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.492

Part I

From Good Act to Good Identity

The donor’s identity

In Paul’s fundraising message, God has richly supplied us. He does so for a purpose. The purpose of his rich supply is for enjoyment. That enjoyment comes about when we use it

These uses are not the same. The first item describes an action. It’s a statement about what a person does. The other statements are different. They’re about who a person is. They’re descriptions of the donor’s identity.

The progression is from doing to being. “To do” good becomes “to be” rich in good works. Doing good is an action.493 Being rich is a status. It’s an ongoing characteristic of the person. Being rich in good works is also a status. It’s an ongoing characteristic of the donor.

The donor’s “I am” statement

Both “to do good,” agathoergein, and “to be rich,” ploutein, are infinitives. The next words are different. Eumetadotous, “generous” or literally “good-sharer,” is an adjective. It modifies einai – “to be”. This is a form of eimi – I exist, I am.

Thus, eumetadotous modifies the donor’s “I am” statement. It modifies the donor’s identity. So does the next adjective, koinōnikous or “ready to share.” These both describe who the donor is being. They describe the donor’s identity.

Although it’s a common word, eimi can be powerful. It’s the word Jesus uses in His strongest identity claims. He uses it to say,

Our passage uses the same word. It uses the present infinitive active form – einai. This same form appears in other identity statements. Regarding Jesus, we see the following:

Regarding others, we see,

In 1 Timothy, Paul uses einai to describe

The point is simple. Einai is used when defining a person’s identity. In our passage, “to be generous and ready to share” are not simply actions. They’re descriptions of the donor’s identity.494 This is not just what the donor is doing. This is who the donor is being.

The donor’s continuing identity

“To do good [agathoergein]” is a present infinitive active verb. “To be rich [ploutein] in good works” is too. So is “to be [einai] generous and ready to share”. Paul’s opening identity statement, “not [mē] high-minded [hypsēlophronein]” is as well.

The present infinitive references an in-progress, continuing process.495 One text explains,

“translate present tense infinitives ‘to continue to x,’ Aorist tense ‘to x,’ and perfects ‘to have x+ed.’”496

The rich Christians are

They have already set their hope on a richly-providing God, not on the uncertainty of riches. Both of these motivate them

Paul is describing the rich Christians’ in-progress, ongoing identity. 497 This isn’t a call to start being something. It’s a call to persist in being something.

The donor’s giving matches their long-term, ongoing identity. It’s who they have been. It’s who they are being. It’s who they should continue to be. The donor’s past, present, and future identity compels them to give. This is what motivates major gifts of wealth.

The donor’s lasting identity

In the chiastic structure of this passage, Paul contrasts “the uncertainty of riches” with “rich in good works.”498 In English, “uncertainty” isn’t a direct contrast with “good.” In Greek it is.

The word for “uncertainty” is adēlotēti. It also means hidden or disappearing. The word for “good” here is kalois. It references beautiful, visible, noble good works. Being rich in these good works is not hidden, disappearing, or uncertain. Kalois contrasts with every sense of adēlotēti.

Riches are disappearing. They’ll be lost during life or at death. When ownership will disappear is uncertain. That it will disappear is guaranteed.

Being rich is temporary, uncertain, and disappearing. Being rich in good works is not. It’s lasting. The word for “works” [ergois] references

“a work or worker who accomplishes something.”499

These good works are completed works. They have accomplished something. They are finished.

The one who becomes “rich in good works” stays that way, even if all his wealth is taken from him. It remains even when other accumulated things disappear. Being “rich in good works” is an identity. It’s a permanent identity. The status is permanent. The impact is permanent. The donors are permanently

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

That’s not temporary. That’s not disappearing. That’s not uncertain. In other words, that’s not adēlotēti.

The donor’s visible identity

The contrast here is not only with adēlotēti – “disappearing.” It’s also a contrast with adēlotēti – “hidden.” Hidden riches are attractive. Burying wealth in the ground is attractive.

Hiddenness keeps wealth protected. It’s hidden from thieves and governments. It’s hidden from relatives and beggars. One who hopes in “the hiddenness [adēlotēti] of wealth” is hoping that others won’t see it.

The wealth is hidden. Often, this also means that being wealthy is hidden. The public appearance doesn’t match the real identity. Both their wealth and their status as wealthy are concealed.

Being “rich in good works [ergois kalois]” is the opposite. It is open and visible. This phrase is also translated as

“to display their wealth in the performing of good deeds”500

Or as

“to exhibit a wealth of good actions”501

For the wealthy person, being rich in these good [kalois] works conflicts with hidden [adēlotēti] financial riches. Making a big, public, visible gift outs the person as being wealthy. This conflicts with keeping wealth hidden and buried.

Public honor, respect, and reputation

Kalos is visible. It is seen. Dr. Luke Post explains,

“To do what is kalos is to do what is visibly or noticeably ‘good.’”502

Thayer’s lexicon gives a first definition of

“beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent.”503

Other definitions include

Paul also uses this word to describe church overseers. He writes,

“And he must have a good [kalen] reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:7).504

This kalos “good” describes a visible, public reputation. Other translations here use

In describing deacons, Paul again uses this word. He writes,

“For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high [kalon] standing” (1 Timothy 3:13b).

Again, this kalos “good” describes a visible, public standing. Other translations here use

In 1 Timothy 6:18, Paul uses both forms of good. He uses agathos – intrinsically good.512 He also uses kalos – honorable and seen to be so. He pairs these two together in the previous chapter as well. In 1 Timothy 5:10, he uses nearly identical phrases. A widow supported by the church must be

“having a reputation for good works [ergois kalois]; … has devoted herself to every good work [ergō agathō].” (1 Timothy 5:10a,c)

The supported widow must have a public reputation for good [kalos] works. Doing these hidden away in some corner wouldn’t qualify. Her good [kalos] works must have been seen. (Indeed, that’s part of what kalos means.) They must have been seen as her good works. Otherwise, she would have no such reputation. And she would receive no support.

In all three cases, Paul applies kalos to a person’s public reputation.513 He does so with overseers, deacons, and widows. It’s not enough that they do good. These works must be known as their good works. Their doing good must affect their public reputation. It’s mandatory.

This public nature of the word matches its use in antiquity. It describes an admirable, virtuous appearance. A dissertation on Plato’s use of the word explains,

“The concept of the kalon organizes aspirations to appear and be admired as beautiful for one’s virtue.”514

The exact phrase ergois kalois appears elsewhere in antiquity only once. Pindar (518-438 B.C.) uses it to describe the kinds of impressive deeds that people write songs about. He explains that

“song is a ‘mirror for splendid deeds’ (ergois kalois esoptron).”515

In Pindar, Plato, or Paul, kalos means the same thing. Kalos is all about a public, visible, inspirational reputation.

Donor recognition impacts reputation and inspires others

Donor publicity is found repeatedly in scripture. Whether it’s Barnabas, Phoebe, Joanna, Susanna, Mary Magdalene, or Mary of Bethany, we see it again and again. Why? What are the motivations of such publicity?

One clear goal for donor publicity is to inspire others to give. Paul used this. And he wasn’t subtle about it. He publicized the Corinthians’ charitable pledge. (The passage suggests this was likely without their advance knowledge.) He did so to motivate the Macedonians to give. Then, he publicized the Macedonians’ giving. He did so to motivate the Corinthians to give.

Another clear goal for donor publicity is to impact personal reputation. Donors should become rich in beautiful, visible, noble good works. The opposite is also true. Donors can face public shame for failing to give. Paul used this, too. And he wasn’t subtle about it, either. He writes,

“But I have sent the brothers [to collect the donation], in order that our boasting about you may not prove empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you will be prepared; otherwise, if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to mention you—would be put to shame by this confidence.” (2 Corinthians 9:3-4).

Paul explains how their reputation would suffer if they didn’t openly and publicly make this gift. Paul’s fundraising both promises – and threatens – to make an impact on public reputation.

Part II

The Historical Context of Donor Recognition

The evidence is clear

Almsgiving [eleēmosynē] is to be in secret. Other giving is not. Outside of almsgiving, the scriptural evidence for donor publicity is clear.

It’s clear in Jesus’s instructions.516 It’s clear in Paul’s instructions.517 It’s clear in Jesus’s actions.518 It’s clear in Paul’s actions.519 It’s clear in scripture’s publication of specific named donors to Jesus’s ministries.520 It’s clear in scripture’s publication of specific named donors to the early church.521 It’s clear in scripture’s publication of specific named donors to Paul’s ministries.522

It’s clear. Yet, in the words of the infomercial: But wait, there’s more! The historical record matches the scriptural one. It gives ample evidence of widespread donor recognition in both church and synagogue.

Public benefactor recognition in the synagogue

Recognition of large donations was ubiquitous in Paul’s day. Wealthy donors were regularly given public honors for gifts. Such donor recognition would have surrounded Paul’s audience.523 Donor inscriptions were permanently engraved into the architecture. One scholar notes of this use of donor inscriptions,

“Its greatest proliferation, however, was under Roman imperial rule during the 1st, 2nd and early 3rd centuries CE, when we have more inscriptions for benefactors in cities in both East and West than ever before.”524

Donor inscriptions were at a historical height.

However, this public recognition of large donors was not just a Roman practice. It was also a Jewish one. This, too, appears in the archeological record.

Jesus and Paul preached in the synagogues. As they did so, donor recognition would have surrounded them. Donor inscriptions were common in first-century synagogues.525 Indeed, these are what often identify a building as having been a synagogue.526

Major donor recognition was physically constructed into the synagogue buildings themselves. An example of one such first-century inscription in Phrygia reads,

“The building was erected by Julia Severa; P(ublius) Tyrronios Klados, the head-for-life of the synagogue, and Lucius, son of Lucius, head of the synagogue, and Publius Zotikos, archon, restored it with their own funds and with the money which had been deposited, and they donated the murals for the walls and the ceiling, and they reinforced the windows and made all the rest of the ornamentation, and the synagogue honored them with a-gilded shield on account of their virtuous behavior, solicitude and zeal for the synagogue.”527

This is massive donor recognition. It is recognition built into the synagogue structure. It is recognition that documents additional recognition – the presentation of a gilded shield. It is recognition for the donors’ admirable personal qualities. It is recognition for what their gift specifically accomplished.

It’s also recognition that makes the donor the actor. It reads,

“they reinforced the windows and made all the rest of the ornamentation.”

Of course, the wealthy donors weren’t laborers. They didn’t physically do these actions. But they’re described as doing the work.

In our passage, Paul directs a separate ministry to the rich. Some evidence suggests that donor recognition in synagogues may have been split in the same way. One researcher explains,

“Hezser, for instance, in her study of Jewish donor inscriptions throughout antiquity, picked up on an intriguing pattern of linguistic choice. She notes that while large individual donations were almost entirely recorded in Greek, communal inscriptions and smaller donations were instead recorded in Hebrew: ‘Communal inscriptions in Hebrew [were] as low as half a denarius … [donors in the Greek inscriptions] have donated entire mosaics, founded and renovated whole parts of synagogue buildings … it is quite obvious, then, that the wealthy donors were usually commemorated in Greek … only two collective inscriptions are in Greek, whereas numerous such inscriptions, honouring a set of anonymous donors, are amongst the Aramaic/Hebrew synagogue inscriptions.’ … the evidence assembled here allows us to suggest that this might be a vestige from two contrasting methods of donation—one essentially euergetistic and the other communal.”528

As Paul taught in the synagogues, such explicit donor recognition would have physically surrounded him. In many ways, these donor inscriptions parallel Paul’s fundraising instructions to Timothy.

Donor recognition is ancient. It’s in the Old Testament. It’s in the New Testament. It was on Roman buildings. It was on synagogue buildings. And, yes, it was also on the early church buildings.

Public benefactor recognition in the early church

Did the early church continue this synagogue practice? Did it embed donor recognition into its houses of worship? Yes. The archeological record shows it.

Congregations first met in homes or other multi-function spaces. Purpose-built church structures came only later.529 The earliest known church building is the Megiddo church. It was constructed around 230 A.D.

This church building has a mosaic tile floor. The floor contains three inscriptions. The largest of these inscriptions recognizes a donor. It reads:

“Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement [mosaic] at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius has carried out the work.”530

This is substantial donor recognition. It is recognition built into the church structure. It is recognition for the donor’s admirable personal qualities. It is recognition for what his gift accomplished.

This is also recognition that makes the donor the actor. The donor has agency. The donor makes it happen. He didn’t just give money. He “made” the mosaic floor. This is true even though another person “carried out the work.”

The building also contains two other inscriptions. These appear in the top and bottom of a single frame. The lower inscription recognizes another donor. It reads,

“The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”531

One scholar explains,

“Akeptous was obviously a woman of financial means. The table (trapeza) donated by her was almost certainly a table that served for the celebration of the Eucharist.”532

The inscription recognizes what her gift did. Her gift paid for the table. The inscription does something else. It recognizes the donor’s admirable identity. She is “God-loving.”

The language also contains an interesting parallel. It uses Jesus’s words when He publicized Mary of Bethany’s gift worth a year’s wages. Jesus said,

“Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory [mnēmosynon] of her” (Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9).

This donor inscription ends with the identical word. It ends with mnēmosynon.533

The final inscription appears in the same frame. It reads simply,

“Remember Primilla and Cyriaca and Dorothea, and moreover also Chreste.”534

Its inclusion in the same frame is instructive. These women likely were relatives of the donor Akeptous. (Or they may have been donors themselves.) Scholars note that

“the request to remember is not addressed to God (‘Lord, remember so-and-so’; ‘Let so-and-so be remembered’), but to the community.”535

Thus, this is not an appeal to God. It’s an appeal for community recognition and remembrance.

Public donor recognition in the church is nothing new. It was embedded into the very earliest church buildings. The archeological record shows the same practice continued in subsequent years.536 Indeed, this is easy to see in most historical church buildings. They often display considerable donor recognition.

Donor nobility and Paul’s language

Our passage is a message to the rich. It’s a message to encourage their generosity. It does so, in part, by calling on the rich to behave like true nobility. Professor Reggie Kidd explains,

“The virtues urged upon the ‘rich in this world’ at 1 Timothy 6:18 are a transposition of ‘the aristocratic virtues required of men of property by Aristotle.’”537

Paul uses two different words for “good” together. He describes the wealthy donors as both kalos and agathos. This can have a special meaning. One commentator explains of 1 Timothy 6:18,

“The two adjectives for ‘good’ here have a distinction, ... The two together came to be used at Athens as one phrase to denote ‘a gentleman.’ And so such a use of wealth marks ‘the Christian gentleman.’”538

The two words combine in the term kalos kagathos. This term had a special meaning. Another commentator references,

“the [Greek] philosophers, who used the expression kalos kagathos to denote ‘the sum total of the qualities of an Athenian man of honour’”539

Professor Korinna Zamfir explains,

“Kalos and agathos, used in a moral sense, stand for noble good and are markers of a specific system of values, of a certain human ideal. They characterize the noble, generous deeds of the kalos kagathos. Spicq has recognised long ago that the [Pastoral Epistles] presuppose precisely this ideal of the perfectly good, honourable man. It should also be recalled that, in the Greek world, the noble and good man, the agathos, was the representative of the elite: aristocracy involved moral excellence.”540

Paul scorns the love of money [philargyria] in 1 Timothy 6:10. This is not an attack on the elite. It matches traditional Greek aristocratic values.541 In Greek ethical writing,

“a-philargyria [not loving money] is an ideal value of the elites, a common requirement in ethical writings and in admonitions to officials or candidates for office.”542

True nobles would never plunge into ruin and destruction because they “want to get rich.” (1 Timothy 6:10). The nobility already have wealth. Their focus is not on getting rich; it’s on being rich the right way. They are to fulfill their role as generous benefactors, not greedy hoarders. These are traditional aristocratic virtues.

Donor nobility in Old Testament language

A similar sense also arises in Old Testament Hebrew. We read that Moses encouraged donations from

“whoever is of a willing [nadib] heart.” (Exodus 35:5).

The response came from those donors,

“both men and women, as many as had a willing [nadib] heart” (Exodus 35:22).

Centuries later, people responded to Hezekiah’s appeal. 2 Chronicles 29:31 explains,

“all whose hearts were willing [nadib] brought burnt offerings.”

This idea is nothing new. Giving should come from a willing heart. We know that. But we can miss something else.

The word for willing is nadib. But it is translated that way only in these verses. It normally means something different. It means “noble,” “nobility,” “princely,” or “prince.”543

These meanings overlap. Nadib means generous. And it means noble or nobility. Isaiah 32:5 begins,

“No longer will the wicked fool be called noble [nadib]”.544

But in other translations, “noble” is replaced with “generous”545 or “liberal.”546 Isaiah 32:8 reads,

“But the noble person [wa-nādib] devises noble plans [nadib-ōwt]; And by noble plans [nadib-ōwt] he stands.”547

But other translations read,

“But a generous man devises generous things, And by generosity he shall stand.”548

Similarly, Proverbs 19:6 begins,

“Many seek the favor of a generous person [nadib],”549

But in other translations, “Many seek the favor of …”

“the prince [nadib],”550

“the nobility [nadib],”551 or

“a generous and noble man [nadib]”552

Paul encourages giving by the rich. He describes the wealthy person of honor. He describes the generous and noble rich. His words reference culturally familiar expectations.553 They describe the true role of the benefactor.

Word problems: The “eu-ergetēs” benefactor

In Paul’s time, a common word for a wealthy philanthropist was euergetēs. It’s often translated as “benefactor.” It comes from eu- [good] and ergetēs [doer or worker]. Paul, however, does not use this word.

Some have argued that this absence means Paul rejected the role of the benefactor. It does not. Paul commends the role of the true benefactor. What he avoids is the tarnished and corrupted title.

The word euergetēs had been misused. Many kings and rulers – including harsh tyrants – had taken the term as an official title.554 Thus, that term had lost its original meaning.

Jesus points out this misuse. He points to those who “liked to be called” euergetēs, but actually “lord it over” others.555 He contrasts these with those who really did serve others.556

As Jesus explained, many abused the title euergetēs.557 So, Paul avoids this tainted title. He avoids the word, but he embraces the role. He describes the benefactor role using synonyms.558 He creatively employs many parallel words.

We see this in Paul’s description of Phoebe. Phoebe was known for her generosity. She was likely “rich in this present world.” One professor notes,

“Phoebe the Deacon of Cenchrae was wealthy enough to be one of Paul’s patrons (Romans 16:1-2).”559

Paul describes Phoebe as a benefactor. He writes,

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe … give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.” (Romans 16:1-2 NIV).

In English, the word is “benefactor.” It’s the same word used to translate euergetēs. But Paul doesn’t use euergetēs. He uses prostatis (patroness/benefactor). He commends the important role. He avoids the corrupted term.

Paul also avoids euergetēs in our passage. Again, he substitutes parallel phrases. He uses both eu words [good] and ergetēs words [doer or worker]. He embraces the role. He avoids the word.

The rich Christian is being a eu-sharer: eu-metadotous. He uses wealth to do good: agatho-ergein.560 He uses it to do good works: ergois kalois. The donor is both eu and ergetēs. But the tainted word euergetēs is avoided.

Similarly, the donor does agatho-ergein. In donor inscriptions of the time, anēr agathos (good man) was a “dynamic equivalent” of euergetēs.561 So, too, combining kalos and agathos was a synonym for benefactor: kalos kagathos. One commentator explains of 1 Timothy 6:18,

“Most scholars interpret the four expectations regarding sharing as calling the wealthy to serve as generous benefactors, in part, because the first two infinitives sound like benefaction language …”562

Another writes,

“They are thus encouraged to be benefactors, a familiar role in Greco-Roman society.”563

The benefactor role is the right role. But the benefactor word, euergetēs, had been misused. So, Paul instead used other benefactor words. He avoids the tainted word. But he still describes the rich Christian’s important role as an authentic benefactor.

Part III

Honest Impressions: Giving Must Reflect Admirable Identity

The right kind of donor recognition

Donor publicity is ancient. It’s found in ancient scripture. It’s found in ancient church and synagogue buildings. Donor publicity can be powerful. It affects reputation. It inspires others. But there are two things it must not do.

First, it must not lead to being high-minded [hypsēlophronein]. Instead, it must match with the donor’s already in-progress, admirable values of being not high-minded [mē hypsēlophronein]. (1 Timothy 6:17).

Second, it must not make a false impression. Instead, it must accurately and honestly reflect the donor’s heart. The public display must match an admirable inward character.

So, how do we do this? How do we avoid high-mindedness? How do we avoid false impressions? In other words, how can we use donor recognition in the right way? Let’s look at each issue.

Donor recognition without high-mindedness

We want to recognize the donor. We want their example to motivate others. But how can we do this without promoting high-mindedness? Our passage explains how.

God has richly supplied each of us. This means everyone. God’s rich supply is for enjoyment. That enjoyment is achieved not by burying what God has supplied but by using it. We use it

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

We openly and publicly use what God has richly supplied to do these things. This applies to all of us, not just the rich. It applies to both the richest and the poorest in the fellowship community.

The rich person is,

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

The poorest person has the same standard. The elderly widow put on the list for support must have,

“a reputation for good works [ergois kalois]” (1 Timothy 5:10b).

It’s not enough for the poor widow to have done good works. She must have done them publicly. She must have developed a personal reputation for doing such good works. Such publicity is mandatory. (Otherwise, she cannot be put on the list for support by the church.)

Both the rich person and the poor person display their good works publicly. The rich Christian’s giving is not different. It’s the same. It’s just another version of what we all do. We all take whatever God has richly supplied us with, and we use it. We use it to do good. We use it to become rich in good works.

These good works are supposed to impact personal reputation. But this is not a reputation of being high-minded. This is a reputation of being like-minded. Everyone behaves the same way with whatever God has richly blessed them with.

This reputation does not place donors above the fellowship community. It does not separate donors from the fellowship community. It does the opposite. It connects donors with the fellowship community.

Sharing displays a commitment to the fellowship community. It shows “the proof of your love.” It does so “openly before the churches.” It sets a standard for others to follow, both rich and poor.

Whatever our material circumstances, they are just that – circumstances. They are temporary – often very temporary. Regardless of these circumstances, we can fully participate in sharing with the fellowship community. We don’t need to hide our status as a poor widow or a rich person. All of us can share whatever God has richly supplied to us.

The rich donor is not being high-minded because he’s not being different. He’s being the same. Paul makes this point explicitly in Romans 12:3-8. Giving is in the same category as teaching, serving, exhorting, leading, or showing mercy. We each share from what we have been given.

Suppose a person has the gift of teaching. When he shares, he does so publicly. Although public, it’s not done to be high-minded. It is not done to have a fancy title.564 It’s just another way

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

Each form of sharing is necessary for the body. With each, it’s also important for the one sharing,

“not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think;” (Romans 12:3).

It is important to continue being “not high-minded.”

But this does not mean the exercise of these gifts is to be hidden.565 It’s supposed to be public. It’s supposed to impact reputation. It’s supposed to inspire others to do likewise.

Giving should reflect identity: Haplotēs

Donor publicity must not lead to being high-minded. Also, it must not make a false impression. Giving must honestly reflect the donor’s identity. Otherwise, it’s not acceptable to God. Scripture directs giving that reflects the heart.566 It should honestly express the donor’s feelings.567

Scripture attacks other types of giving. It attacks giving that is a “fake ID.” It attacks giving that makes a false impression.

Consider this related instruction:

“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness [haplotēti] of heart, fearing God:” (Colossians 3:22 KJV).

This verse rejects those who merely want to appear obedient. It contrasts them with those whose obedience reflects the heart.

The word used for “singleness” in this verse is from haplotēs. It’s translated as

In 2 Corinthians 11:3, this same word is translated as

In Ephesians 6:5, it’s translated as

So, what does all this have to do with charitable giving? The connection is this. When we see “generous” in the New Testament (except for 1 Timothy 6:18), it is this same Greek word. It is haplotēs.588 English translations include,

Generous is haplotēs. Haplotēs describes

The word describes how we are supposed to give. But it’s not the normal word for giving a lot. In fact, it’s not a normal word for giving at all. Outside of the Bible, haplotēs had never been used in reference to giving.602 Haplotēs giving is unique to the Bible.

We typically think of a generous giver as a big giver. And that might be true. But this word doesn’t mean big. Haplotēs is, literally, “not folded” [a-“not,” plotes from pel “folded”].603 It means

“singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty; the virtue of one who is free from pretense and dissimulation.”604

Scriptural giving is honest. It’s “what you see is what you get.” It’s not a false impression. It’s not a fake ID. The donor’s giving reflects their real identity.

Giving should reflect identity … or else!

A good charitable gift is haplotēs. A bad charitable gift is the opposite. The opposite of the root word haplous (single, unfolded) is diplous (double, twice folded). Diplous is where we get the English word duplicity. This means deception or doubleness of thought, speech, or action.

A bad charitable gift is conflicted, begrudging, or duplicitous. The action doesn’t honestly reflect the heart. A bad charitable gift is not “what you see is what you get.” It’s a false impression. It’s a fake ID. It doesn’t reflect the donor’s real identity.

That’s a bad charitable gift. What was the worst charitable gift in the New Testament? It was the one made by Ananias and Saphira.605

What was the problem with their gift? It certainly wasn’t small. It was big enough to pass for the proceeds of a land sale. This was no pocket change gift. It was big, big money.

In English words, we might call it “generous.” It was big. But it was not haplotēs. It was not mentally honest. It gave a false impression. The appearance didn’t match the heart. Peter’s judgment was this:

“Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” (Acts 5:4b).

To return to Colossians 3:22, they acted

“with eyeservice, as menpleasers;” not “in singleness [haplotēti] of heart, fearing God”

The problem wasn’t that their gift was too small. In fact, giving nothing would have been fine. Peter specifically states this. (Acts 5:4).

The problem wasn’t that their gift was public. Such gifts, like the one from Barnabas, were well known and widely publicized. (Acts 4:37).

The problem was this. The public appearance didn’t match their heart. Their gift didn’t reflect their identity. Their giving was big, but it was not haplotēs. It was not a true reflection of their heart or their identity.

The admirable identity: Getting to kalos and haplotēs gifts

The instruction is for donors to become rich in good works. At first this might seem simple. They make a gift. It does something good. Mission accomplished. End of story. But it’s not that simple.

It’s not that simple because this “good” means something specific. This “good” is kalos. Kalos is,

“beautiful, as an outward sign of the inward good, noble, honorable character; good, worthy, honorable, noble, and seen to be so.”606

The core question starts simple:

Did this gift help to make the donor rich in good works?

Now, let’s make it complicated. Let’s replace “good works” with “kalos works.” The definition of kalos changes everything. Answering this one question means answering these related questions:

Getting to kalos works requires beauty. The works must be aesthetically attractive. Getting to kalos works requires visibility. The works must be seen. Getting to kalos works impacts reputation. The donor becomes personally rich in works that are “good, worthy, honorable, noble, and seen to be so.”

Finally, getting to kalos works requires matching the donor’s inward character. They must accurately reflect “the inward good, noble, honorable” features of the donor’s character.

What kind of giving is this? It’s haplotēs giving. Haplotēs giving openly, honestly, and accurately reflects the heart. It is sincere, single-hearted, and “not folded.”

The previous questions define kalos works. They also define haplotēs gifts. If the answers are yes, the gift does kalos works. If the answers are yes, the gift is also a haplotēs gift. These aren’t disconnected goals. They’re different descriptions of the same goal.

No perfect people: A ministry process

This is not a ministry to perfect people. The first step is not to make the donors perfect before they give. Complaining that our fundraising results would be great if only our donors were better people doesn’t help.

We don’t need to have perfect donors. Nearly everyone has positive aspects of their character. The ministry process identifies those good, honorable, or noble features of a person’s inward character. It then connects those identity characteristics with a beautiful, visible, outward impact. It uses this connection to motivate the action. This is how we move donors towards kalos works. It’s how we get them to haplotēs gifts. It’s how we help them to grow the noble aspects of their characters.

We start with the positive aspects of their characters. We link those positive identity elements to the desired actions. This is precisely how Paul motivated people to action. He did this repeatedly. He did it with Felix.607 He did it with Agrippa.608 He did it with the pagan intellectuals in Athens.609 And he even did it with Timothy.610

Paul started with the positive aspects of their identity or character. He then linked those positive identity elements to the desired actions. These were not perfect people. And yet, he worked to move each of them to positive actions. He moved them to actions that reflected the positive aspects of their (often imperfect) characters.

1 Timothy 6:17-19 does this, too. It starts with the donor’s positive identity elements. It starts with the positive aspects of their people,611 values, 612 and life history.613 It connects these positive identity elements with a challenge to act.614 Accepting that challenge is motivated by the donor’s people, values, and life story. Accepting that challenge will support and advance the donor’s people,615 values,616 and life story.617

The message starts with the positive aspects of their original identity. These motivate matching actions. They motivate good, noble, and honorable actions. The matching actions grow these positive aspects of their identity. They result in a lasting positive identity.

This is a ministry process. It’s a ministry process that grows the good, noble, honorable features of the donor’s character.

As we consider ways to spur one another to good works, we can do the same thing. We can move people to beautiful good works. We can move them to beautiful good works that accurately reflect positive aspects of their inward character. We can help them to identify those inward character traits. We can help them to match those character traits with outward beautiful works. We can help donors to make haplotēs gifts. We can help them to do kalos works. We can help them to be, and be seen as, rich in kalos works.