Beautiful unpacking, Joe. And there’s something else that glows beneath the surface here—a thread from Jesus’ non-dual teachings.
When he says, “The poor you will always have with you,” he’s not just quoting Deuteronomy. He might also be inviting us to peer past the binaries our egos love—rich/poor, sacred/profane, justice/worship.
Non-dual teachers often speak in riddles that crack the mind open. Jesus could be doing just that—pointing out how easily we hide behind spiritual language to avoid facing the suffering that’s “always with us”… not just socially, but in our very being.
Because maybe “the poor” aren't just a group out there, but also a condition in here—a hunger for connection, for compassion, for the Real. And so, we’re called to respond to poverty both materially and mystically. Through action, yes—but also through presence. Through extravagant love, like Mary pouring the perfume.
It’s not either/or. It’s always/and. Justice and intimacy. The poor and the Christ. Always with us.
Well, you know how I feel, Joe: "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" is NOT the way to read the Bible. Thank you for profoundly articulating the ways that a flat, cherry-picked reading of Scripture is not only intellectually and theologically dishonest, but incredibly harmful to the witness of Jesus. I appreciate you, brother.
Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that Jesus was remembered as looking shabby by a scholar named Celsus, writing in the mid-second century, in a treatise against the Christians. Celsus did his homework. He interviewed people, and he—like us—was quite interested in what Jesus looked like. From Jews and others he questioned, he heard that Jesus “wandered about most shamefully in the sight of all.” He “obtained his means of livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate way”—by begging or receiving donations.
From the perspective of respectable people, we can surmise then that Jesus looked relatively rough. When the Christian writer Origen argued against Celsus, he rejected many of his assertions, but he did not dispute this.
And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his “look” was scruffy. I doubt his hair was particularly long as depicted in most artwork, given male norms of the time, but it was surely not well-tended. Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus’ detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19–21, 28–29; Luke 6:34–35, 12:22–28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20–23).
I agree in principle but haven’t you made a similar error by claiming certain scriptures are ‘just wrong’ without the same contextualization and exegesis applied to the ‘poor’ scripture referenced?
Beautiful unpacking, Joe. And there’s something else that glows beneath the surface here—a thread from Jesus’ non-dual teachings.
When he says, “The poor you will always have with you,” he’s not just quoting Deuteronomy. He might also be inviting us to peer past the binaries our egos love—rich/poor, sacred/profane, justice/worship.
Non-dual teachers often speak in riddles that crack the mind open. Jesus could be doing just that—pointing out how easily we hide behind spiritual language to avoid facing the suffering that’s “always with us”… not just socially, but in our very being.
Because maybe “the poor” aren't just a group out there, but also a condition in here—a hunger for connection, for compassion, for the Real. And so, we’re called to respond to poverty both materially and mystically. Through action, yes—but also through presence. Through extravagant love, like Mary pouring the perfume.
It’s not either/or. It’s always/and. Justice and intimacy. The poor and the Christ. Always with us.
Sorta dumps the "Prosperity Gospel" on it's head.
Thanks Joe, that really helped me understand what had been a tricky little part of the Gospels
Well, you know how I feel, Joe: "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" is NOT the way to read the Bible. Thank you for profoundly articulating the ways that a flat, cherry-picked reading of Scripture is not only intellectually and theologically dishonest, but incredibly harmful to the witness of Jesus. I appreciate you, brother.
See What Did Jesus Look Like, a book by Joan Taylor.
Turns out, he probably looked like a homeless person living on the street. Which he was.
Imagine the paintings based on that reality...
Below is a quotation from Taylor in an essay, "Do Clothes Make a Messiah?" (https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/jesus-clothing/):
Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that Jesus was remembered as looking shabby by a scholar named Celsus, writing in the mid-second century, in a treatise against the Christians. Celsus did his homework. He interviewed people, and he—like us—was quite interested in what Jesus looked like. From Jews and others he questioned, he heard that Jesus “wandered about most shamefully in the sight of all.” He “obtained his means of livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate way”—by begging or receiving donations.
From the perspective of respectable people, we can surmise then that Jesus looked relatively rough. When the Christian writer Origen argued against Celsus, he rejected many of his assertions, but he did not dispute this.
And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his “look” was scruffy. I doubt his hair was particularly long as depicted in most artwork, given male norms of the time, but it was surely not well-tended. Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus’ detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19–21, 28–29; Luke 6:34–35, 12:22–28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20–23).
I agree in principle but haven’t you made a similar error by claiming certain scriptures are ‘just wrong’ without the same contextualization and exegesis applied to the ‘poor’ scripture referenced?