John 12:6

And Judas knowing this, who for a long time had been perverted, but was then smitten by the devil himself with the love of money, although he had been long entrusted with the purse.

"You shall not steal:" [Exodus 20:15] for Achan, when he had stolen in Israel at Jericho, was stoned to death; [Joshua 7:1] and Gehazi, who stole, and told a lie, inherited the leprosy of Naaman; [2 Kings 5:27] and Judas, who stole the poor's money, betrayed the Lord of glory to the Jews, [John 12:6] and repented, and hanged himself, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; [Matthew 27:5; Acts 1:18] and Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, who stole their own goods, and "tempted the Spirit of the Lord," were immediately, at the sentence of Peter our fellow-apostle, struck dead. [Acts 5:1-11]

The traitor rebukes the woman who had shown her devotion towards Christ, and attacks the admirable deed, and affects to blame it out of love towards the poor, because ointment was brought and not money. But it was out of ignorance as to what is really excellent that Judas said this. For the bringing of presents unto God ought to be honoured more than the poor. The Evangelist however sets forth the reason, on account of which Judas said this: it was not that he felt any concern for the poor, but because he was a thief and a sacrilegious person, stealing the money which was dedicated to God.

How then saith another Evangelist, that all the disciples used these words? All used them, and so did he, but the others not with like purpose. And if any one ask why He put the bag of the poor in the hands of a thief, and made him steward who was a lover of money, we would reply, that God knoweth the secret reason; but that, if we may say something by conjecture, it was that He might cut off from him all excuse. For he could not say that he did this thing from love of money, (for he had in the bag sufficient to allay his desire,) but from excessive wickedness which Christ wished to restrain, using much condescension towards him. Wherefore He did not even rebuke him as stealing, although aware of it, stopping the way to his wicked desire, and taking from him all excuse.

To that which is objected, that Christ had a money-bag: it must be said that Christ had a money-bag for three reasons. For He had a money-bag for other poor persons, according to what Jerome says: "Christ was of such great poverty" etc.: and this …

He carried it as a servant, he took it out as a thief.

Because "a greedy person always is in need," [Judas], being faithless and wicked, never remembered the trust [placed in him] but went on from the theft of the money that he had been asked to carry to betraying our Lord who showed confidence [in him].

The Evangelist unmasks the deceit when he adds, This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief. For he was not interested in helping the poor - "The hearts of the wicked are cruel" (Prv 12:10) - but …

Some suppose that Judas had the keeping of the money, as being the lowest kind of service. For that the ministry of money matters ranks below the ministry of doctrine, we know from what the Apostle says in the Acts, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. (Acts 6:2)

If Judas was covetous and a thief, then why did the Lord entrust him with the management of the money? For that very reason — because he was a thief — so as to take away from him every excuse. For he could not say …

Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, because he did not care about the poor; against which Ecclesiasticus four: "My son, do not defraud the poor of alms, and do not turn your eyes away from the poor," etc.; but because …

This he said, not that he cared for the poor,....

Note, Secular employments, as they are a digression, so they are a degradation to a minister of the gospel; see 1 Cor. vi. The prime-ministers of state in Christ's kingdom refused to be concerned in the revenue, Acts vi. Because he was desirous of the place.

Not that He cared for the poor - There should be a particular emphasis laid on the word he, as the evangelist studies to show the most determined detestation to his conduct. And bare what was put therein - Or rather, as some eminent critics contend, And stole what was put in it. This seems the proper meaning of εβαϚαζεν; and in this sense it is used, Joh 20:15: If thou hast Stolen him away - ει συ εβαϚασας αυτον. In the same sense the word is used by Josephus, Ant. b. xii. c.

The chapter we have now begun finishes a most important division of John's Gospel. Our Lord's public addresses to the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem are here brought to an end. After this chapter, John records nothing but what was said in private to the disciples. We see, for one thing, in this passage, what abounding proofs exist of the truth of our Lord's greatest miracles. We read of a supper at Bethany, where Lazarus "sat at the table" among the guests—Lazarus, who had been publicly raised from the dead, after lying four days in the grave.

six days before the passover--that is, on the sixth day before it; probably after sunset on Friday evening, or the commencement of the Jewish sabbath preceding the passover.

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — starts-lowercase

had the bag--the purse. bare what was put therein--not, bare it off by theft, though that he did; but simply, had charge of its contents, was treasurer to Jesus and the Twelve. How worthy of notice is this arrangement, by which an avaricious and dishonest person was not only taken into the number of the Twelve, but entrusted with the custody of their little property!

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — starts-lowercase

The chapter we have now begun finishes a most important division of John's Gospel. Our Lord's public addresses to the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem are here brought to an end. After this chapter, John records nothing but what was said in private to the disciples. We see, for one thing, in this passage, what abounding proofs exist of the truth of our Lord's greatest miracles. We read of a supper at Bethany, where Lazarus "sat at the table" among the guests—Lazarus, who had been publicly raised from the dead, after lying four days in the grave. No one could pretend to say that his resurrection was a mere optical delusion, and that the eyes of the bystanders must have been deceived by a spirit or vision. Here was the very same Lazarus, after several weeks, sitting among his fellow-men with a real material body, and eating and drinking real material food. It is hard to understand what stronger evidence of a fact could be supplied. He that is not convinced by such evidence as this may as well say that he is determined to believe nothing at all. It is a comfortable thought, that the very same proofs which exist about the resurrection of Lazarus are the proofs which surround that still mightier fact, the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Was Lazarus seen for several weeks by the people of Bethany, going in and coming out among them? So was the Lord Jesus seen by His disciples. Did Lazarus take material food before the eyes of his friends? So did the Lord Jesus eat and drink before His ascension. No one, in his sober senses, who saw Jesus take "broiled fish," and eat it before several witnesses, would doubt that He had a real body. (Luke 24:42.) We shall do well to remember this. In an age of abounding unbelief and scepticism, we shall find that the resurrection of Christ will bear any weight that we can lay upon it.