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

[Grailhunter]

"Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it."

We already went over this....all this proves is that Mary Magdalene anointed Yeshua twice. Not because she was the repentant whore at the Pharisee' house.

 

[Grailhunter]

It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair

What it does not say is that----It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair at the Pharisee' house.
Forming beliefs on what is not said is a bad way to understand the scriptures. You can come up with your own beliefs but it is not accurate or scriptural.

 

[Moonwood]

All the examples of 7's I gave are positives.
You gave one two 7's that were negative.
It like proclaiming Yeshua was a sinner when He broke the Mosaic Law for picking food out of a field on the Sabbath.

All of the examples of “seven” you listed are positive — but that is because in those cases the number is attached to things God ordains: days, churches, seals, blessings, petitions, covenants, cycles of time.

In Luke 11:26, the number seven is not attached to anything divine. It is attached to unclean spirits. And when “seven” is applied to evil, the symbolism reverses: it means complete devastation, not divine perfection.

Jesus Himself defines the meaning in the verse:

“The last state of that person is worse than the first.”

That is the opposite of divine completeness. It is total spiritual collapse.

So when Luke later says Mary had “seven demons,” he is using the same category he already defined — not divine perfection, but complete ruin.
The meaning comes from the context, not from numerology.

Your reply — “All the examples of 7’s I gave are positives; you gave negatives” — actually proves the point:

• When seven is attached to God’s actions, it symbolizes divine completeness.
• When seven is attached to demons, it symbolizes complete devastation.

Different subjects, different meanings.
That is how biblical symbolism works.

Your analogy about Jesus “breaking the Mosaic Law” actually illustrates the same principle: context determines meaning.
Jesus picking grain on the Sabbath is not “sin” because the context defines the action differently.

Likewise:

• Seven attached to God = divine completeness
• Seven attached to demons = complete ruin

Luke 11:26 makes that distinction explicit.

What it does not say is that----It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair at the Pharisee' house.
Forming beliefs on what is not said is a bad way to understand the scriptures.

What John does not say is irrelevant. Identification works by referencing what is known, not by listing every detail of the event.

John does not need to say:

“It was Mary who anointed Him at the Pharisee’s house.”

because the location is not the identifying marker.
The hair‑wiping is.

There is only one earlier hair‑wiping anointing in any Gospel:
Luke 7.

John’s sentence does not need to name the house, the city, the host, or the circumstances.
He only needs to reference the unique feature of the event — the hair‑wiping — because that alone identifies the woman.

This is how identification works everywhere in Scripture:

• “the one who touched the hem of His garment”
• “the one who denied Him three times”
• “the one who reclined on His breast”

None of these require naming the location.
The distinctive action is the identifier.

Now apply that to John 11:2:

“It was Mary who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair.”

That action appears only once before John 11 in any Gospel.
Luke 7 is the only candidate.

Your objection — “It doesn’t say she did it at the Pharisee’s house” — does not address the textual issue:

John is identifying her by the hair‑wiping, not the house.​

And the hair‑wiping occurs only in Luke 7.

So the question remains, and you still haven’t answered it:

Which earlier hair‑wiping anointing is John referring to?
It cannot be John 12, because that event hasn’t happened yet in the narrative.
Luke 7 is the only such event.

 

[Grailhunter]

All of the examples of “seven” you listed are positive — but that is because in those cases the number is attached to things God ordains: days, churches, seals, blessings, petitions, covenants, cycles of time.

In Luke 11:26, the number seven is not attached to anything divine. It is attached to unclean spirits. And when “seven” is applied to evil, the symbolism reverses: it means complete devastation, not divine perfection.

Jesus Himself defines the meaning in the verse:

True in a hypothetical case, not specific. The examples I gave were actual events.

 

[Grailhunter]

What John does not say is irrelevant.

Oh my gosh. Why not just right your own Bible about what the scriptures do not say? Just think of it, the sky is the limit.

 

[Grailhunter]

because the location is not the identifying marker.
The hair‑wiping is.

There is only one earlier hair‑wiping anointing in any Gospel:
Luke 7.

John’s sentence does not need to name the house, the city, the host, or the circumstances.
He only needs to reference the unique feature of the event — the hair‑wiping — because that alone identifies the woman.

This is how identification works everywhere in Scripture:

• “the one who touched the hem of His garment”
• “the one who denied Him three times”
• “the one who reclined on His breast”

None of these require naming the location.
The distinctive action is the identifier.

Now apply that to John 11:2:

Again, forming religious beliefs on what is not said. Anointing with hair is not a patented process to one woman.

 

[Moonwood]

True in a hypothetical case, not specific. The examples I gave were actual events.

The distinction I’m making isn’t hypothetical — it comes directly from Luke 11:26 itself.
Jesus gives an actual event description of what happens when “seven spirits more wicked than himself” enter a person:

“The last state of that person is worse than the first.”

That is not symbolic.
That is not hypothetical.
That is Jesus describing a real spiritual condition.

So the meaning of “seven” in this context is not divine completeness — it is complete devastation, because the number is attached to unclean spirits, not to anything God ordains.

Your examples of seven are all positive because they are attached to:

• God’s actions
• God’s institutions
• God’s covenants
• God’s blessings

But in Luke 11:26, the number seven is attached to evil spirits, and Jesus Himself defines the outcome as total collapse.

That is not hypothetical.
That is the text.

So when Luke later says Mary had “seven demons,” he is using the same category he already defined — not divine perfection, but complete ruin.
The meaning comes from the context, not from numerology.

Your reply — “True in a hypothetical case, not specific” — doesn’t address this, because:

• Luke 11:26 is specific.
• Jesus’ description is specific.
• The spiritual condition is specific.
• The reversal of symbolism is specific.

Again, forming religious beliefs on what is not said. Anointing with hair is not a patented process to one woman.

You’re still not addressing the actual point. I’m not forming beliefs on what is not said. I’m forming conclusions based on what is said — the identifying marker John actually uses.

John does not identify Mary by:

• the house
• the city
• the host
• the circumstances

He identifies her by the hair‑wiping.

And here is the textual problem you keep avoiding:

There is only one earlier hair‑wiping anointing in any Gospel.​

Not “one earlier anointing.”
Not “one earlier act of devotion.”
Not “one earlier woman who loved Jesus.”

One earlier hair‑wiping anointing.
Luke 7.

You say “anointing with hair is not a patented process to one woman,” but that doesn’t solve anything.
The question is not whether someone could theoretically do it.
The question is:

Who actually did do it earlier in the Gospel record?​

There is only one answer.

And this is how identification works everywhere in Scripture:

• “the one who touched the hem of His garment”
• “the one who denied Him three times”
• “the one who reclined on His breast”

None of these require naming the location.
None require naming the host.
None require naming the city.

The distinctive action is the identifier.

Now apply that to John 11:2:

“It was Mary who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair.”

John is identifying her by the unique action, not the location.

And the unique action — the hair‑wiping — appears only once before John 11 in any Gospel.

Luke 7 is the only such event.​

So the question remains — and you still haven’t answered it:

Which earlier hair‑wiping anointing is John referring to?
It cannot be John 12, because that event hasn’t happened yet in the narrative.
Luke 7 is the only such event.

 

[Grailhunter]

The distinction I’m making isn’t hypothetical — it comes directly from Luke 11:26 itself.
Jesus gives an actual event description of what happens when “seven spirits more wicked than himself” enter a person:

Not hypothetical? Show the event where it happened like that. Details details details

 

[Grailhunter]

He identifies her by the hair‑wiping.

Again no patient on hair wiping

 

[Grailhunter]

And this is how identification works everywhere in Scripture:

• “the one who touched the hem of His garment”
• “the one who denied Him three times”
• “the one who reclined on His breast”

It like saying it all happened to one person and giving it a name.

 

[Moonwood]

Not hypothetical? Show the event where it happened like that. Details details details

Luke 11:26 is an actual event description.
Jesus is not inventing a hypothetical scenario.
He is describing what actually happens when an unclean spirit returns with “seven spirits more wicked than himself.”

Jesus says:

“The last state of that person is worse than the first.”

That is not symbolic.
That is not theoretical.
That is not imaginary.

It is Jesus explaining a real spiritual condition — the same way He explains:

• what actually happens when a seed falls on rocky soil,
• what actually happens when a house is built on sand,
• what actually happens when a wolf enters a flock,
• what actually happens when a lamp is hidden under a basket.

These are not “hypotheticals.”
They are descriptions of real spiritual dynamics.

You’re asking for “details details details,” but Jesus gave the detail that matters:

the person’s final condition is worse than the first.

That is the detail.
That is the point.
That is the meaning of “seven” when applied to unclean spirits.

So when Luke later says Mary had “seven demons,” he is using the same category Jesus already defined — not divine perfection, but complete spiritual ruin.

This is not hypothetical.
This is the text.

Again no patent on hair wiping

When John names Mary as the sister of Lazarus, he identifies which Mary he means by referencing a distinctive action: she is the one “who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair.”

If he is not referring to the hair‑wiping in Luke 7, then no one would know which Mary he is talking about. In that case, John’s identifier is meaningless — because it would point to an event that does not exist anywhere in the Gospel record prior to John 11.

John does not need to mention the house, the city, or the host.
He only needs to mention the unique action.
And the distinctive action of hair‑wiping occurs only once before John 11 in any Gospel.

So in your view, John used an identifier that points to nothing — that he didn’t know how to identify someone — rather than accept that he was referring to the only other scene in the Gospels where the distinctive action of hair‑wiping actually occurs?

 

[Grailhunter]

Luke 11:26 is an actual event description.
Jesus is not inventing a hypothetical scenario.
He is describing what actually happens when an unclean spirit returns with “seven spirits more wicked than himself.”

Jesus says:

That is not symbolic.
That is not theoretical.
That is not imaginary.

It is Jesus explaining a real spiritual condition — the same way He explains:

• what actually happens when a seed falls on rocky soil,
• what actually happens when a house is built on sand,
• what actually happens when a wolf enters a flock,
• what actually happens when a lamp is hidden under a basket.

These are not “hypotheticals.”
They are descriptions of real spiritual dynamics.

You’re asking for “details details details,” but Jesus gave the detail that matters:

the person’s final condition is worse than the first.

That is the detail.
That is the point.
That is the meaning of “seven” when applied to unclean spirits.

So when Luke later says Mary had “seven demons,” he is using the same category Jesus already defined — not divine perfection, but complete spiritual ruin.

This is not hypothetical.
This is the text.

Again you are mixing a hypothetical explanation with an actual event that did not have those descriptions associated with it.
I am not saying that demon possession is not bad.
I am not saying that Yeshua did not cast out 7 demons from Mary Magdaline.

I am saying we do not know the details of Mary Magdaline's demons.
Even today it could be said that people go to physiatrists to deal with their demons.
What if Mary's demons were bad effects of PMS and menstrual cramps.

And I am saying the number 7 is mostly associated with positive events, actual events.

 

[Grailhunter]

When John names Mary as the sister of Lazarus, he identifies which Mary he means by referencing a distinctive action: she is the one “who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair.”

Sure and how many times did she anoint Yeshua and he does not refference the event in Luke 7.

 

[Grailhunter]

So in your view, John used an identifier that points to nothing — that he didn’t know how to identify someone — rather than accept that he was referring to the only other scene in the Gospels where the distinctive action of hair‑wiping actually occurs?

Sure he knew how to identify some one.....he could do it by indentifing her name.
It is like prosecuting someone in court without a description or a name. Some one did it! Prosecute "someone"

 

[Moonwood]

Again you are mixing a hypothetical explanation with an actual event that did not have those descriptions associated with it.
I am not saying that demon possession is not bad.
I am not saying that Yeshua did not cast out 7 demons from Mary Magdaline.

I am saying we do not know the details of Mary Magdaline's demons.
Even today it could be said that people go to physiatrists to deal with their demons.
What if Mary's demons were bad effects of PMS and menstrual cramps.

And I am saying the number 7 is mostly associated with positive events, actual events.

You’re not addressing what Jesus actually says in Luke 11:26. Jesus Himself explains what happens when seven spirits enter a person: “the last state of that person is worse than the first.” That is not hypothetical.
That is Jesus describing a real spiritual condition.

You’re replacing Jesus’ explanation with modern speculation — PMS, cramps, psychology — none of which comes from the text. Luke gives one detail about Mary’s condition: seven demons. And Jesus has already explained what “seven demons” means when applied to unclean spirits: complete spiritual ruin, not divine perfection.

Saying “seven is mostly positive” doesn’t change what Jesus says in Luke 11:26. The meaning of a symbol depends on the subject it is attached to. When seven is attached to God, it means divine completeness. When seven is attached to demons, Jesus says it means total collapse.

So the issue isn’t hypothetical vs. actual. The issue is whether we accept Jesus’ own explanation of what “seven demons” means. Luke uses the same category Jesus already defined. That’s not speculation. That’s the text.

Sure he knew how to identify some one.....he could do it by indentifing her name.

If John could have specified which Mary by name, then the fact that he didn’t is the entire point. He chose to specify which Mary was the sister of Lazarus and Martha by a past hair‑wiping event instead. And that event has to be something the audience already knows — otherwise the audience wouldn’t know which Mary he’s referring to.

John 11:2 occurs before the Bethany anointing in John 12.
So John cannot be referring to the hair‑wiping in John 12 — that event hasn’t happened yet in the narrative.

This leaves only one question:

Which earlier hair‑wiping anointing is John referring to?

The distinctive action of hair‑wiping appears only once before John 11 in any Gospel:
Luke 7.

So your argument requires believing that John used an identifier that points to nothing — that he didn’t know how to identify someone — rather than accept that he was referring to the only other scene in the Gospels where the distinctive action of hair‑wiping actually occurs.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re not addressing what Jesus actually says in Luke 11:26. Jesus Himself explains what happens when seven spirits enter a person: “the last state of that person is worse than the first.” That is not hypothetical.
That is Jesus describing a real spiritual condition.

Yes He is, but not an event. Are all demon possessions the same?

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re replacing Jesus’ explanation with modern speculation — PMS, cramps, psychology — none of which comes from the text. Luke gives one detail about Mary’s condition: seven demons. And Jesus has already explained what “seven demons” means when applied to unclean spirits: complete spiritual ruin, not divine perfection.

Physiatrist visits are just an example, but I am sure they had PMS and menstrual cramps back then.. Find the phrase "complete spiritual ruin" in the scriptures. We do not know that Mary Magdaline was in "compete spiritual ruin" it could have been physical. If you wrote your own Bible, you would still need the Bible to make up things that the Bible does not say.

 

[Grailhunter]

Saying “seven is mostly positive” doesn’t change what Jesus says in Luke 11:26. The meaning of a symbol depends on the subject it is attached to. When seven is attached to God, it means divine completeness. When seven is attached to demons, Jesus says it means total collapse.

Do you see the phrase "total collapse" in this verse? The scriptures according Moonwood?
Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.

 

[Grailhunter]

So the issue isn’t hypothetical vs. actual. The issue is whether we accept Jesus’ own explanation of what “seven demons” means. Luke uses the same category Jesus already defined. That’s not speculation. That’s the text.

What if there were eight demons? I can call it hypothetical or an explanation of what can happen. But Yeshua is not describing an actual event so....hypothetical vs. actual. And Luke is not using Yeshua's explanation, we do not know the details of event concerning Mary and her demons. I can't imagine your mind as you read the scriptures.
The scriptures do not say it so that is what happened.....it is like a theological fantasy world.

 

[Grailhunter]

What if there were eight demons? I can call it hypothetical or an explanation of what can happen. But Yeshua is not describing an actual event so....hypothetical vs. actual. And Luke is not using Yeshua's explanation, we do not know the details of event concerning Mary and her demons. I can't imagine your mind as you read the scriptures.
The scriptures do not say it so that is what happened.....it is like a theological fantasy world.

If John could have specified which Mary by name, then the fact that he didn’t is the entire point. He chose to specify which Mary was the sister of Lazarus and Martha by a past hair‑wiping event instead. And that event has to be something the audience already knows — otherwise the audience wouldn’t know which Mary he’s referring to.

I have already addressed this. The only thing that John identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more that once. No specific event given.