Three More Passages on Wealth | A Christian’s Guide to Joyful Wealth Management

The right use of wealth is to use it for enjoyment. We get the most enjoyment from it by using it

To do real good
To be rich in beautiful-good works
To be ready to joyfully share abundance
To support and connect with a mutually-sharing fellowship community

Two philosophies oppose this approach. One argues for endless accumulation. This is the philosophy of the greedy, the hoarder, and the burying bad steward. Another argues for the superior righteousness of painful giving or intentional poverty. This is the philosophy of the ascetic.

Both philosophies can make their way into the modern church. Those who favor dying with large amounts of buried wealth often quote Proverbs 13:22. It mentions “an inheritance for grandchildren.” Those who believe in the superior righteousness of painful giving or voluntary poverty often reference the Widow’s Mite or the Rich Young Ruler.

Do these contradict God’s plan of wealth enjoyment through doing good? No. The stories we tell about the text might contradict, but Scripture itself is consistent. That’s why it’s important to focus precisely on the text itself. What does it actually say? What does it not say? When we look at the actual text, Scripture agrees.

What about Proverbs 13:22’s “inheritance for grandchildren”?

Solomon left a large estate. He called this result “a great evil.”¹⁷⁰ But Solomon also wrote Proverbs 13:22,

“A good person leaves an inheritance to his grandchildren,

And the wealth of a sinner is stored up for the righteous.”

Is Solomon contradicting himself? Is leaving a large estate now a good goal? Did he change his mind? No.

The confusion comes from thinking that the grandchildren’s “inheritance” is financial. It’s not. In fact, it can’t be. The word for “leaves” describes a direct transfer.¹⁷¹ It’s not parent-leaves-to-child and, maybe someday, child-leaves-to-grandchild.¹⁷² The verse describes an inheritance that goes directly from the parent to the grandchild.

Here’s the problem. In ancient Israel, it was not legally possible to leave a financial inheritance directly to a grandchild.¹⁷³ Israel had no such testamentary freedom. For example, a person couldn’t change inheritance shares between favored and disfavored sons (Deuteronomy 21:16). Even if there were no sons, the owner still had no choice regarding who would inherit (Numbers 27:8-11).

So, if you couldn’t legally leave money to a grandchild, what was this inheritance? In the language of Proverbs, a person can inherit many things, not just money. He can inherit honor (Proverbs 3:35), foolishness (Proverbs 14:18), good (Proverbs 28:10), and even the wind (Proverbs 11:29). In Psalms, he can inherit the teachings of Scripture (Psalm 119:111).¹⁷⁴

Could a good person leave an inheritance of an honorable name directly to his grandchildren? Yes. Could he directly transfer an inheritance of the teachings of Scripture? Yes. Could he directly leave an inheritance of wisdom? Yes. Could he directly leave financial wealth? No. That wasn’t possible.

The verse doesn’t compare the sinner’s wealth to the good person’s wealth. (In fact, it never says the good person has any wealth at all.) Instead, it contrasts the legacy of being a good person with the legacy of buried wealth.¹⁷⁵

The Hebrew word for “good” used in Proverbs 13:22 means visible, beautiful good.¹⁷⁶ It specifically references being ethical.¹⁷⁷ Thus, the idea is this:

“A [beautifully-good, ethically-inspirational] person [directly transfers] an inheritance to his grandchildren,

And the wealth of a sinner is stored up for the righteous.” (Proverbs 13:22)

We see this idea more clearly in several translations. For example, one reads,

“A good man leaves an inheritance [of moral stability and goodness] to his children’s children, and the wealth of the sinner [finds its way eventually] into the hands of the righteous, for whom it was laid up.” (Proverbs 13:22 AMPC, bracketed words in original)

Another puts it this way:

“A good life gets passed on to the grandchildren; ill-gotten wealth ends up with good people.” (Proverbs 13:22 MSG)

Solomon’s point is this. Don’t be the sinner who just dies with their hoarded wealth. This stored wealth ends up erasing and reversing the sinner’s legacy. Instead, be an ethically inspirational, visibly good person. Doing this leaves a legacy that directly benefits grandchildren.

This inspirational example becomes part of their family and personal identity. That is how

“A good man leaves an inheritance of moral stability and goodness to his children’s children.”

It’s how

“A good life gets passed on to the grandchildren.”

What about the Widow’s Mite?

Asceticism seeks holiness by denying material goods. It promotes the idea that painful giving and intentional poverty are more righteous. But what do we know about the biggest, most painful gifts? We know that just being big, or painful, doesn’t help. Paul explains,

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

Without experiencing joy and love, giving is pointless.¹⁷⁸ Giving bigger or more extreme doesn’t change this.

Yet we do have an example of someone who gave away everything. This is the story of the widow’s mite (Luke 20:45-21:6; Mark 12:38-13:2). Does this give us an example of an ideal donor?

That’s not what Scripture says. Jesus says only one thing about the widow. He says simply, “She put in more.”¹⁷⁹ He doesn’t say, “She did it the right way.” He doesn’t say, “Go and do likewise.” He says simply and truthfully, “She put in more.”

Did Jesus tell others to copy the widow? Quite the opposite. He ends the story by explaining why giving to the temple – both for the poor widow and the rich – was pointless. The temple they were both donating to was about to be destroyed. Not one stone would be left on another.

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

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

Jesus explains,

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

The next verse continues,

“As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.” (Luke 21:1-2 NIV)

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

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

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

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

We don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because that’s not the point of the teaching. This is about bad people and bad giving. Stealing from widows and then using part of it to make small, pointless gifts won’t work.

Jesus never said, “Be like this widow.” Instead, his message was, “Don’t be like these evil scribes.” Scripture gives many positive examples on how to give the right way. This just isn’t one of them.

What about the Rich Young Ruler?

Did Jesus ever tell someone to give away everything? Yes. In talking with the rich young ruler, Jesus says,

“One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” (Mark 10:21 NKJV)

This was an extreme request! But it came with an extreme opportunity. It was an offer to join the inner band of disciples. This was a special offer, not open to everyone (Luke 8:38-39). However, this big opportunity came at a cost.

The big cost wasn’t the loss of his wealth. It was the loss of his life. Jesus says, “come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” At this time, the cross wasn’t a symbol of redemption. It was just an instrument of execution. Joining this inner group ended in execution. Jesus makes this clear. Saying “take up the cross” was like saying “put the hangman’s noose around your neck” or “sit in the electric chair.”

God’s plan is for us to use wealth for enjoyment. Suppose you’re joining a group on a mission of no return. It will be a fatal journey. You are young, unmarried, and you have no family needing support. Also, you’ve got some wealth. (In other words, you’re in the situation of the rich young ruler.)

What is the most enjoyment you can get out of your wealth? Here’s a hint:

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

You can’t get any enjoyment from the wealth once you’re dead. And you’re joining a mission of no return.

What does that mean? It means now is the time to enjoy it – all of it! How? Bingeing doesn’t work. (You don’t have much time for that anyway.) Burying it for future use is pointless. You’re on a terminal mission.

It’s time to enjoy it. And you’ve got to do it fast. What’s the solution? Jesus gives the right answer. Take pleasure in bringing joy to those in need. Give it to the poor. Throw a giant party! Make it rain on the poor. That’s how you enjoy it right now. That’s also how you enjoy it in the future. It’s the way to have treasure in heaven – where you will likely be very soon!

In this extreme circumstance, this is the right use of wealth. It’s the only way to get enjoyment from that wealth. This doesn’t contradict wealth enjoyment. It directs wealth enjoyment.

The rich young ruler doesn’t follow this instruction.¹⁸⁰ If he didn’t have wealth, he could have more easily joined Jesus and the disciples. But because he had wealth, he didn’t do this. His wealth gave him less freedom, not more. Jesus wasn’t asking for the painful sacrifice of wealth. He was showing how to get the most enjoyment and benefit from the wealth before it was too late.

After the young man leaves, Jesus continues teaching. He emphasizes the benefits, both immediate and future, of giving.

“Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.” (Mark 10:29-30)

Giving it all away isn’t always right or always wrong. In some circumstances, it’s the smartest thing to do. It can maximize enjoyment both now and later. In other circumstances, giving it all away is stupid. It literally “gains nothing” for the donor.

Giving makes sense only when it fulfills the right purpose. We don’t give wealth as a means of suffering in order to demonstrate our righteousness. That’s not God’s plan. We give as a means of using wealth for enjoyment. That’s why he gave it to us in the first place!

Notes and references

Ecclesiastes 2:21. And indeed, in his case, the results were quite bad. Solomon’s son Rehoboam led the kingdom into physical and spiritual catastrophe.
↩
This sense of direct transfer may be more clear in translations such as “The good man shall give inheritance unto his children’s children,” (Geneva Bible) or “A good man gives an inheritance to his grandchildren.” (Peshitta Holy Bible Translated). With the Hiphal stem, as here, the word has the meanings of “to give as a possession” or “to cause to inherit, give as an inheritance.” Strong, J. (1890). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Abingdon Press. Hebrew-5157. Professor John Peter Lange, commenting on Proverbs 13:22 writes, “For this absolute use of Hiph., ‘causeth to inherit, transmitteth his estate’ compare Deuteronomy 32:8.” Lange, J. P. (1874). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Vol. X of the Old Testament containing Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon (Trans: P. Schaff). Scribner, Armstrong & Co. p. 136. This references Deuteronomy 32:8a, “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance.” This, too, was a direct transfer from a living benefactor.
↩
One’s child might someday leave a money inheritance to his own children, but that’s not the same thing. That’s not a direct transfer. That’s not a grandparent giving an inheritance to grandchildren. And that’s definitely not something the grandparent could control. Wealth is unstable. This lack of control was the repeated point of Solomon’s complaints in Ecclesiastes. Leaving money to a child creates no assurance that it won’t disappear. Solomon repeatedly explains how quickly wealth can vanish. This isn’t just something that happens to sinners and spendthrifts. It happens to good people, too. Wealth itself is uncertain.
↩
Israel’s legal system did not offer testamentary freedom. Boecker explains, “Here again, such laws as there are deal with particular cases, but they enable us to discern the fundamental principles of OT thinking on inheritance. Briefly summarised, they are:
(1) that only sons could inherit, normally speaking, and
(2) that the eldest son received a double share.
Unlike the [Code of Hammurabi], therefore, the principle of primogeniture was observed.” Boecker, H. J. (1980). Law and the administration of justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East. Augsburg Publishing House. p. 118.
As an example of this lack of testamentary freedom, changing distribution rights among sons was not allowed. “When the man divides his inheritance, he may not give the larger inheritance to his younger son, the son of the wife he loves, as if he were the firstborn son.” (Deuteronomy 21:16 NLT). Moses outlines the rules when there was no son: “Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his nearest relative in his own family, and he shall take possession of it; and it shall be a statutory ordinance to the sons of Israel, just as the LORD has commanded Moses.’” (Numbers 27:8-11)
↩
This same Hebrew word referencing an inheritance in Proverbs 13:22 also appears in Proverbs 14:18, “The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge.”; Proverbs 3:35, “The wise will inherit honor, But fools increase dishonor.”; Proverbs 11:29a, “One who troubles his own house will inherit wind”; Proverbs 28:10, “But the blameless will inherit good”; Psalm 119:111, “I have inherited Your testimonies forever, For they are the joy of my heart.”
↩
The point is reiterated in Proverbs 28:10’s use of a mirrored phrase. Proverbs 13:22 uses “yan·ḥîl ṭō·wḇ”. Proverbs 28:10 uses the mirrored “ṭō·wḇ. yin·ḥă·lū-”. In Proverbs 13:22, “A good [man] leaves an inheritance”. In Proverbs 28:10, “But the blameless will inherit good”. Both phrases use the same two words but in reverse order. The good leave an inheritance; the good inheritance is received by the upright.
The statement, “A good [man] leaves an inheritance” isn’t saying bad people don’t leave money. Similarly, the statement, “The blameless will inherit good” isn’t saying bad people don’t inherit money. These aren’t talking about money. They’re talking about leaving and receiving a legacy of “good.” Only the good person can leave this kind of legacy. (The wicked, sinner, or ungodly cannot.) Only the upright can receive this kind of legacy. (The wicked, sinner, or ungodly would spoil such an inheritance.)
↩
For example, Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, “and God saw that it was good [ṭō·wḇ.].” Genesis 6:2, “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful [ṭō·ḇōṯ]; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose”; Genesis 24:16, “The girl was very beautiful [ṭō·ḇaṯ], a virgin, and no man had had relations with her”; Genesis 26:7, “When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, ‘She is my sister,’ for he was afraid to say, ‘my wife,’ thinking, ‘the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, since she is beautiful [ṭō·w·ḇaṯ].’”
The word means pleasant and agreeable to the senses: to the sight, taste, and smell. Brown, F., Driver, S. R., Briggs, C. A., Gesenius, W., & Robinson, E. (1996). The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers. טוֹב or ṭō·wḇ, Strong’s 2896. [Definition 1 a, b, & c.]
↩
Brown, F., Driver, S. R., Briggs, C. A., Gesenius, W., & Robinson, E. (1996). The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers. טוֹב or ṭō·wḇ, Strong’s 2896. [Definition 10.a. referencing Proverbs 13:22]
↩
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 bring “party-time” enjoyment [apolausin]. (1 Timothy 6:17).
↩
“this poor widow has put in more than all the others” (Luke 21:3b); “this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.” (Mark 12:43).
↩
Of course, the text doesn’t say he refused to make the gift. It says, “he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” We presume he did not follow Jesus’ instructions to “go and sell all you possess and give to the poor.” But even if he did so, this would not have been an acceptable gift as it would have been accompanied by “grieving” rather than joy.
↩