). No good purpose is served by pretending that God did not intend us to enjoy the pleasurable sensations of physical life.”284

In 1899, John Bernard explained,

“apolausin is a strong word, almost connoting sensual enjoyment.”285

This strongly sensual usage of the word was typical among Greek authors.286 For example, in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes of

“enjoyment [apolausei], which in all cases comes through touch, both in the case of food and in that of drink and in that of sexual intercourse.”287

In Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle writes of

“the nature and quality of the pleasure connected with the body and with enjoyment [apolauseis], and the means that procure it, are not hard to see.”288

A comment on this word in Aristotle explains,

“The Greek word is specially associated with sensual pleasures.”289

Are donors supposed to enjoy their giving? Paul’s answer is extreme. It’s shocking. This is not just enjoyment; it’s extreme, sensual enjoyment. It’s as sensually enjoyable as “the temporary pleasures of sin.” (Hebrews 11:25b). But it’s not temporary. And it’s not sinful.290 It’s exactly what God intends.

Extreme enjoyment in Paul’s fundraising letter

The idea of extreme enjoyment from sharing God’s blessings is not limited to 1 Timothy 6:17. Paul doesn’t just tell Timothy to deliver this fundraising message. Paul also delivers it himself.

In his fundraising appeal letter, he delivers a parallel message:291

“And God is able to bestow every blessing on you in abundance, so that richly enjoying all sufficiency at all times, you may have ample means for all good works.” (2 Corinthians 9:8, Weymouth)

Both 1 Timothy 6:17 and 2 Corinthians 9:8 begin with a message of abundance:

The message is the same. God supplies you richly. God gives you gifts in abundance.

In both cases, God’s rich provision or abundant giving has a purpose. In 1 Timothy 6:17, the purpose is apolausin. It’s apolausin through doing good work [agatho-ergein]. In 2 Corinthians 9:8, the purpose is autarkeian. It’s autarkeian for all good works [ergon agathon].

What is autarkeian? It’s sufficiency or contentment. In scripture, this noun appears elsewhere only once. It appears as Paul opens his discussion of wealth and wealth sharing:

“But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment [autarkeias].” (1 Timothy 6:6).

The adjective form also appears only once. It appears as part of Paul’s donation acknowledgement to the Philippians:

“I have learned to be content [autarkēs] in whatever circumstances I am.” (Philippians 4:11b).

In 1 Timothy 6:17, God provides richly. The purpose is for enjoyment. In 2 Corinthians 9:8, God blesses abundantly. The purpose is for having contentment.

At first, sufficiency or contentment [autarkeian] might feel more sedate than party-time enjoyment [apolausin]. But this isn’t just normal contentment. It’s extreme contentment. In 2 Corinthians 9:8, this is not just autarkeian. It’s en panti pantote pasan autarkeian. This is contentment

The purpose [hina] is not just normal contentment. It’s 3X intensified contentment: panti pantote pasan. It’s hyper-extreme contentment on steroids! This extreme contentment matches the “party-time” enjoyment of apolausin.

In both cases, Paul’s language is extreme. The process of receiving and giving is supposed to be fun. It’s supposed to create a contentment that is intense in every way. It’s supposed to create “party-time” enjoyment.

Part IV

Enjoying Wealth: Asceticism and the Danger of “Sacrificial” Giving

Enjoyment vs. greed or asceticism

When writing about giving and receiving, Paul focuses on enjoyment. In his fundraising instructions to Timothy, he writes about extreme enjoyment. (1 Timothy 6:17). In his fundraising appeal letter, he writes about extreme contentment. (2 Corinthians 9:8). Even in his donation acknowledgement letter, he writes about contentment. (Philippians 4:11).

Why is enjoyment so important in giving and receiving? It’s important because Paul is fighting a theological battle. He’s fighting a battle on two fronts.

Paul is fighting a theology of greed and a theology of asceticism. 293 He is fighting both endless accumulation and total rejection. Paul instead teaches enjoyment but without attachment. He explains,

“I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with little, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.” (Philippians 4:11b-12).

The greedy don’t “know how to get along with little.” Ascetics don’t “know how to live in prosperity.” Paul knows how to do both. He teaches contentment while holding loosely. This is enjoyment without attachment. He instructs,

“those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:30b-31 NIV).

Notice, Paul doesn’t say, “Don’t buy.” He doesn’t say, “Don’t use.” His message is different. It’s this: use it, but know that it’s all passing away. Buy it, but know that you can’t keep it. Wealth is uncertain and disappearing. And you can’t take it with you when you die.

If you have it, be content with it. If you don’t, be content without it. The message isn’t, “Don’t hold.” Instead, the message is, “Hold it lightly.”294 It’s, “Hold it open-handedly.” Holding open-handedly matches the Biblical concept of generosity.295

Paul fights against the greedy miser. He also fights against the harsh ascetic. These two might seem like opposites. But they live the same way. The one who buries wealth never enjoys it. Neither does the one who rejects wealth. Professor Richard Lenski puts it this way:

“‘For enjoyment’ is significant. God does not bestow wealth merely in order that we may hold it, live as beggars, as ascetics, but that as Christians we may use and enjoy it with all gratitude. Refusal to enjoy it is as much a sin as misuse, waste, or overindulgence.”296

Both the ascetic and the miser refuse to enjoy wealth. Both view this as a virtue. The ascetic looks down on the one who enjoys wealth. So does the miser. Paul’s instruction that God richly provides us all things for the purpose of enjoyment opposes them both.

Paul’s battle against asceticism

This is not just an issue of better living. It’s not just a practical issue. For Paul, it was also a spiritual matter.

Greed is destructive. He explains this in 1 Timothy 6:9-10. But he’s even harsher on asceticism and material rejection. These are also spiritually destructive, but they’re worse. They’re worse because they appear to be wise. They appear to be spiritual. They appear to be religious.

The world sees material rejection as spiritual. Paul sees it as opposed to Christ. He writes,

“Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism … If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:18a, 20-23 ESV).297

The ascetic “holy man” who rejects all material things has “the appearance of wisdom.” It’s attractive. It feels spiritual. But this is a “self-made religion.” Paul warns against this false religion. He presents it as an alternative to Christ. In Paul’s words, “If you have died with Christ, why …?” Why would you embrace asceticism?

The ascetic focuses on the rejection of material things. The miser focuses on the hoarding of material things. Both reject the enjoyment of material things.

Rejection vs. enjoyment

1 Timothy 6:17-19 gives instructions for the rich Christian. It encourages generosity. But notice what it does not do. It does not call for the rejection of material things. It does not embrace poverty as a spiritual discipline. It does not direct us to reject God’s rich provision. Instead, it shows us how to enjoy God’s rich provision.

This instruction about enjoyment is not just a matter of helpful advice. It’s a matter of religious doctrine. Paul connects wealth and doctrine repeatedly in 1 Timothy 6. In 6:3-16 Paul connects doctrine with both contentment and greed.298

In 6:17-19, he shows how to enjoy wealth as God intended. Verse 17 explains that enjoyment is the reason God richly provided these things in the first place. This is a doctrinal statement. Professor Homer Kent notes bluntly of 1 Timothy 6:17,

“Here asceticism is branded a lie.”299

In 1 Timothy 4, Paul makes a similar argument about enjoyment. He writes that appropriate sensual experiences, like food and marriage, are experiences

“which God has created to [eis] be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:3b).

God created these sensual experiences for a purpose [eis]. His purpose is our taking, receiving, or sharing in them.300 This, too, is an argument for enjoyment of what God has richly provided. It, too, describes this as the purpose [eis] for God’s provision.

Professor Robert Yarbrough makes this connection succinctly. Commenting on 1 Timothy 6:17, he directs the readers to “recall the demonic, anti-enjoyment views mentioned in 4:1-3” 301

The next verse continues,

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;” (1 Timothy 4:4).

The contrast is clear. Rejecting is prohibited. Receiving is directed.

Ascetic rejection vs. aggressively grabbing enjoyment

The ascetic rejects material things. He is above such things. He is separated from or removed from them. This separation gives him “the appearance of wisdom.”

Paul’s instructions point in the opposite direction. He directs enjoying material things. (1 Timothy 6:17). He directs sharing in material things. (1 Timothy 4:3). He directs receiving material things. (1 Timothy 4:4). He directs aggressively grabbing hold of real life. (1 Timothy 6:19).

Paul’s directions are a contrast. They’re a contrast with the detached separation of asceticism. The specific words make this contrast extreme.

The English words sometimes miss this extreme contrast. In 1 Timothy 4:4, the English word “received” feels passive. The Greek word is not. It’s a form of lambanō. This means

“to lay hold of by aggressively (actively) accepting what is available (offered).”302

It means to “accept with initiative.”303 It emphasizes the volition (assertiveness) of the receiver.304

In 1 Timothy 4:3, the word for “shared in” is similar. It’s a variation of meta [“with,” “among”] + lambanō. This word also means “taking.”305 It, too, is “an ‘aggressive’ receiving.”306

So, too, to “take hold of” or “seize upon” real life in 1 Timothy 6:19 is aggressive. It’s a form of epi [“on”] + lambanō. All three examples use forms of lambanō. These are not different types of responses. They’re all variations of the same response. They’re all actively aggressive.

1 Timothy 6:17 is not just enjoyment. It’s “party-time” enjoyment. 1 Timothy 6:19 is not just passively receiving life. It’s taking hold or seizing upon true life. 1 Timothy 4:3 is not just receiving. It’s aggressively laying hold of. 1 Timothy 4:4 is not just sharing in. It’s also taking or aggressively receiving.

These are not passive responses to God’s rich provision. These are energetically active responses. They “go for the gusto!” They strongly contrast with the detached separation of asceticism.

Paul’s battle against asceticism gets extreme

This message of enjoyment is not simply good life advice. It’s part of a battle. It’s part of a spiritual battle within the church. It’s part of Paul’s ongoing fight against asceticism.

Paul’s attack is extreme. Those who reject God’s rich provision and forbid its enjoyment are not just missing good experiences. Paul says they

“fall away from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim 4:1b).

That’s an extreme attack. In 1 Timothy 6:17, Paul continues his attack on asceticism. He makes another extreme anti-ascetic statement. He does it by defining who God is. He describes,

“God [Theō] the one [tō] providing [parechonti] us [hemin] all things [panta] richly [plousiōs] for [eis] enjoyment [apolausin]” (1 Timothy 6:17b).

Don’t miss how extreme this attack is. The ascetics reject the enjoyment of material things. This rejection gives them an appearance of wisdom. They appear spiritual, at least in their “self-made religion.” Paul objects. But he doesn’t just write,

“Things aren’t evil. It’s OK for us to enjoy them.”

Instead, Paul defines who God is. His definition shows that the ascetics are worshipping a different God. That’s extreme.

The ascetics do not follow the

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

They reject the enjoyment of God’s rich provision. Thus, they reject this definition of God. Their god and Paul’s God are not the same.307

Paul continues this attack in the next sentence after 1 Timothy 6:17-19.308 He warns Timothy against

“worldly, empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’— which some have professed and thereby have gone astray from the faith.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21).

Asceticism is secular spirituality. It follows harsh, man-made rules. It glories in extreme demonstrations of self-denial. It focuses on the external. It “earns” God’s acceptance. It appears to others as spirituality. But Paul explains that it’s not what God wants.

Paul does teach Godly self-discipline. We don’t abuse food, drink, power, wealth, or our bodies. But nor do we reject material things as evil. We treat them as God intends. That’s the way to enjoy them.

Wealth enjoyment is not simply good advice. It’s not just a motivational fundraising message. It’s serious. It’s part of a serious spiritual battle within the church.

That was then; this is … still a problem

Paul fought against asceticism. He does so here at 1 Timothy 6:17. Several commentators note this. For example, Professor Jouette Bassler explains of this verse,

“With this last notion, the author’s basic anti-ascetic stance reappears strongly (see also 4:4).”309

Professor Donald Guthrie points out,

“These words would incidentally provide an answer to excessive abstinence, for if God has ordained everything for enjoyment (who giveth us richly all things to enjoy) the ascetic approach cannot be right.”310

But that was then. Paul was fighting against asceticism. He was fighting the Gnostics.311 That’s not a problem today, right? We aren’t still fighting Gnostics or ascetics, right? Although these labels aren’t common, some of these ideas persist.

Consider this. Is being a rich Christian a contradiction? If we take the ascetic view, it is. A rich Christian is, at best, just barely a Christian. He isn’t fully spiritual. The higher-level Christian has rejected all material, worldly things. He’s much more committed. That ascetic Christian – now, he is the real deal!

Paul says no. Paul says don’t be fooled by these things that “have the appearance of wisdom.” The “real” Christian? He’s not only good at being poor. He will also “know how to live in prosperity.” (Philippians 4:12). He will know how to live when “having abundance.” (Philippians 4:12). The ascetic can’t do this. He can’t “live in prosperity.” He can’t live while “having abundance.”

Asceticism and the ministry to the rich

Is a rich Christian a contradiction? No. It’s no more a contradiction than a Christian widow or a Christian slave. It’s just a circumstance. Whatever our circumstance, we can use it appropriately.

1 Timothy 6:17-19 outlines a ministry to the rich. It’s a ministry to those in particular circumstances. It’s like the ministries outlined to older widows, older men, younger men, younger women, and even slaves. So why is this ministry to the rich the only one that feels uncomfortable?312 Because of asceticism.

The ascetic would be comfortable with every other ministry Paul outlined – except for this one. Even today, asceticism – rejecting material things – has “the appearance of wisdom.” Asceticism is still attractive. But it’s not Biblical.

Asceticism and the ideal donor

Paul had to fight against greed and endless accumulation. We still do today. And we know that. Paul had to fight against asceticism. We still do today. But we don’t know that. Asceticism can be more dangerous because it appears religious or spiritual.

So, let’s talk about donors. Imagine your spiritually ideal donor. Is it the one who gives “sacrificially”? By this, do you mean someone who,

“Gives until it hurts”?

Or is it maybe someone who,

“Gives until it hurts and then gives some more”?

Is it perhaps even someone who,

“gives away all their possessions to charity”? (as in 1 Corinthians 13:3).

If so, be careful. Check this “ideal” against scripture. Is this model from scripture? Or is it from religious asceticism?

Consider these questions. Does God want painful giving, or does He want joyful giving? If you, as a fundraiser, had the magic ability to convince someone to “give until it hurts and then give some more,” should you? Is that what God wants? Is that how our passage describes giving?

Asceticism embraces personal sacrifice because it is painful. It embraces “severe treatment of the body” because it is painful. That’s what makes the person feel religious. Their painful sacrifice gives them “the appearance of wisdom.”

But wait; don’t we want donors to give big? Don’t we want them to give a lot? Don’t we want them to be generous? Yes, yes, and yes.

But what God wants isn’t simply the act of the gift. What God wants is the right emotion with the gift. If we get the action right but the emotion wrong, it’s a big failure. It’s a failure, no matter how much the gift is. It’s a failure, even if it’s everything. Paul explains,

“And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have love, it does me no good.” (1 Corinthians 13:3).

Giving without the right emotion does no good. Biblical fundraising doesn’t just raise money. It doesn’t just produce giving. It produces giving with the right emotion. It produces giving that is

How does this fit with the painful, somber, “sacrificial” giving of asceticism? It doesn’t. Painful giving doesn’t just miss the point; it contradicts the point. It’s not just different; it’s the opposite.

The ideal donor and the widow’s mite

Does the story of the widow’s mite show us the ideal donor?318 The ascetic would say yes. She “put in all she owned.”319 That makes her the ideal donor, right?

That’s not what scripture says. Jesus says only one thing about the widow. He says simply, “She put in more.”320 He doesn’t say, “She did it the right way.” He doesn’t say, “Go and do likewise.” He says simply and truthfully, “She put in more.”

Did Jesus tell others to copy the widow? Quite the opposite. He ends the story by explaining why giving to the temple – both for the poor widow and for the rich – was pointless. The temple they were donating to was about to be destroyed. Jesus explains,

“Not one stone will be left upon another” (Mark 13:2b).

This is not a story of praise. It’s a story of condemnation and destruction. It’s not a story of “Go and do likewise.” It’s a story of “Beware!” It begins with Jesus telling his disciples,

“Beware of the teachers of the law.” (Luke 20:46).

Or,

“Watch out for the teachers of the law” (Mark 12:36b).

Jesus explains,

“They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.” (Luke 20:47).

This is a story of punishment. Would their religious philanthropy save them? No. The next verse explains,

“As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.” (Luke 21:48a).

The teachers of the law stole from widows. What little this widow had left, they ended up controlling as part of the temple treasury. They got everything.

Then, they tried to appear righteous. They gave part of their money to the temple. But Jesus says their gifts were small and pointless. Their gifts were small. The widow “put in more.” Their gifts were pointless. The temple their gifts supported was about to be destroyed.

So, was this widow an ideal donor? There are two correct answers: We don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.

We don’t know because we don’t have that information. Jesus says she “put in all she owned.” Scripture tells us that giving away all our possessions does no good without the right emotion. What was the widow’s emotion? We don’t know.

We don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because that’s not the point of the teaching. This is about bad people and bad giving. Stealing from widows and then using part of it to make small, pointless gifts won’t work. Jesus never said, “Be like this widow.” Instead, his message was, “Don’t be like these evil scribes.” (Literally, “Watch out” or “Beware!”)

Scripture provides many positive instructions on how to give the right way. This just isn’t one of them.

Isn’t giving supposed to be sacrificial?

Giving is supposed to be “party-time” enjoyable [apolausin]. (1 Timothy 6:17). God loves a cheerful, “hilariously” joyful [hilaron] giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7). Giving is supposed to be even happier [makarion] than receiving a gift. (Acts 20:35).

But wait a second. Isn’t giving supposed to be sacrificial? Doesn’t that mean it’s supposed to be painful? Isn’t that painfulness what makes it sacrificial? How can a sacrifice be happy, fun, and joyful?

Let’s see what scripture says. First, can a gift be a sacrifice? Yes. Hebrews 13:16 explains,

“And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices [thusiais] God is pleased.”321

In his gift acknowledgment, Paul writes

“But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice [thusian], pleasing to God.” (Philippians 4:18).

Clearly, a gift can be a sacrifice. What is a sacrifice? It is the thing offered to God. It is the offering. The Greek word here is thusia.322 It means a sacrifice or an offering. The Septuagint uses thusia for the Hebrew word zebach323: sacrifice. It also uses thusia for the Hebrew word minchah324: gift or offering.325

In a Biblical context, “sacrificial” does not mean “painful.” Instead, “sacrificial” describes the use of the gift. In the Old Testament, a bull, a goat, a dove, or even flour could be used as a sacrifice or offering to God.

Suppose a priest performed an animal sacrifice poorly, and the animal suffered a lot. This didn’t make the gift any more sacrificial. Or suppose the priest was quick, and there was no suffering. This didn’t make the gift any less sacrificial. An animal couldn’t be sacrificed “just a little bit” or “a whole lot.” Either it was sacrificed, or it wasn’t.

Saying that a gift is sacrificial describes its function or use. A dove can be a sacrifice. A bull can be a sacrifice. A bull costs more than a dove. But a bull cannot be “more sacrificial” than a dove. Either the gift is a sacrifice (an offering), or it’s not.

Being a sacrifice (an offering) is a binary characteristic. It’s a yes/no question. Asking, “How sacrificial was this gift?” makes no sense. It’s like asking, “How dead was the dove?” Either it was sacrificed, or it wasn’t. Either it was offered to God, or it wasn’t.

A gift can be sacrificial. It can be an offering to God. But it cannot be “more” sacrificial. It cannot be “less” sacrificial. It can’t be sacrificed just a little bit. It can’t be sacrificed a whole lot.

In the Bible, “sacrificial” is binary. A gift was either offered to God or it wasn’t. It was either sacrificed or it wasn’t. Unfortunately, the English word also has other meanings. These non-Biblical, English meanings can cause confusion. They can accidentally lead to asceticism. They can lead to asceticism’s celebration of painful giving.

Bad sacrificial gifts

Answering, “Was the gift sacrificial?” is easy. Either the gift was offered to God, or it wasn’t. Either it was sacrificed, or it wasn’t. Saying that a gift was sacrificial describes the use of the gift. But it does not describe the giver.

The difficult question is not, “Was the gift a sacrifice?” The difficult question is, “Was the sacrifice pleasing (or acceptable) to God?” This question is different. It doesn’t just depend on the usage of the gift. It also depends on the giver.

The Old Testament describes many sacrificial gifts that were not pleasing to God. Sacrifices and offerings that violated God’s instructions were not acceptable.326 Even those that followed the rules wouldn’t work if the giver’s heart wasn’t right. Sacrifices from the wicked and unjust didn’t work. Sacrifices from those who had turned away from the Lord were not acceptable.327

These gifts were still sacrifices (zebach).328 They were still sacrificial. They were still offerings to God.329 But unless the giver’s heart was right, they weren’t acceptable.

So, too, in the New Testament, the giver’s heart and emotion must be right. Otherwise, the gift, offering, or sacrifice won’t be acceptable. It won’t be pleasing to God. It can be as big or as painful as we can imagine. It still won’t do a thing. Paul writes,

“If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3 ESV).

We can’t give bigger or more painfully than this. We can’t give more than everything we have. We can’t endure more pain than being burned alive. This is the most extreme donor imaginable. It’s the ascetic’s ideal donor.

And yet, Paul says it all amounts to nothing. It does nothing for the donor – unless the emotion is right. If the heart is right, the gift is acceptable. Otherwise, it’s not – no matter how painful it is.

What makes a gift acceptable or pleasing? Is it painfulness? Clearly not. Paul describes the most painful gift possible, and it was a failure. Does it mean the gift should be big? That won’t get it, either. Paul describes the biggest possible gift, and it was a flop.

The answer is consistent. God doesn’t want giving. God wants only a certain type of giving. Scripture describes acceptable giving as

These descriptions all match. They fit together. They describe a consistent attitude, emotion, and feeling. And what’s the opposite of all these? The opposite is “painful.”

If we misunderstand “sacrificial” as “painful,” then we aren’t just missing the point – we’re inverting it. We’re rejecting the

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

We’re replacing Him with something else. This replacement may “have the appearance of wisdom,” but it is a “self-made religion.”

Making extreme – extremely fun – gifts

Rejecting the notion of painful giving doesn’t mean we don’t want big gifts. It doesn’t mean we don’t want people to give much – sometimes even beyond their ability. But we want them to do so because it is enjoyable!

Paul describes the giving of those in Macedonia:

“They gave as much as they could afford and even more” (2 Corinthians 8:3a CEV).

They gave. They gave a lot. They gave even beyond their ability. Does Paul praise the painfulness of their giving? No. He does the opposite. He describes how much fun they were having. Paul explains,

“They gave as much as they could afford and even more, simply because they wanted to. They even asked and begged us to let them have the joy of giving their money for God’s people.” (2 Corinthians 8:3b-4 CEV).

The Macedonians were making extreme gifts. They were also making extremely joyful gifts. A big gift can be a joyful gift. And that’s the point. The goal is not big, painful giving. The goal is not small, apathetic giving. The goal is big, joyful giving.

We want big giving. We want donors,

“to be rich in good works” (1 Timothy 6:18b).

We want them to

“abound in every good work” (2 Corinthians 9:8b NIV).

We want them

“to be generous [eumetadotous]” (1 Timothy 6:18c).

Are donors who make big, painful gifts being generous [eumetadotous]? Actually, no. They’re not. Professor Raymond Collins explains,

“The basic meaning of ‘generous’ (eu-metadotous) is giving what one has to someone else. The prefix (eu) implies liberality and/or joy in doing so.”340 (Emphasis added.)

Generous giving is joyful giving. It’s giving freely and open-handedly. It’s enjoyable.

And that’s the point. That’s the kind of giving God wants. That’s the kind of giving that honors the,

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

This is not the small, grudging gift of the greedy. It’s not the big, painful gift of the ascetic.341 It’s the big, enjoyable gift of the generous Christian.

Charitable asceticism and the fundraiser

When asceticism invades fundraising, the results are bad. Focusing on the rich becomes uncomfortable. It feels somehow “un-Christian” despite the explicit Biblical instruction.

When asceticism invades fundraising, donors are praised but not for their impact. They’re praised but not for doing good or becoming rich in good works. Instead, they’re praised for “sacrifice.” They’re praised for painful giving.

This has two effects. First, the fundraising becomes unproductive. Fundraisers focus on the wrong people. They deliver the wrong message. The fundraising message becomes,

“This is going to hurt!”

That’s a tough sell. It’s a painful message to accept. It’s also a painful message to deliver.

This has a second effect. Fundraising becomes painful for the fundraiser. If the fundraiser thinks he offers nothing but pain, loss, and “sacrifice,” this affects him. It affects the reactions he gets from others. It’s hard to get excited about delivering that message. It’s hard to be energized about offering that deal.

It’s a tough message to deliver. The only motivation is the money. The organization will do good things with the money. So, the money-getting, the “fund”-“raising,” must be done.

The money-getting becomes the important thing. This is not a ministry to the donor. It’s just extracting money from the donor. It’s a money-getting job that delivers a painful message. For most people, that career just isn’t emotionally sustainable.

Charitable asceticism and the ministry leader

When asceticism invades fundraising, the results are bad. They’re bad for the donor. They’re bad for the fundraiser. They’re also bad for the charity or ministry leader.

Suppose a leader embraces charitable asceticism. Ideal donors are those who give until it hurts and then give some more. Their suffering – through extreme giving – demonstrates their internal commitment to the cause.

Now consider this question:

In this worldview, what donor experience is the organization trying to deliver?

The answer is, at best, nothing. Good donors don’t need donor experiences. The charity can respond to their giving with silence. It can completely ignore their giving. In fact, it’s perfectly acceptable for their giving to be painful. (That makes it even “more sacrificial.”)

Now, suppose we replace charitable asceticism with Paul’s instructions. Giving is supposed to be “party-time” enjoyable. Major gift fundraising is showing donors how to enjoy their wealth. This enjoyment comes from the donor doing good. The donor becomes rich in good works. The donor becomes generous. He shares with a mutual fellowship community.

In this approach, the goal isn’t just to get money. The goal is to get cheerful, “hilariously” joyful [hilaron] giving. (2 Corinthians 9:7). Giving is supposed to be fun. It’s supposed to be so much fun that it’s even happier [makarion] than receiving a gift. (Acts 20:35).

Now consider the same question:

In this worldview, what donor experience is the organization trying to deliver?

This time, the answer is different. Is it OK to respond to giving with silence? No. Will that make the donors feel that they have done good? No. Will the donors feel that they have become rich in good works? Of course not. They won’t have any idea what good works, if any, they accomplished with their giving.

Is it OK if the donors feel no sense of fellowship community with other charity donors, employees, or beneficiaries? Not really. If so, they won’t be sharing [koinōnikous] with a fellowship community [koinōnia].

Is it OK if no one confirms to the donors that they’re being generous? That they’re doing good? That they’re becoming rich in good works? No. That’s not OK. That’s not delivering the donor experience described in scripture.

Charitable asceticism can be attractive to ministry leaders. It’s attractive because it’s easy. It lets them off the hook. It means they have no responsibility to deliver any kind of donor experience.

Biblical fundraising is the opposite. It describes a specific donor experience. A charity can choose to offer – and deliver – that donor experience. Or it can choose to ignore the donor.

The charitable asceticism path feels easy for the charity leader. The Biblical fundraising path feels like hard work. And it is. It’s so much work that it’s actually a ministry of its own!

The Biblical path takes effort. But it works. Its fruits are enormous. It results in an overflowing abundance of every kind, in every way, and at all times.342 It results in an abundance for the donor, the fundraiser, and the organization.