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).

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.