“Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, ‘Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?’ (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) Jesus said, ‘Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me’” (John 12:3-8 NRSV).
A similar story is told in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, but the details are considerably different. In both of these the location is the house of Simon the leper, not the home of Lazarus as John’s Gospel has it. John tells us that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus, while Matthew and Mark leave the woman anonymous and describe her pouring perfume over the head of Jesus. Interestingly, Mark and John agree on the value of the item used (300 denarii). Also of interest is that Mark says “some” were made angry by the apparent waste, while Matthew says “the disciples” were the ones angered. John, of course, tells us that Judas complained and was a thief. All accounts have Jesus citing the same words from Deuteronomy (we’ll get to that in a minute) and saying that the woman was preparing him for burial.
Since my prior theological training was of a conservative nature, I can only guess that some higher critics might suggest that John actually took an existing Jesus story and reworked it to fit into his narrative. That may be, but I’m satisfied to take the events described by John as being distinct from those outlined by Matthew and Mark. In any event, the explanation given by Jesus is consistent through all three.
Jesus affirms that we will always have the poor with us. This little line would have been meaningful to knowledgeable Jews in Jesus’ day, as it was taken from the Law.
“Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land’” (Deuteronomy 15:11 NRSV).
This statement and command comes only a few verses after one that seems contradictory:
“There will, however, be no one in need among you, because the Lord is sure to bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession to occupy, if only you will obey the Lord your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you today” (Deuteronomy 15:4-5 NRSV).
So, on the one had the Lord told His people that if they obeyed the “entire commandment” they would be blessed “in the land” (a consistent theme in Deuteronomy), and on the other hand he affirmed that there would be no end of need on the earth. An attentive reader could suggest that the key factor was that the Israelites were to be blessed, so possibly those in need would be foreigners who found their way into Canaan. Since, however, the blessing seemed contingent on obedience, I’m not sure that’s the point.
In Deuteronomy the Lord told the Israelites to open their hand “to the poor and needy,” and Jesus later agreed that there would always be poverty among us. Indeed, simple economics preclude the possibility of everyone being wealthy or even middle-class. Socialism, the more faithfully it is followed, removes incentives to personal growth and entrepreneurship, depressing the economy and bringing everyone down. Capitalism, for its part, cannot logically provide prosperity for every one. In any version of capitalism there will be winners and losers. For all our striving and Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises’ best explanations and models, there will always be poor among us.
A wrong reading of Jesus, one that is too prevalent among dominant culture Westerners, has it that since there will always be poor among us, we should do nothing. Some take it to mean that we should focus on “spiritual” matters rather than “material” concerns and worry that we might revert to a social gospel approach if we concern ourselves too much with poverty.
It is this dominant interpretation, logically unacceptable to me but so ingrained that it shadows me, which caused my hesitation when I posted before on a church wasting resources to evangelize an over-churched community. Should I really critique the work of a congregation?
Yes.
Jesus is “with us” through the Holy Spirit, but since he is not “with us” as he was during his earthly ministry, now is the time for us to be acting on behalf of the poor, oppressed and marginalized. The undesirables should be the “people group” we are trying to identify with and reach, but instead we see churches organizing latte-serving social clubs where people can feel at ease. Rather than proclaim the reign of the crucified and risen Jesus, preaching Good News to the poor, fellowships are formed around a shared socio-economic status and, sadly, race. Instead of challenging people to be disciples of Jesus efforts focus on coddling people into the kingdom.
The problem is that poor people can’t pay the salary of a “ministry team.” Mission efforts in inner cities or the Third World, supported by suburban churches, are sometimes criticized as being money poured down a rat hole. “Nothing ever improves,” the complaint goes. Folks want to see a “return on investment” and become impatient when it doesn’t come. Others just don’t think it’s appropriate to associate with “those kind of people” (the socially disadvantaged, ex-cons, drug addicts, “illegal” immigrants, etc.). To this attitude and the entire issue of the Western church’s approach to poverty issues, Jesus speaks.
“He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous’” (Luke 14:12-14 NRSV).
No, those weren't echoes of Judas I heard. They were the words of Jesus resounding down through the ages and ringing in my ears. Lord help me have ears to hear. Help us all.
_____________________________________
This is part of the August 2008 Synchroblog on poverty. Check out what everyone else has to say:Sonja Andrews: Fully Known and Fully Loved
Phil Wyman at Phil Wyman's Square No More
Adam Gonnerman: Echoes of Judas
Cobus van Wyngaard: Luke: The Gospel for the Rich
Lainie Petersen at Headspace
Steve Hayes: Holy Poverty
Jonathan Brink: Spiritual Poverty
Dan Stone at The Tense Before
Jeremiah: Blessed are the poor... churches...
Alan Knox: Boasting in Humiliation
Miss Eagle: Poverty and the Hospitable Heart
Jimmie: Feeding the Poor
K.W. Leslie: There's poverty, and then there's me without cash.
6 comments: