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.