6 Of course, there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, so that[
a] we can take nothing out of it, 8 but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. 9 But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.
I might go with a more Buddhist "For attachment to wealth is a root of all kinds of suffering" but generally in agreement. And it is not just those with wealth, which is indicated by verse 9, "those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction". It is the attachment to wealth, not the actual wealth, causing the suffering and someone who is poor or of modest means who focusses their life on achieving wealth is just as attached as the rich person who is hoarding and trying to increase their wealth. Recognizing that contentment comes not (or not just, perhaps) from material wealth but spiritual wealth is very important. We need some measure of wealth to live comfortably ("but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these") but what do we gain besides a lot of stress by striving to go too far beyond that?
As you well know, I wouldn't restrict the spiritual path to "God" or "Christ". In some ways, I think the Buddhist path handles attachment better than the Christian one. The idea of focussing on release from attachment in a more practical way (the eightfold path) rather than focussing on salvation from some cosmic notion of "sin" seems to be more attuned to the real world. It also keeps responsibly squarely on the adherent rather than saying "believe and you shall be whole" as Christianity tends to do. Is one really whole if one believes but still hoards wealth?
Epicureanism and Stoicism both approach this in different ways, too. Epicureanism teaches that pleasure is the highest end but that material pleasures are not the goal, but pleasure that comes from understanding and living in accordance with one's place in the world. It's actually quite an ascetic philosophy in its original form and learning, not "wine, women, and song", was the intended source of "pleasure". Certainly, material wealth is not a true source of pleasure and Epicurus himself was of modest means and something of an ascetic. Stoicism focusses on living in harmony with ones fate and place in reality. If one is rich, that is one's fate, not one's doing, and that wealth is ephemeral as we will all pass one day and wealth will remain in the world. So not much different from Timothy in some ways (and, in fact, I detect Stoic influences in a lot of Christian teaching).
13 In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you
Does anyone know what confession before Pilate this refers to? As in, do you have a chapter and verse from a Gospel that refers to it? I can go hunting but if someone has a reference handy, it would be helpful.
17 As for those who in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches but rather on God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, 19 thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.
See, this is the mentality around dealing with wealth that I am more supportive of than the "eat the rich" mentality I hear from some sectors of church and society. Yes, a lot of rich people do not live up to it (cough Musk cough) and thereby do a lot of harm, but that's no reason to attack them all. Encourage the idea that material riches are impermanent and cause more harm and grief than joy when hoarding; that by sharing them freely (not with rafts of conditions designed to maximize your tax breaks) you do more good for yourself and the world than by collecting and hoarding them.
I realize this letter is probably not written by Paul.
How much does this matter? I suppose some see it as less authoritative for that reason but even those who assembled the canon or influenced that process must have had some inkling and still included it. Clearly, the early church saw it as in some way authoritative or spiritually important to the church even if it came from a follower of Paul, not the man himself.
