Lk 8:2 – Mary was one from whom seven demons had gone out. Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40, Jn 19:25 – She was there at the cross with Mary, wife of Clopas, and mother of James the Less and Joseph (aka Joses), as well as Salome, the mother of the Zebedee boys, and Jesus’ mother and her sister. Mt 27:61, Mk 15:47 – When Joseph put Jesus’ body into his tomb, Mary was there watching with the other Mary to see where He was laid. Mt 28:1, Mk 16:1, Jn 20:1-2 – And just as soon as the Sabbath was ended, she was back at the grave, with the other Mary and Salome. They bought spices with which to anoint Him for burial. But, they arrived to find the stone already rolled away. Mary ran back to tell Peter and John that the body was missing.
Easton – Magdala was a town on the western shore of the sea of Galilee. She became a follower and provisioner of Jesus in gratitude for her deliverance. Little more is said other than to discount the idea that she ought to be deemed the same notorious sinner mentioned in Luke 7.
Fausset – Magdala was in Naphtali per Josh 19:38. Those who link her to the woman of Luke 7, try to translate her name as indicating “Mary of the braided locks,” those braids being a mark of her purported profession. The number of her demons is considered in its symbolic sense as indicating a completeness of possession or a legion of demons. Their bringing of spices this morning was not due to having failed to see Nicodemus and Joseph prepare the body, but because they brought theirs in liquid form, finding the powdered spices Nicodemus had brought to be inferior and unsatisfactory. [Not sure what that’s based on.] She is presumed to have seen the angels but rejected their message as a figment of her imagination. Her response here is taken as indication of a love too much founded on the physical presence of Christ. Again, her connection to Luke 7 is rejected.
ISBE – Yet again, the Luke 7 connection is refuted. It is noted here that demon-possession, as it is spoken of in the New Testament, was not a commentary on the possessed one’s temperament. It was seen as a disease, not as a propensity for evil in the person. So Jesus treats the condition. Had she been lifted out of such a life of prostitution, general practice of the NT authors would lead us to expect her name to be withheld, which it is not. Rather, she is depicted the victim of a particularly severe malady, possibly suffering relapses. The numbering of her demons at seven may indicate that her mental state continued to be somewhat haunted and divided by the experience. “She was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict.” Of note, that woman of the previous chapter, if she was known by name to Luke at all, was not identified by name. The Apostles, being present at the scene, undoubtedly knew, but did not reveal her name. Luke 8, rather than continuing the events of the preceding chapter, opens an entirely new section of Luke’s account. Similarly, Mary is not the nervous, flighty woman that some would have her to be. They suppose her, for instance, to have suffered paranoid delusions due to her malady, and it is for this cause that her initial testimony is rejected by the disciples. Of course, by the record of Scripture, she had been cured by Jesus, and to such degree as to make her healing almost a part of her name. It’s all but unthinkable that Jesus, having wrought so great a cure, would yet leave her a nervous, hallucinatory wreck. Note also that she is the last to leave the cross and first to return to the tomb. These are not the acts of a weak and frightened woman. “Henceforth, to the very end, with unwearied devotion, with intent and eager willingness, with undaunted courage even in the face of dangers which broke the courage of the chosen Twelve, she followed and served her Lord.” [Not sure I agree with that assessment entirely.] The author finds it impossible to reconcile such resolve with one supposedly hysterical and neurotic. Rather, she and those with her demonstrate the best character of woman. [Revised Edition leaves much of this out, reducing coverage to a bare minimum observation of the passages in which Mary is mentioned.]
M&S – The name most likely indicates her being from the town of Magdala. Most suppose Magdala to have been situated on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, but there is another such town mentioned near Jerusalem. The Talmud indicates this town was destroyed for its adulteries. This is supposed as her town of association by those who would make her out to be both the same Mary who was sister to Martha, and also (it would seem) the woman of Luke 7. All of this is deemed quite improbable. Along similar lines is that assault upon the Nazarenes in the Talmud which speaks of Miriam Megaddela, which would translate as ‘plaiter of hair,’ again attempting to connect her to a life of prostitution. Jerome is inclined to find more symbolism in her name, noting that Magdala means watch-tower and seeing in this a commendation of her steadfast faith. Origen goes farther yet, finding in her name the term gadal’, with the meaning of greatness. Thus, her name becomes a prophecy of her spiritual greatness as first witness of the resurrected Christ. Her actions, as noted in Luke 8:2, are consistent with custom. A Jewish woman might be expected to contribute to the support of a particularly revered rabbi as did she, and those others mentioned. The overall silence of the Gospels as to the presence of these women is taken to suggest that they likely attended Jesus mostly during His more ‘solemn progresses’ about Galilee, and not so much when He was traveling about with the Twelve. Whatever the case, they are clearly present on the final journey to Jerusalem. The author notes that we have no information as to what accommodations the women with Jesus may have had in this final week, whether they were in the Garden with the rest, or had more comfortable rooms in town. It is supposed that she was there with John and with Jesus’ mother when He spoke to them from the cross, a closeness borne of her attendance upon the ministry, and to be seen again in the events following His death. The author suggests that she had not even heard the message of His resurrection, given that He had spoken this to His apostles and they had not understood, so would hardly be likely to relay the message. [But, the chief priests were aware of it?] The author also supposes that Jesus appears to Mary and the others simultaneously and in one place, and that we therefore are not to take that ‘first’ appearance Mark notes too literally. Or, else he is saying the others actually saw Him first. Ah. I think he is suggesting that she first saw Him together with the others, then ran to find Peter and John and later had this second, more personal appearance. [Admittedly, sorting out the several accounts here is a challenge!] Her depth of grief is seen as particularly dangerous for her, inviting as it does a return of those seven devils that had once possessed her, and it is on this basis that Jesus pays particular attention to see her restored. “Her love had been too dependent on the visible presence of her Master.” She needed to shift to a heavenward perspective in her desire for communion with Him. The confusion as to Mary’s identity is largely tied to the confusion as to just how many accounts we have of Jesus being anointed by women. The general conclusion is that there are two such events, an earlier one somewhere in Galilee which is recorded in Luke 7, and the other, in Bethany just prior to this final week. Even with two anointings in sight, there are those who attempt to make them both the acts of the same woman. Thus, we have either Mary of Bethany associated with this woman of ill repute, or Mary of Magdala, possibly conflating all three. But, it is quite unlikely that such a sinful woman would have been so immediately received as boon companion to the likes of Joanna and Salome. [I must say that’s a relatively weak argument.] More to the point, her possession is, as has been noted elsewhere, the mark of disease, not of sins. It is a false logic that seeks to equate seven devils with many sins and thus tie the two chapters of Luke together as describing but one woman.
Nelson – Notes the Talmudic reference to Magdala as a city closely associated with prostitution [but neglects to mention it’s being a place near Jerusalem, rather than in Galilee.] Mary, according to this author, was present at the trial of Jesus as well as at His crucifixion. She saw Him beaten and humiliated. Though not mentioned by name, it seems likely she was found with those in the upper room awaiting the Holy Spirit.
Unger – Seems to imply that Mary had been to the tomb once already before she came with the other women. [I would see some problems with such an understanding, in particular their discussion of how to move the stone. If she had already been there, then she already knew the stone to be moved, and already thought His body missing.]
Smith – Makes the same suggestion that Mary had already been to the tomb previously.
There is little enough that can be said with any certainty as concerns Mary of Magdala. No matter what one’s views, they must, at some level, depend upon a degree of speculation. The bulk of the considerations seen in the encyclopedias is upon the question of her association with others mentioned. Is she that notorious sinner of Luke 7? Is she Mary of Bethany by another name? But this, it seems to me, is sufficiently settled by one word: No. She is Mary Magdalene. She is consistently referred to by this name across all four Gospels, and there is little to no cause to suppose that somehow they forgot and referred to her differently in certain instances.
What I find far more intriguing is the matter of how these events at the burial and at the empty tomb played out. No matter how we seek to resolve the testimony, it requires, as I said, speculation. They are not so considerate or colluded as to lay out precisely how their accounts jibe. That is our task, I suppose. For my part, I am inclined to believe the addendum to Mark which insists she was first to see Him risen. That is so signal an honor that I cannot imagine it would even have been mentioned except that the Holy Spirit wished to make certain this was known. Her devotion to Him was so demonstrative of His own lesson, that the one who has been forgiven much loves much.
Let me be careful on that point, for I see in writing it so that it suggests yet again that her possession was something for which she needed forgiveness. But, as has been noted, possession is disease not sin. There might be a connection between the former and the latter in some instances, but Jesus has made it abundantly clear that we cannot assume a connection. Yet, replace forgiven much with magnificently healed, and would the statement be any less true? She who has been so magnificently healed will love much! Oh, yes indeed! I dare say any who have suffered chronic illnesses, finding themselves freed from the pain and care of those illnesses, would be grateful indeed to whoever had finally cured them. Even if the cure turned out to be temporary, the gratitude felt for that reprieve would be expansive.
All of this is to say that Mary’s devotion has its cause, even if we find no root of sin. Indeed, even if we find no root of sin it may as well be presumed inasmuch as all men are sinners from birth. But, set that aside. Sin is not the focal point for Mary’s inclusion in the accounts, but rather devotion borne out of gratitude. She is generally taken to have been a woman of means for she is found with other women of means. I’m not entirely convinced that association ought to imply any such thing. It may. But, again I would say the gratitude which defines Mary’s devotion is the connective link. They ministered to Him out of gratitude for what He had done for them. That is the universal. Whether all of them ministered by giving from their wealth, or whether each found whatever means they could to minister, either by finance or by more menial assistance, cannot be said with certainty.
What can be said with certainty is that in all these women, the devotion they felt went well beyond providing for His ministry. That is clearly seen in these final encounters. All of those women are there at the tomb. The time for supporting His ministry is past. He is dead. Their efforts now can no longer promote His cause, can they? That has nothing to do with it, really. It’s an expression of reverent love. It is that same reverent love which is expressed by them as they grasp His feet in worship, as Mary turns in recognition and bursts forth with that cry of, “Rabboni!” This is not romantic involvement. It is reverence. “Teacher!” Hardly the word one would use to greet one’s lover, or one whom she hoped might become her lover. One has but to imagine in brief the loss of one’s spouse, and the reaction that would come were that spouse to be met once more alive and well. What would be the first word out of your mouth, assuming any word would come? I doubt it would be a reference to some particular prowess or mode of employ. “Oh! My beloved cook!” “Oh! You marvelous engineer!” No. Don’t see that happening. If it was that sort of a relationship as exists between man and wife, I am quite sure it would be a more tender, a more personal greeting. “Beloved!”
It is also abundantly clear that it is not faith (or at least not faith alone) that moves her to these actions. The most powerful motivation we see in her is that of grief. She is weeping, weeping, weeping. She runs to the disciples in the first instance not to tell them the great good news of the resurrection but to cry out her anguish that they cannot even properly honor His body, for it’s gone missing. I would note that in her sorrows she didn’t even wait to see if this was truly the case, but just assumed the worst. Stone moved, guards down, what else could it mean?
Likewise, her response to the angels – the angels! – suggests that at least for the moment all thought of heaven is gone from her. That, too, smacks of a thoroughgoing realism. These men and women around Jesus are not spiritual superheroes. They are human beings. They react to stimuli pretty much as you and I do. In our deepest grief, it is the rare individual whose thoughts are focused solely on the goodness of God. That comes. But, the immediate response is usually far more earthbound in focus. Death has come. Yes, we conceptualize that there is this heavenly hereafter, but we have no concrete evidence for that. What we have concrete evidence of is that this body over here is cold and stiff and will be enveloped in the stench of decay in short order. We are rather concrete beings, and the concrete evidence of the senses tends to weigh heavily with us. Spiritual matters take longer to register.
She is not there yet. Even angels in white seated in an otherwise empty tomb don’t make that much of an impression. The wrappings stacked wherever they are, so impressive to Peter and John, don’t even register with her. Sorrow is that overwhelming. Jesus standing before her doesn’t register. Of course, He being dead, she has little cause to suppose this man standing before her could be Him, does she? And her tears have so blurred her vision that the likeness wouldn’t necessarily be clear to her. There is, then, more by way of audible clues than visual. And that’s not enough. This oughtn’t surprise us. We would fair no better in the same situation. A familiar voice, if we have less than zero cause to expect we might hear it, will not strike us as familiar.
But, oh! When He has made Himself known! Rabboni! It is You! How can this be? I saw You die. I saw You dead and buried. Seriously! If ever there was an event fit to push a teetering grasp on reality right off the edge, this would have been it. But, it didn’t. It didn’t because Mary was not teetering on the edge of reality in the first place. When Jesus heals, He heals! She had suffered possession of a particularly egregious nature. But, that was then. This is now!
I would have to concur with that author who insists she must have been there in the upper room, even though she gets no mention on that occasion. Yes. She who would not depart His grave until the fall of night demanded it, she who was back at His grave before the dawn, would hardly abandon Him when He was risen.
So, there is Mary, the very model of devotion. It seems to me a well-deserved honor that she was granted to be the first to see Him. Is there more we could draw from her story? Perhaps, but I think this is enough. She was committed to Christ Jesus. That commitment was stronger than death, stronger than His death. That’s actually rather astounding to me, in its way, more astounding than those who would face martyrdom for His name’s sake. That, after all, came after the resounding victory of His resurrection and ascension. This comes in the very depths of apparent defeat. It doesn’t matter. The world’s judgment doesn’t matter. The fact that He is dead doesn’t matter. He is no less noble, no less worthy of such honor and devotion for that. She will hold to what she knows to be true regardless. It may be a hopeless gesture, this honoring of His dead body, but it is still less honor than He is due. That is what she is feeling, I think. It were impossible, given all eternity, to do enough for Him to express her gratitude. But, she will do all she can. Let that be our model and our determination! Let us, likewise, be determined to do everything we can to honor and glorify this One Who gave Himself for us.
