A) A BIBLICAL TRUTH ABOUT BIBLICAL NAMES.

B) MRS. WHITE AND MARY MAGDALENE.

C) THE MAJORITY OF BIBLE COMMENTATORS.

D) BIBLICAL TRUTH.

E) A SERIOUS LOOK.

F) EVEN MORE CLARITY.

 

 

A) A BIBLICAL TRUTH ABOUT BIBLICAL NAMES

 

 

Here is a very important Biblical truth to keep in mind.  Just as we use last names to help us better identify which person we are referring to, who has the same first name, so it came to be about the time of Christ that a person was better identified by associating him or her with their perspective towns.  Such was the case with our Lord, i.e., “Jesus of Nazareth,” Matthew 26:71, and with Saul, known as “Paul, of Tarsus,” Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3.  And possibly a greater Biblical truth is that of John Mark (Acts 12:12 & 25; 15:37).  The fact is that the Book of Mark should have been called “John.”  However, Bible writers and scribe’s afterwords wanted to be better able to distinguish which “John” they were including in their discussion or dissertation.

 

Keep this Bible truth in mind and you will never again have trouble identifying another Bible character that has the same name when you reference with the town they are from.  However, if, as is the case with Mark and Luke’s account of the flask of ointment, and a person is not identified with one’s town, it is most likely to protect that person’s identity (discussed later).

 

All of this discussion could be clearly cleaned up by reading John 11:1-2 (discussed later and proven Biblically), since you only care about what Mrs. White has to say, even though the Bible tells you who this Mary truly is.

 

 

B) MRS. WHITE AND MARY MAGDALENE

 

 

Now here is the only statement [IN THE CHANGED WRITINGS OF MRS. WHITE] that SDA’s can and have used to prove that Mary Magdalene was a harlot:  “The one who had fallen, and whose mind had been a habitation of demons[HERE IS THE UNTRUTH], was brought very near to the Saviour in fellowship and ministry.  It was Mary who sat at His feet and learned of Him.  It was Mary who poured upon His head the precious anointing oil, and bathed His feet with her tears.  Mary stood beside the cross, and followed Him to the sepulcher.  Mary was first at the tomb after His resurrection [Note This Statement:  “first” “after His resurrection”].  It was Mary who first proclaimed a risen Saviour.”  DA:568.

 

It is thought by the first statement in this sentence that Mrs. White is referring to Mary, the sister of Martha, because she surely is continuing her narrative that started on page 558 (ten pages earlier I must point out; hardly the same context, but most likely the same person, you determine).  However, she is absolutely referring to Mary of Magdala.  And she does not refer to this Mary as being a harlot.  Consider the following statement in MB:129, where Mrs. Whiteseparates Mary Magdalene out from “harlots,” of which Lazarus’ sister was:  “To publicans and harlots His Words were the beginning of a new life.  Mary Magdalene, out of whom He cast seven devils, was the last at the Saviour’s tomb [according to DA:568 Mary of Bethany was “first at the tomb”] and the first whom He greeted in the morning of His resurrection [“after His resurrection,” DA:568 above].”

 

Notice that Mary Magdalene is “last at the Saviour’s tomb,” while Mary of Bethany, Lazarus’ sister, was “first.”  Therefore, Mrs. White has clearly separated these two women out from each other.  MB:129 has Mary of Magdala as being the first “whom He greeted,” but not the “first at the tomb.”  This can get a little confusing.  However, see below.

 

Also, Mrs. White separates the Mary’s again in this statement:  “He Who wept tears of sympathy at the grave of Lazarus and gave back to Martha and Mary their buried brother; Who pardoned Mary Magdalene (notice, separate, apart from Martha’s sister); Who remembered His mother when He was hanging in agony upon the cross; Who appeared to the weeping women and made them His messengers to spread the first glad tidings of a risen Saviour. . .”  Signs of the Times, September 9, 1886 & November 29, 1877; BEcho, September 1, 1893; The Health Reformer, August, 1877; AH:204; RC:170; WM:156.  Here Mrs. White clearly separates Mary, the sister of Martha, from Mary Magdalene, whom Christ had pardoned and cast out the “seven demons.”  Therefore, any further discussion upon the sister of Lazarus of Bethsaida and Martha of Bethsaida as being Mary of Magdala is fruitless.

 

In Addition, Mrs. White is clear in this statement about who the “harlot” is:  “Mary loved her Lord.  He had forgiven her sins which were many, and had raised from the dead her much loved brother [PRETTY CLEAR WHICH MARY IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE; MARY OF BETHANY], and she felt that nothing was too dear to bestow upon Jesus.  The more costly and precious the ointment, the better could Mary [OF BETHANY] express her gratitude to her Saviour, by devoting it to Him.”  1SG:44.  Had the “Desire of Ages” committee of we know better than Mrs. White; and therefore, we will follow the Roman Catholic worldly doctrine of Marry Magdala being a prostitute and even married to Christ; we would not be in this mess in Adventism where we fell the need to correct Mrs. White and change her writings, Adventists should have, could have, known better than to follow the world’s Catholicism.  See my Bible Studies:  “4SP VERSES GC (4SP being the original Great Controversy that was supposed to go to all the world) & GC CHANGES EXPLAINED & (even more damaging) EGW, WRITINGS CHANGED.”

 

ALL DOUBT IS TAKEN AWAY when we read THE ORIGINAL, UNCHANGED WRITINGS of 2SP:374-375: “While all this plotting was going on at Jerusalem, Jesus was quietly resting from His labors at the house of Lazarus [of Bethany].  Simon of Bethany, whom Jesus had healed of leprosy, [375]

 

“wishing to show his Master special honor, made a supper and invited Him and His friends as guests.  The Saviour sat at the table, with Simon, whom He had cured of a loathsome disease, on one side, and Lazarus [of Bethany], whom He had raised from the dead, on the other.  Martha [of Bethany] served at the table, but Mary [of Bethany] was earnestly listening to every Word that fell from the lips of Jesus.  She saw that He was sad; she knew that immediately after raising her brother from the dead, He was obliged to seclude Himself in order to escape the persecution of the leading Jews.  As she looked upon her brother in the strength of perfect health, her heart went out in gratitude to Jesus Who had restored him to her from the grave.

 

“Jesus in His mercy had pardoned the sins of Mary [of Bethany], which had been many and grievous, and her heart was full of love for her Saviour.  She had often heard Him speak of His approaching death, and she was grieved that He should meet so cruel a fate.  At great personal sacrifice she had purchased an alabaster box of precious ointment with which to anoint the body of Jesus at His death. [HERE IS WHERE THE UNSTUDIED CHRISTIAN WORLD HAS MARY OF MAGDALA PORING THE OINTMENT; BELIEVING ONLY A PROSITUTE COULD AFFORD THIS OIL; which is true].  But she now heard many express an opinion that He would be elevated to kingly authority when He went to Jerusalem, and she was only too ready to believe that it would be so.  She rejoiced that her Saviour would no longer be despised and rejected, and obliged to flee for His life.  In her love and gratitude she wished to be the first to do Him honor, and, seeking to avoid observation, anointed His head and feet with the precious ointment, and then wiped His feet with her long, flowing hair.”

 

Where SDA’s disagree is from a latter on statement, not linking it to the above:  “Though she had been very sinful, her repentance was sincere, and Jesus, while reproving her guilt, had pitied her weakness and forgiven her.  Mary's [of Bethany] heart was filled with gratitude at the compassion of Jesus.  Seven times {HERE IS THEIR MISTAKE OF ASSOCIATING THE “Seven times” statement with Mary of Magdala, instead of Mary of Bethany, who’s house they are in} she had heard His stern rebuke to the demons which then controlled her heart and mind, and she had listened to His strong cries to His Father in her behalf.  She knew how offensive everything impure was to the unsullied mind of Christ, and she overcame her sin in the strength of her Saviour.  She was transformed, a partaker of the Divine nature.”  2SP:377.1; ST, October 9, 1879, paragraph 10; 4Red:109.3.

 

 

C) THE MAJORITY OF BIBLE COMMENTATORS

 

 

Most Bible commentators associate the Mary of Luke 7:36-50, the Mary who anointed Jesus’ feet at Simon’s house, with that of being Mary Magdalene.  It is thought that the only way that Mary could afford such a costly ointment (a year’s worth of wages), would to have been in the occupation of being a prostitute (‘a sinner,’ verse 37).  However, here is one among others who stands out as being of the opposite opinion:  “The idea that this Mary was ‘the woman who was a sinner,’ or that she was unchaste, is altogether groundless.”  “Easton’s Bible Dictionary.”  All one need do is identify the towns associated with each party named “Mary,” and we can dispense with this made up Roman Catholic doctrine; designed by the way, to have Jesus married; based upon an ancient piece of papyrus known as, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.”

 

 

D) BIBLICAL TRUTH

 

 

The proof Biblically that this Mary of Matthew 26:6-7; Mark 14:3; & Luke 7:36-50 accounts, is given to us by John, a Book that seems to be ignored by Bible Commentators (and I do not know why except that they are looking for clues from the same Bible writer).  John 11:1-2 explains clearly who this Mary is/was:  “[1] Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany [OF BETHANY], the town of Mary {OF BETHANY] and her sister Martha {OF BETHANY]. [2] (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus {OF BETHANY] was sick.).”  There we have it clear as day!  This Mary that anointed the feet of Jesus is the Mary of Bethany, and not Mary of Magdala!!!

 

It is interesting to note that when Mark and Luke have the opportunity to tell us what sin Mary of Bethany had committed, as the Bible is generally always very clear about, keeping back nothing of one’s disclosers, they mention nothing in their discourses.  Moreover, since both do not, it could be that they are being discreet, or that they are saving her from stoning for committing adultery, or both.

 

Mark does mention of Mary Magdalene that it was her, “out of whom He [Jesus] had cast seven devils,” Mark 16:9.  Since Mark does this instead of mentioning what would have been possibly even more obvious, “a sinner,” verse 37, or better, a prostitute, we should move along with Mark and associate Mary Magdalene as being separate from Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus of Bethany {HAVE I POINTED THE TOWNS OUT ENOUGH YET], who anointed the feet of our Lord at Simon’s house.  The reason being, because he does not give us the town from which this particular Mary is from, lest she be identified.  By contrast, Mary of Magdala is identified, and is “ALWAYS” associated with the town in which she is from.

 

 

E) A SERIOUS LOOK

 

 

Since what the Bible does tell us about Mary Magdalene, i.e., that she is the one out of whom Christ had cast seven demons (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2), let’s take a “serious” look at this Biblical evidence.

 

Magdala is a town on the western shore of the Lake of Tiberias.  Therefore, we know that Magdala was a real town in the days of Christ.  In regards to our other Mary, the sister of Lazarus, we have this statement in John 11:1:  “Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.”  In addition, Lazarus’ sister Mary is named for the first time in Luke 10:38-42, in a way in which clearly indicates that the family lived in the town of Bethany.  That this phrasing, along with the phrasing of John 11:1, clearly linking Lazarus’ sister Mary as being from the town of Bethany, becomes very Biblically clear if you are willing to look at the evidence as presented.

 

Therefore, this would make Lazarus’ sisters’ proper name as, “Mary of Bethany,” and not Mary of Magdala, as the Bible has so clearly distinguished for us.  Consequently, whenever the Bible says, “Mary Magdalene,” it means Mary of Magdala; while on the other hand, when it is talking about “Mary,” it could be any number of Mary’s, but never “Mary Magdalene.”  The reason is, because whenever Mary Magdalene is referred to, she is ALWAYS referenced to as where she is from, i.e., her last name, if you will, if she were living today; i.e., the town of Magdalene.  In fact, as a result of Christ’s casting out of the seven demons from her, it is to be remarked that Mary had been cured of her malady in such a marked way that henceforth, throughout her life, she was a monument to the healing power of Christ.  What He had done for her became a part of her name along with the name of her village, i.e., Mary of Magdala, or as the “King James Version” puts it, “Mary Magdalene.”

 

Another step in the solution of this difficulty is to note again that it is Luke, Chapter Seven (Luke 7:36-50), that is used to refer to the woman who anointed the feet of our Lord as being Mary of Magdala, thus associating her with the occupation of prostitution.  However, the name of the town of this woman (which would associate her as a last name associates us in our day) is not even mentioned.  Nevertheless, we can determine who this woman really was by comparing this account with the other Gospel writers who do identify her.  If we look at Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8, we can see clearly that they identify her as being from Bethany, the town in which this is taking place, for Simon is from Bethany.  Does this not clearly indicate that this is the family of Lazarus who lived in Bethany; thus, being Mary of Bethany?  If it doesn’t at this point, I can’t help you except with the following.

 

 

F) EVEN MORE CLARITY

 

 

To further clarify, here is another identifying mark for Mary Magdalene.  She is first noticed in Luke 8:2-3 as one of the women who, “ministered to Christ of their substance.”  These women accompanied Him also on His last journey to Jerusalem (Mat. 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:55).  They stood a distance from the cross (Mat. 27:55).  There Mary Magdalene remained until all was over, and the body was taken down and laid in Joseph’s new tomb (Luke 23:55).  Luke is careful to mention Mary Magdalene, in Chapter 8 of his Gospel, always associating this Mary with her particular town (see Luke 24:10).  While our other Mary of Bethany is always associated with being the sister of someone, i.e., either Lazarus or Martha.  But Luke never mentions or associates this Mary’s town, lest one find out she is a prostitute.

 

For whatever reason (most likely kindness), Luke is careful not to mention the name or place of origin, i.e., the town in which she is from, of the woman in his Chapter 7.  If he were to mention her town, i.e., like giving our last name, then he would not be protecting her from being associated with prostitution.  On the other hand, he does not protect Mary Magdalene from being associated with prostitution, else he would not have identified her with her town, because she was not a prostitute, but the one whom was cast out “seven demons.”  While, to identify the woman of Chapter 7 with its town, i.e., Bethany, he would have exposed her.  Therefore, when we look at Luke 7:36-37, Luke is careful in his narrative to not even mention the name of the town of Bethany.  We have to obtain that information from the other Gospel writers.

 

Do you see the point NOW?  Luke will not associate a prostitute with the sin of prostitution by not referencing to the town she was from, (our last name if you will).  Just as Luke does not mention the name of Barabbas (see Luke 23:25), nor name the other thief (see Luke 23:39).  And since this is his practice, and he clearly references Mary Magdalene, in other words, the town in which she is from (our last name again), then we can be sure that Luke does not associate Mary Magdalene as being of the profession of prostitution.  And therefore, neither should you.

 

Therefore also, note this point.  The majority of Bible commentators are most likely correct in associating the costly ointment as being only able to be purchased through the avenue of “prostitution.”  However, their conclusion as to the correct prostitute being Mary of Magdala, as opposed to Mary of Bethany, clearly misses the Biblical point of the woman who has “seven demons” cast out of her, the only sin ever associated Biblically to Mary of Magdala.  They clearly pick up upon the Roman Catholic miscalculation of the true personage who is forgiven of the sin of “prostitution,” May of Bethany.  I pray you do not make the same mistake. From now on and become a true Protestant of the Toman Catholic church.  Especially her false doctrines like this one.