Mary Magdalene Author of the 4th Gospel

INTRODUCTION

This research presents the evidence that Mary Magdalene was the ‘Beloved Disciple’ whoseidentity is revealed at the foot of the cross.

For almost 2,000 years the incorrect naming of the Fourth Gospel as ‘The Gospel According to John’ has misled its readers. It would be more correct to say ‘The Gospel According to John if you believe Irenaeus.’ The Fourth Gospel identifies its author as ‘The Beloved Disciple’, never as John.

The idea that Mary Magdalene wrote the Fourth Gospel is not new but generally supposes that the text was tampered with or deliberately changed to masculine. Such thinking misses the point that the Fourth Gospel was written from the perspective of a ‘Beloved Disciple’ – in other words, a person who is unidentified by gender. Koine Greek had to default to masculine when written from that perspective; it followed the rules of grammar for a ‘person in general’ .

There were many reasons for the author of the Fourth Gospel to write from the perspective of a ‘Beloved Disciple’. Perhaps the most encouraging is the message that in God’s eyes, gender, nationality, and worldly qualifications were of absolutely no importance. The qualifications of a Beloved Disciple are not whether you are born male or can prove a lineage back to the Twelve Apostles – qualifications important to men. The Fourth Gospel explains what is important to God – to believe in Jesus and follow Him.

“To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

TRADITION OF JOHN

The traditional view has been that the apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel. This attribution of authorship goes back to Irenaeus. Many scholars (such as Elaine Pagels) now doubt the traditions that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote any of the gospels –

“Now, today, scholars of the New Testament wouldn’t agree with Irenaeus, because we don’t know who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, any more than we know who wrote the Gospel of Thomas. They’re all attributed to disciples of Jesus, but we don’t really know who wrote them.” (Elaine H. Pagels: The Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton University, Emergence of the Four Gospel Canon)

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia now states:

“The first four books of the New Testament are supplied with titles …which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. […] It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves.”

Around 150 AD Marcion used the gospel known as Luke (minus some of the Jewishness) without any attribution of authorship. This drew scathing criticism from Tertullian (a ‘Church Father’) at the end of the second century –

“Marcion, on the other hand, you must know ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4)

There are no original gospel records, only copies of copies. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament dates to approximately 350CE. By this time the manuscripts complete with attributions of authorship were firmly established amongst the Orthodox Church. The question is, when were authors first attributed to the gospels?

The earliest attestation we have that John wrote the Fourth Gospel is by Irenaeus – one of the ‘Church Fathers’ . In his book Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) c.180CE he said

“Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. For that according to John expounds his princely and mighty and glorious birth from the Father, saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,’ and, ‘All things were made by him, and without him nothing was nothing made’ . Therefore this Gospel is deserving of all confidence, for such indeed is his person.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8)

Irenaeus was making the point that the Fourth Gospel was worthy of confidence. It would be logical to assume that he needed to do this because there was uncertainty over which gospels should be accepted. If John were the author of the Fourth Gospel it would bolster its credibility amongst the Orthodox Church which wanted links to the apostles. Whilst the Fourth Gospel itself is deserving of confidence, Irenaeus and his opinion that John wrote it are not. His book ‘Against Heresies’ opposed those who did not conform to his own orthodox traditions. He maintained that the only safe way to understand the scriptures was via a line of approved male bishops who could trace their learning back to the first apostles. Thus it was important to establish the links to the apostles, especially regarding the unnamed gospels.

It is important to understand the influence Irenaeus had on the church. In 2005 Pope Benedict XV1 described him as the founder of Catholic theology –

“In the second century, the founder of Catholic theology, St Irenaeus of Lyons, described very beautifully this bond between catholicity and unity” (Pope Benedict XV1, Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul, St Peter’s Basilica, 29th June 2005)

AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS

The following passage by Irenaeus demonstrates his belief in the authority of church appointed bishops –

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, – those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries puffed up and self-pleasing” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4 Chapter 26

In response to the numerous groups of Christians, the Orthodox Church believed there should only be one group who could prove a holy lineage of male bishops.

The importance of establishing a line of orthodox bishops must have been more important to Irenaeus than establishing the truth of his statements. Irenaeus made the claim that Peter and Paul established the church in Rome but Paul specifically says he did not –

Claim of Irenaeus Concerning Roman Church

“It would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere .” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 2)

In contrast to this is Paul’s Letter which affirms he did not establish the church in Rome with Peter or anyone else.

Paul’s letter to the Romans –

“From Jerusalem and round about even to Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yes, making it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man’s foundation. But, as it is written: They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came, and they who have not heard shall understand. Therefore I was hindered these many times from coming to you. But now, there is no need for me in these regions, and having these many years a longing to come to you, I hope to see you during my journey”. Romans 15:19-24

This passage shows that Paul did not establish the church in Rome, he did not wish to build on “another man’s work” – the church there was already established by someone else.

Paul was the apostle to the gentiles; Peter was the apostle to the Jews.

“When they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the Gospel to the circumcision (for he that worked through Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, worked through me also to the Gentiles.)” Gal. 2:7-8

The New Testament contains no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 indicates that Peter went to Babylon, where there was a very large Jewish community which continued for many years. The Babylonian Talmud was compiled between the third and fifth centuries in Babylon. Peter preached to the circumcised, the Jews. It would be logical for him to go to Babylon where a large group remained from the time of the exile.

Some say that Babylon was a code for Rome, but there seems no justification for this. The persecution of Christians at this time was sporadic and limited. There are no other examples of people or places resorting to code names. It seems a suggestion of the Orthodox Church only, to use as Biblical evidence that Peter was in Rome.

Just as Irenaeus wanted to establish a line of bishops going back to the church in Rome, so he also wanted to establish the apostolic ties to the unnamed gospels. Only bishops and books with connections to the first male apostles were to be accepted by the Orthodox Church. Irenaeus made sure two of the gospels were attributed to two of Jesus’ disciples (Matthew and John) and two gospels had connections to Peter and Paul, with these connections they would be above reproach and accepted. Irenaeus defined the gospel authors –

“Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul’s associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord’s disciple — the one who lay on his lap — also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 1)

Yet this John, the one Irenaeus claimed lay on the Lord’s lap, was confused with another John who lived in Ephesus.

Eusebius, quoting from a lost work of Polycrates (c.125-196CE) cites his reference to the death and burial of John in Ephesus –

“Moreover, there is also John, who reclined at the bosom of the Lord and who became a priest wearing the high priest’s mitre, and a martyr and a teacher. He fell asleep at Ephesus.” (Eusebius, Eccleiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Setion 2-3

John the elder was a priest of Ephesus, not John the son of Zebedee. John the Son of Zebedee would never have worn a high priest’s mitre which was against the teaching of Christ . Clearly there was confusion in the early church concerning the whereabouts of John the apostle.

Tertullian (another ‘Church Father’) also emphasized the connection of the gospels to the apostles –

“We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 2)

The Church Fathers created their own line of bishops going back to Peter in Rome, with the supposed authority of the Apostles. They also decided on who the authors of the four anonymous gospels should be – they wanted a tradition so they created one – and in so doing directly contradicted Christ who said –

“You have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.” Matt. 23:8-10

The Orthodox Church only allowed its own bishops to explain the scriptures or indeed have access to them. This type of thinking created a church where the common people were led in their thinking by church bishops who interpreted the scriptures for them. Tertullian was one such bishop who believed that heretics should not have access to the Scriptures:

“We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),–so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.

If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.” (Tertullian, The Prescrioption Against Heretics, Chapter XV, Translated by Peter Holmes)

DIVISIONS OVER WOMEN

Irenaeus and Tertullian were both opposed to house churches where women had equality. Irenaeus made his opinion plain in his writings about Marcion and the women in his church.

Tertullian’s opinion of women and their role in the church is evident from his writings below –

“And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert–that is, death–even the Son of God had to die.” (Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Book 1, Chapter 1)

“These heretical women how audacious they are! They have no modesty: they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptize” (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 41)

It’s apparent from their writings that the Church Fathers were opposed to the equality of women in church. Women only had equality amongst the groups they labeled as heretics – unlikely then that the church fathers would attribute any gospel to a woman.

WHY NOT GIVE A NAME?

The author of the Fourth Gospel writes from the perspective of a Beloved Disciple. They identify themselves as being the person who sat next to Jesus at the last supper – the place of honour. They leaned on Jesus’ chest as He confided to them who the betrayer was. They were a very close friend and confidante. They reveal the message of discipleship before revealing their identity at the cross.

Throughout the Fourth Gospel the Beloved Disciple often defines people by ‘what’ they are, not ‘who’ they are.

John the Baptist was a voice:

“I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” John 1:23

Jesus was witnessed to by His works:

“If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me” John 10:24-24

Jesus revealed His identity in seven

‘I AM’ statements in 4th Gospel

‘The Bread of Life’ (6:35) The ‘Light of the World’ (8:12)

The ‘Gate’ (10:9)

The ‘Good Shepherd’ (10:11)

The ‘Resurrection and the Life’ (11:25)

The ‘Way, the Truth, and the Life’ (14:6)

The ‘True Vine’ (15:1)

These abstract ideas of Jesus are neither male nor female, although the words have masculine and feminine gender in the Greek. The author of the Fourth Gospel, in a similar manner, used the abstract idea of being an unidentified ‘Beloved Disciple’ to demonstrate ‘what they were’ not ‘who they were’.

THE WITNESS

The Fourth Gospel is the only gospel which makes the claim that the author was a witness of the events recorded. They were around at the time – they knew the truth of the matter –

“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” John 21:24

Why does the author – writing in the third person – speak here in the plural? Nicodemus and Jesus spoke in the same way –

John 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God.”

John 3:10-11 “Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.”

It seems likely that the use of the plural ‘we’ in John 21:24 could be the style of the Beloved Disciple speaking in similar manner as Nicodemus who used ‘we’ to incorporate those of similar thought (though not present). Or it could be that the beloved disciple spoke with the authority of Jesus as a witness in the same way that Jesus spoke with the authority of God as a witness in John 8:18

“I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

The Greek word μαρτυρέω for ‘testify’ or ‘witness’ occurs 34 times in the Fourth Gospel. In the other 3 gospels combined it only occurs 4 times.

“This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” John 21:24

“And you also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.” John 15:27

“The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.” John 19:35

The author of this gospel is focused on being a witness so that others may believe. It’s a direct appeal to believe what this person saw and went to so much effort to leave on record for us.

WITNESSES IN FOURTH GOSPEL

John the Baptist – “This is the witness of John” John 1:19

Jesus – “We speak what We know and testify what We have seen.” John 3:11

Samaritan Woman – “And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified (witnessed)” Jn. 4:39

God – “I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.” Jn. 8:18

The Works – “The works which the Father has given Me to finish – the very works that I do – bear witness of Me.” John 5:36

Spirit – “The Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify (witness) of Me.” John 15:21

The Beloved Disciple – “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony (witness) is true.” 19:35

WHAT IF THIS WITNESS WAS A WOMAN?

This idea is not new but has been largely disregarded because the Greek text always describes the anonymous disciple (who Jesus loved) as a male.

If the author was a female she could have identified herself using the Greek word for female disciple (mathitria) which occurs 1 time in the New Testament to describe Tabitha (Acts 9:36).

This is the only time a female disciple is identified as such and named. Note: this word for female disciple never occurs in any of the gospels.

Male disciples (mathētēs etc) are referred to 269 times in the New Testament. This doesn’t mean there was only one female disciple. It means that the female disciples were generally included with the males, but not identified as females.

WAS IT DECEPTIVE?

The Beloved Disciple is not identified by name (such as Tabitha was), but by ‘what they are’ – they are ‘loved’. If the author deliberately chose to remain unidentified by sex, and write from the perspective of a ‘person’ (such as a Beloved Disciple), then they would have to write in the masculine.

I have heard it suggested that for a female to do this would be a deliberately deceptive action. Such thinking does not comprehend the gender free point of the Fourth Gospel which was in stark contrast to the thinking of the time. The Fourth Gospel tells us that we are born again and being male or female is of no consequence.

A woman writing as a narrator from the perspective of a ‘Beloved Disciple’ (an unidentified person), was legitimate and would default to masculine.

BIBLICAL GREEK

Koine Greek had no way of referring to a specific person without specifying gender. In other words, it didn’t have a word for ‘person’.

“The masculine is used for person in general” (Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), p. 271, section 1015)

– an unidentified ‘Beloved Disciple’ falls into this category.

A woman writing the Fourth Gospel would know she was a woman – but as a narrator she could choose to write as a ‘person’ thus defaulting to masculine. This was the writing style, the choice of the unidentified ‘Beloved Disciple’. She had a point to make. The theme of the Fourth Gospel is that discipleship is not about whether you are male or female, but whether you are ‘born again’. What better way to demonstrate this than to lose your own identity and take on the identity with which Jesus covers all His disciples?

A woman would not be recognised in the Ezra lists of male lineage in the Old Testament , nor were women listed at the last supper, but they were there. The Song of Solomon (Symbolic story of Christ and Bride/Church) gives a clue to the way Christ included those who others would send away or diminish –

“He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.” Song of Solomon 2:4

This Hebrew word for ‘banner’ – דֶּגֶל- in every other Old Testament reference refers to the flag of a tribe of Israel – of natural descent. The Fourth Gospel is about spiritual descent, the beloved disciple was brought to the banqueting table – the table of Jesus – under the banner of love.

MALE BY DEFAULT

When speaking of a man the Greek always uses masculine gender.

When speaking of a woman the Greek always uses feminine gender.

BUT – when speaking of a group of men and women it always defaults to masculine gender although there are both men and women there –

“Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” Rom. 16:7

The ‘who’ and ‘apostles’ are masculine, and yet they relate to a man and a woman.

MORE TO THE POINT –

When a person is not identified by being male or female –

it defaults to the masculine gender – but they may in fact be female.

“The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.” Matt 10:24

Here, ‘disciple’ is singular, but may be either male or female, but ‘disciple’ is the default masculine (as is the ‘his’).

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” Rev. 3:20

This passage plainly refers to one person who may be male or female (unless women are excluded from the kingdom) but it’s all in masculine gender.

If an unknown disciple is not identified – The text would default to masculine gender everywhere.

NARRATOR & SUBJECT

It would also be legitimate for the author to write about themself as a ‘she’ when talking of events in the narrative which identified her as Mary Magdalene and not ‘The Beloved Disciple’ the narrator. Paul also wrote about himself in two different roles –

“Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast”. 2 Cor. 12:5

WOMEN AS WITNESSES

The Jews and Romans did not consider women to be reliable witnesses. Jesus had previously rebuked the male disciples for not believing Mary (and the others) when she testified that He had risen –

“Later Jesus appeared to The Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.” Mark 16:14

“He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.” Mark 16:9

There are many examples where the witness of women was secondary to men even amongst the male disciples who were slow to grasp the gospel’s equality of both women and gentiles –

“They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found The Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Luke 24:33

NOTE: No mention here of His appearance to Mary first.

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brethren at the same time”. 1 Cor. 15:3-5

Again, no mention of his appearance first to Mary, it is Peter who is mentioned as the first witness. No doubt this is due to the audience these words were directed at not recognizing the witness of a woman, thus the appeal is made through witnesses they would accept.

CONSIDERED SECONDARY

Gnostic writings reflect the thinking of the time –

“Simon Peter says to them: “Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!” Jesus says: “See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven.” Gospel of Thomas saying 114

This passage demonstrates the thinking that men were considered to be on a higher spiritual level – but that is not what Jesus and Paul taught.

The Bible itself records many more men than women. According to ‘Quora’ there are 1,770 men and 93 women named in the Bible. We have virtually no information of the lives of most of the women. Jephthah’s faithful daughter, who gave her life in sacrifice to obey her father – is not even named. Until the Kingdom we will only know her as ‘Jephthah’s daughter’. The faithful women who didn’t make the pages of the Bible are no less important than the men. The message of the Fourth Gospel is to see things afresh, to be born again. Being male or female doesn’t matter, but being a child of God does.

IDENTIFIED AS A DISCIPLE

As the sole witness to many of the events in the Fourth Gospel, the only way a woman would be believed, or have her writings accepted, is to be identified by ‘what’ they were, not what sex they were. The Fourth Gospel identifies its author as a Beloved Disciple. Where events in Mary Magdalene’s life are recorded in other gospels– then they also appear in the Fourth Gospel in reference to Mary Magdalene. But where there is no reference to events in the other gospels she refers to herself as ‘The Beloved Disciple’ –

Mary Magdalene – at the cross (John 19:25) Witnessed in Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40

First to the tomb – (John 20:1) Witnessed in Matt 28:1, Mark 16:1

Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene – John (20:16) Witnessed in Mark 16:9

Mary first to report to apostles (John 20:18) Witnessed in Luke 24:10

Disciple Jesus loved leaned on his breast at last supper (John 13:23) No other record

Beloved disciple accepts Jesus’ mother (John 19:26) No other record

Loved disciple (not ‘The Beloved Disciple’ ) with Peter (John 20:2) No other record

Fishing after resurrection (21:7) No other record

Promise from Jesus to ‘abide’ (John 21:20) No other record

IDENTIFIED AT CROSS

Mary Magdalene – The Beloved Disciple – Author of the 4th gospel, finally reveals her human identity at the foot of the cross – whilst maintaining her symbolic identity.

This was the hour of Jesus’ glory.

The seed of the woman was bruised in the heel by sin.

The seed of the serpent was bruised in the head by righteousness.

Jesus died for ‘The Disciple He loved’ –

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us”. 1 John 3:16

The Beloved Disciple laid down their own life in service –

“And from that hour that disciple took her to their own.” John 19:27

Here at the cross was The Woman, The Seed, and The Beloved Disciple –

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother’s sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by (2 of those he just referred to), He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your Son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to their own.” John 19:25-27

At first reading this passage could be taken to mean that the beloved disciple was an extra person, however there are only three women listed at the cross with Jesus. All the words spoken at the cross were significant.

WORDS OF PILATE –

“Behold the Man” – Zech 6:12 “Behold the man whose name is the branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD”.

“Behold your King” – an especially relevant quote for the women at the cross to hear – John 12:15 “Fear not, daughter of Zion; Behold your King is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt.” – quoting

Zech 9:9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.

WORDS OF JESUS –

“Behold your Son” –

“When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!”

The word ‘therefore’ means ‘these things being so’. Jesus observed those present, and spoke to them. He wasn’t referring to the beloved disciple as a son, He saw His mother and said to her “Woman behold your Son”- speaking of Himself. This was His hour, the time to die for ‘the disciple He loved’ – the absolute climax of His mission. His mother was the one promised who fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah –

“Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a son, and you will call his name Emmanuel (God with us).” Isaiah 7:14

Jesus was talking about Himself. He was the SON ON THE CROSS.

“Then” Jesus looked at the disciple He loved and said “behold your mother”.

BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER

Mary was not the real mother of the beloved disciple, she became their mother in a symbolic sense, she was the second Eve, the ‘Mother of all Living’- the ‘Mother’ of all ‘Beloved Disciples’. Because Jesus laid down His life for the Beloved Disciple, the Beloved Disciple at the cross laid down their life for the mother of Jesus –

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 1 John 3:16

SERPENT AT THE CROSS

All the elements of Eden were present at the cross. There was the ‘Second Adam ’, the ‘Woman’ (also referred to as the ‘Mother’ of the ‘Beloved Disciple’ – in a spiritual sense being ‘Mother of all the truly Living’) and there was also the serpent.

Satan/The Serpent is the voice of temptation which stops us believing in, and obeying God.

Previously Peter had been that voice when he said to Jesus – “You will not surely die/ this will never happen to you” –

“From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Matt. 16:21-23

This is an echo of what the Serpent/Satan said to Eve – “Thou shalt not surely die”.

The temptations of Jesus by Satan (Satan being the personification of his own desires ) continued on the cross –

“And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.” Matt 27:39-44

This was an echo of Jesus temptation in the wilderness –

“If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down.” Matt. 4:5

The scribes and Pharisees are referred to as a brood of vipers or the seed of the serpent in Matt. 3:7

“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? See also Matt. 12:34 and 23:33

Jesus was tempted by ‘The Serpent’ at the cross to come down from the cross, to prove He could save His own life then and there, but He chose to obey God.

WAS JOHN AT CROSS?

It seems likely that the Romans and Jews were less concerned about a group of women at the cross than a group of men. It seems highly unlikely that a lone male disciple would be amongst them when it’s not mentioned in the other gospels, and we are told that the male disciples had fled earlier. Peter later followed at a distance to the courtyard, but there is no record in the other gospels of John doing the same.

“Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.” Matt. 26:56

“And He took Peter, James, and John with Him Mark 14:33 … “Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.” Mark 14:50

– John was amongst those who fled.

For Mark and Matthew to say that ‘all the disciples fled’ means they are equating disciples with men. We know that it was the women disciples who stayed at the cross.

John’s gospel doesn’t say the disciples all fled. One disciple accompanied Jesus to see Caiaphas. Three female disciples were present at the cross. The other gospels would surely have mentioned John at the cross if he had been there. The Fourth Gospel doesn’t separate ‘disciples’ and ‘women’. The word ‘women’ doesn’t occur in the Fourth Gospel – ‘disciples’ includes women.

MISSING ENCOUNTERS

If the Fourth Gospel had been written by the apostle John, you would expect it to include the encounters between John and Jesus, yet it leaves out these key events.

Though never in John’s Gospel, Peter, James and John appear together five times in the synoptics:

At the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28)

In the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33)

At the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51)

As the audience (along with Andrew) for the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mk 1:29)

For Jesus’ “Little Apocalypse” (Mk13:3) – thus appearing “alone” with him only three times.

In contrast to the missing records of John’s encounters with Jesus, the Fourth Gospel includes the detailed records of Mary’s encounters with Jesus – both at the cross and after the resurrection.

MARY’S ENCOUNTERS

Surely only Mary herself would have known the details written about her in the Fourth Gospel, even her thoughts are recorded (supposing Him to be the gardener).

“But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Then they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him,“Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.” John 20:11-18

LAST SUPPER (See also ‘Missing Women at the Last Supper)

Did Jesus only share the last supper with his twelve male disciples? This would be unusual when the Passover was an event which included the entire family. We know that the mother of Jesus was present in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover; it would seem almost unthinkable that Jesus would share this special time without her. Logic says that the ‘disciples’ at the last supper comprised a large gathering of men and women – the twelve being singled out because it was “one of the twelve” who would betray Jesus as opposed to one of the others –

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me. They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely you don’t mean me?” “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied.” Mark 14:16-20

The fact that twelve disciples are mentioned does not mean they were the only ones present any more than the mention of the five thousand men who were fed by Jesus with five loaves and two fish. We know from one of the four gospel records that an unknown number of women and children were also present . It would also seem obvious that an unknown number of women and children were also present in the large upper room at the last supper. It’s a fact that women are not mentioned in many of the records – it doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

FURNISHED AND READY

The Fourth Gospel is the only one which omits to mention the preparation of the last supper and the story of the man carrying a pitcher of water. It is recorded in Matt. 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16 and Luke 22:7-13.

Perhaps the reason for the omission is that Mary was not present when Jesus told Peter and John to follow the man with the water jar. It would seem reasonable to suppose that she wasn’t present because she was already in the house preparing for the Passover. Jesus explained to his other disciples that they would find it already prepared.

“The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there.” The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.” Mark 14:14-16

There is no mention here of the men buying food. They are to find a person and follow him to a place already furnished and ready. Perhaps it was the house mentioned in Acts 12:12 which belonged to Mark’s mother. A house which could accommodate one hundred and twenty in its large upper room. This would make the unidentified ‘goodman’ of the house a woman – again defaulting to masculine in the Koine Greek as she was unidentified –

“He went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.” Acts 12:12

It could have been the same house of Acts 1:12-15 which was a Sabbath day’s journey from the Mt. Of Olives – being significant as Jesus went to the Mount of Olives after the last supper and was followed by a lad wearing a blanket who could have been Mark –

“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together.”

WHO CARRIED THE WATER?

MARK & LUKE VERSION

Mark and Luke mention an unidentified man carrying a pitcher of water. They were to follow him to the house of an unidentified person. Both passages use the word ἄνθρωπος – anthropos – ‘a man’ meaning – ‘a human being’ referring to the person carrying the water. As they are unidentified it could be a woman who was carrying the water. The fact that an UNIDENTIFIED person carrying a water jar is called a man – and men didn’t carry water jars – could be an example of an unidentified person defaulting to masculine in the Greek. This word for ‘man’ (Strong’s 444) is generally better understood in English as ‘human’. For example when Balaam’s ass spoke the meaning is that the ass spoke with a human voice as opposed to the sound an animal makes – in other words – the dumb animal spoke.

“But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s 444 voice forbad the madness of the prophet”. 2 Peter 2:16

The common use of this word translated as “man” can be misleading when taken to mean ‘male’ rather than ‘human’ where that is the intention.

Another example is ‘Jesus the Son of Man’. He was literally the Son of a WOMAN – Mary – yet she was a representative of humankind –

“The Son of man444 has nowhere to lay his head”. Matt 8:20

But this word doesn’t have to apply to representative people, it can apply to unidentified individuals as in Matt. 17:14 –

“And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man 444, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord have mercy on my son.” This word means a person – unidentified as to whether they are male or female.

MESSAGE FOR HIS MOTHER?

THE MATTHEW VERSION

The gospel of Matthew only mentions one person the disciples are to find –

“Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house (should read “toward you”).’” Matt. 26:18

In this passage the phrase ‘certain man’ or ‘certain one’ is deliberately not identifying who the person is. It’s not entirely clear if it’s the water carrier or the house owner referred to or another person. This word for ‘certain one’ occurs only once in the New Testament. This is Strong’s definition: such a one, a certain one, i.e. one whose name I cannot call on the instant, or whose name it is of no importance to mention.

The disciples are to give this deliberately unidentified person the message that “my appointed time is near”. Who would this statement be most relevant to? Surely it would be to Jesus’ mother. At the wedding in Cana Jesus said to her “what have I to do with you, my hour has not yet come”. How appropriate to tell her now– this is it – now is the time – my appointed time is near.

The rest of Jesus’ message was that He would celebrate the Passover with this person. The phrase “at your house” is not correct. The word ‘house’ does not appear in the original Greek in the Matthew account. It would be more correct to say “I will keep the feast of the Passover with you or “toward you” with my disciples”. Youngs Literal Translation reads –

“Go away to the city, unto such a one, and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is nigh; near thee I keep the Passover, with my disciples”.

This shows that this person was an ‘extra’ at the Passover, there were not just the 12. It would seem right that Jesus told His mother his hour was near and He would share this Passover with her, she was part of the destiny – the Woman and the Son together.

We also know the mother of Jesus stayed in ‘the upper room’ of the house in Acts 1:13-14 –

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying… along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus.”

Why didn’t Jesus identify the owner of the house and the person carrying the water to his disciples? Perhaps it was done this way because the Jews were looking for Jesus to kill Him, it was not time for any of his disciples to be lost. They were also looking for Lazarus to kill him which could explain his absence (and that of his sisters) from the crucifixion story –

“The chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.” John 12:10

SEAT OF HONOUR

The gospel of Mark records the request of James and John to sit beside Jesus in His glory –

“They said to Him, “Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They said to Him, “We are able.” So Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared.” Mark 10:37-40

The ‘hour of Jesus’ glory’ began in John 12:23 –

“The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified”

And continued until His death on the cross-

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You” John 17:1

John wanted the place of honour – to sit beside Jesus – was it really John who was given that place of honour at the last supper? Jesus demonstrated that the least are the greatest. The person who sat beside Him at the last supper – the only person to be noted as sitting beside Jesus – was the ‘Beloved Disciple’. A woman would be the last person the male disciples would expect to take such a position.

The Beloved Disciple leaned on Jesus’ breast at the last supper.

“He then lying on Jesus’ breast said to him, Lord, who is it?” John 13:25

The image here of a man lying on Jesus breast somehow seems less likely than a woman who is a close companion. There is an echo here of Mary Magdalene when she ‘clung’ to her risen Lord .

We are also told that this disciple was ‘in the bosom of Jesus’ –

“Now there was reclining (at the table) on (in) Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23

This beloved disciple was ‘on/in the bosom’ of Jesus in the symbolic sense that Jesus was ‘in the bosom’ of His Father –

“The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” John 1:18

And so this disciple, in the bosom of Jesus, would declare Jesus.

There is no evidence that John sat next to Jesus at the last supper. Jesus sent John – who wanted a place of honour, as a servant to prepare the Passover.

“And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” Luke 22:8

Jesus told the disciples that if they looked for the place of honour they would be demoted, but if they were humble they would be elevated to honour. It would not seem fitting at that time for John to have the place of honour having just asked for it. The disciples argued about who was the greatest on a couple of occasions (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24). Jesus had previously told them –

“When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, … go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher.’ …For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 14:8-11

In contrast to John wanting to be first – Mary Magdalene as the author of the Fourth Gospel put herself last. The Fourth Gospel is the only one which has Mary last when listed with other women. The three other gospels always list her first – on 7 occasions (Matt 27:56, 27:61, 28:1, Mark 15:40, 16:1, Luke 8:2, 24:10). It would be appropriate for Mary – who put herself last, to be asked to take the seat of honour at the last supper, and for others to list her first in the other gospels.

‘CALLED’ TOWER

Luke 8:2 tells us that Mary was ‘called’ Magdalene; we are not told that she was ‘from’ Magdala.

“And also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out.”

In a similar way we are told that Simon was ‘called’ Peter, Jesus was ‘called’ Christ, and Thomas was ‘called’ Didymus.

The existence of first century town called Magdala where it is now, on the shores of Galilee is disputed. There are no first century references to it. It seemed to appear from the 4th century onwards first mentioned by Eusebious in his book of Holy sites. In the first century the area was called Magadan or Dalmanutha – although the KJV refers to the place as Magdala which is explained as a copyist error in Strongs. In other words, the copies the King James translators used for translating Matt. 15 were dated to around the 4th century when there was a place called Magdala probably substituted for Magadan.

It doesn’t really matter if there was or wasn’t a place called Magdala because the Bible says Mary was CALLED Magdala not FROM Magdala. It seems to be a church tradition dating from Eusebius and his mother Helena which began the rumour that Mary was FROM Magdala.

Magdalene means TOWER. ‘Mary called Tower’ would indeed go on to be a tower of the flock. Perhaps the prophecy in Micah has an application to Mary called Tower –

“And you, O tower of the flock,

The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,

To you shall it come,

Even the former dominion shall come,

The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem. Now why do you cry aloud?

Is there no king in your midst?

Has your counsellor perished?

For pangs have seized you like a woman in labour.

Be in pain, and labour to bring forth,

O daughter of Zion,

Like a woman in birth pangs.” Micah 4:8-10

What is the ‘former dominion’ that would come to the tower of the flock? The word for dominion is rule – The first thing in the bible to have rule over something is the sun and moon in Gen 1:16 – They had dominion over darkness.

The daughter of Zion was given that same dominion – The first dominion – light conquering darkness – 7 demons cast out.

This tower person of Micah had a counselor but he perished – Mary Magdalene had a companion – a counseller – He also perished. This tower woman was in labour – she was bringing forth children. The Beloved Disciple who left us the Fourth Gospel also brought forth children born of faith. The struggle of a woman in a man’s world to preach the gospel and be accepted, was, and still is, akin to the pain of childbirth.

Jerome (translator of Bible into Latin) also referred to Mary Magdalene as ‘The Tower’.

“Mary Magdalene – called the tower from the earnestness and glow of her faith – was privileged to see the rising Christ first of all before the very apostles”.

JOHN IN FOURTH GOSPEL

It has been argued that John wrote the Fourth Gospel and left his name out because of his modesty – not wishing to name himself as the disciple Jesus loved above all the others. This is strange when none of the other gospels give John such a place in Jesus’ affections. At one point the ten are angry with him for wanting a seat of honour –

“And when the ten heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John” Mark 10:47.

John was rebuked with the other ten for his hardness of heart –

“Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.” Mark 14:14

John is only indirectly mentioned in the book of John in chapter 21 –

“After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself: Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, (NOTE: John was one of the sons of Zebedee) and two others of His disciples were together. Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing”. John 21:1

WEDDING AT CANA

The Fourth Gospel is the only one which mentions the wedding at Cana. On the surface the miracle of turning water to wine seems extravagant and almost pointless. Yet this miracle has far greater meaning than to keep wedding guests supplied with wine. The story begins with Jesus addressing his mother as ‘Woman’.

“Jesus said to her, Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come.” John 2:4

The hour would come when Jesus ‘The Son’ had everything to do with ‘The Woman’.

Jesus was talking of the culmination of the symbol in Eden. Mary was the ‘Woman’ who had brought forth ‘The Seed’. Their destinies were interwoven – those of ‘The Woman & the Seed’. Jesus said “What have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come”. Jesus was saying that the time wasn’t yet for their destinies to play out the actions of the final hour. That hour came later and Jesus speaks of it in John 12:27 –

“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Although the time of the final hour had not arrived, nonetheless Jesus’ first miracle at Cana would point to it. The water jars, which used to be used for purification now held wine – the symbol of Jesus’ blood. The water for purification would no longer be needed.

NEW PARENTS

God was not the real father of the beloved disciple, yet became their father in the symbolic sense. Part of Jesus’ commission to Mary Magdalene was to tell the others that He was going “to my Father and your Father”.

“Tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” John 20:17

This theme of a new family is continued in 1 Tim. 5:1NIV

“Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters”.

Jesus told Mary Magdalene at the cross that she had a new MOTHER, and at the tomb that she had a new FATHER. She refers to other believers as her “dear children” in the Epistles of John – continuing the theme of the spiritual family.

WHO LOOKED AFTER MOTHER OF JESUS?

We don’t hear of John literally looking after Jesus’ mother in the New Testament, but in Mark 15:47 we are told that it was Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene who saw where the body of Jesus was laid (no mention of John being with Jesus’ mother)

“Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph (Joses)* saw where he was laid.”

If John had taken Mary to his own home ‘from that hour’ as is commonly understood, it is strange that it is the two Marys without John who watch where Jesus is laid. The word ‘home’ does not occur in the Greek. The beloved disciple took the mother of Jesus to their own – to be their own. This is about ‘who is the family of the beloved disciple’ and being ‘born again’.

*A comparison of verses shows that ‘Mary the mother of Joseph’ who was with Mary Magdalene at the tomb, is ‘Mary the Mother of Jesus. It would seem that when Jesus died His mother was referred to as ‘Mary the mother of James and Joseph’, or just the mother of Joseph (so there was no confusion with James the son of Zebedee). It would seem it was a custom not to refer to people as the mother or father of dead children but of the living children. When it was established that Jesus was alive she was again referred to as ‘Mary the mother of Jesus’ in Acts 1:14

MATTHEW RECORD

Matt. 13:56 Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?

Matt. 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph.

Matt. 27:61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

MARK RECORD

Mark 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?

Mark 15:40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less (younger) and of Joseph, and Salome – a few verses later shortened to – Mary the mother of Joseph (v 47)

Mark 15:47 (After the crucifixion) Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

According to Eastern tradition Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus lived together at Ephesus. The Fourth Gospel and epistles of John traditionally came from Ephesus.

HIDDEN WOMEN

There seems to be a pattern in the gospels of only naming the male disciples. If a wife or a female disciple were present as well, they were often not named. We know from 1 Cor. 9:5 that the wives of many of the male disciples accompanied them.

The genealogies of the time reflect the male bias. Mary the mother of Jesus doesn’t get named in her own family tree. Joseph was not the son of Heli but the son-in-law

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry (he was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son(son-in-law) of Heli, the son of Matthat” Luke 3:23

The ‘son’ of Heli here should say ‘son-in-law’ to be more easily understood in modern culture. Even more helpful would have been to explain “Jesus was the Son of Mary, the daughter of Heli”. No women were included in this genealogy of Jesus through His mother Mary. There are many things that become clearer with a bit of searching out.

It seems very likely that unnamed/unidentified disciples in some key events in the gospel records were women.

WHO FOLLOWED JESUS?

Two disciples of John the Baptist followed Jesus. One male is named – Andrew. Only the author of the Fourth Gospel records this event, being a witness to it. It’s possible this unnamed disciple who left John to follow Jesus was Mary Magdalene, a witness from the very start.

John 1 records Jesus’ baptism and the call of first disciples but not the call of the twelve. The call of the twelve is only mentioned in the other 3 gospels.

“The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?” “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.” John 1:35

There is amazing attention to detail here – “it was about the tenth hour”. It would seem that the author of the Fourth Gospel was one of the 2 disciples to know such detail.

SISTER OF PETER AND ANDREW?

1 Cor. 9:5 indicates that Peter had his unnamed wife and his unnamed sister with him as he preached. The context of 1 Cor. 9:5 dictates that ‘sister’ does not mean a sister in Christ, but a sister of the flesh – a literal sister, just as it talks about the literal brothers of Jesus. It would not have been appropriate for unmarried men and women to be travelling together unchaperoned in those times unless they were family. The suggestion has been made that this passage is really saying ‘sister/wife’. The term ‘sister/wife’ is never used anywhere in the Bible, and it’s not used here.

“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Peter?” 1 Cor. 9:5

The Greek words for ‘a sister’ and ‘a wife’ are both given as ‘noun accusative feminine singular’. The sense of this passage would be that other apostles, the brothers of Jesus and also specifically Peter, were leading about or travelling with sisters and wives and this was quite permissible.

Why should we suppose that Peter was only leading around a wife and not a sister? 1 Cor. 9:5 seems to allow for any combination. To lead around a sister, to lead around a wife, or to lead around a sister and a wife as I believe Peter did.

The point of this passage is to say that it’s ok for families to travel together preaching. We know that such was the case with Jesus himself, his mother and sisters and brothers sometimes accompanied Him.

“And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” Mat. 13:56

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?” Mark 6:3

If Mary Magdalene was the sister of both Andrew and Peter, then lots of small details make more sense. It would have been respectable for her to be travelling in the company of her brother Andrew to follow John the Baptist. It would make sense of her running to tell Peter and his wife (another disciple Jesus loved) about the empty tomb – they were family.

“Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved (another disciple Jesus loved but not THE beloved disciple), and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” John 20:1-2

It would also explain why she’d be in a fishing boat with brother Peter and her sister in law in John 21, and the close bond which made Peter ask her the question at the last supper –

“One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.”

It also explains the episode in the fishing boat in John 21 – “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” And Peter’s special interest in the beloved disciples’ fate –

“ Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

Peter would have special interest in knowing what was to become of his sister.

Perhaps the words in the ‘Gospel of Mary Magdalene’ are referring to the brother and sister in the flesh as well as spiritual ‘brethren’. Although this is not a canonical gospel it still gives an insight into the thinking of the time.

“Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren (perhaps this is to spiritual brethren), Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men. When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior. Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman. Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?”

‘My brother Peter’ is an especially close greeting, perhaps reserved for a brother in the flesh.

As the unidentified disciple with Andrew in John 1, Mary would be in a position to record the personal events which she witnessed and were omitted from other records. For example, a fuller picture of the call of Peter and Andrew is given in the Fourth Gospel (by a firsthand witness who even records the time of day).

Jesus Calls Peter and Andrew

MATTHEW 4:18-22 “Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee. He saw two brothers. They were Simon (his other name was Peter) and Andrew, his brother. They were putting a net into the sea for they were fishermen. Jesus said to them, “Follow Me. I will make you fish for men!” At once they left their nets and followed Him.”

JOHN 1:39 “This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing…They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?” “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.”So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon. Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).”

This fuller account shows that Andrew and the other disciple (assuming it was Mary) began to follow Jesus before Peter. “When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus” John 1:37. This may seem trivial but shows that Mary Magdalene did not follow Peter but followed Jesus. The fact that Jesus called Peter a ‘rock’ was no more important than Mary being called a ‘tower’.

The church – the bride of Christ – is built on the foundation of all true disciples, symbolized by 12 (Rev. 21:14). The one we are to follow is Jesus.

“You are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called teachers, for you have one Teacher, the Messiah.” Matt. 23:8

ROAD TO EMMAUS

Two disciples are mentioned on the road to Emmaus. Only one male is named, Cleopas. It’s likely the unnamed disciple was ‘The wife of Clopas’ who had been present at the cross – another case of an unnamed disciple being a woman.

There is some variation of the Greek manuscripts in both John 19:25 and Luke 24 as to the spelling Κλ[ε]οπᾶς, and the John “Clopas” is rendered “Cleophas” in the KJV, so Cleopas and Clopas were likely the same.

IN THE COURTYARD

The Fourth Gospel is the only one, which records the presence of the extra disciple with Jesus when He was taken to Caiaphas. It records extraordinary detail. It’s the only record which mentions that He went to see the High Priest Annas first. It mentions a charcoal fire and that a girl ‘stared’ at Peter. Also, the name of the servant with his ear cut off is known (Malchus) and that he was related to the other servant. Only someone with firsthand knowledge could know these things.

KNOWN TO CAIAPHAS

“And following Jesus was Simon Peter and ANOTHER disciple, and that disciple was known to the chief priest, and he entered with Jesus to the hall of the chief priest, and Peter was standing at the door without, therefore went forth the other disciple who was known to the chief priest, and he spoke to the female keeping the door, and he brought in Peter.” John 18:15

Note: The beloved disciple of the cross and last supper is not referred to as ‘another’ disciple using the Greek word for ‘another’ used here.

We know that the disciples went from the last supper to the garden and then Peter and an unnamed disciple followed Jesus further. The disciple known to Caiaphas had been at the last supper, but I don’t believe they were ‘of the twelve’. We know from Acts 4 that this mysterious disciple was not John. John appears before Caiaphas and Caiaphas doesn’t appear to know him and is amazed at the learning of such an uneducated man. He only then notes that he had been with Jesus. This is not talking about a disciple known to Caiaphas.

JOHN UNKNOWN

“And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?…V 13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” Acts 4:5

It seems unlikely that any of the twelve disciples would have been known to Caiaphas. It is far more likely that it was Joanna whose association with Herod would also mean an association with the priests.

JOANNA & THEOPHOLIS

Joanna lived in Herod’s palace – the wife of Chuzza who was in charge of the household. She was wealthy and would have moved in the circles of the rich.

“And the twelve were with Him, and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, and Joanna (Johanna) the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance.” Luke 8:2

The Herodians and Pharisees moved in the same circles so Joanna – part of the Herodian circle – would almost certainly be known to Caiaphas.

“Then the Pharisees went out and immediately plotted with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.” Mark 3:6

It’s possible that Joanna was the granddaughter of Theopholis – the high priest a year or so after Caiaphas. This would explain her wealth and ability to move freely even to the hall of Caiaphas. This suggestion is based on the findings of an ossuary – speculative but interesting-

“Archeological evidence confirming the existence of Theophilus, as an ossuary has been discovered bearing the inscription, “Johanna granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest” . The details of this ossuary have been published in the Israel Exploration Journal. (D. Barag and D.Flusser, The Ossuary of Yehohanan Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus, Israel Exploration Journal, 36 (1986), 39-44)

Assuming this is the same Joanna, she would very likely have been in a position of familiarity with the palace of Caiaphas both from her connection to Herod’s palace, and as the granddaughter of Theopholis and great granddaughter of Annas. She would have no trouble entering the court of Caiaphas nor requesting that her fellow disciple came too. She would know that the servant who lost his ear was called Malchus – she would share this information with the narrator of the Fourth Gospel who may have accompanied her to see Caiaphas though not mentioning herself in the record.

If Joanna is the unnamed disciple who accompanied Jesus to see Caiaphas then she would be of note among the disciples, having been with Jesus from the beginning and a prime candidate as the ‘Junia’ of Romans 16. (Junia being the Latin form of Joanna)

It seems likely that there were several anonymous female disciples in the Fourth Gospel including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the unnamed wife of Peter at the tomb and the wife of Cleopas on the road to Emmaus.

AT THE TOMB

Luke 24:11 gives the impression that Peter went to the tomb alone. If John had accompanied him it is strange that Luke doesn’t record it – Peter “wonders to himself”. Compare it to the record in the 4th Gospel where another ‘loved’ disciple outran Peter –

Peter running with text

It seems logical that the other disciple in this passage who doesn’t get named is a woman. Mary Magdalene went to them in the early hours of the morning and they were together, staying in the same house.

Jesus loved both Peter and his nameless companion. The word here for ‘loved’ is phileō. When it talks of ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ at the cross and last supper, the love is agapaō. ‘The Beloved Disciple’ was not the only loved disciple in the Fourth Gospel. Another loved disciple saw the bandages and ‘believed’ – surely Jesus’ mother would be the most motivated to run quickly to the tomb and the one who would ‘see and believe’ first.

These are the first few verses of John 20 re-written with the presumption that Peter was with a woman – not from the Koine Greek perspective that unidentified people are males. My thoughts in brackets –

“Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple Jesus loved (Jesus’ Mother), and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And she, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet did not go in (perhaps Peter carried a light which slowed down his running, she waited for him and she was scared to go in alone). Then Simon Peter came, following her, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple (a woman), who came to the tomb first, went in also; and saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away to/by themselves (the word home is not in original).” (Mary Magdalene stayed at the tomb)

Why would the author of the Fourth Gospel make disciples with prominent roles anonymous? I conclude it’s because, as women, their testimony would not count in a patriarchal society and they are not ‘witnessed’ by the authors of the other gospels.

JOHN HARDHEARTEDLY DISBELIEVED MARY

If John wrote the Fourth Gospel you would expect him to include his mistake of not believing those who proclaimed the risen Lord, not omit it.

Mark 16:9-16 records the details –

“He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, … When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.”

Mark then explains that Jesus appeared to another two on the road to Emmaus who were also not believed. Then in v 14 he records the condemnation of those who didn’t believe and makes it clear it’s the eleven disciples (John being one of them) –

“Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”

This incident is not about disciples who disbelieve for joy, (as in Luke 24:41) – It’s about disciples having ‘hardness of heart’ who refuse to believe those given authority by God to proclaim Him. As the author of the Fourth Gospel Mary omits the hurtful account of the eleven male disciples disbelieving her. Sometimes the evidence is in what is not said – a Beloved Disciple keeps no record of wrongs.

IN THE BOAT

John 21 records the fishing trip of seven disciples.

“Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee. It happened this way: Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.”

There are seven disciples in the boat. Five male disciples are named, two disciples are unidentified. It would seem likely that one of the unidentified disciples is Peter’s wife – unidentified here just as the extra disciple was unidentified at the tomb with Peter. The other disciple was Mary Magdalene the ‘Beloved Disciple’ in the boat. This was a spontaneous fishing trip amongst friends and family who were together.

It is unrealistic to believe that Peter was naked in the boat as some versions poorly translate this passage . It is more realistic that he put his outer garment back on which he had taken off for fishing. There is no reason why Peter’s wife and sister couldn’t have been in the boat with the men, just as women had travelled with them in Luke 8:1

“He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with Him, and certain women.”

EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

Early Christian writings apart from the New Testament indicate the importance of Mary Magdalene amongst the disciples. Regardless of the teachings, they are ancient texts showing the thinking of the time –

FROM THE GOSPEL OF PHILIP

“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion.”

“And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [?] on her [?]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Saviour answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”

FROM THE GOSPEL OF MARY (Magdalene)

“Peter said to Mary, Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember – which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them.” Mary answered and said, “What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.”…“I have left no commandment but what I have commanded you, and I have given you no law, as the lawgiver did, lest you be bound by it.”

Pistis Sophia, possibly dating as early as the 2nd century, records a long dialog with Jesus and a woman who is referred to as Mary or Mary Magdalene. Jesus says of Mary:

“Mary, thou blessed one, whom I will perfect in all mysteries of those of the height, discourse in openness, thou, whose heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all thy brethren”.

SEVEN DEMONS

The gospel of Mark tells us that seven demons had gone out of Mary Magdalene.

“When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.” Mark 16:9

Why make this point? She is already identified by the title ‘Magdalene’. Perhaps there is a clue in Luke 8 where Mary Magdalene is the first named woman listed. This is due to her importance and does not mean that the infirmities cast out of the other women were the same thing as the ‘demons’ cast out of her.

“Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with Him, and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance.” Luke 8:1-3

This passage lists the people who were with Jesus as He went through every city and village preaching the gospel. It includes –

The Twelve

Certain women healed of evil spirits and infirmities

Mary Magdalene – out of whom had come seven demons

Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward

Susannah

Many others who provided for Him out of their substance

All the people in this list did not have illnesses cast out. Mark 16:9 also mentions Mary’s demons

“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons”.

Casting out demons doesn’t have to mean casting out physical illness. It can also mean a wrong way of thinking.

Acts 17:18 translates the word ‘demons’ as gods –

“He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached to them Jesus, and the resurrection.” Demons in this context means a type of belief, not an illness. In the same way the demons in 1 Cor.10 do not refer to an illness –

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: you cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of demons.” 1 Cor. 10:21

If these demons refer to a physical illness, then sick people cannot participate at the Lord’s table.

It makes sense that the demons cast out of Mary were not 7 illnesses, but were symbolic of her completeness as a Beloved Disciple. She could sit at the Lord’s table, in the place of honour, because her seven demons were gone.

Surely ‘Seven Demons’ is symbolic language. I think even Pope Gregory the 1st (591CE) almost got it right when he said “And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?”

The number seven in Scripture often has the figurative meaning, ‘God’s perfect, finished work’. We are told that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, setting the pattern for seven to mean completion and perfection. In a similar manner, when the seven nations were wiped out of Israel it was the finished nation – God’s witness (it didn’t last, they failed).

“And when He had ‘destroyed’ (meaning to pull down – demolish) seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.” Acts 13:19

The land of Israel had seven nations cast out of it by God. It was in a sense the wife of God who failed.

“Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce”. Jer. 3:8

Mary Magdalene – as the beloved disciple, was finished. Her seven demons were cast out and replaced by her seven lights. Israel had seven lights on their lampstand to be a light to the seven nations in the land they went into (they were supposed to ‘wipe them out’ by converting them to God). The record of seven miracles is in the Fourth Gospel “that we might believe”. Mary Magdalene represented the beloved disciple – the symbolic bride of Christ. She didn’t fail as Israel had.

When Jesus cast out her seven demons they were replaced with seven lights. She revealed seven insights with her ‘Seven Signs of the Gospel of John’.

The following table compares the seven miracles of the Fourth Gospel with the seven “I AM” statements. There seems to be a deliberate connection which demonstrates that the miracles themselves had a fuller symbolic meaning.

7 MIRACLES 7 ‘I AM’s

Water Into Wine 2:1-11

Water jars for the purification rituals now held wine I AM ‘The True Vine’ 15:1 15:3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.”

Healing the Official’s Son in

“Galilee of the Gentiles” 4:43-54

I AM ‘The Good Shepherd’ 10:11 Bringing in the Gentiles 10:16 “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”

Healing at Pool of Bethesda at Sheep Gate 5:1-9

“There is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool” 5:5 “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed.” (Misapplication of Law by “those who came before”)

Sheep Gate = entry for God’s sheep into fold

Jesus was the Gate = the way into the fold

I AM ‘The Gate’ 10:9 10:8-10 “All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”

Feeding of the 5000 6:1-5

I AM ‘The Bread of Life’ 6:35 “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst”.

Walking on Water 6:16-25

Peter’s attempt to do what Jesus did I AM ‘The Way, the Truth, and the Life’ 14:6 14:12 “He who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also”.

Healing Man Born Blind 9:1-41

“As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world… and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.” I AM ‘The Light of the World’ 8:12 “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Raising Lazarus 11:1-44

“I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” I AM ‘The Resurrection and the Life’ 11:25 “Whoever lives by believing in me will never die”.

WHEN WAS IT WRITTEN?

John 5:2 speaks of the pool in Jerusalem in the present tense –

“Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool.”

Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70. The present tense indicates that the 4th Gospel was written before AD70 when there was still a pool near the sheep gate – not after the events of AD 70 when the sheep gate was destroyed with the rest of the city.

SYMBOL OF THE BRIDE

Most people are familiar with the symbology of the Last Supper which depicts Jesus as the Passover lamb. A second symbol is also present – that of the wedding betrothal as depicted by first century Jewish customs. The Father (God) paid the bride price with the blood of His Son. At the betrothal ceremony (Last Supper) the marriage covenant was established and the groom drank of the cup of wine. He gave it to His prospective bride and she too drank of it acknowledging her acceptance – she would drink the same cup he drank (the Beloved Disciple also laid down their life at the cross in service – see ‘At the Cross’) and all ‘Beloved Disciples’ must also drink the same cup.

It was fitting that the Beloved Disciple – in symbol also the Bride – should sit next to Jesus as the last supper. It was fitting that Jesus would say to Mary Magdalene at His resurrection “Don’t hold on to me yet, I haven’t ascended to my Father”. In other words – according to Jewish custom He had to go to His Father’s house to prepare the bridal chamber and return for the wedding ceremony before she could ‘cling’ to Him – the time was not yet. The marriage supper of the lamb is yet to be – the time when Jesus will again drink of the fruit of the vine as the final part of the wedding ceremony.

DISCIPLE JESUS LOVED – A SYMBOL

In symbol, we can all be ‘The Disciple Jesus Loved’ –

“Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” John 14:21

REVERSING EDEN

Whenever Jesus refers to a woman by the title ‘Woman’ in the 4th gospel, there seems a strong connection to the pronouncement in Eden:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said your desire (turning) will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:15-16

What happened in Eden was a breakdown of relationships, especially with God, and it led to disobedience and sin.

The consequence for Eve was her pain in the child bearing process. She would turn to (desire) her husband. The logical meaning here would surely be that she was the one having children and caring for them. She would turn to her husband for help. He would give her help, but she would find herself dependant on him and ruled over.

The following passages in the Fourth Gospel seem to have the fate of the woman in mind, and also offer a way out of the curses of Eden by turning to Jesus.

John 2:4 “Jesus said to her (His mother), “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

-The destiny of the seed and the woman would play out at the right hour; it was the way of escape from the consequences of Eden. Compare this passage to John 19:26 –

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold your Son!”

-This was the hour of destiny for the woman and the seed. He was the Son who would free all people. Jesus also referred to the Samaritan woman as ‘Woman’ –

“Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.” John 4:21-21

-Place, race, gender no longer mattered, this woman was free in Christ, no longer ruled over.

John 8:10 “When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

-Jesus, the righteous judge, forgave rather than condemned. He freed her from these men.

Jesus also referred to Mary Magdalene as ‘Woman’

“Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking? … Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him, “Rabboni!” (Which is to say,Teacher).” John 20:15-16

She turned to Jesus – her desire was for Jesus – she was seeking Jesus – she was the Beloved Disciple who got it right.

As the ‘Beloved Disciple’, Mary Magdalene was the ‘bookends’ of Jesus’ ministry. She was the first of His disciples to follow Him, (based on the assumption that she was with Andrew at the start) and the first to see Him risen. On both occasions she addressed Him as ‘Teacher’ – showing she was a disciple wanting to learn. Jesus’ first recorded words in John are to her, (after noticing that he was being followed).

“They followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek? They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), “where are You staying?” John 1:37-38

Jesus’ first words after His resurrection are also to Mary Magdalene, “Woman, why are you crying, who do you seek?” Jesus was making the point that she was seeking Him. She followed Him from the beginning to the end of His ministry. This is what beloved disciples do, they seek and follow Jesus. They do not seek the place of honour, they are given it. “The first shall be last and the last first”. To understand the real message of discipleship one has to see beneath the surface, to be ‘Born Again’.

At the cross, Mary Magdalene laid down her own life in service. Perhaps her most lasting act was to write the Fourth Gospel so that all Beloved Disciples who read her words would BELIEVE, and by believing have life in the name of Jesus.

What is Divine Philosophy?

What is Divine Philosophy?

**Welcome to Pleroma Pathways apocalyptic and mystic Christianity where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.**

---

**Divine Philosophy: Wisdom from Above**

The word *philosophy* comes from the Greek *φιλοσοφία* (*philosophia*), literally meaning “love of wisdom.” In modern usage, it denotes the pursuit of understanding the entire spectrum of human experience—including the causes and principles underlying reality—through reason and contemplation. Yet, divine philosophy, as distinct from worldly or speculative thought, begins not with the creature but with the Creator, and it derives its wisdom from divine revelation rather than human speculation.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the terms “philosophy” and “philosopher” appear only once each. Paul warns the Colossians:  

*"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ."* (Colossians 2:8)

At that time, Greek philosophical schools were influential throughout the Roman Empire. Paul’s concern was not simply abstract reasoning but how such reasoning, when divorced from Christ, becomes hollow and deceptive. The apostle points specifically to Judaizers attempting to reintroduce Mosaic customs—circumcision, ritual observance of days, and dietary laws—into the Christian community. Paul counters this by reminding them of Christ’s role in God’s divine plan:  

*"For in him all the fullness of the divine nature dwells bodily, and so you have a fullness by means of him."* (Colossians 2:9-10)  

And further:  

*"Carefully conceal all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in him."* (Colossians 2:3)

To pursue wisdom apart from Christ is to build upon unstable ground. Paul prayed that Christians would be "filled with the accurate knowledge of [God’s] will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension." (Colossians 1:9-10)

In Athens, Paul encountered *“Epicurean and Stoic philosophers”* (Acts 17:18). They mocked him as a *“chatterer”* (*spermologos*), implying he was like a bird picking up scraps—gathering pieces of knowledge with no real structure or truth. The Epicureans believed pleasure was the highest good, though they viewed the gods as distant and indifferent. The Stoics, in contrast, emphasized virtue and endurance, but also held to a fatalistic view of the cosmos. Neither group believed in the resurrection. Paul confronted them with a divine perspective, proclaiming:  

*"The God who made the world and all the things in it... gives to all people life and breath and all things."* (Acts 17:24-25)  

He concluded by declaring the Resurrection as a sign of divine judgment and assurance:  

*"He has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead."* (Acts 17:31)

For many Greeks, this message was offensive and foolish:  

*"For Jews ask for signs and Greeks look for wisdom; but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness."* (1 Corinthians 1:22-23)

Yet divine philosophy transcends human reasoning. The Hebrew prophets and apostles did not ascend from the created world to reach the Creator—as Greek philosophers did—but began with the knowledge of God, taking His existence as the foundation of all truth. For them, God was not a speculative conclusion but the axiomatic source of all things.

The Book of Proverbs is a treasury of this divine wisdom. It teaches that reverence for the Creator is the beginning of true knowledge:  

*"The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge. Only fools despise wisdom and discipline."* (Proverbs 1:7)  

*"The fear of Yahweh is to hate what is bad."* (Proverbs 8:13)  

*"Yahweh founded the earth in wisdom. He solidly established the heavens in understanding."* (Proverbs 3:19)

Wisdom, in Proverbs, is not abstract but relational, rooted in obedience, humility, and reverence for God:  

*"Trust in Yahweh with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding. In all your ways take notice of him, and he will make your paths straight."* (Proverbs 3:5-6)  

*"The fear of Yahweh is a training in wisdom, and before glory comes humility."* (Proverbs 15:33)

This divine philosophy transforms human life not by mere contemplation but by communion with the Divine.  

*"The eyes of Yahweh are in every place, watching both the bad and the good."* (Proverbs 15:3)  

*"The name of Yahweh is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and receives protection."* (Proverbs 18:10)

True philosophy begins with *The One Who Is* (Exodus 3:14), and it ends not in speculation, but in resurrection. The wisdom of the world cannot discern this, for it is hidden in Christ. Divine philosophy teaches that humanity was made for more than the pleasures of the moment or the acceptance of fate; we were created for incorruption and called to immortality through the resurrected Body of Christ.

Let the philosophers reason, but let the faithful listen:  

*"The secret things belong to Jehovah our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our descendants forever, so that we may observe all the words of this law."* (Deuteronomy 29:29)  

This is the path of divine philosophy—the love of wisdom that begins and ends in God.

The Greek word φιλοσοφία philosophia means, literally, “love of wisdom.” In modern usage the term relates to human endeavors to understand and interpret through reason and speculation the whole of human experience, including the underlying causes and principles of reality.

The Greek words for “philosophy” and “philosopher” each occur only once in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (Col 2:8; Ac 17:18) Evidently when Paul wrote to the congregation at Colossae in Asia Minor, some there were in danger of being affected by “the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.” 

Greek philosophies were then quite prominent. But the context of Colossians 2:8 shows that of special concern to Paul were Judaizers who were trying to bring Christians back to observing the Mosaic Law with its required circumcision, festival days, and abstinence from eating certain foods. (Col 2:11, 16, 17) 

Paul was not opposed to knowledge, for he prayed that Christians be filled with it. But, as he showed, one must appreciate the role of Jesus Christ in the outworking of God’s purpose in order to obtain true wisdom and accurate knowledge. (Col 1:9, 10; 2:2, 3) The Colossians were to look out lest perhaps someone with persuasive arguments carry them off as prey through a human way of thinking or outlook. Such a philosophy would be part of “the elementary things [stoi·khei´a] of the world,” that is, the principles or basic components and motivating factors of the world, “and not according to Christ.”—Col 2:4, 8.

When in Athens Paul had an encounter with “the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers.” (Ac 17:18) They termed the apostle a “chatterer,” using the Greek word sper·mo·lo´gos, which literally applies to a bird that picks up seeds. The word also carries the thought of one who picks up scraps of knowledge and repeats such without order or method. Those philosophers disdained Paul and his message. Basically the Epicurean philosophy was that the obtaining of pleasure, particularly mental pleasure, was the chief good in life (1Co 15:32); though it acknowledged gods, it explained these as being beyond human experience and concern. The philosophy of the Stoics stressed fate or natural destiny; one should be of high virtue but strive for indifference to pain or pleasure. Neither Epicureans nor Stoics believed in the resurrection. In his speech before such men, Paul highlighted the relationship and accountability of the individual to the Creator and connected therewith Christ’s resurrection and the “guarantee” this provided men. To Greeks asking for “wisdom” the message about Christ was “foolishness” (1Co 1:22, 23), and when Paul mentioned the resurrection, many of his hearers began to mock, although some became believers.—Ac 17:22-33.

Divine Philosophy.

PHILOSOPHY is defined in our dictionaries as, "The knowledge of the causes of all phenomena, both of mind and matter". Paul encountered " certain philosophers " on Mars' Hill, at Athens (Acts 17:18). The subject of his argument with them (that of the Godhead) is especially interesting in view of the gulf between the Grecian and Hebrew philosophy. The Greek philosophy started from the formed, or creature, back to the Former, or Creator; and thus God was last with the Greek philosopher. Far different was it with the Hebrew thinkers and writers; at any rate, with those whom God inspired, and who are known as Prophets and Apostles. They never troubled about tracing God by His works, or creatures; but began with God, taking His existence for granted and seeing Him everywhere and in everything. This is noticed throughout the Holy Scriptures, especially so in that most practical of books, the Book of Proverbs. See Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:17; 3:5, 7, 9, 19, 33; 5:21; 8:13, 34; 12:2; 14:26, 31; 15:3, 9, 33 ; 16:2, 4, 6, 9, 33; 17:5; 18:10; 19:17, 23; 25:2; 28:5 ; 30:5.

Manmade Traditions Matthew 15:1-9

Manmade Traditions Matthew 15:1-9

Matthew 15:1-9

15:1Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, 15:2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 15:3And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 15:4For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; 15:6he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. 15:7Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

15:8This people honoreth me with their lips;

But their heart is far from me.

15:9But in vain do they worship me,

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

TRADITION

What is Tradition?

Information, doctrines, or practices that have been handed down from parents to children or that have become the established way of thinking or acting. The Greek word pa·ra´do·sis means, literally, “a thing given beside” and hence “that which is transmitted by word of mouth or in writing.” (1Co 11:2, Int) The word as used in the Christian Greek Scriptures is applied to traditions that were proper or acceptable aspects of true worship, as well as to those that were in error or were followed or viewed in a way that made them harmful and objectionable

Manmade Tradition

Which is held in greater reverence, the divine law or manmade tradition? With the personal man, tradition holds the higher place, for back of it is the weight or authority of the race mind, and its hold on the race mind is unquestioned. The spiritual man has reverence for the divine law, not manmade tradition.

Which of the two does the Christ Consciousness observe? The divine law always. “I came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.” Where tradition conflicts with the divine law, Jesus the Christ sets aside or disregards tradition. So should we as we follow Him.

Why should we not accept the wisdom of past ages, as handed down in tradition, as a guide to conduct? In following tradition we accept our beliefs and opinions ready-made instead of thinking things through and understanding them originally before accepting them. 

When we think things through for ourselves our mind lays hold of the formless stuff of divine substance and transforms it. By this thought process, which is the proper function of the mind in us, we discern the truth of the accumulated wisdom of mankind, and are enabled to discard what does not concern us.

Is defilement or infection primarily a physical or a mental phenomenon? It is first of all mental. Where faith in the protection of Divine Mind is absolute and complete, there is no fear and no infection. Perfect faith is the greatest prophylactic.

What evidence have we that tradition is not God-given? The fact that although tradition has the unquestioning acceptance of the race mind while the race believes it, every tradition sooner or later is superseded by something else. For example, the scientific truths of one age become the exploded superstitions of the next, and new so-called scientific truths take their place.

What is “the heart,” as used by Jesus in the text for today? The heart is the inner or emotional nature, which harbors will, desire, and the individual and personal thought.

Where should the chief cleansing of the individual take place? In the inner nature or the heart. We should learn to control our thought processes and think constructively. As we preserve the unity of the Spirit we lose our fear of contagion and become immune to outer contaminating influences. With the thought fixed on the purity and oneness of the Mind of God we become expressions of both purity and unity.

Do we make our life, or is it predestined without our volition? We make it by our habitual thought. Our security is also self-made. As we drill our soul in right principles we are ready to meet any emergency when it comes, with a stout, steadfast heart.

Christian Traditions

Viewing tradition in the sense of guidelines handed down orally or by example, the information that the apostle Paul received directly from Jesus could properly be passed on to the Christian congregations as acceptable Christian tradition. This was so, for example, regarding the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. (1Co 11:2, 23) The teachings and example set by the apostles constituted valid tradition. Thus, Paul, who had personally toiled with his hands so as not to be a financial burden on his brothers (Ac 18:3; 20:34; 1Co 9:15; 1Th 2:9), could urge the Thessalonian Christians “to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition [pa·ra´do·sin]” they had received. One who would not work was plainly not following the fine example or tradition of the apostles.—2Th 3:6-11.

The “traditions” that are necessary for worship of God that is clean and undefiled were in time included as part of the inspired Scriptures. Hence, the traditions or precepts that were transmitted by Jesus and the apostles and that were vital for life were not left in oral form to be distorted by the passage of time but were accurately recorded in the Bible for the benefit of Christians living at later periods.—Joh 20:30, 31; Re 22:18.

Aeon of Grace: Charis as a Transformative Power

Aeon of Grace: Charis as a Transformative Power

Charis, the Aeon of grace, embodies not only the concept of divine favor but also the transformative power that bridges the ineffable and the manifest realms of creation. As an Aeon, Charis is deeply interwoven with the Pleroma, the divine fullness, and acts as the channel through which the Father’s eternal will is communicated to the material world. She is both the sustaining force that upholds the cosmos and the bridge by which humanity can access divine enlightenment and transformation. Charis is not simply a passive attribute of God but a living force that actively engages with creation, guiding it toward its ultimate purpose of union with the divine source.

Grace as a Transformative Power

Grace is the illimitable love of God in action, the unmerited favor that draws the creature closer to the Creator. As Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). Charis, in her role as an Aeon, is the agent through which grace flows into the world, enabling the transformation of the human soul and the restoration of the divine order. In this sense, grace is not merely an abstract concept but a dynamic and personal force that brings healing and restoration to both the individual and the world.

Charis stands at the intersection of divine will and human experience, drawing humanity closer to the Pleroma. Her presence within the Pleroma ensures that the divine emanations do not remain distant or separate from creation but actively infuse the natural world with the potential for redemption. As John states, "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). This declaration points to the person of Jesus Christ, who, as the Word made flesh, embodies both grace and truth in a form that humanity can apprehend and engage with. Through Christ, Charis became accessible to all, offering the transformative power of divine grace to those willing to receive it.

Grace as the Path to a Higher Consciousness

The grace of Charis opens the door to a new and higher consciousness, one that transcends the limitations of the natural world and aligns with the divine will. This elevated state of awareness, however, is not achieved through human effort alone but through the grace of God. As Paul reminds the Corinthians, "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:10). This grace transforms the believer, empowering them to live according to a higher, divine purpose.

Grace is not simply an external gift; it also works inwardly, renewing the mind and spirit. As Paul further explains, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2). Through Charis, humanity is invited into this transformation, into a deeper union with the divine, and into the realization of the fullness of their being as co-heirs with Christ.

Grace and the Union with the Divine

Charis is the channel through which humanity can experience the divine light and life. John’s Gospel reveals, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). This life, which flows from Charis, is the divine light that illuminates the path to spiritual enlightenment. It is through grace that humanity is able to participate in the divine nature, becoming partakers of the divine essence. As Peter writes, “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence" (2 Peter 1:3). In this way, Charis brings humanity into a deeper knowledge and experience of God, leading them toward a state of divine union.

The transformative power of grace, as embodied by Charis, is not confined to an individual’s personal salvation but extends to the entire creation. Through grace, the cosmos itself is restored to its original harmony with the divine will. As Paul declares, "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God" (Romans 8:19). The grace of Charis works not only within the individual but throughout the entire created order, bringing all things into alignment with the divine purpose.

Conclusion

Charis, as the Aeon of grace, embodies the divine force that sustains, transforms, and unites creation with the Pleroma. Through her, humanity receives the gift of divine grace, which leads to spiritual enlightenment, transformation, and union with the divine. Grace is the illimitable love of God, made manifest in the person of Christ, who is the ultimate revelation of that grace. As believers partake in this grace, they are called into a new consciousness, one that transcends the limitations of the natural world and aligns with the divine will. Grace, through Charis, invites humanity to partake in the divine nature and to be restored to their original purpose as image-bearers of the Creator.

The Mandaeans

The Mandaeans

The only surviving gnostic sect today is that of the Mandaeans, who are not Christians but rather trace their religion back to John the Baptist and earlier prophets. The Mandaeans teach that this world was created by "the ruler of darkness," a demiurge known as Ptahil. The name Ptahil is derived from the ancient Egyptian Ptah, the Egyptian creator deity, and El, the Semitic term for God. Alongside Ptahil are two other quasi-demiurgic figures, Yushamin and Abathur. Ptahil, as the demiurgic creator and power of darkness, stands in contrast to the power of light, the true God. Thus, Mandaeism is a dualistic religion, akin to Zoroastrianism.

The proto-gnostic movement seems to have had a schism over the roles of John the Baptist and Jesus. The Mandaeans followed the teachings of John the Baptist and regarded him as a messianic figure, but they regarded Jesus as a "false messiah." The Mandaeans also rejected Moses and the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible).

 In Mandaeism, the laity are called mandaiia, "gnostics," while initiates into the priesthood are called naṣuraiia (naṣoreans).

Mandaeism: Theology, Cosmology, Ritual, and Sacred Texts

Introduction

Mandaeism is the only surviving Gnostic religious tradition from antiquity that continues to exist as a living community. Originating in Mesopotamia, it preserves a complex system of theology, cosmology, ritual practice, and sacred literature rooted in an Aramaic-speaking environment. Its adherents, the Mandaeans, see themselves as possessors of manda—knowledge or gnosis—which is not merely intellectual but salvific, mediated through ritual and revelation.

The religion is strongly dualistic, distinguishing between the World of Light and the World of Darkness. It is also deeply ritualistic, with practices such as repeated baptism forming the core of religious life. Central prophetic authority is given to John the Baptist, while figures such as Jesus are rejected within their tradition.

---

Theology

At the highest level of Mandaean theology stands the supreme being known as Hayyi Rabbi (“The Great Life”), also called the “King of Light” or “Lord of Greatness.” This being is the ultimate source of all reality and is entirely associated with the World of Light. (Wikipedia)

Unlike many other Gnostic systems, Mandaeism is not purely polytheistic or dualistic in a symmetrical sense. Rather, it presents a hierarchy of emanations proceeding from the supreme Life. These emanations are known as uthras (celestial beings or guardians), who mediate between the divine and lower realms.

Three major emanations play a crucial role in the structure of reality:

• Yushamin – the Second Life, a primal emanation who initiates creative processes

• Abatur – the Third Life, associated with judgment and the weighing of souls

• Ptahil – the Fourth Life, responsible for the formation of the material world

These beings are not independent gods but subordinate emanations from the supreme Light. 

---

Cosmology

Mandaean cosmology is built on a radical dualism between two primordial realms:

The World of Light

This is the realm of the supreme Life and the uthras. It is eternal, pure, and the source of truth and knowledge. Everything that is good originates here.

The World of Darkness

This is a chaotic and lower realm associated with materiality, ignorance, and corruption. It is not equal to the World of Light but stands in opposition to it.

The material world (often called Tibil) emerges as a result of a flawed or delegated act of creation. Rather than being directly created by the supreme deity, it is formed by lower emanations—especially Ptahil—with the involvement of darker forces such as Ruha. 

This results in a mixed cosmos: a world containing both light and darkness. Human beings themselves reflect this mixture, with a higher element originating from the World of Light and a bodily existence tied to the World of Darkness.

---

Mythology of Creation

The Mandaean mythological narrative begins with emanation from the First Life. The process unfolds in stages:

1. The supreme Light emanates Yushamin.

2. Yushamin, in an act resembling independent initiative, participates in the unfolding of creation.

3. From Yushamin comes Abatur, who occupies a mediating role.

4. From Abatur comes Ptahil, who ultimately shapes the material world.

In some traditions, Ptahil requires assistance from darker forces, especially Ruha, to complete creation. This results in an imperfect world, lacking the full qualities of the Light.

Abatur’s role is especially important in the afterlife. As the “weigher of souls,” he determines the fate of individuals after death, using scales to measure their spiritual condition. 

This mythological structure explains both the origin of the cosmos and the condition of humanity: beings trapped in a lower world but possessing a connection to the higher realm.

---

Anthropology and Salvation

Human beings are seen as composite entities:

• A higher element originating from the World of Light

• A bodily existence derived from the World of Darkness

Salvation in Mandaeism is not achieved through faith alone but through knowledge (manda) combined with ritual practice. The goal is the ascent of the individual after death through various cosmic realms back to the World of Light.

This ascent is not automatic. It requires:

• Proper ritual preparation

• Knowledge of divine names and structures

• Assistance from priests and sacred texts

---

Ritual Life

Mandaeism is one of the most ritual-centered religions in existence. Ritual is not symbolic alone—it is the mechanism by which connection to the World of Light is maintained.

Baptism (Masbuta)

The central ritual is masbuta, a repeated baptism performed in flowing water (living water such as rivers). Unlike Christianity, this is not a one-time initiation but a continual act of purification.

The ritual includes:

• Full immersion in water

• Anointing with oil

• Recitation of prayers from sacred texts

• Participation of a priest

Baptism is understood to cleanse impurity, restore connection to the Light, and strengthen the individual for the journey after death. (Philopedia)

Masiqta (Ritual for the Dead)

The masiqta is a complex funerary rite designed to guide the deceased through the afterlife.

It involves:

• Elaborate prayers

• Symbolic meals

• Ritual actions performed by priests

This ceremony ensures that the individual can pass through cosmic barriers and reach the World of Light successfully. (Philopedia)

Priesthood and Initiation

Mandaeism has a structured priesthood:

• Mandaiia – the laity

• Naṣuraiia (Nasoreans) – initiated priests

Priests undergo extensive training and initiation, including secret knowledge of rituals, texts, and divine names. Ritual authority is essential because salvation depends on correct performance of rites.

---

Sacred Texts

Mandaeism preserves a large corpus of sacred literature written in Mandaic (an Eastern Aramaic language). Many of these texts are esoteric and traditionally restricted to initiates.

Major Canonical Texts

• Ginza Rabba (Great Treasure)
  The primary scripture, divided into Right and Left sections, dealing with cosmology, theology, and the afterlife.

• Qolasta (Canonical Prayerbook)
  Contains liturgical texts used in rituals such as baptism and funerary rites.

• Mandaean Book of John
  Focuses on the teachings of John the Baptist and polemics against other religious traditions.

Esoteric and Priestly Texts

• Diwan Abatur
  Describes the journey of the soul and the role of Abatur in judgment.

• Haran Gawaita
  Provides a narrative of the origins and migrations of the Mandaeans.

• Alma Rišaia (The Great First World)
  Cosmological text describing the structure of the Lightworld.

• Scroll of Abatur (DC 8)
  Details the judgment of souls and cosmic geography.

• Asut Malkia (Healing Scroll)
  Contains ritual and magical instructions.

Many of these texts are considered secret, especially those used in priestly initiation. The tradition emphasizes that certain knowledge should not be revealed to outsiders.

---

Mythological Figures and Symbolism

Beyond the main emanations, Mandaean mythology includes numerous figures:

• Manda d-Hayyi – revealer of knowledge

• Hibil Ziwa – a savior figure who descends into the World of Darkness

• Ruha – a dark feminine figure associated with the lower world

• Planetary and zodiacal beings, often viewed negatively as part of the lower cosmic structure

These figures populate a richly symbolic universe in which every level of reality corresponds to spiritual conditions.

---

Dualism and Comparison

Mandaeism is often compared to Zoroastrianism because of its dualistic structure. However, the two systems differ significantly:

• In Mandaeism, darkness is not co-equal with light but subordinate and flawed

• Creation is indirect and mediated through lower beings

• Salvation is achieved through knowledge and ritual rather than moral dualism alone

---

Conclusion

Mandaeism represents a fully developed Gnostic system that integrates theology, cosmology, mythology, ritual practice, and sacred literature into a unified worldview. Its emphasis on repeated baptism, priestly mediation, and esoteric knowledge distinguishes it sharply from both mainstream Christianity and other Gnostic traditions.

At its core lies a vision of reality divided between Light and Darkness, mediated through emanations such as Yushamin, Abatur, and Ptahil. Human existence is understood as a condition of exile within a mixed world, and salvation is the return to the realm of Light through knowledge, ritual, and divine assistance.

Despite centuries of persecution and decline, the Mandaeans remain the last living representatives of an ancient Gnostic tradition, preserving a system that offers rare insight into the religious landscape of late antiquity.

Misreading False knowledge 1 Timothy 6:20

Misreading False knowledge 1 Timothy 6:20

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

A well known example is the misreading of the Greek word gnōsis in 1 Timothy 6:20 as a reference to Gnostic teaching. Having decided that the word referred to Gnosticism, expositors attempted to find evidence throughout the letter that the Gnostics were the specific false teachers mentioned. The conclusion that Paul was warning against Gnostics was then transferred wrongly to Paul’s other letters.

‘We must beware of imposing an outside situation upon the letters. For instance, in previous generations some scholars read Gnosticism from the second and third centuries A.D. into the New Testament letters, so that the opponents in almost every Pauline letter were identified as Gnostics. Virtually no one advocates the Gnostic hypothesis today, for it is illegitimate to read later church history into first century documents. The Gnostic detour could have been avoided if scholars had read the Pauline letters themselves more carefully, for evidence for full-fledged Gnosticism cannot be read out of his letters.’, Schreiner (complementarian), ‘Interpreting the Pauline Epistles’, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (3.9), (1999).

Dr John Thomas Christadelphian Connection to Medieval Gnosticism

---

Dr Thomas as a “Gnostic Historian”

Dr John Thomas: Christadelphian Connection to Medieval Gnosticism

Christadelphian origins come from Dr. John Thomas (1805–1871), who emigrated to North America from England in 1832. Thomas was born in Hoxton Square, Hackney, London, on 12 April 1805, and was the son of a Dissenting minister, also named John Thomas. His family is reputed to be descended from French Huguenot refugees (Blore, Charles B., Dr John Thomas: His Family and the Background of his Times). The distinctive family name "Bloy" comes from Blois in Normandy, and the Blois family settled in Norfolk in 1769.

In Greek, Christadelphian means “Brethren of Christ.” They trace their spiritual roots through such groups as the Waldenses, Albigenses, and Huguenots.

---

The Cathari

The Cathari (/ˈkæθərɪzəm/; from the Greek: καθαροί, katharoi, “the pure [ones]”) were a Christian dualist or Gnostic revival movement that thrived in some areas of Southern Europe, particularly what is now northern Italy and southern France, between the 12th and 14th centuries. The followers were known as Cathars. The adherents were sometimes called Albigenses, after the city Albi in southern France where the movement first took hold.

It is evident that the term Albigenses, or rather Albienses, employed by early historians, was taken from the town of Albi, where the Waldenses flourished (The Late Rev. Joseph Milner, The History Of The Church Of Christ, 1794–1809). Many medieval "heresies" were named after their founders, but some—the Albigenses, for example—were derived from particular localities or their manner of life (The Protesters, Alan Eyre).

In Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse, Dr. Thomas calls the Paulicians and Albigenses “the remnants of the woman’s seed” and claims they are part of the groups which make up the Two Witnesses:

"Thus, I have briefly tracked 'the remnants of the woman's seed,' under the names of Novatians, Donatists, Aerians, Paulicians and Albigenses, through a long and sanguinary period of sack-cloth-witnessing of a thousand years, against the Apostasy as by law established in 'the two Wings of the Great Eagle.'"

He continues:

"Now, the Puritan Woman, styled by her enemies and persecutors 'the Donatists;' but by the children of her body, Cathari, or the Pure Ones; for the first 1260 years of her existence was Providentially settled in the wings of the Roman Eagle. Her remnants were not to be found in Persia, India, China, or America: but after the discovery and settlement of America, the persecutions and massacre of her seed by the Serpent-Powers of Europe caused her to seek refuge in the American wilderness, whereby the help of 'the earth,' which styles itself 'the unterrified democracy,' she is fed and nourished to the full."

Thomas situates the flight of the faithful witnesses as historical and material, reflecting both Gnostic and apocalyptic dualism. The truth was corrupted into the Catholic apostacy in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (2 Thess 2), enthroned by Constantine AD 312–324 (Rev 12, 13, 17). Then the true witnesses fled into the wilderness and were given succor in "the two wings of the great eagle" (eastern and western provinces of the Roman Empire) for 1260 years (Rev 12:6,14). They were variously known as the Paulicians, Novatians, Donatists, Albigenses of Southern France, Waldenses of the Alps, Vaudois, Huguenots, and Anabaptists.

The 3rd Editor of the Christadelphian magazine, C. C. Walker, agrees with this interpretation:

"Rev 12 Verse 14.—'Two wings of a great eagle.' The extremities of the Roman Empire. 'The wilderness.' Exile from place and power. Geographically, Northern Africa first, and many other countries afterwards in the course of the 1,260 years. The wilderness wanderings of the woman are illustrated in the experiences of the Donatists, Novatians, Paulicians, Waldenses, Albigenses, &c." (Notes On The Apocalypse, C. C. Walker)

Contemporary Christadelphian writers have tried to distance themselves from such groups. Harry Whittaker notes:

"Dr Thomas turned a blind eye to the massive perversions of Truth by Donatists and Waldenses and Albigenses and Huguenots in desperate attempts to identify them with the Lord’s faithful remnant." (Revelation – A Biblical Approach, Harry Whittaker)

The Cathari were said to be a sect of the Albigenses. Both showed Gnostic tendencies (The Protesters, Alan Eyre).

Some Christadelphians have embraced the Socinians as their theological forebears, evident in Alan Eyre's historiographical works The Protesters and Brethren in Christ. However, Dr. Thomas knew of Socinianism and Unitarianism, yet harbored antipathy toward them, as well as toward Trinitarianism and Arianism:

"But the New Man of the Spirit is free, looking searchingly into the perfect law of liberty, and having no respect to 'the philosophy and empty delusion,' and antitheses of gnosis, or 'oppositions of science,' falsely so called, in which the flesh delights. He troubles not himself about Trinitarianism, or Antitrinitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism, or Socinianism. He has no more deference for these than for any other of 'the works of the Devil,' or for the Old Man himself." (Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse)

Christadelphians are neither Arians, Socinians, nor Trinitarians; rather, they are believers in the "great mystery of godliness, Deity manifested in Flesh," as preached in the apostles' teaching (Revelation of the Mystery).

---

The Huguenots

The label Huguenot was first applied in France to conspirators (mostly aristocratic members of the Reformed Church) involved in the Amboise plot of 1560. The term is derived from Hu-Gnosticorum, explicitly retaining the association with Gnosticism (Encyclopaedia Meropolitana, Vol XX, p. 381; Pasquier, Recherches de la France, vol. VIII, p. 53). Officially, the Huguenots were French Calvinist Protestants, members of the Reformed Church established by John Calvin in France around 1555.

---

Yahweh, Elohim, and Phanerosis

Dr. Thomas reduces Yahweh to the role of an angel or Demiurge in the biblical narrative. Yahweh is said to have appeared to Abraham as he sat at the door of his tent (Gen. 18:1). Abraham initially saw “three men” or Elohim, of whom one was the chief. Across Genesis 18–19, the Everlasting Deity acts through these Elohim, chiefly through one called Yahweh Elohim (Elpis Israel).

"God appears to Jacob in Genesis 35:9 and says in the second verse, 'I am God Almighty.' In the thirteenth verse we see God went up from the place where He talked with Jacob. At the time, he was at Bethel where the Elohim were previously revealed to him. On that occasion he dreamed he saw a ladder reaching from Earth to heaven with 'the Lord standing above it, and the Elohim of God ascending and descending.' These messengers or angels were the Elohim or 'ministering Spirits sent forth to assist those who will inherit salvation.'" (Elpis Israel)

Jacob encounters the “Invisible God” when wrestling with one of the Elohim (Gen. 32:24–30):

"So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'For I have seen God (the Elohim) face to face, and my soul is preserved.'"

Hosea clarifies:

"He took his brother by the heel in the womb; and by his strength he had power with God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us." (Ho 12:3–4)

The Elohim speak as personifications of the Invisible and Incorruptible Substance, the real author of all that they say and do. Moses alone came near Yahweh; the elders of Israel saw the Elohim (Exod. 24:10–11). Even Moses did not see the eternal spirit, only its manifestation:

"The glory of Yahweh like devouring fire," but neither they, Moses, nor their nobles, saw the face of the Eternal Substance himself.

This is phanerosis: the glory of Yahweh manifested through the medium of a corporeal angel or spirit-manifestation, enabling human perception of divine activity.

---

Thomas and Gnostic Continuity

Dr. Thomas’s views are not unique when considered alongside Gnostic interpretation. Elaine Pagels, in The Origin of Satan, highlights how early Christian groups personified evil forces as symbols of political and religious oppression. Celene Lillie, in The Rape of Eve, shows Yaldabaoth as a symbol of the Roman emperor. Similarly, ‘The Demiurge and his Archons’—A Gnostic View of the Bishop and Presbyters (HTR 69, 1976, Elaine Pagels) frames church leaders as material embodiments of corrupt power.

Insight: Dr. Thomas mirrors these symbolic interpretations, personifying the Papacy, European powers, and corrupt churches as the Dragon, Beast, or Devil in historical terms.

His interpretation of the Devil and Satan as historical and political forces rather than spiritual beings aligns with classical and medieval Gnosticism. The kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God correspond to historical dualism: the faithful remnant versus worldly corruption. Thomas historicizes the Gnostic critique of authority:

• Dragon = European imperial powers

• Beast = Papacy

• Serpent-powers = systemic persecution of the faithful

---

Conclusion

Dr. John Thomas, though a 19th-century Englishman and founder of the Christadelphian movement, can be seen as a “Gnostic historian.” His historiography adopts classical Gnostic dualism, applying it materially and historically to the institutions and empires of Europe. By personifying evil in historical powers and aligning the faithful with material manifestations of divine spirit, he continues a Gnostic lineage that includes the Cathari, Albigenses, Paulicians, and Waldenses.

His innovations—particularly corporeal emanation and historical-philosophical materialism—distinguish him from earlier Gnostics, yet his method of interpreting evil, exile, and the faithful remnant through apocalyptic symbolism is directly in continuity with medieval and early Christian Gnostic thought. As Elaine Pagels, Celene Lillie, and other scholars show, the symbolic historicization of Satan and the Demiurge was a consistent Gnostic strategy; Thomas simply adapts it to the historical-material and Christadelphian framework.

In sum, Thomas is not a unique visionary in his conceptual dualism, but his corporeal-material approach to phanerosis, divine emanation, and apocalyptic witness situates him as a distinctive figure bridging Gnostic interpretation and 19th-century Christadelphian theology.

---

Word count: 2,019

---

The Christadelphians and Knowledge

Most Christadelphians would strongly disagree that their faith is Gnostic. Yet this depends entirely on how one defines Gnosticism. There are at least two forms of gnosis: Mythological Gnosis and Non-Mythological Gnosis. Mythological Gnosis involves elaborate cosmologies, emanations, aeons, and mythic narratives about divine realms. Non-Mythological Gnosis, however, centers upon knowledge—specifically saving knowledge—without necessarily adopting mythological frameworks.

I would class the Christadelphians as a gnostic group which does not believe in Mythological Gnosis.

I have studied Christadelphian teachings since 2006 and was baptized in 2009. There is a great emphasis on knowledge in Christadelphian meetings. Bible study, doctrinal precision, and careful interpretation are central. The culture of the ecclesia revolves around correct understanding. The assumption is clear: right belief matters eternally.

Around 2011 I began to study the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Nag Hammadi Library. After studying certain Gnostic groups, particularly the Valentinians, I came to the conclusion that Christadelphians share some structural understandings with them—though not their mythology.

What is Gnosticism? Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the remote supreme divine being; esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit. Knowledge was not merely intellectual—it was transformative and salvific.

Christadelphians likewise believe that there is a process based around knowledge and work that leads to salvation. One must possess knowledge of what the Bible teaches if one would be saved. As stated in the Christadelphian Messenger:

“One must also possess knowledge of what the Bible teaches if one would be saved” (Christadelphian Messenger, No. 4, “The One Hope of Everlasting Salvation”; No. 47, “Christendom Creeds not Christianity,” p. 1; No. 11, “A Refuge from the Judgment Storm,” p. 4).

Christadelphians believe the Correct Knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις, εως, ἡ, epignósis) of the Gospel is essential for salvation. This concept of ἐπίγνωσις—full, precise knowledge—mirrors the Gnostic insistence that ignorance is the fundamental human problem. Christadelphians call their version of this teaching “Resurrectional Responsibility.” It is summarized in Bible Basics by Duncan Heaster:

1. Knowledge of God's Word brings responsibility to Him.

2. Only the responsible will be resurrected and judged.

3. Those who do not know the true God will therefore remain dead like the animals.

This teaching establishes a sharp distinction between the knowing and the unknowing. Knowledge creates accountability; ignorance results in remaining in the grave. The structure is strikingly similar to certain Gnostic frameworks in which awakening through knowledge separates the enlightened from the ignorant masses.

The Christadelphian Statement of Faith, formally known as the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF), reinforces this epistemological foundation. The entire Christadelphian Statement of Faith includes “the truth to be received,” “the commandments of Christ,” and “the doctrines to be rejected.”

In Clause 24 of the “truth to be received,” we read:

“That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living -- obedient and disobedient -- will be summoned before his judgment seat ‘to be judged according to their works,’ and ‘receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad.’
2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rom. 2:5-6, 16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 11:18.”

The phrase “those who know the revealed will of God” is crucial. Responsibility is grounded in knowledge. The part underlined in the historical development of the clause was inserted to rule out the belief that baptism made a person responsible rather than knowledge. Thus, knowledge—not ritual—is determinative.

In Clause 22 under “Doctrines to be Rejected,” we read:

“22. We reject the doctrine - that those without knowledge - through personal choice, immaturity, or lack of mental capacity - will be saved.
23. We reject the doctrine - that man can be saved by morality or sincerity, without the Gospel.
24. We reject the doctrine - that the Gospel alone will save, without obedience to Christ's commandments.”

These rejections further define the epistemological boundary. Salvation is not through sincerity. It is not through morality alone. It is not through ignorance. It requires knowledge of the Gospel and obedience flowing from that knowledge. In this sense, ignorance excludes; knowledge includes.

Christadelphians also possess a distinct dualism. There are two basic doctrines of the Bible, as expressed in their literature:

“There are two basic doctrines of the Bible: (a) The nature of flesh; and (b) the spirit manifestation of God. The former teaches us what we are, and what we must guard against; the latter outlines what we can become, and what we must aim for.”

This dual structure resembles certain Gnostic contrasts, though without mythological cosmology. Flesh represents what humanity presently is; spirit manifestation represents what humanity may become.

Another striking quotation reads:

“Men were not ushered into being for the purpose of being saved or lost! God manifestation not human salvation was the great purpose of the Eternal Spirit. The salvation of a multitude is incidental to the manifestation, but was not the end proposed. The Eternal Spirit intended to enthrone Himself on the earth, and in so doing, to develop a Divine family from among men, every one of whom shall be Spirit, because born of the Spirit, and that this family shall be large enough to fill the earth, when perfected, to the entire exclusion of flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15:28).”

Here the purpose of existence is not merely individual redemption but participation in divine manifestation. Salvation is subordinated to a larger revelatory process. This parallels Valentinian emphasis on participation in divine fullness—though again, without mythological aeons.

Christadelphians also distinguish between classes of believers. As written:

“into two classes the one the fellowservants, and the other the brethren, of the deceased souls. The brethren are fellowservants, but all the fellowservants were not brethren -- even as Christadelphians are christians, but all christians so-called are not Christadelphians.”

This differentiation resembles the Valentinian distinction between categories of people—though Christadelphians define theirs ecclesially rather than cosmologically. There is an inner body defined by shared doctrine and knowledge.

For these reasons, I describe myself as:

“I am a Gnostic Christadelphian.”

You may say that this is, is a contradiction if ever I've heard one. That's like saying “I'm a Muslim Catholic” or “I'm a Buddhist Mormon”.

But it is a self-definition and self-designation. It recognizes that Gnosis need not require mythological cosmology. It can simply denote the conviction that knowledge—ἐπίγνωσις—is essential for salvation. Christadelphians do not teach emanations or mythic divine hierarchies. They do not embrace Mythological Gnosis. Yet they place extraordinary emphasis on knowledge as salvific, boundary-defining, and responsibility-creating.

Therefore, the label “Gnostic Christadelphian” defies conventional categorization, yet accurately reflects a structural similarity: salvation is inseparable from knowledge.

It is very good to defy the laws of labels and be who you are.

The Evil Inclination Jeremiah 17:9

The Evil Inclination

There are numerous texts about the Yetzer HaRa (the Evil Inclination, aka "Satan") in the Jewish Talmud. The Jewish sages were in no way monolithic in their understanding of the source of our human capacity to do evil. They all agreed that humans are born with it. Here are a number of selections which present proof texts for this:

The following curt statement by Reish Lakish is the most controversial understanding of the Evil Inclination:

Baba Batra 16a:

R. Simeon ben Lakish said: Satan, impulse to evil, and angel of death: all three are the same thing.

So how persuasive is the Evil Inclination?

Brachot 61b:

It has been taught: R. Jose HaGalili says, The righteous are swayed by their good inclination, as it says, My heart is slain within me.

The wicked are swayed by their evil inclination, as it says, Transgression speaks to the wicked, I believe, there is no fear of God before his eyes.

Average people are swayed by both inclinations, as it says, Because He stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that judge his soul.

Raba said: People such as we are of the average.

Said Abaye to him: The Master gives no one a chance to live!

Raba further said: The world was created only for either the totally wicked or the totally righteous.

Raba said: Let a man know concerning himself whether he is completely righteous or not!

Three people never had any problem with the Evil Inclination:

Baba Batra 17a

Three there were over whom the evil inclination had no dominion: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...

For the rest of us, however, who are the most susceptible to the wiles of the Evil Inclination?

SCHOLARS!

Sukkah 52b

Abaye explained, Against scholars more than against anyone;

as was the case when Abaye heard a certain man saying to a woman, ‘Let us arise now and go on our way.'

‘I will', said Abaye, ‘follow them in order to keep them away from transgression' and he followed them for three parasangs across the meadows.

When they parted company he heard them say, ‘Our company is pleasant, the way is long.'

‘If it were I,' said Abaye, ‘I could not have restrained myself,' and so he went and leaned in deep anguish against a doorpost, when a certain old man came up to him and taught him: The greater the man, the greater his Evil Inclination.

Even when we mourn, we're not safe from the Evil Inclination's influence:

Chagigah 16a

For behold R. Elai the elder said: If a man sees that his [evil] inclination is prevailing upon him, let him go to a place where he is not known, and put on black garments, and wrap himself up in black garments, and let him do what his heart desires; but let him not profane the Name of Heaven publicly!

R. Judah son of R. Nahmani, the speaker of Resh Lakish expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: Trust not in a friend, put not confidence in a familiar friend.

If the evil inclination says to you: Sin and the Holy One, blessed be He, will pardon, believe it not, for it is said: ‘Trust not in a friend,' and ‘friend' [Rea'] means none other than one's evil inclination, for it is said: For the inclination of man's heart is evil [Ra']...

Oy! The Evil Inclination is so bad that it's one of the things God regrets creating:

Sukkah 52b

R. Hana b. Abba stated: It was said at the schoolhouse, There are four things of which the Holy One, blessed be He, regrets that He had created them, and they are the following: Exile, the Chaldeans, the Ishmaelites and Evil Inclination.

‘The Exile', since it is written, Now, therefore, what do I here, says Adonai, seeing that My people is taken away for nothing; (Isaiah 52:5)

‘the Chaldeans', since it is written, Behold the land of the Chaldeans; this is the people that was not." (Isaiah 23:13)

‘the Ishmaelites', since it is written, The tents of the robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure since God brought them with His hand." (Job 12)

‘the Evil Inclination', since it is written, [And I will gather her that is driven away] and her that I have afflicted.(Micah 4:6)

Is there no hope against the Evil Inclination? Of course there is!

Sukkah 52b:

The school of R. Ishmael taught, If this repulsive wretch meets you, drag him to the Beit Hamidrash, the House of Study.

Despite the power of the Evil Inclination, we are still held responsible; we can beat it. The following selection deals with Psalm 4:5: Tremble and sin not; Commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still. Sela."

Brachot 5a:

R. Levi b. Hama says in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: A man should always incite the good impulse to fight against the evil impulse.

For it is written: Tremble and sin not.

If he subdues it, well and good.

If not, let him study the Torah. For it is written: ‘Commune with your own heart.'

If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him recite the Shema'.

For it is written: ‘Upon your bed.'

If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him remind himself of the day of death. For it is written: ‘And be still, Selah.'

Avot D'Rabbi Natan 16:

"The impulse of man's heart was evil from the time he was expelled from his mother's womb." (Gen. 8:21).

If you argue: "Is it not the Holy One Himself who created the impulse to evil, of which it is written, 'The impulse of man's heart was evil from the time he was expelled from his mother's womb?' Who then can possibly make it good?"

the Holy One replies, "You are the one who makes the impulse to evil stay evil.

How? When you were a child, you did not sin. Only when you grew up, you began to sin."

If you argue: "But no man can guard himself against it!"

the Holy One replies, "How many things in the world are even less bearable and more bitter than the impulse to evil, yet you manage to sweeten them.

Nothing is more bitter than the lupine, and yet, in order to sweeten it, you carefully boil it in water seven times, until it becomes sweet.

Now, if you sweeten for your need bitter things that I alone created, all the greater is your responsibility for the impulse to evil, which was placed under your control."

Baba Batra 16a

"Although you know that I am not wicked, and there is none that can deliver out of your hand."

Raba said: Job sought to exculpate the whole world.

He said: Sovereign of the Universe, You have created the ox with cloven hoofs and you have created the ass with whole hoofs;

you have created Paradise and you have created Gehinnom:

you have created righteous men and you have created wicked men, and who can prevent you?

His companions answered him: Yea, you do away with fear and restrain devotion before God.

If God created the evil inclination, He also created the Torah as its antidote.

Baba Metzia 32b

Come and hear: If a friend requires unloading, and an enemy loading, one's [first] obligation is towards his enemy, in order to subdue his evil inclinations.

Now if you should think that [relieving the suffering of an animal is Biblically [enjoined], [surely] the other is preferable!

Even so, [the motive] ‘in order to subdue his evil inclination' is more compelling.

The most extraordinary story about a sage overcoming his Evil Inclination is not found in the Talmud: it's from a midrash collection called the Tanchuma. However, because of its remarkable imagery, I'm including it here.

A story of Matia ben Heresh: He was rich and feared Heaven and, like R. Meir, his teacher, sat all his days in the house of study occupying himself with Torah.

Now, the splendor of his countenance shone like the radiance of the sun, and the beauty of his features resembled that of the ministering angels. It was said of him that never in his life had he raised his eyes upon a woman.

Once, Satan passed by and, seeing him, was overcome with envy as he said: Is it possible that there is a righteous man entirely without sin in the world? At once he went up to the height above, stood before the Holy One, and said, "Master of the universe, Matia ben Heresh:what sort of man is he in Your sight?"

God: "He is utterly righteous."

Satan: "Give me permission, and I will test him."

God: "You will not prevail over him."

Satan: "Nevertheless!"

So God gave him permission.

Satan went and found R. Matia seated and occupied with Torah. So he appeared to him in the guise of a beautiful woman, the like of which there had not been in the world since the days of Naamah, Tubal-Cain's sister, on account of whom ministering angels went astray.

Satan stood in front of R. Matia, who, upon seeing him, turned his back to him.

Satan went around and again stood in front of R. Matia. When R. Matia turned his face to still another direction, Satan was once more in front of him.

When R. Matia saw that Satan [in the woman's guise] turned up on all sides, he said to himself: I fear that the impulse to evil will gain mastery over me and cause me to sin.

What did that righteous man do then?

He summoned one of his disciples, who acted as his attendant, and said to him: My son, go and bring me fire and nails.

After he brought them, R. Matia passed the nails through the fire, then plunged them into his own eyes.

When Satan saw this, he was shaken, all but knocked out, and left R. Matia.

In that instant, the Holy One summoned Raphael, prince of healings, and said to him, "Go and heal the eyes of Matia ben Heresh."

When Raphael came and stood before him, Matia asked, "Who are you?"

Raphael answered, "I am the angel Raphael, whom the Holy One had sent to heal your eyes."

Matia: "Let me be. What happened has happened."

Raphael returned to the Holy One and reported to Him, "Master of the universe, thus-and-thus did Matia ben Heresh answer me."

The Holy One said, "Go and tell him: From this day and henceforth, fear not. I guarantee you in this matter that, throughout your days, the impulse to evil will have no sway over you."

When Matia ben Heresh heard God's guarantee from the angel, he was willing to accept the angel's healing and was healed.

The Evil Inclination
(continued)

There are numerous texts about the Yetzer HaRa (the Evil Inclination, aka "Satan") in the Jewish Talmud. The Jewish sages were in no way monolithic in their understanding of the source of our human capacity to do evil. They all agreed that humans are born with it. Here are a number of selections which present proof texts for this:

Brachot 61a

R. Nachman b. R. Hisda expounded: What is meant by the text, Then the Lord God formed [va-yitzer] man?

[The word va-yitzer] is written with two yods, to show that God created two inclinations, one good and the other evil.

R. Nachman b. Isaac demurred to this. According to this, he said, animals, of which it is not written va-yitzer (with two yods), should have no evil inclination yet we see that they injure and bite and kick?

In truth [the point of the two yods] is as stated by R. Simeon b. Pazzi; for R. Simeon b. Pazzi said: Woe is me because of my Creator [yotzri]; woe is me because of my evil inclination [yitzri]!

Or again as explained by R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar; for R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar said: God created two countenances in the first man, as it says, Behind and before have You formed me....
Sanhedrin 91b:

Antoninus asked Rabbi, "At what time does the impulse to evil gain mastery over man: at the time of his conception or at the time he is born?"

Rabbi: "At the time of his conception."

Antoninus: "If so, he would have kicked his way out of his mother's womb. Accordingly, the impulse to evil must gain mastery at the time of birth."

Subsequently, Rabbi used to say: This is one thing that Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is said, "At the door [through which the newborn child issues], sin crouches" (Gen. 4:7).
Avot D'Rabbi Natan 16:

Come and observe: a kid or a lamb, when it sees a pit, turns back, since in an animal there is no impulse to evil [to lead it to harm].

But an infant: the impulse to evil drives him headlong [to destruction], so that the infant places his hand on a serpent or a scorpion and is stung by it, or he places his hand on glowing coals and is burned....

The following text from Avot D'Rabbi Natan 16 is the most depressing statement about the Evil Inclination that I've read; it provides such a sense of futility about a child's development!

The sages said: The impulse to evil is [at least] thirteen years older than the impulse to good.

It begins growing with a child in the mother's womb and comes out with him. If the child is about to profane the Sabbath, it does not deter him;

if the child is about to take a life, it does not deter him;

if the child is about to commit an act of unchastity, it does not deter him.

Only at the age of thirteen is the impulse to good born in a child.<BR.
If then he is about to profane the Sabbath, it warns him: "You fool! Scripture states, 'Everyone that profanes it shall surely be put to death.' " (Exodus 31:14)

If he is about to take a life, it warns him: "You fool! Scripture says, 'Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.' " (Genesis 9:6)

If he is about to commit an act of unchastity, it warns him: "You fool! Scripture states, 'Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.' " (Leviticus 20:10)

When a man stirs up his passion and is about to commit an act of lewdness, all parts of his body are ready to obey him. On the other hand, when a man is about to perform an act of piety, all his parts become laggard, because the impulse to evil in his innards is ruler of the two hundred and forty-eight parts of his body, whereas the impulse to good is like a man confined in a prison.
The following selections all try to describe the site and basic "nature" of the evil inclination

Brachot 61a:

Rav said: The evil inclination resembles a fly and dwells between the two entrances of the heart, as it says, Dead flies make the ointment of the perfumers fetid and putrid.

Samuel said: It is a like a kind of wheat [chittah], as it says, Sin [chattat] couches at the door.

Our Rabbis taught: Man has two kidneys, one of which prompts him to good, the other to evil; and it is natural to suppose that the good one is on his right side and the bad one on his left, as it is written, A wise man's understanding is at his right hand, but a fool's understanding is at his left. (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
Sukkah 52a:

R. Assi stated, The Evil Inclination is at first like the thread of a spider, but ultimately becomes like cart ropes, as it is said, Woe to them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart-rope.
Sukkah 52b:

R. Yochanan remarked, There is a small organ in man which satisfies him when in hunger and makes him hunger when he's satisfied, as it is said, When they were starved they became full. (Hosea 13:6)

R. Isaac said: A man's impulse to evil renews itself [in allure] every day, as is said, "Every impulse wrought by his mind was sheer evil every day" (Gen. 6:5).

R. Simeon ben Lakish said: A man's impulse to evil grows in strength from day to day and seeks to slay him, as is said, "The wicked watch the righteous, and seek to slay him." (Psalm 37:32)

And but for the Holy One who is his help, he could not withstand it, as is said, "The Lord will not leave him in his hand." (Psalm 37:33)
Shabbat 105b

"There shall no strange god be in you." (Psalm 81:10). What is the strange god within a man's body? It is none other than the impulse to evil.
Sotah 8a:

Rava said: We have a tradition that the impulse to evil dominates only what its eyes see.
Kiddushin 30b:

Our masters taught: The impulse to evil is hard to bear, since even its Creator called it evil, for He said, "From his youth the impulse in man's heart is evil." (Gen. 8:21)
Niddah 13b:

Rav stated: ‘A man who wilfully causes erection should be placed under the ban.'

But why did he not say, ‘This is forbidden?'

Because the man merely incites his evil inclination against himself.

R. Ammi, however, stated: He is called a renegade, because such is the art of the evil inclination: Today it incites man to do one wrong thing, and tomorrow it incites him to worship idols and he proceeds to worship them.
Sukkah 52a-b:

In the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the righteous and the wicked.

To the righteous it will have the appearance of a towering hill,

and to the wicked it will have the appearance of a hair thread.

Both the former and the latter will weep;

the righteous will weep saying, ‘How were we able to overcome such a towering hill!'

The wicked also will weep saying, ‘How is it that we were unable to conquer this hair thread!'

And the Holy One, blessed be He, will also marvel together with them, as it is said, Thus says the Lord of Hosts, If it be marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it shall also be marvelous in My eyes.

R. ‘Avira or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi, made the following exposition: The Evil Inclination has seven names.

The Holy One, blessed be He, called it Evil, as it is said, For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.

Moses called it the Uncircumcised, as it is said, Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart.

David called it Unclean, as it is said, Create me a clean heart, O Lord, which implies that there is an unclean one.

Solomon called it the Enemy, as it is said, If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat and if he be thirsty give him water to drink. For you will heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord will reward you;

read not, ‘will reward you' but ‘will cause it to be at peace with you.'

Isaiah called it the Stumbling-Block, as it is said, Cast you up, Cast you up, clear the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people.

Ezekiel called it Stone, as it is said, And I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh.

Joel called it the Hidden One, as it is said, But I will remove far off from you the hidden one.


　

The Serpent is not the devil but Adam

The Serpent is not the devil but Adam

The Serpent, through his lie, deceived the woman causing her to die. This is that devil who was a murder and a liar from the beginning, and Jesus says he was the father of those Jews who were making of none effect His Father’s words by their “traditions of men”, thereby deceiving the people. Here the “seed of the Serpent” is defined by Jesus as men who are deceived by the evil imaginations of their hearts.

If the seed of the serpent are men, then the forefather must have been “man”; and the temptation of the woman in the Garden of Eden was “the drawing away of her own desire and seduced”; however, it pleases God to designate this as a Serpent. Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals. Jesus said to his followers “be ye WISE AS SERPENTS but harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

It is well known that serpents (reptiles) possess no particular intelligence to imitate. The nature of the curse pronounced is suggestive of something more than mere serpent life and intellect, so the serpent as used by the Lord is a figure of speech and symbolizes ungodly men. Also the curse upon the serpent was that “dust shalt thou eat” (Genesis 3:14) and “dust shall be the serpent’s MEAT” (Isaiah 65:25).

This is in keeping with God’s statement to Adam, “Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” The reward (meat) of obedience is “Life” while the reward (meat) of disobedience is “Death” (dust). Adam and Eve associated and communed with the angels in the Garden of Eden.

They had no way of knowing what death was, they had not experienced it. The wicked thought in Eve’s mind (heart), relative to the Adam’s instructions, deceived her and it was recorded in the Bible as a conversation between a serpent and the woman. It was the same with Jesus. He had thoughts of temptation in his mind (heart) relating to his Father’s words; however, he was not deceived by them nor was he drawn away by the lust (desire) to use that great power given Him at His baptism for personal satisfaction and gain. So by one man’s disobedience, sin entered the world and death by sin, so also by one man’s obedience life has been made sure unto many.

We may deduce that the “Serpent” is a symbol of cunning and crafty deceit in the heart of man. So when a man “becomes as a child” and receives instruction by the “Word of the Lord” and his thoughts are those of the spirit then the cunning and crafty deceit and disobedience (the Serpent, that old devil and Satan) are crushed and put to death by the “spirit of obedience.” Of course we (men) can do nothing of ourselves but God gives us the victory through Jesus who accomplished the work perfectly.

What are the Three Keys to Enlightenment?

what are the three keys to enlightenment?

what are the keys to enlightenment?

There are three keys which open the door to enlightenment

The keys are

Brotherly love, an humble mind, and solid in the faith.

The thing about faith is this if you do not have it you can not understand it. However if you do, no explanation is necessary.

1 Peter 3:8 Finally, all of YOU be like-minded, showing fellow feeling, having brotherly affection, tenderly compassionate, humble in mind, 9 not paying back injury for injury or reviling for reviling, but, to the contrary, bestowing a blessing, because YOU were called to this [course], so that YOU might inherit a blessing.

2 Peter 1:5 Yes, for this very reason, by YOUR contributing in response all earnest effort, supply to YOUR faith virtue, to [YOUR] virtue knowledge, 6 to [YOUR] knowledge self-control, to [YOUR] self-control endurance, to [YOUR] endurance godly devotion, 7 to [YOUR] godly devotion brotherly affection, to [YOUR] brotherly affection love. 8 For if these things exist in YOU and overflow, they will prevent YOU from being either inactive or unfruitful regarding the accurate knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A short Hymn

Amen. Blessing and glory, and wisdom and
thanksgiving, and honour, and pow’r, and might,
be unto our God for ever and ever.

Blessing and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour,
and pow’r, and might, be unto our God for
ever and ever. Amen.