Is the love of money really the root of all evil?

Is the love of money «the root of all kinds of evil» or just «the root of all evil» (1 Tim. 6:10)? «All evil» is the literal English equivalent of the original Greek expression (pantōn tōn kakōn).

Interestingly, all older versions of the Bible translate 1 Timothy 6:10 more literally: «The love of money is the root of all evil.» Such translations include the Wycliffe Bible, the Luther Bible, the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Darby Bible, and the Revised Standard Version.

But almost all modern versions use the interpretive translation: «The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.» These include the NCV, NIV, NASB, ASV, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, and GNT.

One exception among modern translations is the NET Bible: «For the love of money is the root of all evil.» The NET note on «all evil» explains:

Many translations render this as «every kind of evil»… But there is no reason to interpret such a construction as «all kinds» or «every kind of evil.» The usual meaning is «all evil.».

Why do modern translations use paraphrase?

What has changed in the past sixty years that has caused the once unanimous literal translation («the root of all evil») to give way to a unanimous paraphrase («the root of every kind of evil»)? There is one thing that has certainly not changed: the meaning of the text. The Greek words of 1 Timothy 6:10 conveyed Paul’s intent in Luther’s day and convey the same intent today.

Another thing that hasn’t changed is that it is no harder or easier to see the love of money as the root of all evil today than it was five hundred years ago. If modern translators see this as a problem, then translators five hundred years ago should have seen it too. All translators were aware of the point made in the NET Bible’s footnotes: the statement that the love of money is the root of all evil «does not seem to be entirely accurate in real life (some evils are not related to the love of money).» That is why they translate it that way.

«"Modern translators feel freer to move away from clear, understandable formal equivalence in favor of explanatory paraphrases.".

What has changed in the last sixty years is that modern translators feel more free to depart from clear and understandable formal equivalence in favor of explanatory paraphrases. There is nothing linguistically or grammatically difficult about the literal translation «The love of money is the root of all evil.» What is unclear is how the love of money can be the root of all evil.

This question has troubled all translators, not just modern ones. Why then did none of the older translators translate the text as «all kinds of evil»? My guess is this:

I may not be able to understand how the love of money can be the root of all evil, but I must not let my inability to decide whether there could actually be a way in which money is the root of all evil. So I will leave it as Paul wrote it. Perhaps people more insightful than I will understand the meaning of Paul’s words.

This seems to be the correct approach to translating a text that claims to be divinely inspired and has absolute authority. The modern assumption is as follows:

If we cannot understand how Paul could have meant that «the love of money is the root of all evil,» then we have the right and wisdom to change the wording to suggest a more plausible meaning.

Preserving the original ambiguity

Let me try to preempt possible criticism. I understand that formal equivalence is not always possible. Sometimes there is simply no construction in English (or any other language) that corresponds to Greek or Hebrew. Sometimes the formal equivalence would be so clumsy that all readers would stumble over the translation.

However, in the case of 1 Timothy 6:10, the Greek structure is quite simple (pantōn tōn kakōn) and has an exact English equivalent («of all evils»). Both options are equally clear and equally cryptic. There is no hidden clue in the Greek or English phrase that could make it clearer or more complicated. This means that nothing is lost in clarity when a simple equivalent is used to translate the Greek, such as «the root of all evil.» Clarity is not lost because the same ambiguity is retained.

This preservation of formal similarity is a great achievement. It is precisely what I strive for in all translations where possible. The advantage is that now the average reader and the pastor, who may have forgotten his knowledge of Greek, have the opportunity to think deeply and examine the context of how Paul saw the love of money as the root of all evil. The reader is not deprived of the opportunity to make his own exegetical discoveries simply because the translators have decided for him that no plausible meaning can be given to the words as Paul wrote them.

In my opinion, this text is a prime example of when translators should humbly admit that their failure to see the plausible meaning of Paul’s words («the root of all evil») does not mean that there is no such meaning. If «all kinds of evil» is the best interpretation of these enigmatic words, then let the reader discover and resolve it for himself.

How is the love of money the root of all evil?

Perhaps when Paul wrote these words, he knew full well how difficult they would be to understand, and he left them as he wrote them because he saw the sense in which the love of money is truly the root of all evil—all evil!—and he wanted Timothy (and us) to think deeper to see this.

I believe that is exactly what happened. I will share my brief thought on how the love of money is the root of all evil. But even if you think I am wrong, the basic argument about translation remains valid, because someone else may find the key to understanding, even if I did not.

Here is the context of 1 Timothy 6:6–10:

«For godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can carry nothing out. Having food and clothing, we will be content with these things. But those who strive to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into destruction and ruin. For the love of money is the root of all evil, and some, in their longing for it, have strayed from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.».

Notice that the first part of verse 10 («The love of money is the root of all evil») functions as a basis or reason for both the preceding verse 9 and the rest of verse 10. Let’s take this step by step.

How does verse 10a support verse 9?

Verse 9 says that those who desire to be rich fall into «many senseless and hurtful desires.» Notice that the desire to be rich gives rise to not one but many desires. Paul goes on to explain that this desire to be rich has this effect, «for the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things.» The desire to be rich in verse 9 corresponds to the love of money in verse 10. And the «many desires» of verse 9 correspond to the «injurious things» of verse 10.

Paul traces the cause of these «many desires» to the love of money as the root of «all evil.» Why does the desire to be rich lead not just to the desire for money but to «many desires»? Because the love of money is the root of much more than we usually think. It is the root of all the evil that people do. Paul shows that the multiplicity of desires that arise from the desire to be rich comes from a deep root that explains the «many» desires, since it is the root of «all things.».

«"The love of money is the root of much more than we usually think.".

How does the love of money do this? Here is one way: because «money» in itself has no value (paper or metal). It is desirable only because it is a cultural symbol that can be exchanged for «many desires» that we have. But it cannot be exchanged for God or for godliness. Therefore, the love of money, according to Paul, corresponds to a fundamental desire for what money can buy but without God. That is why all these many desires «drown men into destruction and ruin.» (1 Tim. 6:9).

Good desires do not destroy. Only desires for something without God destroy. This is what the love of money represents. Therefore, this love is the root of all evil that people do. After all, all evil arises from this root desire - the desire for something without God. Without exception.

This is the essence of sin and the root of all sinfulness—falling short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Or, to put it another way, sin is «exchange of God for creation» (see Rom. 1:23, 25). In other words, at its core, sin is our preference for something over God. «All evil» flows from this preference, from this desire. If something is desired for God’s sake, that desire is not sin. If something is desired not for God’s sake, that desire is sin. Therefore, all sin, «all evil,» flows from this desire, from this love—represented in 1 Timothy 6:10 as the love of pleasure apart from God.

How does verse 10 (the first part) relate to the rest of the poem?

Now let us pay attention to the connection between the first part of verse 10 and its second part: «For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by reaching out for it some have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.».

Just as in verse 9, «many foolish and hurtful desires plunge men into destruction and ruin,» so here in verse 10, the love of money causes people to «pierce themselves with many sorrows.».

«"If you love money, you cannot serve God. And if you cannot serve God, then everything you do is evil.".

How? «For the love of money some have strayed from the faith.» The love of money works its destruction by tempting the soul to abandon the faith. Faith is the contented trust in Christ, which Paul mentions in verse 6: «For godliness with contentment is great gain.» Faith says, «I have learned to be content with whatever I have» (Phil. 4:11). Faith gives satisfaction in all situations because it has Christ, and Christ compensates for all losses: «I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord» (Phil. 3:8).

All true virtue grows from this root—rest in Christ. Without Him, our actions are not an expression of the all-sufficiency of Christ, but rather an attempt to compensate for some deficiency we feel through lack of faith. But this is not true virtue and does not glorify Christ. Only that which is done from faith is truly virtuous. That is why Paul writes, «whatever is not of faith is sin» (Rom. 14:23).

This means that «all evil»​—to use the words of 1 Timothy 6:10—​originates in a soul that has been tempted to depart from the faith. And that is what, says Paul, the love of money does. Because of this love of money, «some have deviated from the faith.» But «without faith it is impossible to please God well.» (Heb. 11:6) The absence of faith produces only evil​—all evil.

You cannot love God and money.

So whether we consider how 1 Timothy 6:10a relates to verse 9 or to the rest of verse 10, the conclusion remains the same: there is no absurdity in saying that the love of money is the root of all evil. Changing this in the translation to «all kinds of evil» is redundant (and, if you think about it, «all kinds of» can be just as problematic as «all kinds of evil»).

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is to quote the words of Jesus:

«No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon» (Matthew 6:24).

Jesus uses the word «love» to describe a choice: we either love God or we love money. He connects the idea of service to this idea of love: «You cannot serve God and mammon.» From this I conclude that if you love money, you cannot serve God. And if you cannot serve God, then everything you do is evil. For evil is any action that is not done with love and service to God. So the love of money is the root of all evil, not just some.

You may not be convinced that I saw a plausible meaning in 1 Timothy 6:10 for the words «The love of money is the root of all evil.» If not, I hope you at least saw that someone more insightful than I could have found such a meaning. So translators should not deprive us of this possibility by prematurely assuming that such a meaning did not exist.