Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 1 Timothy

[Newbie]

Do you really believe that all evil comes from the love of money?

[jimwalton]

A little bit from the original language (Greek) might help to answer your question. There is no definite article in front of "root." So it really reads, "For the love of money is a root of all evil," meaning, then, all kinds of evil and not evil itself at the core. What he's saying that money can really mess people up, but he's not saying that every evil can be traced back to the love of money. As it says in verse 9, it's a temptation and a trap, and we should beware of its intrinsic dangers.

[Mr. Bojangles]

It says "the root of all the evil things is the love of money." It doesn't say "all kinds of evil." There's no qualification like that. Yours is a bad translation. It's just hyperbole.

[jimwalton]

Here's what the first part says: ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστὶν ἡ φιλαργυρία. You'll notice that after the opening particle "for," the subject of the sentence is "the love of money" with the definite article. "Root" is anarthrous, meaning "a root," and therefore not the only root, but one root among others. It's used metaphorically of "cause" or "source". "Of all evil" is generic, stemming from "a root," therefore "all kinds of evil"; "all kinds of wickedness." The idea of the verse is not that all evil stems from money, but that money is able to lead to all other kinds of evil.

[Mr. Bojangles]

I disagree with "all kinds of evil." πάντων τῶν κακῶν is "[of] all the evil things." While "all kinds of evil" is a reasonable rendering of the sense the author is trying to convey, the more accurate translation, in my opinion, is literal but hyperbolic as per the examples I named above. It's like how we use similar categorical terms like in English. "Everybody loves a clown." "Nobody likes anchovies," "Time heals all wounds." I read "all evil" in that sense. I don't think the author intended it to be taken as a literal statement that "money-loving" is the source of literally all evil things.

The word is "money-loving" by the way, not money. It's a single word in Greek (Philarguria) which doesn't have an exact translation in English, but it really denotes "greed" or "avarice," not money per se.

[jimwalton]

I agree with much of what you're saying; I'm not sure that we're disagreeing that much. The phrase is widely translated as "all kinds of evil" and is recognized by many scholars as a reasonable rendering. I agree with you though, that Paul has used "root" metaphorically, and so to say something like "everybody loves a clown" doesn't insinuate that is true of every human on the planet, but is a truism. In that sense, the verse is not insinuating that money is the root of every evil on the planet, but generally speaking, money contributes to evil attitudes and behavior.

And the Greek word "money loving" is φιλαργυρία. It's a compound word. The first half is philos, or love, and the second half is arguros, which is their word for silver, used for money. So literally the word means "love of silver," and is easily understood to be "love of money." But you are also right that it can refer to greed or miserliness.

[gmw803]

Jim, I tend to disagree with your translation of ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστὶν ἡ φιλαργυρία.

The construction is identical to the last clause of John 1:1: and the word was God. I am confident you do not entertain any notion that it should translate: "the Word was a god."


What you have in both verses is a predicate nominative, and the order of the subject and the predicate is reversed to emphasize one or the other, though which is to be emphatic is sometimes the judgment of the translator. (You are no doubt aware you can jumble the word order in Greek to create that effect.) The only way to put the words back in order is to assign a definite article to the subject, and to omit the definite article from the predicate nominative.

John 1:1 reads, "and the Word was..... [deep dramatic breath] GOD !!"

1 Timothy 6:10 reads: "It is THE LOVE OF MONEY that is the root of all evil."

[jimwalton]

You're absolutely correct that I don't entertain any notion that the last clause of John 1.1 should or even could be translated "and the Word was a god."

In John 1.1, "The Word" is the subject, for the 3rd time in the verse. "Was" is in the imperfect (again, as in the previous phrase): continuing action in past time. The subject is made plain by the article ("the" Word), and the predicate without it. Thus the two are not interchangeable; one cannot say that it could also be read as "...and God was The Word. It works the same way in Jn. 4.24: It says "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So also in 1 Jn. 4.16: "God is love," and not "love is God."

(Just for more academic treatment, here is a quote from Robertson's "Grammar of the Greek New Testament": NOUNS IN THE PREDICATE: These may have the article also, but the article is not essential to speech. It is, however, invaluable as a mean of gaining precision, as here in John 1.1. As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when the subject uses it. . . The predicate is usually something new and therefore the article is not much used except in convertible propositions. . . The subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed. The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the Greek word order may be. Here in John 1.1, the subject is perfectly clear. “God” and “love” are not convertible terms any more than “God” and “Logos” or “Logos” and “flesh” in v. 14. The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea. . . When the article occurs with subject and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.)

That is my point here. You have correctly identified "the love of money" (with an article) as the subject of the sentence. That which is without the subject ("is root of all evil") is the predicate. Robertson (same scholar, in his "Word Pictures in the New Testament" Vol. 4 p. 593) says, "A root (hriza). Old word, common in literal (Matt. 3.10) and metaphorical sense (Rom. 11.11-18). Field argues for "the root" as the idea of this predicate without saying that is the only root. Undoubtedly a proverb that Paul here quotes, attributed to Bion and to Democritus. ... surely men today need no proof of the fact that men and women will commit any sin or crime for money."

Robertson's interpretation that "root" is used in a way implying that it is not the only root is agreed with by Vincent, The Interpreter's Bible, Luke Timothy Johnson in the Anchor Bible Commentary, Lock, and Heibert.

[gmw803]

Well if you are going to bring in experts to intervene.....

[gmw803]

Jim, I'd like to take another shot at this. Robertson may be a great scholar. But he's not too fond of giving reasons for his conclusions. I don't have a copy, but I remember feeling rather vacant when I looked up his understanding of "husband of one wife," and his total response was "one at a time, clearly." The "clearly" was unpersuasive were I to disagree, and left me feeling unarmed if I had wished to take his reasoning to the street. I guess when you are designated as brilliant, that style reasoning works.

But now that I've given it some thought, what sense does "a root" make? "The love of money is a root of all evil." I will point out up front that I reject the insertion of "kinds of" because it waters down the word "all" where the text does not indicate a watering down is suggested. I agree with John Walton that "all" does not mean that one exception will disqualify it as true. I would be hard-pressed to explain why a teenage date that ends as too many teenage dates end so ended with the love of money as the root cause.

But what is provoking this post is that none of the quotes you cite start out, "The reason why 1 Timothy 6:10 and John 1:1 have identical syntax, yet should be handled differently is ...." "The love of money is a root of all evil." is gibberish. "All" serves no purpose in this statement. For does the meaning change if it reads, "The love of money is a root of some evil." And why do we need "some"? Can we not say "The love of money is a root of evil." This reduced version is logically equivalent to the generally accepted read, with "the root" changed to "a root." And it is so true as to be tautology. For its logical inverse: "The love of money is not a root of any evil" is so false as to require no explanation.