And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.
— John 2:15–16
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
— Matthew 21:12–13
"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
— James 5:1-6
--Matthew 26:6-13
I think Jesus would have been fine spending it on himself.
im not a theologian or anything (im not even christian), but i think your conclusion may be missing the point a bit. what i get from this passage is that while it is good and noble to help the poor, that doesn't mean you should deny yourself every joy and luxury while doing so. pouring the perfume on his head isn't a waste of perfume, because it will make his burial a bit more pleasant. sometimes you have to put your oxygen mask on first before helping others.
i think a more accurate conclusion would be something like: jesus would be fine spending some of the money on himself. but a lot of it should go towards helping the poor and those in need.
but again i could be missing something here. i'd be happy to amend what i said if i got something wrong
I doubt that. The woman isn't giving the oil to herself, but to Jesus. My guess is that it Jesus represents the church and the woman represents Christians, and the parable is meant to justify their growing need for money when Matthew was written.
i think the woman giving the oil to jesus is consistent with what i said: jesus is leading by example by allowing himself to experience some form of luxury.
but i also agree that the parable could be playing on the “please give us donations theme” as well.
It's worth pointing out the context is days before Jesus' death. It's also part of hitting the clueless disciples over the head with the message He's dying soon.
With respect to the poor, I like the phrasing in Mark: "You always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them" (bold mine). Jesus did not criticize them for failing to annoint Him, but for harassing the woman, for nitpicking her good deed.
It's a profoundly fitting verse in relationship to this discussion. A group of people try to tell as many people as possible that Jesus loves -- and Christians are called to serve -- all people: folks of every age and race and creed including those the right is stoking hate for: muslims, LGBTQ+, those who've had abortions, everyone. Instead of supporting this push-back against hate, cynics have decided that this money was the missing piece of the several billion dollars needed annually to address world hunger.
No, this probably related to contemporary criticisms towards Paul for accepting a fragrant offering in one of his letters. By having a similar episode in Mark where Jesus rebukes critics for his personal use of a fragrant offering it would have minimized criticism for Paul's acceptance of a fragrant offering for personal use rather than selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor. See more in my comment here.
Best comment in this thread.
Didn't even give her a name. Great memorial for her, guys 👍
In John her name is given as Mary.
That's hardly much better, since there's already like a hundred girls and women named Mary in the Bible 😄
They forgot to pay the writers to come up with names. This was the workaround.
So funny story about this. Anyone ever notice that the same thing happens with Paul in one of the letters?
So Paul is recorded in a letter getting a fragrant offering gift for himself.
Decades later in Mark, a gospel that positions Paul as being the inheritor of sitting at Jesus's right hand (beyond this comment but happy to go into, also see Dykstra's Mark, Canonizer of Paul), there's a scene where "some say" a fragrant good should be sold to the poor rather than personally used and Jesus chastises them. (In Luke the complainer is instead Judas. You don't want to be like Judas, do you?)
Kind of like how Paul in 1 Cor 9 argues with the preexisting church in Corinth that he should be allowed to personally profit off ministering, at odds with Jesus instructing people going about ministering not to carry a purse (can't collect money).
But fortunately for the church at the last supper in Luke he explicitly says "remember when I said not to carry a purse? Let's 180° that." A passage that's missing in Marcion's version of Luke (likely the earliest surviving copy).
So I wouldn't be so sure a historical Jesus would have been okay so much as Paul and the profiteering that followed him would have been okay with it.
Paul really fucked up the faith.
"Never met the man Jesus but I'm sure he was a big fan of money, as am i, and when you banished me from town I totally saw his ghost and he said I was his most important disciple so you must let me back"
It's ironic, as while yes, I agree he is pretty much the antithesis of what was originally there, I also don't think much about the original tradition would have survived and certainly not thrived if not for the changes he brought to its fundraising and underhanded megalomania.
It led to nearly a thousand years of dark ages, but that little false prophet set in motion a tradition that I simply don't think the historical Jesus had any chance of actually seeing manifest without the posthumous additions from Paul's narcissism and manipulations.
Also, keep in mind it's even more insidious than what you wrote. He's literally persecuting Jesus's followers, and then in areas he has no authority to continue to persecute he's saying "I'm one of you now, but by the way ignore those other versions of Jesus over there and only follow the version I tell you about." It wasn't simply profiteering - he's silencing the very same tradition I suspect he was actually persecuting in the first place (but in preserving the records of his opposition, he inadvertently preserved a fragmented reflection of that tradition, where "everything is permissible.")
Pretty sure Paul is using "fragrant offering" metaphorically there. He uses the same phrases to describe Christ in Ephesians 5, and both call back to burnt offerings giving a "pleasing aroma" in the OT. The shift from plural "gifts" to singular "sacrifice" further supports this interpretation.
Possibly, but keep in mind for the analysis to be plausible it only requires that first century writers with access to the Epistles would have been interpreting his accepting personal gifts in the context of a fragrant offering for the scene of Jesus rebuking the criticism of personal use of a fragrant gift as opposed to selling it and giving it to the poor to be connected to Paul.
What Paul actually meant or didn't mean isn't at issue. Only whether or not his comment there would have resulted in contemporary criticisms (something we know Paul was receiving given Romans 3:8), whether or not there would have been pushback against Paul's personal benefiting (something we can see him already responding to in 1 Cor 9), and whether or not that would have prompted a parallel anecdote being composed in the context of the founder's behaviors and instructions.