THE POOR YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE WITH YOU (Mark 14:7) IS NOT AN EXCUSE!

This blog post is more a sad reflection to share rather than a devotional.  It begins with a story.

I was in a waiting room and struck up a conversation with a man who works with a well-known Christian international charity.  He was working on organizing support regarding Ebola, which is wonderful.  I asked him if his organization had seen the repercussion of our current administration suddenly cutting resources to USAID, promised resources that were to keep people from dying from starvation and disease.  His surprising reply was, “Jesus says, ‘You will always have the poor,’” and then said our country was helping people around the world in ways we do not know.  Since his boss is a prominent “Christian nationalist” – a non sequitur¹ – he apparently thought he needed to defend the US.
     His reply was both troubling and heart-breaking to me.  Here was a brother-in-Christ, who was contributing to a good ministry, using something Jesus said to excuse withdrawing charitable funds, and, as I found out, create a tragedy.  Later that day, I looked up what the repercussions had been from cutting off aid through USAID, something that I assume he knew, since he avoided a direct answer.  A recent academic study projected that 500,000 children so far have starved to death as a result.  Jesus’ statement about the poor does not excuse that!

Background to What Jesus Said

In the well-known story of Mark 14:3-9, a woman poured expensive perfume on Jesus’ head.  The sealed jar and perfume might well have represented this woman’s savings for her future.  Some people present raised a rhetorical question about wasting the perfume, which was worth 300 denarii [a denari was about a day’s wage], instead of giving money to the poor, and they rebuked her.  As readers we have a couple of clues informing us about the various characters’ true attitudes toward charity and money.  First, the protestors are unnamed, which though a minor point, can show that they were not to be remembered, a sign of dishonor.²  The key contrast made explicit by Jesus, is that the woman’s act, although she is also unnamed, would be remembered and preached throughout the world (v 9).  That is, she will be forever honored.  The implication of her action is that this woman recognized the significance of the person of Jesus, when others did not; and she, giving away what was of great value and security to herself, poured it on Jesus’ head as if she were a prophet anointing Jesus as king.  That is, her action symbolized that she recognized something of Jesus’ messianic significance and made a self-sacrificial act of faith.  [Probably tacked on to this story by Mark to create a further contrast, is the story of Judas arranging to betray Jesus for money (vv. 10-11).]  Second, the Gospel writers frequently have Jesus’ opponents raising negative questions rhetorically, so we know that their concern for the poor was not sincere.  These protestors missed Jesus’ true identity and wrongly criticized the woman for her act of devotion.  In response, Jesus’ commanded the protestors to leave her alone and complimented her (v 9).
     Jesus’ argument in defense of what the woman did, brings us to our text, his saying about the poor [note that the structure emphasizes a contrast, the first and third lines]:

“For the poor you will always have with you,
                   and whenever you desire you are able to do good to them,
            but me you will not always have” (v 7).

Jesus then uses the woman’s act of devotion as an opportunity to alert people to his upcoming death, saying what she did was preparing for his burial (v 8).  To understand Jesus’ argument (v 7) we need to see that he was arguing like a rabbi – as does Paul – by drawing on the Scriptures, particularly the Torah, to support his point.  Although this kind of “proof-texting” can take a statement out of context, Jesus’ use did not do so.  Jesus was alluding to Deuteronomy 15:11:

“Because the poor will not cease to be in the midst of the land; therefore, I am commanding you, saying, ‘Surely, open your hand [be generous] to your brother, to your poor, and to your needy in your land.’”

     A little context is needed.  Deut 15:1-11 is establishing for the Israelites in the promised land a righteous way of life that was to promote equity.  Every seventh, “sabbath,” year the people of God were to cancel any debts their fellows had (vv. 1-3).  God wanted to bless the people; God did not want there to be poor people in the land (vv. 4-6).  If there were poor people, then God’s people were to be generous to them and not hard-hearted and guilty of sin.  Such generosity resulted in blessing (vv. 7-10).  Yet, verse 11 recognizes that God’s desire that there be no poor would not prevail; there would always be poor, and the Israelites were to care for them.

Explanation

Jesus, therefore, did not use the reference to Deut 15:11 about there always being poor people as an excuse to avoid caring for them.  He was drawing on a text that commands people to care for them!  Rather, in this specific case, Jesus was supporting the woman’s act of faith to honor him and used it to teach about his upcoming death.  The protestors did not really have hearts for the poor; they were antagonistic because they missed seeing the act of faith that happened before their eyes.
     We know further that Jesus would not use Scripture as a proof-text to get out accountability to God.  In Mark 7:9-13, he blasts the hypocritical Pharisees for doing just that.  [There were righteous Pharisees; we just do not encounter many in the NT.]  One example he gives there is that people were avoiding providing for their parents by claiming that they had dedicated their resources as “Corban,” a gift to God (vv. 10-12).³

Personal Application

Our hearts are like those of the hypocritical Pharisees when we abuse Scripture to rationalize our own disobedience.  Like those who protested against the woman, when I see greater righteousness practiced than what I display, I fail to see my own flaws and am motivated to look for someone else’s flaws.  And, I certainly see in my own life how I sometimes twist and turn to get out from under the hand of God that seeks to move me to righteous obedience.  That perverted inclination not to obey is only self-harmful.  Obedience brings about a closer walk with Jesus.  Disobedience pushes Jesus away.

Jesus I want you close by.  I need you close by.  Strengthen me to walk faithfully and obediently with you.  Help me never to abuse your Word to excuse my failure to obey.  Amen.
----------------
1) Since the coming of Jesus, calling any nation or kingdom “Christian” or a theocracy does not make sense biblically.  This includes the US as well as the modern, secular state of Israel.  A couple of things Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God are quite clear.  When Pilate asked Jesus if he were a worldly ruler, a king, Jesus stated that his kingdom, which his coming inaugurated, was not of this world, and that it is not advanced by force (John 18:33-36).  Also, Jesus told his followers that they were not to be like rulers and officials who exert dominion and authority over people; rather they were to be servants of people.  These qualifications rule out any worldly nation with its human power structures being identified with the Kingdom of God.  Christian leaders do not make a nation Christian.  Moreover, regulating people through “Christian” laws also cannot make a people Christian or righteous.  Just as Paul taught, not all Israelites were counted as righteous before God, because they sought righteousness through works of law/Torah and not through faith (Romans 9:30-32).  Therefore, the current pernicious movement of “Christian nationalism” in the US, claiming to “take back our nation for Jesus” and make it a “Christian nation,” only abuses the name of Jesus to promote worldly, political power particularly for the advantage of certain people.  We can only bring our nation closer toward Christ by serving people and leading them one-by-one to faith in Jesus.

2) In the parallel text of Matt. 26:6-13, Matthew identifies the protestors as disciples, but Mark, probably Matthew’s source, is vaguer.  Whether disciples or not, those protesting were failing to see Jesus’ true nature and the woman’s act of faith.

3) Apparently, this practice of Corban, based on Lev. 27:28, was a way dedicating all of one’s possessions to be willed to the Temple treasury, so that those possessions could not be given away during one’s lifetime for other purposes.  The catch was that the person could continue to use those resources for oneself until that time.  Such a loophole could be used not only to avoid giving to the poor but also to avoid caring for one’s parents, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:16).

TRUE FAITH VS BELIEF: THE TESTIMONY OF PSALM 73

There is a difference between true faith and belief in doctrines about God, even if they are sound doctrines.  John Bunyan was advised by Mr. Gifford, his pastor and spiritual mentor, that people needed to be delivered from false tests of sound doctrine.

He told us to pay special heed not to accept any truth just upon blind trust.  Instead to cry mightily to God so that God would convince us of the reality of it and immerse us in it by his own Spirit in the holy Word.  “For,” he said, “when temptation comes strongly upon you if you have not received these things with evidence from Heaven, you will soon find that you do to have that help and strength to resist that you thought you had” (Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, #117).

The composer of Psalm 73, a wisdom/didactic psalm, give us an early testimony to this experience of true faith.  The psalmist struggled with an issue of theodicy, the problem of good people suffering in this life.  We hear his testimony about how experiencing God is the foundation of what real faith is.  Let’s look at the flow of thought.

Opening to the psalmist’s story (1-3).

Verse 1: The speaker opens with his conclusion, a confession about how God is good to those who are pure in heart.

Verses 2-3: He gives a retrospective observation of what he had struggled with, how he nearly lost his foothold – a metaphor, perhaps referring to beliefs he had been taught about God (v. 2).  Why?  Because he had envied wicked people who prosper (3).  This psalm presents the real-life problem of why good people sometimes suffer and bad people do not.

His initial experience: the unjust lives of the wicked compared to his (4-14)

Verses 4-12:  He describes how wicked people become arrogant when they prosper and how they mock the notion of a God who knows and cares.

Verses 13-14: In contrast to the wicked, he began to think that keeping his heart pure had only left him stricken and punished; that is, being pure was worse than without benefit.

Interruption: a post-experience reflective comment (15-16)

At that time, had he spoken his despairing conclusion, it would have been an act of treachery to “the generation of your sons” – probably an idiom for faithful followers.  But, at that time, on his own, he could not make sense of what he saw.  Why did his perspective change?

Turning point in the speaker’s story (17). 

This is the turning point in the speaker’s account.  He entered the holy place of God –probably the temple.  He does not describe his religious experience.  He simply lets us know that he sought God, and that everything changed.

Reflection on his religious experience (18-27)

The speaker now addresses God while teaching the general audience through his testimony.  He shares the new perspective he gained, a faith perspective. 

Verses 18-20: He realized that the apparent success of the wicked is ephemeral. 

Verses 21-22: He realized how uncomprehending and ignorant he had been.

Verses 22-27: Most importantly, he realized that God would be eternally faithful to him.  Here the psalmist pushes beyond what one can see about justice in this life to a confidence in God’s grip on him forever.  God’s justice and faithful will prevail past the time in which his own flesh will fail, an outcome that stands in contrast to those who are unfaithful.

Verse 28: The speaker makes his confession of faith – he has taken refuge in God – with the attendant result of telling people of all the doings of God, even as he gives this testimony.

The composer of Psalm 73 did not come up with a philosophical answer to why the wicked sometimes prosper while the righteous suffer.  Rather, he came to the perspective of genuine faith.  In the experience of seeking God (entering the Holy place/temple), he realized that this life’s experience of apparent injustice is a fleeting dream.  For him, the real substance of life was knowing that God had an eternal hold on him and that he had taken refuge in a good God.  That is the biblical understanding of faith.  For us, it is knowing that God is sufficient.  For God, it establishes a right relationship, “Abraham entrusted himself to the LORD and He counted it to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

“Faith” [Heb: ’amunah and Greek: pistis] basically means “entrustment.”  That is, a person rests upon that which has a convicting or proofing essence about it; it is trustworthy.  In this context, it rests on the character and behavior of God whom the psalmist experienced in the temple.  The convicting evidence of God’s Presence is why the psalmist [we] know that God holds on to us even after this body fails.

The psalmist’s post-religious experience of faith reminds me of Hebrews 11:1.  (See posts, “Faith and the Most Real,” Sept. 13, 2023 and a follow-up on April 23, 2025.)  A modern translation of Hebrews 11:1 is:

“Now faith (πίστις, pistis) is confidence (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis) in what we hope for and assurance (ἔλεγχος. elengchos) about what we do not see.” (NIV).

The second and third key terms (in Greek) are rendered above in a personal and subjective sense, which makes sense in the context of faith and hope; however, these words project something more foundational than a person's psychological state.  “Faith/entrustment” is grounded on more than belief.  The word hypostasis expresses “essence,” “real being,” and elengchos expresses “evidence of truth,” “the proving,” “verification.”  These are terms about what is most real.  Showing the parallelism of phrases here, although a little awkward in English, a more accurate translation would be:

Now this is faith:
                    regarding what we look to in the future [it is] essence/reality,
                    regarding matters not seen [it is] verification.

 Paraphrased for smoother English, and picking up the author’s thought in context:

 Now this is faith: the reality of what we look to in the future [the promises of God] and  the verification of matters not yet seen [of the promises of God].

Application:
Psalm 73 gives us insight into true biblical faith, which is much more than belief in sound doctrines about God and even feelings about God.  It is defined well in Hebrews 11:1; faith is experientially grounded on the Most Real.  It is why Mr. Gifford told John Bunyan to cry out to God for such certainty.  It is what happened in John Wesley’s heart-warming experience when he moved from belief to faith:

I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. (Journal, May 242, 1738)

To reclaim a word that has been perverted in American politics, it is what was once called “evangelical” faith.  It is what happened to me while attending a worship service on May 2, 1972.  In the overwhelming Presence of God, I said, “Jesus, I am ruining my life.  I give it to you.”  Like the psalmist testified, “I have made the Lord God my refuge” (Ps 73:28).

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 7)

Reflection 7: 6^th Petition: And do not let us cross over to temptation, but deliver us from the evil [one]!

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God.  God’s honor and agenda is primary.  The second three petitions turn attention toward ourselves, but they still require that we put God first.  The 4^th petition is essentially a prayer to grow in faith, to grow in dependence on God and not on the material world.  Although in the 5^th petition we seek forgiveness, its focus is more about us desiring to become as merciful as God.

The purpose of the 6^th petition, the third in regard to ourselves, turns from offering ourselves in deeper submission and transformation.  Instead, here we imploring our Father for protective help from all that would disrupt our relationship with God. 

This intention of this text is difficult to translate accurately because it employs a poetic structure with which we are not familiar.  The first clause of this petition is easy to translate literally, “Do not carry/lead us into temptation.”  However, that requires clarification.  It would be wrong to think that God wants or even causes us to be tempted to sin.  [It is true that God tests people, but that is different.¹]  What we need to realize is that both the first and second clauses make the same point but dramatically through the use of what is called “antithetical parallelism.”  They state a point from the negative perspective and then states it from the positive.  For example, without knowingly being poetic, a child might say to a parent, “Don’t abandon me here, but do take me with you.”  The first clause has two negatives (“not” and “abandon” – functioning almost like a double negative) that are balanced in the second clause with two positives (“do take” and “with you”).  The child is not implying that the parent desires to abandon her, but is emphatically expressing what she desires with a negative and a positive statement.  A biblical example would be Prov 10:12:

1^st clause: “Hatred rouses up strife” (negative perspective of hate and strife)
2^nd clause: “But love covers all transgressions” (positive perspective of love and forgiveness)

Our text’s structure is:
            1^st clause: “Do not do negative X (tempt)”
            2^nd clause “But do positive Y (deliver from evil).”

If one were to rephrase the same sense in simple synonymous parallelism – both statements positive – it would be, “Take us away from temptation, and deliver us from evil!”  The translation given above attempts to keep both the positive sense and the dramatic parallel contrast.  God’s role is not to bring us across the threshold of temptation, but to deliver us from evil.  Our petition is for divine protection.

Our petition to be delivered from “the evil [one]”² means that we must take evil most seriously.  The basic Old Testament word for evil, ra, refers to that which is contrary to God’s creational order and will, which is “good” (tov).  That which is evil disrupts our relationship with God and brings chaos, sin, and suffering into our lives.  In Matthew’s Gospel, the “devil,” “the evil one,” or “Satan” (Hebrew for “adversary”) is the entity that actively seeks to draw Jesus and others into the chaos of a ruptured relationship with God and the suffering that brings.  As biblical Christians, we accept both seen and unseen dimensions of reality.  Jesus teaches us to ask to be delivered from a spiritual dimension that is adversarial to God.  At the same time, it is wise for followers of Jesus to avoid extremes of either discounting the reality of such evil or of holding an unhealthy preoccupation with it.  I like the adage, “As an infection is to a cut, so is evil to our normal weaknesses and flaws.”  Evil is to be taken seriously.
        Jesus faced temptation (Matt 4:1-10).  We face temptation.  The spiritual battle is real (Eph 6:12).  It takes place in the mind in which every thought must be taking captive to obey Christ (2Cor 10:3-5).  Otherwise, the temptation gives birth to sin and death (James 1:14-15).  For this we need God’s help.  We pray.

Journal Reflections

1. What does temptation mean to you?

2. How have you learned spiritually to confront temptation?

3. How can the church teach and help young Christians to be delivered from evil?

4. During Lent we look at how Jesus in his humanity was tempted as we are (Heb 4:14-15).  We also learn from John’s Gospel that when Jesus was “lifted up” (a pun for crucified and glorified) that he drew all people to himself and so defeated “the ruler of this world” (12:30-33).  What does this reflection mean to you?

Prayer quote:

Satan dreads nothing but prayer.  His one concern is to keep the saints from praying.  He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work, prayerless religion.  He laughs at our toil, mocks our wisdom, but trembles when we pray.  (Samuel Chadwick, source: J. Oswald Sanders, Effective Prayer, p.13.).

Notes:

1. Admittedly, another translation possibility here is that the Greek word for “temptation” can be used to translate the Hebrew word for “test.”  The postive purpose of divine testing is to make known the state of one’s heart.  For example, when the Israelites were “tested” in the wilderness, the event revealed the weak state of their faith and served as a call to faithfulness (Deut 8:1-10).  However, in the context of our text, “temptation” is negative.  The noun and verb forms of this word occur eight times in Matthew.  One time the verb is used of an honest test.  All other uses are negative, such as religious leaders trying to trap Jesus (e.g. 19:3; 22:18).  Most importantly, previously in Matthew 4 it was used twice to refer to the behavior of the devil (4:1, 3).

2.  “Evil” here has the definite article, “the evil” so it is probably used as a personal noun for “the evil one” as in Matt 13:19, 38 and probably Matt. 5:37.

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 6)

Reflection 6: 5^th Petition: And forgive us our debts as even we [ourselves] have forgiven our debtors!

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God.  God’s honor and God’s agenda are primary.  The second three petitions turn attention toward ourselves, but they still require that we put God first.  The 4^th petition is essentially a prayer to grow in faith, to grow in dependence on God and not on the material world.

The 5^th petition, while for ourselves, effectively transforms us to grow in God’s characteristic of mercy.  In the first clause we plead for forgiveness.  Now we Methodists, along with Anglicans, Lutherans, and English-speaking Catholics tend to use the sin word “trespasses” rather than “debts” in our translations.  This tradition apparently goes back to Tyndale’s translation of 1526, and it is likely that he used “trespasses” because that term fits well with the sin word that follows in Matt 6:14-15, which itself might be better translated, “transgression.”¹  Still, the Greek word here more properly refers to a debt.  I prefer to use this term because to me “trespass” or even “transgression” might not communicate well.  They miss the concept of sin words and forgiveness words backgrounded in the Old Testament, particularly in the Temple sacrificial system. 
        Sin, like a debt, always produces the reality of a negative consequence.  We should think of sin as leaving something “tangible” behind.  It creates an impediment of chaos in our relationship with God and is often compared to a burden upon us.  God forgives, not because one offers a sacrifice but because one remorsefully repents.  The main Old Testament term for “forgive” (Hebrew nasa’) communicates that God lifts or bears that burden.  The sacrifice that follows symbolizes the removing of the “stain” or “pollution” of sin, showing that a right relationship with God is restored.

Shockingly, whereas the first clause is quite rational from a human perspective – seeking forgiveness – the second clause is not.  Here our words impose upon ourselves a condition for receiving our own forgiveness, “as even we have forgiven our debtors.”  I do not like saying that.  It places a weighty obligation on me.  Here is a facile but hopefully helpful illustration.  If someone walked up to me and stomped on my foot, I would know that I have the right to stomp back on their foot.  To forgive that person, however, I must in a sense bear or lift the weight of their sin.  That understanding about forgiveness incredibly amplifies the nature of God’s mercy.  God lifts our sins against God’s honor and will.
        More stunningly, Jesus follows the Lord’s prayer by stating that the mercy we receive is conditional on the mercy we give (6:14-15).  To my mind that deliberately shocking language is not meant to convey a limitation on God’s mercy; rather, it clarifies what personal submission to God means in our relationship with others as we represent the Kingdom of God on earth.  In the second clause of this petition, we are taking on our responsibility as followers of Jesus when we pray that we want to receive the mercy of God in direct relationship to the mercy we show others.  That is a difficult petition for  me!
        The goal of this petition is really about transformation.  Yes, the 5^th petition first does move me to repent and ask forgiveness.  However, the main thrust, of this petition is not about me turning to God for forgiveness.  It is focused on the “as even we” clause.  It is about me and you expressing a desire before the throne of God to be so transformed that we become merciful as God in our ability to forgive others.

Journal Reflections

1. This petition first confronts us with the need repent and ask forgiveness.  Before voicing this petition, you and I might ask the Holy Spirit to show us the matters over which we need to repent.
2. More deeply this petition challenges us to examine how merciful we are.  Just as God’s mercy is offered regardless of whether I repent and accept it, so our hearts should be merciful to others, whether they are sorry or not.  Is there anyone toward whom you feel bitter?  You might try praying Jesus’ prayer while putting their names in replacement of the first-person pronouns.
3. During Lent, we look at Jesus on the cross who said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34).  Moreover, when Peter says, “Who our sins he himself bore in his body on the wood [cross]” (1Pet 2:24), Peter is employing the language of the Old Testament about God lifting/bearing our sins.  What does this reflection on Jesus mean to you?

Prayer quote:

The power of prayer has never been tried to its full capacity in any church.  If we want to see might wonders of divine power and grace wrought in the place of weakness, failure and disappointment, let the whole church answer God’s standing challenge: ‘Call unto me and I will answer thee, and show thee great and might things, which thou knowest not.’ (J. Hudson Taylor, Royal Exchange, p. 30.)

Note:

1. In Tyndale’s culture, “debt” might have seemed like too much of a financial transaction, as it might in our culture; however, we can also use it figuratively as something intangible, as even a moral debt.  Tyndale’s wording was adopted in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and became traditional.