John the Baptist

I. Sources.
The sources of first-hand information concerning the life and work of John the Baptist are
limited to the New Testament and the writings of Josephus. Luke and Matthew give the fuller
notices, and these are in substantial agreement. The Fourth Gospel deals chiefly with the
witness after the baptism. In his single notice (Ant.,XVIII , v, 2), Josephus makes an interesting
reference to the cause of John's imprisonment. See VI, 2, below.

II. Parentage.
John was of priestly descent. His mother, Elizabeth, was of the daughters of Aaron, while his
father, Zechariah (Greek Zacharias), was a priest of the course of Abijah, and did service in the
temple at Jerusalem. It is said of them that "they were both righteous before God, walking
blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord" (Luke 1:6). This priestly
ancestry is in interesting contrast with his prophetic mission.

III. Early Life.

We infer from Luke's account that John was born about six months before the birth of Jesus
(Luke 1:36). Of the place we know only that it was a city of the hill country of Judah. Our
definite information concerning his youth is summed up in the angelic prophecy, "Many shall
rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor
strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb" (Luke
1:14-16), and in Luke's brief statement, "And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he
lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel" (Luke 1:80). The character and spiritual
insight of the parents shown in the incidents recorded are ample evidence that his training was
a fitting preparation for his great mission.

IV. Ministry.
1. The Scene:
The scene of John's ministry was partly in the wilderness of southern Judea and partly in the
Jordan valley. Two locations are mentioned, Bethany (John 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (John
3:23). Neither of these places can be positively identified.
2. His First Appearance:
The unusual array of dates with which Luke marks the beginning of John's ministry (Luke
3:1,Luke 3:2) reveals his sense of the importance of the event as at once the beginning of his
prophetic work and of the beginning of a new era. His first public appearance is assigned to the
15th year of Tiberius, probably 26 or 27 AD, for the first Passover attended by Jesus can
hardly have been later than 27 AD (John 2:20).
3. His Dress and Manner:
John's dress and habits were strikingly suggestive of Elijah, the old prophet of national
judgment. His desert habits have led some to connect him with a group of Jews known as the
Essenes. There could have been a connection based upon his ascetic habits and the fact that
the chief settlement of this sect was near the home of his youth. It was natural that he should
continue the manner of his youthful life in the desert, and it is not improbable that he
intentionally copied Elijah's great prophetic model. It was fitting that the one who called men to
repentance and the beginning of a self-denying life should show renunciation and self-denial in
his own life. But there is no evidence in his teaching that he required such asceticism of those
who accepted his baptism.
4. His Message:
The fundamental note in the message of John was the announcement of the near approach of
the Messianic age. But while he announced himself as the herald voice preparing the way of
the Lord, and because of this the expectant multitudes crowded to hear his word, his view of
the nature of the kingdom was probably quite at variance with that of his hearers. Instead of the
expected day of deliverance from the foreign oppressor, it was to be a day of judgment for
Israel. It meant good for the penitent, but destruction for the ungodly. "He will gather his wheat
into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12). "Even now
the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut
down and thrown into the fire" (Luke 3:9). Yet this idea was perhaps not entirely unfamiliar.
That the delay in the Messiah's coming was due to the sinfulness of the people and their lack
of repentance, was commonplace in the message of their teachers.
The call to repentance was then a natural message of preparation for such a time of judgment.
But to John repentance was a very real and radical thing. It meant a complete change of heart
and life. "Bring forth ... fruits worthy of repentance" (Luke 3:8). What these fruits were he made
clear in his answers to the inquiring multitudes and the publicans and soldiers (Luke 3:10-14).
It is noticeable that there is no reference to the usual ceremonies of the law or to a change of
occupation. Do good; be honest; refrain from extortion; be content with wages.
5. His Severity:
John used such violence in addressing the Pharisees and Sadducees doubtless to startle them
from their self-complacency. How hopelessly they were blinded by their sense of security as
the children of Abraham, and by their confidence in the merits of the law, is attested by the fact
that these parties resisted the teachings of both John and Jesus to the very end.
With what vigor and fearlessness John pressed his demand for righteousness is shown by his
stern reproof of the sin of Herod and Herodias, which led to his imprisonment and finally to his
death.

V. Baptism.
1. Significance:
The symbolic rite of baptism was such an essential part of the work of John that it not only
gave him his distinctive title of "the Baptist" ( ὁ βαπτστἡς,hobaptistḗs), but also caused his
message to be styled "preaching the baptism of repentance" (Luke 3:3). That a special virtue
was ascribed to this rite, and that it was regarded as a necessary part of the preparation for the
coming of the Messiah, are shown by its important place in John's preaching, and by the
eagerness with which it was sought by the multitudes. Its significance may best be understood
by giving attention to its historical antecedents, for while John gave the rite new significance, it
certainly appealed to ideas already familiar to the Jews.
(1) Ceremonial Purification Required by the Levitical Law.
The various washings required by the law (Leviticus 1-15) have, without doubt, import. This is
shown by the requirement of sacrifices in connection with the cleansing, especially the sin
offering (Leviticus 14:8, Leviticus 14:9, Leviticus 14:19, Leviticus 14:20; compare Mark
1:44; Luke 2:22). The designation of John's baptism by the word βαπτἱζειν,baptı́zein, which by
New Testament times was used of ceremonial purification, also indicates some historical
connection.
(2) Anticipation of Messianic Baptism Foretold by Prophets.
John understood that his baptism was a preparation for the Messianic baptism anticipated by
the prophets, who saw that for a true cleansing the nation must wait until God should open in
Israel a fountain for cleansing (Zechariah 13:1), and should sprinkle His people with clean
water and give them a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 36:25, Ezekiel 36:26; Jeremiah
33:8). His baptism was at once a preparation and a promise of the spiritual cleansing which the
Messiah would bestow. "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh
after me ... shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matthew 3:11).
(3) Proselyte Baptism.
According to the teaching of later Judaism, a stranger who desired to be adopted into the
family of Israel was required, along with circumcision, to receive the rite of baptism as a means
of cleansing from the ceremonial uncleanness attributed to him as a Gentile. While it is not
possible to prove the priority of this practice of proselyte baptism to the baptism of John, there
can be no doubt of the fact, for it is inconceivable, in view of Jewish prejudice, that it would be
borrowed from John or after this time.
While it seems clear that in the use of the rite of baptism John was influenced by the Jewish
customs of ceremonial washings and proselyte baptism, his baptism differed very essentially
from these. The Levitical washings restored an unclean person to his former condition, but
baptism was a preparation for a new condition. On the other hand, proselyte baptism was
administered only to Gentiles, while John required baptism of all Jews. At the same time his
baptism was very different from Christian baptism, as he himself declared (Luke 3:16). His was
a baptism of water only; a preparation for the baptism "in the Spirit" which was to follow. It is
also to be observed that it was a rite complete in itself, and that it was offered to the nation as a
preparation for a specific event, the advent of the Messiah.
We may say, then, that as a "baptism of repentance" it meant a renunciation of the past life; as
a cleansing it symbolized the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4), and as preparation it implied a
promise of loyalty to the kingdom of the Messiah. We have no reason to believe that Jesus
experienced any sense of sin or felt any need of repentance or forgiveness; but as a Divinely
appointed preparation for the Messianic kingdom His submission to it was appropriate.
2. Baptism of Jesus:
While the multitudes flocked to the Jordan, Jesus came also to be baptized with the rest. "John
would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness" (Matthew 3:13-15). Wherein was this act a fulfillment of righteousness? We
cannot believe that Jesus felt any need of repentance or change of life. May we not regard it
rather as an identification of Himself with His people in the formal consecration of His life to the
work of the kingdom?

VI. Imprisonment and Death.

1. The Time:
Neither the exact time of John's imprisonment nor the period of time between his imprisonment
and his death can be determined. On the occasion of the unnamed feast of John 5:1, Jesus
refers to John's witness as already past. At least, then, his arrest, if not his death, must have
taken place prior to that incident, i.e. before the second Passover of Jesus' ministry.
2. The Occasion:
According to the Gospel accounts, John was imprisoned because of his reproof of Herod's
marriage with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip (Luke 3:19,Luke 3:20; compare Matthew
14:3,Matthew 14:4;Mark 6:17,Mark 6:18). Josephus says (Ant.,XVIII , v, 2) that Herod was
influenced to put John to death by the "fear lest his great influence over the people might put it
in his power or inclination to raise a rebellion. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of
Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, and was there put to death." This account of
Josephus does not necessarily conflict with the tragic story of the Gospels. If Herod desired to
punish or destroy him for the reasons assigned by the evangelists, he would doubtless wish to
offer as the public reason some political charge, and the one named by Josephus would be
near at hand.

VII. John and His Disciples.

1. The Inner Circle:
Frequent reference is made in the Gospel narrative to the disciples of John. As the multitudes
crowded to his baptism, it was natural that he should gather about him an inner circle of men
who should receive special instruction in the meaning of his work, and should aid him in the
work of baptism, which must have soon increased beyond his power to perform alone. It was in
the formation of this inner circle of immediate followers that he prepared a sure foundation for
the work of the Messiah; for it was from this inner group that the disciples of Jesus were mainly
drawn, and that with his consent and through his witness to the superior worth of the latter, and
the temporary character of his own mission (John 1:29-44).
2. Their Training:
Concerning the substance of their training, we know from the disciples of Jesus (Luke 11:1)
that it included forms of prayer, and from his own disciples (Matthew 9:14) we learn that
frequent fastings were observed. We may be sure also that John taught them much concerning
the Messiah and His work.
3. Their Fidelity:
There is abundant evidence of the great fidelity of these disciples to their master. This may be
observed in their concern at the over-shadowing popularity of Jesus (John 3:26); in their loyalty
to him in his imprisonment and in their reverent treatment of his body after his death (Mark
6:29). That John's work was extensive and his influence lasting is shown by the fact that 20
years afterward Paul found in far-off Ephesus certain disciples, including Apollos, the learned
Alexandrian Jew, who knew no other baptism than that of John (Acts 19:1-7).

VIII. John and Jesus.

1. John's Relation to Jesus:
John assumed from the first the role of a herald preparing the way for the approaching
Messianic age. He clearly regarded his work as Divinely appointed (John 1:33), but was well
aware of his subordinate relation to the Messiah (Mark 1:7) and of the temporary character of
his mission (John 3:30). John's work was twofold. In his preaching he warned the nation of the
true character of the new kingdom as a reign of righteousness, and by his call to repentance
and baptism he prepared at least a few hearts for a sympathetic response to the call and
teaching of Jesus. He also formally announced and bore frequent personal testimony to Jesus
as the Messiah.
There is no necessary discrepancy between the synoptic account and that of the Fourth
Gospel in reference to the progress of John's knowledge of the Messianic character of Jesus.
According to Matthew 3:14, John is represented as declining at first to baptize Jesus because
he was conscious of His superiority, while in John 1:29-34 he is represented as claiming not to
have known Jesus until He was manifested by the heavenly sign. The latter may mean only
that He was not known to him definitely as the Messiah until the promised sign was given.
The message which John sent to Jesus from prison seems strange to some in view of the
signal testimonies which he had previously borne to His character. This need not indicate that
he had lost faith in the Messiahship of Jesus, but rather a perplexity at the course of events.
The inquiry may have been in the interest of the faith of his disciples or his own relief from
misgivings due to Jesus' delay in assuming the expected Messianic authority. John evidently
held the prophetic view of a temporal Messianic kingdom, and some readjustment of view was
necessary.
2. Jesus' Estimate of John:
Jesus was no less frank in His appreciation of John. If praise may be measured by the worth of
the one by whose lips it is spoken, then no man ever received such praise as he who was
called by Jesus a shining light (John 5:35), more than a prophet (Matthew 11:9), and of whom
He said, "Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the
Baptist" (Matthew 11:11). If, on the other hand, He rated him as less than the least in the
kingdom of heaven, this was a limitation of circumstances, not of worth.
Jesus paid high tribute to the Divine character and worth of John's baptism; first, by submitting
to it Himself as a step in the fulfillment of all righteousness; later, by repeated utterance,
especially in associating it with the birth of the Spirit as a necessary condition of inheriting
eternal life (John 3:5); and, finally, in adopting baptism as a symbol of Christian discipleship.

Literature.
The relative sections in the Gospel Commentaries, in the Lives of Christ, and the articles
on John the Baptist in the several Bible dictionaries. There are a number of monographs which
treat more minutely of details: W.C. Duncan,The Life, Character and Acts of John the Baptist,
New York, 1853; Erich Haupt, Johannes der Taufer, Gutersloh, 1874; H. Kohler, Johannes der
Taufer, Halle, 1884; R.C. Houghton, John the Baptist: His Life and Work, New York, 1889; H.R.
Reynolds, John the Baptist, London, 1890; J. Feather, John the Baptist, Edinburgh, 1894;
George Matheson in Representative Men of the New Testament, 24-66, Edinburgh, 1905; T.
Innitzer, Johannes der Taufer, Vienna, 1908; A.T. Robertson, John the Loyal, New York, 1911.

Reading: The Temptation of Christ (ISBE Article)

The Temptation of Chirst
1. The Sources:
The sources for this event are Mark 1:12,13; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; compare Hebrews 2:18;
Hebrews 4:15,16, and see. Mark is probably a condensation; Matthew and Luke have the same
source, probably the discourses of Jesus. Matthew is usually regarded as nearest the original, and
its order is here followed.
2. Time and Place:
The temptation is put immediately after the baptism by all the synoptic gospels, and this is
psychologically necessary, as, we shall see. The place was the wilderness; it was "up" from the
Jordan valley (Matthew), and was on the way back to Galilee (Luke). The traditional site, Mt.
Quarantana, is probably a good guess.
3. Significance:
At His baptism, Jesus received from heaven the final confirmation of His knowledge that He was the
Messiah. It was the greatest conception which ever entered a human mind and left it sane. Under
the irresistible influence of the Spirit, He turned aside to seek out in silence and alone the principles
which should govern Him in His Messianic work. By this conflict, Jesus came to that clearness and
decision which characterized His ministry throughout. It is easy to see how this determination of
guiding principles involved the severest temptation, and it is noteworthy that all the temptation is
represented as coming from without, and none from within. Here too He must take His stand with
reference to all the current ideas about the Messiah and His work.
4. The Reporter:
Jesus alone can be the original reporter. The report was given for the sake of the disciples, for the
principles wrought out in this conflict are the guiding principles in the whole work of the kingdom of
God on earth.
5. Exposition:
(1) Fasting.
Jesus did not eat for forty days and forty nights. This fast was reminiscent of the fast of Moses
(Exodus 34:28) and the fast of Elijah (1 Kings 19:8), and so this is not an example for ascetic fasting
for us. At the end of the forty days, Jesus realized that He was a starving hungry man.
(2) The First Temptation.
The first temptation is not a temptation to doubt His Messiahship, nor is the second either. "If thou
art the Son of God," i.e. "the Messiah," means, simply, "since thou art the Son of God". There was
not the slightest doubt on this point in Jesus' mind after the baptism, and Satan knew it. There is no
temptation to prove Himself the Messiah, nor any hint of such a thing in Jesus' replies. The very
point of it all is, How are you going to act, since you are Messiah? (Matthew 4:3 parallel Luke 4:3).
The temptation has these elements: (a) The perfectly innocent craving for food is imperious in the
starving man. (b) Why should He not satisfy His hunger, since He is the Son of God and has the
power? Jesus replies from Deuteronomy 8:3 , that God can and will provide Him bread in His own
way and in His own time. He is not referring to spiritual food, which is not in question either here or
in Deuteronomy. He does not understand how God will provide, but He will wait and trust. Divinely-
assured of Messiahship, He knows that God will not let Him perish. Here emerges the principle of
His ministry; He will never use His supernatural power to help Himself. Objections based on Luke
4:30 and John 10:39 are worthless, as nothing miraculous is there implied. The walking on the
water was to help the apostles' faith. But why would it have been wrong to have used His
supernatural power for Himself? Because by so doing He would have refused to share the human
lot, and virtually have denied His incarnation. If He is to save others, Himself He cannot save
( Matthew 27:42 ). In passing, it is well to notice that "the temptations all turn on the conflict which
arises, when one, who is conscious of supernatural power, feels that there are occasions, when it
would not be right to exercise it." So the miraculous is here most deeply imbedded in the first
principles of Messianic action.
(3) The Second Temptation.
The pinnacle of the temple was probably the southeast corner of the roof of the Royal Cloister, 326
ft. above the bottom of the Kidron valley. The proposition was not to leap from this height into the
crowd below in the temple courts, as is usually said, for (a) there is no hint of the people in the
narrative; (b) Jesus' reply does not fit such an idea; it meets another temptation entirely; (c) this
explanation confuses the narrative, making the second temptation a short road to glory like the
third; (d) it seems a fantastic temptation, when it is seriously visualized. Rather Satan bids Jesus
leap into the abyss outside the temple. Why then the temple at all, and not some mountain
precipice? Because it was the sheerest depth well known to the Jews, who had all shuddered as
they had looked down into it (Matthew 4:5-7 parallel Luke 4:5-8).
The first temptation proved Jesus a man of faith, and the second is addressed to Him as such,
asking Him to prove His faith by putting God's promise to the test. It is the temptation to fanaticism,
which has been the destruction of many a useful servant of God, Jesus refuses to yield, for yielding
would have been sin. It would have been (a) wicked presumption, as though God must yield to
every unreasonable whim of the man, of faith, and so would have been a real "tempting" of God; (b)
it would have denied His incarnation in principle, like the first temptation; (c) such fanaticism. would
have destroyed His ministry. So the principle was evolved: Jesus will not, of self-will, run into
dangers, but will avoid them except in the clear path of duty. He will be no fanatic, running before
the Spirit, but will be led by Him in paths of holy sanity and heavenly wisdom. Jesus waited on God.
(4) The Third Temptation.
The former tests proved Jesus a man of faith and of common sense. Surely such a man will take
the short and easy road to that universal dominion which rightfully belongs to the Messiah. Satan
offers it, as the prince of this world. The lure here is the desire for power, in itself a natural instinct,
and the natural and proper wish to avoid difficulty and pain. That the final object is to set up a
universal kingdom of God in righteousness adds to the subtlety of the temptation. But as a condition
Satan demands that Jesus shall worship him. This must be symbolically interpreted. Such worship
as is offered God cannot be meant, for every pious soul would shrink from that in horror, and for
Jesus it could constitute no temptation at all. Rather a compromise with Satan must be meant -
such a compromise as would essentially be a submission to him. Recalling the views of the times
and the course of Jesus ministry, we can think this compromise nothing else than the adoption by
Jesus of the program of political Messiahship, with its worldly means of war, intrigue, etc. Jesus
repudiates the offer. He sees in it only evil, for (a) war, especially aggressive war, is to His mind a
vast crime against love, (b) it changes the basis of His kingdom from the spiritual to the external, (c)
the means would defeat the end, and involve Him in disaster. He will serve God only, and God is
served in righteousness. Only means which God approves can be used (Matthew 4:8-
11 parallel Luke 4:9-13). Here then is the third great principle of the kingdom: Only moral and
spiritual means to moral and spiritual ends. He turns away from worldly methods to the slow and
difficult way of truth-preaching, which can end only with the cross. Jesus must have come from His
temptation with the conviction that His ministry meant a life-and-death struggle with all the forces of
darkness.
5. How Could a Sinless Christ Be Tempted?:
The difficulty is that there can be no drawing toward an object unless the object seems desirable.
But the very fact that a sinful object seems desirable is itself sin. How then can a sinless person
really be tempted at all? Possibly an analysis of each temptation will furnish the answer. In each
case the appeal was a real appeal to a perfectly innocent natural instinct or appetite. In the first
temptation, it was to hunger; in the second, to faith; in the third, to power as a means of establishing
righteousness. In each case, Jesus felt the tug and pull of the natural instinct; how insistent is the
demand of hunger, for instance! Yet, when He perceived that the satisfaction of these desires was
sinful under the conditions, He immediately refused their clamorous appeal. It was a glorious
victory. It was not that He was metaphysically not able to sin, but that He was so pure that He was
able not to sin. He did not prove in the wilderness that He could not be tempted, but that He could
overcome the tempter. If it is then said that Jesus, never having sinned, can have no real sympathy
with sinners, the answer is twofold: (1) Not he who falls at the first assault feels the full force of
temptation, but he who, like Jesus, resists it through long years to the end. (2) Only the victor can
help the vanquished; only he, who has felt the most dreadful assaults and yet has stood firm, can
give the help needed by the fallen.
Literature.
Broadus on Matthew in the place cited.; Rhees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth , secs. 91-96;
Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ , section 13; Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar , I, 67 f; J.
Weiss, Die Schriften des New Testament , I, 227 f; Weiss, Life of Christ , I, 337-54; Dods, article
"Temptation," in DCG ; Carvie,Expository Times , 10 (1898-99).

Reading: The Different Women Named Mary (ISBE Article)

I. The Name Mary in the New Testament:
(1) The name Mary occurs in 46 verses (in some versions 49/50 verses) of the New Testament to which the
following group of articles is confined. Collating all these references we have the following apparent notes of
identification: (a) Mary, the mother of Jesus; (b) Mary Magdalene; (c) Mary, the mother of James; (d) Mary,
the mother of Joses; (e) Mary, the wife of Clopas; (f) Mary of Bethany; (g) Mary, the mother of Mark; (h)
Mary of Rome; (i) the "other" Mary.
(2) A comparison of Matthew 27:56; Matthew 28:1 with Mark 15:47 seems clearly to identify the "other"
Mary with Mary the mother of Joses.
(3) Mark 15:40 identifies Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses (compare Mark 15:47).
(4) At this point a special problem of identification arises. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned as being
present at the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, the latter's sister and Mary of Magdala (John 19:25). In the
other notices of the group at the cross, Mary, the mother of James, is mentioned (Matthew 27:56; Mark
15:40). Elsewhere, James is regularly designated "son of Alpheus" (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15).
Since it can hardly be doubted that James, the apostle, and James the Less, the son of Mary, are one and the
same person, the conclusion seems inevitable that Mary, the mother of James, is also the wife of Alpheus.
Here we might stop and leave the wife of Clopas unidentified, but the fact that the name Alpheus (Ἀλφαῖος ,
Alphaı́os ) is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ‫ חלּפי‬, ḥalpay, together with the unlikelihood that anyone
important enough to be mentioned by John would be omitted by the synoptists and that another Mary, in
addition to the three definitely mentioned, could be present and not be mentioned, points to the conclusion
that the wife of Clopas is the same person as the wife of Alpheus. Along with this reasonable conclusion has
grown, as an excrescence, another for which there is no basis whatever; namely, that the wife of Clopas was
the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This would make the apostle James the cousin of Jesus, and, by an
extension of the idea, would identify James, the apostle, with James, the "Lord's brother." The available
evidence is clearly against both these inferences (see Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19).
(5) One other possible identification is offered for our consideration. Zahn, in an exceedingly interesting note
(New Testament , II, 514), identifies Mary of Rome (Romans 16:6) with the "other" Mary of Matthew. We
need not enter into a discussion of the point thus raised, since the identification of a woman of whom we have
no details given is of little more than academic interest.
We are left free, however, by the probabilities of the case to confine our attention to the principal individuals
who bear the name of Mary. We shall discuss Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Magdala; Mary of Bethany;
Mary, the mother of James and Joses; Mary, the mother of Mark.
II. Mary, the Virgin.
The biography of the mother of Jesus is gathered about a brief series of episodes which serve to exhibit her
leading characteristics in clear light. Two causes have operated to distort and make unreal the very clear and
vivid image of Mary left for us in the Gospels. Roman Catholic dogmatic and sentimental exaggeration has
well-nigh removed Mary from history. On the other hand, reaction and overemphasis upon certain features of
the Gospel narrative have led some to credit Mary with a negative attitude toward our Lord and His claims,
which she assuredly never occupied. It is very important that we should follow the narrative with
unprejudiced eyes and give due weight to each successive episode.
Mary appears in the following passages: the Infancy narratives, Matthew 1, 2; Luke 1, 2; the wedding at Cana
of Galilee, John 2:1-11; the episode of Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:21, Mark 3:31 ff; the incident at the cross,
John 19:25 ff; the scene in the upper chamber, Acts 1:14 .
1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives:
(1) It is to be noted, first of all, that Mary and her experiences form the narrative core of both infancy
documents. This is contrary to the ordinary opinion, but is unquestionably true. She is obviously the object of
special interest to Luke, and there are not wanting indications that Luke's story came from Mary herself. But,
while Matthew's account does not exhibit his interest in Mary quite so readily, that he was interested in the
story of the Lord's mother is evident.
Luke tells the story of Mary's inward and deeply personal experiences, her call (Luke 1:26 f), her maidenly
fears (Luke 1:29, Luke 1:35), her loyal submission (Luke 1:38), her outburst of sacred and unselfish joy
(1:39-55). From this anticipatory narrative he passes at once to the Messianic fulfillment.
Matthew tells the story of the outward and, so to say, public experiences of Mary which follow hard upon the
former and are in such dramatic contrast with them: the shame and suspicion which fell upon her (Matthew
1:18); her bitter humiliation (Matthew 1:19), her ultimate vindication (Matthew 1:20 f). Here the two
narratives supplement each other by furnishing different details but, as in other instances, converge upon the
central fact - the central fact here being Mary herself, her character, her thoughts, her experiences. The point
to be emphasized above all others is that we have real biography, although in fragments; in that the same
person appears in the inimitable reality of actual characterization, in both parts of the story. This is sufficient
guaranty of historicity; for no two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied the other - which is
evidently not the case here. More than this, the story is a truly human narrative in which the remarkable
character of the events which took place in her life only serves to bring into sharper relief the simple, humble,
natural qualities of the subject of them.
(2) One can hardly fail to be impressed, in studying Mary's character with her quietness of spirit; her
meditative inwardness of disposition; her admirable self-control; her devout and gracious gift of sacred
silence. The section in Luke 1:46-55, which at least expresses Luke's conception of her nature, indicates that
she is not accustomed to dwell much upon herself (4 lines only call particular attention to herself), and that
her mind is saturated with the spirit and phraseology of the Old Testament. The intensely Jewish quality of
her piety thus expressed accounts for much that appears unusual in her subsequent career as depicted in the
Gospels.
2. Mary at Cana:
The first episode which demands our attention is the wedding at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11). The
relationship between Jesus and His mother has almost eclipsed other interests in the chapter. It is to be noted
that the idea of wanton interference on the part of Mary and of sharp rebuke on the part of Jesus is to be
decisively rejected. The key to the meaning of this episode is to be found in 4 simple items: (1) in a crisis of
need, Mary turns naturally to Jesus as to the one from whom help is to be expected; (2) she is entirely
undisturbed by His reply, whatever its meaning may be; (3) she prepares the way for the miracle by her
authoritative directions to the servants; (4) Jesus does actually relieve the situation by an exercise of power.
Whether she turned to Jesus with distinctly Messianic expectation, or whether Jesus intended to convey a mild
rebuke for her eagerness, it is not necessary for us to inquire, as it is not possible for us to determine. It is
enough that her spontaneous appeal to her son did not result in disappointment, since, in response to her
suggestion or, at least, in harmony with it, He "manifested his glory." The incident confirms the infancy
narrative in which Mary's quiet and forceful personality is exhibited.
3. Mary and the Career of Jesus:
In Matthew 12:46 (parallel Mark 3:31-35), we are told that, when His mother and His brethren came seeking
Him, Jesus in the well-known remark concerning His true relatives in the kingdom of heaven intended to
convey a severe rebuke to His own household for an action which involved both unbelief and presumptuous
interference in His great life-work. The explanation of this incident, which involves no such painful
implications as have become connected with it in the popular mind, is to be found in Mark's account. He
interrupts his narrative of the arrival of the relatives (which belongs in Mark 3:21) by the account of the
accusation made by the scribes from Jerusalem that the power of Jesus over demons was due to Beelzebub.
This goes a long way toward explaining the anxiety felt by the relatives of Jesus, since the ungoverned
enthusiasm of the multitude, which gave Him no chance to rest and seemed to threaten His health, was
matched, contrariwise, by the bitter, malignant opposition of the authorities, who would believe any malicious
absurdity rather than that His power came from God. The vital point is that the attempt of Mary and her
household to get possession of the person of Jesus, in order to induce Him to go into retirement for a time,
was not due to critical and interfering unbelief, but to loving anxiety. The words of Jesus have the undoubted
ring of conscious authority and express the determination of one who wills the control of his own life - but it
is a serious mistake to read into them any faintest accent of satire. It has been well said (Horace Bushnell,
Sermons on Living Subject, 30) that Jesus would scarcely make use of the family symbolism to designate the
sacred relationships of the kingdom of heaven, while, at the same time, He was depreciating the value and
importance of the very relationships which formed the basis of His analogy. The real atmosphere of the
incident is very different from this.
4. Mary at the Cross:
To be sure that many have misinterpreted the above incident we need only turn to the exquisitely tender scene
at the cross recorded by John (John 19:25 ff). This scene, equally beautiful whether one considers the
relationship which it discloses as existing between Jesus and His mother, or between Jesus and His well-
beloved disciple removes all possible ambiguity which might attach to the preceding incidents, and reveals
the true spirit of the Master's home. Jesus could never have spoken as He did from the cross unless He had
consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of an eldest son. The tone and quality of the
scene could never have been what it is had there not been a steadfast tie of tender love and mutual
understanding between Jesus and His mother. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy
keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself.
5. Mary in the Christian Community:
The final passage which we need to consider (Acts 1:14) is especially important because in it we discover
Mary and her household at home in the midst of the Christian community, engaged with them in prayer. It is
also clear that Mary herself and the family, who seemed to be very completely under her influence, whatever
may have been their earlier misgivings, never broke with the circle of disciples, and persistently kept within
the range of experiences which led at last to full-orbed Christian faith. This makes it sufficiently evident, on
the one hand, that the household never shared the feelings of the official class among the Jews; and, on the
other, that the family of Jesus passed through the same cycle of experiences which punctuated the careers of
the whole body of disciples on the way to faith. The beating of this simple but significant fact upon the
historical trustworthiness of the body of incidents just passed in review is evident.
The sum of the matter concerning Mary seems to be this: The mother of Jesus was a typical Jewish believer of
the best sort. She was a deeply meditative thinker. Her inherited Messianic beliefs did not and perhaps could
not prepare her for the method of Jesus which involved so much that was new and unexpected. But her heart
was true, and from the beginning to the day of Pentecost, she pondered in her heart the meaning of her many
puzzling experiences until the light came. The story of her life and of her relationship to Jesus is consistent
throughout and touched with manifold unconscious traits of truth. Such a narrative could not have been
feigned or fabled.
III. Mary Magdalene
(Μαρία Μαγδαληνή , Marı́a Magdalēnḗ = of "Magdala"). - A devoted follower of Jesus who entered the circle
of the taught during the Galilean ministry and became prominent during the last days. The noun "Magdala,"
from which the adjective "Magdalene" is formed, does not occur in the Gospels (the word in Matthew 15:39,
is, of course, "Magadan"). The meaning of this obscure reference is well summarized in the following
quotations from Plummer (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 215): "'Magdala is only the Greek
form of mighdōl or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Palestine' (Tristram, Bible Places,
260); and is probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now bears the name of Mejdel near
the center of the western shore of the lake."
1. Mary Not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7 :
As she was the first to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus, it is important that we should get a correct
view of her position and character. The idea that she was a penitent, drawn from the life of the street,
undoubtedly arose, in the first instance, from a misconception of the nature of her malady, together with an
altogether impossible identification of her with the woman who was a sinner of the preceding section of the
Gospel. It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas, had
none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposition popularly associated with "having a devil."
The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil
power, not an accomplice of it. Had this always been understood and kept in mind, the unfortunate
identification of Mary with the career of public prostitution would have been much less easy.
According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare Luke 7:37;
John 8:3). At the same time the statement that 7 demons had been cast out of Mary means either that the
malady was of exceptional severity, possibly involving several relapses (compare Luke 11:26), or that the
mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare Mark 5:9) suggested the use of the number 7. Even
so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict.
The identification of Mary with the sinful woman is, of course, impossible for one who follows carefully the
course of the narrative with an eye to the transitions. The woman of Luke 7 is carefully covered with the
concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is
extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at Luke 7:50 .
The name of Mary is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel (see Plummer's analysis,
op. cit., xxxvii), where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her
former residence, which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding
account of the anointing were Mary's introduction into the circle of Christ's followers, she could not be
identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of Luke 7 , and Mary of
Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord's feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together.
2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck:
Mary has been misrepresented in another way, scarcely less serious. She was one of the very first witnesses to
the resurrection, and her testimony is of sufficient importance to make it worth while for those who
antagonize the narrative to discredit her testimony. This is done, on the basis of her mysterious malady, by
making her a paranoiac who was in the habit of "seeing things" (Renan is the chief offender in this particular,
but others have followed his example).
(1) To begin with, it is to be remarked that Mary had been cured of her malady in such a marked way that,
henceforth, throughout her life, she was a monument to the healing power of Christ. What He had done for
her became almost a part of her name along with the name of her village. It is not to be supposed that a cure
so signal would leave her a nervous wreck, weak of will, wavering in judgment, the victim of hysterical
tremors and involuntary hallucinations.
(2) There is more than this a prior consideration against such an interpretation of Mary. She was the first at
the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). But she was also the last at the cross - she and her
companions (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:40). A glance at the whole brief narrative of her life in the Gospels will
interpret this combination of statements. Mary first appears near the beginning of the narrative of the Galilean
ministry as one of a group consisting of "many" (Luke 8:3 ), among them Joanna, wife of Chuzas, Herod's
steward, who followed with the Twelve and ministered to them of their substance. Mary then disappears from
the text to reappear as one of the self-appointed watchers of the cross, thereafter to join the company of
witnesses to the resurrection. The significance of these simple statements for the understanding of Mary's
character and position among the followers of Jesus is not far to seek. She came into the circle of believers,
marked out from the rest by an exceptional experience of the Lord's healing power. 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. It is impossible
that such singleness of purpose, such strength of will, and, above all, such courage in danger, should have
been exhibited by a weak, hysterical, neurotic incurable. The action of these women of whom Mary was one,
in serving their Master's need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is
characteristic of woman at her best.
IV. Mary of Bethany.
Another devoted follower of Jesus. She was a resident of Bethany (Βηθανία , Bēthanıá ), and a member of the
family consisting of a much-beloved brother, Lazarus, and another sister, Martha, who made a home for Jesus
within their own circle whenever He was in the neighborhood.
The one descriptive reference, aside from the above, connected with Mary, has caused no end of perplexity.
John (John 11:2) states that it was this Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her
hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. This reference would be entirely satisfied by the narrative of John 12:1,
John 12:8, and no difficulty would be suggested, were it not for the fact that Luke (Luke 7:36-50) records an
anointing of Jesus by a woman, accompanied with the wiping of His feet with her hair. The identification of
these two anointings would not occasion any great difficulty, in spite of serious discrepancies as to time, place
and other accessories of the action, but for the very serious fact that the woman of Luke 7 is described as a
sinner in the dreadful special sense associated with that word in New Testament times. This is so utterly out
of harmony with all that we know of Mary and the family at Bethany as to be a well-nigh intolerable
hypothesis.
On the other hand, we are confronted with at least one serious difficulty in affirming two anointings. This is
well stated by Mayor (Hastings Dictionary Bible, III, 280 a): "Is it likely that our Lord would have uttered
such a high encomium upon Mary's act if she were only following the example already set by the sinful
woman of Galilee; or (taking the other view) if she herself were only repeating under more favorable
circumstances the act of loving devotion for which she had already received His commendation?" We shall be
compelled to face this difficulty in case we are forced to the conclusion that there were more anointings than
one.
1. Attack upon Luke's Narrative:
In the various attempts to solve this problem, or rather group of problems, otherwise than by holding to two
anointings, Luke, who stands alone against Mark, Matthew and John, has usually suffered loss of confidence.
Mayor (op. cit., 282a) suggests the possibility that the text of Luke has been tampered with, and that
originally his narrative contained no reference to anointing. This is a desperate expedient which introduces
more difficulties than it solves. Strauss and other hostile critics allege confusion on the part of Luke between
the anointing at Bethany and the account of the woman taken in adultery, but, as Plummer well says, the
narrative shows no signs of confusion. "The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either fiction or
clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity toward Simon, and tender reception of the sinner, are as much
beyond the reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection" ( International Critical
Commentary, "Luke," 209).
2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone:
The first step in the solution of this difficulty is to note carefully the evidence supplied by Luke's narrative
taken by itself. Mary is named for the first time in Luke 10:38-42 in a way which clearly indicates that the
family of Bethany is there mentioned for the first time (a "certain τις , tis woman named Martha," and "she
had a sister called Mary," etc.). This phrasing indicates the introduction of a new group of names (compare
John 11:1). It is also a clear indication of the fact that Luke does not identify Mary with the sinful woman of
Luke 7 (compare Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8).
3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison:
Our next task is to note carefully the relationship between the narratives of Mark, Matthew and John on one
side, and that of Luke on the other. We may effectively analyze the narratives under the following heads: (1)
notes of time and place; (2) circumstances and scenery of the incident; (3) description of the person who did
the anointing; (4) complaints of her action, by whom and for what; (5) the lesson drawn from the woman's
action which constitutes our Lord's defense of it; (6) incidental features of the narrative.
Under (1) notice that all three evangelists place the incident near the close of the ministry and at Bethany.
Under (2) it is important to observe that Matthew and Mark place the scene in the house of Simon "the leper,"
while John states vaguely that a feast was made for Him by persons not named and that Martha served. Under
(3) we observe that Matthew and Mark say "a woman," while John designates Mary. (4) According to
Matthew, the disciples found fault; according to Mark, some of those present found fault; while according to
John, the fault-finder was Judas Iscariot. According to all three, the ground or complaint is the alleged
wastefulness of the action. (5) Again, according to all three, our Lord defended the use made of the ointment
by a mysterious reference to an anointing of His body for the burial. John's expression in particular is most
interesting and peculiar (see John 12:7). (6) The Simon in whose house the incident is said to have taken place
is by Matthew and Mark designated "the leper." This must mean either that he had previously been cured or
that his disease had manifested itself subsequent to the feast. Of these alternatives the former is the more
natural (see Gould, International Critical Commentary, "Mark," 257). The presence of a healed leper on this
occasion, together with the specific mention of Lazarus as a guest, would suggest that the feast was given by
people, in and about Bethany, who had especial reason to be grateful to Jesus for the exercise of His healing
power.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the narratives of Matthew, Mark and John refer to the same incident. The
amount of convergence and the quality of it put this identification among the practical certainties. The only
discrepancies of even secondary importance are a difference of a few days in the time (Gould says four) and
the detail as to the anointing of head or feet. It is conceivable, and certainly no very serious matter, that John
assimilated his narrative at this point to the similar incident of Luke 7 .
An analysis of the incident of Luke 7 with reference to the same points of inquiry discloses the fact that it
cannot be the same as that described by the other evangelists. (1) The time and place indications, such as they
are, point to Galilee and the Galilean ministry. This consideration alone is a formidable obstacle in the way of
any such identification. (2) The immediate surroundings are different. Simon "the leper" and Simon "the
Pharisee" can hardly be one person. No man could have borne both of these designations. In addition to this, it
is difficult to believe that a Pharisee of Simon's temper would have entertained Jesus when once he had been
proscribed by the authorities. Simon's attitude was a very natural one at the beginning of Christ's ministry, but
the combination of hostility and questioning was necessarily a temporary mood. (3) The description of the
same woman as sinner in the sense of Luke 7 in one Gospel; simply as a woman in two others; and as the
beloved and honored Mary of Bethany in a third is not within the range of probability, especially as there is
no hint of an attempt at explanation on the part of any of the writers. At any rate, prima facie, this item in
Luke's description is seriously at variance with the other narratives. (4) Luke is again at variance with the
others, if he is supposed to refer to the same event, in the matter of the complaint and its cause. In Luke's
account there is no complaint of the woman's action suggested. There is no hint that anybody thought or
pretended to think that she had committed a sinful waste of precious material. The only complaint is Simon's,
and that is directed against the Lord Himself, because Simon, judging by himself, surmised that Jesus did not
spurn the woman because He did not know her character. This supposed fact had a bearing on the question of
our Lord's Messiahship, concerning which Simon was debating; otherwise one suspects he had little interest
in the episode. This fact is, as we shall see, determinative for the understanding of the incident and puts it
apart from all other similar episodes.
(5) The lesson drawn from the act by our Lord was in each incident different. The sinful woman was
commended for an act of courtesy and tenderness which expressed a love based upon gratitude for
deliverance and forgiveness. Mary was commended for an act which had a mysterious and sacramental
relationship to the Lord's death, near at hand.
This brings us to the point where we may consider the one serious difficulty, that alleged by Mayor and
others, against the hypothesis of two anointings, namely, that a repetition of an act like this with
commendation attached would not be likely to occur. The answer to this argument is that the difficulty itself is
an artificial one due to a misreading of the incident. In the point of central reference the two episodes are
worlds apart. The act of anointing in each case was secondary, not primary. Anointing was one of those
general and prevalent acts of social courtesy which might mean much or little, this or that, and might be
repeated a score of times in a year with a different meaning each time. The matter of primary importance in
every such case would be the purpose and motive of the anointing. By this consideration alone we may safely
discriminate between these incidents. In the former case, the motive was to express the love of a forgiven
penitent. In the latter, the motive was gratitude for something quite different, a beloved brother back from the
grave, and, may we not say (in view of John 12:7), grief and foreboding? That Mary's feeling was expressed
in the same way outwardly as that of the sinful woman of the early ministry does not change the fact that the
feeling was different, that the act was different and that, consequently, the commendation she received, being
for a different thing, was differently expressed. The two anointings are not duplicates. Mary's act, though
later, was quite as spontaneous and original as that of the sinful woman, and the praise bestowed upon her
quite as natural and deserved.
4. Character of Mary:
With this fictitious and embarrassing identification out of the way, we are now free to consider briefly the
career and estimate the character of Mary. (1) At the outset it is worth mentioning that we have in the matter
of these two sisters a most interesting and instructive point of contact between the synoptic and Johannine
traditions. The underlying unity and harmony of the two are evident here as elsewhere. In Luke 10:38-42 we
are afforded a view of Mary and Martha photographic in its clear revelation of them both. Martha is engaged
in household affairs, while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus, absorbed in listening. This, of course, might
mean that Mary was idle and listless, leaving the burden of responsibility for the care of guests upon her more
conscientious sister. Most housewives are inclined to take this view and to think that Martha has been hardly
dealt with. The story points to the contrary. It will be noticed that Mary makes no defense of herself and that
the Master makes no criticism of Martha until she criticizes Mary. When He does speak, it is with the
characteristic and inimitable gentleness, but in a way leaving nothing to be desired in the direction of
completeness. He conveyed His love, His perfect understanding of the situation, His defense of Mary, His
rebuke to Martha, in a single sentence which contains a perfect photograph of the two loved sisters. Martha is
not difficult to identify. She was one of those women who was concerned and bustling about the details of
household management. Mary's quiet and restful interest in the guest and His conversation must be set against
the foil of Martha's excess of concern in housework and the serving of food. When one comes to think of it,
Mary chose the better part of hospitality, to put no higher construction upon her conduct. (2) In John 11:20,
we are told that Martha went forth to meet Jesus while Mary remained in the house. In this we have no
difficulty in recognizing the same contrast of outwardness and inwardness in the dispositions of the sisters;
especially, as when Mary does come at Martha's call to meet Jesus, she exhibits an intensity of feeling of
which Martha gives no sign. It is significant that, while Mary says just what Martha had already said (John
11:21, John 11:32), her way of saying it and her manner as a whole so shakes the Lord's composure that He is
unable to answer her directly but addresses His inquiry to the company in general (John 11:34). (3) Then we
come to the events of the next chapter. The supper is given in Bethany. Martha serves. She always serves
when there is opportunity. Waiting on guests, plate in hand, was the innocent delight of her life. One cannot
fail to see that, in a single incidental sentence, the Martha of Luke 10:38-42 is sketched again in lifelikeness.
It is the same Martha engaged in the same task. But what of Mary in this incident? She is shown in an
unprecedented role, strange to a woman so retiring in disposition as Mary. Her action not only thrust her into
a public place alone, but brought her under outspoken criticism. But after all, this is just what we come to
expect from her deep, intense, silent nature. The Mary who sat at Jesus' feet in listening silence while Martha
bustled about the house, who remained at home while Martha went out to meet Him, is the very one to hurl
herself at His feet in a storm and passion of tears when she does meet Him and to break out in a self-forgetful
public act of devotion, strange to her modest disposition, however native to her deep emotion.
Martha was a good and useful woman. No one would deny that, least of all the Master who loved her (John
11:5). Her affections and her piety alike found adequate and satisfying expression in the ordinary kindly
offices of hospitality and domestic service. Not so Mary. Her disposition was inward, silent, with a latent
capacity for stress and the forthwith, unconventional expression of feelings, slowly gathering intensity
through days of thought and repression. Mary would never be altogether at home in the world of affairs. She
was a woman who happily met in the person of her Lord all that she was seeking.
V. Mary, the Mother of James and Joses.
Under this caption it is necessary merely to recall and set in order the few facts concerning this Mary given in
the Gospels (see Matthew 27:55, Matthew 27:56, Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10;
compare Luke 23:49-56).
In Matthew 27:55, Matthew 27:56 (parallel Mark 15:40), we are told that at the time of the crucifixion there
was a group of women observing the event from a distance. These women are said to have followed Jesus
from Galilee, ministering to Him and to the disciples. Among these were Mary Magdalene (see III, above);
Mary, mother of James and Joses; and the unnamed mother of Zebedee's children. By reference to Luke 8:2,
Luke 8:3, where this group is first introduced, it appears that, as a whole, it was composed of those who had
been healed of infirmities of one kind or another. Whether this description applies individually to Mary or not
we cannot be sure, but it is altogether probable. At any rate, it is certain that Mary was one who persistently
followed with the disciples and ministered of her substance to aid and comfort the Lord in His work for
others. The course of the narrative seems to imply that Mary's sons accompanied their mother on this
ministering journey and that one of them became an apostle. It is interesting to note that two mothers with
their sons joined the company of the disciples and that three out of the four became members of the apostolic
group. Another item in these only too fragmentary references is that this Mary, along with her of Magdala and
the others of this group, was of sufficient wealth and position to be marked among the followers of Jesus as
serving in this particular way. The mention of Chuzas' wife (Luke 8:3) is an indication of the unusual standing
of this company of faithful women.
The other notices of Mary show her lingering late at the cross (Mark 15:40); a spectator at the burial (Mark
15:47); and among the first to bear spices to the tomb. This is the whole of this woman's biography extant, but
perhaps it is enough. We are told practically nothing, directly, concerning her; but, incidentally, she is known
to be generous, faithful, loving, true and brave. She came in sorrow to the tomb to anoint the body of her dead
Lord; she went away in joy to proclaim Him alive forevermore. A privilege to be coveted by the greatest was
thus awarded to simple faith and trusting love.
VI. Mary, the Mother of John Mark.
This woman is mentioned but once in the New Testament (Acts 12:12), but in a connection to arouse intense
interest. Since she was the mother of Mark, she was also, in all probability, the aunt of Barnabas. The aunt of
one member and the mother of another of the earliest apostolic group is a woman of importance. The
statement in Acts, so far as it concerns Mary, is brief but suggestive. Professor Ramsay (see St. Paul the
Traveler, etc., 385) holds that the authority for this narrative was not Peter but Mark, the son of the house.
This, if true, adds interest to the story as we have it. In the first place, the fact that Peter went thither directly
upon his escape from prison argues that Mary's house was a well-known center of Christian life and worship.
The additional fact that coming unannounced and casually the apostle found a considerable body of believers
assembled points in the same direction. That "many" were gathered in the house at the same time indicates
that the house was of considerable size. It also appears that Rhoda was only one of the maids, arguing a
household of more than ordinary size. We conclude that Mary was a wealthy widow of Jerusalem, who, upon
becoming a disciple of Christ, with her son, gave herself with whole-hearted devotion to Christian service,
making her large and well-appointed house a place of meeting for the proscribed and homeless Christian
communion whose benefactor and patron she thus became.
Bibliography Information
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. Entry for 'Mary'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.. 1915.