Abstract
This article explores whether the Jesus saying in Matthew 26:11 contradicts the Jesus tradition about caring for the poor. Bultmann’s understanding of the love commandment provides a key to understanding this perceived paradox. On the one hand, in Matthew 19:21, Jesus says that to love one’s neighbour as required by the Decalogue means, in practice, to dispose of all riches and give the money to the poor. On the other hand, in Matthew 26:6-14, Jesus pardons the woman who anointed him with precious oil in anticipation of his burial rather than selling the oil and giving the money to the poor. The article argues that the Matthean Jesus did not contradict himself. Bultmann’s insight into the dialectical dissociation between Christian ethics and Stoic ethics supports the coherence in Jesus’ view on caring for the poor. O Galilee, Galilee, thou hatest the law; thine end will be to have to deal with brigands (Yohanan ben Zakkai, y . Shabbat 15d, quoted in Elliott-Binns 1956:74).
Highlights
This article explores whether the Jesus saying in Matthew 26:11 contradicts the Jesus tradition about caring for the poor
In Matthew 26:6-14, Jesus pardons the woman who anointed him with precious oil in anticipation of his burial rather than selling the oil and giving the money to the poor
Bultmann’s insight into the dialectical dissociation between Christian ethics and Stoic ethics supports the coherence of the Jesus tradition, regarding the ostensible contradiction in Jesus’ view on caring for the poor
Summary
In Matthew 19:21, Jesus states that loving one’s neighbour as required by the Decalogue means, in practice, to dispose of all riches and give the money to the poor (πτωχοῖς). Whether Matthew’s intended audience was located in post-war Sepphoris (Gale 2005:57-62) or in southern Syria, bordering northern Galilee (Schweizer [1973] 1995:219; 1983:129-130) – the latter being my preference1 – the Graeco-Roman influence on the scribal origins of Matthew’s Gospel is clear. This influence extends to the underlying oral tradition regarding the “division” between “the rulers and the ruled”, the residue of which can be detected in family life, politics, economics, religion, and domestication.. I have argued for the influence of Greek common wisdom on both the Sayings Source Q (9:58) and the Gospel of Matthew (8:20) (Van Aarde 2004b:423-438), referring to the tradition about the Roman senator brothers Tiberius and Gaius Grachus. Bultmann’s understanding of neighbourly love can contribute to elucidating this paradox
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
