📜👑💰🪙✝️ The Alabaster Jar: Anointed by God, Questioned by Men

Matthew 26:6-13 - While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on His head as He was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to Me. The poor you will always have with you,but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

Matthew 26:14-16 - Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand Him over.

I. 1. Narrative Placement in Matthew: No Gap, No Neutral Space

Matthew places these scenes back-to-back with intent:

• Matt 26:6–13 – Jesus is anointed at Bethany with “very expensive ointment.”
• Matt 26:14–16 – Immediately afterward, Judas goes to the chief priests to ask, “What will you give me if I deliver Him to you?”

Matthew does not insert teaching, travel, or reflection between these scenes. The implication is not subtle: the objection to the oil and the betrayal are part of the same moral trajectory.

The anointing exposes hearts; the betrayal confirms one.

2. The Objection: Economic Piety vs. True Devotion

The Complaint

“Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” (Matt 26:8–9)

Matthew says “the disciples” object, but naming Judas immediately afterward clarifies who embodies this logic most fully.

Key observation:
The complaint sounds righteous. It uses:

• stewardship language,
• concern for the poor,
• efficiency and optimization.

But Jesus names it what it is:

“Why do you trouble the woman? She has done a beautiful thing to Me.” (26:10)

Matthew contrasts two value systems:

• Market value (“sold for a large sum”)
• Messianic value (“she has anointed my body for burial”)

The ointment is not wasted; it is properly spent because the King is present.

3. Anointing as Messianic Recognition

Matthew expects his readers to catch this:

• Kings are anointed.
• Priests are anointed.
• The Messiah (Mashiach) literally means Anointed One.

The woman does what Israel’s leaders refuse to do:

• She recognizes Jesus not as a resource to manage, but as a King to honor, even in death. Judas, by contrast, sees only cost.

This creates an implicit question:

If Jesus is truly the Messiah, what could possibly be “too expensive” to give Him?

4. Judas’s Turn: From “Waste” to Wages

Immediately after calling the anointing a “waste,” Judas asks:

“What will you give me if I deliver Him to you?” (26:15)

The contrast is devastating:

Matthew records the amount:

Thirty pieces of silver

This is not incidental:

• The price of a slave

Exodus 21:32 - If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

• Less than the value of the oil
• A grotesque reversal of worth

Judas implicitly declares: Jesus is worth less to me than that ointment was to her.

5. Two Masters, Two Economies

Earlier, Jesus warned plainly:

“No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve God and Mammon.” (Matt 6:24)

Matthew shows that Judas does not theoretically fail this test—he enacts it.

• When devotion looks inefficient, Mammon speaks.
• When love looks excessive, Mammon calculates.
• When faith requires loss, Mammon demands compensation.

Judas does not betray Jesus instead of discipleship. He betrays Him as a distorted form of discipleship, one still governed by money.

That is the danger.

6. “The Poor You Will Always Have”: A Sobering Clarification

Jesus’ statement is often misunderstood:

“You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me.” (26:11)

This is not dismissal of the poor (Matthew has already shown Jesus’ deep concern for them). It is a hierarchy of allegiance.

The poor are not an excuse to:

• deny worship,
• suppress devotion,
• or control generosity.

Judas uses the poor rhetorically. Jesus names the moment prophetically.

7. Matthew’s Larger Theme: Money Reveals the Heart

Throughout Matthew:

• The rich young ruler walks away (Matt 19).
• Treasure reveals location of the heart (Matt 6).
• Talents expose faithfulness (Matt 25).
• Wages expose allegiance (Matt 20).

Judas fits the pattern:

Money does not cause betrayal; it reveals who already belongs to it.

8. Final Synthesis

Matthew is not merely recounting events. He is making a theological claim:

• Extravagant love recognizes the Messiah.
• Calculated piety resists Him.
• When Jesus is reduced to a cost-benefit analysis, betrayal is already underway.

The anointing and the silver belong to the same story because they arise from the same question:

What is Jesus worth to you?

Matthew answers with chilling clarity:

• One pours everything out.
• One asks, “What will you give me?”

And only one of them truly sees the King.

II. 1. Anointing a King Was Not Symbolic; It Was Treason-Adjacent to Oppose It

Imagine if one of King Saul, King David, or King Solomon's men had objected to their anointing as kings, if they had called it a "waste."

Publicly.

What might have been anticipated for those men?

This question exposes just how unnatural the disciples’ objection in Matthew actually is once it is set against Israel’s royal culture. This contrast is stark—and unsettling.

In Israel, anointing was not decorative or optional. It was a public, sacral act declaring divine election.

To object publicly to a king’s anointing would not have been perceived as:

• frugality,
• moral concern,
• or theological nuance.

It would have been heard as:

• disloyalty, or worse,
• resistance to YHWH’s choice.

“The LORD has sought out a man after His own heart.” (1 Samuel 13:14)

To call an anointing “waste” is to say—implicitly—that God’s election is inefficient.

That is not a neutral statement in a monarchy.

2. Saul: Immediate Suspicion, Likely Elimination

Saul’s reign is marked by paranoia and insecurity, but also by an acute awareness of legitimacy.

If one of Saul’s men had said, publicly:

“Why this waste of oil?”

It would likely have been interpreted as:

• a challenge to Saul’s right to rule,
• a hint of divided allegiance,
• or prophetic dissent without authorization.

What might follow?

• Immediate questioning.
• Removal from proximity to the king.
• Possibly execution under the charge of sedition.

Remember: Saul later orders the slaughter of priests merely for aiding David (1 Samuel 22).

An objection at Saul’s anointing would not have ended well.

3. David: Treated as an Enemy of God, Not a Reformer

David understood anointing as holy and inviolable, even when it benefited him personally.

He refuses to harm Saul because:

“I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the LORD’s anointed.” (1 Samuel 24:6)

Now invert that logic.

If one of David’s men had publicly called David’s anointing a waste, the implications would be clear:

• You are opposing the LORD’s will.
• You are undermining covenantal order.
• You are destabilizing the kingdom.

Likely consequences:

• Immediate expulsion from David’s retinue.
• Public rebuke or punishment.
• Possibly death, depending on context and timing.

David executes men for far less when royal legitimacy is threatened (e.g., the Amalekite claiming to kill Saul in 2 Samuel 1).

Calling an anointing “waste” would be functionally equivalent to calling God’s action misguided.

4. Solomon: Political Death, Even If Physical Survival

Solomon’s court is defined by wisdom, wealth, and absolute royal authority.

Solomon is anointed amid political rivalry (Adonijah). Loyalty is not theoretical—it is monitored.

If a court official had said:

“This oil could have been used more wisely.”

The subtext would be unmistakable:

• You question Solomon’s legitimacy.
• You align yourself with alternative claimants.
• You fail the wisdom test.

What would happen?

• Immediate removal from office.
• Loss of status, wealth, and protection.
• Potential execution under the banner of preserving peace.

Solomon eliminates rivals decisively (1 Kings 2). There is no space for public skepticism at a coronation.

5. The Cultural Shock in Matthew

Now return to Matthew 26.

The woman anoints the Son of David, the true King.
The objection is public.
The language is economic, not theological.
And the objectors are His own disciples.

This is staggering.

In Israel’s story:

• To object to an anointing is to reject God’s choice.
• To label it waste is to elevate human calculation over divine worth.
• To do so publicly is to expose oneself as disloyal.

Yet Jesus does not:

• execute,
• expel,
• or silence them by force.

Instead, He exposes the heart and allows Judas to walk himself into judgment.

6. Why This Matters Theologically

Matthew is showing something radical:

• Jesus is the true King,
• but His kingdom does not enforce loyalty by violence.
• Instead, it reveals allegiance through love.

The woman’s act would have been unquestioned in David’s court.
The objection would have been punished under Solomon.
But under Jesus, the moment becomes a mirror.

The question is no longer:

“Will you be punished for disloyalty?”

It is:

“Whom do you already serve?”

And Judas answers—not under coercion, but freely.

7. Final Synthesis

If a man in Saul’s, David’s, or Solomon’s court had publicly called a king’s anointing a “waste,” he would likely have faced:

• expulsion,
• disgrace,
• or death.

In Matthew, the objector is not punished immediately because Jesus is a different kind of King.

But make no mistake:

• the act is no less treasonous in meaning,
• only the judgment is delayed.

And that delay, in Matthew’s theology, is mercy—a mercy Judas tragically converts into silver.