WHO WAS MARY MAGDALENE? At the Crucifixion and Resurrection, there is a mysterious woman who is present, named Mary Magdalene. Some say she was the wife of Jesus. Others say she was a prostitute freed by Jesus. Still others say she was an esoteric figure of a secret royal line in France. Just who was this mysterious figure? The Biblical evidence identifies a woman who anoints Jesus with an alabaster box at the house of a Pharisee named Simon as "a woman of the city who was a sinner."[Lk 7:37] Jesus then forgives her all her sins, which sins He says, "are many." In the very next section, we are told that Mary Magdalene, "out of whom He had cast seven demons," had begun following Jesus and the Apostles [Lk 8:2]. Jesus says that because the woman had been forgiven much, she loved Him much [Lk 7:47]. Many have assumed this woman is Mary Magdalene and that she was some sort of prostitute because "woman of the city" could have that meaning in some situations. The text does not explicitly identify the woman as Mary Magdalene or as a prostitute, however. Luke does say Mary had had seven demons cast out of her and responded by following Jesus. It must have been clear to Luke as he wrote that the strong similarity between these two women and their juxtaposition in immediate succession would lead many to identify the two as the same person. The gospels often go to some pains to avoid such confusion, for example, when John speaks of "Judas" at the Last Supper and adds, "not the Iscariot." So by failing to clarify that Mary Magdalene is not the same woman, Luke in effect is allowing us to make that identification. This, if correct, would lead us to a second conclusion very rapidly, for the anointing of Jesus is REQUIRED by an express command of Jesus to be recorded whenever the gospel is preached [Mt 26:13]. Therefore, because the ONLY anointing Luke records is the one by that "woman of the city," we must conclude that this is the same anointing as we see recorded in the other gospels. Note what the other accounts add: The anointing is in the house of Simon THE LEPER of BETHANY and the box contained "VERY PRECIOUS" ointment [Mt 26:6-13]. This anointing of Jesus is followed WITHOUT A BREAK by Judas betraying Jesus, implying a direct link between the anointing and Judas' decision [Mt 26:14-15]. Mark adds the fact that this ointment in Simon's house was of a very precious substance called "SPIKENARD"--but someone complains, "Why was this WASTE of the ointment made? For it might have been SOLD FOR MORE THAN 300 PENCE."[Mk 14:3-5] That equals a YEAR'S WAGES in those days, or roughly $20,000 in modern terms. Obviously, this was a black-market ointment, something ILLEGAL, such as oil used to anoint someone KING. John, at last, completes the story: The woman who anoints Jesus is none other than Mary of Bethany, the SISTER OF MARTHA AND LAZARUS. So the woman was named MARY after all. And because she and her sister are supposed to serve guests in this house, a house we can now identify as the house of Simon the Pharisee, a "leper" (which some say was a coded way of identifying a person who advocated independence from Rome, and who was ostracized like a leper on the Sanhedrin), we must see Simon as the FATHER of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Now it becomes clear why these three siblings are living in the same house; it is the family estate. We know that Lazarus is wealthy when we are told of the huge crowds that gather when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives --prime real estate. Yet Lazarus' family owns a large enough estate to have this huge throng there ("the WHOLE WORLD has gone after Him"), and a private tomb on the property of a PHARISEE who would want to maintain ritual purity by keeeping his house as far from a tomb as possible. Simon is a wealthy Pharisee living on choice property near Jerusalem with a house big enough to sleep several adult men and women. It is his daughter who anoints Jesus with contraband royal ointment in his presence at a dinner in honor of his son Lazarus. This explains why a Pharisee would allow a "woman of the city who was a sinner" into his house and let her POUR HER OINTMENT ALL OVER JESUS AND ONTO HIS FLOOR. Pharisees would NEVER permit a STRANGER to enter their home who might be "unclean" and pour oil of UNKNOWN origin onto their floor. (She wipes the oil on Jesus' feet also.) For the ritually pure Pharisees this was anathema. But if this is his very own daughter, a woman he knew, and if he knew exactly where that oil had come from, then the mystery vanishes. THE ANOINTING OIL So where did that oil come from? The term "SPIKE-nard" is very misleading. The Greek actually calls it "GENUINE nard"--which the translators change to "SPIKE-nard" on the assumption that some copyist made a mistake. But the correct reading of "GENUINE" has awesome implications. It signifies that this was the GENUINE anointing oil. In other words, THE GENUINE royal anointing oil of the priests and kings. The oil of KING DAVID. Of the MESSIAH, the ANOINTED One. No wonder Jesus insisted they include this story in every telling of the gospel. This was His official anointing as Priest and King. [The ancient origin of this alabaster box of oil is detailed in an extensive audio/printed report called "THE SECRETS OF PETRA." It is far too much to cover on the web. Copies can be ordered via our NEWS & UPDATES page.] But could a fallen woman anoint Jesus Priest and King? MARY "THE MAGDALENE" AND HER FATHER NICODEMUS Mary and Martha are grown women living in their father's house on a large estate. This is most unusual. Ordinarily the only way a woman would return to her father's house was by being widowed or divorced or if her husband had gone on a long journey and left her otherwise alone. The Talmud has a curious story about a man named Nicodemus. It says he was one of the richest men in Jewish history. This Nicodemus had two daughters named Mary and Martha: Martha was a widow who returned to her father Nicodemus' house, while Mary had married an extremely rich man and had brought him a huge dowry. The Talmud does not say why Mary was living at home, but we may assume her husband travelled a great deal. The Talmud places this story 30 years AFTER the Biblical Nicodemus-- a generation later. Tradition says that Nicodemus and his whole family were ARRESTED because of their Christianity. All were exiled to Gaul by 37 AD, except Nicodemus, who is said to have seen them sail off from Caesarea. Yet the Talmud seems to place the family a generation later. But according to Psalm 109, people convicted of capital crimes--and the book of Acts says that professing Christianity had become a capital crime--had their NAMES BLOTTED OUT "unto the second generation." So it was FORBIDDEN for the rabbis to publicly discuss or write about someone who had been blotted out, as Nicodemus and his family had been. By the shifting of the "time" of the Talmudic stories 30 years later, rabbis could write about blotted-out events during the "forbidden" period. We have many Talmudic stories about Jesus, Lazarus and other blotted-out New Testament figures, which also exhibit a similar time-shift. It appears, therefore, that the Talmud has coyly "resurrected" some forbidden history of the family of Nicodemus and Mary Magdalene, which shows she was married to one of the richest men in her world. Who could that be? MARY AND JOSEPH, THE "OTHER HOLY FAMILY"... The term "Nicodemus" means "innocent of blood" and is hardly a name one receives at birth. So "Simon" might well be his given name. When Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin, the vote has to be UNANIMOUS. Yet we know that two members, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus do not feel Jesus is guilty. This can only mean that Caiaphas the High Priest held their proxies and cast their votes for them. The Talmud and other sources reveal that Joseph and Nicodemus were wealthy men who travelled far from Jerusalem, in the metals and grain trades respectively. Because they were not always available to vote, they had to give their proxies to the High Priest. Nicodemus was a "RULER" of the people on the Sanhedrin, a man of great wealth (he held a monopoly on grain in Jerusalem). His friend Joseph of Arimathea was in similar circumstances. Undoubtedly, both men often travelled together for months at a time. But why did they bury Jesus together? The Jewish law of burial left a man UNCLEAN for handling a dead body --which would have prevented these men from eating the Passover, if we accept John's gospel [Jn 18:28]. But the NEXT OF KIN were REQUIRED to bury their family members. That means both men were related to Jesus. Catholic tradition makes Joseph the UNCLE of Jesus' mother, Mary, but they also say he was YOUNGER than Mary. The Church has evolved a view of Mary as staying a virgin AFTER giving birth to Jesus, and this led it to elevate Mary to a semi-divine status Rome feels is incompatible with her having any siblings. The idea is that her mother Anna had no other children but Mary. But the starting point of this odd logic is Rome's belief in Mary remaining virgin AFTER giving birth to Jesus, an idea the Bible goes to great lengths to refute: The Bible declares, for example, that Mary lost her virginity at the birth of Jesus [Lk 2:23; Is 66:9; Rev 12:4], had sex with her husband [Mt 1:25], and was mother to many other children after Jesus [Mt 12:46-47; 13:55-57; 27:56,61; 28:1; Mk 6: 3-4; and many other similar passages]. To maintain the myth of Mary keeping her virginity even after giving birth, Rome decided in 1871 that Mary had herself had a miraculous birth without original sin and without any siblings. This meant Joseph of Arimathea had to be pushed back another generation BEFORE Mary, even though he was younger than Mary and was said to outlive her by 15 or 20 years. This confusion vanishes in light of the Biblical verses cited above, which removes the need to falsify Mary's family structure. Joseph was her younger brother, uncle to Jesus. When their father, Heli Joachim, died, Joseph took over the family's seat on the Jewish Sanhedrin. If this were not so, Jesus could not be David's heir. The "honored seat" Joseph held on the Council was, of course, the seat of the House of David, the KING'S SEAT. Jesus sat on it at age 12 [Lk 2:41-51]. Joseph of Arimathea had to adopt Jesus by Jewish law if he believed Jesus to be legitimate, for Joseph was the male elder of the family and a brother had to adopt his sister's unheired sons. Had Joseph been an uncle of Mary the line of inheritance would have deviated away from Jesus: Mary would not have had it to pass down to Jesus in the flesh. Rome's efforts to deify Mary deny Jesus the throne of David by natural inheritance, contrary to Scripture [Lk 1:31-33]. So Joseph of Arimathea was obligated to adopt Jesus. The adoption papers are quoted by Luke in chapter 3 of his gospel. Rome admits the genealogy there is that of Mary's side of the family, but ignores the fact that the "Joseph" who is adopting Jesus is her brother by using the bizarre argument that her husband acquired his wife's genealogy by adopting Jesus--even though the whole point of adoption was the reverse situation: To give Jesus the adopting male's genealogy. Had this male been Joseph the "Carpenter" of the line of Jeconiah, whose descendents were cursed from sitting upon the throne, Jesus would have been cut out of the royal inheritance like all other men of Jeconiah's line. Only a BROTHER of Mary could adopt Jesus and keep Jesus in the royal line of succession as the heir of David: "When Jesus was about to be thirty years of age, He became by custom [by adoption] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli..." [Lk 3:23, literal rendering] All this means that Joseph of Arimathea had to be married to a woman of very wealthy and high status. Only such a woman would be suitable to wed a man who held his position. Nicodemus married his daughter Mary to such a man. Could Mary be Joseph's wife? The gospels state that Jospeh of Arimathea [the city of Matthew: See his genealogy] buried Jesus in his own UNUSED tomb in Jerusalem. Joseph had acquired it RECENTLY, for no one in his family had died and ever been buried in it; yet the average age of death in those days was under thirty, with many babies born dead. This can only mean that Joseph had obtained the site during his life and did not inherit it. The common way such a tomb would come into a family was as part of a DOWRY. But if Joseph married Mary of BETHANY of the Mount of Olives, then the dowry tomb would have been on the Mount of Olives and the site of the Crucifixion must have been near Bethany at the summit of the Mount. This is in fact the case [See the link below to our discussion of "THE CRUCIFIXION"]. Now we can see that Mary was a woman of great importance. To gain a tomb on the summit of Olivet was one of the most sought-after desires of every Jewish person, but hardly anyone could achieve it. Joseph was given a piece of land when he married Mary that he would LITERALLY die for. But if he were to divorce her, it would revert to Nicodemus. THE FAMILY LINE OF MARY MAGDALENE This man Nicodemus was not only a member of the Sanhedrin, but a rabbi and Pharisee and a ruler of the people. All this makes him one of the CHIEF SCRIBES. The house of Benjamin was given the right to keep the written genealogies of the priests and kings to decide which persons were entitled to inherit. The Torah says Benjamin will "DIVIDE the SPOILS"-- that is, the inheritiances of Israel. Benjamin was allotted six seats on the Council. One of these seats was occupied by the chief elder of the tribe, the RULER of it. John calls Nicodemus a "RULER" and implies Nicodemus is the chief elder. We know from 1 Chronicles 5 that the elders of Benjamin were expected to live in Jerusalem, and that included Olivet. The grain monopoly he held indicates that his family had PRE-EMINENCE. To have absolute and total control over the food supply of Jerusalem is hardly the kind of thing a lesser line of Benjamin would inherit. Nicodemus had to be of the chief family--hence the HEAD of the tribe. But there's a catch. In Benjamin, the WOMEN pass down the line of inheritance. Not Lazarus, but Nicodemus' elder daughter Mary was the heir of the line. Her son would sit on the Sanhedrin. The term for the one who holds the authority is "PILLAR" (from the idea that the family is a kind of building and a pillar is the most prominent support of the edifice, hence the regal building block of a family or institution). In Hebrew, "pillar" is a "M'GD'L" or "magdal." So the name "Mary, the Magadalene" means "Mary the Pillar (of her tribe)." She was the chief heir of the tribe of Benjamin. To compare how this title was used in the Bible, the term used to describe "The High Priest" in Hebrew was "Ha-Kohen Ha-Gadol" or "The Priest, The Pillar"--that is, he was the SUPREME Priest of the tribe, the Chief elder of Levi. Mary is called "Ma-Gadol-aH-eN" or "Great Pillar Female One"--that is, she was the "Great Supreme Woman" of her tribe: Benjamin. Now we see her conferring her tribal honor on Jesus, making Jesus the heir of Benjamin by adoption through her husband Joseph. That had the effect of giving Jesus the LEGAL RIGHT TO OFFICIALLY APPOINT what HE called "SCRIBES of the Kingdom"--the writers of a NEW testament. But the tribe of Benjamin could do more than keep written records that DESIGNATED the Priest and King. It could ANOINT them. When Mary brought out the "GENUINE Nard" and anointed Jesus, she was declaring Jesus the OFFICIAL King. Jesus observed that she in effect had anointed Him for BURIAL. Why? Because it was ILLEGAL and He now reeked of contraband oil. The penalty was death under Rome's law. But her anointing seems so informal, so loving and casual. Or is it? The gospels say she stood behind Him and poured it all out upon His head and wiped the residue on His feet with her hair. This act of hers in STANDING BEHIND HIM AND POURING IT ON HIS HEAD is standard practice for an OFFICIAL ROYAL ANOINTING. Apparently she did not intend to pour it all out, and when she did, she tried to wipe it up with her hair. But Jesus chooses to emphasize her love and His forgiveness of her prior sins "which were many." What had Joseph of Arimathea's wife done to be regarded as such a sinner? John records the Sanhedrin bringing a woman to Jesus who was caught "in the very act" of adultery. Jesus is asked to JUDGE her. Only her husband, her father, and her eldest son had this right. The reason is that each had a LEGAL STAKE IN THE DOWRY. If found guilty, a divorce would cause the dowry to revert to her father's house. Jesus as Mary's male heir, albeit by adoption, had a legal basis for judging her. When Jesus sets her "free," He does so conditionally. "Where are they who accuse you?"--meaning her father and husband. No doubt they were off on one of their merchant trips, which is why Mary had gotten into trouble out of loneliness. While Jesus had saved her life for the moment, she was still under a kind of "house-arrest" pending the return of Joseph and Nicodemus. A woman left alone for months or even years at a time could easily fall into adultery. And could be forgiven for her weakness. However, NO CHILD SHE BORE AFTER THIS COULD INHERIT...and certainly not the throne of David! Orthodox rabbis still hold to this rule. Even if Mary were the wife of Jesus as some claim, it would be of no inheritance value to her descendents. All her subsequent offspring in the aftermath of adultery would be legally bastards with NO CLAIM ON ANY INHERITANCE OR ROYAL THRONE. Therefore, all those pretenders who are now claiming to be the heirs of David through Jesus and Mary Magdalene are claiming an inheritance that cannot exist. Most of them cite an "heir" produced long after Mary's sexual escapades (if she had any; being caught public embrace of one not your spouse could in some cases be "in the act" of adultery). WAS JESUS MARRIED AT ALL? Aside from the obvious fact that much of the New Testament is about Jesus as the Bridegroom of the Church, the Bride of Christ, how could Jesus have married? No father would have married his daughter to this man whom the general public believed was a result of fornication with an UNKNOWN FATHER. (The Talmud later suggested the father of Jesus might be a gentile Roman soldier, ie an uncircumcised rapist.) Even Mary's about- to-be husband Joseph was ready to divorce her over this issue [Mt 1:19]. Even if Joseph had tried to marry Jesus off under his own name, it was a problem, for his line carried the CURSE of Jeconiah. In fact, it is a well-documented tradition that his own first-born, James, never married. This hardly boded well for Jesus. James would not have made a decision to be celebate at 13 because of some Christian piety, for James did not yet believe in Jesus as the Christ. James simply could not be married because of the family curse, which he carried as first-born of Joseph. Even if James had not inherited that curse, all Mary's children were also tainted by her first supposed "illigitimate" birth. (Joseph's marriage to Mary was by special circumstance as we discuss in our article about him [coming soon]. Briefly, Joseph innocently put Mary's father in a position where he had to let her marry Joseph.) So Jesus could not be married until He was adopted by a man without the curse, namely Joseph of Arimathea, His wealthy and powerful uncle. One could argue that Jesus waited until He was thirty to be adopted and get married. But that is exactly what the New Testament says: Jesus was going around the land "wooing" a Bride, the Church. The marriage feast at Cana is sometimes said to be His marriage to Mary Magdalene...or somebody. The "bridegroom" is not named; so the now critics want to assert he is Jesus because His family is invited to the wedding. But John says Jesus was "INVITED" to the wedding. However, a groom is never invited to his own wedding! He and the bride don't get invitations to their wedding; they or their parents are the ones who do the inviting. [Jn 2:2] If Jesus is the bridegroom, why is He unconcerned that the guests to His own wedding have no wine? Why does His mother have to urge Him to act against His inclination? Why does Mary have to tell the staff to obey the bridegroom? This makes no sense at all. On the other hand, if Jesus is merely a GUEST, it makes perfect sense. It could be one of His younger sisters getting married, which would explain why the staff obeys Mary, but must be instructed to obey Jesus. WAS JESUS A RABBI WHO HAD TO BE MARRIED? This absurd argument flies in the face of the express statement of John's gospel that Jesus had "NEVER studied" under the rabbis or the scribes in Jerusalem or apparently ANYWHERE: "And the Jews marveled, saying, 'How does this man have learning, having NEVER studied?'" [Jn 7:15] Jesus TAUGHT, but He had no formal training, and was therefore NOT an OFFICIAL rabbi, who had to be married under the rules. Jesus was a "small r" rabbi, an unofficial teacher, as John states. Being unable to marry, Jesus could not qualify to study under the official rules. All throughjout the gospels we are told how the scribes and Pharisees, the OFFICIAL teachers of the people, were jealous of Jesus, spied on His teaching, tried to discredit Him, etc. If Jesus had credentials from them, they would have boasted of Him. But He did not. Jesus was a COMPETITOR, and outsider, someone they had NOT taught, a teacher who had his learning directly from God, Nicodemus concluded. Which brings us to how Nicodemus could find Jesus so easily at night in that house at Bethany, coming to Him "secretly" by night. He simply walked down the hall and knocked on His door. After all, it was his own house, and Jesus was his grandson by adoption. And that explains why Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were the two men who were required by law to bury Jesus: His adoptive father and maternal uncle and His adoptive grandfather, respectively. It also explains why Mary Magdalene, his adoptive mother, was at the tomb with His natural mother Mary and her sister Salome. As for the business about Mary calling Jesus "rabboni"--it was her proper title for the heir of the family and the person who had saved her life and was now sort of her "parole officer" and responsible for her behavior in the future. He had become a legal guardian over her, because her continued life was His responsibility, having let her go after her capital crime, under the Law of Moses, of adultery. We see Jesus' authority over Mary at Lazarus' funeral. As the true elder of her family, Mary was sitting in official mourning in the house to receive visitors, as Jewish custom required (and still does). She could only leave the house under very special circumstances. It would be like calling the bride away from the midst of her wedding to give her a message. But because Jesus was acting as a kind of warden over her--she was a convicted felon on parole in the eyes of the law--Mary had to obey Jesus who held custody over her, in effect. It had not a thing to do with her being His wife, as many mistakenly assume. Why would she have been under some strange obligation to remain inside her BROTHER'S house as a wifely duty? There is no such custom. She was the chief official mourner, a role that fell to the eldest woman. It had nothing to do with marriage or Jesus. SUMMARY All the "evidence" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married to each other collapses when examined closely. The ulterior motives of a few royal lines in Europe in asserting an inheritance back to Jesus from Mary Magdalene have produced a slew of specious arguments which are flatly contradicted by the very Bible passages they cite and by the known practices and customs of the Jewish people at the time. Jesus has a Bride to which He has pledged to come back. It is the Bride of Christ, the true spiritual body of believers. The whole idea is that the New Covenant is a spiritual MARRIAGE covenant with this Bride, not a sexual union. While she may well be among the saints He will raise up and "wed" at His coming, Mary is but one of the many in the Church. If she were His carnal wife, His future "wedding feast" would be confused and distorted, Indeed, it would have been ADULTERY, in a technical legal sense, for Jesus to have been seeking to create a marriage covenant with the Church while married to Mary. He would have been unfaithful to her. The whole idea would defile the entire basis of the New Covenant relationship: That Jesus is an UNMARRIED King who is "betrothed" to the Church [Ephesians 5:21-33]. If Mary Magdalene is Jesus' adoptive mother, a thousand mysteries are resolved. But if she is His wife, a thousand conflicts are created.