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.”859

Part I

Paul’s Charitable Endowment Language

Donor benefits on earth (and in heaven)

There are many objective benefits of giving. It can be enjoyable. It can establish a valuable reputation. It can help connect to reciprocal partnerships – business or social. It can be a great way to live.

Paul, too, presents a long list of donor benefits.860 Here, he adds that donors are

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

These future benefits apply both here and in heaven.861 Other scriptures confirm that they apply in heaven. Empirical data confirm that they apply here.

The exact nature of the heavenly results is much disputed. These questions relate to issues of heavenly rewards, salvation, and so forth.862 That’s not something we’re going to resolve here. This is, after all, a book about fundraising.

So instead, let’s get practical. What can we say about this phrase as a matter of practical fundraising? We can confidently say this. Paul is telling Timothy to use endowment language. He uses almost precisely the same words we would use to describe a modern endowment.

Modern endowment language

What is an endowment? It’s a fund held by a charitable (or government) entity. It has these features:

  1. The donor’s giving creates or results in a wealth-holding entity or fund. In simple terms, this is a heap or store of accumulated riches.
  2. Once transferred, the donor does not own the original gift. However, the accumulated fund is still indirectly connected to them.
  3. The fund is normally named for the donor or the donor’s family.
  4. It’s legally required to follow the donor’s instructions. These are recorded in the gift agreement or foundation documents.
  5. It can be a special type of fund called a foundation. (This references a financial instrument, not the base of a structure.)
  6. This must be a fund for good. It must support charitable causes. This charitable good is normally public and visible.
  7. This good work is usually identified with the donor’s name.
  8. This good work activity must be reported on publicly available tax forms.
  9. The fund is created for the purpose of the future. It’s intended to last a long time. It’s not just making a one-time impact. It’s usually permanent.

These five points describe a modern endowment, whether a foundation or fund. This is a technically accurate modern description. (As an estate-planning attorney, I can attest to that.) Yet, these descriptors are not new.

Paul’s endowment language

Paul writes about the results of the donor’s giving. He writes of

“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Timothy 6:18a).

In Latinized Greek, this is

“apothēsaurizontas heautois themelion kalon eis to mellon”

  1. Apothēsaurizontas. The donor’s giving
  2. Apo-: results in or leads to
  3. Thēsaurizontas: A heap or store of accumulated riches
  4. Heautois. Once transferred, the donor does not own the original gift. However, the accumulated fund is still indirectly connected to them.
  5. Heautois refers to the donors “themselves.”
  6. It’s in the dative case. This means the gift is still possessed indirectly by them or is to their advantage or benefit.
  7. Themelion. This word can be a type of fund or a foundation. (Here, it likely references a financial instrument, not the base of a structure.)
  8. Kalon. The fund, themelion, is good, kalon. This is good that is normally public and visible. It is beautiful, honorable, noble, and seen to be so. It reflects the donor’s good, noble, and honorable character or identity.863
  9. Eis to mellon. The fund [themelion] is for the purpose of [eis] the future [to mellon].

These five points are the same as the previous five. They’re the same five points just used to describe a modern endowment. They match the features of a charitable foundation or fund.

Wealthy donors often consider setting up a private foundation. As an attorney, how might I explain this option to a client? I might advise them that

“By doing this they will be storing up their treasure as a good foundation for the future” (1 Timothy 6:19a NLT).

I would say this even without trying to quote scripture. I’m just trying to describe a private family foundation.

Suppose instead I was fundraising for a charity. I would still use similar words. I would just replace the word “foundation” with “fund.” (Foundation describes an endowment held as a separate nonprofit. Fund describes an endowment held by a public charity.)

In either case, I would emphasize the donor’s connection to the fund. I would describe it as their fund or their family’s fund. I would emphasize the beautiful, noble, inspirational good works their fund would accomplish. I would emphasize the permanence of their fund. I would emphasize its long-term, future impact. These are all motivational ways to describe an endowment. They also mirror the words from this passage.864

Modern endowment statistics

A 2022 study examined the largest gifts received by various colleges and universities. It included the largest gifts at every type of school.865 These ranged from community colleges to flagship research universities. Here was the result:

“The majority of principal gifts were intended to provide long-term or perpetual benefits to the institution. Nearly two thirds of all gifts were designated in whole or part for endowment … Just under half of the gifts (46%) provided funding for new buildings or renovations”866

Let that sink in for a moment. Two-thirds of these large gifts funded endowments. Almost half funded (or also funded) buildings, which provide similar long-term benefits. (Owning a debt-free building is equivalent to having a long-term endowment that pays for rent.)

That’s what wealth sharing looks like during life. What about estate giving? According to IRS data, for estates over $5 million, 78% of all charitable dollars went to private family foundations.867 Consider what this means. Public charities received only 22% of all charitable estate dollars!

These results are extreme. Whether current gifts or estate gifts, they tell the same story. Massive charitable gifts go to endowments and foundations.

Modern donors make these gifts to create something. They make them to create the exact results that Paul describes in this passage. Paul accurately defines what motivates modern major gift donors. And he did it nearly 2,000 years ago.

Ancient endowments

Paul’s language matches descriptions of modern endowments. Of course, Paul wasn’t referencing modern legal entities. Yet, very similar structures were well known in Paul’s day.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary explains,

“Endowments in antiquity were set up by vesting property in a public or private body, and stipulating how the income should be used … in Hellenistic Greece religious endowments predominated; in Rome under the Principate social ones.”868

Professor Sophia Aneziri of the University of Athens writes,

“These endowments are transfers of land or movables effected in the ancient Greek world via donations, dedications or testaments, by private or public persons, to poleis, koina, sanctuaries or associations, to fund a specific purpose on a regular basis … These gifts differ from ordinary donations or bequests in that they require the transferred property to be invested in order to achieve a permanent financing of the purpose. In general the number of such benefactions increased from the 3rd century BC on, and the practice bloomed spectacularly in the Roman Imperial period.”869

These perpetual endowments in Greek antiquity are variously described as “endowment,” “foundation,” or “fund.”870 They were created by donations of money or real estate to be held indefinitely.871 Evidence of these endowments comes from hundreds of surviving archeological inscriptions.872 For example, in the region near Corinth, one inscription records,

“shortly after the middle of the 1st century BC, Phaena, priestess of Demeter, after the end of a priesthood during which she had spared no expense, she gave the association (synodos / koinon) of priestesses of Demeter an endowment (philanthrōpian aiōnion) to cover, in perpetuity, the costs of the cult, and engaged her daughter and granddaughter to continue this everlasting service after her death.”873

These endowments were often religious but could be for other purposes. Another inscription records,

“In Aigosthena … in the second half of the 3rd century BC, a woman called Arete assigned to the koinon of the Aigosthenitans half of a garden worth 1,000 drachms … the income from which would go towards a sacrifice and contests in honour of Poseidonios.  This Poseidonios was a male member of her family, possibly her deceased husband.”874

This was not just a Greek practice. It was also a Roman one.875 Writing of these, Professor Jinyu Liu explains,

“At least eighty-four instances have survived of perpetual endowments designated to associations in the Latin-speaking provinces. No doubt this pool represents only the tip of the iceberg.... The majority of these benefactions date to the second and the third century A.D., but two of them are securely dated to the first century A.D.”876

Such endowments were designed for the future, often in perpetuity. Professor Aneziri explains that Greek inscriptions describe,

“The endowments of movable or landed property, which were undertaken in order to furnish a permanent income for the perpetual support of a specific purpose.”877

The Latin inscriptions reflected this, too. Professor Liu explains,

“The endowments were meant to be long-lasting, as indicated by phrases such as om(nibus) an(nis) in perpetuum or quod ann(is) in perpet(uum).”878

Endowments in Timothy’s Ephesus

Paul wrote this letter to Timothy. Timothy was in Ephesus. Permanent foundations were particularly common there. Ephesus was home to The Artemisium (Temple of Artemis). The goddess Artemis was thought to protect funds deposited there. This temple was called the “Bank of Asia” or “General Treasury of Asia.”879 This translates the original phrase of

“tameion te koinon tēs Asias”

Which can also be rendered as,

“treasury of the common fund of Asia.”

This temple functioned as an international trust bank. It held the wealth and followed the depositor’s instructions. Professor Jerome Murphy-O’Connor explains,

“The temple had no authority to do anything more unless it was explicitly authorized by the depositor.”880

These funds could be held permanently for community or charitable purposes. Another researcher explains,

“Such accounts are labeled with terms such as themelion, “treasury or reserve,” and koinos, “common fund.” The former term appears in 1 Timothy 6:19 and six times in [Ephesian inscriptions] linked to accounts for projects such as gymnasia, kitchens, or latrines. The latter term occurs in inscriptions linked to various funds established at the Artemisium for defined purposes. For example, Gaius Vibius Salutaris established a koinos in the temple and outlined instructions for the use of the financial resources in perpetuity.”881

Timothy was in the global center of charitable endowments and foundations. He was physically surrounded by inscriptions dedicated to these endowments. These inscriptions described the endowments using words like themelion and koinos.

In our passage, donors move their wealth from an uncertain/disappearing form into a good foundation. This word for foundation is themelion. It has multiple meanings, just like the English word “foundation.” It can mean a heavy rock at the base of a building. It can reference the basis for an idea. But here, it likely references a financial fund.882

In Ephesus, themelion often meant a charitable fund. The word appears in Ephesian inscriptions recognizing donors.883 These charitable funds would have been well known to Timothy’s audience. They were literally chiseled into Ephesian buildings. They were inscribed into the architecture.

Managing financial funds was a central part of the Ephesian economy. Professor Alfred Plummer notes,

“The wealthy heathen in Ephesus were accustomed to deposit their treasures with ‘the great goddess Diana,’ whose temple was both a sanctuary and a bank.”884

Ephesus was a city focused on financial funds. Paul’s reference would have made sense to them as a financial fund. One commentary explains of 1 Timothy 6:19,

“The idea is that of a deposit into a treasury or storehouse for use at a later date. Another metaphor comes into play. This treasury deposit now becomes a ‘foundation’ (themelios; originally, to lay down a stone).”885

Professor Ernst Wendland explains the usage as

“Themelios - foundation in the sense of a sum of money which draws interest or brings dividends.”886

Themelion as a financial fund, including a charitable fund, was commonplace in Ephesus. Paul deliberately uses this endowment language. Timothy, and his Ephesian audience, would have immediately understood the reference.887 Paul instructs Timothy to use endowment language in his fundraising with the wealthy.888

Long-term charitable funds in the Bible

New Testament passages suggest some endowment-like financial activities. Older widows placed on the list received lifetime support. This suggests the presence of a long-term, or even permanent, fund.889 (Otherwise, donation fluctuations would have threatened their survival.)

This matches an Old Testament practice. One of the tithes was for the Levites and

“the stranger, the orphan, and the widow who are in your town” (Deuteronomy 14:29b).

It was given so that they

“shall come and eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 14:29c).

Feeding the stranger, the orphan, and the widow is important. But here’s the thing. This tithe was taken only once every three years. It had to be stored up to last a long time. The instructions directed this storing up of the gift:

“At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates.” (Deuteronomy 14:28 NKJV).

Storing up and distributing over many years is nothing new. Long-term charitable funds are nothing new.

Restricted charitable funds in the Bible

The idea of “restricted” gifts for special purposes is also nothing new. For example, the Old Testament tithe wasn’t just one thing. There were three different tithes. The first paid the Levites, who functioned as priests and caretakers of the tabernacle.890 The second was restricted to pay for festival celebrations.891 The third was restricted to feeding Levites, strangers, orphans, and widows.892

The New Testament also references restricted gifts. Paul encouraged donors to make restricted gifts to a designated project. These were separate from any “unrestricted” gifts to the church. Paul’s fundraising campaign in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9 and elsewhere was for exactly this type of project.

Paul directed these donors to save money over time as a personal charitable fund.893 They would accumulate, hold, and control these funds themselves.894 However, they would earmark them for future charitable transfer. They would create “homemade” Donor Advised Funds.

Thus, from the New Testament text alone, we see the following in the church:

Once again, modern fundraising concepts are not so new after all.

Endowments in the early church

Common funds [to koinon] appeared from the earliest days of the church. The literary record shows this.895 However, there is no matching archeological record. Public endowment inscriptions would have made no sense for a banned sect. Thus, none appear prior to the conversion of Constantine in 312 A.D.896

Yet, even in the earliest times, the church did offer endowment-like giving opportunities. Donors could give houses or land – not to be sold but to be held by the church.897 The property would produce rent or be used rent-free.

These assets were not sold for distribution. They were held by the church, producing ongoing benefits of income or rent-free use. Financially, this functions like a church endowment. If the church owns and leases out real estate, it’s holding an asset that pays rent. If it owns and uses the real estate, it’s holding an asset that eliminates the cost of renting.

An alternate arrangement is when the donor keeps the building but donates rent-free use. This is still an asset that covers the cost of renting. But the donor controls and manages the asset. That makes it more like a private foundation than a church endowment. Either way, the asset still eliminates the church’s ongoing cost of renting.

Once Christianity became legal, the record of formal church endowments is clear. By 390 A.D., these were commonplace. In that year, John Chrysostom referenced their size and ubiquity. In fact, he complained about it. Church endowments had grown large. He worried that they turned religious leaders into business managers. He worried that they discouraged people from giving.898

The use of such endowments and foundations continued in the following years. Writing of church finance in the fifth and sixth centuries, Professor A. H. M. Jones summarizes,

“Most founders of churches were private benefactors, and most of them endowed the churches which they built … Most charitable institutions [hospitals, orphanages, almshouses] seem also to have been autonomous, having been endowed by their founders.”899

In 530 A.D., the Emperor Justinian made such endowments mandatory. No new church could be constructed without an endowment to pay for its ongoing operation and maintenance.900

Beyond these early examples, the use of endowments for churches and Christian organizations has continued throughout the centuries. Thus, historically, endowments for churches and Christian charities were common – or even mandatory.

Endowments and donor stewardship

Are endowments a good idea? The answer is, “It depends.” An endowment is just a spending plan. Sometimes immediately spending everything is wise stewardship. Sometimes it’s not. Sometimes spending over time is wise stewardship. Sometimes it’s not.

Ministry leaders can spend much effort disputing the wisdom of this spending plan. Such disputes, however, ignore a key issue. We can agree that the core Biblical principle is stewardship. But we can forget the answer to another question:

Who is the steward of the donor’s wealth?

The answer:

The donor is the steward of the donor’s wealth.901

The donor is not forced to give wealth. But he is responsible for his giving. As Peter explained to Ananias about his gift,

“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” (Acts 5:4a).

Ananias didn’t have to give anything. But he did. He made a gift. That was good. And then he lied about it. That was bad. That was dumb (and deadly). It was dumb because the gift was optional. This wasn’t like a Roman tax. It wasn’t mandatory giving.

The donor is not forced to give wealth. But he is responsible for his giving. A donor can choose to give or not give. But when he gives, he is responsible for the giving.

A donor can also choose what specific project to give to. Paul’s most famous fundraising campaign was for a special project. It was fundraising for restricted gifts. Paul didn’t appeal to the church leaders to fund his project out of general church funds. He didn’t appeal to donors to give to general church funds. He appealed to the donors to make a restricted gift to a specific project. This decision was the donor’s decision.

Giving to this special project wasn’t a command.902 It was an option. It was, in Paul’s opinion, an attractive option.903 But it was still just an option.

Donors can choose to share wealth. They can choose not to share wealth. Donors can choose to give to a specific project. They can choose not to give to a specific project. But when they give, they are responsible for their giving.

Our passage goes a step further. Donors are not simply instructed to give. They are instructed to generate outcomes. They are instructed to do good. They are instructed to be rich in good works.

It’s possible that making unrestricted gifts to an organization does this. If so, that’s great. But if not, it’s the donor’s responsibility to try something else. The donor might instead give to a restricted project. Or the donor might just give elsewhere.

Regardless, the donor’s responsibility is to produce the result. The donor is to do good. The donor is to become rich in good works. The donor is the steward. The donor is responsible for his giving.

A charity does not have to offer endowments. But suppose the donor believes that wise stewardship dictates that his gift be spent over many years. If so, then he is responsible for executing that plan.

And what if the administrator of a charity disagrees with this spending plan. Does that change the donor’s responsibility? No. The donor is responsible for his wealth. God has placed him in charge of that wealth. He must answer for it. He is the steward.

That may mean giving elsewhere. Or, it may mean making a restricted gift instead. It may mean giving through a private foundation. It may mean giving through a community foundation. The instruments are secondary. The important thing is the outcome. The outcome is,

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

This can be accomplished with immediate usage. It can also be accomplished with usage over time.

The timing of the spending is a stewardship decision. What’s the best plan? It depends. One plan is not always good or bad in every circumstance. The key idea is this. This stewardship decision is the decision of the steward. The donor is the steward of the donor’s wealth.

Endowment language vs. endowment structure

Paul instructs Timothy to conduct his fundraising using endowment language. This is clear. Paul, Timothy, and the Ephesians would have been thoroughly familiar with charitable endowments. This is also clear. However, directing endowment language is different from directing actual endowments.

Paul’s language neither mandates nor prohibits endowments. It’s possible that Timothy’s church did not offer endowment gift opportunities. It’s possible they would not have accepted gifts of houses or land to be held indefinitely by the church.

Yet, endowments would still have been critical. Timothy’s church was surrounded by charitable endowment opportunities. Even if Timothy was not offering endowments, he was still competing with them. For the wealthy donor, they were still an attractive charitable option. This was true in Paul’s day. It’s true today.

Today we might offer actual endowments. Or we might simply adopt Paul’s endowment language to compete with them. Either way, Paul’s words remain critical for effective fundraising.

Part II

Paul’s Investment Diversification Language

Investment diversification

1 Timothy 6:17-19 is a fundraising passage. It encourages the wealthy to give. But notice what it does not say. It never says simply, “Give your money away!” That message emphasizes loss. It creates resistance. It works against the natural inclinations of the wealthy.

Here, Paul writes something different. This is not an argument for wealth dissipation. It’s an argument for wealth diversification. It does not tell wealthy donors to give it away. It tells them to save it up. The New English Bible reads,

“Tell them to hoard a wealth of noble actions by doing good”904 (1 Timothy 6:18).

The message isn’t “Stop being wealthy.” It’s “Be wealthy in even more ways!” In investment terms, it says, “Diversify!”

I teach in a university department focused on financial planning and wealth management. The first principle of wealth management is diversification.

Suppose a client has a $50 million stock portfolio. Is he financially secure? Not if his portfolio is all in one speculative stock. If something happens to that one company, he’s broke. He needs to diversify.

Suppose all his shares were in one oil company. So, he diversifies across 10 different oil companies. That’s slightly better. But it’s still not great. Why not? Because these will all rise or fall together. Real diversification does the opposite. It means adding investments that don’t fall when others do. Ideally, they remain even if everything else collapses.

This investment theory matches the giving messages of Paul and Jesus. It’s not just giving away; it’s shifting to a different asset type. It’s not becoming less rich; it’s becoming rich in even more ways.

For wealth holders, this diversification message is familiar. It’s persuasive. It matches wealthy investors’ natural inclinations. It’s pro-savings. It’s risk-reducing. It’s planning for the future.

Diversification language in sales

As an estate-planning attorney, I often worked with life insurance professionals. The most successful acted differently. They weren’t just more persistent. They communicated differently.

They used different language. They didn’t sell a policy. They sold an outcome. (They sold client benefits.) They didn’t lead with policy features. They led with stories. (They told stories about what other people like the client had done.) And finally, they didn’t frame the sale as a sale.

They never “sold” a policy. A client never “bought” a policy. Instead, the client “moved” money. He moved it into a better investment. This was not trading wealth for a product. It was shifting some wealth into a different wealth category. It was diversifying.

Call it spending, and we’ll haggle to spend as little as possible. An investing framework is different. If we find a better investment, we want to put in more, not less. This reframing is powerful. The wealth isn’t disappearing. Instead, it’s being moved into a better investment.

Suppose our bank account earns 2% interest. We then find a safer bank that pays 6%. We don’t think, “What’s the smallest amount I can invest?” That wouldn’t make sense.

It wouldn’t make sense because this isn’t a spending framework. This is an investment framework. We’re not losing wealth. We’re trying to move wealth into a better investment. So, we want to move as much as possible. We’re not losing anything. We’re gaining a superior investment.

Diversification in Biblical fundraising

Our passage frames giving as wealth diversification. The message isn’t,

“You’ve saved up too much! Give it away!”

Instead, it’s,

“You’ve got a risky, disappearing portfolio. You need to diversify. Shift your savings into something long-term.”

Paul doesn’t say,

“Stop storing up treasure for yourself.”

He says,

“Store up for yourselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future.”

He doesn’t say,

“Stop being rich.”905

He says,

“Be rich in even more ways! Be rich in good works.”

This is a pro-investment message.906 It’s a message of investment diversification.

Jesus says,

“Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure [thēsauron] in heaven, where no thief comes near nor does a moth destroy.” (Luke 12:33).

And,

“But store up [thēsaurizete] for yourselves [hymin] treasures [thēsaurous] in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal” (Matthew 6:2o).

Paul’s message closely parallels Jesus’s message. This is even more obvious in the original words:

These start as identical messages. They use identical investment words. But then the messages diverge.

Diversification benefits: Heaven and here [eis to mellon]

Jesus and Paul use identical investment words. But Jesus talks specifically about heaven. These are treasures “in heaven” [en ouranō]. (Matthew 6:20). This is treasure “in the heavens” [en tois ouranois]. (Luke 12:33).

Paul uses different words. Instead of heaven, he writes about the future. The treasure is “for the future” [eis to mellon]. The future can certainly include heaven. But it’s not only heaven.907 The future is also a week from now. It’s also a year or a decade from now.908

This matches other differences. Jesus here is speaking of almsgiving [eleēmosynē]. Paul is writing about sharing [koinōnikous] with the fellowship community [koinōnia].

Almsgiving [eleēmosynē] is supposed to be secret and hidden. There may be no observers other than God. The benefit to the donor comes exclusively from God. The benefit is in heaven.

Sharing with the fellowship community [koinōnikous] is different from almsgiving [eleēmosynē]. It’s supposed to be open and public.909 It’s part of a mutual, reciprocal partnership.910 That partnership reciprocity starts here on earth. It starts right away. We are to do good

“especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” (Galatians 6:10b)

These recipients are themselves reciprocal. They will,

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

This reciprocity continues in the future. Paul explains,

“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).

These are friends who share back. They’re reciprocating friends for now and for later.

Jesus, too, talks of giving that creates such friendships. These are the kind of friends who

“will welcome you into eternal dwellings.” (Luke 16:9).

What does Jesus say will happen when a person gives up something

“for My sake and for the gospel’s sake” (Mark 10:29b)?911

They get immediate and future rewards. They

“will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age … and in the age to come, eternal life.” (Mark 10:30b,d)

Jesus explains that they receive

“brothers and sisters and mothers and children” (Mark 10:30c).

These immediate benefits include friends that are like family. In the church age these friends are in the fellowship community [koinōnia].

This treasure is not only “in heaven [en ouranō]”. It is also, more broadly, “for the future [eis to mellon]”. This is giving with benefits. It has benefits across all parts of the future.

Diversification benefits: A good reputation [kalon]

Paul’s donors are becoming rich. They are becoming,

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

They are

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

This type of good, kalos, is,

“beautiful, as an outward sign of the inward good, noble, honorable character; good, worthy, honorable, noble, and seen to be so.”912

Jesus says of this type of good,

“Your light must shine before people in such a way that they may see your good [kala] works” (Matthew 5:16a).

The audience for this good, kalos, includes God. But it’s not only God. It’s also other people.

In 1 Timothy, earthly reputation matters. A reputation for good, kalos, matters. It matters in heaven, but it also matters here. Do you want to be a church leader? Paul says you

“must have a good [kalēn] reputation with those outside the church” (1 Timothy 3:7b).

Do you want to serve as a deacon? Among the benefits is that deacons

“gain an excellent [kalon] reputation for themselves” (1 Timothy 3:13).913

Are you a widow who wants to be put on the list for support from the church? That can happen only if you are one

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

Becoming rich in good [kalois] works does lead to treasure in heaven. But it’s not just heaven. It’s also a good [kalon] foundation for next week, next year, and next decade. It’s a good foundation for all of the future.

Commentaries have noted this earthly application of 1 Timothy 6:19. One explains,

“Giving away is here represented as a ‘laying up’ in store, a laying down of a foundation. A time may come when he will be glad of some help himself, and to have amassed for himself in other hearts a great store of thankfulness on account of what he was able to do for them will stand him in good stead now that he is in want of sympathy, or assistance of any kind.”914

Using more academic terms, Professor Anthony Giambrone explains,

“Reference to the ‘treasure in heaven’ metaphor in 6:19 would help secure a generic almsgiving topos, but the language here might also be read as a this-worldly investment, a material reward wealth ethic common to both Paul (2 Corinthians 8:14; 9:8-10; cf. Sirach 29:11-13; 22:23) and pagan sources (e.g. Seneca, On Consulation: To Marcia 9.1; Ovid, Tristia 5.8.4-18).”915

Paul is not subtle about this earthly reciprocity. Sharing with the fellowship community leads to reciprocity. It leads to reciprocity now. (2 Corinthians 9:14). It leads to reciprocity in the future. (2 Corinthians 8:14). It’s not just spiritual. It’s financial.

In the church of 1 Timothy, a good [kalos] public reputation was valuable. It provided access to paid – or even “double paid” – leadership.916 It provided access to paid retirement for the poorest widows.

Openly sharing with a mutually supportive fellowship community provides both social and economic benefits. This occurs naturally and informally. In 1 Timothy, Paul makes it formal. He infuses explicit financial benefits directly into the church polity. These benefits are explicitly contingent on a good [kalos] public reputation.

Good [kalos] works and good [kalos] reputation creates a good [kalos] foundation for the future. These benefits are long-term, ongoing, and stable. A person may lose every other treasure, but these benefits remain. This is true in heaven. Paul’s church guidelines in 1 Timothy also make it true on earth.

Diversification benefits: Trading temporary for permanent [eis to mellon]

The rich person’s other investments all have the same problem. They’re going to disappear. Paul’s wealth diversification message offers a solution. It offers permanence. The donors are

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

One commentary explains of this verse,

“Stability is the essential characteristic of a foundation. There is a contrast implied between the shifting uncertainty of riches as a ground of hope, and the firm and permanent foundation of a Christian character.”917

Financial investments can disappear. They are uncertain/disappearing. (1 Timothy 6:17). Thieves can steal them. (Luke 12:33; Matthew 6:20). Even if they’re not stolen, they can disintegrate. Moths destroy. Rust decays. Markets crash. Countries fall.

And even if they survive all that, they will still be lost. Ownership ends at the end of life. As Paul explains,

“We have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it, either.” (1 Timothy 6:7).

The emphasis on permanence is the key point of this phrase. The structure of the passage highlights this. It’s a chiastic structure.918 This is a series of contrasts surrounding the main point. Each segment is a contrast with another.

In these parallel segments,

“those who are rich in the now [nyn] time,”

contrasts with those who are

“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future [mellon]”.

The structure contrasts now [nyn] and future [mellon].919 Treasure “in the now time” is temporary. The treasure of “a good foundation for the future” offers lasting permanence.

These are both forms of wealth. They’re just different forms of wealth. One kind is only for now: nyn. We can’t take it with us. Even as we try to hold it, it’s uncertain and disappearing: adēlotēti. The other kind of treasure is permanent. It’s lasting. That permanence starts right away.

Suppose a person is known for beautiful, inspirational, good [kalois] works. They are rich in good works. And then their investments collapse. Or they’re stolen. They lose all their wealth.

Are they still rich in good [kalois] works? Yes. Have they still stored up for themselves the treasure of a good [kalon] foundation for the future? Yes.

These are not just theological concepts. They’re also economic ones. Reputation matters. It is economically valuable. This is true for the payments from the church described in 1 Timothy. It’s also true in the business world.

Corporations are pure profit-making entities. And yet, they still make donations. Why? Because it’s profitable. It builds an economically valuable reputation. Research shows that a charitable reputation has real economic benefits.920 This is true for corporations. It’s also true for individuals.

Many joint ventures offer the chance for gain but require trusting a partner. A person might lose everything. But if he still has a good reputation, he is still a valuable partner. Others will still want to include him in future opportunities.

This isn’t just theory. It’s observable in the lab. When people pick a leader or partner for a joint venture after a sharing opportunity, they almost always pick the person who was the most generous.921 A charitable reputation has real economic benefits.

These financial benefits are real. They’re also lasting. Suppose a person has status and opportunities only because he has money. Then his money disappears. What happens to his status? It disappears too. What happens to his future opportunities? Those also disappear.

Now, suppose a person has a reputation for sharing with the fellowship community. He fulfills his responsibilities and much more. He’s a beneficial member of any partnership or fellowship community. He shares freely. He’s generous.

Then something happens. His money disappears. What happens to his valuable reputation? Nothing. It remains. What happens to those valuable future opportunities? Nothing. He’s still an attractive partner. Even on this earth, his reputation endures. It’s valuable. And it’s lasting.

Thus, even in a secular context, giving has lasting benefits. As Professor Stephan Joubert explains,

“Any benefactor could therefore echo Mark Anthony’s ironic words: hoc habeo, quodcumque dedi (‘whatever I have given, that I still possess!’). As a matter of fact, the only way in which one can make one’s material possessions one’s own, is to give them away as gifts. The moment a gift is given away, it turns into a benefit.”922

Similarly, Professor Duncan Derrett explains that ancient sources often reflected the idea that,

“Helping others is a permanent asset.”923

Diversification benefits: A future focus matches major gifts [eis to mellon]

Paul uses time-oriented, future-focused language. This matches modern experimental research. People give more when they are first asked about issues of time.924 Focusing on time creates a more reflective, “socioemotional” mindset. This encourages sharing. Starting with a money ask does the opposite. It leads to a more “transactional” mindset.925 This discourages sharing.

Paul’s time-focused language also matches the natural inclinations of the rich. They don’t blow wealth on wild living. They focus on the future. They are accumulators. They want to hold on to wealth.

In one study, I worked with a Ph.D. advisee to uncover any “special” characteristics of major donors. Yes, they had wealth. Yes, they were charitable. But were they different from other donors in other ways? Analysis of a national dataset said, “Yes.”

Even comparing those with the same wealth, major donors were different. They had a longer “financial planning time horizon.”926 They were significantly more likely to focus many years into the future in their spending and saving decisions. They were focused on results for the future [eis to mellon].

In this world of instability, risk, and loss, the most attractive offer for them is permanence. The most attractive offer is,

“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Timothy 6:18a).

This offer matches the natural tendencies of Paul’s target audience. That was true then. It remains true today. Major donors focus on the future. So does Paul’s message.

Diversification benefits: Trading anxiety about the future for certainty with God

The rich Christian has not placed their hope in the uncertainty [adēlotēti] of hidden [adēlotēti] riches. This phrasing highlights the anxiety for the future caused by managing wealth. In prior Greek literature, this word often appeared in a setting of anxiety about the future.927 For example, Polybius writes in Histories,

“each in alarm for their own safety owing to the rapidity and secrecy [adeloteta] with which the enemy could descend on them by sea.”928 (Other translations reference the “silence” or “unexpectedness” of the enemy’s arrival.929)

Here and elsewhere, adēlotēs points to anxiety about the future. Plutarch writes in Camillus,

“The utterance fell at the crisis of their anxious thought for the uncertain [adeloteti] future”.930

And in Alexander,

“These words, then, deeply affected Alexander, who was reminded of the uncertainty [adeloteta] and mutability of life”.931

In our passage, Paul contrasts the uncertainty [adēlotēs] of buried wealth with the certainty of a future [mellon] from our richly providing God. Paul’s older contemporary, the Jewish theologian Philo, makes a similar point. Philo writes,

“For not even about the future [mellontōn] can uncertainty [adēlotēs] be found with Him, since nothing is uncertain [adēlon] or future [mellon] to God.”932

And also,

“[God] calls upon them to look not only to the present, but … to consider the future [mellon] also … all things are subject to … the uncertainty of the future [mellontos adēlotēs].933

Philo uses this same phrase elsewhere, such as in

“still the uncertainty of the future [mellontos adēlotēs] cannot entirely fail to strike fear into the most courageous”934 and,

Thus, in both historical and contemporary uses, adēlotēs pointed to anxiety about the future [mellon]. Paul uses this anxiety to motivate an immediate decision. The uncertainty [adēlotēti] about the future of wealth means we must not wait. Now is the opportune moment. Now is the time to diversify into a good investment fund [themelion kalon] for the future [eis to mellon].

Diversification benefits: Storing up more wealth [apothēsaurizontas]

Paul repeatedly uses wealth language in this passage. These are not income words. These are words for an accumulation of valuable assets. He continues that repetition here.

This phrase begins with apothēsaurizontas. This is a compound word: apo + thēsaurizontas. Thēsaurizontas is a form of the verb thēsaurizō. It means:

“to gather and lay up, to heap up, store up: to accumulate riches.”935

The noun form is thēsauros. It means a treasure or a treasury.

The prefix apo- has two meaning groups. First, it can reference a setting apart or a separation of some part of a whole. This matches the wealth diversification message.

The donors are rich, yes. But they’ve put all their eggs in one basket. And it’s a disappearing basket. Why not move a share of it into this lasting form of treasure? Wouldn’t it be wise to diversify?

This apo- prefix can also reference the cause or motivation for something. This sense is described as,

“the cause on account of which anything is or is done” or “the moving or impelling cause.”936

Some translations will explicitly mention this notion of purpose or cause. Examples include:

Others leave out this explicit reference. Nevertheless, the cause-effect relationship is still clear.943 It comes from the context of the passage itself.944 These examples include:

Again, Paul’s message is not simply, “Give!” That message emphasizes loss. It fights against the natural inclinations of accumulators. Instead, Paul directs them to apothēsaurizontas. This directs them

“to gather and lay up, to heap up, store up: to accumulate riches.”950

It directs them to

“lay something aside for the purpose of preserving, and therefore collect.”951

This matches the accumulator personality. It speaks the language of the rich. It uses their inherent tendencies for good.

Diversification benefits: Enjoy storing it up [apothēsaurizontas]

The purpose of God’s rich supply is “for enjoyment.” Previous chapters explain how this enjoyment is achieved by using wealth

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

However, this enjoyment also applies to “storing up for themselves.” This, too, is a means of enjoying wealth. Some hint of this notion comes from an early manuscript.

The second oldest appearance of the passage is in the Codex Alexandrinus. It is dated as early as 390 A.D.952 Here, a small raised dot appears after apolausin, agathoergein, kalois, and koinōnikous. This generally indicates a pause or slight break. It could match the modern colon, comma, semicolon, or bullet point. Using bullet points, this would read as

“God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy:

Thus, “storing up” is one of the “bullet points” that explains “for enjoyment.” It, too, is a means of wealth enjoyment.

Storing up in this way can be even more enjoyable than storing up earthly riches. The miser stores up what he will never enjoy. Those riches are stored only to be lost to death or misfortune. Paul’s “treasuring up” is more enjoyable. It’s more secure. It leads to lasting enjoyment.

Accumulating for the future can be enjoyable. That’s especially true for this group. Saving, rather than spending, is their natural tendency. It’s why they became or stayed wealthy. Paul’s message matches. It says, “Save up for the future!” This might not appeal to everyone. But it does appeal to the accumulators. It does appeal to the rich.

Paul’s message matches their natural tendencies. It just redirects them. It moves them to a more lasting accumulation.953 It uses their natural “storing up” sensibilities. It doesn’t ask them to give away. It asks them to “store up” in a better way.

Diversification benefits: It’s for you! [heautois]

Paul has been listing a series of donor benefits. The donors are supposed to enjoy their wealth. That’s what it’s for [eis apolausin]. That’s the reason God gave it to them. They get to enjoy it in several ways:

Now, Paul describes yet another donor benefit. This one is different. It’s not shared with others. It’s just for the donor. It’s a personal benefit.954 As a result of their giving, they get to lay up treasure [apothēsaurizontas]. They do this heautois – “for themselves.”955

Paul’s language matches modern experimental research. Emphasizing donor benefits is particularly attractive for high-status donors.956 Further, donor benefits work best when they’re in the distant future.957 An immediate tit-for-tat trade doesn’t work well. It feels more like a market transaction. It’s not framed as a gift, so it doesn’t encourage sharing.

Paul uses a long list of donor benefits. He does it in his own fundraising appeals in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9. He does it in this passage, too. That includes this specific phrase. And he’s not subtle. They’re not only storing up treasure. They’re storing up treasure, explicitly “for themselves.”

This donor benefit list makes sense as a “sales” technique. But it’s even more important theologically. Paul is in a two-front theological battle. On one side, he’s fighting the destructive greed of endless accumulation. On the other side, he’s fighting asceticism.

In asceticism, the ideal donor is the suffering donor. If there’s no suffering, it’s not a good gift. Scripture teaches the opposite. God loves a cheerful, “hilariously” joyful [hilaron] giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7). Giving is even happier [makarion] than receiving a gift. (Acts 20:35). It’s supposed to fulfill God’s purpose of richly providing us all things for “party-time” enjoyment [apolausin]. (1 Timothy 6:17).

Emphasizing donor benefit destroys the egoism of ascetic giving. The ascetic giver is proud of his suffering. He “pays for” his righteous status by his financial severity to himself. His giving is voluntary suffering to show just how spiritual he is.

Paul’s message destroys this ascetic approach. The egoism of the ascetic’s giving falls apart if we give because it’s fun, joyful, and enjoyable. This message says,

“Why bury wealth just to lose it either during life or at death? That’s painful and depressing. Don’t do that! Instead, you should enjoy it. That’s why God gave it to you!”

The ascetic’s prideful suffering can’t fit here. Giving is just the best way to enjoy wealth.

Paul adds to these benefits here. These now and future benefits are explicitly for the donors. They are heautois – “for themselves.” He offers donors the best deal ever. Paul’s long list of donor benefits opposes the ascetic ideal of the suffering donor.

Diversification benefits: Store up even more for yourself! [themelion]

Normally, giving feels like giving away. It involves a loss. It’s a tradeoff between the pain of this loss and the impact of the gift. Paul reverses this loss framing. He replaces it with gain framing.

The donors do not give away. Instead, they store up.958 They become rich. They become rich in different ways. They become “rich in good works.” They are

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

One translation renders this as

“this is the way they can amass a good capital sum for the future” (1 Timothy 6:19a).959

As Professor Aida Spencer explains,

“By the rich sharing their riches, they would now be contributing to a different kind of bank account, one that truly helped for the future in order that they might grasp the real life (6:19).”960

The donors don’t have to lose the wealth to enjoy it. They enjoy it by building up even more wealth in more diverse ways. They enjoy wealth by being rich in visibly good [kalois] works. This results in a visibly good [kalon] foundation. One commentary explains the connection this way:

“This is a concise expression, which might have been more fully worded thus—Laying up in store for themselves a wealth of good works as a foundation.”961

Paul’s argument is not to give away. It’s not to lose wealth. His argument is to enjoy wealth by diversifying it. The choice is not between keeping and losing. The choice is between two investments. One is disappearing. Holding it is stressful. It’s subject to loss at any moment. The other is permanent. Holding it is enjoyable. It’s secure.962

Diversification benefits: The shrewd manager trades a disappearing asset

Paul argues for diversification of a disappearing asset. So does Jesus. One commentary notes of 1 Timothy 6:17-19,

“One is reminded of that story that the Master told about the unjust steward, in Luke XVI, 1-9.”963

Another explains,

“Perhaps the best commentary on this teaching is Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward or shrewd manager (NIV).”964

Jesus tells a story of a steward. He was a wealth manager. And he had just lost his job. He was preparing to leave and give his final accounting. He was losing control of the wealth.

But he was shrewd. So, he converted his disappearing control into something that would last. He converted the assets into reciprocal partnerships. He converted financial capital into relationship capital. He used wealth to buy friends. He said to himself,

“‘I know what I will do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.’ And he summoned each one of his master’s debtors, and he began saying to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ And he said, ‘A hundred jugs of oil.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ And he said, ‘A hundred kors of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’” (Luke 16:4-7).

The manager didn’t just do them a favor. He locked them in as partners. He didn’t simply reduce their debt. Instead, he instructed them to commit fraud. The debtors got a financial benefit. But that benefit was contingent upon the manager’s silence. This built reciprocal partnerships. He converted disappearing wealth into lasting relationships. He “acted shrewdly.” (Luke 16:8).

Jesus wasn’t condoning financial fraud. This was not the behavior of “the sons light.” (Luke 16:8). But it was clever. It was smart. It was smarter than how “the sons of light” conducted their own stewardship.

We, too, have been placed in temporary control of wealth. We, too, will soon lose our control of it. We, too, could decide to convert it to something permanent. But often we won’t. We won’t convert the disappearing asset into the lasting one. That’s not shrewd. That’s not smart stewardship.

Fear causes people to hoard. We grasp wealth tightly because,

“You never know what might happen.”

But that’s a false statement. We actually do know what will happen. We know it with absolute certainty. We’re going to die. Sooner or later, we’re going to lose it all.

And what then will have been a wise use of wealth? Burying it? No. That’s just dumb. We know we can’t take it with us. We need to enjoy it now. And we need a better fund for the future.

We can do both. We can have a better near-term future and a better long-term future. We can enjoy wealth. We can enjoy it by becoming rich in a new way. We can be rich in good works. We can convert disappearing treasure into lasting treasure. We can move money into a better investment. That’s a shrewd investment decision.

Conclusion: Diversify your investments

Paul frames wealth sharing as investment diversification. He discusses it as a form of “saving up.” It’s not losing or giving away wealth. It’s shifting wealth into a better investment. It’s a more secure investment. It’s a more enjoyable investment, both now and later. It’s a good deal.

Paul’s investment language matches the natural inclinations of wealthy donors. One fundraising text explains that business owners who give

“don’t talk in terms of charitable giving, they talk about it as an investment.”965

Paul’s language matches this. Paul’s phrasing isn’t about giving money. It’s about investment diversification. It’s about a financial plan that produces the best returns. These are returns paid in impact and enjoyment, both now and later.

It’s a great investment. It has great and lasting benefits. It makes a great and lasting impact. These lasting results are motivational. They motivate major gifts of wealth.

Part III:

Paul’s Death Reminders Trigger Permanence Desires

Wealth management and death

In 1 Timothy 6, Paul’s message about wealth focuses on enjoyment. But it starts with death. It’s an obvious reality. We’re going to die. We’re going to die, and we can’t take any wealth with us.966 Our wealth holding is temporary. It might be ours at this moment. But it’s not ours to keep.

Jesus shared this same message about wealth holding. He shared it in the Parable of the Rich Fool.967 He shared it in the Parable of the Minas.968 He shared it in the Parable of the Talents.969

In each parable, the fool is blessed with wealth. In each, he just puts it in storage. On his way to a disastrous ending, the fool always thinks he is doing well. He thinks he is being prudent and even wise.

But the fool ignores an unavoidable reality. His wealth holding is temporary. The money might be his for a moment. But it’s not his to keep. The master will return. Death will arrive.

Experimental protocols from modern science

Paul starts his discussion of wealth with a series of death reminders. Today, a branch of experimental psychology focuses on death reminders.970 It has spawned over 1,000 published experiments.971 These explore how death reminders affect people’s values, preferences, and behaviors.

The main finding is that death reminders produce two stages of response. The immediate, first-stage, “proximal” response is avoidance. People prefer to avoid the topic or deny its relevance for them.

The later, second-stage, “distal” response takes more time. It emerges only “after delay and distraction.”972 Thus, the standard protocol to measure these distal response to death reminders is

  1. Induce mortality salience (death reminders).
  2. Have participants engage in a brief unrelated topic or task.
  3. Measure the distal responses.

A review of hundreds of such experiments explains,

“The vast majority of experiments (92.8%) used a delay or distraction task between the MS [Mortality Salience] manipulation and the administration of the DV [Dependent Variable].”973

The intervening non-death topic or task only takes a few minutes.974 But this step is mandatory. Without it, the experiments won’t work. The distal responses won’t be observed. A review of such experimental research explains,

“Indeed, removal of this delay or distraction has been shown to eliminate the effects of MS [Mortality Salience] on the dependent measures.”975

A temporary delay or distraction is required. It’s how we get to the distal responses following death reminders. And what are these distal responses? Different researchers use different names. Some refer to the pursuit of “symbolic immortality” or “lasting social impact.”976 However, the three most frequently identified results are these:

(This includes both its people and values.)977

(This includes increased attraction to fame,978 heroism,979 a positive life story,980 and compliance with social norms.981)

Paul’s parallel protocol

How does modern science match Paul’s message? Paul starts with a death reminder in verse 7. This is a soft reminder. Then, his death reminders become harsher and more repetitive in verses 9-10. Then he stops. In verses 11-16, he talks about something else. He introduces a death reminder; then he pauses for a detour.983

In modern experimental research, this sequence leads to these distal responses:

Notice the parallel arguments Paul then makes to encourage wealth sharing. He explains,

Paul’s message matches how modern science would increase attraction to these specific arguments.985 It matches the sequence and timing of modern experimental psychology.

The science of opening obliquely

Paul begins the conversation by bringing up death. What does modern research tell us about how to do this? Starting too bluntly can result in losing the audience. People often respond to such death reminders with avoidance.

For example, people are more willing to,

than to

People are more willing to buy an annuity paying,

than to buy one paying,

This isn’t just a matter of word preference. Statistically, this reduced interest comes entirely from a spike in mortality salience.988

Starting with death words can trigger avoidance. Beginning less directly softens this avoidance response. This might use non-death or death-adjacent euphemisms, synonyms, pretexts, or lead-in topics.

Leading with a blunt death reference is like a “stop” sign. For most people, this doesn’t work. Approaching more obliquely creates a softer “merge” sign. It tamps down the initial avoidance response. This allows for a continuing conversation. It opens the door for a gradually more direct discussion of mortality.989

Indeed, using a non-death pretext to introduce mortality reminders is part of standard research protocols. A highly cited review of such research explains,

“In the typical MS [Mortality Salience] study, participants complete a packet of questionnaires ostensibly for the purpose of assessing personality. However, embedded within this packet, participants are asked to briefly write either about their own death or about a non-death-related (often negative) control topic.”990 (Emphasis added.)

The use of non-death pretexts, euphemisms, and synonyms, as well as less blunt language makes the message more attractive. Anything that initially softens the harsh reality, including humor,991 increases audience engagement.

Paul’s oblique opening

Does Paul use any of these modern strategies when introducing the topic of death? Actually, he uses all of them. He begins with a non-death topic. He’s talking about financial contentment. (1 Timothy 6:6). To explain financial contentment, he uses a soft death reminder. In 1 Timothy 6:7, he explains,

“For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it, either.”

This is a death reference. But it’s not harsh. Instead, it’s a quotable catchline.992 It’s an almost humorous reference to the obvious. It alludes to a well-worn phrase. We’re familiar with the modern phrase,

“You can’t take it with you when you die.”993

So was Paul’s audience. They were familiar with it because it comes from the Psalms. Psalm 49:17 describes the rich man with

“he cannot take it with him when he dies.” (Good News Translation).

Or, more literally,

“For when he dies he will carry nothing away;” (ESV).

Paul starts with death. But he introduces the topic as softly as possible. It’s a light and breezy reference. His “soundtrack” matches. It’s even a bit lyrical. His euphonious parallel is:

Indeed, the matching sound parallels go even further. The word sequence here is

These are pleasant poetical sounds. They use soft vowel beginnings. It’s beautiful. And yet, Paul is referencing death.

Paul’s escalating death reminders

Once introduced, Paul doesn’t let it go. After referencing contentment in verse 8, he returns to the theme of death. In verses 9-10, he uses eight death-related words:

“But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap [pagida], and many foolish and harmful [blaberas] desires which plunge [bythizousin] people into ruin [olethron] and destruction [apōleian]. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil [kakōn], and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced [periepeiran] themselves with many griefs [odynais].” (1 Timothy 6:9-10).

The death connections appear a bit in the English words. They’re more blatant in Greek. These words (emphasis added) are

“a. properly, of snares in which birds are entangled and caught.

b. [as a trope or figure of speech], a snare, i.e. whatever brings peril, loss, destruction: of a sudden and unexpected deadly peril”.994

injurious, hurtful. Mark 16:18a, “they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm [blapsē] them;”.

Frequently translated here as “drown.”995 See, e.g., “hurtful lusts, such as drown men in destruction and perdition.” (ASV); “harmful desires that drag them down and destroy them.” (CEV); “which pull them down to ruin and destruction.” (GNT).

ruin, doom, destruction, death. “From a primary ollumi (to destroy; a prolonged form); ruin, i.e. Death, punishment -- destruction.

from (Homer), Herodotus down, destructive, deadly”.996

destruction, ruin, loss, perishing. From apollymi, “to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction”.997 In the KJV (from Textus Receptus), “It is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man to die [apōleian]” Acts 25:16b. Also, in Acts 8:20b “May your silver perish [apōleian] with you”.

bad, evil. “Don’t kill [kakōn] yourself” Acts 16:28b (NLT). In other versions, “harm” or “injure.”

to put on a spit, hence, to pierce. Impaled.998 “he impaled [peripeiranta] on his spear and thrust on high the head of an aged man,” (Plutarch, Galba 27.3).

Consuming grief, pain, distress, sorrow.

From the Septuagint: “And it came about, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni [the son of my sorrow: odynes];” (Gen 35:19a); “when he sees that the boy is not with us, he will die. So your servants will bring the gray hair of your servant, our father, down to Sheol in sorrow [odynes].” (Gen 44:31); “The snares of death encompassed me and the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow [odynēn].” (Psalm 116:3).

Here, we don’t just get a death-adjacent word. We seemingly get all of them! We get a steady drumbeat of eight death-related words. These repetitions drive the concept into the listener’s mind. They ramp up the listener’s attention with repeated “p” plosives. 999

But even here, there is no blunt use of the actual word death [thanatos]. That word appears 120 times in the New Testament, but not here. Similarly, dead [nekros] appears 130 times, but not here. The verb “to die” [apothnēskō] appears 112 times, but not here. Instead, the words are all death adjacent. They are death-flavored, but without using the word itself.

The approach begins softly. It ramps up through escalating repetition. But these references remain oblique. The ultimate effect is to create a strong death reminder without using the word itself. Once again, Paul’s words match modern research and practice.

Paul’s death-reminder sequencing

Paul introduces the topic of death with a soft, lyrical aphorism. He pauses for a line. Then he returns with a steady drumbeat of harsh, death-related words. And then the death reminders stop.

For six verses, Paul changes the topic. He stops talking about death. He switches from the pursuit of wealth to the pursuit of godliness. As he does so, he shifts the language from death to life. He references

After this long discussion, Paul then returns to the topic of wealth in 1 Timothy 6:17-19.

This sequencing has disturbed many. Some call it “choppy and somewhat disorganized.”1000 Others describe the return to the topic of wealth as “jarring”1001 or even “brutal.”1002 Some label 1 Timothy 6:17-19 as a “postscript.”1003 Others call it “out of place.”1004 Some see this sequencing as evidence that it was a later addition.1005

And yet, this sequencing matches modern science. It matches current protocols on eliciting distal responses following death reminders. These mandate an intervening delay or distraction task before returning to the subject.

Paul’s message and modern science

In modern experimental research, the results are clear. Death reminders, after a pause or distraction task, increase attraction to

These, of course, are precisely the arguments Paul makes in this passage to encourage generosity.

What would the ideal modern protocol to trigger such motivation look like? It would parallel Paul’s exact sequence:

(e.g., sharing, koinōnikous, with the fellowship community, koinōnia)

(e.g., not being high-minded; following the shared social norm of using whatever God has richly provided in these ways)

(e.g., being rich in visible, noble, inspirational, good works)

(e.g., storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future)

These are the realities of modern experimental research. This is what works. Even from a purely secular, empirical perspective, Paul’s message works.

Why put death in fundraising?

Paul is delivering a fundraising message about wealth sharing. Why does he introduce death at all? This isn’t necessary for normal gifts. This isn’t an issue for small social compliance gifts. It’s not part of regular gifts from income.

But Paul is not discussing those types of gifts here. He is describing the ministry of major gift fundraising. It’s the ministry of wealth sharing, not income sharing. Major, life-investment gifts of accumulated wealth are different. These start with the big questions. They start with the realities of life and death. Notice the connections:

  1. You have extra.

Why? Because you’re going to die.

You have more than your normal spending less your normal earnings in your remaining years. You aren’t going to live another hundred years. Your personal needs are limited. They’re limited by your death. You have more than enough. You have extra.

  1. You need to decide what you will do with this extra.

Why? Because you’re going to die.

If you don’t do something with it, you’ll die with it. You’ll end up just burying it in the ground. And then you’ll have to explain to the one who richly provided it to you why you did so. That story has a bad ending.

  1. You should use it to make a lasting impact for good.

Why? Because you’re going to die.

You’re going to disappear. Your wealth ownership will end. This is certain. The question is what kind of impact will you have made with your temporary wealth ownership? Nothing? Bingeing and personal consumption? Buried wealth leading to family squabbles over money? Or a legacy of beautiful, good works? A reciprocal partnership with God? Taking hold of that which is life indeed?

The major gift from wealth is a matter of “life and death.” Wealth holding is always uncertain. But death adds the certainty that wealth holding will end. Death forces the wealth conversation.

Death forces a decision about wealth. It makes enjoying wealth a “right now” choice. (Enjoying wealth means using it to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share.) Not deciding what to do with wealth means just giving it to death. Paul says giving it to death makes no sense. You can’t take it with you when you die, so use it. Use it to take hold of that which is life indeed.

Paul’s model shows us exactly how to effectively introduce this life-and-death topic. These life-and-death questions lead to major gifts of lifetime accumulation. They work. They’re what worked 2,000 years ago. They’re what still works today.