God-Breathed: The Authority of Scripture According to the Greek Word θεόπνευστος

Understanding the Greek word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) in II Timothy 3:16 is essential in discussing the doctrine of Scripture's authority. Unfortunately, there is ambiguity in uncovering what the word was meant to convey, and no absolutely solid conclusions can be made about it, regardless of what many claim. This study attempts to get at the boundaries of the word's meaning. What is necessarily implied by θεόπνευστος? And how much room for theological speculation is there? Finally, this study will attempt to show that the most reasonable interpretation of the word does not imply strict divine authorship, but rather, it only necessarily implies divine sanction of the text, so that the Bible can be the product of humans, while still imbued with the Spirit of God as the vessel of his message to the world.

Etymologically, it seems to be universally agreed that θεόπνευστος means 'God-breathed'.(1) This is often taken to mean "breathed into by God" and, so, "inspired by God,"(2) but others translate it "breathed out by God" (ESV), suggesting that 'God-breathed' means it was spoken from the mouth of God, that "it originate[d] in God."(3)

In context, the word is used to assure Timothy of the value and power of Scripture. Timothy was to prepare himself to face challenges, persecution, and to be ready to do the good work of God, and he needed to be equipped with the sacred writings from which he had learned. William Mounce concludes that, given the context, we should interpret II Tim. 3:16 to mean that the "utility of Scripture flows out of its inspiration. The entirety of Scripture comes from the mouth of God. . . . It is therefore true, and it can therefore be trusted."(4) However, Mounce overstates what the context implies. Paul could just as well affirm Scripture's utility and trustworthiness by merely saying that it is imbued with the Holy Spirit; that it ultimately has God as its author is not explicitly implied by the verse. So, unfortunately, the context in this case does not make the interpretation process easier.

While θεόπνευστος is not used anywhere else in Scripture, many often turn to II Peter 1:20-21 to help interpret its meaning, as it seems to convey the same idea about Scripture, saying that "no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation," nor are they "ever produced by the will of man," but they come "from God" and are "carried along by the Holy Spirit." This seems to be clearer than the meaning of the word θεόπνευστος; however, ambiguity lies here also. The Greek word φέρω ("carried along") conveys the image of the wind and the sea carrying along a ship.(5) The verse does not have to mean that the Scriptures came directly from the mouth of God; it could just mean that those who delivered the prophecies of Scripture were propped up and influenced by the Holy Spirit, and that their words have divine power. As Richard Bauckham states, II Peter 1:20-21 does not advocate

a basically pagan understanding of the psychology of prophetic inspiration, as irrational ecstasy in which the prophet is a purely passive instrument of the divine Spirit. . . . [T]he language of 2 Peter does not in itself require such a depreciation of the human role in prophecy.(6)

There are too many nuances in these passages that simply make it too hard to claim a concrete stance on the authority of Scripture. But what boundaries does θεόπνευστος put on the doctrine? For lack of better wording, what is the least one could say about Scripture's authority and still affirm its nature as God-breathed? Well, for one, Kenton Sparks notes that "the Greek word itself does not really imply anything in particular about how the transaction between God and the human authors took place."(7) Similarly, Colin Brown states that it "does not imply any particular mode of inspiration, such as some form of divine dictation."(8) He concludes that it should be interpreted to mean that the "sacred scriptures are all expressive of the mind of God."(9) However, what exactly it expresses about the mind of God is not clear. Does it express his word choice and his knowledge? Or could it express his desire to partner with humanity?

A particularly enlightening take on this verse is found in an article by Edward Goodrick:

I suspect that to one schooled as well as Timothy was in the OT the new word, theopneustos, would have triggered his recollection of that primeval episode in which God, by breathing into the nostrils of an image molded from inert clay, made it spring into life. Certainly Adam was God-breathed.(10)

So, at the very least, Scripture is just as God-breathed as Adam was, as humans are. Furthermore, that Adam was God-breathed did not mean that he was controlled by God, that every choice he made was God's choice, every word he spoke was God's word. Rather, God sustains humans and tries to influence us with his nature so that we will participate in his love. He also tries to use us to accomplish his will in the world. Likewise, God inspired the biblical authors, the Spirit supported and influenced their work, and God uses it to communicate and accomplish his will to the world. In Sparks' words, "Scripture is God's word because God providentially adopted ancient human beings . . . as his spokespersons. In doing so God 'set apart' or 'sanctified' their words for use in his redemptive activity."(11)

With the image of a ship supported and influenced by the wind and the sea, and with the help of having Adam as another example of something God-breathed, we can at least affirm with confidence that πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (every Scripture is God-breathed) in that it has divine power and is imbued with the Holy Spirit to be used by God to accomplish his will. Stephen Chapman said that biblical inspiration is "a cipher for a mysterious process of divine-human co-writing."(12) Though there are many elements of Scripture that are thoroughly human, Paul has taught us that God would not have it any other way.(13) What a beautiful statement to be able to make about God, that he adopted as the vessel of the divine message of Jesus Christ a book the writing of which was accomplished by God's participation in the creativity of humans. What a beautiful picture that paints of the relationship between God and humanity, that it is one of partnership and freedom, in which God wants the other to have a voice and autonomous creativity.(14) He is not simply interested in what he can do; he is interested in what we can do, and what we can do together.

Notes:
(1) Colin Brown, "graphē," in Vol. 3 of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 491.
(2) John Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1889), 287. The NLT, NASB, HCSB, NET, and others use this translation.
(3) H. Wayne House, "Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16," Bibliotheca sacra 137 (1980), 61.
(4) William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Vol. 46 of WBC, Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Waco: Word Books, 2000), 570.
(5) "φέρω," in Mounce Concise English-Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. William D. Mounce, with Rick D. Bennett, Jr., Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed.
(6) Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Vol. 50 of Word Biblical Commentary, Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 234.
(7) Kenton L. Sparks, Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority & the Dark Side of Scripture (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2012), 56.
(8) Brown, 491.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Edward W. Goodrick, "Let's Put 2 Timothy 3:16 Back in the Bible," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25, no.4 (1982), 484.
(11) Sparks, 29.
(12) Sparks, 58.
(13) For more on the inspiration of Scripture despite its utter humanness, see Sparks, Sacred Word, Broken Word, and Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2005).
(14) For more on the relational partnership of God and humanity, see Terence E. Fretheim, God and the World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005).

Christian Commodity Fetishism: Interpretations of the Story of the Rich Young Ruler

Anthony the Great

A young man, apparently a ruler, asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life, to which Jesus answered, by following the commandments. After letting Jesus know that he followed the commandments quite well, Jesus told him to sell his possessions and distribute them to the poor. The young man hung his head like Charlie Brown and walked away, as he could not make that sacrifice.(1) A question Christians have wrestled with throughout church history is whether or not this is a necessary requirement for Christian discipleship. This issue was brought to the forefront of Christian thought when The Life of Anthony was published in the 4th century, a biography of a rich young man who was convicted by Jesus' money-talk and inspired to sell everything he had and live utterly dependent on the provision of the Lord.

Such radical self-denial would never be easily, or even completely, embraced by a whole religion, which is one reason why the rich young ruler passage has been interpreted a multitude of ways. For example, David Kling provides that, "as the West became more economically affluent, Jesus' words to the rich man taken in the literal sense appeared quaint and irrelevant."(2) The standard is just too radical. The thought of surrendering one's entire estate and living completely dependent on the provision of God and others naturally inspires a lot of fear and anxiety. Not to mention, the allure of selfish accumulation and extravagant abundance is often just too great a force. There is also the fact that the passage isn't exactly the clearest statement on discipleship. Ambiguity remains and has evoked a lot of varying interpretations for centuries. What can be said without a doubt is that Anthony provides us with an amazing example of Christian discipleship that should at the very least inspire Christians to be more selfless with their possessions.

Many might (and perhaps did) find it unfortunate that Anthony was not made subject to a more nuanced reading of Scripture. Some allegorize the passage and say that, "the rich man represented the Jews who remained tied to the law, whereas the poor represented the Gentiles open to the truths of the gospel."(3) Others, like Ambrose, bishop of Milan, maintain that, "Jesus gave counsel [to the young ruler], not a command."(4) Kling elaborates: "Perhaps Jesus was telling the young man that he had made possessions his consuming passion, and that he simply needed to reorder his priorities and not necessarily divest himself of his wealth."(5) Along these lines, Clement of Alexandria believed that, "Jesus' words really referred to the desire for, not the possession of, riches. . . . What truly matters is poverty of spirit, not poverty of possessions."(6)

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Anthony's life emanated tremendous power. Like Jesus, he emptied himself completely and was exalted for doing so (Phil. 2:5-11), as he became somewhat of a spiritual superstar; he "healed the sick and performed other miracles, offered guidance to fellow monks, argued with philosophers, and counseled emperors (Constantine and his sons), judges, and military officers seeking his advice."(7) In the end, whether or not Jesus' words to the rich young ruler were commands, it definitely seems like it was God's purpose for Anthony to sell all of his possessions.

Because there are such cases, many scholars have said that Jesus was "advocating a two-tier morality—one for the masses of ordinary Christians and another for an elite superior Christians."(8) So, elite superior Christians like Anthony are supposed to sell their possessions, but not all Christians are called to such sacrifice. John Calvin did not advocate this approach, but in somewhat of a similar fashion suggested that Jesus' command applied to the rich young ruler but does not apply to all people. "When Christ commands the covetous rich man," he said, "to give up all that he has, it is like commanding an ambitious man to give up all his honors, a voluptuary all his pleasures, or a shameless man all means of lust."(9) Likewise, Rob Bell lays out his take on the passage:

The man says he's kept all of the commandments that Jesus mentions, but Jesus hasn't mentioned the one about coveting. Jesus then tells him to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor, which Jesus doesn't tell other people, because it's not an issue for them. It is, for this man. The man is greedy—and greed has no place in the world to come.(10)

I would add that greed was not the only counter-Kingdom mindset under which this young man was operating. As a member of the upper class, the young ruler learned to praise success, and to seek upward mobility. As someone who accumulated all manner of material success, he wondered, "How do I accumulate spiritual success?" He learned from his accumulation that upward mobility is a process that never ends, as it never satisfies; there is always more. He followed the commandments, but that wasn't enough; he needed more success. Jesus' counter-empire ideology completely turned the tables on the young man: "rid yourself of your success and you will inherit the kingdom of God." Jesus advocated what Henri Nouwen called 'downward mobility'.(11) If the young man was going to participate in the kingdom of God, he would have to abandon his capitalist drive for success and embrace the ideology of the self-emptying, other-focused kingdom of God.

This dynamic interpretation of the rich young ruler passage could be supported by the other instance in Luke in which Jesus is asked how to obtain eternal life, this time by an expert in the law. In that case the correct answer was, "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself" (Lk. 10:27). To someone who is overly law-minded, loving God and neighbor needs to be emphasized. To someone who is overly wealth-minded, denouncement of wealth is necessary. However, this is complicated by the fact that love of God and love of neighbor are elsewhere said to be the two most important commandments (Mark 12:29-30). That being said, this does not necessarily contradict the interpretation that Jesus' command applies only to those people who are so attached to their possessions that it becomes a hindrance to their participation in the kingdom of God.

On the other hand, there are commentators like Larry Hurtado who say, "riches in themselves are a hindrance to a person's participation in the Kingdom of God and . . . the mere accumulation of wealth and consequent attachment to it can prevent a person from following Christ."(12) Along these lines, Peter Walpot said, "those who hold onto their wealth . . . are not able to become disciples and followers of Christ . . . [because] the person who keeps his property and possession does not obey Christ."(13) Similarly, but not so strict, Douglas Meeks suggests that the passage "shows the basic incompatibility between the abundance of riches and faithful discipleship. There is no optimism about rich persons relinquishing possessions and becoming disciples."(14) As Donald Hagner said of the passage, the "wealthy are generally held captive by their wealth."(15)

So then, surrendering one's possessions, as Ulrich Luz says, "is no more optional than . . . the love of one's enemies."(16) Ironically, the Luke 10 passage about the expert in the law could also support this interpretation. When Jesus is asked "How do I obtain eternal life?" in one story, he responds by saying 'sell all your possessions'; in another story, when asked the same question, loving God and neighbor is the answer. It could then be said that giving away one's possessions is just as important as loving God and neighbor, as both are necessary for obtaining eternal life. However, this is also complicated by the fact that love of God and love of neighbor are said to be the supreme commandments, and surrendering one's possessions is nowhere given that much significance. Although, 1 John 3:16-17 could point in this direction: "By this we know love, that [Christ] laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?" With this, it could be said that surrendering one's possessions for the sake of others is the practical application of loving one's neighbor and, therefore, Luz is correct.

All of the nuances of the story make coming to any actual conclusion about it almost impossible; but maybe that should tell us something. If it were a matter of salvation, would it not have been made clear? The idea that belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation runs throughout the New Testament; whereas, Jesus' teaching on possessions is much more ambiguous and not near as prevalent. I think it can at least be said that surrendering one's possessions is not an across-the-board requirement for salvation. However, it definitely can be a requirement for some, as it apparently was for the rich young ruler. So what do we take from the story?

First, we must learn, as Luz advises, "that a central issue of faith is how one deals with money. . . . The obedience of discipleship must fundamentally change the way we deal with our own money, because money governs the world, and following Jesus is love's protest against this 'government.'"(17) We must also acknowledge the temptation of commodity fetishism and the all-consuming seduction of wealth. In the words of Karl Marx, money "is the alienated essence of man's labour and life, and this alien essence dominates him as he worships it."(18) This praise of wealth must be abandoned if one is to participate in the kingdom of God. Thirdly, we should acknowledge that we can never give enough. Those who say that God only asks for 10% of our money (and that an organized church is where it should be distributed) are guilty of huge reductionism and bad biblical scholarship. Christian management of possessions is one of endless generosity.

Whether or not one agrees with the conclusions of Anthony and those like him on the story of the rich young ruler, we should all be able to see the power of God in his life, and should be able to learn a lot from his example. His story should bother us, in the sense that it gets us thinking about what Christ-like management and distribution of wealth looks like. It should also convict us and inspire us to be more selfless with our possessions. Jesus taught us that we can always be more self-emptying and other-focused. He also was a rich young ruler, but for the sake of others he got rid of his status and became a lowly human servant, and then went even farther, becoming subservient to death (Phil. 2:5-11). What we can learn from Anthony is what the incarnation can look like practically.

So, are we Christians called to get rid of our possessions? Some would say that the rich young ruler was called to because his allegiance was to his possessions. But the question becomes, Do all of our possessions have our deepest loyalty? Are we just as in need of that sacrifice?

Notes:
(1) Matt. 19:16-24; Mark 10:17-25; Luke 18:18-25.
(2) David W. Kling, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 19.
(3) Ibid., 16.
(4) Ibid., 15.
(5) Ibid., 16.
(6) Clement, quoted in Ibid., 19.
(7) Ibid., 24.
(8) Ibid., 21.
(9) John Calvin, quoted in Ibid.
(10) Rob Bell, Love Wins (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 41.
(11) Henri J.M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1989).
(12) Larry Hurtado, quoted in Kling, 22.
(13) Peter Walpot, quoted in Ibid., 20. He went on to say, "'private property does not belong to the Christian Church,' for it 'is a thing of the world, of the heathen, of those without divine love, of those who would have their own way.'"
(14) M. Douglas Meeks, God the Economist: The Doctrine of God and Political Economy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 208, n.47.
(15) Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, Vol. 33B of WBC, Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 562.
(16) Ulrich Luz, quoted in Kling, 17.
(17) Luz, quoted in Ibid., 22.
(18) Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question," in Karl Marx: Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 60. For more on the strange similarity between Marx's money-talk and that of the Bible, see Jose Miranda, Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1974), as well as Norman Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible in Its Social World and Ours (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1993), and Meeks, God the Economist.

Book Review: "Sacred Word, Broken Word" by Kenton Sparks

Sparks, Kenton L. Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2012. $13.51. pp.ix-180. ISBN 978-0-8028-6718-6. ★★★★★

In just over 150 pages Kenton Sparks has addressed the controversial topics of biblical authority and the dark side of Scripture. The result is a book I cannot recommend enough. His treatment of these topics is concise, well-informed, diverse in its considerations, and actually quite profound.

Sparks highlights the Bible's theological diversity, as well as the presence of divine accommodation in Scripture (one of the reasons for theological diversity). He also covers well the difficulties in moving beyond the Bible to theology, bringing one almost to despair, but then to revival with sagacious recommendations for how to construct theology realistically and wisely.

Sparks makes a good case for Christ's 'redemption' of certain Hebrew Bible ideologies, without falling into supersessionism, and without stinking of Enlightenment arrogance. The significant accomplishment of this should not be minimized. He also does a good job of backing his views with church fathers, rendering his discussion not only thought-provoking, but also historically enlightening, as he presented several quotes from several church fathers that most conservative evangelical Christians would be (at least somewhat) shocked to read. While certain comments of his might make him seem like a heterodox liberal, he again and again shows himself to be well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

Sparks establishes the problem of the dark side of Scripture quite well: "is it not a very deep paradox," he asks, "that the Shoah, in which Nazis systematically exterminated the Jews because of their religion and ethnicity, is mirrored so vividly by the Deuteronomic ban in Jewish Scripture, according to which Israel exterminated the Canaanites because of their religion?" (p.45). He goes on to say, "the Canaanite conquest would strike us as flagrant evil were it not a story from the Bible" (p.46). The severe problem we have with biblical stories like the conquest could not be captured better.

With this, Sparks suggests that "the problem of scripture is the problem of evil" (p.46). After summing up the problem of evil and its infection of God's creation, he exchanged the word 'creation' for 'written word' and 'Scripture', saying, "God's written word, which is good, nevertheless includes evil. But these flaws in Scripture should not be blamed on God but rather on humanity and its sinful, fallen state" (p.47). One should not go so far as to think that Sparks considers all of Scripture evil; but he does acknowledge that portions of the Bible reflect sinful humanity more than God's nature, because the Bible is a product of both God and humans; as Stephen Chapman said, biblical inspiration is "a cipher for a mysterious process of divine-human co-writing" (p.58). And wherever there are humans hands at work, there's a good chance the results will include imperfection and evil.

Included in the discussion of the effect of humanity's imperfection on Scripture was a list of Bible contradictions (pp.34-35), which could have benefited from diminution, as a few of them aren't that hard to explain, or aren't actually contradictions. He could have made his point perfectly well without those, or he could have included other, stronger ones. For example, he said, "We have a text that claims God is not willing for anyone to perish, and another that seems to say he predestines some human beings to eternal judgment (2 Pet 3:9; Rom 9:1-24)" (p.35). I rolled my eyes at this one, as it isn't an actual contradiction, like the differing accounts of Judas' death (Matt 27:3-8; Acts 1:18-19; see Sparks' assessment, p.33). The Romans passage does not say that God predestines some human beings to eternal judgment. It might 'seem' to say this to those who have had that interpretation presented to them, but the text itself does not imply it, so it in no way belongs in a list of Bible contradictions.

Also incorporated into Sparks' work was a fantastic discussion of epistemology in chapter 8, in which Sparks observes that "human capacity for knowledge is potentially adequate" (p.71)--humans can never actually know Truth with certainty. It was a chapter after my own heart, as I just recently wrote a blog making this same point (here). While it is a great chapter, the reasons for its presence were not made clear. Even when the discussion is referenced later in the book, the necessity of his elaborate assessment of epistemology struck me as without justification. It seemed like the chapter was part of a separate project that the author added in to this book because he felt it contributed to the discussion. However, Sparks did not explain this contribution adequately, as it did not not flow well with, nor seem relevant to, the rest of the book.

The last few chapters are not as captivating as the first chunk of the book, but they are still good chapters worth reading. They address practical matters of how we should approach interpretation and theology. While he provides fine advice in those three chapters, they end up being (perhaps inevitably) not near as interesting as the rest of the book, and one is left with an anti-climactic finish.

Sparks' assessment of the problem of the dark side of Scripture is by no means comprehensive, and he might be guilty of over-simplifying the solution. Much is still to be said about the nature of revelation, particularly with regard to the Hebrew Bible, as well as how we can deal with the utterly human and even evil parts of Scripture in a way that does not make the construction of biblical theology impossible, relative, or just too complicated. Much is also left to be said about what parts of Scripture should be considered the flawed results of sinful humanity. However, I do think Sparks has the right ideas that can guide further study. Out of all the books I've read so far that have wrestled with the dark side of Scripture, Sacred Word, Broken Word has the most to offer. I definitely recommend it.

Purchase Sacred Word, Broken Word on Amazon (here)

Let me tell you about this Facebook group that takes care of people

For several months now, I've been a part of a Facebook group called Provide that gives people an opportunity to provide for the needs of others, as well as have their own needs provided for. Whenever people need something, be it car repair, rent that they are unable to pay, food, etc., they can post it on the Provide page, and the manager of the group, Michael McBride, will create a fund-raising page for it that makes it easy for people to contribute.

I love this group. Deuteronomy 15 and Acts 4 provide examples of a community of people that manage their money off of God's abundant generosity, and this group models that. This group fosters a community in which there are no needy people, and in which people can be ministered to through meeting their needs, and where people can minister to others by meeting their needs. Such a community is inspiring and is one of which we need many more in our country.

That leads me to the purpose of this post: we need more people to be involved. The more people we have, the easier it will be to meet needs. So, please, click here, join, and invite others to join. I am excited about what God has been doing in this community and what he is going to do in the future.

"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?" 1 John 3:16-17

"Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same." Luke 3:11

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." Acts 4:32-35

"There need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you. If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need." Deuteronomy 15:4-8

"Freely you have received; freely give." Matthew 10:8

"The righteous gives and does not hold back." Proverbs 21:26

 "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:42

"Lend without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35