John 12:6

When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster jar of precious ointment and poured it upon his head as he reclined. But when his disciples saw it, they were indignant, and so forth (26:6—13).

Many indeed suppose that the four evangelists have given an account of one and the same woman, because they wrote something of this kind about a woman and all alike named an alabaster jar of ointment; but John, instead of the alabaster jar, put "a pound of ointment." But also what is said, this could have been sold and given to the poor, was said by Matthew and Mark and John; and that Christ declared that ointment to have been poured out for his burial, these too expounded; and that it happened in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, these three wrote; but John indeed said Bethany, where "they made him a supper and Martha was serving and Lazarus was one of those reclining, and Mary took a pound of ointment of pure precious nard" and so forth, from which it appears that they made a supper for him. But Luke, although he did not put Simon as a leper, nevertheless said that he was a Pharisee, who had asked Jesus "to eat with him," just as the Lord himself testifies concerning his name, saying to him there: "Simon, Simon, I have something to say to you." There seems, therefore, to be much similarity and a certain kinship concerning the woman among the four evangelists.

Yet I will say to those who think that it was one woman about whom all the evangelists wrote: Do you suppose that this woman who poured upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment, as Matthew and Mark expounded, is the same one who also "anointed his feet with myrrh," as Luke and John expounded? But it is not possible that the evangelists, in expounding about the same woman — since they were "perfected in the same understanding and in the same spirit and in the same judgment," they who were to minister the salvation of the churches — should have said things contrary to one another. But if anyone thinks that she was the one who anointed the Lord's feet with ointment in Luke and John, let him tell us whether Mary here was the very one who in Luke is written to have been "a sinner in the city," who "learning that he had reclined in the house of the Pharisee brought an alabaster jar of ointment and standing behind at his feet weeping began to wash his feet with her tears." For it is not credible that Mary whom "Jesus loved," the sister of Martha "who had chosen the better part," should be said to have been "a sinner in the city." And do you suppose that the woman who according to Matthew and Mark poured upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment is not written to have been a sinner, whereas the one who according to Luke is reported as "a sinner" did not dare to come to the head of Christ but "washed his feet with her tears" as though scarcely even worthy of his very feet, from sadness working "repentance unto stable salvation"? And the one who is in Luke weeps and sheds many tears, so as to wash the "feet" of Jesus "with her tears," whereas the one who in John is Mary is introduced neither as a sinner nor as weeping. Perhaps then someone will say that there were four women about whom the evangelists wrote; but I rather agree that there were three: one indeed about whom Matthew and Mark wrote, making no difference in their exposition in that chapter; another about whom Luke wrote; and yet another about whom John wrote, since she differs from the other women not only in the things which are written about the ointment, but because "Jesus loved" Mary and Martha — although she too is reported to have been in Bethany, just as also the woman about whom Matthew and Mark expound. There is a third difference. For Matthew indeed and Mark expound that this happened in the house of Simon the leper; but John says that "Jesus six days before the Passover came into Bethany, where Lazarus was whom Jesus had raised, and they made him a supper" — not Simon, but Mary and Martha, perhaps also Lazarus, "and Martha was serving, but Lazarus was one of those reclining." Furthermore, according to John, "six days before the Passover he came into Bethany," when also Mary and Martha "made him a supper"; but here, when also, as he reclined in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman, "after two days it was to be the Passover," as was said above. It remains that someone may say: If Matthew and Mark wrote about one woman, but John about another, and Luke indeed about a third, how is it that the disciples, once rebuked by Christ in the case of one woman (as being wrongly indignant about the woman's deed), did not correct themselves, so as not to be indignant over another woman doing likewise? Therefore let him know that in Matthew and Mark the disciples are indignant out of a good intention, but in John Judas alone out of a desire to steal, whereas in Luke no one murmurs. From these things, then, and others which you yourself will be able to observe, it is certain that either the evangelists say things contrary to one another, so that some of them even lie, or (if it is impious to believe this) it is necessary to say that the evangelists did not all write about the same woman, but either about three or about four. But someone a little bolder will say: Perhaps according to the history there was some one woman who did something of this kind — suppose too a second (if you wish) and a third — yet the evangelists' chief purpose was directed toward the mysteries, and they were not much concerned to narrate according to the truth of the history, but to expound the mysteries of things which arose out of the history. For which reason they also wove in certain discourses fitting and consonant with the understandings of the mysteries.

But concerning these things, which are expounded among the four evangelists on account of the women or of the one woman (as many suppose), we have treated more carefully in expounding the Gospel according to John — those things which seemed to us, since they were similar and kindred yet as it were contrary and divergent. But now let us touch on them briefly. Reasonably, then, Luke, when he spoke of the sinful woman, introduced her weeping more abundantly, so as even to wash the feet of Jesus, and indeed not pouring on the ointment but only anointing, and not the head but the feet. But that woman, who was not accused as a sinner, did not anoint but poured out, and not upon the feet, but upon the head. But if anyone should also treat of the things written about Mary the sister of Lazarus, who likewise "anointed" the Lord's "feet," let him note for himself what is written there, that the whole "house was filled with the odor of the ointment"; which is not written of her who was said to be "a sinner," but neither about the woman of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, who was not said to have been "a sinner," is anything of this kind written, that the whole "house was filled with the odor of the ointment."

Perhaps then through the differences of these women the differences of the faithful are demonstrated, of whom some indeed pour upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment, but others anoint not the head, but the feet, while others do not pour on abundantly, but only anoint; and of those anointing, some indeed anoint with such ointment that the whole house is filled with the odor of his very divinity, while others anoint not with such indeed, yet with one likewise acceptable to Christ, since they too anoint his feet with ointment — feet which the Pharisee did not anoint even with "oil." And it was fitting that these things be done in Bethany, which is interpreted HOUSE OF OBEDIENCE, and by this woman who poured out the ointment upon the head of the Lord, not accused as "a sinner in the city," and by Mary, at whose house, when a banquet was made for Jesus, she came to him and anointed. But that the house of obedience should be understood as the Church, no one doubts. But she who in Luke was called "a sinner" was not yet worthy to be in Bethany, although she was doing penance for her sins. For she still had the less, so that afterward she might be found made in the house of obedience (as now perfected) and be called neither "a sinner" nor "weeping" and washing the Lord's "feet," but herself too pouring the ointment upon his head. But Simon too is a mystery of OBEDIENCE, since so it is interpreted, but the obedience of the letter, not of the spirit: for which reason Simon, lifted up from the letter of the law through Jesus to the spiritual law, was no longer Simon only, but was made also Peter, and in place of the Jewish edifice was held worthy of the edifice of the Church to be founded upon the rock. Jesus therefore came to be in the house of Simon indeed, of one OBEDIENT, yet a leper and still having need of cleansing from Jesus. But it was not mentioned in Luke concerning Simon that he was also a leper; I judge that he himself was a debtor of fifty denarii and had already received remission of them, because he had loved little; yet loving somewhat, "he asked him to eat with him." But there came a woman (not a sinner) according to Matthew and Mark, having an alabaster jar of precious ointment. And consider how carefully among these, who did not report a sinner, her ointment is praised as precious. But in Luke, who expounded the sinful woman, the ointment is simply named, neither precious nor "of pure nard," such that "the house" might be filled "from the odor" of it; for she could not yet have ointments of this kind, but this was a great thing, that she could anoint the Lord's feet even with "ointment." But of this woman the ointment is reported as precious, for it was not fitting that what was poured out upon the head of the Savior should be not precious.

And over the ointment indeed of the sinful woman, anointing the Lord's feet and not pouring out, neither were the disciples indignant nor did they grieve, nor did Judas say: "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" But over the woman in Matthew and Mark the disciples were indignant and grieved at the loss of the ointment which was running down from his head to the rest of his body. For even if that ointment could have been sold for a great price and given to the poor, nevertheless this ought not to have been done, because it was fitting that it be poured upon the head of Christ with a holy and seemly pouring. But those who strive to understand these things according to the simple text, let them say what beauty the ointment poured upon the head of Jesus praiseworthily had according to the text, that it should be poured upon the head of such and so great a master. That ointment therefore was not worthy of the poor nor fitting (as regards its own honor) that it be divided among many, but that, remaining whole, it should be poured upon the head of Jesus only. For which reason Jesus also receives the woman who had done this, and says to the indignant disciples: "Let her be, and do not be troublesome to her, for she has worked a good work in me." And to such a degree is the praise of a good work of this kind effective, that it exhorts all of us to fill the Lord's head with fragrant and rich works, so that of us too it may be said that we have done a good work upon his head; for we always indeed have (as long as we remain in this life) the poor with us and having need of care from those who have advanced in the word and have been made rich in the wisdom of God, but they cannot suffice to have always, by days and nights, with them the Son of God, the Word of God and the Wisdom and all things, whatever our Lord the Savior is.

See also what he says: she has worked a good work in me, since he did not say concerning the sinful woman anointing his feet that "she did a good work in me." But if it is also necessary to discuss what he says, she has done it to prepare me for burial, you will compare with it what is said: "we were buried together with Christ through baptism, and we rose again together with him." Consider furthermore that concerning the woman according to Luke it is not said, amen I say to you: wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she did shall be told in memory of her, but concerning the woman according to Matthew and Mark this is written. For it was just, not concerning her who had anointed the feet, but concerning this one who had poured the ointment upon the head of Jesus, that it should be said, wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she did shall be told in memory of her. If, then, we wish that of us too it may be said what we do to Jesus, pouring the precious ointment upon his head, let us advance from the anointing of his feet to pouring the precious ointment upon his head.

But what oil is and what ointment, and what ointment is that which serves for anointing the body of Christ and what for the head, is difficult indeed to explain. Nevertheless we shall attempt to show that which seems to us, knowing most certainly that oil everywhere in the scriptures is understood either as a work of mercy (by which the lamp of the word, being nourished, shines brightly) or as doctrine (by whose constant hearing the word of faith which is kindled in us is nourished and shines more brightly). Just as, then, generally everything with which one is anointed is called oil, but of oil one kind is ointment another kind is not ointment, likewise of ointment one kind is a middling ointment, another precious: so every just act is called a good work, but of a good work one kind is what we do for the sake of men or according to men, and another what is for the sake of God and according to God. Likewise this very thing, which we do for the sake of God, one kind is what serves the use of men, and another what does not serve the use of men but only the glory of God. For instance, someone does good to a man, moved by natural justice, not for the sake of God (as sometimes the Gentiles too did and as many men do), that work is common oil of no great odor, and yet it too is acceptable to God; as Daniel signifies, saying to Nebuchadnezzar, who did not know God: hear my counsel, O king, and redeem your sins with almsgivings. Something of this kind Peter too says in Clement, that the good works which are done by unbelievers in this world profit them, but not also in that world for the attaining of eternal life; and fittingly, because they too do not do them for the sake of God, but for the sake of human nature itself. But those who do them for the sake of God, that is, the faithful, it profits them not only in this world, but also in that, and rather in that.

But what the faithful do for the sake of God, this is the ointment of good odor. But this very work of the faithful for the sake of God, which is ointment, one kind is done for the benefit of men — for instance almsgivings, visitations of the sick, receptions of strangers, humility, meekness, forbearance, and other things of this kind which profit men. He who does these things toward Christians anoints the Lord's feet with ointment, because they are the Lord's feet, with which he always walks. This the penitent are especially wont to do for the remission of their sins, and that is the work which is called ointment, fragrant indeed, but not the highest. But he who is zealous for chastity, perseveres in fastings and prayers, has patience in adversities like Job, in temptations does not fear to confess the truth of God (all which things profit other men nothing, but serve only the glory of God), this is the ointment which anoints both the head of the Lord, Christ, and from there runs through the whole body of Christ, that is, through the whole Church; and this is the ointment exceedingly precious from whose odor the whole house is filled, that is, the Church of Christ; and this is the work proper not to the penitent, but to the perfect saints. Or certainly: the doctrine which is necessary to men, through which are nourished souls poor in spiritual goods or perhaps also weak in sins, this is the middling ointment with which the Lord's feet are anointed; but the knowledge of the true faith which pertains to God alone is the precious ointment with which is anointed the head of Christ, God.

Our Lord, because he saw that Judas was greedy for money, had placed him in charge of the money to satisfy him and to prevent him becoming a traitor for the sake of money. It would have been better for him, however, to have stolen the money rather than to have betrayed the Creator of money.… Should not the thief of money fear the Creator of money? Perhaps that is what he remembered when he hanged himself.

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]

[Judas] was chosen among the twelve apostles and had charge of the money bag, to distribute it among the poor, so that it might not seem as though he had betrayed the Lord because he was not honored or in want. And so, the Lord granted him this office so that he might also be shown to be just in his dealings with him. Judas would be guilty of a greater fault, not as one driven to it by a wrong done to him but as one misusing grace.

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.

(Tr. l. 10) Judas did not perish at the time when he received money from the Jews to betray our Lord. He was already a thief, already lost, and followed our Lord in body, not in heart; wherein we are taught the duty of tolerating wicked men, lest we divide the body of Christ. He who robs the Church of any thing may be compared to the lost Judas. Tolerate the wicked, thou that art good, that thou mayest receive the reward of the good, and not fall into the punishment of the wicked. Follow the example of our Lord's conversation upon earth. Wherefore had He bags, to Whom the Angels ministered, except because His Church should afterwards have bags? Why did He admit thieves, but to show that His Church should tolerate thieves, while it suffered from them. It is not surprising that Judas, who was accustomed to steal money from the bags, should betray our Lord for money.

Look now, and learn that this Judas did not become perverted only at the time when he yielded to the bribery of the Jews and betrayed his Lord. It was not then that he perished, but he was already a thief, and a reprobate, when following the Lord; for it was with his body and not with his heart that he followed. He made up the apostolic number of twelve, but had no part in the apostolic blessedness: he had been made the twelfth in semblance, and on his departure, and the succession of another, the apostolic reality was completed, and the entireness of the number conserved. What lesson then, my brethren, did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to impress on His Church, when it pleased Him to have one castaway among the twelve, but this, that we should bear with the wicked, and refrain from dividing the body of Christ? Here you have Judas among the saints,-that Judas, mark you! who was a thief, yea-do not overlook it-not a thief of any ordinary type, but a thief and a sacrilegist: a robber of money bags, but of such as were the Lord's; of money bags, but of such as were sacred.

Lay to heart our Lord's example while living with man upon earth. Why had He a money bag, who was ministered unto by angels, save to intimate that His Church was destined thereafter to have her repository for money? Why gave He admission to a thief, save to teach His Church patiently to bear with thieves?

(de Con. Evang. ii. lxxix. [156.]) Then saith one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray Him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? In the other Gospels it is the disciples who murmured at the waste of the ointment. I think myself that Judas is put for the whole body of disciples; the singular for the plural. But at any rate we may supply for ourselves, that the other disciples said it, or thought it, or were persuaded by this very speech of Judas. The only difference is, that Matthew and Mark expressly mention the concurrence of the others, whereas John only mentions Judas, whose habit of thieving He takes occasion to notice: This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

And now, lastly, listen to what we have here, how this ointment was to some a sweet savor unto life, and to others a sweet savor unto death. When the pious Mary had rendered this grateful service to the Lord, straightway one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was yet to betray Him, said, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" Alas for thee, wretched man! the sweet savor hath slain thee. For the cause that led him so to speak is disclosed by the holy evangelist. But we, too, might have supposed, had not the real state of his mind been revealed in the Gospel, that the care of the poor might have induced him so to speak. Not so. What then? Hearken to a true witness: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the money bag, and bare what was put therein." Did he bear it about, or bear it away? For the common service he bore it, as a thief he bore it away.

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.

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].

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

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 that he betrayed Him (Jesus) out of love of money. The money box consoled him, but even while carrying the box, he was not faithful. For he carried away, that is, stole what was put into it, and was a sacrileger, appropriating for himself the offerings intended for a holy purpose.
Let the sacrilegious hear what their lot is. The height of evil is that Judas afterwards betrayed Jesus and the Lord. Do you see where covetousness leads? To betrayal. Therefore, the Apostle Paul fittingly called "the love of money the root of all evils" (1 Tim. 6:10), because it betrayed the Lord and always does so. Some say that Judas was entrusted with the keeping of the money as one lesser than the rest. For serving around money is a lesser task than teaching, just as in Acts (Acts 6:2) the apostles say: "It is not right for us to leave the word of God and serve tables."

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 he was a thief and having the money bag, as steward, he carried what was put in, that is, he carried it away and stole it, and therefore he rejoiced when more was given; whence on account of his avarice he sold the Lord; whence it is said in Matthew twenty-six, that "he went to the chief priests and said: What will you give me, and I will deliver him to you?" Whence Chrysostom: "Avarice reduces the heart to servitude; this made Judas a traitor and Gehazi a leper and delivered Ananias to death."

Question II. Likewise it is asked concerning what the Evangelist says, that Judas said this, not because the care of the poor pertained to him.

But to the contrary: He was the steward: therefore it did pertain to him.

Likewise he says that he was a thief and had the money box: whence is it that the Lord wished to entrust the money box to a thief? It seems that he gave him an occasion of sinning.

Likewise, why did the Lord not correct him, since he knew that he was in sin?

Likewise, since the Lord was in extreme poverty and had commanded the disciples not to receive money, how is it that he had money bags?

I say to the first that "to pertain" can be taken in two ways: either with respect to affection, or with respect to office; in the first way it did not pertain to him, in the second way it did.

To the second I say that there was a twofold reason, namely the dispensation of divine judgment and our instruction: the dispensation of divine judgment in this, that the Lord was satisfying his evil desire, just as he enriches the avaricious in the present life: so that Judas also would not have the excuse that he betrayed the Lord on account of want. Our instruction, because the Lord showed that he places little weight on the riches of the Churches, but great weight on the treasure of souls.

To the other it must be said that he did not correct him, because he knew that he would not be made better, but would become worse; nor did he take away his office, lest he reveal the crime and incite him to a greater crime.

To the other it must be said that, as Jerome says, the Lord had money bags not for his own use, but rather for the use of the poor. Hence when he paid the didrachma, he sent Peter to the sea, Matthew 17, where he found the coin in the mouth of the fish; because he did not wish to convert to his own use those things which had been given to the poor.

Another reason was so that it might be made known against heretics that it was lawful for his Church to possess riches.

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 does not take away supreme poverty. He also had a money-bag in condescension to the weak, as is said in the Gloss on that verse of the Psalm: Producing hay for beasts of burden: "The Lord had a money-bag for the use of those who were with Him, His own and the devout women in His company, who ministered to Him from their substance, in these things taking on rather the person of the weak. For He foresaw that many weak persons would come and would seek these things, just as He also took on the person of the same where He said: My soul is sorrowful even unto death." And concerning these two, on that passage of John twelve: The things that were contributed etc.; the Gloss says: "He whom Angels serve has a money-bag for the expenses of the poor, condescending to the weak." He also had a money-bag in a time of necessity, as for instance when He was passing through the Samaritans. In which time of necessity He also permitted the disciples to have money-bags, according to that passage of Luke twenty-two: When I sent you without purse and scrip etc.; the Gloss says: "He does not instruct the disciples with the same rule of living in a time of persecution as in a time of peace. When He sent the disciples to preach, He gave the ordered precept that they should take nothing for the journey, namely, that he who proclaims the Gospel should live by the Gospel. But when the moment of death was at hand, and that entire nation was persecuting both shepherd and flock together, He decreed a rule fitting for that time, permitting them to take the necessities of sustenance, until, the madness of the persecutors being calmed, the time for evangelizing should return." From these Glosses it manifestly appears that the manner of having money bags in the Lord in no way diminished poverty.

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 because he was a thief, and accustomed to stealing, he was pained that the use of the ointment had deprived him of an opportunity to steal, and it was this avarice that led to the betrayal, for we read: "Nothing is more wicked than the covetous man" (Sir 10:9); and "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy" (10:10). He had the opportunity to steal for he had the money box, that is, he was in charge of our Lord's purse, and he used to take what was put into it, i.e., whatever was donated by the faithful for Christ's use and for the poor he carried as a duty, but carried off as a thief.

Two things can be noted here. First, that Christ lived on alms as a poor person: "As for me, I am poor and needy" (Ps 40:17). Secondly, it is not opposed to perfection to keep alms in a money box. Thus what we read in Matthew (6:34), "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," does not forbid one from saving for tomorrow, since our Lord did this very thing, and he is the supreme model of perfection.

One might ask why our Lord, since he knew that Judas was a thief, entrusted him with the money box? This can be answered in three ways. First, according to Augustine, Christ did this so that his Church would be patient when it was robbed; for one is not good if he cannot endure those who are evil. Thus we read: "As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). Secondly, our Lord entrusted him with the money box to lessen his danger of final damnation, because he could then satisfy his greed from the money box. But as it is said: "He who loves money will not be satisfied with money" (Eccl 5:10). Thirdly, according to others, he did this in order to teach us that spiritual things should be entrusted to those who are more worthy, and temporal things should be entrusted to the less worthy. Thus the Apostles said: "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables" (Acts 6:2), and they entrusted this work to one of the deacons.

But why does it say here that only Judas said this when the ointment was poured out, while Matthew says that the disciples said this? One reply is that Matthew uses the plural for the singular, as he also did in "Those who sought the child's life are dead" (2:20). Or, one might answer that Judas was the first to grumble and that this incited the others to say the same, although not from the same motive.