What an enigmatic statement for Jesus to make, almost callous, it would seem. A woman had just used expensive perfume to anoint Jesus, when it could have been sold and given to the poor. Would that not have been more like Jesus than to have accepted the expensive gift for Himself? Today’s modern picture of Jesus would have us think that. So what do we make of this?

Some “scholars” would question whether Jesus did, in fact, make that statement, that the statement was added into the gospel story by later copyists —because, after all, “scholars” today tell us, Jesus would never have made a statement like that. Matthew or some later copyist obviously added that in. This is specious argumentation on a number of levels. The earliest copies of the gospel accounts include this statement. Jesus Himself said the woman would be remembered wherever the gospel would be preached. Further, how can we know what Jesus would have said, other than from the record of what the eye-witnesses reported? And while Mark was not an eye-witness, Matthew and John certainly were. They are in a better position to tell us what Jesus “would have said” than modern scholars.

But then, how do we mesh this statement with other places where Jesus did emphasize helping the disadvantaged.  Even the statement itself alludes to Deut 15:11, “For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’” And there the case is made to help the poor. Certainly this time at present would have been a great opportunity to help the poor in a significant way.

Jesus’ point, though, was not to disregard the poor. Rather, it is a matter of priorities. This coincides with the priority of the two greatest commandments, to love God above all else, and then to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:36-40). To get this priority wrong will result is very little love for the poor! If we don’t love God, we can never love our neighbor, because we will end up loving ourselves. If we don’t put God first, we won’t put the poor first, because we will put ourselves first. The order is inviolable! Ultimately, efforts to help the poor apart from centering our lives on God, will in reality be done for our own benefit. Like the commercial one charity prominently displays, “Give, because you will feel good about yourself.” Such is a subtle, self-centered goal, and will be far from genuinely altruistic.