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.

Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein.

Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein.

But he said this, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and had the bag, and carried what was put into it.

This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bore what was put in it.

and he said this, not because he was caring for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and what things were put in he was carrying.

This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bore what was put therein.

The reason he said this was not that he cared for the poor, but that he was a thief, and that being in charge of the money-box, he used to steal what was put into it.

(He said this, not because he had any love for the poor; but because he was a thief, and, having the money-bag, took for himself what was put into it.)

Now he said this, not out of concern for the needy, but because he was a thief and, since he held the purse, he used to carry what was put into it.

Because he was a thief. The rest of the Apostles, not from any bad disposition, but thoughtlessly, condemn Mary. But Judas resorts to a plausible pretext for his wickedness, when he brings forward the poor, though he cared nothing about them. We are taught by this instance what a frightful beast the desire of possessing is; the loss which Judas thinks that he has sustained, by the loss of an opportunity for stealing, excites him to such rage that he does not hesitate to betray Christ. And probably, in what he said about the poor having been defrauded, he did not only speak falsely to others, but likewise flattered himself inwardly, as hypocrites are wont to do; as if the act of betraying Christ were a trivial fault, by which he endeavored to obtain compensation for the loss which he had sustained. He had but one reason, indeed, for betraying Christ; and that was, to regain in some way the prey which had been snatched from his hands; for it was the indignation excited in him, by the gain which he had lost, that drove him to the design of betraying Christ. It is wonderful that Christ should have chosen, as a steward, a person of this description, whom he knew to be a thief. For what else was it than to put into his hands a rope for strangling himself? Mortal man can give no other reply than this, that the judgments of God are a deep gulf. Yet the action of Christ ought not to be viewed as an ordinary rule, that we should commit the care of the poor, or any thing sacred, to a wicked and ungodly man. for God has laid down to us a law, who they are that ought to be called to the government of the Church, and to other offices; and this law we are not at liberty to violate. The case was otherwise with Christ, who, being the eternal Wisdom of God, furnished an opportunity for his secret predestination in the person of Judas.

Had the bag - The word translated "bag" is compounded of two words, meaning "tongue," and "to keep or preserve." It was used to denote the bag in which musicians used to keep the tongues or reeds of their pipes when traveling. Hence, it came to mean any bag or purse in which travelers put their money or their most precious articles. The disciples appear to have had such a bag or purse in common, in which they put whatever money they had, and which was designed especially for the poor, Luke 8:3; John 13:29; Acts 2:44. The keeping of this, it seems, was intrusted to Judas; and it is remarkable that the only one among them who appears to have been naturally avaricious should have received this appointment. It shows us that every man is tried according to his native propensity. This is the object of trial - to bring out man's native character; and every man will find opportunity to do evil according to his native disposition, if he is inclined, to it.
And bare - The word translated "bare" means literally "to carry as a burden." Then it means "to carry away," as in John 20:15; "If thou hast borne him hence." Hence, it means to carry away as a thief does, and this is evidently its meaning here. It has this sense often in classic writers. Judas was a thief and stole what was put into the bag. The money he desired to be entrusted to him, that he might secretly enrich himself. It is clear, however, that the disciples did not at this time know that this was his character, or they would have remonstrated against him. They learned it afterward. We may learn here:
1. that it is not a new thing for members of the church to be covetous. Judas was so before them.
2. that such members will be those who complain of the great waste in spreading the gospel.
3. that this deadly, mean, and grovelling passion will work all evil in a church. It brought down the curse of God on the children of Israel in the case of Achan Josh. 7, and it betrayed our Lord to death. It has often since brought blighting on the church; and many a time it has betrayed the cause of Christ, and drowned men in destruction and perdition, 1-Timothy 6:9.

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, John 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. 5, s 4; where speaking of the pillage of the temple by Antiochus, he says, Τα σκευη του Θεου βαϚασαι, He carried off, or Stole, also the vessels of the Lord. See also Ant. b. viii. c. 2, s. 2, where the harlot says before Solomon, concerning her child, βαϚασασα δε τουμον εκ των γονατων προς αὑτην μεταφερει - She Stole away my child out of my bosom, and removed it to herself. And Ibid. b. ix. c. 4, s. 5, speaking of the ten lepers that went into the Syrian camp, he says, finding the Syrians fled, They entered into the camp, and ate, and drank; and, having Stolen away (εβαϚασαν) garments, and much gold, they hid them without the camp. See the objections to this translation answered by Kypke, and the translation itself vindicated. See also Pearce in loc., Wakefield, Toup. Em. ad Suid. p. iii. p. 203. If stealing were not intended by the evangelist, the word itself must be considered as superfluous; for, when we are told that he had the bag, we need not be informed that he had what was in it. But the apostle says he was a thief; and because he was a thief, and had the common purse in his power, therefore he stole as much as he conveniently could, without subjecting himself to detection. And, as he saw that the death of Christ was at hand, he wished to secure a provision for himself, before he left the company of the apostles. I see that several copies of the old Itala version understood the word in this sense, and therefore have translated the word by auferebat, exportabat - took away, carried away. Jerome, who professed to mend this version, has in this place (as well as in many others) marred is, by rendering εβαϚαζεν, by portabat.
The γλωσσοκομον, which we translate bag, meant originally the little box, or sheath, in which the tongues or reeds used for pipes were carried; and thus it is interpreted by Pollux in his Onomasticon; and this is agreeable to the etymology of the word. The Greek word is used in Hebrew letters by the Talmudists to signify a purse, scrip, chest, coffer, etc. As our Lord and his disciples lived on charity, a bag or scrip was provided to carry those pious donations by which they were supported. And Judas was steward and treasurer to this holy company.

This he said, not that he cared for the poor,.... He had no affection for them, and was unconcerned about them, and took no care of them to feed and clothe them; he was no ways solicitous for their support, refreshment, and more comfortable living:
but because he was a thief; to his master, and purloined the money he was intrusted with by him, and put it to his own use:
and had the bag, and bare what put therein; the word rendered a "bag", is adopted by the Rabbinical Jews, into their language; and is sometimes read "Gloskema", and at other times "Dloskema", and is used by them for different things; sometimes (g) for a bier, or coffin, in which the dead was buried, which sense can have no place here; sometimes for a chest, or coffer (h); and so the Septuagint use the Greek word, in 2-Chronicles 24:8, for the chest into which the people put their collection; and it may be so interpreted here, and so Nonnus renders it; it may signify the chest or coffer, which Judas had the care of, the keys of which were in his hands, and whatever were to be put into it, he bore, or carried thither: and it is also used by the Jewish writers, for a purse (i); it is asked,
"what is "Dloskema?" says Rabbah bar Samuel, , "the purse of old men";''
or such as ancient men use; and this is the signification of it here: it may be the same with the "Loculi" of the Romans, and so the Vulgate Latin renders it here; which were different from a chest, or coffer, being moveable, and to be carried about, and which were carried by servants, as well as the purse (k). Judas had the purse, into which was put whatsoever was ministered to Christ, for the common supply of him and his disciples, and for the relief of the poor.
(g) Targum Jonah. & Jerus. in Genesis. l. 26. T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 24. 2. & Massech. Semacot, c. 3. sect. 2. (h) Misn. Meila, c. 6. sect. 1. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 26. 2. (i) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 28. 1. & Bava Metzia, fol. 20. 2. (k) Vid. Pignorium de Servis, p. 327, 328.

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! The purposes which this served are obvious enough; but it is further noticeable, that the remotest hint was never given to the eleven of His true character, nor did the disciples most favored with the intimacy of Jesus ever suspect him, till a few minutes before he voluntarily separated himself from their company--for ever!