A) A BIBLICAL TRUTH ABOUT BIBLICAL NAMES.

B) THE MAJORITY OF BIBLE COMMENTATORS.

C) BIBLICAL TRUTH.

D) A SERIOUS LOOK.

E) 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).

 

 

B) 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.”

 

 

C) 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.

 

 

D) 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 links 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.

 

 

E) 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.