The Repentant Woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene: One Figure?

[Moonwood]

Demons in that time period can represent illness. And no indicates that Mary Magkalene acted like she was demon possessed. And if it was actual demon possession, as today demon possession does not usually occur to overtly sinful people.
And Yeshua described this woman in Luke 7 as sexually promiscuous. But yes you right not necessary a prostitute.

Did Pope Gregory I Believe Mary Magdalene Was a Prostitute?​

Yes — in a sermon in 591 CE, Pope Gregory the Great explicitly identified Mary Magdalene with the “sinful woman” of Luke 7 and, by interpreting that term, concluded she had been a prostitute before repenting.

And yes you do not have to be a Theologian to read the Bible. But a college education takes the subject matter to a deeper depth. The linguists studies of the biblical language in understanding the scriptures and studies of the time period and culture.
Next time you need brain surgery I would not recommend a doctor that did not go to college, just read the book.

Demons can represent illness in some passages, but Luke never says Mary Magdalene had an illness. Luke says she had “seven demons” (Luke 8:2). In biblical symbolism, seven represents fullness or totality. That means her life was profoundly disordered and spiritually broken. You don’t have to call that “prostitution,” but it clearly indicates a morally serious past.

And your claim that “if she were sexually sinful, the writers would have said so by name” doesn’t match how the Gospels actually work. The sinful woman in Luke 7 is never named. The thief on the cross is never named. The bleeding woman is never named. The paralytic lowered through the roof is never named. Luke routinely presents repentant sinners without listing their specific sins. The point is the transformation, not the catalog.

As for education, Scripture still has to be read on its own terms. And the text itself is clear: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

That conclusion doesn’t come from Catholic doctrine or Protestant doctrine. It comes from the narrative logic of the Gospel of John.

 

[Grailhunter]

And your argument that “if she were sexually sinful, the writers would have said so by name” doesn’t hold up. The Gospels frequently present repentant sinners without naming their specific sins — the sinful woman in Luke 7, the tax collectors who repented, the crowds who came to John confessing sins, even the thief on the cross. The point is the transformation, not the catalog of sins.

I agree those are examples of general forgiveness.
Argument? This is a friendly debate. One of the easier ones. The scriptures win this debate. And the scriptures give no indication of a sinful nature of Mary Magdalene.

 

[Grailhunter]

Demons can represent illness in some passages, but Luke never says Mary Magdalene had an illness. Luke says she had “seven demons” (Luke 8:2). In biblical symbolism, seven represents fullness or totality. That means her life was profoundly disordered and spiritually broken. You don’t have to call that “prostitution,” but it clearly indicates a morally serious past.

And your claim that “if she were sexually sinful, the writers would have said so by name” doesn’t match how the Gospels actually work. The sinful woman in Luke 7 is never named. The thief on the cross is never named. The bleeding woman is never named. The paralytic lowered through the roof is never named. Luke routinely presents repentant sinners without listing their specific sins. The point is the transformation, not the catalog.

As for education, Scripture still has to be read on its own terms. And the text itself is clear: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

That conclusion doesn’t come from Catholic doctrine or Protestant doctrine. It comes from the narrative logic of the Gospel of John.

Ok, again.....The purpose of anointing Yeshua was different. Mary of Bethany was doing a moral act. The place was different and the group present was different. So your belief does not come from the scriptures.
The event of Mary of Bethany anointing Yeshua brings up questions because the other examples of anointing in the scriptures are usually done by person of authority, and not women. Was Mary of Bethany a priestess?

 

[Moonwood]

I agree those are examples of general forgiveness.
Argument? This is a friendly debate. One of the easier ones. The scriptures win this debate. And the scriptures give no indication of a sinful nature of Mary Magdalene.

Friendly debate is great — and Scripture is exactly where we should stay. But Scripture does give an indication of Mary Magdalene’s troubled past. Luke introduces her as a woman who had “seven demons” (Luke 8:2). In biblical symbolism, seven represents fullness or totality. That means her life was profoundly disordered and spiritually broken. You don’t have to call that prostitution, but it is absolutely a description of a woman with a serious moral and spiritual past.

And your claim that “if she were sinful, the writers would have said so by name” doesn’t match how Luke actually writes. Luke routinely presents repentant sinners without naming their specific sins: the sinful woman in Luke 7, the bleeding woman, the widow of Nain, the paralytic lowered through the roof, the thief on the cross. Luke’s pattern is transformation, not cataloging sins.

So the idea that Mary Magdalene had a morally broken past is not Catholic doctrine — it’s simply the plain reading of Luke’s description.

And none of this changes the central textual issue: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

That conclusion doesn’t come from Catholic doctrine or Protestant doctrine. It comes from the narrative logic of the Gospel of John.

Ok, again.....The purpose of anointing Yeshua was different. Mary of Bethany was doing a moral act. The place was different and the group present was different. So your belief does not come from the scriptures.
The event of Mary of Bethany anointing Yeshua brings up questions because the other examples of anointing in the scriptures are usually done by person of authority, and not women. Was Mary of Bethany a priestess?

Different purpose, different place, and different people present do not prove different women. The same person can repeat the same distinctive gesture for different reasons, at different times, and in different settings. In Luke 7, the act expresses repentance. In John 12, the act expresses devotion and prophetic insight. Human beings repeat meaningful actions — especially ones tied to their conversion and relationship with Jesus. So your criteria don’t actually separate the two events.

And the text itself still stands: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

As for your question about authority: anointing in Scripture is not limited to priests. Prophets anoint. Kings anoint. Women anoint. The woman in Luke 7 anoints Jesus. The women at the tomb come to anoint Jesus. The idea that only priests can anoint is not a biblical rule — it’s simply not how the text works. Mary of Bethany’s act is prophetic, not priestly. Jesus Himself interprets it that way: “She has anointed My body beforehand for burial” (Mark 14:8).

So the differences you listed — purpose, place, audience — do not prove different women. The narrative logic of John 11:2 still points back to Luke 7 as the earlier hair‑wiping event. That conclusion doesn’t come from Catholic doctrine or Protestant doctrine. It comes directly from the text.

 

[Grailhunter]

But Scripture does give an indication of Mary Magdalene’s troubled past.

Scriptures give no indication of a woman named Mary Magdalene had a general troubled past or specific troubled past.

 

[Grailhunter]

In biblical symbolism, seven represents fullness or totality.

Biblical numerology....In general 3 represents the Trinity. 7 represents the Divine. 10 represents sufficiency. 40 represents the completion of a Divine plan.

 

[Grailhunter]

And none of this changes the central textual issue: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

They are two separate accounts with a lot of differences and no scripture ties them together.

 

[Grailhunter]

Different purpose, different place, and different people present do not prove different women.

And it definitely does not prove the same person.

 

[Grailhunter]

And the text itself still stands: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

Nothing ties these two events together. This is simple, what you believe is not there. These are two different women that anointed Yeshua's feet for different reasons, at different places, and different groups. These two sets of scriptures do not imply a previous event.

 

[Grailhunter]

As for your question about authority: anointing in Scripture is not limited to priests. Prophets anoint. Kings anoint. Women anoint.

A person of authority is the key point.

 

[Moonwood]

Scriptures give no indication of a woman named Mary Magdalene had a general troubled past or specific troubled past.

Biblical numerology....In general 3 represents the Trinity. 7 represents the Divine. 10 represents sufficiency. 40 represents the completion of a Divine plan.

In Luke’s Gospel, demon possession is never morally neutral. And Luke uses “seven” to indicate totality (Luke 11:26). So when Luke says Mary Magdalene had “seven demons,” he is describing complete spiritual bondage — a profoundly troubled past, not a neutral illness.

They are two separate accounts with a lot of differences and no scripture ties them together.

And it definitely does not prove the same person.

Different purpose, different place, and different people present do not prove different women. The same person can repeat the same distinctive gesture for different reasons, at different times, and in different settings. In Luke 7, the act expresses repentance. In John 12, the act expresses devotion and prophetic insight. Human beings repeat meaningful actions — especially ones tied to their conversion and relationship with Jesus. So your criteria don’t actually separate the two events.

And none of this changes the central textual issue: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

You’re saying “nothing ties these two events together,” but John 11:2 is the tie. It is the only textual link the Gospels give us, and it points backward to Luke 7. If you reject that link, you need to explain what earlier hair‑wiping event John is referring to — because the text gives no other one.

 

[Grailhunter]

In Luke’s Gospel, demon possession is never morally neutral. And Luke uses “seven” to indicate totality (Luke 11:26). So when Luke says Mary Magdalene had “seven demons,” he is describing complete spiritual bondage — a profoundly troubled past, not a neutral illness.

Yes the woman in luke was a sinner and that sin described. And 7 doesn't mean totality.
And demons can mean different things.

 

[Grailhunter]

In Luke’s Gospel, demon possession is never morally neutral. And Luke uses “seven” to indicate totality (Luke 11:26). So when Luke says Mary Magdalene had “seven demons,” he is describing complete spiritual bondage — a profoundly troubled past, not a neutral illness.




Different purpose, different place, and different people present do not prove different women. The same person can repeat the same distinctive gesture for different reasons, at different times, and in different settings. In Luke 7, the act expresses repentance. In John 12, the act expresses devotion and prophetic insight. Human beings repeat meaningful actions — especially ones tied to their conversion and relationship with Jesus. So your criteria don’t actually separate the two events.

And none of this changes the central textual issue: John 11:2 identifies Mary of Bethany as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” before the Bethany anointing in John 12. That means John is referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. The only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So John’s identification only makes sense if Mary of Bethany had already done this act — and the only earlier instance is the woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house.

You’re saying “nothing ties these two events together,” but John 11:2 is the tie. It is the only textual link the Gospels give us, and it points backward to Luke 7. If you reject that link, you need to explain what earlier hair‑wiping event John is referring to — because the text gives no other one.

Already responded to this. Read previous posts on this.

 

[Moonwood]

Yes the woman in luke was a sinner and that sin described. And 7 doesn't mean totality.
And demons can mean different things.

You’re saying “seven doesn’t mean totality” and “demons can mean different things,” but that’s not how Luke uses those terms. We have to let Luke interpret Luke.

1. Every demon‑possessed person in Luke is portrayed as spiritually oppressed, morally broken, or in bondage:​

• the Gerasene demoniac (Luke 8:26–39)
• the mute demoniac (Luke 11:14)
• the boy seized by an unclean spirit (Luke 9:39)
• the woman “bound by Satan” (Luke 13:11–16)

Luke never uses “demon possession” to mean:

• a normal illness
• a morally neutral condition
• a spiritually healthy person

So “demons can mean different things” is simply not how Luke uses the term.

2. This is the key text:​

“Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself… and the last state of that person is worse than the first.” (Luke 11:26)

Here, seven spirits = total spiritual devastation.

This is Luke’s own usage.
Not numerology.
Not symbolism.
Not tradition.

Luke uses “seven” to mean full measure of spiritual ruin.

So when Luke says Mary Magdalene had seven demons (Luke 8:2), he is describing:

• complete spiritual bondage
• a profoundly troubled past
• not a neutral illness

This is Luke interpreting Luke.

3. Therefore: “seven demons” is absolutely indicative of a morally troubled past​

“Seven demons” doesn’t list Mary Magdalene’s individual sins, but in Luke’s own usage it unmistakably signals total spiritual ruin (Luke 11:26). Demon possession in Luke is never morally neutral — every demon‑possessed person is portrayed as spiritually oppressed, morally broken, or in bondage. So Mary Magdalene’s past was not morally clean or neutral. And yes, lust could certainly have been one of the sins that dominated her life before Jesus delivered her. “Seven demons” indicates a life shattered by multiple sins, not a simple illness.

Already responded to this.

If you did, I don't see where you already explained what earlier hair-wiping event John was referring to in John 11:2 if it wasn't Luke 7. So, which event was it?

 

[Grailhunter]

but that’s not how Luke uses those terms. We have to let Luke interpret Luke.

Unless you talked to Luke you do not know what he was thinking. You have to go with what he wrote and did not write.

Look at the other examples of demon possession in the scriptures, are they more detailed?
The understanding that demon possession is sometimes actually a disease is a time period thing, college level study of the time period. It is like the flat earth belief in the time period. The Bible is not going to explain the actual cosmology of the universe or name a disease that has not been named yet.

 

[Grailhunter]

but in Luke’s own usage it unmistakably signals total spiritual ruin (Luke 11:26)

Well find in Luke where her demons meant total spiritual ruin.
And this is what I run into a lot with people that have false beliefs.....They want to put words in the mouth of the writers. Write your own Bible, the Jehovah's Witnesses did.....then the sky is the limit.
Christianity is not about what you like or dislike it is about what is.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re saying “seven doesn’t mean totality” and “demons can mean different things,” but that’s not how Luke uses those terms. We have to let Luke interpret Luke.

1. Every demon‑possessed person in Luke is portrayed as spiritually oppressed, morally broken, or in bondage:​

• the Gerasene demoniac (Luke 8:26–39)
• the mute demoniac (Luke 11:14)
• the boy seized by an unclean spirit (Luke 9:39)
• the woman “bound by Satan” (Luke 13:11–16)

Luke never uses “demon possession” to mean:

• a normal illness
• a morally neutral condition
• a spiritually healthy person

So “demons can mean different things” is simply not how Luke uses the term.

2. This is the key text:​

Here, seven spirits = total spiritual devastation.

This is Luke’s own usage.
Not numerology.
Not symbolism.
Not tradition.

Luke uses “seven” to mean full measure of spiritual ruin.

So when Luke says Mary Magdalene had seven demons (Luke 8:2), he is describing:

• complete spiritual bondage
• a profoundly troubled past
• not a neutral illness

This is Luke interpreting Luke.

3. Therefore: “seven demons” is absolutely indicative of a morally troubled past​

“Seven demons” doesn’t list Mary Magdalene’s individual sins, but in Luke’s own usage it unmistakably signals total spiritual ruin (Luke 11:26). Demon possession in Luke is never morally neutral — every demon‑possessed person is portrayed as spiritually oppressed, morally broken, or in bondage. So Mary Magdalene’s past was not morally clean or neutral. And yes, lust could certainly have been one of the sins that dominated her life before Jesus delivered her. “Seven demons” indicates a life shattered by multiple sins, not a simple illness.



If you did, I don't see where you already explained what earlier hair-wiping event John was referring to in John 11:2 if it wasn't Luke 7. So, which event was it?

I all ready responded to what demon possession can mean in the time period.
Hair wiping occurred in both stories, one with tears and one with oil. Not the same people, not the same place, not the same purpose. No biblical connection between the two stories.

 

[Moonwood]

Well find in Luke where her demons meant total spiritual ruin.

Luke 11:26 is exactly that.

“It brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and the last state of that person is worse than the first.” (Luke 11:26)

This is Luke’s own explanation of what seven spirits means:

• one demon = serious spiritual bondage
• seven demons = complete spiritual devastation

Hair wiping occurred in both stories, one with tears and one with oil.

Hair wiping occurs in both stories — yes. But that’s exactly the point. John 11:2 identifies Lazarus and Martha's sister, Mary, by referring to a previous hair‑wiping event. John is not describing the Bethany anointing in John 12, because that hasn’t happened yet in the narrative. He is pointing backward to an earlier hair‑wiping event.

And the only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel is Luke 7. There is no other one. John gives no alternative earlier anointing. The Gospels give no alternative earlier hair‑wiping. So simply saying “hair wiping happened in both stories” does not answer the question — it actually reinforces the textual link John is making.

Different place, different purpose, different people present do not prove different women. The same person can repeat the same distinctive gesture for different reasons, at different times, and in different settings. What matters is that John uses the hair‑wiping act as the identifying marker of Lazarus and Martha's sister, Mary — and that act only appears earlier in Luke 7.

So the question still stands: If John 11:2 refers to a previous hair‑wiping event, and Luke 7 is the only earlier hair‑wiping event in any Gospel, what other event does John mean?

 

[Grailhunter]

“It brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and the last state of that person is worse than the first.” (Luke 11:26)

This is Luke’s own explanation of what seven spirits means:

• one demon = serious spiritual bondage
• seven demons = complete spiritual devastation

I agree that it can happen. And see the detail. But this detail is not described for Mary Magdalene. No specific sins or general sinful life shown for Mary Magdalene. What she did to get 7 demons, how she got 7 demons, and what were the effects of the 7 demons. All blanks.....Theologians do not fill in the blanks. So all I am going to agree to is that Yeshua cast out 7 demons from her. The details are not there.
So again, nothing to tie the two women or the two events together.

 

[Grailhunter]

John 11:2 identifies Lazarus and Martha's sister, Mary, by referring to a previous hair‑wiping event

No reference.....at all.