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).
