Why did the woman waste expensive ointment instead of selling it for the poor? Study Matthew 26 with context, apologetic analysis, and cross-references.
Dr. Lucas D. Shallua Commentary · Matthew 26
The woman understood what the disciples did not: Jesus was about to die. She anointed Him for burial, an act of love and prophetic insight. Her devotion was extravagant, but it was beautiful in God's eyes. Jesus commended her and promised that her story would be told wherever the gospel is preached. The poor would always be with them, but Jesus would not. She seized the moment.
Matthew does not tell us Judas' motive. Was it greed? Disillusionment? Demonic influence? Luke tells us Satan entered him. John tells us he was a thief. The Gospels present Judas as a complex figure, but ultimately responsible for his choice. Jesus knew what Judas would do, and He still offered him a place at the table. The betrayal was part of God's sovereign plan, but Judas was still guilty.
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. Protestant theology generally rejects this, understanding the words "this is my body" as symbolic or spiritual. The bread represents Christ's body; the cup represents His blood. The supper is a memorial, a proclamation, and a means of grace. It is not a sacrifice; it is a commemoration of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.
Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane reveals His humanity. He was not play-acting. He was genuinely distressed at the prospect of bearing the sin of the world and experiencing separation from the Father. The cup was the cup of wrath, and He recoiled from it. But He submitted: "Not as I will, but as you will." This is the mystery of the incarnation. Jesus was fully God and fully man, and in His humanity, He struggled and submitted.
Peter was afraid. He had sincerely believed he would die with Jesus, but when the moment came, his courage failed. The flesh is weak. Peter's denial is a warning to all believers: self-confidence is not enough. We must watch and pray. But Peter's failure is also a comfort. Jesus knew Peter would deny Him, and He still loved him. He still called him. He still restored him. Failure is not final for those who repent.
The trial before the high priest was illegal by Jewish law. It was held at night, which was forbidden. The Sanhedrin was not supposed to meet on feast days. False witnesses were used. The high priest tore his garments, which was forbidden. Jesus was condemned before the evidence was complete. The trial was a sham. But God's purposes were being fulfilled through the injustice of men.
Chapter 25 ended with the parable of the sheep and goats and the final judgment. Now the narrative shifts from teaching to passion. Matthew has completed the five major discourses of Jesus' public ministry, and the remaining chapters focus on His suffering, death, and resurrection. The Passover is approaching, and Jerusalem is crowded with pilgrims. The religious leaders are determined to kill Jesus, but they do not want to do it during the feast, lest there be an uproar. God's timing will override their caution. The chapter is structured around three locations: Bethany, where Jesus is anointed; the upper room, where He shares the Passover with His disciples; and Gethsemane, where He is arrested. From there, the narrative moves to the high priest's house and the courtyard, where Peter's denial unfolds. The chapter is a masterpiece of narrative tension, weaving together devotion and betrayal, sovereignty and suffering, faith and failure.
Some critics argue that the passion narratives are later Christian creations designed to fulfill prophecy. But the accounts are deeply rooted in historical detail: the Passover setting, the Roman practice of crucifixion, the Jewish trial procedures, the specific names of individuals like Simon of Cyrene and Barabbas. The disciples' failure, especially Peter's denial, is embarrassing to the early church. No one would invent a story in which the chief apostle denies Jesus three times. The women are the first witnesses to the resurrection, which would have been socially awkward in a culture that did not accept women's testimony in court. The most plausible explanation for these accounts is that they preserve genuine historical memory. Moreover, the transformation of the disciples from fearful deserters into bold proclaimers of the resurrection is itself powerful evidence that something happened. They did not die for a lie. The institution of the Lord's Supper is also historically significant. The words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" have been debated for centuries, but the early church universally practiced the sacrament. Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is the earliest written record, and it predates the Gospels. The tradition of the Lord's Supper goes back to Jesus Himself. The most plausible explanation for these accounts is that they preserve genuine historical memory.
This study preserves the hard questions, explanations, context, apologetic note, and references from Dr. Shallua's Commentary.