Contrasts (Matthew 26:1-16)

As we know, the time we are studying in this section in Matthew is the last week in the life of Jesus. The previous chapters had detailed what took place on the Tuesday and we now move on to the Wednesday. Jesus tells his disciples that Passover is in two days time, on the Friday.

It looks as if Matthew (and Mark) have inserted here an account of the anointing of Jesus by Mary in Bethany which had happened a few days previously (see John 12). Most commentators suggest that what Matthew and Mark did was place the account of Mary here because they wanted to make a contrast between her and the religious leaders and with the disciples as well, especially Judas. There is nothing inappropriate in such a method. In this way, it is possible to say that the accounts are of the same incident. When we read the account of Matthew, we can see that there are several contrasts in this passage and we can consider some of them.

Contrast 1 – who is in charge?

Jesus says to his disciples in verse 1 that on Passover day he will be handed over to the Romans in order to be crucified. Obviously, this is a prophecy, but Matthew contrasts it with the policy of the Sanhedrin which was that they would not have Jesus killed during the days of the feast because they assumed the crowd still supported Jesus. The feast of unleavened bread, which commenced with the Passover, lasted for over a week. So as far as the Sanhedrin were concerned, Jesus would not be killed in two days’ time, but a way would be found for doing so later on. The contrast highlights who was in charge of events. At the time Jesus said this, and at the time when the Sanhedrin made their plans, the Roman authorities were not aware of either statement. Executions did not normally occur on Passover day, in any case. Matthew is reminding his readers that Jesus, who knew the details of the divine plan, was in charge of events and the scheming Sanhedrin and the ruling Romans were not. But it was Jesus who was proved correct.

It is interesting that Jesus describes himself here as the Son of Man. As we know, this title is a Messianic one, taken from the vision of Daniel who saw the Son of Man receive universal dominion. Jesus describes what is going to happen to the Son of Man at Calvary, but what he is describing is a stage on his journey to the moment when he will appear in the heavenly throne room and receive his position of power. So Jesus does not speak out of fear of defeat when he mentions his crucifixion.

Contrast 2 – calmness 

It is clear from the context that the Sanhedrin were disturbed and agitated, and we also know from other passages that the disciples were excited about the prospects of prominence in a new kingdom that they imagined was just about to happen. The crowds too were wondering who Jesus was and if he would do something unusual at that time (we know that he did, but what he did was not what they had in mind). In the midst of all this range of responses, Matthew tells us that Jesus was calm and able to recline at the table in Simon’s house. 

We could imagine that he would be apprehensive about what lay ahead of him because he knew what was going to happen. And we know that later on in Gethsemane, he would be very restless. Why was he so calm at this meal? One reason would be his trust in his Father, another reason would be his enjoyment of the company (his people). 

Contrast 3 – expressing love

The obvious detail is that it was a spontaneous expression of love by an unnamed woman. She wanted to do something that expressed her love for Jesus and she wanted to do it publicly, in the presence of his disciples. We can understand why their presence was such a suitable place for her action. Don’t we do something similar each time we have the Lord’s Supper? We are not only telling the Lord that we love him, we are also telling his people that we love him. What can we say about her action?

First, it was costly. Sometimes, when a young man wants to impress a girl, he will take her to an expensive restaurant. That would say more to her than if he took her to a chip shop. There may have been other things he could have done with his money, but love directs him what to do. It is amazing that scholars speculate why the woman had this valuable ointment. The fact is they cannot know what she had purchased it for, but we do know what she did with it. She gave to Jesus something that she knew was very valuable. Her ointment revealed what she thought of Jesus.

Second, it was counter-cultural. It was very unusual for a woman at that time to enter a place where men were having a meal. We can imagine people saying to her, ‘How could you have done that! What will people say?’ Love does not listen to such daft comments, but instead focuses on what will please Jesus. After all, what benefit is there in denying pleasure to Jesus because someone else might disapprove? We should be very careful about criticising what someone does for Jesus.

Third, it was commendable. The basic detail of any action must be, ‘What will Jesus think of it?’ We know what he thought of her action because he describes it as ‘a beautiful thing’. After all, he knows what real beauty is because he is the perfect artist. Indeed, her ability for him was the result of his activity in her heart. He delights to see the beauty that comes from his works of grace in our souls.

Fourth, her action had Calvary written all over it. Jesus pointed out that her anointing was connected to his burial, although it is not clear if she had grasped that detail. Still, we can see that Jesus made a connection between her action and his death, and surely that should be the connection in all that we do for Jesus. We don’t serve him mainly because he was a righteous man or a great teacher. Instead, we do so because he went to the cross. Everything we do for Jesus should have Calvary written all over each one.

Fifth, her action is challenging. Challenging to who, we might ask. To everyone who hears the gospel. Because of what she did, we now know that we can express our love to Jesus in exuberant ways. The challenge must be, ‘What unique thing have you done for Jesus? What costly thing have you done for Jesus?’ 

Contrast 4 – The disciples

What a strange response they had! They were indignant, perhaps because she had ignored cultural norms. Yet the main reason for their wrong response was that they did not have the mind of Christ. They imagined their response was biblical because they commented that the ointment could have been sold and given to the poor. In reality, their indignation was legalistic, and legalism often misuses the Bible as a sledgehammer to hit people with. What must they have thought when Jesus defended her!

It is very easy to spoil a situation, and once that has been done, the action cannot be rectified easily. We can see from this incident that it is not only the woman’s action that is told whenever the gospel is preached, but so also is the sinful response of the disciples. In kindness, Matthew does not say which of the disciples said this, although his description suggests all of them.

We should also note that sometimes the majority is not right, and sometimes an expression of unity may be far off the mark. The disciples spoke with one voice, as it were, but it would have been better for them if they had not on this occasion. They were rebuked by Jesus, after all.

Contrast 5 – Judas 

Matthew connects the betrayal of Judas to the occasion when Jesus was anointed. If the occasion had been a few days previous, then his mind had been thinking about this act of treachery, and if the occasion had happened earlier that day, he decided then that the Sanhedrin were right and that Jesus was wrong.

The contrast with the woman is obvious. She gave what was valuable to Jesus whereas Judas agreed that Jesus was only worth the price of a slave. She publicly said that she was for Jesus and he publicly said that he was against Jesus. She who had been on the outside of his inner circle became closer to him whereas he who had been on the inside was taking large steps towards the outer darkness. She revealed a generous heart, but he revealed a covetous heart. Her story is told because it is beautiful, and his story is told because it is ugly.

The list could go on. In this story, Matthew is challenging his readers regarding whose side they are on. Are they with Judas the betrayer, or are they with the unspiritual disciples, or are they with the woman who loved Jesus deeply and wanted to show that she did?