You Will Always Have the Poor

Whether the things reported are true or not doesn't take away our power to discuss the way the scenes fit into the overall narrative and accompanying belief system.

And if you do a Google search for this phrase, you will find countless websites attempting to explain this scene to a population of Christians hellbent on excusing themselves from the daunting responsibility of being Christians.

On Sunday, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof observed a cemented bias against evangelical Christians among his erudite colleagues:Today, among urban Americans and Europeans, ‘evangelical Christian’ is sometimes a synonym for ‘rube.’ In liberal circles, evangelicals constitute one of the few groups that it’s safe to mock openly.Kristof’s argument is not ideological. He is driven by the most practical motivation: He has seen sincere evangelical Christians around the world sacrificing their personal health, well-being, and livelihood to feed the poor and care for the sick. He has seen evangelicals running into war zones and humanitarian criseseven as other aid workers were escaping:Yet the liberal caricature of evangelicals is incomplete and unfair. I have little in common, politically or theologically, with evangelicals. But I’ve been truly awed by those I’ve seen in so many remote places, combating illiteracy and warlords, famine and disease, humbly struggling to do the Lord’s work as they see it, and it is offensive to see good people derided.

The disciples said "What about the poor?" and Jesus replied, "don't worry about them now, this is important too".

What exactly do you think topped his list?

What do you suppose Matthew's purpose was in removing Mark's "you can show kindness to them whenever you wish" line?

That's horrible slander. Prove it.

You might be interested in this:

What do you suppose Matthew's purpose was in removing Mark's "you can show kindness to them whenever you wish" line?

To make it more about Jesus and less about the poor.

Jon writes:That's one; I'll leave you to find the others on your own.

But the author has no real reason to do that; by the time he begins writing Jesus has been long dead.

The only way Matthew's audience could make it more about Jesus and less about the poor would be to spend more time and/or money on their secretive worshiping and less on alleviating poverty.

By removing the reminder that the poor will still need to be helped, Matthew makes Jesus' charge to focus on him over the poor for that one night an eternal commandment.

Sounds like a good excuse for getting new seats in the church while the folks on the street sleep in boxes.

From where do you think Matthew sourced this particular scene?