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

[Grailhunter]

You keep saying “no category is defined,” but Jesus explicitly defines the condition of seven unclean spirits in Luke 11:26:

Condition of the example He gave. The Bible does not define categories of demonic possession. Modern exorcists probably have categories of demonic possession. But nothing in the Bible.

 

[Grailhunter]

That is a definition. Not a symptom list, not a medical report — a meaning.

I understand that, but a demonic possession with no symptoms or effects would be a little boring.

 

[Grailhunter]

Luke then applies that same condition — seven demons — to Mary.

No you apply the same condition to Mary. No details of effects or severity.

 

[Grailhunter]

Your claim that “all we have is Yeshua cast out 7 demons” ignores the fact that Scripture uses:

• the same number,
• the same terminology,
• the same condition,
• already defined by Jesus.

If you want to argue Luke is not using the category Jesus defined, the burden is on you to show why the same number, same condition, and same terminology suddenly mean something different.

This is the thing, you come up things that are not there and try to tie them together. Its like nailing Jello to a wall, no relavance. I don't have to debate something that is not there. Yeshua cast out 7 demons from Mary Magdalene ....that is all the scriptures say about that event. No details.

 

[Grailhunter]

You keep saying “no category is defined,” but Jesus explicitly defines the condition of seven unclean spirits in Luke 11:26:


That is a definition. Not a symptom list, not a medical report — a meaning.

You also say Jesus “was not defining a spiritual state,” but that is exactly what He was doing.
He wasn’t describing behaviors; He was explaining what the condition signifies.

Luke then applies that same condition — seven demons — to Mary.
Luke doesn’t need to repeat Jesus’ definition because Jesus already gave it.

Your claim that “all we have is Yeshua cast out 7 demons” ignores the fact that Scripture uses:

• the same number,
• the same terminology,
• the same condition,
• already defined by Jesus.

If you want to argue Luke is not using the category Jesus defined, the burden is on you to show why the same number, same condition, and same terminology suddenly mean something different.

Saying “no details are given” doesn’t change anything.
Jesus wasn’t giving details either — He was giving the meaning of the condition.

Luke applies that meaning to Mary. That’s the connection Scripture itself gives.



You just said John identifies her as “Mary of Bethany,” but John never uses that phrase.
John 11:1 gives the location of Lazarus’s family.
John 11:2 gives the identifier for Mary, and it is not location — it is a specific past hair‑wiping event:



You also said this is “just another anointment,” but you still haven’t named which anointment John is referring to.

So let’s return to the test:

Which Mary performed the past hair‑wiping event John uses as the identifier?

And which specific past event is John referring to?

Until you can name the event, your claim that “it’s just another anointment” has no content.

Before I answer this....So I know which scripture you are referencing.

 

[Moonwood]

Condition of the example He gave. The Bible does not define categories of demonic possession. Modern exorcists probably have categories of demonic possession. But nothing in the Bible.

I understand that, but a demonic possession with no symptoms or effects would be a little boring.

No you apply the same condition to Mary. No details of effects or severity.

This is the thing, you come up things that are not there and try to tie them together. Its like nailing Jello to a wall, no relavance. I don't have to debate something that is not there. Yeshua cast out 7 demons from Mary Magdalene ....that is all the scriptures say about that event. No details.

You’re saying Jesus wasn’t defining a category, but Jesus explicitly gives the meaning of the condition of seven unclean spirits in Luke 11:26:

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

That is a definition of the condition — not symptoms, not behaviors, but the spiritual state of someone with seven unclean spirits.
Luke himself distinguishes Mary from the other women by giving her a specific condition:

“Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out.”

The other women are described generally — “evil spirits and infirmities.”
Mary alone is singled out with the exact number Jesus already defined.

Jesus gives the meaning of the condition of seven unclean spirits in Luke 11:26:

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

That is a definition of the condition — not symptoms, not behaviors, but the spiritual state of someone with seven unclean spirits.

Luke applies that same condition to Mary.
That’s not me “mixing things together.”
That’s Luke using the same number, same terminology, and same condition Jesus already defined.

If you want to argue Luke is not using the category Jesus defined, you need to explain why the same number, same terminology, and same condition suddenly mean something different.

Saying “no details are given” doesn’t change anything.
Jesus didn’t give details either — He gave the meaning of the condition.

Luke applies that meaning to Mary.
That’s the connection Scripture itself makes.

Before I answer this....So I know which scripture you are referencing.

You don’t need me to name the scripture — I already quoted the line John uses:

“Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair.” (John 11:2)

That’s the identifier.
That’s the event.
That’s the scripture.

So now you can answer the actual question:

Which specific Mary performed that past hair‑wiping event?
And which specific past event is John referring to?

Until you name the Mary and the event, your claim that it’s “just another anointment” has no content.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re saying Jesus wasn’t defining a category, but Jesus explicitly gives the meaning of the condition of seven unclean spirits in Luke 11:26:

He did what He did, gave an example.

 

[Grailhunter]

That is a definition of the condition — not symptoms, not behaviors, but the spiritual state of someone with seven unclean spirits.
Luke himself distinguishes Mary from the other women by giving her a specific condition:

Again we are back to every demonic possession is a carbon copy.

 

[Grailhunter]

You don’t need me to name the scripture — I already quoted the line John uses:

Ok I will ignore that post.

 

[Grailhunter]

That’s the identifier.
That’s the event.
That’s the scripture.

So now you can answer the actual question:

Which specific Mary performed that past hair‑wiping event?
And which specific past event is John referring to?

Until you name the Mary and the event, your claim that it’s “just another anointment” has no content.

John 11 Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 (This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.) 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”s

How many times have we went over this? Are you forgetting?
The event happens at Lazarus' home when he was sick/died.
It is speaking about Mary Magdaline.
It is referencing a time when Mary Magdaline poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair before Lazarus was sick. This is the only reference to it in the Bible and it does not give a location.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re saying Jesus wasn’t defining a category, but Jesus explicitly gives the meaning of the condition of seven unclean spirits in Luke 11:26:



That is a definition of the condition — not symptoms, not behaviors, but the spiritual state of someone with seven unclean spirits.
Luke himself distinguishes Mary from the other women by giving her a specific condition:



The other women are described generally — “evil spirits and infirmities.”
Mary alone is singled out with the exact number Jesus already defined.

Jesus gives the meaning of the condition of seven unclean spirits in Luke 11:26:



That is a definition of the condition — not symptoms, not behaviors, but the spiritual state of someone with seven unclean spirits.

Luke applies that same condition to Mary.
That’s not me “mixing things together.”
That’s Luke using the same number, same terminology, and same condition Jesus already defined.

If you want to argue Luke is not using the category Jesus defined, you need to explain why the same number, same terminology, and same condition suddenly mean something different.

Saying “no details are given” doesn’t change anything.
Jesus didn’t give details either — He gave the meaning of the condition.

Luke applies that meaning to Mary.
That’s the connection Scripture itself makes.



You don’t need me to name the scripture — I already quoted the line John uses:



That’s the identifier.
That’s the event.
That’s the scripture.

So now you can answer the actual question:

Which specific Mary performed that past hair‑wiping event?
And which specific past event is John referring to?

Until you name the Mary and the event, your claim that it’s “just another anointment” has no content.

Again I wonder and maybe speculate a little about the women that anointed Yeshua. Messiah means “anointed one” What was the significance of only women anointing Yeshua? The scriptures indicate that anointing came from a person of authority. What were these women’s authority? Did they belong to a group? Were they priestesses?

Yeshua was a priest of the Order of Melchizedek. Some link Melchizedek to the Magi. Where these women members of the Magi. They financed Yeshua’s ministry. The Magi gave Yeshua a treasure of gifts, was that to finance His later ministry?

Then you have this….
The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. Matthew 12:42

Is Yeshua talking about the risen Queen of Sheba or is Mary Magdalene a descendant of the Queen of Sheba? In which case it raise the bar for the pedigree and royalty of Mary Magdalene

Now I need to add…..I believe Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are one in the same.
BUT, no scripture specifically confirms this. But her significance is well documented.

What do we know about Mary Magdaline….She was part of group of women that financed Yeshua’s ministry…..The work of God. She apparently was part of a group of women that were followers of Yeshua. The Apostles knew she was important to Yeshua, so they put her at the top of the lists of Yeshua’s female followers, just as Peter tops the lists. She was at the cross with Yeshua with His mother and the other female followers of Christ. On the day that Yeshua was to resurrect, she was at the tomb. (She had more faith than the Apostles because they were not at the tomb and when He revealed Himself to them, they thought He was a ghost. The whole doubting Thomas thing. So the Apostles were hiding.) Yeshua chose to reveal Himself to Mary Magdaline first and she was overjoyed. Mary Magdaline is given the honor of proclaiming the risen Christ to the hiding apostles. This is probably one the most significant events in Christian history, given to a woman, given to Mary Magdaline.

I believe that Mary Magdaline and Mary of Bethany are the same person even though scriptures do not name her as such. I believe that Lazarus and his sister Mary Magdaline and Martha were an extended family for Yeshua. That is why Martha scolded Yeshua like a brother for not being there when Lazurus was sick. Because she knew that Yeshua could have saved him. Of course He did something greater by raising Lazurus from the dead.

The Women Who Anointed Jesus — Biblical Accounts

The Bible records three distinct anointing events involving women, each in a different Gospel account.

1. Mary of Bethany AKA Mary Magdalene (John 11:1-3 John 12:1–8; Mark 14:3–9; Matthew 26:6–13)

John 11:3 Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. In Mark and Matthew, the woman is unnamed; in John, she is identified as Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus

Judas Iscariot questioned the waste, but Jesus said, “Leave her alone… she has done what she could… in preparation for my burial”

2. The unnamed sinful woman (Luke 7:36–38)

36 Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to [aa]dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, 38 and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume.

Jesus told the Pharisee that her many sins were forgiven because of her great love, and declared, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace”

3. The unnamed woman at Simon the leper’s house (Mark 14:3–9; Matthew 26:6–13)

This account is similar to John 11:3 but does not name the woman. She brought an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume and poured it on Jesus’ head

The disciples criticized her, but Jesus affirmed her action as a beautiful thing done for him, noting that the poor will always be with us, but we will not always have him

Summary of identities:

Mary of Bethany is explicitly named in John 12 and is the sister of Martha and Lazarus

The sinful woman in Luke 7 is unnamed but recognized for her love and repentance

The woman at Simon the leper’s house in Mark 14 and Matthew 26 is unnamed in those accounts but is probably Mary of Bethany/Mary Magdalene.

Key verses:

John 12:1–8 — Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus’ feet

Mark 14:3–9 — Woman anoints Jesus’ head

Luke 7:36–50 — Sinful woman anoints Jesus’ feet

These passages show that the “women who anointed Jesus” are Mary of Bethany --- Mary Magdaline (John, Mark, Matthew) and an unnamed sinful woman (Luke), each in a distinct setting and with different details.

 

[Moonwood]

He did what He did, gave an example.

Again we are back to every demonic possession is a carbon copy.

You clipped my argument and responded to fragments instead of the full point.

Jesus does not give “an example” in Luke 11:26. He defines the condition of someone who has seven unclean spirits — the spiritual state, not the symptoms or behaviors.

Luke then applies that defined condition to Mary Magdalene:

“Mary, from whom seven demons had gone out.”

That is not treating every possession as a “carbon copy.”
It is identifying Mary by the specific condition Jesus defined, which distinguishes her from the other women.

Your reply only works if Jesus was giving a random example.
But He wasn’t — He was defining the meaning of the condition.
And Luke uses that definition to identify Mary.

John 11 Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 (This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.) 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”

The event happens at Lazarus' home when he was sick/died.
It is speaking about Mary Magdaline.
It is referencing a time when Mary Magdaline poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair before Lazarus was sick. This is the only reference to it in the Bible and it does not give a location.

Initially, you only acknowledged only two anointing events — Luke 7 and John 12 — and you attributed Mary of Bethany only to John 12.

But now you’re treating the anointing reference in John 11:2 as a third distinct anointing by Mary of Bethany, after previously asserting that it:

• “wasn’t a specific event,”
• was “just another anointment by Mary of Bethany,”
• had “no details given,”
• “doesn’t point anywhere, backwards or forwards,”
• “doesn’t give a timeline for when Mary had anointed Him before,”
• and “only establishes that Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus more than once.”

Those statements already contradict each other, and now you’ve added more:

You say John 11:2:

• “occurred at Lazarus’ home in Bethany,” but also "does not give a location.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not mention any location for the anointing reference in that verse.

You say it:

• “occurred when Lazarus was sick/died,” but also “before Lazarus was sick.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not mention Lazarus being present, dead or alive, for the anointing referenced in that verse.

You say it:

• “is speaking about Mary Magdalene,” even though John only says “Mary.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not specify Mary Magdalene anywhere in John 11 — not in verse 2, not in the chapter, not in the Lazarus narrative.

Since I've shown John does not mention the location of the anointing, those present, nor identify which Mary she is, it cannot stand as a narrative third distinct anointing.

And this brings us back to the central issue:

John 11:1 introduces Lazarus as an ill man and his sisters as Mary and Martha.
John 11:2 identifies which Mary is Lazarus's sister by referencing a distinctive past action, not by giving a location or title:

“It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

That only works as an identifier if the audience already knows, or can know, the Gospel event John is referring to.
So it must have been mentioned previously and elsewhere.

So we’re still at the two questions you haven’t answered:

Which specific Mary performed that past hair‑wiping event? And which Gospel event is John referring to?

Either you know what Gospel event he's referring to, or you're left with a position where John uses an identifier that points to nothing — which would mean he didn’t know how to properly specify which Mary in the Gospel Lazarus’s sister is.

 

[Grailhunter]

You clipped my argument and responded to fragments instead of the full point.

First off I am not arguing with you.
Clipped you.....not sure what you are talking about.

 

[Grailhunter]

But now you’re treating the anointing reference in John 11:2 as a third distinct anointing by Mary of Bethany, after previously asserting that it:

Yes

 

[Grailhunter]

• “wasn’t a specific event,”
• was “just another anointment by Mary of Bethany,”
• had “no details given,”
• “doesn’t point anywhere, backwards or forwards,”
• “doesn’t give a timeline for when Mary had anointed Him before,”
• and “only establishes that Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus more than once.”

Those statements already contradict each other, and now you’ve added more:

You say John 11:2:

• “occurred at Lazarus’ home in Bethany,” but also "does not give a location.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not mention any location for the anointing reference in that verse.

You say it:

• “occurred when Lazarus was sick/died,” but also “before Lazarus was sick.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not mention Lazarus being present, dead or alive, for the anointing referenced in that verse.

You say it:

• “is speaking about Mary Magdalene,” even though John only says “Mary.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not specify Mary Magdalene anywhere in John 11 — not in verse 2, not in the chapter, not in the Lazarus narrative.

Since I've shown John does not mention the location of the anointing, those present, nor identify which Mary she is, it cannot stand as a narrative third distinct anointing.

And this brings us back to the central issue:

John 11:1: John describes Lazarus as an ill man and names his sisters to be Mary and Martha
John 11:2: John identifies which Mary is Lazarus’s sister. And he does not identify her by:

• “Mary of ___,”
• “Mary from ___,”
• or any location‑based label.

Instead, he identifies her by referencing a distinctive past action:

No constradictions.
The scripture indicates simply that Mary anointed Yeshua previously.
No details.
If you do not like that John did not provide details, complain to John.
As it is I take it for what it says.

 

[Grailhunter]

Initially, you only acknowledged only two anointing events — Luke 7 and John 12 — and you attributed Mary of Bethany only to John 12.

Those were the ones we were talking about.
That is one of the reasons I made the post with everything included in it.

 

[Grailhunter]

That only works if the audience already knows the Gospel event John is referring to.

The audience got bored and got popcorn and chocolate mints.
As far as the Gospels as I said before, the scriptures are an abbreviated account of thousands of years.
Not going to include every passing minute in detail. You get what you get.

 

[Grailhunter]

Which specific Mary performed that past hair‑wiping event? And which Gospel event is John referring to?

John does not tell us what event or the details. There is no real timeline here. Loose sequence of events.
You have a timestamp where the scriptures say that Yeshua was anointed by Mary 6 days before Passover.

John 11:1 Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 (This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.) 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
This scripture said who it is.....and I have already answered this.

 

[Moonwood]

Initially, you only acknowledged only two anointing events — Luke 7 and John 12 — and you attributed Mary of Bethany only to John 12.

But now you’re treating the anointing reference in John 11:2 as a third distinct anointing by Mary of Bethany, after previously asserting that it:

• “wasn’t a specific event,”
• was “just another anointment by Mary of Bethany,”
• had “no details given,”
• “doesn’t point anywhere, backwards or forwards,”
• “doesn’t give a timeline for when Mary had anointed Him before,”
• and “only establishes that Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus more than once.”

Those statements already contradict each other, and now you’ve added more:

You say John 11:2:

• “occurred at Lazarus’ home in Bethany,” but also "does not give a location.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not mention any location for the anointing reference in that verse.

You say it:

• “occurred when Lazarus was sick/died,” but also “before Lazarus was sick.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not mention Lazarus being present, dead or alive, for the anointing referenced in that verse.

You say it:

• “is speaking about Mary Magdalene,” even though John only says “Mary.”

Those statements contradict each other, and John does not specify Mary Magdalene anywhere in John 11 — not in verse 2, not in the chapter, not in the Lazarus narrative.

Since I've shown John does not mention the location of the anointing, those present, nor identify which Mary she is, it cannot stand as a narrative third distinct anointing.

And this brings us back to the central issue:

John 11:1: John describes Lazarus as an ill man and names his sisters to be Mary and Martha
John 11:2: John identifies which Mary is Lazarus’s sister. And he does not identify her by:

• “Mary of ___,”
• “Mary from ___,”
• or any location‑based label.

Instead, he identifies her by referencing a distinctive past action:

“It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

That only works if the audience already knows the Gospel event John is referring to.
So it must've been mentioned previously and elsewhere.

So we’re still at the two questions you haven’t answered:

Which specific Mary performed that past hair‑wiping event? And which Gospel event is John referring to?

Either you know what Gospel event he's referring to, or you're left with a position where John uses an identifier that points to nothing — which would mean he didn’t know how to specify which Mary in the Gospel Lazarus’s sister is.

Those were the ones we were talking about.
That is one of the reasons I made the post with everything included in it.

I referenced John 11:2 in the opening post, so it has been part of the discussion from the very beginning. And you never argued it was a third distinct anointing event — you explicitly acknowledged only two anointing events, Luke 7 and John 12, saying “two different reasons… two different places… two different groups of people… two different conversations.”

That remained your position until I asked you to consider what John expects the reader to already know from John 11:2:

“It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill,”

a reference to a past anointing that occurs narratively before the one in John 12.

Which specific Mary performed that past hair‑wiping event? And which Gospel event is John referring to?

That is when you suddenly invented a third narrative distinct anointing using John 11:2 itself — complete with details you previously argued the verse does not contain. And now you’re contradicting yourself again:

“John does not tell us what event or the details. There is no real timeline here.”

But then you also say:

“You have a timestamp where the scriptures say that Yeshua was anointed by Mary 6 days before Passover.”

That timestamp comes from John 12, which narratively occurs after John 11 — not before it. So you are borrowing the timeline of John 12 to support an anointing you claim happened both "when Lazarus was sick/died" and "before Lazarus was sick." That is one of your many contradictions.

And then you add:

“This scripture said who it is… and I have already answered this.”

But John 11:2 does not identify Mary Magdalene, does not give a location, does not give a timeline, and does not narrate an event. You are supplying details the text does not contain — and that’s why John 11:2 cannot serve as a narrative third distinct anointing.

And this brings us back to the central issue:

John 11:1 introduces Lazarus as an ill man and his sisters as Mary and Martha.
John 11:2 identifies which Mary is Lazarus's sister by referencing a distinctive past action, not by giving a location or title:

“It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

That only works as an identifier if the audience already knows, or can know, the Gospel event John is referring to.
So it must have been mentioned previously and elsewhere.

Either you know what Gospel event he's referring to, or you're left with a position where John uses an identifier that points to nothing — which would mean he didn’t know how to properly specify which Mary in the Gospel Lazarus’s sister is.

 

[Grailhunter]

I referenced John 11:2 in the opening post, so it has been part of the discussion from the very beginning. And you never argued it was a third distinct anointing event

You never asked.