Difference between revisions of "Mary"

<p> We meet with many of the name of Mary in the New Testament: </p> <p> ·The Virgin Mary. </p> <p> ·Mary, the mother of James and John. </p> <p> ·Mary, the mother of Mark. </p> <p> ·Mary, the wife of Cleophas. </p> <p> ·Mary, called also Salome. </p> <p> ·Mary, a pious woman whom the apostle Paul mentions. (&nbsp;Romans 16:6) </p> <p> The word of God has recorded the names of those women as followers of the Lord Jesus, and from the interest they took in what concerned Christ; but with their history farther, excepting the Virgin Mary, and Mary Magdalene, we are not much acquainted. [[Concerning]] the Virgin Mary, we are most highly interested to have the clearest apprehension of her person and history, in that part which concerns the incarnation of the Lord Jesus; and therefore, in a work of this </p> <p> kind, I should consider it most highly deficient, if it were wholly passed over. I mean however, to be very brief upon, it, and only say enough to convey, to that class of readers for whom this [[Concordance]] is designed, clear apprehensions in what light the holy [[Scriptures]] explain to us the miraculous conception of Mary, and the incarnation of the Lord Jesus. I begin then from that part where the Lord Jesus begins to proclaim to the church, by the spirit of prophecy, the event of his coming. "Wherefore, when he cometh into the world," (&nbsp;Hebrews 10:5, etc.) "he saith, [[Sacrifice]] and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." Now here observe, Christ, by the spirit of prophecy, is speaking of the Father. Let this be marked down as first in the memorandum of this glorious mysterious subject. Then turn to the evangelist Luke, (&nbsp;Luke 1:35) where we find, at the visit of the angel to Mary, to inform her of the miraculous conception, when Mary expressed her astonishment at the salutation, and modestly intimated the impossibility of the thing, the angel made this remarkable answer: "The [[Holy]] Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the [[Highest]] shall overshadow thee; therefore, also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." Here let it be equally marked down, in strong memorandums of the heart, the part which God the Holy Ghost had in this stupendous work. We see then both the hand of God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost, in their personal offices and characters, engaged in the great undertaking; and that we might not overlook the part which Jesus himself had in it also, as God the Son, we are expressly told: that he took our nature upon him for the purpose of redemption, The words of the Holy Ghost on this point are very strong, and very particular. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." So again—, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (See &nbsp;Hebrews 2:14; Heb 2:16) Let this also be put down in the mind, and then sum it up as a lesson in arithmetic. All the persons of the [[Godhead]] Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, had their almighty hand in the mysterious work of Christ's incarnation. This premised, we may now go farther, and observe that this body given by the Father, produced by the overshadowing power of the Holy Ghost, and taken by the Son, is to be of the same nature and quality as our nature, sin only excepted; for the more he is like to his redeemed in nature, the more suited he is to be our Mediator. Hence the Scripture saith, that "in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High [[Priest]] in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (&nbsp;Hebrews 2:17) It is plain then, that he must be man, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. An angel's nature would not have suited the purpose of redemption: it was human nature that had sinned, and broken the divine law; it must be human nature that shall make amends, by obedience and death. The justice of God, though permitting a substitute and surety, will not permit that substitute and surety in any other nature than man. "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Hence, therefore, observe the beauty and the order in the divine government, for which the Lord Jesus took not on him the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham. </p> <p> Let us advance a step farther. We see the blessedness and propriety that the [[Redeemer]] should be man, and not an angel;—the next enquiry is, how this manhood shall be united with the GODHEAD in the most suitable and becoming manner, agreeably to the purposes of the divine counsel and will, so as to answer all the great ends of redemption. [[Certainly]] the Son of God might have assumed a body such as ours, consisting both of flesh and spirit, and formed, as the first earthly man Adam was, of nothing; but then this would not have been what Scripture saith Christ must be, of "the seed of the woman," and what the promise declared. (See &nbsp;Genesis 3:15) And beside, the triumph of Christ over hell and the prince of darkness, would not have been as the promise declared it should be—"the seed of the woman to bruise the serpent's head." Hence, therefore, the Redeemer must be born of a woman, must be in all points like to his brethren, sin only excepted, both for the salvation of his people and the destruction of his enemies. But still it may be asked, could not all this have been done in Christ becoming man from the woman, as the woman originally was from the man. For we road that at the creation, the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman. (&nbsp;Genesis 2:21-23) No doubt the Lord God could have done this by the manhood of Christ; and in this case, it might have been said of the second Adam, as the first Adam said to Eve, "this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." (&nbsp;Genesis 2:22) But neither could this have been called a birth, nor of the seed of the woman; neither would this have suited the purposes of redemption; for the Scripture saith, that "when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (&nbsp;Galatians 4:4-5) And elsewere it is said, "that both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (&nbsp;Hebrews 2:11) But had Christ, in his human nature, been produced from the rib of the woman, there would have been no such relationship as there now is; neither, as before remarked, would Christ have been of the seed of the woman, neither born under the law. </p> <p> We find then, that for Christ to be of the seed of the woman, of the same flesh and blood with those he came to redeem, and to be born under the law, to redeem them that are under the law, he must still come nearer to our nature, and be born as the children are born, only with that distinguishing and vast difference, that though he partakes of our nature, yet it is the sinless infirmities of our nature only. He is, and must be, truly and properly man; as he is, and must be, truly and properly God; being "one with the Father, over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." But in assuming our nature, he will still be "holy, harmless, undefiled separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:26) </p> <p> Now, in the accomplishment of this great and mysterious work, the formation of the body of Christ, it is blessed to see how very particular the sacred writers are to describe the (modus operandi) method of the divine working in this purpose. The original promise at the fall was, that Christ should be of the "seed of the woman;" and accordingly we find the prophet, in the after-ages, commissioned by the Holy Ghost to tell the church that "a virgin should conceive, and bear a son." (&nbsp;Isaiah 7:14) Now observe the expression conceive: not a conception, as in the ordinary way of generation, in our fallen race; for this is by corrupt and sinful creatures; and therefore David very properly saith, "in sin did my mother conceive me." (&nbsp;Psalms 51:5) But in the instance of the Virgin's conception, this was without the intervention of an human father, and consequently no sin in the conception; neither sin in the seed conceived, because this was by the miraculous impregnation and overshadowing power of the Holy Ghost. And here lie the holiness and blessedness, as well as the power and wisdom, of the almighty work. It was a conception of the Virgin, not a generation. Christ was conceived by the Virgin, not begotten; for it is said, he was made of a woman. And it is not the place or the womb that defiles, but the nature from whom it is begotten or conceived, as in our ordinary nature from Adam all along hath been done. But in the instance of the human nature Of Christ, begotten as it was by the overshadowing power of God the Holy Ghost, Christ is very properly, by way of distinction, called that holy thing, (not that holy person, but thing) to imply a conception without a generation. Here then we see in what view we are to consider the incarnation of the Lord Jesus, and of consequence the person and character of the Virgin Mary. </p> <p> And it is a most blessed and soul-satisfying view, when opened to our understanding by the Holy Ghost, what the same [[Almighty]] Author of his sacred word hath taught us concerning it in the Scriptures of eternal tRuth We now discover the suitability of our dear Redeemer for the great purposes of his mission, and plainly perceive how needful such a priest is for us, "who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." Well might the Lord Jesus, by the spirit of prophecy, declare, as he doth, (&nbsp;Psalms 139:1-24) (which, I venture to believe, refers principally, if not wholly, to the Lord Jesus Christ) "I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest paths of the earth." If, as we have before noticed, and from the authority of Scripture, Christ's body was the Father's gift, (&nbsp;Hebrews 10:5) and if the Holy Ghost, in his overshadowing power, was the almighty: worker in the dark place of the virgin's womb, here called "the lowest parts of the earth," what blessedness is given to the view of the subject amidst all the mysteriousness of it, and how are we taught to honour, reverence, love, and praise the whole united persons of the GODHEAD for those wonders of redemption by Jesus Christ. "Thanks be unto God, I would say, (will not the reader join my spirit in it?) for his unspeakable gift!" (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 9:15) </p>

<p> <b> MARY </b> </p> <p> <b> 1. Mary the mother of James the Little and Joses </b> , one of the women who followed Jesus from Galilee, stood beside the cross, watched the burial, and visited the sepulchre on the [[Resurrection]] morning (&nbsp;Matthew 27:55-56 = &nbsp;Mark 15:40-41, &nbsp;Matthew 27:61 = &nbsp;Mark 15:47, &nbsp;Mark 16:1 = &nbsp;Matthew 28:1 = &nbsp;Luke 24:10). From &nbsp;John 19:25 it appears that she was wife to Clopas. This name is distinct from [[Cleopas]] (&nbsp;Luke 24:18), and is perhaps identical with Alphaens, both representing חַלְפַי. Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, <i> Gal. </i> p. 256. WH [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.] write Ἀλραῖος (see <i> NT </i> , vol. ii. § 408). If this identification be allowed, then (1) James the Little was probably one of the Twelve (&nbsp;Matthew 10:3 = &nbsp;Mark 3:18 = &nbsp;Luke 16:15); (2) he was perhaps brother to [[Levi]] (Matthew), the son of Alphaeus. The latter inference is favoured by ( <i> a </i> ) the <i> v.l. </i> Ἰάκωβον for Δευείν in &nbsp;Mark 2:14; ( <i> b </i> ) the tradition that James, like Matthew, had been a tax-gatherer (Chrysost. <i> in Matth. </i> xxxiii.: δύο τελῶναι, Ματθαῖος καὶ Ἰάκωβος; Euth. Zig.: Ματθαῖος δὲ καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἀλφαίου, τελῶναι). See artt. [[Alphaeus]] and Clopas. </p> <p> [[Hegesippus]] (in Eus. <i> Historia Ecclesiastica </i> iii. 11. 32, iv. 22) mentions a Clopas who was brother to Joseph, our Lord’s foster-father; but there is no evidence that he was identical with this Clopas. Jerome, in support of his theory of ‘the Brethren of Jesus,’ construes Μαριὰμ ἡ τοῦ Κλωτᾶ in &nbsp;John 19:25 as in opposition to ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, thus reducing the number of the women by the Cross to three, and making ‘Mary the [wife] of Clopas’ the Virgin’s sister. See J. B. Lightfoot, <i> Gal. </i> p. 255 ff. But (1) it is improbable that two sisters bore the same name, and (2) ‘the sister of his mother’ was apparently Salome, the mother of the sons of [[Zebedee]] (cf. &nbsp;Mark 15:40 = &nbsp;Matthew 27:56). </p> <p> <b> 2. Mary Magdalene </b> .—She is first mentioned (&nbsp;Luke 8:2) as one of a company of women who attended Jesus on His second mission through [[Galilee]] in the course of the second year of His ministry. She is distinguished by two significant epithets: (1) ‘the Magdalene,’ <i> i.e. </i> the woman of Magdala ( <i> Mejdel </i> ), a town on the Lake of Galilee, some 3 miles from Capernaum, at the southern end of the Plain of Gennesaret. The modern Mejdel is a miserable village, but the ancient Magdala was a wealthy place, one of three cities, according to the Talmud, whose tribute had to be conveyed in waggons to Jerusalem (cf. Lightfoot on &nbsp;John 12:3). It had, however, an evil reputation, and was destroyed, according to the same authority, for harlotry, so that ‘Mary the Magdalene’ might be equivalent to ‘Mary the harlot’ (cf. ‘Corinthian Lais’). It is only fair, however, to add that many regard this as very precarious. </p> <p> (2) ‘From whom seven demons had gone forth.’ In Jewish parlance, immorality was a form of demonic possession,* [Note: Lightfoot on &nbsp;Luke 8:2. Cf. Jer. Vit. Hil. Erem.: a virgo Dei at Majumas possessed by amoris dœmon.] and, just as the grace of the Holy Spirit is called ‘sevenfold,’† [Note: Od. Clun. Hymn. de S. Mar. Magdal.: </p> <p> ‘Qui septem purgat vitia </p> <p> Per septiformem gratiam.’] so sevenfold possession might signify complete abandonment to the dominion of unclean passion. Cf. &nbsp;Matthew 12:45 = &nbsp;Luke 11:26. It is possible that Mary had been a harlot, that Jesus had rescued her from her life of shame, and that she followed Him out of gratitude. She was one of the devoted women who stood by the cross (&nbsp;John 19:25, &nbsp;Matthew 27:56 = &nbsp;Mark 15:40), watched His burial (&nbsp;Matthew 27:61 = &nbsp;Mark 15:47), and came on the Resurrection morning to the sepulehre (&nbsp;John 20:1 = &nbsp;Matthew 28:1 = &nbsp;Mark 16:1 = &nbsp;Luke 24:10). Finding it empty, she waited beside it weeping, and was rewarded with the first vision of the risen Lord (&nbsp;John 20:11-18, cf. &nbsp;Matthew 28:9-10). </p> <p> <b> 3. Mary of Bethany. </b> —She is first introduced by St. Luke (&nbsp;Luke 10:38-42), who tells how Jesus, probably on His way to the Feast of [[Tabernacles]] (&nbsp;John 7:2; &nbsp;John 7:10) in the third year of His ministry, reached ‘a certain village,’ and was hospitably received by ‘a certain woman by name Martha,’ who had a sister called Mary. The Feast of Tabernacles was a season of feasting and friendship. ‘They ate the fat and drank the sweet, and sent portions unto them for whom nothing was prepared, and made great mirth’ (&nbsp;Exodus 23:16, &nbsp;Leviticus 23:33-44, &nbsp;Numbers 29:12-38, &nbsp;Nehemiah 8:9-18). Martha, a good housewife, was busy making ready the festal cheer; but Mary, oblivious of all save the Lord’s presence, seated herself, in the posture of a disciple (cf. &nbsp;Acts 22:3), at His feet and listened to His discourse. Martha, ‘distracted about much service,’ interposed: ‘Lord, dost thou not care that my sister left me alone to serve? Tell her then to lend me a helping hand.’ ‘Martha, Martha,’ He answered, gently protesting against the sumptuousness of His hostess’s preparations, ‘thou art anxious and troubled about many things, but a few are all we need; or rather,’ He added, ‘only one thing;‡ [Note: [[אBl, Wh]]  ὀλίγων δέ ἑστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός.] for it is the good “portion” that Mary chose, one which shall not be taken away from her.’ At that season, when they were all feasting and sending ‘portions,’ Mary was thinking not of the meat that perisheth, but of that which endureth unto eternal life. </p> <p> St. Luke does not name the village where Martha and Mary dwelt. St. John tells us that it was Bethany, and that they had a brother named Lazarus (&nbsp;John 11:1-46). Some months later, when Jesus was at the other Bethany beyond Jordan, whither He had retired from Jerusalem to escape the fury of the rulers (&nbsp;John 10:40; cf. &nbsp;John 1:28 Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885), Lazarus fell sick, and his sisters sent Jesus word. For two days after He heard the news He remained where He was, and only when Lazarus died did He set out. His approach was reported to Martha, apparently the elder sister and mistress of the house; and she went to meet Him and sorrowfully upbraided Him: ‘Lord, hadst thou been here, my brother had not died.’ [[Assured]] of His sympathy and help, she returned home and, finding her sister among the mourners, whispered to her that the Teacher had come. Mary arose, and, hurrying to Him, fell at His feet, crying in the very words which Martha had used, the words which had been on their lips all those sorrowful days: ‘Lord, hadst thou been here, my brother had not died.’ Cf. art. Martha. </p> <p> Mary appears a third time six days before the Passover, when Jesus was entertained in the house of Simon the [[Leper]] at Bethany, and she came in during the feast and anointed His feet (&nbsp;John 12:1-11; cf. &nbsp;Matthew 26:6-13 = &nbsp;Mark 14:3-9). See Anointing, I. 2. </p> <p> Literature.—Lightfoot, <i> Hor. Heb. </i> ii. pp. 23, 388, 652; Hengstenb. on &nbsp;John 11:1-46; Andrews, <i> Life of our Lord </i> , pp. 281–286; artt. ‘Mary’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible and in <i> Encyc. Bibl. </i> </p> <p> David Smith. </p>

<p> the mother of Jesus, and wife of Joseph. She is called by the [[Jews]] the daughter of Eli; and by the early Christian writers, the daughter of [[Joakim]] and Anna: but Joakim and [[Eliakim]] are sometimes interchanged, &nbsp;2 Chronicles 36:4; and Eli, or Heli, is therefore the abridgment of Eliakim, &nbsp;Luke 3:23 . She was of the royal race of David, as was also Joseph her husband; and she was also cousin to Elizabeth, the wife of [[Zacharias]] the priest, &nbsp;Luke 1:5; &nbsp;Luke 1:36 . Mary being espoused to Joseph, the Angel [[Gabriel]] appeared to her, to announce to her that she should be the mother of the Messiah, &nbsp;Luke 1:26-27 , &c. To confirm his message, and to show that nothing is impossible to God, he added that her cousin Elizabeth, who was old, and had been hitherto barren, was then in the sixth month of her pregnancy. Mary answered, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word;" and presently she conceived. She set out for Hebron, a city in the mountains of Judah, to visit her cousin Elizabeth. As soon as [[Elizabeth]] heard the voice of Mary, her child, John the Baptist, leaped in her womb; and she was filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake with a loud voice, saying, "Blessed art thou among women," </p> <p> &c. Then Mary praised God, saying, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour," &c. Mary continued with Elizabeth about three months, and then returned to her own house. An edict of [[Caesar]] [[Augustus]] having decreed, that all subjects of the empire should go to their own cities, to register their names according to their families, Joseph and Mary, who were both of the lineage of David, went to Bethlehem, from whence sprung their family. But while they were here, the time being fulfilled in which Mary was to be delivered, she brought forth her first-born son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in the manger of the stable or cavern whither they had retired, because there was no room in the inn. [[Angels]] made this event known to shepherds, who were in the fields near Bethlehem, and these came in the night to Joseph and Mary and saw the child laying in the manger, and paid him their adoration. The presentation of Christ in the temple, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, and other events connected with the birth and infancy of our Lord, are plainly related in the Gospels. </p> <p> Mary and Joseph went every year to Jerusalem to the passover; and when Jesus was twelve years of age, they took him with them. When they were returning, the youth continued at Jerusalem, without their perceiving it. Three days after, they found him in the temple, sitting among the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. Afterward, he returned with them to Nazareth, and lived in filial submission to them. But his mother laid up all these things in her heart, &nbsp;Luke 2:51 , &c. The Gospel speaks nothing more of the Virgin Mary till the marriage at [[Cana]] of Galilee, at which she was present with her son Jesus. She was at Jerusalem at the last passover our [[Saviour]] celebrated there. There she saw all that was transacted; followed him to Calvary; and stood at the foot of his cross with an admirable constancy and courage. Jesus seeing his mother, and his beloved disciple near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold thy son; and to the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her home to his own house." No farther particulars of this favoured woman are mentioned, except that she was a witness of Christ's resurrection. A veil is drawn over her character and history; as though with the design to reprove that wretched idolatry of which she was made the subject when [[Christianity]] became corrupt and paganized. </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> MARY, the another of John Mark, a disciple of the Apostles. She had a house in Jerusalem, whither, it is thought, the [[Apostles]] retired after the ascension of our Lord, and where they received the Holy Ghost. After the imprisonment of St. Peter, the faithful assembled in this house, and were praying there when Peter, delivered by the ministry of an angel, knocked at the door of the house, &nbsp; Acts 12:12 . </p> <p> <strong> 3. </strong> MARY, of Cleophas. St. Jerom says, she bore the name of Cleophas, either because of her father, or for some other reason which cannot now be known. Others believe, with greater probability, that she was wife of Cleophas, as our version of the New [[Testament]] makes her, by supplying the word <em> wife, </em> &nbsp; John 19:25 , and mother of James the less, and of Simon, brethren of our Lord. These last mentioned authors take Mary mother of James, and Mary wife of Cleophas, to be the same person, &nbsp;Matthew 27:56; &nbsp;Mark 15:40-41; &nbsp;Luke 24:10; &nbsp;John 19:25 . St. John gives her the name of Mary of Cleophas; and the other evangelists, the name of Mary, mother of James. [[Cleophas]] and [[Alpheus]] are the same person; as James, son of Mary, wife of Cleophas, is the same as James, son of Alpheus. It is thought she was the sister of the Virgin Mary, and that she was the mother of James the less, of Joses, of Simon, and of Judas, who in the Gospel are named the brethren of Jesus Christ, &nbsp;Matthew 13:55; &nbsp;Matthew 27:56; &nbsp;Mark 6:3; that is, his cousin-germans. She was an early believer in Jesus Christ, and attended him on his journeys, to minister to him. She was present at the last passover, and at the death of our Saviour she followed him to Calvary; and during his passion she was with the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross. She was also present at his burial; and on the Friday before had, in union with others, prepared the perfumes to embalm him, &nbsp;Luke 23:56 . But going to his tomb very early on the Sunday morning, with other women, they there learned from the mouth of an angel, that he was risen; of which they carried the news to the Apostles, &nbsp;Luke 24:1-5; &nbsp;Matthew 28:9 . By the way, Jesus appeared to them; and they embraced his feet, worshipping him. This is all we know with certainty concerning Mary, the wife of Cleophas. </p> <p> <strong> 4. </strong> MARY, sister of Lazarus, who has been preposterously confounded with that female sinner spoken of, &nbsp; Luke 7:37-39 . She lived with her brother and her sister Martha at Bethany; and Jesus Christ, having a particular affection for this family, often retired to their house with his disciples. Six days before the passover, after having raised Lazarus from the dead, he came to Bethany with his disciples, and was invited to sup with Simon the leper, &nbsp;John 12:1 , &c; &nbsp;Matthew 26:6 , &c; &nbsp;Mark 14:3 , &c. Martha attended at the table, and Lazarus was one of the guests. Upon this occasion, Mary, taking a pound of spikenard, which is the most precious perfume of its kind, poured it upon the head and feet of Jesus. She wiped his feet with her hair, and the whole house was filled with the odour of the perfume. Judas [[Iscariot]] murmured at this; but Jesus justified Mary in what she had done, saying, that by this action she had prevented his embalmment, and in a manner had declared his death and burial, which were at hand. From this period the Scriptures make no mention of either Mary or Martha. </p> <p> <strong> 5. </strong> [[Mary Magdalene]]  so called, it is probable, from Magdala, a town of Galilee, of which she was a native, or where she had resided during the early part of her life. Out of her, St. Luke tells us, Jesus had cast seven devils, &nbsp; Luke 8:2 . He informs us, also, in the same place, that Jesus, in company with his Apostles, preached the Gospel from city to city; and that there were several women with them, whom he had delivered from evil spirits, and healed of their infirmities; among whom was this Mary, whom some, without a shadow of proof, have supposed to be the sinful woman spoken of, &nbsp;Luke 7:37-39; as others have as erroneously imagined her to be Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Mary Magdalene, is mentioned by the evangelists as being one of those women that followed our Saviour to minister to him according to the custom of the Jews. She attended him in the last journey he made from Galilee to Jerusalem, and was at the foot of the cross with the holy virgin, &nbsp;John 19:25; &nbsp;Mark 15:47; after which she returned to Jerusalem, to buy and prepare with others certain perfumes, that she might embalm him after the [[Sabbath]] was over, which was then about to begin. All the Sabbath day she remained in the city; and the next day, early in the morning, went to the sepulchre along with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome, &nbsp;Mark 16:1-2; &nbsp;Luke 24:1-2 . For other particulars respecting her, see also &nbsp;Matthew 28:1-5; &nbsp;John 20:11-17 . In Dr. Townley's Essays, there is one of considerable research on Mary Magdalene; and his conclusion is, that it is probable that the woman mentioned by St. Luke, and called in the English translation "a sinner," had formerly been a Heathen; but whether subsequently a proselyte to [[Judaism]] or not, is uncertain; and that, having been brought to the knowledge of Christian truth, and having found mercy from the Redeemer, she pressed into Simon's house, and gave the strongest proofs of her gratitude and veneration by anointing the Saviour's feet, bedewing them with her tears, and wiping them with the hairs of her head:—that by a wilful and malicious misrepresentation, the Jews confounded Mary Magdalene with Mary the mother of Jesus, and represented her as an infamous character;—and that, from the blasphemous calumny of the Jews, a stigma of infamy has been affixed to the name of Mary Magdalene, and caused her to be regarded in the false light of a penitent prostitute. There is no doubt but that Mary Magdalene, both in character and circumstances, was a woman of good reputation. </p>

<p> [[Mary]] ( ''Mâ'Ry'' ). The name of several women in the New Testament. 1. The mother of our Lord. She was, like Joseph, of the tribe of Judah and of the lineage of David. &nbsp;Psalms 132:11; &nbsp;Luke 1:32; &nbsp;Romans 1:3. She was connected by marriage, &nbsp;Luke 1:36, with Elisabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi and of the lineage of Aaron. She was betrothed to Joseph of Nazareth; but before her marriage she became with child by the Holy Ghost, and became the mother of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. She was at Jerusalem with Joseph, at Cana and at Capernaum. ' &nbsp;John 2:12; &nbsp;Matthew 4:13; &nbsp;Matthew 13:54-55; &nbsp;Mark 6:1-4 Lastly she was at the cross, and was there commended to the care of the disciple whom Jesus loved: "Woman, behold thy son." And from that hour John assures us that he took her to his own abode. In the days succeeding the ascension of Christ Mary met with the disciples in the upper room, &nbsp;Acts 1:14, waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit with power. Such is all the authentic history we have of the "blessed among women," taught, as no other woman was, the hard lessons which were to guide her to her Son's eternal kingdom. Some of them were joyful; and some were very grievous; but she learned them thoroughly, fill she loved the Lord Jesus as her Saviour far more than as her &nbsp;Song of [[Solomon]] 2:1-17. The wife of Cleophas, was present at the crucifixion and burial of our Lord, &nbsp;Matthew 27:56; &nbsp;Matthew 27:61, was among those who went to embalm him, &nbsp;Mark 16:1-10, was among the earliest to whom the news of his resurrection was announced, &nbsp;Luke 24:6; &nbsp;Luke 24:10, and on her way to the disciples with the intelligence she met her risen Lord and worshipped him. &nbsp;Matthew 28:1; &nbsp;Matthew 9:3. The mother of John Mark, &nbsp;Acts 12:12, and aunt to Barnabas, &nbsp;Colossians 4:10, a godly woman residing at Jerusalem at whose house the disciples were convened the night Peter was miraculously delivered from prison. 4. The sister of Lazarus and Martha, and a devoted friend and disciple of our Saviour, from whom she received the testimony that she had chosen the good part which should not be taken from her. &nbsp;Luke 10:41-42. [[Compared]] with her sister she appears of a more contemplative turn of mind and more occupied with the "one thing" needful. &nbsp;John 11:1; &nbsp;John 12:2. 5. Mary Magdalene, or Mary of Magdala. &nbsp;Luke 8:2. The general impression that she was an unchaste woman is entirely without foundation. Having been cured of a demoniacal possession by our Saviour, she became his follower, &nbsp;Luke 8:2-3. and showed her attachment to him to the last. She was at his crucifixion, &nbsp;John 19:25, and burial, &nbsp;Mark 15:47, and was among those who had prepared the materials to embalm him, &nbsp;Mark 16:1, and who first went to the sepulchre after the resurrection; and she was the first to whom the risen Redeemer appeared, &nbsp;Mark 16:9, and his conversation with her has an interest and pathos unsurpassed in history. &nbsp;John 20:11 to &nbsp;John 18:6. A Christian woman in Rome to whom Paul sends his salutation. &nbsp;Romans 16:6. </p>

<li> A Christian at Rome who treated Paul with special kindness (&nbsp;Romans 16:6 ). <div> <p> '''Copyright Statement''' These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton [[M.A., DD]]  Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> '''Bibliography Information''' Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'Mary'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/m/mary.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

<p> ''''' mā´ri ''''' , ''''' mâr´i ''''' ( Μαρία , <i> ''''' Marı́a ''''' </i> , Μαριάμ , <i> ''''' Mariám ''''' </i> , Greek form of Hebrew מרים , <i> ''''' miryām ''''' </i> ): </p> <p> I. Definition And [[Questions]] Of Identificati ON </p> <p> The Name Mary in the New Testament </p> <p> II. Mary , The Virgin </p> <p> 1. Mary in the [[Infancy]] Narratives </p> <p> 2. Mary at Cana </p> <p> 3. Mary and the Career of Jesus </p> <p> 4. Mary at the Cross </p> <p> 5. Mary in the Christian [[Community]] </p> <p> 6. Mary in [[Ecclesiastical]] [[Doctrine]] and Tradition </p> <p> (1) [[Legend]] </p> <p> (2) [[Dogma]] </p> <p> (a) The Dogma of Her [[Sinlessness]] </p> <p> (b) Dogma of Mary's [[Perpetual]] Virginity </p> <p> (c) Doctrine of Mary's [[Glorification]] as the Object of [[Worship]] and Her Function as [[Intercessor]] </p> <p> (3) [[Conclusion]] </p> <p> III. [[Mary Magdalene]] </p> <p> 1. Mary Not the [[Sinful]] Woman of &nbsp;Luke 7 </p> <p> 2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck </p> <p> IV. Mary Of Bethany </p> <p> 1. Attack upon Luke's [[Narrative]] </p> <p> 2. Evidence of Luke Taken [[Alone]] </p> <p> 3. Evidence [[Sifted]] by [[Comparison]] </p> <p> 4. Character of Mary </p> <p> V. Mary , The Mother Of James And Joses </p> <p> VI. Mary , The Mother Of John Mark </p> I. Definition and Questions of Identification. <p> A H ebrew feminine proper name of two persons in the Old Testament (see &nbsp;Exodus 15:20; &nbsp;Numbers 12:1; &nbsp;Micah 6:4; &nbsp;1 Chronicles 4:17 ) and of a number not certainly determined in the New Testament. The prevalence of the name in New Testament times has been attributed, with no great amount of certainty, to the popularity of Mariamne, the last representative of the [[Hasmonean]] family, who was the second wife of Herod I. </p> <p> <b> The Name Mary in the New Testament: </b> </p> <p> (1) The name Mary occurs in 51 passages of the New Testament to which the following group of articles is confined (see Miriam ). Collating all these references we have the following apparent notes of identification: ( <i> a </i> ) Mary, the mother of Jesus; ( <i> b </i> ) Mary Magdalene; ( <i> 100 </i> ) Mary, the mother of James; ( <i> d </i> ) Mary, the mother of Joses; ( <i> e </i> ) Mary, the wife of Clopas; ( <i> f </i> ) Mary of Bethany; ( <i> g </i> ) Mary, the mother of Mark; ( <i> h </i> ) Mary of Rome; ( <i> i </i> ) the "other" Mary. </p> <p> (2) A comparison of &nbsp;Matthew 27:56; &nbsp;Matthew 28:1 with &nbsp; Mark 15:47 seems clearly to identify the "other" Mary with Mary the mother of Joses. </p> <p> (3) &nbsp;Mark 15:40 identifies Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses (compare &nbsp; Mark 15:47 ) (see Allen's note on &nbsp;Matthew 27:56 ). </p> <p> (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 (&nbsp;John 19:25 ). In the other notices of the group at the cross, Mary, the mother of James, is mentioned (&nbsp;Matthew 27:56; &nbsp;Mark 15:40 ). Elsewhere, James is regularly designated "son of Alpheus" (&nbsp;Matthew 10:3; &nbsp;Mark 3:18; &nbsp;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 , <i> ''''' Alphaı́os ''''' </i> ) is the Greek transliteration of the [[Aramaic]] חלפּי , <i> ''''' ḥalpay ''''' </i> , 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 (see Alphaeus ). 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 &nbsp;Matthew 13:55; &nbsp;Mark 6:3; &nbsp;Galatians 1:19 ). </p> <p> (5) One other possible identification is offered for our consideration. Zahn, in an exceedingly interesting note ( <i> New Testament </i> , II, 514), identifies Mary of Rome (&nbsp; 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> II. Mary, the Virgin. <p> 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 (see [[Immaculate Conception]] ). 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. </p> <p> Mary appears in the following passages: the Infancy narratives, &nbsp;Matthew 1,2; &nbsp;Luke 1,2; the wedding at Cana of Galilee, &nbsp;John 2:1-11; the episode of &nbsp;Matthew 12:46; &nbsp;Mark 3:21 , &nbsp;Mark 3:31 ff; the incident at the cross, &nbsp; John 19:25 ff; the scene in the upper chamber, &nbsp; Acts 1:14 . </p> <p> <b> 1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives: </b> </p> <p> (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 (see Ramsay, <i> Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? </i> 76 f), 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 pathetic story of the Lord's mother is evident. </p> <p> Luke tells the story of Mary's inward and deeply personal experiences, her call (&nbsp;Luke 1:26 f), her maidenly fears (&nbsp; Luke 1:29 , &nbsp;Luke 1:35 ), her loyal submission (&nbsp;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. </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 1:18 ); her bitter humiliation (&nbsp;Matthew 1:19 ), her ultimate vindication (&nbsp;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. </p> <p> (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 canticle (&nbsp;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 anomalous in her subsequent career as depicted in the Gospels. </p> <p> <b> 2. Mary at Cana: </b> </p> <p> The first episode which demands our attention is the wedding at Cana of Galilee (&nbsp;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. </p> <p> <b> 3. Mary and the Career of Jesus: </b> </p> <p> In &nbsp;Matthew 12:46 (parallel &nbsp; 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 &nbsp;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 captious 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, <i> Sermons on Living [[Subject]] </i> , 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. </p> <p> <b> 4. Mary at the Cross: </b> </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;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. </p> <p> <b> 5. Mary in the Christian Community: </b> </p> <p> The final passage which we need to consider (&nbsp;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. </p> <p> 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, but by no means a daring or original 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. </p> <p> <b> 6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition: </b> </p> (1) Legend. <p> The ecclesiastical treatment of Mary consists largely of legend and dogma, about equally fictitious and unreliable. The legendary accounts, which include the apocryphal gospels, deal, for the most part, with details tails of her parentage and early life; her betrothal and marriage to Joseph; her journey to Bethlehem and the birth of her child. At this point the legendary narratives, in their crass wonder-mongering and indelicate intimacy of detail, are in striking contrast to the chaste reserve of the canonical story, and of evidential value on that account. </p> (2) Dogma. <p> There is, in addition, a full-grown legend concerning Mary's later life in the house of John; of her death in which the apostles were miraculously allowed to participate; her bodily translation to heaven; her reception at the hands of Jesus and her glorification in heaven. In this latter series of statements, we have already made the transition from legend to dogma. It is quite clear, from the statements of Roman Catholic writers themselves, that no reliable historical data are to be found among these legendary accounts. The general attitude of modern writers is exhibited in the following sentences (from Wilhelm and Scannel, <i> Manual of Catholic [[Theology]] </i> , II, 220, quoted by Mayor, <i> Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible </i> , II, 288, note): "Mary's corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the church, can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact." If that is the way one feels, there is very little to say about it. [[Aside]] from the quasi-historical dogma of Mary's bodily assumption, the Roman Catholic doctrinal interpretation of her person falls into three parts. </p> <p> <b> (a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness: </b> </p> <p> This is discussed under [[Immaculate Conception]] (which see) and need not detain us here. </p> <p> <b> (b) Dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity: </b> </p> <p> It is evident that this, too, is a doctrine of such a nature that its advocates might, with advantage to their argument, have abstained from the appearance of critical discussion. </p> <p> Even if all the probabilities of exegesis are violated and the cumulative evidence that Mary had other children done away with; if the expression, "brethren of the Lord" is explained as "foster-brethren," "cousins" or what-not; if Jesus is shown to be not only "first-born" but "only-born" Son (&nbsp;Luke 2:7 ); if the expression of &nbsp;Matthew 1:25 is interpreted as meaning "up to and beyond" (Pusey, et al.; compare <i> Roman Catholic Dict </i> ., 604), it would still be as far as possible from a demonstration of the dogma. That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginity - perpetual or otherwise. That this thought has entered the minds of Roman Catholic apologists although not openly expressed by them, is evidenced by the fact that while certain forms of dealing with the "brethren-of-the-Lord" question make these the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the favorite doctrine includes the perpetual virginity of Joseph. Just as the idea of the sinlessness of Mary has led to the dogma of the immaculate conception, so the idea of her perpetual virginity demands the ancillary notion of Joseph's. No critical or historical considerations are of any possible use here. It is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence, and might better be openly made such. </p> <p> It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in <i> appearance </i> only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life. </p> <p> <b> (c) Doctrine of Mary's Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor: </b> </p> <p> With no wish to be polemic toward Roman Catholicism, and, on the contrary, with every desire to be sympathetic, it is very difficult to be patient with the puerilities which disfigure the writings of Roman Catholic dogmaticians in the discussion of this group of doctrines. </p> <p> (i) Take, for example, the crude literalism involved in the identification of the woman of &nbsp;Revelation 12:1-6 with Mary. [[Careful]] exegesis of the passage (especially &nbsp; Revelation 12:6 ), in connection with the context, makes it clear that no hint of Mary's status in heaven is intended. As a matter of fact, Mary, in any literal sense, is not referred to at all. Mary's motherhood along with that of the mother of Moses is very likely the basis of the figure, but the woman of the vision is the church, which is, at once, the mother and the body of her Lord (see Milligan, <i> Expositors' Bible </i> , "Revelation," 196 f). </p> <p> Three other arguments are most frequently used to justify the place accorded to Mary in the liturgy. </p> <p> (ii) Christ's perpetual humanity leads to His perpetual Sonship to Mary. This argument, if it carries any weight at all, in this connection, implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother. It is, however, clear from the Gospels that the subjection to His parents which continued after the incident in the Temple (&nbsp;Luke 2:51 ) was gently but firmly laid aside at the outset of the public ministry (see above, II, 2, 3). In all that pertains to His heavenly office, as Lord, Mary's position is one of dependence, not of authority. </p> <p> (iii) Christ hears her prayers. Here, again, dogmatic assumption is in evidence. That He hears her prayers, even if true in a very special sense, does not, in the least, imply that prayers are to be addressed to her or that she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Him. </p> <p> (iv) Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally His spiritual body would be her special care in heaven. But, on any reasonable hypothesis, Mary was, is, and must remain, a part of that body (see &nbsp;Acts 1:14 ). Unless she is intrinsically a Divine being, her care for the church cannot involve her universal presence in it and her accessibility to the prayers of her fellow-believers. </p> <p> To a non-Romanist, the most suggestive fact in the whole controversy is that the statements of cautious apologists in support of the ecclesiastical attitude toward Mary, do not, in the least degree, justify the tone of extravagant adulation which marks the non-polemical devotional literature of the subject (see Dearden, <i> Modern [[Romanism]] [[Examined]] </i> , 22 f). </p> (3) Conclusion. <p> Our conclusion on the whole question is that the literature of Mariolatry belongs, historically, to unauthorized speculation; and, psychologically, to the natural history of asceticism and clerical celibacy. </p> III. Mary Magdalene <p> ( Μαρία Μαγδαληνή , <i> ''''' Marı́a ''''' </i> <i> ''''' Magdalēnḗ ''''' </i> = 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 &nbsp;Matthew 15:39 , is, of course, "Magadan"). The meaning of this obscure reference is well summarized in the following quotations from Plummer ( <i> International Critical [[Commentary]] </i> , "Luke," 215): "'Magdala is only the Greek form of <i> ''''' mighdōl ''''' </i> or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Palestine' (Tristram, <i> Bible Places </i> , 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." </p> <p> <b> 1. Mary Not the Sinful Woman of &nbsp;Luke 7 : </b> </p> <p> 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 (see [[Demon]] , Demonology ), had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposi-tion 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. </p> <p> According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare &nbsp;Luke 7:37; &nbsp;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 &nbsp;Luke 11:26 ), or that the mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare &nbsp;Mark 5:9 ) suggested the use of the number 7. Even so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;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 &nbsp; Luke 7:50 . </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Luke 7 , and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord's feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together. </p> <p> <b> 2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck: </b> </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> (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. </p> <p> (2) There is more than this a priori consideration against such an interpretation of Mary. She was the first at the tomb (&nbsp;Matthew 28:1; &nbsp;Mark 16:1; &nbsp;Luke 24:10 ). But she was also the last at the cross - she and her companions (&nbsp;Matthew 27:61; &nbsp;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" (&nbsp;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. </p> IV. Mary of Bethany. <p> Another devoted follower of Jesus. She was a resident of Bethany ( Βηθανία , <i> ''''' Bēthanı́a ''''' </i> ), 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. </p> <p> The one descriptive reference, aside from the above, connected with Mary, has caused no end of perplexity. John (&nbsp;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 &nbsp;John 12:1 , &nbsp;John 12:8 , and no difficulty would be suggested, were it not for the fact that Luke (&nbsp;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 Lk 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. </p> <p> On the other hand, we are confronted with at least one serious difficulty in affirming two anointings. This is well stated by Mayor ( <i> [[Hastings]] Dictionary Bible </i> , III, 280 <i> a </i> ): "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. </p> <p> <b> 1. Attack upon Luke's Narrative: </b> </p> <p> 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" ( <i> International Critical Commentary </i> , "Luke," 209). </p> <p> <b> 2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Luke 10:38-42 in a way which clearly indicates that the family of Bethany is there mentioned for the first time (a " <i> certain </i> τις , <i> ''''' tis ''''' </i> woman <i> named </i> Martha," and "she had a sister <i> called </i> Mary," etc.). This phrasing indicates the introduction of a new group of names (compare &nbsp; 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 &nbsp;Matthew 26:6-13; &nbsp;Mark 14:3-9; &nbsp;Luke 7:36-50; &nbsp;John 12:1-8 ). </p> <p> <b> 3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison: </b> </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Luke 7 . </p> <p> An analysis of the incident of &nbsp;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 &nbsp; 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. </p> <p> (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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;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. </p> <p> <b> 4. Character of Mary: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;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 just one of those excellent and tiresome women whose fussy concern and bustling anxiety about the details of household management make their well-meant hospitality a burden to all their guests. 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 &nbsp; 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 (&nbsp;John 11:21 , &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;John 11:34 ). (3) Then we come to the events of the next chapter. The supper is given in Bethany. Martha serves. Of course she 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 &nbsp;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 an oriental woman and especially to one 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 these deep, intense, silent natures. 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. </p> <p> Martha was a good and useful woman. No one would deny that, least of all the Master who loved her (&nbsp;John 11:5 ). But she lived on the surface of things, and her affections and her piety alike found adequate and satisfying expression at all times in the ordinary kindly offices of hospitality and domestic service. Not so Mary. Her disposition was inward, silent, brooding, 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. Hers was a rare spirit, doomed often to loneliness and misunderstanding except at the hands of rarely discerning spirits, such as she happily met in the person of her Lord. </p> V. Mary, the Mother of James and Joses. <p> Under this caption it is necessary merely to recall and set in order the few facts concerning this Mary given in the Gospels (see &nbsp;Matthew 27:55 , &nbsp;Matthew 27:56 , &nbsp;Matthew 27:61; &nbsp;Mark 15:40; &nbsp;Mark 16:1; &nbsp;Luke 24:10; compare &nbsp;Luke 23:49-56 ). </p> <p> In &nbsp;Matthew 27:55 , &nbsp;Matthew 27:56 (parallel &nbsp; 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 &nbsp; Luke 8:2 , &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Luke 8:3 ) is an indication of the unusual standing of this company of faithful women. </p> <p> The other notices of Mary show her lingering late at the cross (&nbsp;Mark 15:40 ); a spectator at the burial (&nbsp;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. </p> VI. Mary, the Mother of John Mark. <p> This woman is mentioned but once in the New Testament (&nbsp;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 <i> St. Paul the Traveler </i> , 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. There is a tradition of doubtful authenticity, that Mary's house was the scene of a still more sacred gathering in the upper room on the night of the betrayal. We conclude that Mary was a wealthy widow of Jerusalem, who, upon becoming a disciple of Christ, with her son, gave herself with whole-souled 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. </p>

<p> Mary, 1 </p> <p> Mary (Miriam), 'the Mother of Jesus' , and 'Mary his Mother' , are the appellations of one who has in later times been generally called the 'Virgin Mary,' but who is never so designated in Scripture. </p> <p> Little is known of this 'highly favored' individual, in whom was fulfilled the first prophecy made to man, that 'the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head' . As her history was of no consequence to Christianity, it is not given at large. Her genealogy is recorded by St. Luke (Luke 3), in order to prove the truth of the predictions which had foretold the descent of the Messiah from Adam through Abraham and David, with the design evidently of showing that Christ was of that royal house and lineage. </p> <p> Eusebius, the early ecclesiastical historian, although unusually lengthy upon 'the name Jesus,' and the genealogies in Matthew and Luke's Gospels, throws no new light upon Mary's birth and parentage. The legends respecting Anne, who is said to have been her mother, are pure fables without the slightest evidence. </p> <p> The earliest event in her history, of which we have any notice, was the annunciation to her by the angel Gabriel that she was destined, while yet a pure virgin, to become the mother of the Messiah—an event which was a literal fulfillment of the prophecy given centuries before by Isaiah, that 'a virgin should conceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Immanuel,' which being interpreted, is 'God with us' . On this occasion she was explicitly informed that she should conceive by the miraculous power of God, and that her child should be 'Holy,' and be called 'the Son of God.' As a confirmation of her faith in this announcement she was also told by the angel that her cousin Elizabeth, who was the wife of one of the chief priests, and who was now far advanced in years, had conceived a son, and that the time was not far off when her reproach among women should cease . </p> <p> Almost immediately on receiving this announcement Mary hastened from Nazareth, where she was when the angel visited her, to the house of her cousin, who was then residing in the hilly district in 'a city of Judah,' supposed to be Hebron. The meeting of these two pious females, on whom such unexpected privileges had been conferred, was one of mutual congratulations, and united thanksgiving to the author of their blessings. It was on this occasion that Mary uttered the Magnificat—that splendid burst of grateful adoration which Christians of all parties have from the earliest times delighted to adopt as expressive of the best feelings of the pious heart towards God . After spending three months with her relative, Mary returned to Nazareth, where a severe trial awaited her, arising out of the condition in which it had now become apparent she was. [[Betrothed]] (perhaps in early life) to a person of the name of Joseph, an artificer of some sort (, probably, as our translators suppose, a carpenter), the Jewish law held her exposed to the same penalties which awaited the married wife who should be found unfaithful to the spousal vow. Joseph, however, being a right-hearted man (one who feels and acts as a man ought to do in the circumstances in which he is placed), was unwilling to subject her to the evils of a public exposure of what he deemed her infidelity; and accordingly was turning in his mind how he might privately dissolve his connection with her, when an angel was sent to him also to inform him in a dream of the true state of the case, and enjoin upon him to complete his engagement with her by taking her as his wife. This injunction he obeyed, and hence came to be regarded by the Jews as the father of Jesus . </p> <p> Summoned by an edict of Augustus, which commanded that a census of the population of the whole Roman [[Empire]] should be taken, and that each person should be enrolled in the chief city of his family or tribe, Mary and her husband went up to Bethlehem, the city of the Davidic family; and while there the child Jesus was born. After this event the only circumstances in her history mentioned by the sacred historians are her appearance and offerings in the temple according to the law of Moses ( ff.); her return with her husband to Nazareth their habit of annually visiting Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover the appearance of the Magi, which seems to have occurred at one of these periodic visits the flight of the holy family into Egypt, and their return, after the death of Herod, to Nazareth the scene which occurred another of those periodic visits when, after having proceeded two days' journey on her way homeward, she discovered that her son was not in the company, and, on returning to Jerusalem, found him sitting in the temple with the doctors of the law, 'both hearing them and asking them questions' her appearance and conduct at the marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee ( ff.); her attempt in the synagogue at Capernaum to induce Jesus to desist from teaching ( ff.); her accompanying of her son when he went up to Jerusalem immediately before his crucifixion; her following him to Calvary; her being consigned by him while hanging on the cross to the care of his beloved apostle John, who from that time took her to reside in his house ( ff.); and her associating with the disciples at Jerusalem after his ascension . </p> <p> The traditions respecting the death of Mary differ materially from each other. There is a letter of the General [[Council]] of Ephesus in the fifth century, which states that she lived at Ephesus with St. John, and there died and was buried. Another epistle of the same age says she died at Jerusalem, and was buried in Gethsemane. The legend tells that three days after her interment, when the grave was opened (that Thomas the Apostle might pay reverence to her remains), her body was not to be found, 'but only an exceeding fragrance,' whereupon it was concluded that it had been taken up to heaven. The translations of [[Enoch]] and Elijah, and the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, took place while they were alive, and the facts are recorded by the inspiration of God; but when the dead body of Mary was conveyed through the earth, and removed thence, there were no witnesses, and no revelation was ever made of the extraordinary and novel incident, which certainly has no parallel in Scripture. This miraculous event is appropriately called 'the Assumption.' </p> <p> It is said that Mary died in A.D. 63. The [[Canon]] of Scripture was closed in A D. 96, thirty-three years after her decease; which, however, is never alluded to by any of the Apostles in their writings, nor by St. John, to whose care she was entrusted. </p> <p> In the Romish Church many facts are believed and doctrines asserted concerning the Virgin Mary, such as her immaculate conception—her perpetual virginity—her right to receive worship, and her mediation and intercession, which not only are without any authority from Scripture, but many of which are diametrically opposed to its declarations. </p> <p> It does not appear that Mary ever saw Christ after the resurrection; for she was not one of the 'chosen witnesses' specified in Scripture, as Mary Magdalene was. </p> <p> Mary Magdalene, 2 </p> <p> Mary Magdalene was probably so called from Magdala in Galilee, the town where she may have dwelt. According to the Talmudists, Magdalene signifies 'a plaiter of hair.' Much wrong has been done to this individual from imagining that she was the person spoken of by St. Luke in; but there is no evidence to support this opinion. How Mary Magdalene came to be identified with the person here mentioned, it is difficult to say: but such is the case; and accordingly she is generally regarded as having been a woman of depraved character. For such an inference, however, there appears to be no just ground whatever. </p> <p> The earliest notice of Mary Magdalene is in St. Luke's Gospel , where it is recorded that out of her 'had gone seven devils,' and that she was 'with Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto Christ of their substance.' </p> <p> This is sufficient to prove that she had not been known as a person of bad character; and it also implies that she was not poor, or among the lower classes, when she was the companion of one whose husband held an important office in the king's household. </p> <p> It is as unjust to say that she who had been so physically wretched as to be possessed by seven devils, was dissolute, as to affirm that an insane person is necessarily depraved. </p> <p> In the Savior's last hours, and at his death and resurrection, Mary Magdalene was a chief and important witness. She was one of the women who stood by the cross : who after His death beheld where the body was laid , and who prepared spices and ointments to embalm it. She visited the sepulcher early on the first day of the week, while it was yet dark and when Peter and John returned to their own homes she remained at the sepulcher weeping, and had her patient waiting rewarded by the appearance of Her risen Lord. </p> <p> Mary, 3 </p> <p> Wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, and sister of the Lord's mother (;; ). This Mary was one of those holy women who followed Christ, and was present at the crucifixion; and she is that 'other Mary' who, with Mary Magdalene, attended the body of Christ to the sepulcher when taken down from the cross (;; ). She was also among those who went on the morning of the first day of the week to the sepulcher to anoint the body, and who became the first witnesses of the resurrection (;; ). James, Joses, Jude, and Simon, who are called the Lord's brethren [see the names; also [[Alphaeus; Brother]]] are very generally supposed to have been the sons of this Mary, and therefore cousins of Jesus, the term brother having been used with great latitude among the Hebrews. </p> <p> Mary, 4 </p> <p> [[Sister]] of Lazarus and Martha. The friendship of our Lord for this family has been explained in other articles [[[Lazarus; Martha]]]  </p> <p> The points of interest in connection with Mary individually arise from the contrast of character between her and her sister Martha, and from the incidents by which that contrast was evinced. Apart from this view, the most signal incident in the history of Mary is her conduct at the supper which was given to Jesus in Bethany, when he came thither after having raised Lazarus from the dead. The intense love which distinguished her character then glowed with the highest fervor, manifesting the depth of her emotion and gratitude for the deliverance from the cold terrors of the grave of that brother who now sat alive and cheerful with the guests at table. She took the station she best loved, at the feet of Jesus. Among the ancients it was usual to wash the feet of guests before an entertainment, and with this the anointing of the feet was frequently connected [ANOINTING]. Mary possessed a large quantity of very costly ointment; and in order to testify her gratitude she sacrificed it all by anointing with it the feet of Jesus. We are told that the disciples murmured at the extravagance of this act, deeming that it would have been much wiser, if she had sold the ointment and given the money to the poor. But Jesus, looking beyond the mere external act to the disposition which gave birth to it—a disposition which marked the intensity of her gratitude—vindicated her deed. Always meditating upon his departure, and more especially at that moment, when it was so near at hand, he attributed to this act a still higher sense—as having reference to his approaching death. The dead were embalmed: and so, he said, have I received, by anticipation, the consecration of death (;; ). </p>