1st Timothy 6:1-10

So this morning we're going to take a look at the first half of the chapter 6 of 1 Timothy. It's the last chapter of 1 Timothy. We've been just cruising right along. Last week we talked about eldership and not only honoring and respecting elders, taking on the accusations of elders as well as a brief mention of Timothy taking some wine for his stomach, and then also the sins of men that would go before them, or that would be an afterthought.

That it should be for the believer obvious that their righteousness would be reflecting the righteousness of Christ. And so Paul transitions from the righteousness of Christ into this passage, and I'll go ahead and start reading starting chapter 6 verse 1.

He says, All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing. But he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy and strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment, for we have brought nothing into the world, and so we cannot take anything out of it either. If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.

But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and the snare, and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. for the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." So Paul is continuing on here and again this passage is within an overarching context of the responsibility of the body to one another and taking on financial stewardship within the body and then he's going to bring it back down in the latter half of this passage into tying into personal stewardship as well and understanding finances. The first part of this continues on with the concept of honor which we saw both in chapter 5 verse 3 where he says honor widows and chapter 5 verse 17 where he says that the elders who are ruling well should be considered worthy of double honor. So this third section here, again this concept of honor.

Now we have what is quite blatantly a difficult topic when he starts out here because he's going to talk about slaves. And I don't know about you, but for me, slavery is one of those things that I don't have personal contact with. I would say that for most people on a technical level, nobody is aware of slaves, although that is still a problem in the United States and other parts of the world where people come in in various forms of illegal immigration and they get put into some kind of indentured servitude or things like that. There's an organization, there's probably several of them, but there's one organization, INJ, that works really hard to fund promotion of anti-slavery concepts politically and economically around the world. It is run by believers, but it tries to work outside of just churches, although it tries to be involved in churches.

So we have to ask ourselves some questions about slavery here. Is Paul concerned about slavery as a social construct being a sin? Is slavery sinful? In this passage, the way that Paul is looking at it. Is this form of slavery intended to economically pay back family debts?

There were different varieties of slavery at that point in time and it's not all just bondage and ownership of the typical sort. The other thing that's interesting is that it was not uncommon for a slave to be a tutor. so that you would have somebody who was educated that was a tutor that was a slave or a bond servant in your household. That's the term that I would generally use as bond servant over slave because there is a sense of someone who is financially bound in many contexts. But that tutor would have been someone who was teaching other people how to read, how to do arithmetic, and communicate educational ideas.

What's funny is that it would not be uncommon if you were to go to any of the churches that receive the epistles that we read through from Paul, and we take them for granted, or from Peter. We read them, right? Because everyone in this room is literate on some level or another. It would be common for a bond servant, because they were often the ones who were teaching in various contexts to be the one reading these things out loud to the body. So in other places where Paul talks about bond servants, and this is certainly not the only place, or slaves, they would have been the ones reading it. They would have been talking about themselves. If Timothy had passed this letter around to the body there in Ephesus, they would have likely been the ones in the home churches reading this out loud to everyone so that everyone could hear it. I'm sure that was involved as well, but the basic idea is that it was not uncommon for the bondservant to be a well-educated person. It wasn't just that this person was ignorant and kept ignorant and kept oppressed and suppressed in some way.

But Paul is not concerned with the slavery as a social construct. It isn't that Paul is pro-slavery and we can get into issues of how people misconstrued this during the the civil rights movement, but we do have something that Paul is actually concerned with, and that's what we want to draw out of this passage and spend less time being worried about the modern civil rights movement, because that's not the context that Paul was writing this. It's not that we want to ignore the moral and social constructs that exist in our time and how that would relate to this, but it's not the focus of Paul's writing. So we have to ask ourselves, what is the focus of Paul's writing here? Because he's not concerned with the social construct.

What is his concern? What is he writing about bond servants or slaves in this context? What does he want them to be doing? Honoring their masters. Why? What's the result of honoring the masters or his hoped result of honoring the masters in the latter half of this first verse? So they're honoring their masters, and in doing so they're honoring the Lord.

Now, one of the things that I find interesting is that Paul doesn't go into work as far as income is concerned a whole lot. There are a few nuances that exist throughout the New Testament, but there are principles in what this is saying that still apply to the modern working American person who's not an indentured servitude. Would you be able to say that the principal working under the yoke of employment, I'm going to restate this to draw out the principal, so all who are under the yoke of employment are to regard their bosses or their managers, as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against?

Is that a principle that we can derive from this passage?" I think we can. Now, I happen to, sometimes this is one of those interesting opportunities when you teach, is that when I look around this room, only some of you are employed and some of you are retired. So the question that we have to ask is, are there principles that are inside of this passage that apply to the retiree? There is an interrelationship between employers and employees and customers and how those relationships exist. If we spend time thinking about this, the principle of honor is really important. And Paul draws it out here in this verse so clearly. It's so that our doctrine will not be spoken against.

It's funny that you would mention waiters and waitresses in a restaurant situation. One of Jessica's, my wife's best friends, is a woman in Texas who used to work at really high-end restaurants. And she was a waitress there. And one of the things that she told us that was kind of funny is that no waiter or waitress wants to work on Sundays.

It's the worst day to have to work because all the Christians get off church and go to the restaurants and leave no tips. The Christians are cheapskates. Now, that's a pattern that they've observed. I'm not saying that in any condescending way, like, you should make sure that's not you.

But the principle of honor, which has a relationship here, should be that if we are going to go be served by someone, Hopefully they will honor us. How many of you have had really bad service at a restaurant? I mean, I could testify, I could tell stories, but it would waste our time. But I've had some pretty bad experiences. I'm sure you have too. And I think everybody's hand went up. So in fact, I know that you had. But the principle of honor is there, that if we are reflecting Christ, our doctrine will be good.

Be the person who's out on Sunday who's not leaving the 5% tip in a tract. I'm not saying don't leave a tract, I'm saying that that shouldn't be your tip. Unless, of course, they do a really, really bad job, in which case maybe don't leave the tract either, because then that's just going to pour salt on the wound. Anyways, that's a rabbit trail.

But the idea of honor is the fundamental element that's there. He's not so much focused on the yoke of being a bond servant or a slave, but instead that he wants them to have honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Period. That's really important. That last half of this verse could be... we could spend a lot of time looking at relationships that we have as human beings where that applies.

How many of you have been keeping up at all with the the political stuff going on with the GOP and people trying to, you know, jockey for candidacy. I don't pay too much attention to it, but one thing I've noticed is that, because the media is pretty hypersensitive to any religious talk, is that if any of these candidates position any doctrinal things, the media jumps on it instantly. Now sometimes it's because they don't like Christianity, and that becomes obvious. But sometimes it's because these candidates are saying some pretty wacky things that are not doctrinally sound. That's another problem. But if the name of God and our doctrine is slandered because there's a lack of honor within Christianity, that's a problem.

So, there's a principle there that lies beyond just slavery and bond servanthood. Now, since we're talking about slavery and we're saying that this isn't about the moral issue of whether or not slavery is proper for America or any other country, how do we know what this passage is talking about for certain? How do we interpret the scripture so that we can not just say that so that we're tap dancing around a hot topic? Or, let me ask you this, how do we know what truth Paul was trying to convey? Because at least one tenet we hold to at Holly Hills is that Paul, as an author inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to communicate truth.

It's the work relationship between the boss and serving the boss. It's not just slaving the boss. We can observe what's in here and we can look for observation, application, interpretation. That's what I was looking for as a more clinical answer. But it leads us to that conclusion. I'm sorry, I wanted to finish that statement.

The reality is because of the master-slave relationship, under authority and in authority. And the reality is that we step into different circumstances of authority and are honoring that authority wherever that is. makes the gospels all spoken of, or the contrary. Even if I step into a store, I am subject to whatever their policies and rules and things are. And to the extent that I abide by that, I honor the Lord.

If I do that, I start taking out the buttons and trying to get the buttons out. The Steve Martin Father of the Bride story, yeah. The six and eight count. That steps outside of the authority that I walk into when I walk into the story. Yeah. And there's an honor and authority that's there.

Verse 2, he continues on, those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. One of the things that's interesting there is that he says they must not be disrespectful to them. Believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren. What does he mean by disrespectful? Is he assuming that these believers are going to be cheeky now?

Going to be real smarty pants? I think there's a broader principle there. If someone is your brother or sister in Christ, do you expect more leniency? Are you going to slack? Are you going to be doing less? maybe less quality. Those are issues here, but disrespect in this context carries with it more than just that you'd be smarting off. So, not just be disrespectful to them, because they're brethren.

Hey, you should show me grace. I know you know what grace is. I know you know what grace is, so therefore you've got to let me go. Yeah, give me the Christian discount. Oh, I used to work at a Christian bookstore. We got all kinds of stuff like that. I'm going to not go down that rabbit trail because it's not worth it.

But the believers should not be disrespectful to them because they're brethren, but they must serve them all the more. Now what is... Do you remember when the disciples were jockeying with one another over who was the best disciple? And how did the Lord respond to that? Well, he says, the greatest amongst you is the one who serves. Now, I'm blessed. I have a job. I'm paid. My boss is a believer.

And this is a pretty remarkable and wonderful situation. And he happens to be gracious, just in general, just as a principal. He's a very gracious guy. But I try, you know, my dad put it this way. He said, always try to be a bargain for whatever wage you're paid. And that is just a general principle of being an employee that's good. But as a believer, Paul reiterates it in an even stronger way. Not just that you're a bargain, but that you're serving Christ and you're honoring him as a brother in Christ. That's way better than just being a bargain. Although that's a good idea in this climate with employment being what it is.

One question that I have on here is what responsibilities of these owners, or if we're going to bring it to a modern context, these managers have to the believers who are slaves or employees or subordinates? What responsibility does a manager or a master have, if he's a believer, to those whom he is over? who if they're believers. Yeah, the opportunity for the master or the manager is to also show the life of Christ. And I have to say that having worked for a number of Christian managers and bosses, in fact, for most of the jobs that I've had, which is pretty miraculous, I've seen people not understand this. Of course, I've seen it in non-believers really well. I mean, the problems of management exist. That is a rabbit trail unto itself, though. The flesh isn't really good at that stuff. It tends to be selfish.

I think we've, in one way or another, asked all of the questions about the slaves, masters, and masters section. Any other thoughts on this before we keep moving on to doctrinal correctness? I'll take that as a no. So the next section that we have here, Paul actually ends verse 2 with something that ties in. So we'll actually start at the very last part of verse 2. those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing, but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain." So Paul says that Timothy and by proxy, leadership within the church, should be teaching these things. And again, he's not promoting the concept of slavery, he's promoting the concept of honor and respect and working as though you're working under Christ. Working to be a light to the world for the gospel.

Then Paul, as he's getting into this concept of doctrine and truth, if anyone advocates a different doctrine does not agree with sound words, and he goes on, I asked this earlier but I'll ask it again in this context, how do we know what is true? Is truth knowable? How do we know that we are really pulling out of God's word the truth that is revealed there? How do you know that when you're reading God's Word you're understanding the author's intent, the Holy Spirit?

So there's what in theological circles is called hermeneutics. There's the steps of interpretation. You observe, you interpret, you apply. And you observe language and history and culture and you want to take those things in. You ask the who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Who's the author? Who's receiving the letter or the document? Who would have been the recipient at the time? What was going on culturally and historically? When we take those things into account, it makes it a lot easier to read this passage and not feel like, well, Paul's kind of heavy-handed about this idea of sound doctrine. How many of you have been to Bible studies? And for me, this is absolutely something I saw for quite some time. What do you think this means to you?

Don't stay there. Hopefully you don't stay there. What's interesting is that people are afraid that by saying that something is wrong, they'll offend people. Paul is not concerned with that. You don't see Paul going, hey, I'm going to tiptoe around the idea of truth. I don't want to offend people. No, if we lose the truth, what do we lose? Several everythings. You're right. You're all right. It's everything. You lose integrity. Why should I believe this gospel if it's not really reliable? Jesus died for sins, but not everybody's a sinner, because that would hurt feelings. We need to honor Christ. Well, we should. That's a good idea, but sometimes you've got to do what you feel like doing.

Yeah, it's relativism and post-modernism. The philosophical idea is that there is no absolute truth except for the truth that there is no absolute truth, but we won't get into that. The first time I actually taught with my dad in an adult Sunday school class here was on the polemics and philosophy and dealing with cults. It was two parts, but they were kind of back-to-back, and they tied in together. But we talked about postmodernism, and we talked about the culture and the worldview that's coming to be prevalent. The idea of absolute truth is offensive to the modern American in most contexts. And yet, in the first John class, they are coming to a passage Yes, you may know something absolutely with precision. And Paul is very concerned with that.

If we look in this passage, he's describing these people that don't love true doctrine. And just, I know I've already read it twice, but let's look at it again, kind of slowly going through it. These people who don't love sound doctrine are not being conformed to godliness. These people who don't love sound doctrine are conceited and they understand nothing. That's pretty strong. They don't have any understanding because they don't understand sound doctrine. It's the foundation that is cracked. It's the foundation that's missing pieces. You have no stability on anything you build on top of this.

But he has, and this is weird, a morbid interest A deathly interest in controversial questions and disputes about words. There's one particular guy in my life, this is historical, that I remember he went to seminary somewhere and he came to a church we were going to in Nevada and he always liked to talk about theology from a seminarian sort of perspective, but it was often divisive. and rarely committal.

He liked the argument of the theology and not the truth of the theology. And anytime somebody took a hard-line position on anything, he would just come in. It didn't matter what his actual personal opinion on the passage was, because again, you can't know it for sure, right? But he would come in and divide. He would just like, oh, so what do you think about this? And he would just drop in these little I hate to call them scripture bombs, because it's the scripture, but he would use the scripture in somewhat devious ways on occasion to just watch things escalate. Because the discussion was engaging. And that's what these people are doing, is they're bringing that out.

I do not have completed training in Greek, and so often when I teach, I do not bring up the Greek in any detail, and if I do do it, it's after I've passed it by whatever elder I'm teaching under, whether it's my dad or Roger, or sometimes even if I'm teaching under Roger, my dad's on IM, so I'll ask him. But I'm talking to the elders, because all three of our elders have Greek study and training, So when it comes to things like contention about words and controversial questions and disputing about words, those are things where the Greek comes out and sometimes people will argue. Oh, but they go back to the Greek, they jump, pull out their Strong's Concordance, and they start rifling through it because they're going to show you that they're right. And they argue about words about things.

And it becomes divisive. And it's about being right at that point in time. Now, that's not to say that the Greek is dangerous, but the Greek can kind of be the emperor's new clothes. Or the Hebrew, for that matter. It's a very powerful tool, and I'm not speaking down to it or about it at all.

But I'm saying that sometimes someone will leverage words, like Paul is talking about here, to bring about division. Ah, I'm going to baffle you with my Greek. And because, again, I'm not trained with Greek. Anytime somebody comes at me with a Greek argument, I'm not qualified to address it by my own knowledge, but that doesn't mean I just take it and grin and smile because they're talking about the Greek, so they must be right.

It's the concept of being divisive with the words again, but it's using, again, theological concepts in the wrong way. If the attitude of this believer, or these people, and Paul is talking about people that appear to be believers, but they're just walking in the flesh, they're being divisive. They're being controversial. And he says that they really like this stuff.

I used to like to argue a lot when I was a kid. If you had a position, I would just argue it, because I could. Never about theology, because this was before I understood the fullness of that. But my mom always used to say, you need to grow up and be an attorney, because you just like to argue. But the thing is that at some point in time I realized that that's not what we're called to. What are we called to in Christ?

Is it arguing and division? It's love and unity and compassion and graciousness. So Paul is going through this. The question I've got here in the middle that I want to ask is, does exacting doctrine bring liberty or bondage? It's liberty. I think it's a very important statement. Exacting doctrine is not distracting doctrine. The thing is, exact doctrine and having a principle of understanding truth that is directing your life is valuable. The problem that often comes is people get distracted and caught up and wound up around the axle, if you will, with doctrine, and they forget the relationship aspect.

How many of you have ever heard somebody joke and call seminary cemetery? Okay, that's something that I've heard people say, especially when I said, I'm going to go to seminary. It's like, you see people's eyes get really big, or they'd be sad or something. It's like, I'm having an emotional response to your decision to go to that crazy place. the cemetery. And some people said it out loud and some people just thought it, but I knew they were thinking it.

The problem with doctrine that is clinical and analytical is that it doesn't have relationship. Is Paul writing to Timothy so that he will establish people who will be clinicians? That they'll just be completely academic in their theology? He's saying you need to find these people that have a passionate relationship with Jesus Christ so that they can teach. That's a really different attitude rather than, oh you need to find people who are really technically accurate so that they can teach.

That's not what he's saying. The fullness of what an elder is described as being is not analytical alone. There is a heart. And the way that the believers are expected to live that out, including by this passage, is not analytical alone. It's with the fullness of who they are in Christ. So Paul says, teach these things, teach and preach these principles. What doctrines is he referring to? Or what doctrine is he referring to? Is he referring to slavery? Is he referring to the respectful honoring? That's exactly it.

Make sure that you teach these principles of honor. Now the opposite of honor is all the division that he's talking about in these people that are coming in and nitpicking on details. Now the thing is that details are valuable and important in doctrinal accuracy, but they're not things that we go looking for ways to bring division about. And that's the attitude that these people have. He continues on as we were going through the passage, disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth.

Can anybody think of a passage in Galatians that might sound similar to this? Maybe, possibly in Galatians chapter 5, that's talking not about the fruit of the Spirit. Turn with me to Galatians chapter 5 and let's take a brief look at this. Verse 19, Galatians 5.19.

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Some of those things overlap, not all of them, as far as his list goes. But that's envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicion, all of those things that are part of doctrinal disputes that he's talking about. Do those sound like they're coming from the Holy Spirit? No, they're not. This is the flesh.

One thing I've found within theological circles, how many of you are familiar with John MacArthur as a name? People tend to gather around John MacArthur strongly, or at least I've found that there's a subgroup of Christianity that does. And I've heard people lob some pretty heavy language towards people who disagree with John MacArthur. And I'm not picking them out so that you'll be like, ooh, let's all panic about John MacArthur, but more to say that I've had a lot of people be really angry at me for not being a MacArthurite.

And I'll call it MacArthurite for lack of better vocabulary. And I've had people basically assert that I'm possibly either not saved or I'm delusional. And the problem is that if that is the result of what your doctrine is taking you to, it sounds a lot more like this than it should. Because I'm very concerned about doctrinal accuracy. Paul is. I should be too. You should be too.

But if the result of my doctrinal accuracy is that I want to call you names, and notice I didn't slander John MacArthur, I'm just using him as an example, maybe your doctrinal position needs to be taken in light of 1 Timothy chapter 6. I get frustrated when people teach bad doctrine, because we're going to keep going here into this next section, and I'll share with you an example of that. But bad doctrine shouldn't lead us to a bunch of slanderous name-calling.

Paul writes about these people that they think that godliness is a means of gain. And he implies it is material gain. But Paul says, but godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. Great gain if you also have it within contentment. Because the gain is not material things. And he outlines that in the continuing verses.

For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. That verse is probably one of the best known verses amongst the secular world. I hear people quote that verse or something very much like that pretty regularly. Came into the earth naked, and you're going to leave it naked. You'll have nothing.

What's Paul content with in verse 8? If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. Food, clothing, and shelter. We're good. I'm content in that. In our house, we bought our house. We really liked it. We thought it was a great house. And we moved in and discovered that the guy who lived in the house before us had done some shoddy work, had cut some corners. In some cases, he really miscut some corners. But all of those things were there. And in the flesh, my mind was like, oh, man, I'm really frustrated with all these things.

And then I realized I have food, and I'm not naked, and I have shelter over my head. I can make changes to the house, hopefully doing it the right way. That's good for whomever inherits it from us one way or another. But Paul is concerned about food and clothing. He's alive and in safe conditions. Paul was not in safe conditions sometimes, but he's uncontent in the simplest of things. How does that fit in with the American dream?

You know, I ask that, I ask that because in my life, I'm surrounded by, I work for Research in Motion, they make the Blackberry, the smartphones, if you've seen that. One of the things, they have an entire marketing department that, and I'm not, you know, I'm an employee talking about employment stuff, I should be careful. I probably signed something I wouldn't, saying I wouldn't talk about certain things. So, but the thing is that they have a marketing department. What are marketing departments for?

That is actually, I'm going to say, an ideal answer. Because often marketing now, one of the motives, and Apple kind of brought this to the forefront, is you want to make an object of desire. I need to make a product that you want more than anything else. The idea is to do that. You create a space. And I'm not saying that all marketing people do that. But I'm saying that that is a common strategy or goal, is to create a sense of need where one doesn't exist.

I love computers and working on them. And when the new gadget comes out, I'm always like, oh, man, if I had that, I would depart with my thousands of dollars and have that new gadget and then it would be old and then in another six months I would need to depart with more thousands of dollars. So eventually I figured out that's probably a bad strategy. But there's always the new thing.

And do you need it? Are you naked? Are you eating? Are you content? And that flows right against the direction of our culture. I'm wearing, I think, some of the least expensive pants I could find because I really wasn't that worried about what brand was on it. And I wasn't worried that when I went to church you guys would be going, oh man, he's not wearing Levi's. Now, I knew you would be saying, I'm glad he's not naked.

But the other half of that is that Paul is content because he's got food. and he's clothed, and he's got shelter. As a missionary, where was his shelter next? He's going to trust the Lord for that. He's going to be in the next town, in the next place. Now he made tents, so he was ahead of some people on that. He could make a tent, and then he could travel with his shelter. But the great gains, He's not concerned about the physical, material aspect of it.

How many of you have heard of the name-it-and-claim-it movement, or the blab-it-and-grab-it, or it gets slandered and called all kinds of things? But the idea is that God wants you to be prosperous. That's often the way it's in a more gently and kindly presented idea. Yeah, the prosperity gospel. And often, when we lived in Texas, it was great because those were always like really big churches, would always have these, and it was always like the Temple of the Glory of the Shekinah of God kind of church names, and it was, they always made it sound like if you went in there, you would get to meet God, and he'd give you a personal loan. Which seemed a little excessive, as long as you gave like, you know, most of it to the pastor, because then God would give you a hundred or a thousand times fold. But the idea is that godliness is not a means to material gains. It won't be detrimental to material gains. Godliness is not going to lead you to doing bad business, bad stewardship. But it's not about the earthly material gain.

Sometimes I worry about, what am I going to have when I retire? What's in my 401k and the things that are there? And then I realize, Hassan in Uganda doesn't probably have any idea about a 401k. And he doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about the quality of the US stock market.

And he doesn't spend any time worrying about those things, but he does worry about being a steward with the resources that he has. And if I understand correctly, he sends an email monthly outlining what he's done with the money that Holly Hill's sends to support him more often than monthly. So we really know that he's being a good steward with it. Because he wants us to know that you have entrusted me with these resources and I'm using it to serve the Lord.

But that is godliness leading to spiritually productive things, hopefully, I'm assuming that's the case, rather than godliness leading to I've got to make more money and have more things and have a faster car or a bigger house or a faster bigger house. I don't know. Maybe you're into RVs. But, you know, it's an important thing.

So Paul, when he continues on in this passage, he says, For those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." And that right there is that 9 and 10 really are a stumbling block for the flesh. But for the spiritually minded believer, really not that big of a deal.

We could equate Paul's correlation with financial gain with his correlation with the alcohol that he uses in Ephesians chapter 5, where he says, Do not be filled with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit. He's not saying, or drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit. He's not saying that wine is evil, but just don't get drunk with it. He's not saying money by itself is an entirely evil substance. But don't be drunk with it. Don't be drunk with money or the desire for money. Don't be obsessed with it. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation. What is rich? How do you define rich? How much is enough? Rich is always more than I have. I know some people who are financially very well off.

I've never known them to say, I've reached the number that I wanted to reach, I can stop now. And even in my own household, I have a stewardship responsibility to where I need to be responsible for the financial aspect of my house. But none of that leads me to the point of wanting to fall into temptation. Being a steward and having more things that you're a steward over should not lead you into temptation because you're walking by the leadership of Holy Spirit.

But these people want to get rich. They fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. What are ruin and destruction? He's not talking about the demolition of your kitchen while you put in a new one with wolf appliances. ruin and destruction.

He's talking about their physical well-being and their spiritual relationship with the Lord, or their fellowship with the Lord. Their relationship is secure. So they're not being sanctified. They're not walking in sanctification and edification. They're distracted by the temptation of the flesh. Now we're going to get into one of those tough He says, for the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.

How many have a King James Version where it says the slightly different version of that? Okay, what does the King James say? Thank you, Dolores. The translation difference is important. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and the love of money is the root of all evils. That's a pretty radical difference. And so, discussions have gone over on which is the better translation. I err on the side of the New American Standard. Here's this division over words.

But the point is that fundamentally, is all evil rooted in money? And I don't think that we can hold that position based on the theology presented in scriptures elsewhere. But we can articulate that there's a translational variance here, but not a Greek variance, but a translational variance where it's better to say the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, maybe, than the love of money is the root of all evil. Adam and Eve had no money. They have zero currency, and yet they sinned. So money wasn't So in that context, either Paul is erroneous or we need to tweak the translation a little bit. But the principle, if we step past that translational variance, the principle is that if you are passionate about following money, is it going to lead you to set your mind on things above?

Setting your mind on things above is, Paul writes in Colossians chapter 3, that we should do that. It is my prayer every day. I pray it every day. Lord, help me set my mind on things above, and when I realize I'm not abiding, may I set my mind on things above right away. Love money. Set your mind on things of the earth. Come on. Just a little more. How will you know you're successful? Because you're content in all things. You're content with the food and the clothing. Whether or not you have a castle, or a shack, or a cave, or a split level, or a ranch style home, is your contentment in Christ.

And that's what Paul is after there. He says they've wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. And the piercing yourself with many griefs is one of those things. The wandering away is to follow out after deception. The Greek actually carries with it. Again, I used Greek, and I didn't check with you on that, but I did enough study that it was quite obvious. So I said one thing and then I did another, right? But the wandering away was to follow after something that was deceptive. They followed after the deception.

The result of that is that they walked away from the faith and they pierced themselves with many griefs. The piercing yourself with many griefs, Paul is talking about inflicting yourself wounds and pain because of the distraction that the money led you to.

How much money do you get to take with you according to verse 7? None. In the Old Testament, there's admonition. Wisdom is that you leave a good inheritance for your children. But that doesn't mean that it should be your obsession. How much is the U.S. dollar going to be worth in 10 years? Anyone want to wager a guess? Probably less than now, yeah, for sure. But we don't know. We don't even know that there will be a U.S. dollar in 10 years. Does that matter? Was Paul content in everything? Was he content in food and clothing?

And so that's a fundamental part of this. If we're, as a body, being stewards of what we have, the result of that is that the body is edified. Our walk with the Lord is strengthened. Alright, we need to close because the time is ticking away. I've gone long. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the truth of your word. We thank you that you have blessed us with food, clothing, and shelter, and that we can be content in those things. Lord, thank you for the edification of your word, the strength of your word, and Lord, we just pray that in our lives we would be honoring one another so that we may honor you and have a testimony with the world around us. We thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.