Was Martha’s sister Mary a prostitute?

Was Martha’s sister Mary a prostitute? What about Mary Magdalene? Was Martha’s sister Mary the same person as Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons were cast?

I hear these questions surprisingly often. Here’s why.

Stained glass of Martha and Mary: Was Mary a prostitute?

Stained glass of Martha and Mary in St. Nicholas Church, Orebro, Sweden. Public domain photo by David Castor.

The gospels have an account of Mary of Bethany—the sister of Martha and Lazarus—anointing Jesus’ feet and wiping them with her hair, and an account of a sinful woman doing the same. Many people wonder if both accounts are of the same event.

Additionally, popular culture often identifies the sinful woman as Mary Magdalene and depicts her as a prostitute. For example, medieval paintings, the musical Jesus Christ: Superstar, and Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ all show Mary Magdalene as a prostitute.

Thus it’s no wonder people ask if Mary of Bethany was a demon-possessed prostitute.

But was she?

The short answer: Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were different women and neither Mary was a prostitute. Let’s break this into separate issues.

Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were different women

The New Testament differentiates between about eight women named Mary by noting to whom they’re related or from where they come. The siblings Martha, Mary, and Lazarus lived in Bethany, a village in Judea. “Magdalene” means “of Magdala,” so Mary Magdalene came from the town of Magdala in Galilee.

  • Mary of Bethany: This Mary sat at Jesus’ feet while her sister Martha took care of guests. She watched Jesus raise her brother Lazarus from the dead. She anointed Jesus’ head and feet with expensive perfume. (See Luke 10:38-42; John 11; and John 12:1-7 for passages about this Mary.)
  • Mary Magdalene: Jesus cast seven demons from her. She traveled with Jesus and the disciples, taking care of their needs. Mary Magdalene was at the cross and was the first to see the resurrected Jesus. (Passages about Mary Magdalene include Luke 8:2; Mark 15:40; and John 20:11-18.)

Mary of Bethany and Luke’s sinful woman were different women

The gospels recount similar events in which a woman wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair at the house of someone named Simon. John’s account speaks of Mary of Bethany and Luke talks of an unnamed sinful woman. This is why people sometimes think Mary of Bethany is the sinful woman. But Luke’s account differs significantly from the others and must be a separate event:

 

Mary of Bethany
Unnamed “woman of the city who was a sinner”
wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair
after anointing his feet and head with expensive nard after anointing his feet with her tears and an unnamed ointment
at the house of Simon the leper at the house of Simon the Pharisee
in Bethany in Judea in Galilee
offending Judas Iscariot because of wastefulness offending Simon the Pharisee who wouldn’t let a sinful woman touch him
at the end of Jesus’ ministry at the start of Jesus’ ministry
in preparation for his burial as an illustration of Jesus’ ability to forgive sins
Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8 Luke 7:36-50

 

Additionally, Simon the leper and Simon the Pharisee cannot be the same person because a leper could not be a Pharisee.[1] While it might seem odd that both foot perfumings happened in the house of someone named Simon, that name was extremely popular in Jesus’ day: The New Testament lists about nine men named Simon, including two of Jesus’ disciples and one of his brothers.

The Bible calls neither Mary a prostitute

No Scripture portrays Mary of Bethany as a prostitute. It’s only when people confuse her with Luke’s sinful woman that this becomes a question.

Luke’s account does not name the forgiven sinful woman’s sin, but the possibilities include prostitution, adultery, debt, and being married to someone with a dishonorable occupation (such as tax collecting).[2]

It’s popular to identify this unnamed woman as Mary Magdalene and to see her as a prostitute. But the Bible nowhere links Mary Magdalene to her. In fact, there is no Scripture anywhere suggesting Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

What drove calling Mary a prostitute?

How did the idea become so prevalent? One reason, according to AmericanCatholic.org, is this: “Pope Gregory, who became pope in 590 A.D., clinched Mary’s mistaken reputation as sinner when he delivered a powerful homily in which he combined Luke’s anonymous sinful woman (Lk 7:36-50) with Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene.” Vatican II corrected this notion and confirmed Mary Magdalene was neither the forgiven sinner of Luke 7 nor Mary of Bethany.[3]

Bottom line: neither Mary a prostitute

So there we have it: The Bible depicts neither Mary as a prostitute, but all three women as forgiven of their sins and followers of Jesus the Christ.

  1. [1]Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50, BEC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 690.↩
  2. [2]Bock, 695.↩
  3. [3]Carol Ann Morrow, “St. Mary Magdalene: Redeeming Her Gospel Reputation,” The Catholic Update, AmericanCatholic.org, May 2006,http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp [accessed 2/15/2014].↩
/46 Comments/by

Why did Jesus say, “Eat his flesh”?

Jesus fed the multitudes before saying we must eat his flesh

“The Feeding of the Five Thousand” by Jacobo Bassano

Question: I was chewing on the passage where Jesus says we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. How would you approach why Jesus would use these words?

That is a great question. After all, Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 caused many people to stop following him. Let’s look first at the context of what Jesus said, then at what the words mean, and finally at why Jesus would use such a distasteful phrase.

The Context

The day before, Jesus fed 5,000 men and an unknown number of women and children from five small barley loaves and two fish. This miracle reminded them of the miracle of manna that their ancestors ate in the desert when Moses led them out of slavery. Many Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting “the Prophet”—someone God would send who would be like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)—and this supper caused them to exclaim: “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”

They planned to force Jesus to be king (5,000 men were plenty to start a rebellion), but he slipped away. The next day they found him on the other side of the sea. Jesus warned them that they sought him not because of what the sign signified, but because they wanted full bellies (John 6:26). He refused to give them more bread and instead made claims they considered outrageous: he was the bread of life; he came from heaven; he could grant eternal life; and he could satisfy spiritual hunger and thirst.

This was not what they wanted. They wanted Jesus to lead a rebellion against Rome and keep filling their stomachs.

When they argued, Jesus proclaimed:

I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:53-54 (NIV)

They replied, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Many not only stopped listening to him, they stopped following him.

What does “eat his flesh” mean?

Jesus’ initial point is that Jesus is the bread of life in that he satisfies spiritual hunger and gives eternal life, just as barley cakes and manna satisfy physical hunger and give physical life (6:35, 48-51).

Continuing the bread of life motif, “eat his flesh” is equivalent to believe in Jesus and thereby partake of all that his body’s death on the cross offered, including payment for sins and eternal life. As research professor of New Testament and commentator D. A. Carson puts it, It is appropriating Jesus through faith. [1] (If you’d like to see the verses that explain this, see “A Little Deeper: Equivalent Expressions” at the end of this blog.)

Why would Jesus say something so offensive?

Still, referencing cannibalism and drinking blood was offensive to Jews. Why would Jesus say something which would cause so many to abandon him? Here are three considerations.

Jesus wanted people to seek understanding

Jesus often used words with spiritual meanings that could be misunderstood if taken literally. Those who believed he was the Messiah could seek to find out what he truly meant, while those who weren’t listening for spiritual truth could shake their heads and walk away. Jesus often said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”—those without ears to hear he didn’t pursue.

Jesus wanted true followers

Those who left were at odds with Jesus’ mission: they wanted him to lead a political rebellion and perform daily miracles to meet their physical needs on earth. Presenting a difficult teaching drove away the distraction of false followers attempting to mold him into what they wanted rather than accepting from him what he offered.

Jesus’ metaphor would stick so they might later understand

The words were so graphic that the hearers would never forget them. Jesus spoke mainly in figures to the crowds, and when he plainly told the Twelve about his coming death and resurrection, they didn’t understand (Luke 9:21-22, 44-45). After the resurrection, Jesus’ disciples understood the significance of the crucifixion and openly preached that Jesus had died for the sins of the world. Those who quit following Jesus on this day who later heard of Jesus’ death and resurrection would be able to then understand that Jesus was saying that they needed to partake of his eternal sacrifice for them—if they finally had ears to hear.

***

A Little Deeper: Equivalent Expressions

How do we figure out what Jesus meant in this passage? First, John 6 is rich in imagery and metaphors that mean similar things. Looking at which expressions in Jesus’ sermon are equivalent helps us understand what he means.

  • Jesus equated laboring “for the food that endures to eternal life” to believing in him (John 6:27, 29), so we obtain the bread of life by believing in Jesus.
  • “The bread of life” is also “the food that endures to eternal life”; “the true bread from heaven”; “he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world”; and Jesus’ “flesh” that he would “give for the life of the world” (6:35, 27, 32, 33, 51).
  • Jesus gives eternal life to and raises from the dead those who (a) believe in him; (b) eat the bread of life; and (c) feed on his flesh (6:40, 51, 54), so all three are equivalent.

Second, “eat” is clearly metaphorical. Just as you used “chewing on” in your question and I used “distasteful” in my first paragraph, so we often use phrases related to eating metaphorically: we drink in a sunset, taste the good life, swallow the hard truth, and eat humble pie. We usually mean something like partaking of or participating in.

Third, John 1 tells us Jesus was the Word who “was with God” and “was God” and “became flesh”; this flesh is what he would give for the life of the world (John 1:1, 14, 6:51). He offered his body to be sacrificed in place of ours in order to pay for our sins, and thus showed himself to be “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Hebrews 9:28, 10:10; John 1:29).

Fourth, Jesus explained his meaning further during the Last Supper when he instituted communion so that his followers would eat bread and drink wine in memory of what he accomplished on the cross (Luke 22:17-20).

  1. [1]Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1991), 305.↩
/1 Comment/by