And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

“And He says not merely, She hath wrought a good work, but says first, Why trouble ye the woman? to teach us that every good act that is wrought by any, even though it lack somewhat of exact propriety, yet we ought to receive, cherish, and cultivate it, and not to require strict correctness in a beginner. If He had been asked before this was done by the woman, He would not have directed its doing; but when it was done, the rebuke of the disciples had no longer any place, and He Himself to guard the woman from importunate attacks speaks these things for her comfort.”

“After the Evangelist has set forth the preparations for the passion, here he comes to the passion of Christ; and it is divided into two parts: because first the passion is narrated as to those things which were done by the Jews; second as to those things which were done by the Gentiles, Matthew 27:1, "And when morning was come," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First the foretelling of the Lord's passion is set forth; second the passion and its order is narrated, at "Then went one," etc. The passion is foretold in three ways: by the word of Christ, by the counsel of his enemies, and third by deed and service. The second is at "Then were gathered together," etc.; the third at "And when Jesus was," etc. Concerning the first, first he sets forth the order of the foretelling, and the foretelling itself. The order is: "And it came to pass, when he had finished." And he speaks thus, because he alone is the one who can finish. We can begin, but not finish, according to that word of Ecclesiasticus 4: "We speak many things, and fail." Again he says "these words," namely those which he had spoken from the beginning of his preaching, from when he had said: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Or the words which he had spoken concerning the foretelling of glory, because the passion was the exaltation of glory; Philippians 2:9: "For which cause God also exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." Again he does not say only "all," but "all these," because he spoke everything for the benefit of believers and of the faith. "You know that after two days shall be the Passover": in this foretelling he does not simply foretell, but says, "after two days shall be the Passover"; and this was done to signify that not just any passion is the passion of Christ, but that which is signified through the paschal sacrifice. And he says "after two days." And according to this you ought to consider that these words were spoken on the thirteenth day of the moon, that is, on the third feria, because on the fifteenth day of the moon the Passover was celebrated. But it is found in John 12:1 that the Lord came into Bethany, and this on the Sabbath day; and on another day he came into Jerusalem, and there cast out those selling and buying, and on the day of the moon he returned, and saw the fig tree withered, which he cursed. And according to Mark he returned on the day of Mars, and then on that day he set forth all those parables. And on that day, when he had finished these words, he said: "You know that after two days shall be the Passover." This name "Pasch," according to what Jerome says, is said from "pascendo" [feeding], but properly it is called "phase," which is "passage." Now the passage is fourfold, according as the Pasch is understood in four ways. According to history the Pasch was celebrated when the exterminator struck the firstborn of Egypt; then the Lord commanded that they eat the phase, Exodus 12:3. Again, according to allegory it is the passage of Christ through death; and concerning this, John 13:1: "Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father," etc. Again there is the moral sense, or typical, according to which one passes from carnal conduct to spiritual; Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "Come over to me, all ye that desire me." Again there is a general passage, according to which it is said that heaven and earth shall pass away, etc. Hence "after two days," namely after the teaching of the old and the new law. According to the Greek it is said from "pasqui," which is "to be fed." Hence fittingly, Christ knowing that he would pass from the world to the Father, said, "and the Son of man shall be delivered up, to be crucified." He does not say by whom he shall be delivered up, because he was delivered up by the Father; Romans 8:32: "He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Again by himself; Ephesians 5:2: "He loved us, and delivered himself up for us," etc. Again by Judas. Here: "What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?" Again by the Jews to Pilate; John 18:35: "Thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me." Again by Pilate to the Gentiles; hence it is said, John 19:16: "he delivered him up to be crucified." "Then were gathered together the chief priests," etc. In this part is set forth the perverse counsel of the Pharisees. And first the counsel concerning Christ's passion is set forth; second concerning the delay, at "But they said: Not on the festival day." Concerning the first we can note that the sin of the Jews is aggravated by the time, because "then," with the paschal festival imminent; Isaiah 58:13: "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy own will in my holy day." But, as I believe, it does not refer to the immediate day, but to around that time, because it is found in John 11:13 that they took counsel, and from that day they thought how to kill him. And then it is said that Jesus withdrew into a region near the desert. Hence this was not done immediately. Or it can be said that it was done twice. Again it is aggravated by the multitude; hence it is said: "the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together"; Isaiah 1:14: "My soul hateth your solemnities: for indeed your hands are full of blood." Again from the condition of those sinning, because they were among the greater ones; hence it is said, "the chief priests"; Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great ones, and I will speak to them"; and afterward: "and behold these have altogether broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds." And Psalm 2:2: "The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord, and against his Christ." Again from the place, because it was done in the courtyard of the chief priest. Hence these men ought to have restrained others from wickedness, yet they themselves were doing it; Daniel 13:5: "iniquity came forth from the elders." But were there indeed many chief priests? For the Lord had commanded that there should be one high priest alone, but this did not suffice for them. Hence on account of covetousness they had divided the priesthood. Also they had already lost it, and were buying the priesthood from the Romans. Or he calls "chief priests" those who had been chief priests before him, along with him who had been chief priest of that year. Again is touched upon that concerning which they took counsel, "that they might by subtlety lay hold on Jesus." And it was foolish to believe that they could lay hold of him by deceit, who knew all things; Jeremiah 9:8: "their tongue is a wounding arrow, it hath spoken deceit." "But they said: Not on the festival day." Here the delay is dealt with: and the counsel is set forth, and the reason. "But they said: Not on the festival day." Someone might say that they said this out of devotion; therefore he removes this by saying, "lest perhaps there should be a tumult made among the people"; for they knew that many held him for a prophet, and some indeed for the Christ: therefore there was dissension among the people, as is found in John 7:30ff and 9:8ff. Therefore they feared lest they should take him out of their hands. This they thought, but Christ was thinking something else: hence those two thought two things, namely that they wanted to kill him, and that he should not be crucified on the festival day, to signify that this sacrifice succeeded the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. "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 reproof; third the excuse. The second at "But 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 resource; 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 had been, Christ would not have remained with him, since this was forbidden in the law: and yet both facts pertain to the mystery. Bethany is said to mean "house of obedience": hence by this his obedience is signified; Philippians 2:8: "he became obedient unto death." Therefore it befits him to be in the house of a leper; Isaiah 53:4: "and we have thought him as it were a leper." And for this reason rather he came there. Another reason can be a literal one, namely so that she might have confidence to come to Christ, because this man was a kinsman of Mary, and had been cured by him of bodily leprosy, and she came in order to be cured of spiritual leprosy. And it should be noted that no one else is said to come to Christ for spiritual salvation, except this woman; therefore she was worthy of praise. "A woman came to him." Behold the person. Matthew and Mark say this happened in the same place; John and Luke do not. For Luke speaks of this woman in chapter 7:37ff, and John in 12:3ff. There is therefore the opinion of certain ones, as was that of Origen, that there were several women. Let us speak of the first two. Jerome expressly says that she of whom Luke speaks was not the sister of Lazarus, because of her it is said that she anointed the feet, while of this one it is said that she anointed the feet and the head. Ambrose on Luke says that either can be said, that she is the same, or different. If we say that she is the same, we can say: although the same, yet not of the same merit: but the sinner did not dare to touch the head, but afterward, having gained confidence, she anointed the head. And Augustine proves that she is the same, because John 11:5, before he comes to this deed, says: "Now Mary was the sister of Lazarus, who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair." Therefore it seems that she of whom Luke speaks is the same as she who is the sister of Lazarus. Origen says that she of whom Luke speaks is not the same as she of whom John speaks. And this can be proved by reason of time, because that account is read to have happened before he went into Jerusalem; this happened when he says: "You know that after two days shall be the Passover." Again from the place, because that woman was in the house of Martha, of whom it is spoken in John; but this one in the house of Simon. Again by this, that there she anoints the feet, here the head. The fourth is that there Judas said: "To what purpose is this waste?" But here, that all the disciples said it. Augustine says that it is the same woman, and answers Origen's arguments. To the first he says that Matthew does not keep the order of the history, but recounts it here because from this occasion Judas took the opportunity of sinning, when he saw the ointment poured out. What is objected concerning the place, Augustine does not resolve. It can, however, be resolved thus: that this man was of great authority, and having power, and their house was one, because he was a kinsman of theirs. Otherwise how would it be true what is said, that they made a supper there, and Lazarus was one of those reclining at table? "Therefore a woman came having an alabaster box of ointment." Alabaster is a kind of marble, which is translucent, and windows are made from it. And from this stone certain vessels were made, in which ointments were kept, just as now they are made from crushed earth, because from their coldness they were preservative; hence "alabaster," that is, a vessel of alabaster full of ointment. And here it is called "of precious ointment," elsewhere that it was "of spikenard, pistic." "Pistis" in Greek, "faithful" in Latin. Hence "pistic," that is, not adulterated. Consequently the effect is set forth: "and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table." But here there is a twofold question. How did Christ permit this, since it seems to pertain to wantonness? To this Augustine responds in On Christian Doctrine. It is judged one way in a common person, another way in a prophetic person: because in the common person it is judged according to the deed itself, but in the prophetic according to its signification. In an ordinary person it would signify wantonness; in a prophetic person, its signification. The allegorical exposition: it signifies the burial of Christ, since in ancient times bodies were accustomed to be anointed. It is found in Mark 14 that she came beforehand to anoint the body for burial. Again mystically the ointment signifies any good work whatsoever. Now this work can be done in two ways, because there is a certain work which is not done for God's sake, but for the sake of natural righteousness, as the work of a Gentile, and this is ointment, but not precious. If it is for God's sake, then it is precious. Hence one anoints the feet, when one does a good work for the benefit of one's neighbor; but when it is for the glory of God, then one anoints the head. But what is meant, that John says she anointed the feet, and Matthew that she anointed the head? Augustine says that she did both. But what is meant, that Mark says she broke the alabaster? Augustine says that just as it sometimes happens that someone pours out in such a way that nothing remains, and afterward breaks the vessel: so this woman did, and poured it out, and broke it. Or if anyone wishes to cavil, it can be said that first she anointed the feet, then the head. Then follows the rebuke of the woman: "But the disciples seeing it had indignation." But here an objection is raised, because in John 12 it is said that Judas alone said it, but this Evangelist says that all said it. There is a twofold response according to Jerome: because that which is said here, that the disciples said it, is said by synecdoche: "disciples," that is, a disciple, and this manner is customary in Scripture; Hebrews 11:37: "they were cut asunder," whereas only one was cut asunder, namely Isaiah alone. Or it can be said that it was all, because, according to what Augustine says, Judas stirred up all the others. Again, that the others were stirred up on account of the need of the poor, but this one was moved on account of 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 all that thou hast, and give to the poor." "And Jesus knowing it, said to them." Here is set forth the excuse of the woman: and he does two things. First he excuses and commends her; second he touches upon her reward, "Amen I say to you," etc. And first he excuses; second he answers the objection of the disciples; third he explains what he had said. He says therefore: "Why do you trouble this woman?" The Lord is always the advocate of this woman, because in Luke 7:39 the Pharisee accused her of sin, whence he said: "This man, if he were a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is, that toucheth him," etc., and the Lord excused her through love. Again in Luke 10:40 even Martha accused her of idleness, and the Lord excused her through contemplation. Here the disciples accuse her of the pouring out of the ointment, and the Lord excuses her on the ground of devotion, saying: "Why do you trouble this woman?" Job 6:27: "You rush upon the fatherless, and you strive to overthrow your friend." "She has wrought a good work upon me"; Proverbs 3:27: "Do not hinder anyone from doing good; if thou art able, do good thyself." Chrysostom: sometimes it happens that someone does a good work generically, and perhaps could have done better; hence one must act differently before the deed and after the deed. Hence after the deed he is to be commended for the deed; but if he came before the deed, he should be counseled to do what is better. Hence it is to be believed that if she had asked the Lord's counsel beforehand, he would have told her to give it to the poor. "For the poor you have always with you," etc. Here is set forth the response to their objection, because they said that it could have been given to the poor. "But me you have not always." This is true according to bodily presence, but he will always be present according to spiritual presence. Hence he says below, at the very end, 28:20: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." And what did she do? "For she in pouring this ointment upon my body, has done it for my burial." But what is meant? Did she indeed intend to bury Christ? No. But, as Augustine says, just as the Holy Spirit moves one to speak, so also sometimes to act; hence it is written, Romans 8:14: "They that are led by the Spirit of God, are not under the law." Hence it happens that someone is instructed by the Holy Spirit toward some meaning which he did not intend. So this woman intended a good work, but the Holy Spirit ordained it toward the burial. He says: "she has wrought a good work upon me." Someone might say that to give to one's neighbor would be a good work. This is true, but not so much that it should be preached throughout the whole world; therefore he adds: "Amen I say to you: wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, it shall be told for a memory of her," that is, in commendation of her. Jerome says that this one, about to be crucified, foretells that the Gospel would be told throughout the whole world, and yet it had not yet been made known, when Matthew wrote. Again note, that many wished their birth to be spread abroad throughout the whole world, and the memory of them has been blotted out, yet the deed of this woman has not been blotted out; Proverbs 10:7: "the memory of the just is with praises"; and Psalm 111:7: "the just shall be in everlasting remembrance." "Then went one of the twelve." Above he set forth a threefold foretelling of the Lord's passion; here he turns his intention to the narration: and he does two things. First he prefaces the preparations; second he deals with the passion itself, at "as he yet spoke," etc. Now there are three preparations. First the dealing of the betrayal is set forth; second the institution of the Lord's communion; third, concerning the prayer of Christ. The second at "Now on the first day of the unleavened bread," etc.; the third at "Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani." Concerning the first, three things. First the person of the betrayer is described; second the dealing of the betrayal; third his eagerness; he says therefore, "Then." You should understand that this does not refer to what immediately precedes, because what was said about this woman was said by way of transposition; but it is referred back to what was said, that the chief priests and elders of the people were gathered together, that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him. "Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot." And his person is described from three things. From 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 wish to choose one who would be evil and a betrayer? The first reason can be to signify that he condemns no one on account of his own predestination, nor saves anyone on that account, but on account of present righteousness. Hence if he condemned on account of his own predestination, it would not be imputed to anyone. Again for the consolation of men: for he knew it would come to pass that many would be deceived in their choices, just as happened in the case of Philip, who chose Simon Magus; therefore the Lord allowed there to be a betrayer among the disciples. Another reason can be so that no one should be blamed, if someone should be evil, since in the first college one was evil. Again the person of the betrayer is described from his name: "who was called Judas." Among the disciples two were called by this name; yet one was evil, by which it is signified that among those who confess God some are good, some evil. Of the good ones, Psalm 113:2: "Judea was made his sanctuary." Of the evil it is said, Titus 1:16: "They profess that they know God, but in their works they deny him." Again he is described from his homeland. "Iscariot" is a certain village, and is interpreted "memory of death," because the sin of Judas is held in memory. And this can be referred to what is said in Jeremiah 17:1: "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond." "To the chief priests," who intended to kill Christ, forgetting that which is 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." "And said to them." Here is set forth the dealing of the betrayal. And first the dealing is set forth; second the consummation. And first his covetousness is to be considered; second his presumption. Covetousness, when he says: "What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?" For money's sake he despised all friendship; Ecclesiasticus 10:10: "Nothing is more wicked than to love money: for such a one setteth even his own soul to sale." For this man, because he did not restrain covetousness, fell into betrayal. For because he saw that he had been cheated of the price of the ointment, he therefore wished to recover it by betraying Christ. Again his presumption is touched upon, when he says: "and I will deliver him unto you." It was great presumption to betray him who knew all things. Again this man speaks as one thinking very ill of God, because when someone wishes to sell a thing which he loves, he sets a price on it; but when he has a thing of which he wishes to rid himself, he says: give me what you please. So this man 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 those act in a similar way who abandon God for the sake of temporal advantage. For he dwells in us through faith; but we abandon him when we cling too much to temporal things; hence it is said: "And they appointed him thirty pieces of silver." But why did he express it thus? Because it was so signified through that word of Zechariah 11:12: "and they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver." And it is not to be said that Joseph was sold for thirty denarii, but Scripture holds that it was only for twenty pieces of silver, that is, denarii. But what does it mean to say thirty? It is to be understood: this number is composed of five and six, whence five times six is thirty. By five are signified the five books of Moses, or temporal things which are subject to the five senses; hence it is signified that after the law of Moses, in the sixth age, salvation would come to pass. "And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him." Here his eagerness is set forth. And why did he do this? So that he might perpetrate the crime more easily and more secretly, as is the case with those who sin, because "he that doth evil hateth the light," John 3:20; and Job 24:15: "the eye of the adulterer watcheth for darkness."”

“When Jesus understood it,.... The indignation of his disciples at this action of the woman's; which he might know, as man, partly by their looks, and partly by their words; though without these, as God, he knew the secret indignation, and private resentment of their minds: he said unto them, why trouble ye the woman? by blaming her, and censuring the action she had done; as it must, no doubt, greatly trouble her to meet with such treatment from the disciples of Christ: had any of the Pharisees blamed her conduct, it would have given her no pain or uneasiness; but that Christ's own disciples should show indignation at an action done by her from a sincere love to Christ, and to do honour to him, must cut her to the heart: and so it is when either ministers of the Gospel, or private believers, are blamed for their honest zeal in the cause of Christ, by any that profess to love him; this grieves them more than all the enemies of religion say or do unto them: for she hath wrought a good work upon me; upon his body, by pouring the ointment on it: the Persic version reads it, "according to my mind": it was done, in the faith of him, as the Messiah; it sprung from real and sincere love to him, and was designed for his honour and glory; and so had the essentials of a good work in it. This is the first part of our Lord's defence of the woman: he goes on in the next verse.”

“Why do you trouble this woman? By this, our Saviour teaches us, that we are not to expect the more perfect acts of virtue from persons still novices, or young in the service of God. He takes the part of the woman, and speaks in her behalf; that the tender bud of her faith might not be blasted, but that her virtues might be watered with tenderness, and thus assisted to produce greater fruit for the future. When, therefore, we behold any good action done, though some imperfection may creep in with it, still ought we to behold it with kindness, and assist it to bring forth more perfect acts for the time to come. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxi.)”