Blood, Sweat &... (Luke 22:44)

In which Gospel did Jesus’ sweat “become like drops of blood?”? Luke (Luke 22:44)

All three Synoptic gospels report that just prior to being arrested, Jesus prays on the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46). Matthew and Mark specify that the location is called Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32). Today the site is commemorated by The Rock of Agony, a large slab of bedrock on the chancel floor of the Church of All Nations.

While praying in anticipation of the events that lay head, Jesus becomes overwhelmed (Matthew 26:38, Mark 14:34; Luke 22:44). Luke alone, with its emphasis on the physical maladies, records a curious detail: Jesus’ profuse sweat “became like drops of blood” (Luke 22:44 NASB).

And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground. (Luke 22:44 NASB)

This verse and its predecessor (Luke 22:43-44) are not found in some ancient manuscripts and as such are excluded from the Revised Standard Version (RSV). David L. Tiede (b. 1940) acknowledges:

Both the external evidence of manuscripts and the internal evidence of the reading can be used as arguments either for the inclusion or the exclusion of Luke 22:43-44. It may be best to regard these as a very early elaboration, noting that Luke’s narrative does not require them. (Tiede, Luke (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 391-92)

E.J. Tinsley (1919-1992) defends:

These verses are omitted by some manuscripts but since it is not difficult to see the motives which led to their removal they are probably genuine. (Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament), 194)

Jesus’ peculiar sweat is the physical manifestation of the psychological pain he is enduring. He is said to be in “agony” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT), “anguish” (HCSB, NIV, NRSV) or “great pain” (CEV). The cognate agonía is found only here in the New Testament (Luke 22:44).

Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) defines:

The word translated “anguish” (agōnia) can also be translated “struggle,” as in an athletic contest, and the profuse sweat fits this image. This description, too, could serve as a model for prayer in a time of crisis. There is need to pray intensely, but divine help is available in this struggle. (Tannehill, Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 324-25)

The term originates from the field of athletics (e.g., Epictetus [55-135], The Discourses 1, 24, 1-2). Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) interprets:

To read Luke 22:44 as suggesting that Jesus’ resolve is weakening is to misunderstand both the vocabulary and the imagery involved. The word translated as Jesus’ “anguish,” like the image of sweat pouring off his body, comes from the realm of athletics. Both point not to hesitancy or uncertainty, but to the intensely focused energy of an athlete just as a contest is about to begin—for example, of a racer on the blocks, set to run a hundred-meter dash. The prayer finds Jesus focused and ready for the struggle at hand. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 266)

From this perspective Jesus’ agony is indicative of his getting his adrenaline flowing while preparing for the monumental task ahead. His perspiration is attributable to preparation.

The text does not claim that Jesus sweat blood but rather that his sweat becomes like drops of blood; the words for “sweat” (hidrós) and “drops” (thrómbos) appearing only here in the New Testament. Though not indicated by the text, sweating blood is humanly possible.

Lee Strobel (b. 1952) relays:

Medical doctor and Biblical scholar Dr. Alexander Metherell [b. 1939] says...“This is a known medical condition called hematidrosis,” he says. “It’s not very common, but it is associated with a high degree of psychological stress. What happens is that severe anxiety causes the release of chemicals that break down the capillaries in the sweat glands. As a result, there’s a small amount of bleeding into these glands, and sweat comes out tinged with blood. We’re not talking about a lot of blood; it’s just a very, very small amount.” (Strobel, The Case for the Resurrection: A First-Century Investigative Reporter Probes History’s Pivotal Event , 18)

Forensic investigator Steve A. Rush documents cases of hematidrosis:

A May 11, 1918, British Medical Journal article, A Case of Haematidrosis, describes a young girl, who having a fear of air raids during World War I, developed this condition after a gas explosion in the next door neighbor’s home...Johann S. Grafenberg [1530-1598], in his 1585 article Observations Medicae de Capite Humano, tells of a Catholic nun who was so terrified after being threatened by sword-beating soldiers that she bleed [sic] from every part of her body and died...In the 1996 Journal of Medicine article Blood, Sweat, and Fear: A Classification of Hematidrosis seventy-six cases of this phenomenon were studied. (Rush, CSI: Gethsemane to Golgotha, 17-18)

Mormons read this passage as Jesus literally sweating blood because the Book of Mormon records a prophecy purportedly issued around 124 BCE which states that the Christ would sweat blood (Mosiah 3:7). There is no Old Testament parallel to this belief.

As noted, Luke does not claim that Jesus sweat blood but rather that “his sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground” (Luke 22:44 NASB). There are several meanings to this analogy.

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) surveys:

The metaphor can be variously explained: 1. It is simply a rhetorical expression like our ‘tears of blood’. 2. The sweat was falling like drops of blood (Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], 691, Walter Grundmann [1906-1976], 412). 3. The sweat was the colour of blood (cf. Joseph and Aseneth 4:11; Apollonius of Rhodes 4:1282f.; Aristotle [384-322 BCE], Historia Animalium 3:19; Theophrastus [371-287 BCE], De Sudore 11f.). Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], 510f. cites cases of blood exuding through the pores of skin; Johannes Weiss [1863-1914], 514, regards the description as legendary; and Lyder Brun [1870-1950] sees it theologically as an anticipation of Jesus’ baptism by blood. The ancient parallels support view 3., but view 2. fits in better with Lucan style (Luke 3:22); the stress is on the falling, rather than the colour, and the implication is that the sweat was like the shedding of blood. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 832-33)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:

The comparison is made between profuse perspiration and copious drops of blood splashing to the ground; the text does not hint at a comparison of color. Cf. Walter Grundmann [1906-1976], Evangelium nach Lukas, 412. The text is often misunderstood as if it referred to a “bloody sweat,” i.e. that Jesus sweated blood. Ancient and modern interpreters have often restricted the meaning to the comparison of quantity (thus Theophylact [1055-1107], Euthymius Zigabenus [12th century], Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], Joachim Jeremias [1900-1979]). André Feuillet [1909-1998] (“Le récit lucanien”) has tried to undermine this interpretation by appealing the Lucan use of hōs or hōsei in the sense of real identity (Luke 15:19, 16:1; Acts 2:3), a highly dubious interpretation. Apart from the text-critical problem involved, it is stretching matters to invoke alleged instances of haematidrōsis. For the approximative sense of hōsei, see Luke 3:23, 9:14, 28, 22:41, 59, 23:44, 24:11; Acts 1:15, 2:3, 41, 10:3, 19:7, 34. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), 1444-45)

Theologically, there is a large gap in understanding between sweating blood and sweat like blood. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) clarifies:

The image Luke employs is of sweat dripping so profusely that it was like (ὡσεί) drops of blood, not that Jesus was actually “sweating blood.” Luke’s portrait thus gives no basis for interpretations that focus on the blood of Jesus on the Mount of Olives—e.g., that of J. Massyngbaerde Ford [b. 1928] (My Enemy Is My Guest, 118): “his redemptive blood begins to flow in the garden.” For examples of Luke’s fondness for simile, see, e.g., Luke 3:22, 10:18, 11:44, 22:31; et. al. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 780)

The use of the word “drops” has led some to believe that Luke is stressing than in this case the water of sweat is as thick as blood.

Whatever his physical condition, Jesus’ humanity is on full display. Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) observes:

“Like drops of blood” leaves open the question whether blood was mixed with Jesus’ sweat; in any case, Jesus is not depicted as a Stoic (cf. sweat as a sign of wrath, rejection, and remorse in Joseph and Aseneth 4:9, 9;1). (Schweizer, The Good News according to Luke, 343)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) reports:

Sweating so profusely, like drops of blood pouring out, may make Jesus seem too human. Celsus [2nd century] used it in his attack on the claims that Jesus was divine (Origen [184-253], Contra Celsus 2.24). The earliest orthodox fathers cite the passage against Docetists, who denied that Jesus was fully human (Justin Martyr [100-165], Diaogue with Trypho 103.8; Irenaeus [130-202], Adversus Haereses 3.16.1)...That it was appealed to in doctrinal disputes does not mean that it was created and inserted for polemical purposes. Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] notes that Docetists, for example, could have easily responded that it was not the divine Savior who prayed. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 882)

As a literary device, the simile creates sympathy for the hero in the climactic scene of the book. It accentuates Jesus’ internal struggle with the events that await him. He does not enter into death lightly. Jesus makes a conscious decision to die for others. It is a true sacrifice.

Phil Ryken (b. 1966) explicates:

When Jesus said that his soul was sorrowful to the point of death...he was not exaggerating. In describing the same scene, Luke tells us that as Jesus prayed “his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). When Jesus said he was “sorrowful, even to death,” it was as if to say that he almost died in Gethsemane before he went to Calvary. “In those supreme moments,” wrote B.B. Warfield [1851-1921], “our Lord sounded the ultimate depths of human anguish...In the presence of this mental anguish the physical tortures of the crucifixion retire into the background, and we may well believe that our Lord, though he died on the cross, yet not on the cross, but of a broken heart, that is to say of his mental suffering.” (Ryken, Loving the Way Jesus Loves, 125)

Why does Luke include the unnecessary detail that Jesus’ “sweat became like drops of blood”? Why does he use this particular analogy to describe the phenomenon? Have you ever had a physical reaction to a psychological condition? Is Jesus afraid? Are you comfortable with the thought of Jesus having ever been scared? Why is Jesus in so much anguish? What does Jesus dread most?

Leon Morris (1914-2006): speculates:

Why was Jesus in such perturbation as he faced death? Others, including many who owe their inspiration to the Master, have faced death quite calmly. It cannot be death as such that caused this tremendous depth of feeling. Rather it was the kind of death that Jesus would die, that death in which he was forsaken by God (Mark 14:34), in which God made him to be sin for us (II Corinthians 5:21). (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 340-41)

Jesus is willing to suffer to save. Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) compares the sweat demanded by the eviction in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:19) to the sweat produced in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:44).

The First Adam sinned in a garden and was condemned to living by the sweat of his brow (Genesis 3:19). Jesus, the Last Adam, obeyed the Father in a garden and conquered Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21). (Wiersbe, Be Courageous: Take Heart from Christ’s Example (Luke 14-24), 139)

Jesus consents to God’s will (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) and produces God’s desired result: Salvation. Jesus’ anguish in Gethesemane is a reminder that, contrary to much popular theology, deep dependence on God can come with great pain.

Which trial do you feel was harder for Jesus, Gethsemane or the cross? What is the most agony you have ever been in? Has following God ever caused you pain?

“In Gethsemane the holiest of all petitioners prayed three times that a certain cup might pass from Him. It did not.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), “The Efficacy of Prayer,” The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p. 5

The Lord Will Provide (Genesis 22:14)

What did Abraham call the place where he had gone to sacrifice Isaac? The Lord will provide (Genesis 22:14)

In one of the Bible’s most troublesome passages, near the end of his faith journey, God asks Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac (Genesis 22:1-2). Remarkably, Abraham complies, ascending a mountain to do the deed (Genesis 22:3-10). Before his hand can complete the act he is stopped by an angel (Genesis 22:11-12). His eyes are then averted to a ram in a thicket which will take his son’s place (Genesis 22:13). The grateful patriarch commemorates the event by naming the locale in honor of God’s provision (Genesis 22:14).

Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, “In the mount of the LORD it will be provided.” (Genesis 22:14 NASB)

In christening the location, Abraham coins a phrase that was still proverbial at the time that Genesis was compiled.

Naming a site is a common response when one has experienced something so uncommon. Abraham himself had previously named Beersheeba (Genesis 21:31).

Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) informs:

The naming of the place, which Abraham now does, was an important matter for the ancients; for a place where God appeared in so special a fashion was consecrated for all future generations. Here God will receive the sacrifices and prayers of coming generations, i.e. the place becomes a cultic center. It is strange, to be sure, that the narrator is unable to supply the name of a better-known cultic center. He gives no place name at all, but only a pun which at one time undoubtedly explained a place name. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 242)

As Von Rad suggests, most modern translations render the place name “The LORD Will Provide” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV). The name is less awkward in Hebrew, which is why some translations retain the moniker Jehovah-jireh (ASV, KJV, NLT).

As is often the case, the name Jehovah-Jireh entails some ambiguity. The verb included in the appellation, ra’ah, is a key term in the Abraham narrative. Though “provide” is not inaccurate, it most commonly means “see”.

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) comments:

The name aptly sums up the moral of this story. As is so often the case with biblical names, the meaning assigned it in the story is only one of several possible interpretations. The same words also mean “Yahweh sees.” The popular or editorial explanation of the name that follows can also mean “On the mountain Yahweh is seen,” or “there is a vision.” Puns abound! (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 188)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) deciphers:

The verb translated “provide”...in Genesis 22:8, 14 is simply the verb “to see.” This usage approximates one of the idiomatic uses of the verb “to see” that we also have in English. When we say “I will see to it that the report is done on time” we are using the verb “to see” to convey that the details will be taken care of. But the idiom also suggests by nuance a supervisory role rather than an active one. Hebrew uses the verb this way in Genesis 39:23, where the warden did not have to “see to” anything under Joseph’s care. Abraham is convinced that the Lord will work out all of the details (Genesis 22:8), and when he does, Abraham names the place accordingly “(Yahweh Yireh,” i.e. “The Lord will Provide”). (Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), 511)

In light of this, the Message paraphrases the verb as “Sees-to-it”.

Similarly, theologian Karl Barth [1886-1968] linked the term to the Latin provideo, “to see before,” “to see to,” “to see about.” which connects “see” and “provide” (Church Dogmatics III, 3, pp. 3, 35). In fact, Barth draws upon this text as the foundation for his entire understanding of the doctrine of providence.

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) argues that the layered term ra’ah summarizes the entire episode:

The dictum itself, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided,” introduces the passive of “see,” and is therefore more likely “On the mount of Yahweh, he/it is seen.” In other words, a word play is introduced at this point in the narrative, playing on the active voice “provides” and the passive “be seen,” albeit using the same Hebrew verb. Moreover, this passive “be seen” is the term used several times in Genesis for “appear” in divine disclosure at times when God makes himself known in revelatory communications...Thus this well-known maxim in the narrator’s days was something like “On Yahweh’s mount He appears,” or “He is revealed.” Perhaps this connection in Genesis 22:14 hints at the meaning of the entire bizarre episode in Genesis 22:1-19, in that God’s provision is also God’s self-disclosure. God is revealed in his act of providing. The mount of Yahweh’s revelation is the spot where he providentially provided for the ancestral family and the continuation of the promised line. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 207-208)

There is further ambiguity in the expression associated with the name as the subject of the verb is unclear. Robert Alter (b. 1935) explains:

The place-name means “the Lord sees.” The phrase at the end means literally either “he sees” or “he will be seen,” depending on how the verb is vocalized...It is also not clear whether it is God or the person who comes to the Mount who sees/is seen. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 106)

Rabbi Benno Jacob (1862-1945) sees profundity in the vagueness:

On the mount of the Lord it will be seen. There everything is revealed. “God sees” is the essence of religion. To see God is the deepest longing of a soul that is kindred to God...It will be seen; the subject is intentionally not mentioned. Everything stands revealed there; both the character of the man who goes there as well as the essence of the divine. (Benno, Genesis: The First Book of the Bible: Augmented Edition, 146-47)

The location continued to have significance. Moriah would serve as the future the site of the temple (II Chronicles 3:1) and quite possibly the crucifixion. John Goldingay (b. 1942) chronicles:

This mountain is located in the area of Moriah. While we do not know the actual origin of the name, it resembles words for “seeing,” so the name itself would remind people that this is the place where God “saw” in that connection. And if Moriah or “Yahweh’s mountain” is the mountain where the temple was, this is the place that people know as one where they and their needs are seen and attended to. Outside of the context, one might translate the phrase as denoting that “On Yahweh’s mountain he is seen.” This is where God appears, where you can meet with God. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 17-50, 52)

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) sees the phrase Jehovah-jireh as foundational to Israel’s theology:

This is the basis of a truth often repeated in the Old Testament: the Lord was to be worshiped in His holy mountain by the nation...The Lord would see the needs of those who came before him and would meet their needs. Thus in providing for them He would be “seen”. (Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, 65)

The name harkens back to an earlier conversation between Abraham and his confused son as they made their trek up the mountain (Genesis 22:7-8). When asked about the absence of an animal to be sacrificed, Abraham cryptically responds, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son (Genesis 22:8 NASB).”

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) notes:

This incident reminds Abraham of his reply to Isaac’s question (Genesis 22:7ff). He had foretold better than he realized at the time. In accordance with patriarchal practice, the site of a revelation becomes sacred and receives a name somehow reminiscent of the occasion. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 154)

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) interprets:

Genesis 22:13-14 mirror[s] the earlier dialogue of father and son concerning the sacrificial victim (Genesis 22:7-8). The timely presence of the entangled ram answers the boy’s earlier perplexity, “Where is the lamb” (Genesis 22:7). Abraham interprets the appearance of the animal according to his response in Genesis 22:8, “God will provide” [’ēlohîm yir’eh], in naming the place “The LORD will provide” (yahweh yir’eh, Genesis 22:14). The opportune moment of the suddenly seen substitute implies the obvious–the Lord is responsible for the appearance of the surprising ram. (Mathews, New American Commentary: Genesis 11:27-50:26, 297)

Gordon Wenham (b. 1943) concludes, “Whether his ‘God will provide’ (Genesis 22:8) should be taken as hope, prayer, or prophecy makes no difference...he has proved that the Lord does provide (Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary, 111).”

There is debate regarding the tone in Abraham’s voice when he designates the name. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) hears jubilation:

“It is part of the ancient grandeur of the passage that no cry of joy is heard”...But this is to misunderstand the plain and simple meaning of Genesis 22:14a: ראה’ הוה’ sings the praise of God. When Abraham gives this name to the place where the narrative has taken place, he includes in it his reaction to what he has experienced. Herman Gunkel [1862-1932] alone among commentators has understood this: “Abraham remembers with gratitude what he had said to his child in his hour of deepest anguish.” The author is not thinking of a place that can be determined geographically. The name is his expression of joy at his release from the depths of anguish; the praise of God in the Old Testament is a cry of joy directed to God. Genesis 22:8 confirms that...lament is turned about. (Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary, 362)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) agrees:

In ecstasy “Abraham called the name of that place, ‘The Lord will provide’...His initially ambiguous, “God will provide” (Genesis 22:8) had now been fulfilled more perfectly than he had ever dreamed. Abraham’s declaration of faith — “God will provide” — as he and Isaac ascended toward sacrifice had now become the story’s end. We see that the God who tests is also the God who provides — the Tester is the Provider. Both truths are actual fact, but they must be appropriated by faith. When God tests you, he will provide for you. (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 304)

Even at this late stage, Abraham is making fresh discoveries about God’s character. Abraham ascends the mountain thinking that it was to be a place of death and descends it confident that God provides. Though commonly taken for granted, this is one of the great revelations of Scripture and it has inspired worship for centuries. For instance, the famed hymn writer John Newton (1725-1807) used the verse as a refrain for his hymn “The Lord Provides”, still found in the Primitive Baptist Hymnal (#440).

It is when Abraham reaches a place of total surrender that he receives provision. Jim Logan (b. 1958) sees a spiritual principle, not a coincidence:

After God tests us, He often reveals aspects of His character we would have never known if we hadn’t gone through the test. Just ask Abraham. If Abraham had failed the test in the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah, he would have never known God as Jehovah Jireh. (Logan, Reclaiming Surrendered Ground: Protecting Your Family from Spiritual Attacks, 168)

Many have taken heart in this provision. Elmer L. Towns (b. 1932) and Charles Billingsley (b. 1970) relay:

The China Inland Mission was the first great Faith Foreign Mission Board. Some of the greatest and godliest missionaries evangelized inland China without a guaranteed salary, trusting God to supply all their financial needs. Over the door to their headquarters in England was written their motto, “Jehovah-jireh.” (Towns and Billingsley, God Laughs: & 42 More Surprising Facts about God That Will Change Your Life, 74)

When has God surprised you by providing an alternative you did not foresee? Do you believe that God will provide for you? What about cases, like that of Jepthah’s daughter (Judges 11:1-40), when God does not provide a substitute? What is the “it” that will be seen? What tone do you hear in Abraham’s voice when he names Jehovah-jireh? Who or what is your residence named after? Can you think of any locations named for divine encounters?

Abraham shows faith throughout his ordeal. This is especially seen in how he commemorates the location. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) commends:

Appropriately Abraham names this place Yahweh-yireh, “Yahweh sees (or provides).” He does not call this site “Abraham-shama” (“Abraham obeyed”). The name does not draw any attention to Abraham’s role in the story. Thus his part in the story is not memorialized; rather, it is subordinated to that of Yahweh. The name highlights only the beneficent actions of Yahweh. The reader will come away from this story more impressed with God’s faithfulness than Abraham’s compliance...This emphasis is borne out by the fact that the following phrase, and even today it is said, lifts the event out of Abraham’s time and projects it into the time of the narrator. Thus the phrase gives to the entire narrative a certain timelessness. It witnesses to the gracious provisions of God. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 113-114)

Abraham’s affirmation that God meets the needs of those who trust is profound and the faith required to make it rivals the faith necessary to scale the mountain. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) expounds:

The narrative begins with the testing by God [Genesis 22:1]. But the narrative ends with God providing. That statement may be taken for granted. But it is no less problematic. It is no less an act of radical faith on the part of Abraham to concede the last statement than to accept the first statement. To assert that God provides requires a faith as intense as does the conviction that God tests. It affirms that God, only God and none other, is the source of life. Abraham’s enigmatic statement (Genesis 22:8) and the conclusion (Genesis 22:14) confess that the alternate ram did not appear by accident, by nature, or by good fortune (Genesis 22:13). They mean, rather, that the same God who set the test in sovereignty is the one who resolved the test in graciousness. In a world beset by humanism, scientism, and naturalism, the claim that God alone provides is as scandalous as the claim that he tests. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 191)

Which act demonstrates more faith: the willingness to perform the act or the confession after the reprieve? How would you have responded to this crisis after it was over? Who receives more glory for your successes, you or God? What location would you dub the Lord Will Provide? As God’s hands and feet, what can you be providing in the Lord’s name?

“Depend upon it. God’s work, done in God's way, will never lack God’s supplies.” - J. Hudson Taylor (1832-1905) quoted by Mary Geraldine (Guinness) Taylor (1865-1949), The Story of the China Inland Mission, Volume 1, p. 238

The Cost of Alabaster (Matthew 26:7)

What kind of box (or jar) held the ointment which the woman poured on Jesus’ head? Alabaster (Matthew 26:7)

In Matthew’s gospel, the first event of Passion week occurs when a woman anoints Jesus’ head with expensive perfume while he dines in Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13). Similar incidents occur in all four gospels (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:1-9, Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8) but there are enough discrepancies between the accounts that scholars debate exactly how many times Jesus was actually anointed.

In the Synoptic gospels, the perfume is extracted from an alabastron (Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:37).

a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. (Matthew 26:7 NASB)

The word alabastron is used in the New Testament only in connection with Jesus’ anointing. The term encompasses both the type of material as well as the form of the container. Hence the word is rendered variously “alabaster jar” (HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), “alabaster flask” (ESV, NKJV, RSV), “alabaster box” (KJV), “alabaster cruse” (ASV), “alabaster vial” (NASB) and more simply “bottle” (CEV, MSG).

Martha Jean Mugg Bailey (b. 1957) appraises that alabaster is “a firm, very fine-grained, variety of gypsum, used for statuary and as indoor decorative stone, especially for carved ornamental vases and figurines...The biblical terms translated alabaster...may also refer to marble, although alabaster probably entered Israel from Egypt much earlier than marble was imported from the Greek world (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 39).”

Alabaster containers were ideal receptacles for perfume. W.D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) inform:

According to Pliny [23-79], Nautral History 13.3, ‘perfumes are best kept in alabaster vases’, and archaeology confirms that the stone, often imported from Egypt was frequently made into handleless perfume flasks. The necks were typically long and thin. (Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (International Critical Commentary) Volume III: XIX-XVIII, 444)

Though in modern English, “alabaster” is most commonly used in reference to skin as a synonym for pale, not all alabaster was white. John A. Broadus (1827-1895) chronicles:

Some kinds of alabaster are of delicate and richly varied hues, and are extremely beautiful and costly. The Jews, like all the other civilized ancient peoples, made much use of fragrant ointment, often rare and of great price; and the flasks which contained it were of great variety as to material and shape...It was, with its contents, a tasteful and costly object, such as a woman would delight in possessing (Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, 519)

While the container was consequential, its imported contents were equally prized. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) notes that though anointing a dinner guest was not uncommon, the woman’s extravagance was.

Hosts of banquets customarily provided oil to anoint the heads of guests of notable social status ...but the outpouring of love here is more costly than the mere use of oil in customary acts of hospitality...They would seal the ointment to prevent evaporation, requiring the long neck of the jar to be broken and the ointment to be expended at once...Archaeologists have uncovered such long-necked flasks in first-century tombs near Jerusalem, suggesting the frequent once-for-all expenditure of this expensive perfume at the death of loved ones ...Nard was a costly ointment imported from India...or elsewhere in the east...and its expense might suggest an heirloom passed from one generation to the next. (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 618)

Because of its monetary value, in three of the gospels, the woman faces criticism for the way she chose to allocate her resources (Matthew 26:8-9; Mark 14:4-5; John 12:4). It is posed that the perfume could have been better used by liquidating her liquid asset and dispersing the funds. In each account the woman’s action is personally affirmed by Jesus himself (Matthew 26:10-13; Mark 14:6-9; John 12:7-8). In Matthew and Mark, as many verses are devoted to Jesus’ praise of the woman as are spent on describing the action itself.

Why was anointing Jesus a better choice than taking the cash value of the alabaster jar and dispersing it amongst the poor? Why does the woman do as she does?

For the woman, the alabaster jar was likely a treasured possession and possibly an heirloom. Many have speculated that the woman was saving it for a very special occasion.

Jackie Kendall (b.1950) conjectures:

In the days of Jesus, when a young woman reached the age of availability for marriage, her family would purchase an alabaster box for her and fill it with precious ointment. The size of the box and the value of the ointment would parallel her family’s wealth. This alabaster box would be part of her dowry. When the young man came to ask for her in marriage, she would respond by taking the alabaster box and breaking it at his feet. The gesture of anointing his feet showed him honor. (Kendall, Say Goodbye to Shame: And 77 Other Stories of Hope and Encouragement, 156)

While Kendall’s writing is speculative, what is not supposition is the woman’s sacrifice. In Mark’s version of the anointing, the woman needed to shatter the jar like a piggy bank to use its contents (Mark 14:3). When the moment was over, she had nothing left of her treasure. The high cost of the woman’s sacrifice is set in stark contrast to the relatively cheap payment Jesus’ betrayer received for his complicity in the gospel’s next story (Matthew 26:15, 27:3, 9).

Does it matter how the woman acquired the perfume? What are you saving for just the proper occasion? What is the greatest sacrifice you have made for anyone? For God?

“You can sacrifice and not love. But you cannot love and not sacrifice.” - Kris Vallotton (b. 1955)