April 2, 2023 Palm Sunday Matthew 26:1-16

 Today we find ourselves right back at a very uncomfortable topic when it comes to our faith, and that is money.  Jesus talked about money more than anything else.  Quite likely that’s because money is the one idol that is more likely to draw people from God than any other.  Money can fool us into thinking we have power.  Money can fool us into thinking we are safe.  Money can fool us into thinking we are important.  And yet, money in and of itself is not necessarily bad.  It is an efficient way of transferring value from one person to another.  It can build and connect communities.

In our gospel reading we find a huge contrast with money.  We see the woman anointing Jesus with some very expensive ointment.  And we see Judas agreeing to sell Jesus out for a very small sum of money.

First the woman.  This scene will raise our eyebrows for any number of reasons.  We are told it takes place in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper.  Bethany is about two miles from Jerusalem by taking a road across the Mount of Olives.  We know nothing about Simon the leper other than this bit.  Consider that Simon may have been a leper who was forced to leave his home.  We do not know if Simon was alive at the time or not.  Jesus may have cured him, or again, he may have died beforehand.  All we know is that Simon was a leper, a sufferer from some sort of a skin disease.

And then this woman comes to Jesus.  We know even less about her.  Some say she is Mary Magdalene.  Some say she is Mary the sister of Martha.  All four of the gospels have some sort of story of Jesus being anointed by a woman, but each tells the story quite differently.  In this case we have an unnamed woman who simply seems to appear out of nowhere.  Maybe she’s from the street.  Maybe she’s a member of Simon’s household.  Who knows?  What we do know is that she anoints Jesus and Jesus alone with some extremely expensive ointment.  She pours it over his head.

Why?  What is the purpose?  Some see this as an act of coronation; the anointing of a king.  Matthew doesn’t use that language though.  It is simply an expression of devotion; a very extravagant act of devotion!  There are certainly some sexual overtones to the whole scene, but the woman probably doesn’t have any specific motive in mind.  She is someone who finds herself in Jesus’ presence.  She has been deeply moved by him.  And she wants to do something to express herself to him.  As a woman she probably had very little means available to her.  But she’s going to do whatever she can.  She doesn’t care about the cost.  She doesn’t care about how it looks to others.  She doesn’t care what social implications it might have.  She is going to express her devotion to him.

It is probably worth speculating on that perfume for a couple moments.  It was surely a treasured possession.  Matthew’s gospel doesn’t give it a specific cost.  Other gospels say 300 denarius, or roughly a year’s wages!  She may have had the bottle for years.  Someone may have given it to her.  It is hard to believe that she would have ever had enough money to go out and buy such a thing.

I think it is safe to say that it was her most treasured and valuable possession.  She decides to use it – all of it – in an act of complete devotion to Jesus.  She’s holding nothing back.

Every bit of our logic, our common sense, our sense of responsibility is offended.  This is waste, pure and simple.  Loads of impoverished starving people could have food in their bellies for the value of what she just foolishly dumped all over Jesus’ head.

The disciples are understandably indignant.  Jesus’ response can leave us perplexed.  “You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.  By pouring this ointment on my body she has prepared me for burial.”

Given that we know Jesus is going to be arrested the next day, and executed the day after that, it makes at least some sense to us.  But to the disciples at that time it made no sense whatsoever.

The very next scene is Judas going to the authorities to sell Jesus out.  Matthew doesn’t say it explicitly, but the fact that it’s the very next scene suggests that this act is what makes Judas turn against Jesus.  He does not understand devotion to a rabbi who would allow such things and then say such things.

I think it is important for our own understanding that we’re in the same boat.  I think if we really immerse ourselves in the way Matthew is telling us about Jesus we’re somewhat uncomfortable and confused.  What’s right?  What’s wrong?  Where’s the logic in this?  Part of us understands Judas if he’s indignant.  Part of us doesn’t want anything to do with being like Judas because Judas is, well, Judas!

Logical or not, the next scene does portray Judas in a terrible light.  He sells Jesus out for 30 pieces of silver.  You may remember that 30 pieces of silver is what you have to pay the owner of a slave for injuring him or her.  It’s a paltry sum.  We are definitely distant from Judas here.  While many people can be bought for money – even if it means harming someone else – they’re not going to be bought off for such a cheap price.

And so the scenes make a great contrast.  In the first scene an unnamed woman gives to Jesus as extravagantly as possible.  In the next scene one of Jesus’ hand-picked twelve disciples sells him out for a paltry sum.

We could reach a very rational conclusion about money from all of this and say that it’s about motive.  The woman was giving generously and Judas was acting greedily.  But I think that comes up a bit short.  It’s close but not as close as it could be.  If it were about motive and Judas being greedy, then Judas could have certainly gotten more for Jesus than 30 pieces of silver.  Given how badly the religious leaders wanted to get their hands on Jesus at a time that he was away from the crowds they were certainly willing to pay more.  (And it would be wrong to suggest that Judas wasn’t skilled at negotiating for more.)  No, it’s more about value.

To the woman Jesus was of immense value.  She was going to give to him as extravagantly as she possibly could.  And to Judas, Jesus was as worthless as an injured slave.

I think those are the principles we should put to work when we think about the way to use money.

If faithful use of money was all about finding the most practical application of it, in other words, finding the way to do the greatest good at the least cost, then I think life would be pretty boring.  I would have to preach that none of us could use money for anything of our own enjoyment as long as someone in the world was suffering want.  It would be to preach that we could never have any fun until all the poverty and malnutrition in the world was eliminated.  Then and only then could money be faithfully used for a less than utilitarian purpose.

If that were the lesson then Jesus would have gently talked to the woman saying, “I know you intend this as a wonderful gesture, but it would be better if you had sold it and given the money to the poor.”  But of course that is the line from the confused disciples, not from Jesus.

No, it’s not about practicality.  It’s about where we see value.  The woman valued Jesus.  Judas did not.

When we value Jesus highly our financial stewardship will automatically come into line.  Perhaps we shouldn’t ask, “What would Jesus do?”  But instead ask, “How can use what I have to show that Jesus is the most valuable thing in my life?” 

Then it’s not about greed.  It’s not about ruthless practicality.  It is about using the power of your money to convey to the world the value of Jesus.  Value Jesus above everything else and everything else will come together. 

And if that is too nebulous an idea, then remember what Jesus valued: friendships, constructive community, recognizing those the world often overlooks, seeing money as an opportunity to build the kingdom of God rather than as a tool for self-gain.

The unnamed woman is unnamed because it is an invitation to be us.  Judas is named as someone we can be sure to not be like.  She valued Jesus.  She showed it.  She did a beautiful thing for him.  And we have the same opportunities ourselves.