Matthew § 108

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 78.) Still there may seem to be some discrepancy between the narrative of Matthew and Mark, who say, that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and then bring Jesus to Bethany; and that of John, who, relating this history of the ointment, says Six days before the Passover. They who urge this do not understand that the events in Bethany are in Matthew and Mark inserted out of their place, a little later than the time of their occurrence. Neither of them, it is to be observed, introduce their account with 'afterwards.'

(de Cons. Ev. ii, 79.) Though the action described in Luke is the same as that described here, and the name of him with whom the Lord supped is the same, for Luke also names Simon; yet because it is not contrary to either nature or custom for two men to bear the same name, it is more probable that this was another Simon, not the leper, in whose house in Bethany these things were done. I would only suppose that the woman who on that occasion came near to Jesus' feet, and this woman, were not two different persons, but that the same Mary did this twice. The first time is that narrated by Luke; for John mentions it in praise of Mary before Christ's coming to Bethany, It was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. (John 11:2.) Mary therefore had done this before. That she did afterwards in Bethany is distinct from Luke's account, but is the same event that is recorded by all three, John, Matthew, and Mark. That Matthew and Mark say it was the Lord's head that she anointed, and John His feet, is reconciled by supposing that she anointed both. Against this one might raise a cavil from what Mark says, that she anointed His head by breaking the box over it, so that there could be none of the ointment left with which to anoint His feet also. Let such caviller understand, that His feet were first anointed before the box was broken, and there remained in it, yet whole, enough wherewith to anoint the head by breaking the box and shedding the contents.

(non occ.) Having set before us the counsels of the chief of the Jews concerning the death of Christ, the Evangelist would proceed to follow out their execution, and to relate the bargain of Judas with the Jews to deliver Him up, but he first shows the cause of this betrayal. He was grieved that the ointment which the woman poured upon Christ's head had not been sold that he might have carried off something out of the price it brought, and to make up this loss he was willing to betray his Master. And therefore he proceeds, Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper.

This woman prefigures the Gentile people, who gave glory to God in the suffering of Christ. She thoroughly anointed his head. Recall that Christ's head is God. Ointment represents the fruit of good works. And special thanks are due to the female gender for the care of the body. So then, he transferred all care of his body and all affection for his precious soul to the honor and praise of God. But the disciples, keen on saving Israel, become quickly upset as usual: "This ought to have been sold to help the poor." But the ointment the woman carried was not for sale.

(Verse 6) But when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper. About to suffer for the whole world and redeem all nations with his blood, he stayed in Bethany, the house of obedience, which was once Simon the leper's. Not that he remained a leper at that time, but he who was formerly a leper was cleansed by the Savior, with his former name remaining, so that the power of the healer may be apparent. For in the list of apostles, with his former vice and occupation, Matthew is called a tax collector, who had certainly ceased to be a tax collector. A certain Simon, a leper's house, they want it to be understood as a part of the people, which has believed in the Lord, and has been cured by him. Simon himself is also said to be obedient, who can be interpreted in another sense as the world, in whose house the Church is healed.

About to suffer for the whole world and to redeem all nations by his blood, Jesus tarries in Bethany at the home of obedience. It was once the house of Simon the leper—but he was no longer a leper. After he had been cured by the Savior he was still known by his original name, that the power of the healer might appear. In fact, one of the apostles listed with his original occupation and vice is Matthew the publican, though he certainly ceased to be a publican. There are those who want the house of Simon the leper to be known as that part of the people who believed in the Lord and were cured by him. Simon himself, moreover, is termed the obedient one. His name can be interpreted also as "the clean one" in whose house the church was healed.

Not that he was a leper yet, but having been so, and having been healed by the Saviour, he retained the appellation to show forth the power of Him who healed him.

Mystically; The Lord, about to suffer for the whole world, sojourns in Bethany, in the house of obedience, which once was that of Simon the leper. Simon also is interpreted 'obedient,' or, according to another interpretation, 'the world,' in whose house the Church is healed.

This woman seems indeed to be one and the same with all the evangelists, yet she is not so; but though with the three she doth seem to me to be one and the same, yet not so with John, but another person, one much to be admired, the sister of Lazarus.

But not without purpose did the evangelist mention the leprosy of Simon, but in order that He might show whence the woman took confidence, and came unto Him. For inasmuch as the leprosy seemed a most unclean disease, and to be abhorred, and yet she saw Jesus had both healed the man (for else He would not have chosen to have tarried with a leper), and had gone into his house; she grew confident, that He would also easily wipe off the uncleanness of her soul. And not for nought doth He name the city also, Bethany, but that thou mightest learn, that of His own will He cometh to His passion. For He who before this was fleeing through the midst of them; then, at the time when their envy was most kindled, comes near within about fifteen furlongs; so completely was His former withdrawing Himself a part of a dispensation.

The woman therefore having seen Him, and having taken confidence from thence came unto Him. For if she that had the issue of blood, although conscious to herself of nothing like this, yet because of that natural seeming uncleanness, approached Him trembling and in fear; much more was it likely this woman should be slow, and shrink back because of her evil conscience. Wherefore also it is after many women, the Samaritan, the Canaanite, her that had the issue of blood, and other besides, that she cometh unto Him, being conscious to herself of much impurity; and then not publicly but in a house. And whereas all the others were coming unto Him for the healing of the body alone, she came unto Him by way of honor only, and for the amendment of the soul. For neither was she at all afflicted in body, so that for this most especially one might marvel at her.

And not as to a mere man did she come unto Him; for then she would not have wiped His feet with her hair, but as to one greater than man can be. Therefore that which is the most honorable member of the whole body, this she laid at Christ's feet, even her own head.

Some one may perhaps think that there are four different women of whom the Evangelists have written, but I rather agree with those who think that they are only three; one of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, one of whom Luke, another of whom John.

Matthew and Mark relate that this was done in the house of Simon the leper; but John says that Jesus came to a house where Lazarus was; and that not Simon, but Mary and Martha served. Further, according to John, six days before the Passover, He came to Bethany where Mary and Martha made Him a supper. But here it is in the house of Simon the leper, and two days before the Passover. And in Matthew and Mark, it is the disciples that have indignation with a good intent; in John, Judas alone with intent to steal; in Luke, no one finds fault.

Oil is throughout Scripture put for the work of mercy, with which the lamp of the word is fed; or for doctrine, the hearing of which sustains the word of faith when once kindled. All with which men anoint is comprehensively called oil; and one kind of oil is unguent, and one kind of unguent is precious. So all righteous acts are called good works; and of good works there is one kind which we do for, or to, men; another which we do for, or to, God. And this likewise that we do for God, in part only advances the good of men, in part, the glory of God. For example, one does a kindness to a man out of feelings of natural righteousness, not for God's sake, as the Gentiles sometime did; such a work is common oil of no fine savour, yet is it acceptable to God, forasmuch, as Peter says in Clement, the good works that the unbelievers do, profit them in this world, but avail not to gain them eternal life in another. They who do the same for God's sake, profit thereby not in this world only but in the next also, and that they do is ointment of good savour. Another sort is that done for the good of men, as alms, and the like. He who does this to Christians, anoints the Lord's feet, for they are the Lord's feet; and this penitents are most found to do for remission of their sins. He who devotes himself to chastity, and continues in fastings and prayers, and other things which conduce to God's glory only, this is the ointment which anoints the Lord's head, and with whose odour the whole Church is filled; this is the work meet not for penitents, but for the perfect, or the doctrine which is necessary for men; but the acknowledgment of the faith which belongs to God alone, is the ointment with which the head of Christ is anointed, with which we are buried together with Christ by baptism into death. (Rom. 6:4.)

Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious myrrh, and poured it on His head, as He sat at table. Some say that there are three women who anointed the Lord, of whom the four evangelists make mention (Mk. 14:3-9, Jn. 12:1-8, Lk. 7:36-38). Others say that there are two, the one mentioned by John, who is Mary the sister of Lazarus, and the one mentioned here by Matthew, who is the same one mentioned by Luke and Mark. Some say that this Simon the leper is the father of Lazarus, and that Christ cleansed him of leprosy and then ate dinner with him. Some also say that when the Lord told His disciples to go to a certain man who would show them an upper room furnished (Lk. 22:10-12), that He sent them to this man. And of course the man welcomed the Lord to celebrate the Pascha there. So when the woman saw the leper who had been cleansed, she dared to believe that she too would obtain remission of sins and cleansing of spiritual leprosy. She confessed great faith by unstintingly pouring out such precious myrrh. She poured it out on His head, honoring the chiefest part. And you also, O reader, if you suffer from the spiritual and Pharisaical leprosy of arrogance which cuts us off from God, accept Jesus into your house and anoint Him with the myrrh of the virtues. For you are able to procure myrrh for Jesus Who has cleansed you of your leprosy, and to pour it over His head. What is the head of Christ if not His divinity to which we offer the fragrance of the virtues? For David says, "Let my prayer be set forth as incense before Thee, O Lord" (Ps. 140:2). Offer, then, fragrance of myrrh, intricately blended of many virtues, to Christ's divinity. For if you teach that Christ is not merely a man, but also God, then you have made fragrant His head, that is, His divinity, with your words of theology.

And when Jesus was in Bethany. Here is set forth the foretelling through the deed of the woman. And first the deed is set forth; second, the reproach; third, the excuse. The second at and the disciples seeing it, had indignation; the third at and Jesus knowing it. Concerning the first, he does four things. First, the place is described; second, the person; third, the means; fourth, the deed. First, a twofold place is set forth, namely, general and specific. The general, when he says when Jesus was in Bethany; the specific, when he says in the house of Simon the leper. Note that he was not then a leper, but had been cured by Christ, for if he were, Christ would not have stayed with him, since that was prohibited in the law: and yet both pertain to a mystery. Bethany is interpreted as the house of obedience: hence by this is signified his obedience; Philippians 2:8: he became obedient unto death. Therefore it is fitting that he should be in the house of a leper; Isaiah 53:4: and we esteemed him as a leper. And for this reason he came there especially. Another reason can be literal, namely, so that she might have confidence in coming to Christ, because this man was a relative of Mary, and he had been cured by him of bodily leprosy, and she came to be cured of spiritual leprosy. And it should be noted that no one else is said to have come to Christ for spiritual health except this woman; therefore she was worthy of praise.

(in Luc. 7, 37.) It is possible therefore that they were different persons, and so all appearance of contradiction between the Evangelists is removed. Or it is possible that it was the same woman at two different times and two different stages of desert; first while yet a sinner, afterwards more advanced.

(de Doctr. Christ. iii, 12.) But let not any suppose that the Lord's feet were by this woman bathed in ointment after the manner which the luxurious and debauched use. In all things of this nature, it is not the thing itself, but the mind of him who uses it, that is in fault. Whoso uses things after such sort as to pass the bounds observed by good men with whom he lives, either has some meaning in what he does, or is vicious. What then is vice in others, in a divine or prophetic person is a sign of some great thing. The good odour is the good report which one has gained by the works of a good life, and in following Christ's footsteps sheds a most precious odour on His feet.

O what a loving mother we have! Let us conform ourselves to our mother and follow her loving-kindness. So greatly did she have compassion for souls that she counted temporal loss and bodily suffering as nothing. So for the salvation of our soul, let it please us to crucify our body. It is said in Matthew: "When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came having an alabaster jar of ointment, and she broke the alabaster jar and poured the ointment over the head of Jesus. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. Seeing this, the disciples murmured, certain of them saying: Why this waste? For it could have been sold for much and given to the poor. And Jesus said: Why do you trouble this woman? She has wrought a good work upon me: for the poor you have always with you, but me you do not always have." Magdalene bears the type of penitents; she broke the alabaster jar of ointment out of the loving-kindness which she had toward Christ. And we ought to have loving-kindness toward the universal Church and toward the penitent soul. And just as Magdalene by sinning lost God, so when she anointed the feet and head of Christ, she found Him.

(Hom. in Ev. xxxiii. 1.) Or, we may think that this is the same woman whom Luke calls a sinner, and John names Mary.

In this woman is prefigured the people of the Gentiles, who gave glory to God in Christ's passion; for she anointed His head, but the head of Christ is God, and ointment is the fruit of good works. But the disciples, anxious for the salvation of Israel, say that this ought to have been sold for the use of the poor; designating by a prophetic instinct the Jews, who lacked faith, by the name of the poor.

(Verse 7) A woman came to him with an alabaster jar of expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. No one should assume that she who poured the perfume on his head is the same as she who poured it on his feet. For she washes with her tears, wipes with her hair, and is clearly called a prostitute. However, nothing of this sort is written about her. For the prostitute could not immediately become worthy of the Lord's favor. Another Gospel writer placed the precious perfume in an alabaster jar (which is a type of marble), and called it pure and without deceit, to demonstrate the faith of the Church and the Gentiles.

Another Evangelist (John 12:3.) instead of 'alabastrum' has 'nardum pisticam,' that is, genuine, unadulterated.

For let no one think that she who anointed His head and she who anointed His feet were one and the same; for the latter washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and is plainly said to have been a harlot. But of this woman nothing of this kind is recorded, and indeed a harlot could not have at once been made deserving of the Lord's head.

With good reason, therefore, when Luke spoke of the woman who was a sinner, he introduced her as weeping copiously. She thus washed the feet of Jesus with her tears … only "anointing," and not his head but his feet. This woman, however, who was not described as a sinner, did not anoint but "poured" ointment, and not on his feet but "on his head." As to what is written about Mary, the sister of Lazarus, she too "anointed" the Lord's "feet." Note what the Gospel says: The whole "house was filled with the odor of the ointmen."Perhaps the differences in these women therefore may signify the differences in the faithful. Some of them pour out precious ointment "over the head" of Jesus, others do not anoint the head but only the feet, and others do not pour out abundantly but anoint only so much. Some of them anoint with ointment, leaving the whole house filled with the odor of his divinity. Then there are others, also acceptable to Christ, for they anoint his feet with ointment, which the Pharisees did not even anoint with "oil."

Alabaster is a kind of marble, white but marked with veins of different colours, which was in use for vessels to hold ointment, because it was said to preserve it from corruption.

From the Greek πίστις, faith, whence 'pisticus,' faithful. For this ointment was pure, unadulterated.

We may not, I say, we may not call into question the truth of the (poor vilified) senses, lest we should even in Christ Himself, bring doubt upon the truth of their sensation; lest perchance it should be said that He did not really "behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven; " that He did not really hear the Father's voice testifying of Himself; or that He was deceived in touching Peter's wife's mother; or that the fragrance of the ointment which He afterwards smelled was different from that which He accepted for His burial; and that the taste of the wine was different from that which He consecrated in memory of His blood.

There came to him a woman. Here is the person. Matthew and Mark say this happened in the same place; John and Luke do not. For Luke speaks of her in chapter 7:37ff., and John in 12:3ff. It is therefore the opinion of some, as it was of Origen, that there were several women. Let us speak about the first two. Jerome expressly says that the one Luke speaks about was not the sister of Lazarus, because of that woman it is said that she anointed the feet, but of this one it is said that she anointed both the feet and the head. Ambrose, commenting on Luke, says that both can be said, that she is the same or a different woman. If we say she is the same, we can say: even though the same woman, she was not of the same merit: but as a sinner she did not dare to touch the head, yet after gaining confidence she anointed the head. And Augustine proves that she is the same woman, because in John 11:5, before he comes to this event, he says: now Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was she that anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair. Therefore it seems that the one Luke speaks about is the same as the one who is the sister of Lazarus. Origen says that the one Luke speaks about is not the same as the one John speaks about. And this can be proved by reason of time, because that event is read as having happened before he went to Jerusalem; this one happened when he says: you know that after two days shall be the pasch. Likewise by place, because that one was in the house of Martha, according to John; but this one was in the house of Simon. Likewise by the fact that there she anoints the feet, but here the head. Fourth, because there Judas said: to what purpose is this waste? But here all the disciples said it. Augustine says that it is the same woman, and he responds to Origen's arguments. To the first he says that Matthew does not preserve the historical order, but recounts the event because Judas took occasion for sinning from this incident, when he saw the ointment poured out. As for the objection about the place, Augustine does not resolve it. However, it can be resolved thus: because this man was of great authority and had power, and the house was one of theirs, because he was a relative of hers. Otherwise how would it be true what is said, that they made him a supper there, (...) and Lazarus was one of them that were at table? There came therefore a woman, having an alabaster box of ointment. Alabaster is a kind of marble that is translucent, and windows are made from it. And from this stone certain vessels were made in which ointments were preserved, just as now they are made from ground clay, because by their own coldness they were preservative; hence alabaster, i.e., a vessel of alabaster full of ointment. And here it is said precious, elsewhere that it was of spikenard. Pistis in Greek means faithful in Latin. Hence pistici, i.e., unadulterated. Next, the effect is set forth: and poured it on his head as he was at table. But here there is a twofold question. How did Christ allow this, since it seems to pertain to wantonness? To this Augustine responds in On Christian Doctrine. It is regarded differently in an ordinary person and in a prophetic person: because in an ordinary person according to the deed, but in a prophetic person according to its meaning. In an ordinary person it would signify wantonness; in a prophetic person, something significant. The allegorical exposition: because it signifies the burial of Christ, since in ancient times bodies used to be anointed. Mark 14 says that she came beforehand to anoint his body for burial. Likewise, mystically, the ointment signifies any good work. Now this work can be done in two ways, because some work is done not for the sake of God but for the sake of natural justice, as the work of a pagan, and this is an ointment, but not a precious one. If it is done for the sake of God, then it is precious. Hence she anoints the feet when she does a good work for the benefit of her neighbor; but when it is for the glory of God, then she anoints the head. But what of the fact that John says she anointed the feet and Matthew says the head? Augustine says it was both. But what of the fact that Mark says she broke the alabaster box? Augustine says that just as it sometimes happens that someone pours in such a way that nothing remains, and afterward breaks the vessel, so she did: she both poured out and broke. Or if someone wishes to object, it can be said that first she anointed the feet, then the head.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 79.) We may however understand that the other disciples thought or said the same, or that they assented to what Judas said, and thus Matthew and Mark have described their common consent. But Judas said it because he was a thief, the others out of their care for the poor; and John desired to mention it only in the case of him whose thievish propensity he thought ought to be recorded.

(Ver. 8, 9.) But when the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, "Why this waste? This could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor." I know that some criticize this passage, questioning why only one evangelist, Judas, is mentioned as being upset, when it is said that all the apostles were indignant. They do not understand the figure of speech known as synecdoche, by which one person can be used to represent all, or one can be used to represent many. For even Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews (although many Latin writers doubt it), when he described the sufferings and merits of the saints, introduced the following: They were stoned, they were tested, they were sawn in two, they were killed by the sword (Heb. 11:37), since the Jews only admit that Isaiah the Prophet was sawn. We can also say that the apostles were truly indignant because of the poor: but Judas because of his gains. And his muttering is also attributed to the crime that he did not have care for the poor, but wanted to provide for his own theft.

I know that some people criticize this passage because one Evangelist said only Judas became indignant since he kept the money purse and was a thief from the beginning, whereas Matthew wrote that all the apostles were indignant. Some may be unaware of the figure of speech called syllepsis, customarily termed "all for one and one for all." The case is somewhat similar with Paul the apostle, who wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews (though many Latins have doubts about this), describing the sufferings and merits of the heroes of faith, inferring: "They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword." [Hebrews 11:36-37] The Jews assert that only one person, Isaiah the prophet, was tortured. We may also point out that the apostles were indignant for the sake of the poor but Judas for the sake of his own gain. Hence his grumbling was also mixed with his misdeeds, because he had no concern for the poor but only wanted to be able to steal.

I know that some raise a cavil here, because John says that Judas alone was grieved because he had the bag, and was a thief from the beginning; but Matthew, that all the disciples were sorrowful. These know not the figure syllepsis, by which one name is put for many, and many for one; as Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews says, They were sawn asunder, when it is thought that one only, Esaias namely, was so. (Heb. 11:37.)

And whence had they this thought? They used to hear their Master saying, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice," and blaming the Jews, because they omitted the weightier matters, judgment, and mercy, and faith, and discoursing much on the mount concerning almsgiving, and from these things they inferred with themselves, and reasoned, that if He accepts not whole burnt offerings, neither the ancient worship, much more will He not accept the anointing of oil.

Since the disciples had heard much about almsgiving and had given it much consideration, they found fault with the woman, thinking that God desired mercy towards others more than honor for Himself.

Then follows the reproach of the woman: and the disciples seeing it, had indignation. But here there is an objection, because John 12 says that Judas alone said it, while this text says all of them. There is a twofold response according to Jerome: because what is said here, that the disciples said it, is said by synecdoche: the disciples, i.e., a disciple, and this manner of speaking is customary in Scripture; Hebrews 11:37: they were cut asunder, because one was cut asunder, namely, only Isaiah. Or it can be said that it was all of them, because, according to what Augustine says, Judas stirred up all of them. Likewise, the others were moved on account of the need of the poor, but he was moved by avarice.

Hence they say, to what purpose is this waste? But why did they say this? They had heard the Lord greatly commend mercy; above, 19:21: if thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 78.) The order of the narrative is this. The Lord says, Ye know that after two days will be the feast of the Passover; ... then assembled together the Chief Priests and Scribes; ... then went one of the twelve. Thus the narrative of what took place at Bethany is inserted by way of digression, respecting an earlier time between that, Lest there be an uproar, and, Then one of the twelve.

(non occ.) Having described the occasion of his treachery, the Evangelist proceeds to recount the manner of it.

(non occ.) He adds his distinctive appellation, Scarioth, for there was another Judas.

"Then went one of the twelve, he that was called Judas Iscariot, unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you?" Then. When? When these things were spoken, when He had said, it is for my burial, and not even thereby was he moved to compunction, neither when he heard that the Gospel should be preached everywhere did he fear (and yet it was the language of unspeakable power), but when women showed so much honor, and women that had been harlots, then he wrought the devil's works.

But what can be the reason they mention his surname? Because there was also another Judas. And they do not shrink from saying, He was of the twelve; so entirely do they hide none of those things which seem to be matters of reproach. And yet they might have said merely this, that he was one of the disciples, for there were others besides. But now they add, of the twelve, as though they had said, of the first company of those selected as the best, of them with Peter and John. Because for one thing did they care, for truth alone, not for concealing what things were done.

For this cause many of the signs they pass by, but of the things that appear to be matters of reproach they conceal nothing; but though it be word, though it be deed, though it be what you will of this kind, they proclaim it with confidence.

And not these only, but even John himself, who utters the higher doctrines. For he most of all tells us of the affronts and the reproachful things that were done unto Him.

And see how great is the wickedness of Judas, in that he comes unto them of his own accord, in that he does this for money, and for such a sum of money.

But Luke saith, that he conferred with the chief captains. For after that the Jews became seditious, the Romans set over them those that should provide for their good order. For their government had now undergone a change according to the prophecy.

To these then he went and said, "What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him." For indeed he was afraid of the multitude, and desired to seize him alone.

Oh madness! how did covetousness altogether blind him! For he that had often seen Him when He went through the midst, and was not seized, and when He afforded many demonstrations of His Godhead and power, looked to lay hold on Him; and this while He was using like a charm for him so many, both awful and soothing words, to put an end to this evil thought. For not even at the supper did He forbear from this care of him, but unto the last day discoursed to him of these things. But he profited nothing. Yet not for that did the Lord cease to do His part. Knowing this, then, let us also not intermit to do all things unto them that sin and are remiss, warning, teaching, exhorting, admonishing, advising, though we profit nothing. For Christ indeed foreknew that the traitor was incorrigible, yet nevertheless He ceased not to supply what could be done by Himself, as well admonishing as threatening and bewailing over him, and nowhere plainly, nor openly, but in a concealed way. And at the very time of the betrayal, He allowed him even to kiss Him, but this benefited him nothing. So great an evil is covetousness, this made him both a traitor, and a sacrilegious robber.

Then, when, that is, he heard that this Gospel should be preached every where; for that made him afraid, as it was indeed a mark of unspeakable power.

One of the twelve, as much as to say, of that first band who are elected for preeminent merit1.

Judas means "confessor." Luke the Evangelist numbers both "Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot" among the twelve apostles. Since two of Christ's disciples were given this same name and since there can be no meaningless symbol in the Christian mystery, I am convinced that the two Judases represent two distinct types of confessing Christians. The first, symbolized by Judas the son of James, perseveres in remaining faithful to Christ. The second type, however, after once believing and professing faith in Christ, then abandons him out of greed. He defects to the heretics and to the false priests of the Jews, that is, to counterfeit Christians, and (insofar as he is able) delivers Christ, the "Word of truth," over to them to be crucified and destroyed. This type of Christian is represented by Judas Iscariot, who "went out to the chief priests" and agreed on a price for betraying Christ.

Went, against that one high priest, who was made a Priest for ever, to many high priests, to sell for a price Him who sought to redeem the whole world.

Went, he says, because he was neither compelled, nor invited, but of his own free will formed the wicked design.

So called from the village Scariotha, from which he came.

When the woman who was a stranger and a harlot had shown Jesus such honor, then it was that His own disciple departed to betray Him. For it was not without meaning that the evangelist says, "Then went...," but in order to show the shamelessness of Judas. He adds the name "Iscariot" to better identify him. For there was another Judas who was also called Lebbaeus (Mt. 10:3 and Lk. 6:16). The betrayer, however, was from a certain village named Iscara.

Then went one of the twelve. Above he set forth a threefold foretelling of the Lord's passion; here he proceeds to the narration: and he does two things. First, he sets forth the preparatory events; second, he treats of the passion itself, at as he yet spoke etc. There are three preparatory events. First is set forth the negotiation of the betrayal; second, the institution of the Lord's communion; third, the prayer of Christ. The second at and on the first day of the Azymes etc.; the third at then Jesus came with them to a country place which is called Gethsemani. Concerning the first, three things are treated. First, the person of the betrayer is described; second, the negotiation of the betrayal; third, the solicitude. He says, then, then. You should understand that this does not refer to what immediately preceded, because what was said about the woman was said by way of transposition; rather it goes back to what was said, that the chief priests and the ancients of the people were gathered together (...) that by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus and put him to death. Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot. And the person of the betrayer is described in three ways. By his office, because he was one of the twelve, not only of the disciples, but of the twelve specially called; John 6:71: have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil? But why did he choose one who would be wicked and a betrayer? The first reason can be to signify that he condemns no one on account of his predestination, or saves anyone, but on account of his present justice. Hence, if he condemned on account of his predestination, it would not be imputed to anyone. Likewise, for the consolation of men: for he knew it would happen that many would be deceived in their choices, as happened with Philip, who chose Simon Magus; therefore the Lord permitted a betrayer to be among the disciples. Another reason can be so that no one would be criticized if someone were wicked, since in the first college one was wicked. Likewise, the person of the betrayer is described by name: who was called Judas. Among the disciples, two were called by this name; yet one was wicked, by which is signified that some who confess God are good, and some are wicked. Of the good, Psalm 113:2: Judea was made his sanctuary. Of the wicked it is said, Titus 1:16: they profess that they know God, but in their works they deny him. Likewise, he is described by his homeland. Iscariot is a certain village, and it is interpreted as the memory of death, because the sin of Judas is held in memory. And it can be referred to what is said in Jeremiah 17:1: the sin of Juda is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond. To the chief priests, who were planning to kill Christ, forgetting what was said in Psalm 1:1: blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly etc. And in Genesis 49:6, Jacob says: let not my soul go into their counsel.

(Quæst. Ev. i. 41) That the Lord was sold for thirty pieces of silver by Judas, denotes the unrighteous Jews, who pursuing things carnal and temporal, which belong to the five bodily senses, refuse to have Christ; and forasmuch as they did this in the sixth age of the world, their receiving five times six as the price of the Lord is thus signified; and because the Lord's words are silver, but they understood even the Law carnally, they had, as it were, stamped on silver the image of that worldly dominion which they held to when they renounced the Lord.

(Verse 15.) And he said to them: What do you want to give me, and I will betray him to you? Unfortunate Judas, he believed that he could make up for the loss caused by the spillage of the ointment with the price of the master. However, he does not demand a specific amount, so that the betrayal would at least appear profitable, but rather, like someone selling a cheap slave, he put it in the power of the buyers to give as much as they wanted.

The wretched Judas would fain replace, by the sale of his Master, that loss which he supposed he had incurred by the ointment. And he does not demand any fixed sum, lest his treachery should see in a gainful thing, but as though delivering up a worthless slave, he left it to those who bought, to determine how much they would give.

Joseph was not sold as many, following the LXX (Gen. 37:28.), think for twenty pieces of gold, but as the Hebrew text has for twenty pieces of silver, for it could not be that the servant should be more valuable than his Master.

For what would the madman do like this? He poured not forth foam out of his mouth, but he poured forth the murder of his Lord. He distorted not his hands, but stretched them out for the price of precious blood. Wherefore his madness was greater, because he was mad being in health.

But he doth not utter, sayest thou, sounds without meaning. And what is more without meaning than this language, "What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you?" "I will deliver," the devil spake by that mouth. But he did not smite the ground with his feet struggling? Nay, how much better so to struggle, than thus to stand upright. But sayest thou, he did not cut himself with stones? Yet how much better, than to do such things as these!

(Serm. 60.4.) He did not out of any fear forsake Christ, but through lust of money cast Him off; for in comparison of the love of money all our affections are feeble; the soul athirst for gain fears not to die for a very little; there is no trace of righteousness in that heart in which covetousness has once taken up its abode. The traitor Judas, intoxicated with this bane, in his thirst for lucre was so foolishly hardened, as to sell his Lord and Master.

Let us consider what Judas said to the Jewish priests: "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?" He was willing to take money in exchange for handing over the Word of God. They do the same thing who accept sensual or worldly goods in exchange for handing over and casting out from their souls the Savior and Word of truth who came to dwell with them. Indeed, it would be fitting to apply Judas's example to all who show contempt for the Word of God and betray him, as it were, by committing sin for the sake of money or for any selfish motive. People who behave in this way appear openly to be calling out to the powers of the enemy who offer worldly gain in return for the sin of betraying God's Word, saying, "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?""And they gave him thirty pieces of silver." The number of coins they gave Judas was equivalent to the number of years the Savior had sojourned in this world. For at the age of thirty, he was baptized and began to preach the gospel, like Joseph was thirty years old when he began to gather grain for his brothers. Just as at that time the grain was prepared by God for the sons of Israel but given also to the Egyptians, so also the gospel was prepared for the saints but preached also to the unfaithful and wicked.

"They covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver," that is, they agreed, they determined an amount to give, and not as many think, that they weighed out and paid the money.

And he said to them. Here is set forth the negotiation of the betrayal. And first the negotiation is set forth; second, the consummation. And first his cupidity should be considered; second, his presumption. His cupidity, when he says, what will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? For the sake of money he despised all friendship; Sirach 10:10: there is not a more wicked thing than to love money; for such a one setteth even his own soul to sale. For because he did not restrain his cupidity, he fell into betrayal. Because he saw that he had been deprived of the price of the ointment, he wanted to recover it by betraying Christ. Likewise, his presumption is touched upon when he says, and I will deliver him unto you. It was great presumption to deliver up one who knew all things. Likewise, he speaks as one who has a very low opinion of God, because when someone wants to sell something he loves, he sets a price on it; but when he has something he wants to be rid of, he says: give me what you please. So this one says: what will you give me? That is, give what you will. They set at nought the desirable land, Psalm 105:24. And they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. Origen says that in a similar way those act who abandon God for temporal advantage. For he dwells in us through faith; but we abandon him when we cling too much to temporal things; hence he said: and they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. But why did he state the amount so precisely? Because it was so signified through Zechariah 11:12: and they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And it should not be said that Joseph was sold for thirty coins, for Scripture indicates that it was only twenty pieces of silver, i.e., coins. But what does the number thirty mean? It should be understood that this number is composed of five and six, since five times six is thirty. By five are signified the five books of Moses, or temporal things that are subject to the five senses; hence it is signified that after the law of Moses, salvation would come about in the sixth age.

(Verse 16.) But they agreed to give him thirty pieces of silver. And from then on he was looking for an opportunity to betray him. Joseph was not sold for twenty gold pieces, as many think according to the Septuagint translators, but according to the Hebrew Truth, for twenty silver pieces; for no servant could be more precious than the Lord.

"From then on he sought an opportunity to betray him." Luke's Gospel shows most clearly the kind of opportunity for which Judas was looking when it says, "And he sought an opportunity to betray him in the absence of the crowds," that is, when the people were not with him but when he was alone with his disciples. His betrayer did the deed after supper, when Christ was alone in the garden of Gethsemane. For once Judas reached his agreement with the Jews, he determined that his opportunity would come when Jesus was not with the crowds. Notice how even today the betrayers of Jesus Christ, Word of truth and Word of God, see their best opportunity to hand him over at a time when Christians are being persecuted.… They are at their worst when the number of his faithful is at its fewest. And since there is a time for all things, for Solomon said "there is a time to be born and a time to die," the time for betraying the Word of truth was specifically when very few of the faithful were with Christ.

The opportunity which Judas sought is further explained by Luke, how he might betray him in the absence of the multitude; (Luke 22:6.) when the populace was not with Him, but He was withdrawn with His disciples. And this he did, delivering Him up after supper, when He was withdrawn to the garden of Gethsemane. And from that time forward, such has been the season sought for by those that would betray the word of God in time of persecution when the multitude of believers is not around the word of truth.

"He sought an opportunity" to betray Him to them when He was alone, for they feared the multitude, and for this reason they paid Judas to inform them when Jesus would be alone.

And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him. Here is set forth the solicitude. And why did he do this? So that he might carry out the crime more easily and more secretly, as it is with sinners, because every one that doth evil hateth the light, John 3:20; and Job 24:15: the eye of the adulterer observeth darkness.