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.”653

Part I

Understanding Partnership Sharing

Escalating enjoyment

God richly supplies us with all things. For what? For enjoyment. How do we enjoy them? We use them:

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

These each describe giving. But this is not just repetition. Each item is an escalation of the previous one. The list starts simple.

  1. “To do good”

This is agathoergein. It is doing work [ergein] that is intrinsically good [agatho-]. It is doing work that makes a substantive impact. Notice, this is not an appeal for money. (That’s not compelling.) Instead, it’s an appeal to do good things.

Yes, these good things may happen to cost money. But when the donor gives, the donor is not just the money-giver. The donor is the doer. The donor is the actor. This is an enjoyable role.

  1. “To be rich in good works”

The first item is an action. The second is much more. It’s a status. It’s a status that results from a large accumulation of actions. It’s a status that is visible and public.

In English, the first two items both use “good.” In Greek, these are different. The first “good,” agatho, is not the second “good,” kalois. Agatho- is “good whether it be seen to be so or not.”654 Kalois is “good, worthy, honorable, noble, and seen to be so.”655

Thus, “rich in good works” is an escalation. The first item was simply doing an intrinsically good work. The second is the status of having accumulated many visibly good works. The first is enjoyable. The second is an escalation of that enjoyment.

  1. “To be generous”

The third phrase is eumetadotous einai. Einai is an identity statement. This is the donor’s “I am.” It’s the donor’s identity definition. It’s who the donor is being. This is another escalation. We’ve moved from an action, to an accumulation of actions, to a personal identity. First, the impact is enjoyable. Second, the status from accumulated impact is enjoyable. Third, the personal identity is enjoyable.

Eumetadotous is a three-part word. Dotous is a giver. Meta-dotous is a sharer – giving “with” or “among.” Eu-metadotous is a good sharer. It implies sharing that is joyful/abounding, ready/willing, and abundant/rich. Being one who shares well is an enjoyable identity.

  1. “And ready to share”

The fourth item is koinōnikous. This, too, describes einai. It’s also an identity statement. It’s being ready to share. But this is an escalation from eumetadotous. This is not just giving “with” or “among.” It’s sharing within an intense relationship. It’s sharing within a doubly-bonded family partnership.656 It’s sharing within a fellowship community – koinōnia. Professor Marvin Vincent notes that koinōnikous here is

“Stronger than the preceding word, as implying a personal share in the pleasure imparted by the gift.”657

This sharing is highly enjoyable. Sharing is more fun when we’re sharing together with friends. We share along with fellow donors. We share to help fellow recipients who also share back with us. We get deep joy from their experiences because of our shared connection.

This is not giving away to the outsider. This is not disconnected giving. This is not eleēmosynē, where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. This is the opposite. This giving is intensely connected.

Being this kind of giver is highly enjoyable. It’s yet another escalation. This is emotionally connected, mutual sharing. It’s part of a deep, meaningful partnership.

The partnership word

Koinōnikous comes from related words like koinōnos and koinōnia. Koinōnos is a partner, sharer, or companion. For example, Luke 5:10 describes James and John as partners [koinōnoi] in a fishing business with Simon.658 Koinōnia is slightly different. It describes the partnership relationship itself. It means a fellowship, association, community, or joint participation.

The word in our passage, koinōnikous, is the adjective form of koinōnikos. What is koinōnikos? It is, above all, partnership language. It can reference anything related to partnerships.659 But it especially emphasizes the sharing aspects of partnership. It can refer to

This cluster of meanings doesn’t have a precise English match. This leads to different English translations of koinōnikous in our passage. Most commonly, this is some version of “to share.”671 This can include “share possessions,”672 “to be sharers of possessions,”673 “sharing what is one’s own,”674 or “those willing to share.”675

Other translations use “to distribute,”676 “participation,”677 “to partner with/fellowship in,”678 “to the common fund,”679 or even “to communicate.”680 One translation uses “communalists.” It notes,

“Koinōnikous: this is often translated as ‘generous,’ ‘liberal,’ or ‘sharing’; but, more properly, koinōnikos refers to something held in common trust or communally owned; applied to a person, it might better be translated either as ‘belonging to the community’ or ‘sharing his property in common.’”681

Professor Ronald Ward explains,

“They will be ‘sociable’ in property as well as in personality, for this is the meaning of the Greek word koinōnikos behind generous. Fellowship will be seen.”682

Other commentators note,

“The English conceals the fact that the Greek word is koinōnikos ‘willing to share.’ They are to share their fellowship by their financial generosity”683

Koinōnikos connects partnership, friendship, sharing, partnership sharing, and that which is shared by the partnership. (Clement of Alexandria later called married life “bios koinōnikos.”684) A koinōnikous person is a partnership-connected and partnership-sharing person.

The partnership word in Old Testament sharing

Most New Testament quotations from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint.685 This is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was popular at the time. The Septuagint does not use koinōnikos. However, it commonly uses both koinōnos and koinōnia. It uses koinōnia to reference fellowship.686 It uses koinōnos to reference partners687 – even marriage partners.688 It also uses these words for allying with another,689 sharing,690 or partaking691 together.

Philo was a popular Jewish theologian in Paul’s time. Philo uses koinōnos and koina to describe mutual wealth-sharing with God.692 He uses koina by quoting this proverb of Menander:

“what belongs to friends is common [koina].”693

He again quotes this proverb when explaining Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek.694

Philo uses these friendship-partnership words to describe Godly wealth sharing.695 In the New Testament, these words take on special meaning.

The partnership word in New Testament sharing

Koinōnia was not a new word. It had meant partner, partnership, or fellowship for a long time. But it came to have special meaning in the church.

In the New Testament, koinōnia includes the sharing of deep, spiritual things. It’s used for sharing or fellowship with God,696 the Holy Spirit,697 Jesus,698 His sufferings,699 His blood and body,700 and His future glory.701 Most commonly, it references the fellowship community of Christians.702 It describes a connection with their sufferings and victories.703

This same word is used to describe giving within the church. This giving is a form of joining with fellow donors and recipients.704 The donors join together in the recipients’ work,705 sufferings,706 and privileges.707 This kind of deep sharing is a participation in community. It’s a form of fellowship.

Partnership sharing in a literary context

Koinōnikous reflects a deep, intense connection. This escalates even further in our passage because of its literary reference. Our passage parallels and references a famous scene from Menander’s play, Dyskolos.708 In this scene, a son persuades his father to engage in an extreme act of wealth sharing. This is also an extreme act of family bonding.

The wealthy father has only two children – a son and a daughter. His only son asks permission to marry the only daughter of a poor family. His son also asks permission for his only sister to marry the only son of this same poor family. The rich family and the poor family will become an exclusively-bonded, unified family. They will share all wealth and all family for all generations. It’s not just a new family, it’s extreme family.

As discussed in more detail later, this literary reference intensifies koinōnikous. The donors share as part of a multiple-bonded, permanent new family.

Contrasting partnership sharing with high-mindedness

In the chiastic structure of this passage, koinōnikous links to mē hypsēlophronein (“not high-minded”).709 (Several commentators note this connection.)710

The rich Christians’ identity, einai, is koinōnikous. They are closely-connected, fellowship-community sharers. This matches their values. They are already in the ongoing process of being not “high-minded.”711 (They are not hypsēlo – high or above – phronein – minded.) This also means they are not above or separated from the fellowship community.

Paul uses this same donor language elsewhere. He writes of the Philippians’ donation,

“But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern [phronein] for me;” (Philippians 4:10a).

Paul confirms that their donation expressed phronein – concern. They were not above caring. They were not hypsēlo-phronein.

Paul also confirms that their donation demonstrated koinōnikous. It was koinōnia sharing. He describes their donation as

“partnering with me [syn-koinōnēsantes] in my hardship” (Philippians 4:14b).712

He explains that through their giving, the donors

“entered into partnership with me [ekoinōnēsen]” (Philippians 4:15b).713

Our passage connects “mē hypsēlophronein” and “einai koinōnikous.” It instructs donors to continue being both things. Paul’s gift acknowledgment confirms both characteristics. It confirms that the donors accomplished these goals.

Paul also connects these words in Romans. He urges

“contributing [koinōnountes] to the needs of the saints” (Romans 12:13).

He then explains,

“Be of the same mind [phronountes] toward one another; do not [mē] be haughty [hypsēla] in mind [phronountes], but associate with the lowly.” (Romans 12:16a).

Again, Paul urges koinōnia sharing. “Contributing” is koinōnountes. Again, the donors are not [mē] high [hypsēla] in mind [phronountes]. The messages are the same. Donors are not high-minded or above caring. Instead, they are closely-connected, fellowship-community sharers.

How do donors do this? In Romans 12:16, they “associate with” [synapagomenoi] the lowly. Literally, this is syn “identified with” plus apago “carried away with.” Donors emotionally identify with the recipients. They are “carried away together with”714 or “willingly conformed to”715 the lowly.

This is sharing within an emotionally bonded community. Paul explains it this way. It’s a relationship where we

“Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” (Romans 12:15).

In the same way, the Philippian donors “shared in” [synkoinōnēsantes] Paul’s difficulties. They syn, “identified with,” and koinōneō, “shared in” his hardship. They also shared Paul’s joy. He writes,

“I rejoice and share my joy with you all. You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me.” (Philippians 17b-18).

This donor-recipient relationship is not transactional. It’s the opposite. It’s a deeply connected, social, emotional relationship.716

Contrasting partnership sharing with almsgiving

Koinōnikous is about connecting with the koinōnia. It’s about shared community. It’s about the sharing of one’s personal self.717 It’s about oneness with the body.

The literary reference makes the sharing even more extreme. It alludes to an exclusive, double marriage of all children. This forever binds together all wealth and family. It’s the deepest possible connection with others.

Understanding this deep connection highlights an important distinction. Koinōnikous is not eleēmosynē. Sharing with a fellowship community [koinōnikous] is not almsgiving [eleēmosynē]. These are very different. Consider this:

Q: Is it possible to be high-minded, hypsēlophronein, and still give alms to the poor, eleēmosynē?

A: Yes. (This is especially true if everyone sees us doing it.)

Q: Is it possible to be high-minded, hypsēlophronein, and still join in a closely bonded, fellowship community with the poor?

A: No. (This is also especially true if everyone sees us doing it.)

A high-minded person can give alms. A high-minded person cannot closely associate with the lowly. They can give eleēmosynē. They can’t be koinōnikous.

These words are different. So is their pattern of use in the New Testament. Charitable giving as eleēmosynē appears 13 times in Matthew, Luke, and Acts. It appears nowhere after that.718 Charitable giving as koinōnikous has the opposite trajectory. We first see this kind of giving in Acts 2.

“And all the believers were together and had all things in common [koina]; and they would sell their property and possessions and share them with all, to the extent that anyone had need.” (Acts 2:44-45).

This is a new kind of giving. It’s giving as an expression of koinōnia. It’s not just income sharing. It’s sharing accumulated “property and possessions.” This koinōnia-sharing is later called

This giving was new. And it was very different. Eleēmosynē, or almsgiving, is giving down. It’s giving from high to low. Ideal eleēmosynē maximizes disconnection. It’s to be done in absolute secrecy.724 There is no publicly visible connection between the giver and the recipient. (Publicly giving down can take status and dignity from the recipient.)

In fact, the disconnection goes further. The giver is to be disconnected even from his own gift. His left hand shouldn’t realize what his right hand does.725 Like fasting, this is not an open, public, communal act.726 It’s done exclusively before God.

Koinōnikous is the opposite. It is not giving in secret. It’s openly sharing. It’s not giving down. It’s giving across. It is not disconnected giving. It’s intensely connected giving. It’s appropriate to give alms [eleēmosynē] with no connection to the recipient. It’s impossible to share [koinōnikous] with no connection to the recipient. There is no koinōnikous without koinōnia.

Partnership sharing builds community

The result of the donor’s giving is not just impact, agathoergein. It’s not just a public reputation from making many visible, beautiful impacts, ploutein en ergois kalois. It’s not just the enjoyment from the giving itself, eumetadotous. The ultimate result of this giving is koinōnikous. It’s a deep connection to a reciprocal, emotionally bonded community, koinōnia.

Paul’s fundraising message is a message of wealth enjoyment. It’s a message of great personal impact. It’s a message of great personal reputation. It’s a message of enjoyable, joyful eu-sharing. It’s a message of deep, emotional belonging and community.

Part II

Partnership Reciprocity: Building Community and Buying Friends

Partnership reciprocity: The source of partnership equality

Our passage provides an escalating list of donor benefits. Koinōnikous reveals one more.

Eleēmosynē is secretly giving down to an outsider. Any reciprocity is only between the giver and God. Koinōnikos is different. It’s part of an open, public, mutually reciprocal partnership. The word koinōnia was,

“widely used for friends who were committed to the reciprocity of giving and receiving.”727

In the early church age, the word koinōnikos actually meant “reciprocity.”728 This reciprocity is not just with God. It’s also with those in the fellowship community [koinōnia].

Paul describes this in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9. He calls the donation koinōnian (8:4) and koinōnias (9:13). Paul explains,

“For this is not for the relief of others and for your hardship, but by way of equality — at this present time your abundance will serve as assistance for their need, so that their abundance also may serve as assistance for your need, so that there may be equality;” (2 Corinthians 8:13-14).

This is not giving down. This is sharing among equals.729 Why? Because the gift comes with reciprocity expectations. This reciprocity makes it sharing, not just giving away to an outsider.

This is a gift “of equality.”730 It’s part of a mutual sharing relationship.731 It’s not a one-way transfer, even if given to those who are poor.732

This relationship includes the donors’ sympathy for the recipient.733 But it also includes the recipients’ sympathy for the donors.734 It includes the donors’ sharing with the recipient. But these recipients are also expected to share in return. It’s a gift. But it’s a gift made as part of a mutual sharing community.

This reciprocity obligation has an effect. It has a result. The recipients’ reciprocity obligation makes it,

“so that [hopōs] there may be equality.” (2 Corinthians 8:14b).

Or,

“in order that [hopōs] there may be equality.” (2 Corinthians 8:14b).735

This “so that” or “in order that” word is hopōs. It describes a cause-effect relationship. This word

“is stronger than simple ‘that,’ because it emphasizes the method (qualities, prerequisites) involved to accomplish the objective (purpose) at hand.”736

In other words, hopōs is

“focusing on the necessary measures (factors, desires) that are required for the intended goal to be reached.”737

Paul is describing a cause-effect relationship. The reciprocity obligation causes the equality. Removing the reciprocity removes the equality.738 It removes the mutual partnership. It then becomes just giving away to an outsider.

This same reciprocity principle applies even when the church financially supports the poorest elderly widows. The transfer comes not simply because they are in need. It comes because these recipients have intensely shared with the fellowship community.739

This reciprocity from the recipients makes it a relationship of equality. It transforms giving into sharing. It transforms a gift into a gift of equality.740

Partnership reciprocity: Real benefits

Without reciprocity, giving is a one-way street. It becomes just a charitable burden for the donors. Donors may still accept this burden. They’ll do so in order to relieve the recipients. Yet, it remains a burden.

This is not what Paul is asking for. He’s explicit about this. He writes,

“It is not our intention that others may be relieved while you are burdened,” (2 Corinthians 8:13).741

Or,

“This is not intended to relieve other men and add a burden to you;” (2 Corinthians 8:13).742

Paul describes something different. He describes a real partnership with real benefits.743 The recipients also have sharing obligations. These even include financial reciprocity should circumstances change.744 Paul explains,

“share with them when you have so much, and they have so little. Later, when they have more than enough, and you are in need, they can share with you.” (2 Corinthians 8:14a CEV)745

Or,

“Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it.” (2 Corinthians 8:14a NLT).

Although this financial reciprocity is not immediate, other forms of reciprocity are. Indeed, the gift immediately results in the recipients’ action. They will,

“glorify God … for the liberality of your contribution to them.” (2 Corinthians 9:13).

The donor’s gift causes the recipients’ actions. The recipients direct actions toward God. They also direct actions toward the donor. The recipients will,

“by prayer on your behalf, yearn for you because of the surpassing grace of God in you.” (2 Corinthians 9:14).

It’s common for ministries to ask for prayers from donors. Paul describes the reverse. The expectation of those receiving the funds is to, in turn, pray on behalf of the donors.746

Partnership reciprocity: Real emotion

Paul explains that the recipients will pray for the donors. But they do more than that. They will “yearn for” [epipothountōn] the donors. What does this mean? Various translations render this as

A lexicon explains that this word means

“to experience a yearning affection for someone – ‘to have a great affection for, to have a yearning love for.’ … ‘they will pray for you with great affection’ 2 Corinthians 9:14 … ‘because of our great affection for you, we were ready to share with you’ 1 Thessalonians 2:8 ”

It goes on to explain,

“in 2 Corinthians 9:14 one may translate ‘they love you very much and will pray for you.’ In 1 Thessalonians 2:8 one may translate ‘because we love you so much, we were ready to share with you.”750

Consider the practical impact of Paul’s fundraising appeal. Suppose you made a gift. As a result, you learned that the recipients’ response was,

“they love you very much and will pray for you.”

How powerful would that be? Wouldn’t you want to make that gift again? And the response gets better.

This love is not because of your money. It’s love because of who you are. The gift recipients will

“yearn for you because of the surpassing grace of God in you.” (2 Corinthians 9:14b).

What benefit in this world is greater than to be loved because of who you are? This is what Paul’s fundraising appeal promises.

Sharing is prompted by love for the other person. But that love and affection is not just from the donor. It’s also to the donor from the recipient.

This is a gift of love. But it also creates a response of love. It’s a gift of affection. But it also creates a response of affection. Love and affection motivate the gift. They also motivate the reciprocal response to the gift.

This is not a disconnected gift to an outsider. This is a gift of powerful mutual relationship.751 It’s a gift of extreme reciprocal partnership. It’s a gift of deep, emotionally bonded, family partnership.

Partnership reciprocity: Ministry organizations and ministry leaders

In 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, Paul writes a fundraising appeal. It promises reciprocity from the recipients. But what if we don’t have these kinds of recipients? What if we’re raising money to advance a cause, a concept, or a mission? What if we’re raising money to pay ministry salaries?

Reciprocity still works. In Philippians, Paul includes a gift acknowledgment. This wasn’t a gift to the poor in the church as in 2 Corinthians. Instead, it was a gift to support Paul’s evangelism ministry. It supported the advancement of a cause, a concept, and a mission.

Paul confirms the great impact of their gift. (Philippians 4:14, 18). He confirms that their giving was koinōnia-sharing. He calls their giving koinōnia (Philippians 1:5), synkoinōnēsantes (Philippians 4:14), and ekoinōnēsen (Philippians 4:15).

But does Paul actually do anything for them? He does. He does exactly those things he promised the recipients would do in his appeal to the Corinthians. He thanks God for them. (Philippians 1:3). He prays for them. (Philippians 1:4). He yearns for them. (Philippians 1:8; 4:1) He writes,

“I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, in view of your koinōnia [‘participation’; ‘contribution’752; ‘gracious contributions’753] in the gospel from the first day until now.” (Philippians 1:3-5).

The Amplified Bible translates this as

“I thank my God in every remembrance of you, always offering every prayer of mine with joy (and with specific requests) for all of you, (thanking God) for your participation and partnership (both your comforting fellowship and gracious contributions) in (advancing) the good news (regarding salvation) from the first day (you heard it) until now.” (Philippians 1:3-5).

In 2 Corinthians 9:14, Paul promises that the donation recipients will “yearn for” the donors. They will,

“pour out their longing love towards you.”754

And how does Paul respond to the Philippians’ donation? He does so in exactly this way. He delivers on this promise. The opening of his gift acknowledgment includes,

“God knows how much I love you and long for you” (Philippians 1:8 NLT).

The closing of his gift acknowledgment includes,

“I love you and long to see you, dear friends, for you are my joy” (Philippians 4:1a NLT).

In 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, Paul promises a response from the gift recipients. In Philippians 1 & 4, he delivers on that promise as a gift recipient.

Partnership reciprocity: Other donors

Koinōnikous is giving within an emotionally bonded, reciprocal relationship. This relationship is not just between the donor and the receiver. It’s also between the donor and other donors.

This additional set of relationships escalates the impact from giving. The mutual reciprocity is not just with the weak. It’s also with the strong.

With this positive, there is also a negative. These relationships escalate the benefits from giving. They also escalate the costs from refusing to give. Sharing means fulfilling mutual reciprocity. Not sharing means the opposite. It means being a visibly bad partner. It means a loss of reputation.

Paul was not subtle about this downside. He made explicit threats. Should the Corinthians not be prepared to make an appropriate gift, they would face public shame. Their partners, the Macedonians, had made a large gift. They had done so, motivated by the Corinthians’ intention to give. Should the Corinthians not fulfill that intention, their reputation would suffer. As Paul describes it,

“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 9:4).

The argument is this:

“These other donors have given. They’ve done so relying upon your expected generosity. Violating that partnership expectation shows you, publicly, as an unreliable partner.”

This would result in being “put to shame.” This is the shame of breaking a mutual, reciprocal partnership. It’s not merely violating the expectations of the poor recipients. It’s violating the expectations of the fellow donors.

Consider the rich Christian who does not share. He’s a member of a mutually-sharing community. Everyone shares whatever God has richly supplied to them. From the richest to the poorest, everyone does this. Everyone, except for him.

He alone withholds what God has richly supplied. He alone violates the shared social norm. He is the free rider. He is the bad partner. This makes for a bad reputation. This result is especially bad for the rich person.

In business and in life, there are many opportunities for mutually beneficial joint ventures. Such partnerships can be mutually profitable. But they come with a risk. They often include an opportunity to cheat. Selecting a reliable partner is key to success.

For the wealthy person engaged in business, reputation is valuable. Being – and being seen to be – a reliable, reciprocal partner is crucial. When others select partners for mutually beneficial joint ventures, the cheater gets left out. A person who violates mutual reciprocity gets left out. That person is a bad partner or at least a risky one. Relationships with such a person will be short and precisely counted. They’ll be merely transactional.

In business, being – and being seen to be – an unreliable partner is deadly. This is especially true in close communities. These have long-term relationships and long-term reputations. For the wealthy businessperson,755 publicly fulfilling mutual reciprocity can be central to success. Publicly violating such expectations can be costly.

Paul urges the public fulfillment of these expectations. He writes,

“Therefore, openly before the churches, show them the proof of your love and of our reason for boasting about you.” (2 Corinthians 8:24).

The rich Christian is to become rich in visible-inspirational-noble good works. He is to connect with the reciprocal fellowship community openly and publicly. He is to openly fulfill partnership responsibilities.

Partnership reciprocity: Buying friends

If a person has money, what should they spend it on? There’s a lot of advice on this topic. Magazines, newspapers, and the internet are full of it.

“Buy this!”

“Don’t buy that!”

“This one is better than that one!”

There are many ideas on how to spend money. But there’s one suggestion we might never hear. It’s this:

“Use your money to buy friends.”

No one would ever suggest this. That’s not how it works. Even if we could do this, why would we even want “friends” that we had to buy?

No one would ever suggest this. Except Jesus. He says,

“I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” (Luke 16:9 NIV).

What does Jesus say about worldly wealth? First, he says to use it. Why? Because we know it’s disappearing and uncertain.756 The phrase “when it is gone” or “when it fails” is hotan eklipē. Eklipē means to die, expire, or come to an end. Hotan in the New Testament is,

“used of things which one assumes will really occur, but the time of whose occurrence he does not definitely fix.”757

The wealth holding is going to expire. It’s going to end. This disappearance is certain. Only the timing is uncertain. Wealth is both uncertain and disappearing [adēlotēti]. (1 Timothy 6:17). Being rich is temporary. Those who are rich are rich only “in the now time.”758 (1 Timothy 6:17).

The implication is obvious. If you have worldly wealth, don’t just bury it and die with it. That’s foolish. Instead, you should use it. The word for “use” here is poiēsate: do, make, or manufacture.

Jesus is telling us to do something with it. Make something with it. Manufacture something with it. Beyond this, he says to do, make, or manufacture something “for yourselves.” And what should you make or manufacture for yourselves? Friends.

This seems like strange advice. It’s even stranger as an imperative command. You use money “to gain friends for yourselves.” What kind of friends? Ones that will welcome you when the money is gone.

Of course, the problem with trying to buy friends is that they aren’t actually friends. When the money goes away, these so-called “friends” disappear too. That’s not relationship reciprocity. That’s just transactional reciprocity.

Jesus isn’t telling us to do that. Instead, he’s telling us to get the friends we’ll need when the money is gone. These are not fair-weather friends. These are not gold diggers. These friends will welcome us when the money is gone. Their relationships will persist. Their reciprocity will persist.

What else do we know about these friends? These friends will welcome us into eternal dwellings. That’s where they’re headed. That’s who we want to make friends with. These are not just worldly friends. These are lasting friends.

Jesus teaches using wealth to make such friends for yourself. This matches Paul’s instructions to enjoy wealth by using it to be koinōnikous. A koinōnos is a partner, sharer, or companion. It can also be a friend. For example, in Philemon 1:17, Paul begins,

“If you consider me a friend [koinōnon] because of Christ,”759

Or,

“I beg you therefore by the common ties of friendship [koinōnon]”760

He writes in Galatians 2:9,

“They even gave Barnabas and me a friendly [koinōnias] handshake.”761

Similarly, the Septuagint uses koinōnoi kleptōn in Isaiah 1:23 for “friends of thieves.”762

So, how can we follow Jesus’s instructions? Paul explains how. The friends that Jesus describes are found in the fellowship community. They’re found in the koinōnia. We connect to the koinōnia through koinōnikous. We become one who shares with the fellowship community, einai koinōnikous. We use wealth to bond together with the shared fellowship community.

It’s a good trade. Just at this moment, we happen to have uncertain and disappearing riches. So, we use them. We use them to make friends that welcome us into the eternal. We trade riches,

For friends who welcome us

We use wealth to strengthen the fellowship community. We use it to strengthen our connection to the fellowship community. We use wealth to “buy” community. We use it to buy friends!

A friendship is a relationship of equality. We may be different, but we’re together. It’s a relationship of mutual reciprocity. We may be different, but we look out for each other. We help each other.

This reciprocity builds friendship. It also builds the fellowship community. It builds the koinōnia. It transforms giving into koinōnikous.

Part III

A literary allusion: How Menander’s Dyskolos Adds Meaning

The importance of literary references

Ancient authors often allude to other works. This affects the meaning. Suppose a modern writer used the phrase “amber waves of grain.” An American reader would instantly understand. This is not just describing the color of a field; it’s referencing the national anthem.

Understanding the reference affects the meaning. This is true in the Bible, too. Consider Jesus’s statement on the cross. He says,

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46b).

It affects the meaning to learn that Jesus is quoting the first line of a Messianic Psalm. He’s quoting Psalm 22. This Psalm describes the Messiah’s suffering. It describes some of the exact indignities Jesus was experiencing on that day. A Jewish audience would have gotten the reference. They would have understood the Messianic meaning of that exact phrase.

Of course, this is an extreme example. Normally, referencing another work only adds some special nuance to the meaning. This is the case with our passage. The meaning of our passage is clear without any knowledge of Paul’s literary allusion. But understanding it helps. It adds a depth of meaning that otherwise would be missed.

Menander’s Dyskolos: External evidence

Sections of our passage closely parallel a scene in Menander’s play, Dyskolos. Why might we think this was intentional? To begin with, Paul quotes Menander elsewhere. 1 Corinthians 15:33 is a quote from Menander.763

And Paul wasn’t the only one. When Paul wrote, he would have known of Philo’s writings.764 Paul and Philo lived at the same time. (Philo was a bit older.) Both were Diaspora Jews. Both were well-known theological writers.765

A few years before Paul wrote 1 Timothy, Philo also wrote about charitable giving. He wrote about the origins of the Jewish tithe. He wrote of God’s rich provision, too. He wrote of God sharing possessions with His “friends.” Philo does all this, in part, by quoting Menander. In both discussions, Philo references Menander’s proverb,

“the belongings of friends are held in common” (koina ta philon).

Philo’s Menander quote is about koina. In 1 Timothy 6:18 Paul’s new word, koinōnikous, is also from koina.

Knowledge of Menander wasn’t limited to intellectual writers like Philo and Paul. His plays were well known to everyone in Paul’s day. They were a core part of basic education.766 Menander’s proverbs were even more famous.767 They were widely distributed in collections such as Menander’s Maxims.768

Menander was well known across the Roman world. Thus, Philo – living in faraway Alexandria, Egypt – quotes Menander. The familiarity with Menander would have been especially strong in Ephesus where Timothy ministered.

Some simple geography helps to highlight this. Athens is where Menander first presented, among other things, Dyskolos. (It was immediately notable, winning the first-place prize at the festival.769) Ephesus was the first port immediately east of Athens. Immediately to the west was Corinth.

Thus, Paul’s quote of Menander in his first letter to the Corinthians fits the audience. So, too, would his allusion to a famous scene from Menander’s play when writing to Timothy in Ephesus.

Paul’s “Christianizing” of contemporary culture

Paul regularly used secular references familiar to his audience.770 One commentator explains,

“since Paul conducted his ministry in the heart of Greco-Roman culture, if he wanted to be effective, he would have to address his audience in patterns of thought that were familiar to them (especially when attempting to persuade them to a particular course of action).”771

In Athens, Paul began his appeal using secular, even pagan, parts of their culture. He starts on common ground. He then moves to the Christian perspective. At the Areopagus, he begins,

“Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:22-23).

Paul starts with the familiar, even though it was pagan. He starts with their familiar story, but he then finishes and perfects it.

This same process may be exactly what Paul is doing in our passage. Timothy’s audience in Ephesus knows Menander. Paul starts with a well-known argument for generosity from Menander’s play Dyskolos. He starts with their familiar story, but he then finishes and perfects it. He “Christianizes” it into a more perfect form.

Why we won’t see Dyskolos in older commentaries

Reading older Bible commentaries can be enlightening.772 But there are times when they won’t help. This is one of them. Why not? Because the discovery of the Dyskolos text didn’t happen until the 1950s. Its first publication wasn’t until 1958.773

From the beginning, the connection with our passage was obvious.774 The first discussion of Dyskolos in Biblical scholarship appeared in 1964.775 This first author quotes the dialogue discussed below and calls it,

“a fitting commentary on the words in I Tim. 6:17-19.”

The first Bible commentary to discuss this connection with Dyskolos appeared in French in 1969.776 The first English language commentary noting this connection appeared only in 2000.777 Since then, many commentators have noted this link.778

So, how does this help? How does this allusion add to our understanding? Let’s start with the scene itself.

Menander’s Dyskolos: Internal evidence

The relevant scene from Dyskolos opens this way:

Kallippides appears on the far right of the stage.

sostratos. There, I see my father coming, smack on time.

gorgias. Kallippides!

He’s your father?

sostratos. Sure, that’s father.

gorgias. He’s a millionaire, by god; He certainly deserves his riches; he’s a farmer none can beat.779

Kallippides is rich, but deservedly so. Next, his son, Sostratos, encourages him to a generous act:

sostratos. You talk

Of wealth, a thing on which you can’t rely.

For if you know that it will stay with you

Forever, keep it then; don’t give a share

To anyone. But where you’re not the master

And hold it not by right but by the gift

Of Fortune [Tyche], father, don’t begrudge a share

Of this to anyone. For Fortune [Tyche] may

Take all from you and hand it on perhaps

To someone less deserving than yourself.

And so I say that all the time you have

It, father, you should use it generously,

To help all men and through your means enrich

As many as you can. Such deeds will live,

And if you chance to fall yourself some time,

You will receive a fair return from them.

Far better, father, is a friend you see

Than hidden treasure buried underground.

kallippides. You surely know my nature, Sostratos;

I shall not carry with me to the grave

What I have gained. How could I? It is yours.

You want to make a man your friend for good;

You’ve tested him? Then do so, and good luck!

Why preach at me? Get on with it; you’re right.

Give, share! I’m totally convinced by you.

sostratos. And willingly?

kallippides. Yes, willingly; that need.

Not worry you.780

Note the parallel arguments with our passage.

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

This scene begins by identifying the audience for the argument to be generous. It is a rich person:

“He’s a millionaire, by god;”

“not to be conceited [present infinitive: an already in-progress continuing process] or to set their hope [perfect infinitive: the present result of a past action]” (1 Timothy 6:17b).

Next in this scene, a bystander mentions,

“He certainly deserves his riches;”781

“on the uncertainty of riches” (1 Timothy 6:17c).

In this scene, the argument for generosity opens with this reference:

“You talk of wealth, a thing on which you can’t rely.”

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

Next in this scene, Sostratos references the pagan godly source of wealth:

“But where you’re not the master and hold it not by right but by the gift of Fortune [Tyche].” Tyche, in Greek religion, is the goddess of chance.

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

Next in this scene, the argument continues in the same way:

“And so I say that all the time you have it [wealth], father, you should use it generously, to help all men and through your means enrich as many as you can.”

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

Next, this scene references the long-term future benefits to the donor from being generous:

“Such deeds will live, and if you chance to fall yourself some time, you will receive a fair return from them.”

“I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings”.782

And negatively in Matthew 25:25,

“I was afraid, so I went away and hid your talent in the ground.”783

Next in this scene, the argument concludes,

“Far better, father, is a friend you see than hidden treasure buried underground.”

Our passage and this scene make similar arguments. They make them in a similar sequence. These parallels are clear in English. Others are obvious only in Greek.

Greek parallels: Eumetadotous

In our passage, Timothy instructs the wealthy person to be “generous.” The Greek word is eumetadotous. This word is actually new. It appears nowhere prior to Paul writing it. Paul made it up. But the reader still knows what it means because it’s a compound word: Eu+meta+dotous. Each subpart is well known.

In this scene, the father authorizes the son to “Give, share!”784 In Greek, this is “didou, metadidou.” This shows an escalation of generosity. First, he says, “give” (didou). Then he says “share” (meta-didou). The prefix meta- adds a reference to “with,” “among,” or “in company with.”

Next, the scene escalates this generosity one step further. After the father instructs the son to “Give, share [“didou, metadidou”]!” The son responds, “And willingly?” The father says, “Yes, willingly; that need not worry you.” This is third-level generosity. First, give. Second, share. Third, share willingly.

Paul matches this same three-part concept. He does so by inventing a new three-part word, eumetadotous.

The base word is -dotos. This is the same as the first word from the scene: didou. Adding the second part creates -metadotous. This is the same as the second word from the scene: metadidou. The third part creates eumetadotous. The eu- prefix adds the idea of giving willingly.785

Paul’s three-part word parallels the three-level philanthropy from Dyskolos. First, give. Second, share. Third, share willingly.

Greek parallels: Adēlotēti

Paul references “the uncertainty of riches.” Yet, he uses a word that can also mean “the hiddenness of riches.”786 He could have chosen a word that only meant uncertainty. He could have chosen a word that only meant hiddenness. But he didn’t. Instead, he chose a word that could mean both things.

This matches Dyskolos. That scene makes both arguments. Paul’s word choice does the same. It condenses and “Christianizes” the familiar scene.

Sostratos’s argument for generosity begins with,

“You talk of wealth, a thing on which you can’t rely [abebaios - uncertain].”

It ends with,

“Far better, father, is a friend you see than hidden [aphanēs - hidden] treasure buried underground.”

Is this scene referencing the uncertainty of wealth? Yes. Is it also referencing the hiddenness of wealth? Yes. What word would simultaneously reference both arguments? It is the exact word that Paul uses: adēlotēti. The reference makes the meaning obvious.

This scene mentions “hidden” treasure. But it goes further. It mentions “hidden treasure buried underground.” The allusion would have been particularly poignant for a Christian audience. It would be impossible not to recall Jesus’s words in the Parable of the Talents,

“So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground.” (Matthew 25:25 NIV).

Greek parallels: Koinōnikous

In our passage, Paul creates another new word. He creates koinōnikous. This is the fourth way to enjoy what God has richly provided. It’s perhaps the highest level of philanthropy. The instruction is,

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

Koinōnikous is sharing with the koinōnia. It’s sharing among the fellowship community. Understanding the Dyskolos allusion affects the meaning of the word. It dramatically intensifies the meaning.

In Dyskolos, the father is not being asked to just write a check. This is no disposable income gift. He’s being asked to permanently share 100% of his wealth now and forever. He’s being asked to permanently join his family with another, relatively poor, family.

This wealthy father has only two children, a son and a daughter. His son is asking permission to marry the only daughter of the poor family. And he is asking permission to allow his sister to marry the only son of the same poor family.

The proposed dual wedding binds these two families together. It does so in the most extreme way possible. All wealth becomes shared wealth for generations to come. The rich family and the poor family go from being entirely disconnected to being as closely linked as is humanly possible. This creates a new family. They will permanently be sharing all things. They will share children, grandchildren, and all current and future wealth.

The allusion to Dyskolos intensifies the meaning of koinōnikous. It suggests an extreme bond. It is philanthropy as extreme community. It is philanthropy as multiple-bonded family. Treating donors “like family” is not a new idea. 1 Timothy 6:18 takes that idea to its greatest extreme!

The importance of Dyskolos

1 Timothy 6:17-19 appears to allude to this well-known scene from Menander’s Dyskolos. However, we can still understand the passage without it. It’s not mandatory to know – or accept – the allusion. But it is helpful.

It adds confidence in understanding some words. Adēlotēti’s dual meaning is intentional. It adds context to others. Creating the new three-part word eumetadotous is meaningful. It adds extreme intensity to others. Koinōnikous is sharing. But it’s sharing within an intensely bonded, extreme-family community.

Understanding the allusion helps. It adds nuance, meaning, and intensity. It provides insight into Paul’s words. It follows the wise suggestion that

“What we need to do is to try to hear his words as a Greek-speaking audience would have heard them.”787