You Will Always Have the Poor

I don't think its contradictory. Jesus preached to help the poor, but I don't recall Him every saying that the goal was to eliminate their existence.That's just practical. I think the scene has more to do with glorifying God than it does with the poor, with a reminder that Jesus is God.The lesson I see there is that, while we are charged to help the poor, that doesn't mean that you have to stop adoring God in the process.Or, even though helping the poor is an important service, you don't have to stop all the other good things you are doing to focus solely on that.

What do you mean? Huh? Jesus was preparing to be crucified as the Messiah. The woman was glorifying Him. The disciples said "What about the poor?" and Jesus replied, "don't worry about them now, this is important too".You've read to much into the "they'll always be here part" and missed the other part of the scene that was more important.

To make it more about Jesus and less about the poor.Jesus was pointing out that He wasn't going to be around for very long, so if they wanted to adore Him then they'd need to do it now. But the poor weren't going anywhere so, they could still help them after Jesus had left.Its like when you're putting something off, and you go: "Meh, I can always do that later". Its not so much that you can always do that later as it its that in practically all ways, you have the ability to get it done later.

I meant: To make what Jesus was talking about to be more clear as being more about the part about anointing Jesus that being about dismissing the poor. Jesus wasn't saying to not help the poor, He was saying that it was a good thing that she was anointing Him, and that you don't have to stop doing all other good things in order to help the poor at all times, especially when time is of the essence. The poor aren't going anywhere, they'll be there and you can help them, but Jesus was going somewhere, so it made sense to help Him right then. How does it make it an eternal commandment? Sounds to me like you're trying to make it that way.

No, that's not right. You're really stretching on that one.And its not really about Jesus being center stage. He was just saying that it was okay for her to anoint Him with expensive oils instead of giving that money to the poor because she wouldn't have the opportunity to do so in the future like they would still have the opportunity to help the poor in the future.The other point is that is okay to use money to glorify God and you don't have stop doing that because you're suppose to be helping the poor.

I don't think it causes difficulty. The straight-forward reading is plainly understandable.The problem is that it can be used by people as support for their already held position of just not feeling like helping the poor that much.

From Message 37: I don't think they change the meaning of the story. The story means what I've been saying.They've changed some of the details, but those don't alter the meaning.When Matthew omits the line about still being able to help the poor when you want, it is not saying that you don't ever have to help the poor again.And John's additions shed more light on the reasoning behind what Jesus said: Judas was asking out of greed instead of actually wanting to help the poor.From Message 38:

quote:

---

the scene has more to do with glorifying God than it does with the poor, with a reminder that Jesus is God.

​

The lesson I see there is that, while we are charged to help the poor, that doesn't mean that you have to stop adoring God in the process.

​

Or, even though helping the poor is an important service, you don't have to stop all the other good things you are doing to focus solely on that.

---

quote:

---

Jesus was pointing out that He wasn't going to be around for very long, so if they wanted to adore Him then they'd need to do it now. But the poor weren't going anywhere so, they could still help them after Jesus had left.

​

Its like when you're putting something off, and you go: "Meh, I can always do that later". Its not so much that you can always do that later as it its that in practically all ways, you have the ability to get it done later.

---

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't saying to not help the poor, He was saying that it was a good thing that she was anointing Him, and that you don't have to stop doing all other good things in order to help the poor at all times, especially when time is of the essence. The poor aren't going anywhere, they'll be there and you can help them, but Jesus was going somewhere, so it made sense to help Him right then.

---

quote:

---

He was just saying that it was okay for her to anoint Him with expensive oils instead of giving that money to the poor because she wouldn't have the opportunity to do so in the future like they would still have the opportunity to help the poor in the future.

​

The other point is that is okay to use money to glorify God and you don't have stop doing that because you're suppose to be helping the poor.

---

I'm not convinced they were on purpose.Assuming they were, John's just provides additional details and Matthew's seems to be trying to take the focus off of the poor.

I meant that I'm not convinced they were changed to fulfill the purpose of altering the meaning of the story. I don't know. John added in all kinds of details throughout the Gospel. I don't know. No. Not Matthews's, although the line he omitted was a little redundant.John's additional details are an improvement if they're true.

As you've shown/linked, what Jesus said in this particular story is easy to twist into Him saying something unusual.On its own, "don't worry about the poor" doesn't look like something Jesus would say, but in the story I still think it works and makes sense.For people looking to justify their behavior with Jesus' own words, someone who didn't want to actually help the poor would find this story, and that particular passage, rather appealing to their needs.Is it possible that Matthew noticed this?Also, what other sources did he have besides Mark? Could he have reason to suspect it should have been omitted?Or, maybe he did think it was an improvement and/or clarification.Edited by Cat Sci, : added /linked