首頁加入會員會員登入點數說明網站地圖聯絡我們奉獻支持 (尚未登入) 串聯貼紙 6月2日 星期二
更多>>
 

服務列表
靈修
資訊
社群
知識
分享
遊戲
台灣聖經網
靈糧中心 線上奉獻
代禱信 登廣告


每日一詞 主題辭典 聖經人名 聖經地名 聖經英文

搜尋方式: 本搜尋引擎限搜尋一個字,採模糊比對。

目前本系統共收錄了 1,856 個聖經相關人名
以及 HDBN 包含了 2,616 個姓名的意義解釋。


中文名字 英文名字 查詢經文 代表經文 Nave's Topical Bible ISBE Easton HBND SDB
革老丟 CLAUDIUS
代表
徒18:2 徒11:28
ISBE
klo-di-us (Klaudios): Fourth Roman emperor. He reigned for over 13 years (41-54 AD), having succeeded Caius (Caligula) who had seriously altered the conciliatory policy of his predecessors regarding the Jews and, considering himself a real and corporeal god, had deeply offended the Jews by ordering a statue of himself to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem, as Antiochus Epiphanes had done with the statue of Zeus in the days of the Maccabees (2 Macc 6:2). Claudius reverted to the policy of Augustus and Tiberius and marked the opening year of his reign by issuing edicts in favor of the Jews (Ant., XIX, 5), who were permitted in all parts of the empire to observe their laws and customs in a free and peaceable manner, special consideration being given to the Jews of Alexandria who were to enjoy without molestation all their ancient rights and privileges. The Jews of Rome, however, who had become very numerous, were not allowed to hold assemblages there (Dio LX, vi, 6), an enactment in full correspondence with the general policy of Augustus regarding Judaism in the West. The edicts mentioned were largely due to the intimacy of Claudius with Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, who had been living in Rome and had been in some measure instrumental in securing the succession for Claudius. As a reward for this service, the Holy Land had a king once more. Judea was added to the tetrarchies of Philip and Antipas; and Herod Agrippa I was made ruler over the wide territory which had been governed by his grandfather. The Jews own troubles during the reign of Caligula had given "rest" (the American Standard Revised Version "peace") to the churches "throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria" (Acts 9:31). But after the settlement of these troubles, "Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church" (Acts 12:1). He slew one apostle and "when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize" another (Acts 12:3). His miserable death is recorded in Acts 12:20-23, and in Ant, XIX, 8. This event which took place in the year 44 AD is held to have been coincident with one of the visits of Paul to Jerusalem. It has proved one of the chronological pivots of the apostolic history.
Whatever concessions to the Jews Claudius may have been induced out of friendship for Herod Agrippa to make at the beginning of his reign, Suetonius records (Claud. chapter 25) "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit," an event assigned by some to the year 50 AD, though others suppose it to have taken place somewhat later. Among the Jews thus banished from Rome were Aquila and Priscilla with whom Paul became associated at Corinth (Acts 18:2). With the reign of Claudius is also associated the famine which was foretold by Agabus (Acts 11:28). Classical writers also report that the reign of Claudius was, from bad harvest or other causes, a period of general distress and scarcity over the whole world (Dio LX, 11; Suet. Claud. xviii; Tac. Ann. xi. 4; xiii.43; see Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, chapter ix; and Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul, I).
J. Hutchison
Easton
lame. (1.) The fourth Roman emperor. He succeeded Caligula (A.D. 41). Though in general he treated the Jews, especially those in Asia and Egypt, with great indulgence, yet about the middle of his reign (A.D. 49) he banished them all from Rome (Acts 18:2). In this edict the Christians were included, as being, as was supposed, a sect of Jews. The Jews, however soon again returned to Rome. During the reign of this emperor, several persecutions of the Christians by the Jews took place in the dominions of Herod Agrippa, in one of which the apostle James was "killed" (12:2). He died A.D. 54. (2.) Claudius Lysias, a Greek who, having obtained by purchase the privilege of Roman citizenship, took the name of Claudius (Acts 21:31-40; 22:28; 23:26).
SBD
(lame ), fourth Roman emperor, reigned from 41 to 54 A.D. He was nominated to the supreme power mainly through the influence of Herod Agrippa the First. In the reign of Claudius there were several famines, arising from unfavorable harvests, and one such occurred in Palestine and Syria. ( Acts 11:28-30 ) Claudius was induced by a tumult of the Jews in Rome to expel them from the city. cf. ( Acts 18:2 ) The date of this event is uncertain. After a weak and foolish reign he was poisoned by his fourth wife, Agrippina, the mother of Nero, October 13, A.D. 54.
革老丟呂西亞 CLAUDIUS LYSIAS
代表
徒23:26 徒21:37 徒22:28 徒21:31 徒23:26 徒23:27 徒23:28 徒23:29 徒23:30 徒24:22
ISBE
klo-di-us lis-i-as Klaudios Lysias): A chief captain who intervened when the Jews sought to do violence to Paul at Jerusalem (Acts 21:31; 24:22). Lysias, who was probably a Greek by birth (compare Acts 21:37), and who had probably assumed the Roman forename Claudius (Acts 23:26) when he purchased the citizenship (Acts 22:28), was a military tribune or chiliarch (i.e. leader of 1,000 men) in command of the garrison stationed in the castle overlooking the temple at Jerusalem. Upon learning of the riot instigated by the Asiatic Jews, he hastened down with his soldiers, and succeeded in rescuing Paul from the hands of the mob. As Paul was the apparent malefactor, Lysias bound him with two chains, and demanded to know who he was, and what was the cause of the disturbance. Failing amid the general tumult to get any satisfactory reply, he conducted Paul to the castle, and there questioned him as to whether he was the "Egyptian," an postor that had lately been defeated by Felix (Josephus, BJ, II, xiii, 5; Ant, XX, viii, 6). Upon receiving the answer of Paul that he was a "Jew of Tarsus," he gave him permission to address the people from the stairs which connected the castle and the temple. As the speech of Paul had no pacifying effect, Lysias purposed examining him by scourging; but on learning that his prisoner was a Roman citizen, he desisted from the attempt and released him from his bonds. The meeting of the Sanhedrin which Lysias then summoned also ended in an uproar, and having rescued Paul with difficulty he conducted him back to the castle. The news of the plot against the life of one whom he now knew to be a Roman citizen decided for Lysias that he could not hope to cope alone with so grave a situation. He therefore dispatched Paul under the protection of a bodyguard to Felix at Caesarea, along with a letter explaining the circumstances (Acts 23:26-30. The genuineness of this letter has been questioned by some, but without sufficient reason.) In this letter he took care to safeguard his own conduct, and to shield his hastiness in binding Paul. There is evidence (compare Acts 24:22) that Lysias was also summoned to Caesarea at a later date to give his testimony, but no mention is made of his arrival there. It is probable, however, that he was among the chief captains who attended the trial of Paul before King Agrippa and Festus (compare Acts 25:22). For the reference to him in the speech of Tertullus (see Acts 24:7 the Revised Version, margin), see TERTULLUS.
C. M. Kerr
SBD
[LYSIAS]
革老底亞 CLAUDIA
代表
提後4:21
ISBE
klo-di-a (Klaudia): A member of the Christian congregation at Rome, who, with other members of that church, sends her greetings, through Paul, to Timothy (2 Tim 4:21). More than this concerning her cannot be said with certainty. The Apostolical Constitutions (VII, 21) name her as the mother of Linus, mentioned subsequently by Irenaeus and Eusebius as bishop of Rome. An ingenious theory has been proposed, upon the basis of the mention of Claudia and Pudens as husband and wife in an epigram of Martial, that they are identical with the persons of the same name here mentioned. A passage in the Agricola of Tacitus and an inscription found in Chichester, England, have been used in favor of the further statement that this Claudia was a daughter of a British king, Cogidubnus. See argument by Alford in the Prolegomena to 2 Tim in his Greek Testament. It is an example of how a very few data may be used to construct a plausible theory. If it be true, the contrast between their two friends, the apostle Paul, on the one hand, and the licentious poet, Martial, on the other, is certainly unusual. If in 2 Tim 4:21, Pudens and Claudia be husband and wife, it is difficult to explain how Linus occurs between them. See argument against this in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers.
H. E. Jacobs
Easton
a female Christian mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:21. It is a conjecture having some probability that she was a British maiden, the daughter of king Cogidunus, who was an ally of Rome, and assumed the name of the emperor, his patron, Tiberius Claudius, and that she was the wife of Pudens.
HDBN
Claudius
SBD
(lame ), a Christian woman mentioned in ( 2 Timothy 4:21 ) as saluting Timotheus.
革舜 GERSHOM
代表
出2:22 出18:3 士18:30
ISBE
gur-shom (gereshom, from garash, "to cast out"; explained, however, in Ex 2:22 and 18:3 as from gur, "For he said, I have been a sojourner in a foreign land"):
(1) Firstborn son of Moses and Zipporah. The only details of his life contained in the Pentateuch are the account of his circumcision (Ex 4:25), and his remaining under the care of Jethro, while Moses was in Egypt leading the Exodus. His descendants were numbered among the tribes of Levi (1 Ch 23:14). One of them apparently was the Jonathan who officiated as priest of the idolatrous sanctuary at Dan, and whose descendants held the office until the captivity. The Massoretic Text inserts a suspended nun, "n," in the name of Moses (mosheh), causing it to be lead Manasseh, for the purpose, according to tradition, of disguising the name out of respect for the revered Lawgiver. Another descendant described as a "son" was Shebuel, a ruler over the treasuries of David.
(2) A son of Levi, so called in 1 Ch 6:16,17,20,43,12,71 (Hebrew 1,2,5,28,47,56); 15:7; elsewhere GERSHON (which see).
(3) A descendant of Phinehas, the head of a fathers house, who journeyed with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezr 8:2).
Ella Davis Isaacs
Easton
expulsion. (1.) The eldest son of Levi (1 Chr. 6:16, 17, 20, 43, 62, 71; 15:7)=GERSHON (q.v.). (2.) The elder of the two sons of Moses born to him in Midian (Ex. 2:22; 18:3). On his way to Egypt with his family, in obedience to the command of the Lord, Moses was attacked by a sudden and dangerous illness (4:24-26), which Zipporah his wife believed to have been sent because he had neglected to circumcise his son. She accordingly took a "sharp stone" and circumcised her son Gershom, saying, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me", i.e., by the blood of her child she had, as it were, purchased her husband, had won him back again. (3.) A descendant of Phinehas who returned with Ezra from Babylon (Ezra 8:2). (4.) The son of Manasseh (Judg. 18:30), in R.V. "of Moses."
HDBN
a stranger here
SBD
(a stranger or exile ). The first-born son of Moses and Zipporah. ( Exodus 2:22 ; 18:3 ) (B.C. 1530.) The form under which the name GERSHON--the eldest son of Levi--is given in several passages of Chronicles, viz., ( 1 Chronicles 6:16 1 Chronicles 6:17 1 Chronicles 6:20 1 Chronicles 6:43 1 Chronicles 6:62 1 Chronicles 6:71 ; 15:7 ) The representative of the priestly family of Phinehas, among those who accompanied Ezra from Babylon. ( Ezra 8:2 ) (B.C. 536.)
革順 GERSHON
代表
出6:16 創46:11 代上6:1 拉8:2
Easton
=Ger'shom expulsion, the eldest of Levi's three sons (Gen. 46:11; Ex. 6:16). In the wilderness the sons of Gershon had charge of the fabrics of the tabernacle when it was moved from place to place, the curtains, veils, tent-hangings (Num. 3: 21-26). Th
HDBN
his banishment; the change of pilgrimage
SBD
(exile ). The eldest of the three sons of Levi, born before the descent of Jacobs family into Egypt. ( Genesis 46:11 ; Exodus 6:16 ) (B.C. before 1706.) But, though the eldest born, the families of Gershon were outstripped in fame by their younger brethren of Kohath, from whom sprang Moses and the priestly line of Aaron.
音利 IMRI
代表
代上9:4 尼3:2
ISBE
im-ri (imri):
(1) A Judahite (1 Ch 9:4).
(2) Father of Zaccur who helped to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh 3:2).
HDBN
speaking; exalting; bitter; a lamb
音拉 IMLAH
代表
王上22:8 王上22:9 代下18:7 代下18:8 代上7:36
HDBN
plentitude; circumcision
音拉 IMRAH
代表
代上7:36
ISBE
im-ra (yimrah): A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7:36).
HDBN
a rebel; waxing bitter; changing
SBD
(stubborn ), a descendant of Asher, of the family of Zophah ( 1 Chronicles 7:36 ) (B.C. after 1445.)
音拿 JIMNAH
代表
創46:17 民26:44 代上7:30 代下31:14
HDBN
right hand; numbering; preparing
SBD
= JIMNA = IMNAH. ( Genesis 46:17 )
音那 IMNA
代表
代上7:35
ISBE
im-na (yimna`): A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7:35).
SBD
(holding back ), a descendant of Asher, son of Helem. ( 1 Chronicles 7:35 ) comp. 1Chr 7:40 (B.C. about 1461.)
音麥 IMMER
代表
代上24:14 拉2:37 拉10:20 尼3:29 尼7:40 尼11:13 耶20:1
ISBE
im-er (immer):
(1) A priest of Davids time (1 Ch 24:14), whose descendants are mentioned in Ezr 2:37; 10:20; Neh 3:29; 7:40; 11:13.
(2) A priest of Jeremiahs time (Jer 20:1).
(3) A place in Babylonia (Ezr 2:59; Neh 7:61).
Easton
talkative. (1.) The head of the sixteenth priestly order (1 Chr. 24:14). (2.) Jer. 20:1. (3.) Ezra 2:37; Neh. 7:40. (4.) Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61. (5.) The father of Zadok (Neh. 3:29).
HDBN
saying; speaking; a lamb
SBD
(talkative ). The founder of an important family of priests. ( 1 Chronicles 9:12 ; Nehemiah 11:13 ) This family had charge of, and gave its name to, the sixteenth course of the service. ( 1 Chronicles 24:14 ) (B.C. 1014.) Apparently the name of a place in Babylonia. ( Ezra 2:59 ; Nehemiah 7:61 )
馬但 MATTHAN
代表
太1:15 路3:24
ISBE
mat-than (Textus Receptus Matthan, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Maththan): An ancestor of Jesus, grandfather of Joseph the husband of Mary (Mt 1:15).
See MATTHAT.
Easton
gift, one of our Lord's ancestry (Matt. 1:15).
HDBN
same as Mattan
SBD
(gift ), grandfather of Joseph the husband of the Virgin Mary. ( Matthew 1:15 )
馬利亞 MARY
代表
路1:26 路1:27 路1:28 路1:29 路1:30 路1:31 路1:32 路1:33 路1:34 路1:35 路1:36 路1:37 路1:38 路1:39 路1:40 路1:41 路1:42 路1:43 路1:44 路1:45 路1:46 路1:47 路1:48 路1:49 路1:50 路1:51 路1:52 路1:53 路1:54 路1:55 路1:56 太1:18 太1:19 太1:20 太1:21 太1:22 太1:23 太1:24 太1:25 太27:56 可15:40 可15:47
ISBE
ma-ri, mar-i (Maria, Mariam, Greek form of Hebrew miryam):
I. DEFINITION AND QUESTIONS OF IDENTIFICATION
The Name Mary in the New Testament
II. MARY, THE VIRGIN
1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives
2. Mary at Cana
3. Mary and the Career of Jesus
4. Mary at the Cross
5. Mary in the Christian Community
6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition
(1) Legend
(2) Dogma
(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness
(b) Dogma of Marys Perpetual Virginity
(c) Doctrine of Marys Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor
(3) Conclusion
III. MARY MAGDALENE
1. Mary Not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7
2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck
IV. MARY OF BETHANY
1. Attack upon Lukes Narrative
2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone
3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison
4. Character of Mary
V. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES
VI. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JOHN MARK
I. Definition and Questions of Identification.
A Hebrew feminine proper name of two persons in the Old Testament (see Ex 15:20; Nu 12:1; Mic 6:4; 1 Ch 4:17) and of a number not certainly determined in the New Testament. The prevalence of the name in New Testament times has been attributed, with no great amount of certainty, to the popularity of Mariamne, the last representative of the Hasmonean family, who was the second wife of Herod I.
The Name Mary in the New Testament:
(1) The name Mary occurs in 51 passages of the New Testament to which the following group of articles is confined (see MIRIAM). Collating all these references we have the following apparent notes of identification: (a) Mary, the mother of Jesus; (b) Mary Magdalene; (c) Mary, the mother of James; (d) Mary, the mother of Joses; (e) Mary, the wife of Clopas; (f) Mary of Bethany; (g) Mary, the mother of Mark; (h) Mary of Rome; (i) the "other" Mary.
(2) A comparison of Mt 27:56; 28:1 with Mk 15:47 seems clearly to identify the "other" Mary with Mary the mother of Joses.
(3) Mk 15:40 identifies Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses (compare Mk 15:47) (see Allens note on Mt 27:56).
(4) At this point a special problem of identification arises. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned as being present at the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, the latters sister and Mary of Magdala (Jn 19:25). In the other notices of the group at the cross, Mary, the mother of James, is mentioned (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40). Elsewhere, James is regularly designated "son of Alpheus" (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15). Since it can hardly be doubted that James, the apostle, and James the Less, the son of Mary, are one and the same person, the conclusion seems inevitable that Mary, the mother of James, is also the wife of Alpheus. Here we might stop and leave the wife of Clopas unidentified, but the fact that the name Alpheus (Alphaios) is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic chalpay, together with the unlikelihood that anyone important enough to be mentioned by John would be omitted by the synoptists and that another Mary, in addition to the three definitely mentioned, could be present and not be mentioned, points to the conclusion that the wife of Clopas is the same person as the wife of Alpheus (see ALPHAEUS). Along with this reasonable conclusion has grown, as an excrescence, another for which there is no basis whatever; namely, that the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This would make the apostle James the cousin of Jesus, and, by an extension of the idea, would identify James, the apostle, with James, the "Lords brother." The available evidence is clearly against both these inferences (see Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19).
(5) One other possible identification is offered for our consideration. Zahn, in an exceedingly interesting note (New Testament, II, 514), identifies Mary of Rome (Rom 16:6) with the "other" Mary of Matthew. We need not enter into a discussion of the point thus raised, since the identification of a woman of whom we have no details given is of little more than academic interest.
We are left free, however, by the probabilities of the case to confine our attention to the principal individuals who bear the name of Mary. We shall discuss Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Magdala; Mary of Bethany; Mary, the mother of James and Joses; Mary, the mother of Mark.
II. Mary, the Virgin.
The biography of the mother of Jesus is gathered about a brief series of episodes which serve to exhibit her leading characteristics in clear light. Two causes have operated to distort and make unreal the very clear and vivid image of Mary left for us in the Gospels. Roman Catholic dogmatic and sentimental exaggeration has well-nigh removed Mary from history (see IMMACULATE CONCEPTION). On the other hand, reaction and overemphasis upon certain features of the Gospel narrative have led some to credit Mary with a negative attitude toward our Lord and His claims, which she assuredly never occupied. It is very important that we should follow the narrative with unprejudiced eyes and give due weight to each successive episode.
Mary appears in the following passages: the Infancy narratives, Mt 1 and 2; Lk 1 and 2; the wedding at Cana of Galilee, Jn 2:1-11; the episode of Mt 12:46; Mk 3:21,31 ff; the incident at the cross, Jn 19:25 ff; the scene in the upper chamber, Acts 1:14.
1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives:
(1) It is to be noted, first of all, that Mary and her experiences form the narrative core of both Infancy documents. This is contrary to the ordinary opinion, but is unquestionably true. She is obviously the object of special interest to Luke (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 76 f), and there are not wanting indications that Lukes story came from Mary herself. But, while Matthews account does not exhibit his interest in Mary quite so readily, that he was interested in the pathetic story of the Lords mother is evident.
Luke tells the story of Marys inward and deeply personal experiences, her call (1:26 f), her maidenly fears (1:29,35), her loyal submission (1:38), her outburst of sacred and unselfish joy (1:39-55). From this anticipatory narrative he passes at once to the Messianic fulfillment.
Matthew tells the story of the outward and, so to say, public experiences of Mary which follow hard upon the former and are in such dramatic contrast with them: the shame and suspicion which fell upon her (1:18); her bitter humiliation (1:19), her ultimate vindication (1:20 f). Here the two narratives supplement each other by furnishing different details but, as in other instances, converge upon the central fact--the central fact here being Mary herself, her character, her thoughts, her experiences. The point to be emphasized above all others is that we have real biography, although in fragments; in that the same person appears in the inimitable reality of actual characterization, in both parts of the story. This is sufficient guaranty of historicity; for no two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied the other--which is evidently not the case here. More than this, the story is a truly human narrative in which the remarkable character of the events which took place in her life only serves to bring into sharper relief the simple, humble, natural qualities of the subject of them.
(2) One can hardly fail to be impressed, in studying Marys character with her quietness of spirit; her meditative inwardness of disposition; her admirable self-control; her devout and gracious gift of sacred silence. The canticle (Lk 1:46-55), which at least expresses Lukes conception of her nature, indicates that she is not accustomed to dwell much upon herself (4 lines only call particular attention to herself), and that her mind is saturated with the spirit and phraseology of the Old Testament. The intensely Jewish quality of her piety thus expressed accounts for much that appears anomalous in her subsequent career as depicted in the Gospels.
2. Mary at Cana:
The first episode which demands our attention is the wedding at Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-11). The relationship between Jesus and His mother has almost eclipsed other interests in the chapter. It is to be noted that the idea of wanton interference on the part of Mary and of sharp rebuke on the part of Jesus is to be decisively rejected. The key to the meaning of this episode is to be found in 4 simple items: (1) in a crisis of need, Mary turns naturally to Jesus as to the one from whom help is to be expected; (2) she is entirely undisturbed by His reply, whatever its meaning may be; (3) she prepares the way for the miracle by her authoritative directions to the servants; (4) Jesus does actually relieve the situation by an exercise of power. Whether she turned to Jesus with distinctly Messianic expectation, or whether Jesus intended to convey a mild rebuke for her eagerness, it is not necessary for us to inquire, as it is not possible for us to determine. It is enough that her spontaneous appeal to her Son did not result in disappointment, since, in response to her suggestion or, at least, in harmony with it, He "manifested his glory." The incident confirms the Infancy narrative in which Marys quiet and forceful personality is exhibited.
3. Mary and the Career of Jesus:
In Mt 12:46 (parallel Mk 3:31-35), we are told that, when His mother and His brethren came seeking Him, Jesus in the well-known remark concerning His true relatives in the kingdom of heaven intended to convey a severe rebuke to His own household for an action which involved both unbelief and presumptuous interference in His great life-work. The explanation of this incident, which involves no such painful implications as have become connected with it in the popular mind, is to be found in Marks account. He interrupts his narrative of the arrival of the relatives (which belongs in Mk 3:21) by the account of the accusation made by the scribes from Jerusalem that the power of Jesus over demons was due to Beelzebub. This goes a long way toward explaining the anxiety felt by the relatives of Jesus, since the ungoverned enthusiasm of the multitude. which gave Him no chance to rest and seemed to threaten His health, was matched, contrariwise, by the bitter, malignant opposition of the authorities, who would believe any malicious absurdity rather than that His power came from God. The vital point is that the attempt of Mary and her household to get possession of the person of Jesus, in order to induce Him to go into retirement for a time, was not due to captious and interfering unbelief, but to loving anxiety. The words of Jesus have the undoubted ring of conscious authority and express the determination of one who wills the control of his own life--but it is a serious mistake to read into them any faintest accent of satire. It has been well said (Horace Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subject, 30) that Jesus would scarcely make use of the family symbolism to designate the sacred relationships of the kingdom of heaven, while, at the same time, He was depreciating the value and importance of the very relationships which formed the basis of His analogy. The real atmosphere of the incident is very different from this.
4. Mary at the Cross:
To be sure that many have misinterpreted the above incident we need only turn to the exquisitely tender scene at the cross recorded by John (19:25 ff). This scene, equally beautiful whether one considers the relationship which it discloses as existing between Jesus and His mother, or between Jesus and His well-beloved disciple removes all possible ambiguity which might attach to the preceding incidents, and reveals the true spirit of the Masters home. Jesus could never have spoken as He did from the cross unless He had consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of an eldest son. The tone and quality of the scene could never have been what it is had there not been a steadfast tie of tender love and mutual understanding between Jesus and His mother. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself.
5. Mary in the Christian Community:
The final passage which we need to consider (Acts 1:14) is especially important because in it we discover Mary and her household at home in the midst of the Christian community, engaged with them in prayer. It is also clear that Mary herself and the family, who seemed to be very completely under her influence, whatever may have been their earlier misgivings, never broke with the circle of disciples, and persistently kept within the range of experiences which led at last to full-orbed Christian faith. This makes it sufficiently evident, on the one hand, that the household never shared the feelings of the official class among the Jews; and, on the other, that the family of Jesus passed through the same cycle of experiences which punctuated the careers of the whole body of disciples on the way to faith. The beating of this simple but significant fact upon the historical trustworthiness of the body of incidents just passed in review is evident.
The sum of the matter concerning Mary seems to be this: The mother of Jesus was a typical Jewish believer of the best sort. She was a deeply meditative, but by no means a daring or original thinker. Her inherited Messianic beliefs did not and perhaps could not prepare her for the method of Jesus which involved so much that was new and unexpected. But her heart was true, and from the beginning to the day of Pentecost, she pondered in her heart the meaning of her many puzzling experiences until the light came. The story of her life and of her relationship to Jesus is consistent throughout and touched with manifold unconscious traits of truth. Such a narrative could not have been feigned or fabled.
6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition:
(1) Legend.
The ecclesiastical treatment of Mary consists largely of legend and dogma, about equally fictitious and unreliable. The legendary accounts, which include the apocryphal gospels, deal, for the most part, with details tails of her parentage and early life; her betrothal and marriage to Joseph; her journey to Bethlehem and the birth of her child. At this point the legendary narratives, in their crass wonder-mongering and indelicate intimacy of detail, are in striking contrast to the chaste reserve of the canonical story, and of evidential value on that account.
(2) Dogma.
There is, in addition, a full-grown legend concerning Marys later life in the house of John; of her death in which the apostles were miraculously allowed to participate; her bodily translation to heaven; her reception at the hands of Jesus and her glorification in heaven. In this latter series of statements, we have already made the transition from legend to dogma. It is quite clear, from the statements of Roman Catholic writers themselves, that no reliable historical data are to be found among these legendary accounts. The general attitude of modern writers is exhibited in the following sentences (from Wilhelm and Scannel, Manual of Catholic Theology, II, 220, quoted by Mayor, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, II, 288, note): "Marys corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the church, can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact." If that is the way one feels, there is very little to say about it. Aside from the quasi-historical dogma of Marys bodily assumption, the Roman Catholic doctrinal interpretation of her person falls into three parts.
(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness:
This is discussed under IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (which see) and need not detain us here.
(b) Dogma of Marys Perpetual Virginity:
It is evident that this, too, is a doctrine of such a nature that its advocates might, with advantage to their argument, have abstained from the appearance of critical discussion.
Even if all the probabilities of exegesis are violated and the cumulative evidence that Mary had other children done away with; if the expression, "brethren of the Lord" is explained as "foster-brethren," "cousins" or what-not; if Jesus is shown to be not only "first-born" but "only-born" Son (Lk 2:7); if the expression of Mt 1:25 is interpreted as meaning "up to and beyond" (Pusey, et al.; compare Roman Catholic Dict., 604), it would still be as far as possible from a demonstration of the dogma. That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginity--perpetual or otherwise. That this thought has entered the minds of Roman Catholic apologists although not openly expressed by them, is evidenced by the fact that while certain forms of dealing with the "brethren-of-the-Lord" question make these the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the favorite doctrine includes the perpetual virginity of Joseph. Just as the idea of the sinlessness of Mary has led to the dogma of the immaculate conception, so the idea of her perpetual virginity demands the ancillary notion of Josephs. No critical or historical considerations are of any possible use here. It is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence, and might better be openly made such.
It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life.
(c) Doctrine of Marys Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor:
With no wish to be polemic toward Roman Catholicism, and, on the contrary, with every desire to be sympathetic, it is very difficult to be patient with the puerilities which disfigure the writings of Roman Catholic dogmaticians in the discussion of this group of doctrines.
(i) Take, for example, the crude literalism involved in the identification of the woman of Rev 12:1-6 with Mary. Careful exegesis of the passage (especially 12:6), in connection with the context, makes it clear that no hint of Marys status in heaven is intended. As a matter of fact, Mary, in any literal sense, is not referred to at all. Marys motherhood along with that of the mother of Moses is very likely the basis of the figure, but the woman of the vision is the church, which is, at once, the mother and the body of her Lord (see Milligan, Expositors Bible, "Revelation," 196 f).
Three other arguments are most frequently used to justify the place accorded to Mary in the liturgy.
(ii) Christs perpetual humanity leads to His perpetual Sonship to Mary. This argument, if it carries any weight at all, in this connection, implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother. It is, however, clear from the Gospels that the subjection to His parents which continued after the incident in the Temple (Lk 2:51) was gently but firmly laid aside at the outset of the public ministry (see above, II, 2, 3). In all that pertains to His heavenly office, as Lord, Marys position is one of dependence, not of authority.
(iii) Christ hears her prayers. Here, again, dogmatic assumption is in evidence. That He hears her prayers, even if true in a very special sense, does not, in the least, imply that prayers are to be addressed to her or that she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Him.
(iv) Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally His spiritual body would be her special care in heaven. But, on any reasonable hypothesis, Mary was, is, and must remain, a part of that body (see Acts 1:14). Unless she is intrinsically a Divine being, her care for the church cannot involve her universal presence in it and her accessibility to the prayers of her fellow-believers.
To a non-Romanist, the most suggestive fact in the whole controversy is that the statements of cautious apologists in support of the ecclesiastical attitude toward Mary, do not, in the least degree, justify the tone of extravagant adulation which marks the non-polemical devotional literature of the subject (see Dearden, Modern Romanism Examined, 22 f).
(3) Conclusion.
Our conclusion on the whole question is that the literature of Mariolatry belongs, historically, to unauthorized speculation; and, psychologically, to the natural history of asceticism and clerical celibacy.
III. Mary Magdalene
(Maria Magdalene = of "Magdala").--A devoted follower of Jesus who entered the circle of the taught during the Galilean ministry and became prominent during the last days. The noun "Magdala," from which the adjective "Magdalene" is formed, does not occur in the Gospels (the word in Mt 15:39, is, of course, "Magadan"). The meaning of this obscure reference is well summarized in the following quotations from Plummer (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 215): "Magdala is only the Greek form of mighdol or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Israel (Tristram, Bible Places, 260); and is probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now bears the name of Mejdel near the center of the western shore of the lake."
1. Mary not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7:
As she was the first to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus, it is important that we should get a correct view of her position and character. The idea that she was a penitent, drawn from the life of the street, undoubtedly arose, in the first instance, from a misconception of the nature of her malady, together with an altogether impossible identification of her with the woman who was a sinner of the preceding section of the Gospel. It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas (see DEMON, DEMONOLOGY), had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposi-tion popularly associated with "having a devil." The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil power, not an accomplice of it. Had this always been understood and kept in mind, the unfortunate identification of Mary with the career of public prostitution would have been much less easy.
According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare Lk 7:37; Jn 8:3). At the same time the statement that 7 demons had been cast out of Mary means either that the malady was of exceptional severity, possibly involving several relapses (compare Lk 11:26), or that the mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare Mk 5:9) suggested the use of the number 7. Even so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict.
The identification of Mary with the sinful woman is, of course, impossible for one who follows carefully the course of the narrative with an eye to the transitions. The woman of Luke 7 is carefully covered with the concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at 7:50.
The name of Mary is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel (see Plummers analysis, op. cit., xxxvii), where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her former residence, which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding account of the anointing were Marys introduction into the circle of Christs followers, she could not be identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of Luke 7, and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lords feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together.
2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck:
Mary has been misrepresented in another way, scarcely less serious. She was one of the very first witnesses to the resurrection, and her testimony is of sufficient importance to make it worth while for those who antagonize the narrative to discredit her testimony. This is done, on the basis of her mysterious malady, by making her a paranoiac who was in the habit of "seeing things." Renan is the chief offender in this particular, but others have followed his example.
(1) To begin with, it is to be remarked that Mary had been cured of her malady in such a marked way that, henceforth, throughout her life, she was a monument to the healing power of Christ. What He had done for her became almost a part of her name along with the name of her village. It is not to be supposed that a cure so signal would leave her a nervous wreck, weak of will, wavering in judgment, the victim of hysterical tremors and involuntary hallucinations.
(2) There is more than this a priori consideration against such an interpretation of Mary. She was the first at the tomb (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:10). But she was also the last at the cross--she and her companions (Mt 27:61; Mk 15:40). A glance at the whole brief narrative of her life in the Gospels will interpret this combination of statements. Mary first appears near the beginning of the narrative of the Galilean ministry as one of a group consisting of "many" (Lk 8:3), among them Joanna, wife of Chuzas, Herods steward, who followed with the Twelve and ministered to them of their substance. Mary then disappears from the text to reappear as one of the self-appointed watchers of the cross, thereafter to join the company of witnesses to the resurrection. The significance of these simple statements for the understanding of Marys character and position among the followers of Jesus is not far to seek. She came into the circle of believers, marked out from the rest by an exceptional experience of the Lords healing power. Henceforth, to the very end, with unwearied devotion, with intent and eager willingness, with undaunted courage even in the face of dangers which broke the courage of the chosen Twelve, she followed and served her Lord. It is impossible that such singleness of purpose, such strength of will, and, above all, such courage in danger, should have been exhibited by a weak, hysterical, neurotic incurable. The action of these women of whom Mary was one, in serving their Masters need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is characteristic of woman at her best.
IV. Mary of Bethany.
Another devoted follower of Jesus. She was a resident of Bethany (Bethania), and a member of the family consisting of a much-beloved brother, Lazarus, and another sister, Martha, who made a home for Jesus within their own circle whenever He was in the neighborhood.
The one descriptive reference, aside from the above, connected with Mary, has caused no end of perplexity. John (11:2) states that it was this Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. This reference would be entirely satisfied by the narrative of Jn 12:1,8, and no difficulty would be suggested, were it not for the fact that Luke (7:36-50) records an anointing of Jesus by a woman, accompanied with the wiping of His feet with her hair. The identification of these two anointings would not occasion any great difficulty, in spite of serious discrepancies as to time, place and other accessories of the action, but for the very serious fact that the woman of Lk 7 is described as a sinner in the dreadful special sense associated with that word in New Testament times. This is so utterly out of harmony with all that we know of Mary and the family at Bethany as to be a well-nigh intolerable hypothesis.
On the other hand, we are confronted with at least one serious difficulty in affirming two anointings. This is well stated by Mayor (Hastings Dictionary Bible, III, 280a): "Is it likely that our Lord would have uttered such a high encomium upon Marys act if she were only following the example already set by the sinful woman of Galilee; or (taking the other view) if she herself were only repeating under more favorable circumstances the act of loving devotion for which she had already received His commendation?" We shall be compelled to face this difficulty in case we are forced to the conclusion that there were more anointings than one.
1. Attack upon Lukes Narrative:
In the various attempts to solve this problem, or rather group of problems, otherwise than by holding to two anointings, Luke, who stands alone against Mark, Matthew and John, has usually suffered loss of confidence. Mayor (op. cit., 282a) suggests the possibility that the text of Luke has been tampered with, and that originally his narrative contained no reference to anointing. This is a desperate expedient which introduces more difficulties than it solves. Strauss and other hostile critics allege confusion on the part of Luke between the anointing at Bethany and the account of the woman taken in adultery, but, as Plummer well says, the narrative shows no signs of confusion. "The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity toward Simon, and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection" (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 209).
2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone:
The first step in the solution of this difficulty is to note carefully the evidence supplied by Lukes narrative taken by itself. Mary is named for the first time in Lk 10:38-42 in a way which clearly indicates that the family of Bethany is there mentioned for the first time (a "certain tis woman named Martha," and "she had a sister called Mary," etc.). This phrasing indicates the introduction of a new group of names (compare Jn 11:1). It is also a clear indication of the fact that Luke does not identify Mary with the sinful woman of Luke 7 (compare Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Lk 7:36-50; Jn 12:1-8).
3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison:
Our next task is to note carefully the relationship between the narratives of Mark, Matthew and John on one side, and that of Luke on the other. We may effectively analyze the narratives under the following heads: (1) notes of time and place; (2) circumstances and scenery of the incident; (3) description of the person who did the anointing; (4) complaints of her action, by whom and for what; (5) the lesson drawn from the womans action which constitutes our Lords defense of it; (6) incidental features of the narrative.
Under (1) notice that all three evangelists place the incident near the close of the ministry and at Bethany. Under (2) it is important to observe that Matthew and Mark place the scene in the house of Simon "the leper," while John states vaguely that a feast was made for Him by persons not named and that Martha served. Under (3) we observe that Matthew and Mark say "a woman," while John designates Mary. (4) According to Matthew, the disciples found fault; according to Mark, some of those present found fault; while according to John, the fault-finder was Judas Iscariot. According to all three, the ground or complaint is the alleged wastefulness of the action. (5) Again, according to all three, our Lord defended the use made of the ointment by a mysterious reference to an anointing of His body for the burial. Johns expression in particular is most interesting and peculiar (see Jn 12:7). (6) The Simon in whose house the incident is said to have taken place is by Matthew and Mark designated "the leper." This must mean either that he had previously been cured or that his disease had manifested itself subsequent to the feast. Of these alternatives the former is the more natural (see Gould, International Critical Commentary, "Mark," 257). The presence of a healed leper on this occasion, together with the specific mention of Lazarus as a guest, would suggest that the feast was given by people, in and about Bethany, who had especial reason to be grateful to Jesus for the exercise of His healing power.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the narratives of Matthew, Mark and John refer to the same incident. The amount of convergence and the quality of it put this identification among the practical certainties. The only discrepancies of even secondary importance are a difference of a few days in the time (Gould says four) and the detail as to the anointing of head or feet. It is conceivable, and certainly no very serious matter, that John assimilated his narrative at this point to the similar incident of Lk 7.
An analysis of the incident of Lk 7 with reference to the same points of inquiry discloses the fact that it cannot be the same as that described by the other evangelists. (1) The time and place indications, such as they are, point to Galilee and the Galilean ministry. This consideration alone is a formidable obstacle in the way of any such identification. (2) The immediate surroundings are different. Simon "the leper" and Simon "the Pharisee" can hardly be one person. No man could have borne both of these designations. In addition to this, it is difficult to believe that a Pharisee of Simons temper would have entertained Jesus when once he had been proscribed by the authorities. Simons attitude was a very natural one at the beginning of Christs ministry, but the combination of hostility and questioning was necessarily a temporary mood. (3) The description of the same woman as sinner in the sense of Lk 7 in one Gospel; simply as a woman in two others; and as the beloved and honored Mary of Bethany in a third is not within the range of probability, especially as there is no hint of an attempt at explanation on the part of any of the writers. At any rate, prima facie, this item in Lukes description is seriously at variance with the other narratives. (4) Luke is again at variance with the others, if he is supposed to refer to the same event, in the matter of the complaint and its cause. In Lukes account there is no complaint of the womans action suggested. There is no hint that anybody thought or pretended to think that she had committed a sinful waste of precious material. The only complaint is Simons, and that is directed against the Lord Himself, because Simon, judging by himself, surmised that Jesus did not spurn the woman because He did not know her character. This supposed fact had a bearing on the question of our Lords Messiahship, concerning which Simon was debating; otherwise one suspects he had little interest in the episode. This fact is, as we shall see, determinative for the understanding of the incident and puts it apart from all other similar episodes.
(5) The lesson drawn from the act by our Lord was in each incident different. The sinful woman was commended for an act of courtesy and tenderness which expressed a love based upon gratitude for deliverance and forgiveness. Mary was commended for an act which had a mysterious and sacramental relationship to the Lords death, near at hand.
This brings us to the point where we may consider the one serious difficulty, that alleged by Mayor and others, against the hypothesis of two anointings, namely, that a repetition of an act like this with commendation attached would not be likely to occur. The answer to this argument is that the difficulty itself is an artificial one due to a misreading of the incident. In the point of central reference the two episodes are worlds apart. The act of anointing in each case was secondary, not primary. Anointing was one of those general and prevalent acts of social courtesy which might mean much or little, this or that, and might be repeated a score of times in a year with a different meaning each time. The matter of primary importance in every such case would be the purpose and motive of the anointing. By this consideration alone we may safely discriminate between these incidents. In the former case, the motive was to express the love of a forgiven penitent. In the latter, the motive was gratitude for something quite different, a beloved brother back from the grave, and, may we not say (in view of Jn 12:7), grief and foreboding? That Marys feeling was expressed in the same way outwardly as that of the sinful woman of the early ministry does not change the fact that the feeling was different, that the act was different and that, consequently, the commendation she received, being for a different thing, was differently expressed. The two anointings are not duplicates. Marys act, though later, was quite as spontaneous and original as that of the sinful woman, and the praise bestowed upon her quite as natural and deserved.
4. Character of Mary:
With this fictitious and embarrassing identification out of the way, we are now free to consider briefly the career and estimate the character of Mary. (1) At the outset it is worth mentioning that we have in the matter of these two sisters a most interesting and instructive point of contact between the synoptic and Johannine traditions. The underlying unity and harmony of the two are evident here as elsewhere. In Lk 10:38-42 we are afforded a view of Mary and Martha photographic in its clear revelation of them both. Martha is engaged in household affairs, while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus, absorbed in listening. This, of course, might mean that Mary was idle and listless, leaving the burden of responsibility for the care of guests upon her more conscientious sister. Most housewives are inclined to take this view and to think that Martha has been hardly dealt with. The story points to the contrary. It will be noticed that Mary makes no defense of herself and that the Master makes no criticism of Martha until she criticizes Mary. When He does speak, it is with the characteristic and inimitable gentleness, but in a way leaving nothing to be desired in the direction of completeness. He conveyed His love, His perfect understanding of the situation, His defense of Mary, His rebuke to Martha, in a single sentence which contains a perfect photograph of the two loved sisters. Martha is not difficult to identify. She was just one of those excellent and tiresome women whose fussy concern and bustling anxiety about the details of household management make their well-meant hospitality a burden to all their guests. Marys quiet and restful interest in the guest and His conversation must be set against the foil of Marthas excess of concern in housework and the serving of food. When one comes to think of it, Mary chose the better part of hospitality, to put no higher construction upon her conduct. (2) In Jn 11:20, we are told that Martha went forth to meet Jesus while Mary remained in the house. In this we have no difficulty in recognizing the same contrast of outwardness and inwardness in the dispositions of the sisters; especially, as when Mary does come at Marthas call to meet Jesus, she exhibits an intensity of feeling of which Martha gives no sign. It is significant that, while Mary says just what Martha had already said (11:21,32), her way of saying it and her manner as a whole so shakes the Lords composure that He is unable to answer her directly but addresses His inquiry to the company in general (11:34). (3) Then we come to the events of the next chapter. The supper is given in Bethany. Martha serves. Of course she serves. She always serves when there is opportunity. Waiting on guests, plate in hand, was the innocent delight of her life. One cannot fail to see that, in a single incidental sentence, the Martha of Lk 10:38-42 is sketched again in lifelikeness. It is the same Martha engaged in the same task. But what of Mary in this incident? She is shown in an unprecedented role, strange to an oriental woman and especially to one so retiring in disposition as Mary. Her action not only thrust her into a public place alone, but brought her under outspoken criticism. But after all, this is just what we come to expect from these deep, intense, silent natures. The Mary who sat at Jesus feet in listening silence while Martha bustled about the house, who remained at home while Martha went out to meet Him, is the very one to hurl herself at His feet in a storm and passion of tears when she does meet Him and to break out in a self-forgetful public act of devotion, strange to her modest disposition, however native to her deep emotion.
Martha was a good and useful woman. No one would deny that, least of all the Master who loved her (Jn 11:5). But she lived on the surface of things, and her affections and her piety alike found adequate and satisfying expression at all times in the ordinary kindly offices of hospitality and domestic service. Not so Mary. Her disposition was inward, silent, brooding, with a latent capacity for stress and the forthwith, unconventional expression of feelings, slowly gathering intensity through days of thought and repression. Mary would never be altogether at home in the world of affairs. Hers was a rare spirit, doomed often to loneliness and misunderstanding except at the hands of rarely discerning spirits, such as she happily met in the person of her Lord.
V. Mary, the Mother of James and Joses.
Under this caption it is necessary merely to recall and set in order the few facts concerning this Mary given in the Gospels (see Mt 27:55,56,61; Mk 15:40; 16:1; Lk 24:10; compare Lk 23:49-56).
In Mt 27:55,56 (parallel Mk 15:40), we are told that at the time of the crucifixion there was a group of women observing the event from a distance. These women are said to have followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him and to the disciples. Among these were Mary Magdalene (see III, above); Mary, mother of James and Joses; and the unnamed mother of Zebedees children. By reference to Lk 8:2,3, where this group is first introduced, it appears that, as a whole, it was composed of those who had been healed of infirmities of one kind or another. Whether this description applies individually to Mary or not we cannot be sure, but it is altogether probable. At any rate, it is certain that Mary was one who persistently followed with the disciples and ministered of her substance to aid and comfort the Lord in His work for others. The course of the narrative seems to imply that Marys sons accompanied their mother on this ministering journey and that one of them became an apostle. It is interesting to note that two mothers with their sons joined the company of the disciples and that three out of the four became members of the apostolic group. Another item in these only too fragmentary references is that this Mary, along with her of Magdala and the others of this group, was of sufficient wealth and position to be marked among the followers of Jesus as serving in this particular way. The mention of Chuzas wife (Lk 8:3) is an indication of the unusual standing of this company of faithful women.
The other notices of Mary show her lingering late at the cross (Mk 15:40); a spectator at the burial (Mk 15:47); and among the first to bear spices to the tomb. This is the whole of this womans biography extant, but perhaps it is enough. We are told practically nothing, directly, concerning her; but, incidentally, she is known to be generous, faithful, loving, true and brave. She came in sorrow to the tomb to anoint the body of her dead Lord; she went away in joy to proclaim Him alive forevermore. A privilege to be coveted by the greatest was thus awarded to simple faith and trusting love.
VI. Mary, the Mother of John Mark.
This woman is mentioned but once in the New Testament (Acts 12:12), but in a connection to arouse intense interest. Since she was the mother of Mark, she was also, in all probability, the aunt of Barnabas. The aunt of one member and the mother of another of the earliest apostolic group is a woman of importance. The statement in Acts, so far as it concerns Mary, is brief but suggestive. Professor Ramsay (see Paul the Traveler, etc., 385) holds that the authority for this narrative was not Peter but Mark, the son of the house. This, if true, adds interest to the story as we have it. In the first place, the fact that Peter went thither directly upon his escape from prison argues that Marys house was a well-known center of Christian life and worship. The additional fact that coming unannounced and casually the apostle found a considerable body of believers assembled points in the same direction. That "many" were gathered in the house at the same time indicates that the house was of considerable size. It also appears that Rhoda was only one of the maids, arguing a household of more than ordinary size. There is a tradition of doubtful authenticity, that Marys house was the scene of a still more sacred gathering in the upper room on the night of the betrayal. We conclude that Mary was a wealthy widow of Jerusalem, who, upon becoming a disciple of Christ, with her son, gave herself with whole-souled devotion to Christian service, making her large and well-appointed house a place of meeting for the proscribed and homeless Christian communion whose benefactor and patron she thus became.
Louis Matthews Sweet
Easton
Hebrew Miriam. (1.) The wife of Joseph, the mother of Jesus, called the "Virgin Mary," though never so designated in Scripture (Matt. 2:11; Acts 1:14). Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3. She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Ps. 132:11; Luke 1:32). She was connected by marriage with Elisabeth, who was of the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:36). While she resided at Nazareth with her parents, before she became the wife of Joseph, the angel Gabriel announced to her that she was to be the mother of the promised Messiah (Luke 1:35). After this she went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was living with her husband Zacharias (probably at Juttah, Josh. 15:55; 21:16, in the neighbourhood of Maon), at a considerable distance, about 100 miles, from Nazareth. Immediately on entering the house she was saluted by Elisabeth as the mother of her Lord, and then forthwith gave utterance to her hymn of thanksgiving (Luke 1:46-56; comp. 1 Sam. 2:1-10). After three months Mary returned to Nazareth to her own home. Joseph was supernaturally made aware (Matt. 1:18-25) of her condition, and took her to his own home. Soon after this the decree of Augustus (Luke 2:1) required that they should proceed to Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), some 80 or 90 miles from Nazareth; and while they were there they found shelter in the inn or khan provided for strangers (Luke 2:6, 7). But as the inn was crowded, Mary had to retire to a place among the cattle, and there she brought forth her son, who was called Jesus (Matt. 1:21), because he was to save his people from their sins. This was followed by the presentation in the temple, the flight into Egypt, and their return in the following year and residence at Nazareth (Matt. 2). There for thirty years Mary, the wife of Joseph the carpenter, resides, filling her own humble sphere, and pondering over the strange things that had happened to her. During these years only one event in the history of Jesus is recorded, viz., his going up to Jerusalem when twelve years of age, and his being found among the doctors in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). Probably also during this period Joseph died, for he is not again mentioned. After the commencement of our Lord's public ministry little notice is taken of Mary. She was present at the marriage in Cana. A year and a half after this we find her at Capernaum (Matt. 12:46, 48, 49), where Christ uttered the memorable words, "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!" The next time we find her is at the cross along with her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene, and Salome, and other women (John 19:26). From that hour John took her to his own abode. She was with the little company in the upper room after the Ascension (Acts 1:14). From this time she wholly disappears from public notice. The time and manner of her death are unknown. (2.) Mary Magdalene, i.e., Mary of Magdala, a town on the western shore of the Lake of Tiberias. She is for the first time noticed in Luke 8:3 as one of the women who "ministered to Christ of their substance." Their motive was that of gratitude for deliverances he had wrought for them. Out of Mary were cast seven demons. Gratitude to her great Deliverer prompted her to become his follower. These women accompanied him also on his last journey to Jerusalem (Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:41; Luke 23:55). They stood near the cross. There Mary remained till all was over, and the body was taken down and laid in Joseph's tomb. Again, in the earliest dawn of the first day of the week she, with Salome and Mary the mother of James (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2), came to the sepulchre, bringing with them sweet spices, that they might anoint the body of Jesus. They found the sepulchre empty, but saw the "vision of angels" (Matt. 28:5). She hastens to tell Peter and John, who were probably living together at this time (John 20:1, 2), and again immediately returns to the sepulchre. There she lingers thoughtfully, weeping at the door of the tomb. The risen Lord appears to her, but at first she knows him not. His utterance of her name "Mary" recalls her to consciousness, and she utters the joyful, reverent cry, "Rabboni." She would fain cling to him, but he forbids her, saying, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." This is the last record regarding Mary of Magdala, who now returned to Jerusalem. The idea that this Mary was "the woman who was a sinner," or that she was unchaste, is altogether groundless. (3.) Mary the sister of Lazarus is brought to our notice in connection with the visits of our Lord to Bethany. She is contrasted with her sister Martha, who was "cumbered about many things" while Jesus was their guest, while Mary had chosen "the good part." Her character also appears in connection with the death of her brother (John 11:20,31,33). On the occasion of our Lord's last visit to Bethany, Mary brought "a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus" as he reclined at table in the house of one Simon, who had been a leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3; John 12:2,3). This was an evidence of her overflowing love to the Lord. Nothing is known of her subsequent history. It would appear from this act of Mary's, and from the circumstance that they possessed a family vault (11:38), and that a large number of Jews from Jerusalem came to condole with them on the death of Lazarus (11:19), that this family at Bethany belonged to the wealthier class of the people. (See MARTHA
HDBN
same as Miriam
SBD
(a tear ) of Cleophas. So in Authorized Version, but accurately "of Clopas," i.e. the wife of Clopas (or Alphaeus). She is brought before us for the first time on the day of the crucifixion, standing by the cross. ( John 19:25 ) In the evening of the same day we find her sitting desolate at the tomb with Mary Magdalene, ( Matthew 27:61 ; Mark 15:47 ) and at the dawn of Easter morning she was again there with sweet spices, which she had prepared on the Friday night, ( Matthew 28:1 ; Mark 16:1 ; Luke 23:56 ) and was one of those who had "a vision of angels, which said that he was alive." ( Luke 24:23 ) She had four sons and at least three daughters. The names of the daughters are unknown to us; those of the sons are, James, Joses, Jude and Simon, two of whom became enrolled among the twelve apostles [JAMES], and a third [SIMON] may have succeeded his brother ill charge of the church of Jerusalem. By many she is thought to have been the sister of the Virgin Mary.
馬勒古 MALCHUS
代表
約18:10 太26:51 可14:47 路22:50
ISBE
mal-kus (Malchos, from melekh, i.e. "counselor" or "king"): The name of the servant of the high priest Caiaphas whose right ear was smitten off by Simon Peter at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (compare Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50; Jn 18:10). It is noteworthy that Luke "the physician" alone gives an account of the healing of the wound (Lk 22:51). As Jesus "touched his ear, and healed him," the ear was not entirely severed from the head. The words of Jesus, "Suffer ye thus far," may have been addressed either to the disciples, i.e. "Suffer ye that I thus far show kindness to my captors," or to those about to bind him, i.e. asking a short respite to heal Malchus. They were not addressed directly to Peter, as the Greek form is plural, whereas in Mt 26:52; Jn 18:11, where, immediately after the smiting of Malchus, Jesus does address Peter, the singular form is used; nor do the words of Jesus there refer to the healing but to the action of his disciple. A kinsman of Malchus, also a servant of the high priest, was one of those who put the questions which made Peter deny Jesus (Jn 18:26).
C. M. Kerr
Easton
reigning, the personal servant or slave of the high priest Caiaphas. He is mentioned only by John. Peter cut off his right ear in the garden of Gethsemane (John 18:10). But our Lord cured it with a touch (Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:51). This was the last miracle of bodily cure wrought by our Lord. It is not mentioned by John.
HDBN
my king
SBD
(king or kingdom ), the name of the servant of the high priest whose right ear Peter cut off at the time of the Saviours apprehension in the garden. ( Matthew 26:51 ; Mark 14:17 ; Luke 22:49 Luke 22:51 ; John 18:10 )
馬可 MARK
代表
徒12:12 徒15:37 西4:10 徒12:12 可14:12 可14:13 可14:14 可14:15 可14:16 可14:17 可14:18 可14:51 可14:52 彼前5:13 徒13:5 徒13:13 提後4:11
ISBE
mark: In the King James Version this word is used 22 times as a noun and 26 times as a predicate. In the former case it is represented by 5 Hebrew and 3 Greek words; in the latter by 11 Hebrew and 2 Greek words. As a noun it is purely a physical term, gaining almost a technical significance from the "mark" put upon Cain (Gen 4:15 the King James Version); the stigmata of Christ in Pauls body (Gal 6:17); the "mark of the beast" (Rev 16:2).
As a verb it is almost exclusively a mental process: e.g. "to be attentive," "understand ": bin (Job 18:2 the King James Version), rightly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "consider"; shith, "Mark ye well her bulwarks" (Ps 48:13), i.e. turn the mind to, notice, regard; shamar, i.e. observe, keep in view; so Ps 37:37, "Mark the perfect man"; compare Job 22:15 the King James Version. This becomes a unique expression in 1 Sam 1:12, where Eli, noticing the movement of Hannahs lips in prayer, is said to have "marked her mouth." Jesus "marked" how invited guests chose out (epecho, i.e. "observed") the chief seats (Lk 14:7); so skopeo (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17), "Mark them," i.e. look at, signifying keen mental attention, i.e. scrutinize, observe carefully. The only exceptions to this mental signification of the verb are two verses in the Old Testament: Isa 44:13, "He marketh it out with a pencil" ("red ochre," the King James Version "line"), and "with the compasses," where the verb is taar, "to delineate," "mark out"; Jer 2:22, "Thine iniquity is marked (katham, "cut (i.e. engraved)) before me," signifying the deep and ineradicable nature of sin. It may also be rendered "written," as in indelible hieroglyphics.
As a noun the term "mark" may signify, according to its various Hebrew and Greek originals, a sign, "a target" an object of assault, a brand or stigma cut or burnt in the flesh, a goal or end in view, a stamp or imprinted or engraved sign.
(1) oth, "a sign": Gen 4:15 the King James Version, "The Lord set a mark upon Cain" (the American Standard Revised Version "appointed a sign"). It is impossible to tell the nature of this sign. Delitzsch thinks that the rabbins were mistaken in regarding it as a mark upon Cains body. He considers it rather "a certain sign which protected him from vengeance," the continuance of his life being necessary for the preservation of the race. It was thus, as the Hebrew indicates, the token of a covenant which God made with Cain that his life would be spared.
(2) mattara, "an aim," hence, a mark to shoot at. Jonathan arranged to shoot arrows as at a mark, for a sign to David (1 Sam 20:20); Job felt himself to be a target for the Divine arrows, i.e. for the Divinely decreed sufferings which wounded him and which he was called to endure (Job 16:12); so Jeremiah, "He hath set me as a mark for the arrow" (Lam 3:12); closely akin to this is miphga`, an object of attack (Job 7:20), where Job in bitterness of soul feels that God has become his enemy, and says, `Why hast thou made me the mark of hostile attack?; "set me as a mark for thee."
See TARGET.
(3) taw, "mark" (Ezek 9:4,6). In Ezekiels vision of the destruction of the wicked, the mark to be set upon the forehead of the righteous, at Yahwehs command, was, as in the case of the blood sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites (Ex 12:22,23), for their protection. As the servants of God (Rev 7:2,3)--the elect--were kept from harm by being sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads, so the man clothed in linen, with a writers inkhorn by his side, was told to mark upon their foreheads those whom God would save from judgment by His sheltering grace. Taw also appears (Job 31:35) for the attesting mark made to a document (the Revised Version (British and American) "signature," margin "mark").
The equivalent Hebrew letter taw ("t") in the Phoenician alphabet and on the coins of the Maccabees had the form of a cross (T). In oriental synods it was used as a signature by bishops who could not write. The cross, as a sign of ownership, was burnt upon the necks or thighs of horses and camels. It may have been the "mark" set upon the forehead of the righteous in Ezekiels vision.
(4) qa`aqa`, "a stigma" cut or burnt. The Israelites were forbidden (Lev 19:28) to follow the custom of other oriental and heathen nations in cutting, disfiguring or branding their bodies.
The specific prohibition "not to print any marks upon" themselves evidently has reference to the custom of tattooing common among savage tribes, and in vogue among both men and women of the lower orders in Arabia, Egypt, and many other lands. It was intended to cultivate reverence for and a sense of the sacredness of the human body, as Gods creation, known in the Christian era as the temple of the Holy Spirit.
See also CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH.
(5) skopos, something seen or observed in the distance, hence, a "goal." The Christian life seemed to Paul, in the intensity of his spiritual ardor, like the stadium or race-course of the Greeks, with runners stretching every nerve to reach the goal and win the prize. "I press on toward the goal (the King James Version "mark") unto the prize" (Phil 3:14). The mark or goal is the ideal of life revealed in Christ, the prize, the attainment and possession of that life.
In The Wisdom of Solomon 5:21 "they fly to the mark" is from eustochoi, "with true aim" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).
(6) stigma, "a mark pricked or branded upon the body." Slaves and soldiers, in ancient times, were stamped or branded with the name of their master. Paul considered and called himself the bondslave of Jesus Christ. The traces of his sufferings, scourging, stonings, persecution, wounds, were visible in permanent scars on his body (compare 2 Cor 11:23-27). These he termed the stigmata of Jesus, marks branded in his very flesh as proofs of his devotion to his Master (Gal 6:17).
This passage gives no ground for the Romanist superstition that the very scars of Christs crucifixion were reproduced in Pauls hands and feet and side. It is also "alien to the lofty self-consciousness" of these words to find in them, as some expositors do, a contrast in Pauls thought to the scar of circumcision.
(7) charagma, "a stamp" or "imprinted mark." "The mark of the beast" (peculiar to Revelation) was the badge of the followers of Antichrist, stamped on the forehead or right hand (Rev 13:16; compare Ezek 9:4,6). It was symbolic of character and was thus not a literal or physical mark, but the impress of paganism on the moral and spiritual life. It was the sign or token of apostasy. As a spiritual state or condition it subjected men to the wrath of God and to eternal torment (Rev 14:9-11); to noisome disease (Rev 16:2); to the lake of fire (Rev 19:20). Those who received not the mark, having faithfully endured persecution and martyrdom, were given part in the first resurrection and lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (Rev 20:4). The "beast" symbolizes the anti-Christian empires, particularly Rome under Nero, who sought to devour and destroy the early Christians.
(8) molops, "bruise," Sirach 23:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) "bruise"); 28:17.
Dwight M. Pratt
Easton
the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12). Of his father we know nothing. He was cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10). It was in his mother's house that Peter found "many gathered together praying" when he was released from prison; and it is probable that it was here that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his "son" (1 Pet. 5:13). It is probable that the "young man" spoken of in Mark 14:51, 52 was Mark himself. He is first mentioned in Acts 12:25. He went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey (about A.D. 47) as their "minister," but from some cause turned back when they reached Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 12:25; 13:13). Three years afterwards a "sharp contention" arose between Paul and Barnabas (15:36-40), because Paul would not take Mark with him. He, however, was evidently at length reconciled to the apostle, for he was with him in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10; Philemon 1:24). At a later period he was with Peter in Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13), then, and for some centuries afterwards, one of the chief seats of Jewish learning; and he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote him during his second imprisonment (2 Tim. 4:11). He then disappears from view.
HDBN
same as Marcus
SBD
one of the evangelists, and probable author of the Gospel bearing his name. (Marcus was his Latin surname. His Jewish name was John, which is the same as Johanan (the grace of God ). We can almost trace the steps whereby the former became his prevalent name in the Church. "John, whose surname was Mark" in ( Acts 12:12 Acts 12:25 ; 15:37 ) becomes "John" alone in ( Acts 13:5 Acts 13:13 ) "Mark" in ( Acts 15:39 ) and thenceforward there is no change. ( Colossians 4:10 ); Phlm 1:24; 2Tim 4:11 The evangelist was the son of a certain Mary, a Jewish matron of some position who dwelt in Jerusalem, ( Acts 12:12 ) and was probably born of a Hellenistic family in that city. Of his father we know nothing; but we do know that the future evangelist was cousin of Barnabas of Cyprus, the great friend of St. Paul. His mother would seem to have been intimately acquainted with St. Peter, and it was to her house, as to a familiar home, that the apostle repaired, A.D. 44, after his deliverance from prison ( Acts 12:12 ) This fact accounts for St. Marks intimate acquaintance with that apostle, to whom also he probably owed his conversion, for St. Peter calls him his son. ( 1 Peter 5:13 ) We hear Of him for the first time in Acts 15:25 where we find him accompanying and Barnabas on their return from Jerusalem to Antioch, A.D. 45. He next comes before us on the occasion of the earliest missionary journey of the same apostles, A.D. 48, when he joined them as their "minister." ( Acts 13:8 ) With them he visited Cyprus; but at Perga in Pamphylia, ( Acts 13:13 ) when they were about to enter upon the more arduous part of their mission, he left them, and, for some unexplained reason, returned to Jerusalem to his mother and his home. Notwithstanding this, we find him at Pauls side during that apostles first imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 61-63, and he Is acknowledged by him as one of his few fellow laborers who had been a "comfort" to him during the weary hours of his imprisonment. ( Colossians 4:10 Colossians 4:11 ); Phle 1:24 We next have traces of him in ( 1 Peter 5:13 ) "The church that is in Babylon ... saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son." From this we infer that he joined his spiritual father, the great friend of his mother, at Babylon, then and for same hundred years afterward one of the chief seats of Jewish culture. From Babylon he would seem to have returned to Asia Minor; for during his second imprisonment A.D. 68 St. Paul, writing to Timothy charges him to bring Mark with him to me, on the ground that he was "profitable to him For the ministry." ( 2 Timothy 4:11 ) From this point we gain no further information from the New Testament respecting the evangelist. It is most probable, however that he did join the apostle at Rome whither also St. Peter would seem to have proceeded, and suffered martyrdom with St. Paul. After the death of these two great pillars of the Church; ecclesiastical tradition affirms that St. Mark visited Egypt, founded the church of Alexandria, and died by martyrdom.--Condensed from Cambridge Bible for Schools.--ED.)
馬大 MARTHA
代表
約11:1 路10:41 約12:2
ISBE
mar-tha (Martha, "mistress," being a transliteration of the feminine form of mar, "Lord"): Martha belonged to Bethany, and was the sister of Lazarus and Mary (Jn 11:1 f). From the fact that the house into which Jesus was received belonged to Martha, and that she generally took the lead in action, it is inferred that she was the eider sister. Martha was one of those who gave hospitality to Jesus during His public ministry. Thus, in the course of those wanderings which began when "he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerus" (Lk 9:51), he "entered into a certain village"--its name is not stated--and "a certain woman named Martha received him into her house" (Lk 10:38). Martha, whose sense of responsibility as hostess weighed heavily upon her, was "cumbered about much serving," and her indignation was aroused at the lack of assistance given to her by her sister. Her words, "Lord, dost thou not care?" implied a certain reproach to Jesus also, in that she felt He showed a want of sympathy with her efforts and was the cause of Marys remissness. But Jesus, in tones of gentle reproof, reminded her that for Him not the preparation of an elaborate meal but the hearing of His Word in the spirit of Mary was the "one thing needful" (Lk 10:39-42).
Martha is first mentioned by John--the only other Gospel writer who refers to Martha--in his account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead at Bethany (Jn 11:1-44). The narrative indicates, however, that Jesus was already on terms of the closest friendship with her and her household (compare 11:3,5). In the incident which John here records, Martha again displayed her more practical nature by going out to meet Jesus, while Mary sat in the house (11:20). But she was not behind her sister in her love for her brother (11:19), in her faith in Jesus (11:21 f) and in her belief in the final resurrection (11:24). The power of Him, whom she termed the "Teacher," to restore Lazarus to life even upon earth was beyond her understanding. To the words of Jesus concerning this she gave, however, a verbal assent, and went and informed Mary, "The Teacher is here, and calleth thee" (11:27 f). Yet she remained inwardly unconvinced, and remonstrated when Jesus ordered the stone before the grave to be removed (11:39). Jesus then recalled His previous words to her remembrance (11:40), and vindicated them by restoring her brother to life (11:41-44). After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus then made His departure, but after a short stay in Ephraim (11:54) He returned to Bethany (Jn 12:1). While He supped there, Martha once more served, and Lazarus was also present (Jn 12:2). It was on this occasion that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (Jn 12:3-8). According to Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9, the anointing took place in the house of Simon the leper, and it has hence been concluded by some that Martha was the wife or widow of Simon. The anointing described in Lk 7:36-50 happened in the house of Simon a Pharisee. But in none of the synoptist accounts is Martha mentioned. For the relationship of these anointings with each other, see MARY, IV. As, according to John, the abode of the sisters was in Bethany, a further difficulty of a topographical nature is raised by those who hold that Luke implies, from the Galilean setting of Lk 10:38-41, that the sisters lived in Galilee. But the information supplied by Luke, upon which this inference is based, is of the vaguest (compare Lk 10:38), and the great division of Lukes Gospel (Lk 9:51 through 18:31) has within it no organic cohesion of parts. In it is mentioned that on two separate occasions Jesus passed through Samaria (Lk 9:52; 17:11). It is therefore more logical to suppose that the events described in Lk 10:38-41, falling within the intervening period, took place in Bethany during an excursion of Jesus to Judea, and formed one of the several visits upon which the friendship recorded in Jn 11:3,5 was built. According to a fragment of a Coptic gospel belonging to the 2nd century (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 38, 39), Martha was present with the other two Marys at the empty grave of Jesus (compare Mt 28:1,11), and went and informed the disciples.
C. M. Kerr
Easton
bitterness, the sister of Lazarus and Mary, and probably the eldest of the family, who all resided at Bethany (Luke 10:38, 40, 41; John 11:1-39). From the residence being called "her house," some have supposed that she was a widow, and that her brother and sister lodged with her. She seems to have been of an anxious, bustling spirit, anxious to be helpful in providing the best things for the Master's use, in contrast to the quiet earnestness of Mary, who was more concerned to avail herself of the opportunity of sitting at his feet and learning of him. Afterwards at a supper given to Christ and his disciples in her house "Martha served." Nothing further is known of her. "Mary and Martha are representatives of two orders of human character. One was absorbed, preoccupied, abstracted; the other was concentrated and single-hearted. Her own world was the all of Martha; Christ was the first thought with Mary. To Martha life was 'a succession of particular businesses;' to Mary life 'was rather the flow of one spirit.' Martha was Petrine, Mary was Johannine. The one was a well-meaning, bustling busybody; the other was a reverent disciple, a wistful listener." Paul had such a picture as that of Martha in his mind when he spoke of serving the Lord "without distraction" (1 Cor. 7:35).
HDBN
who becomes bitter; provoking
SBD
(a lady ), the sister of Lazarus and Mary. [LAZARUS] The facts recorded in Luke 10 and John 11 indicate a character devout after the customary Jewish type of devotion, sharing in Messianic hopes and accepting Jesus as the Christ. When she first comes before us, ( Luke 10:38 ) her spirit is "cumbered with much serving," is "careful and troubled about many things." Her love, though imperfect in its form, is yet recognized as true, and she has the distinction of being one whom Jesus loved. ( John 11:5 ) Her position is obviously that of the elder sister the head and manager of the household. In the supper at Bethany ( John 12:2 ) the old character shows itself still, but it has been freed from evil. She is no longer "cumbered," no longer impatient. Activity has been calmed by trust.
馬太 MATTHEW
代表
太10:3 可3:13 路6:15 徒1:13 可2:14 太9:9
ISBE
math-u: Matthew the apostle and evangelist is mentioned in the 4 catalogues of the apostles in Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13, though his place is not constant in this list, varying between the 7th and the 8th places and thus exchanging positions with Thomas. The name occurring in the two forms Matthaios, and Maththaios, is a Greek reproduction of the Aramaic Mattathyah, i.e. "gift of Yahweh," and equivalent to Theodore. Before his call to the apostolic office, according to Mt 9:9, his name was Levi. The identity of Matthew and Levi is practically beyond all doubt, as is evident from the predicate in Mt 10:3; and from a comparison of Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27 with Mt 9:9. Mark calls him "the son of Alpheus" (Mk 2:14), although this cannot have been the Alpheus who was the father of James the Less; for if this James and Matthew had been brothers this fact would doubtless have been mentioned, as is the case with Peter and Andrew, and also with the sons of Zebedee. Whether Jesus, as He did in the case of several others of His disciples, gave him the additional name of Matthew is a matter of which we are not informed. As he was a customs officer (ho telones, Mt 10:3) in Capernaum, in the territory of Herod Antipas, Matthew was not exactly a Roman official, but was in the service of the tetrarch of Galilee, or possibly a subordinate officer, belonging to the class called portitores, serving under the publicani, or superior officials who farmed the Roman taxes. As such he must have had some education, and doubtless in addition to the native Aramaic must have been acquainted with the Greek His ready acceptance of the call of Jesus shows that he must have belonged to that group of publicans and sinners, who in Galilee and elsewhere looked longingly to Jesus (Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34; 15:1). Just at what period of Christs ministry he was called does not appear with certainty, but evidently not at once, as on the day when he was called (Mt 9:11,14,18; Mk 5:37), Peter, James and John are already trustworthy disciples of Jesus. Unlike the first six among the apostles, Matthew did not enter the group from among the pupils of John the Baptist. These are practically all the data furnished by the New Testament on the person of Matthew, and what is found in post-Biblical and extra-Biblical sources is chiefly the product of imagination and in part based on mistaking the name of Matthew for Matthias (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, chapter liv, note 3). Tradition states that he preached for 15 years in Israel and that after this he went to foreign nations, the Ethiopians, Macedonians, Syrians, Persians, Parthians and Medea being mentioned. He is said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or in Macedonia. The stories of the Roman Catholic church that he died the death of a martyr on September 21 and of the Greek church that this occurred on November 10 are without any historical basis. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iv.9) gives the explicit denial of Heracleon that Matthew suffered martyrdom.
G. H. Schodde
Easton
gift of God, a common Jewish name after the Exile. He was the son of Alphaeus, and was a publican or tax-gatherer at Capernaum. On one occasion Jesus, coming up from the side of the lake, passed the custom-house where Matthew was seated, and said to him, "Follow me." Matthew arose and followed him, and became his disciple (Matt. 9:9). Formerly the name by which he was known was Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27); he now changed it, possibly in grateful memory of his call, to Matthew. The same day on which Jesus called him he made a "great feast" (Luke 5:29), a farewell feast, to which he invited Jesus and his disciples, and probably also many of old associates. He was afterwards selected as one of the twelve (6:15). His name does not occur again in the Gospel history except in the lists of the apostles. The last notice of him is in Acts 1:13. The time and manner of his death are unknown.
HDBN
given; a rewardMatthias
SBD
(gift of Jehovah ). (A contraction, as is also Matthias, of Mattathias. His original name was Levi, and his name Matthew was probably adopted as his new apostolic name was a Jew. His fathers name was Alphaeus. His home was at Capernaum His business was the collection of dues and customs from persons and goods crossing the Sea of Galilee, or passing along the great Damascus road which ran along the shore between Bethsaida, Julius and Capernaum. Christ called him from this work to he his disciple. He appears to have been a man of wealth, for he made a great feast in his own house, perhaps in order to introduce his former companions and friends to Jesus. His business would tend to give him a knowledge of human nature, and accurate business habits, and of how to make a way to the hearts of many publicans and sinners not otherwise easily reached. He is mentioned by name, after the resurrection of Christ, only in ( Acts 1:15 ) but he must have lived many years as an apostle, since he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew which was written at least twenty years later. There is reason to believe that he remained for fifteen years at Jerusalem, after which he went as missionary to the Persians, Parthians and Medes. There is a legend that he died a martyr in Ethiopia. --ED.)
馬念 MANAEN
代表
徒13:1
ISBE
man-a-en (Manaen, Greek form of Hebrew name "Menahem," meaning "consoler"): Manaen is mentioned, with Barnabas, Saul and others, in Acts 13:1, as one of the "prophets and teachers" in the recently rounded Gentile church at Antioch, at the time when Barnabas and Saul were "separated" by Divine call for their missionary service. He is further described as "the foster-brother (suntrophos) of Herod the tetrarch" (i.e. Herod Antipas (see HEROD)). He was probably brought up and educated with this Herod and his brother Archelaus. An earlier glimpse of Christian influence in Herods court is afforded by Joanna, the wife of Herods steward Chuzas, among the holy women who ministered to Jesus (Lk 8:3). Manaen may have been related to the older Manaen, the Essene, who, Josephus tells us, foretold the greatness of Herod the Great, and was afterward treated by Herod as his friend (Ant., XV, x, 5). His position in the church at Antioch was evidently an influential one, whether he himself ranked among the "prophets," or perhaps only among the "teachers."
James Orr
Easton
consoler, a Christian teacher at Antioch. Nothing else is known of him beyond what is stated in Acts 13:1, where he is spoken of as having been brought up with (Gr. syntrophos; rendered in R.V. "foster brother" of) Herod, i.e., Herod Antipas, the tetrach, who, with his brother Archelaus, was educated at Rome.
HDBN
a comforter; a leader
SBD
(comforter ) is mentioned in ( Acts 13:1 ) as one of the teachers and prophets in the church at Antioch at the time of the appointment of Saul and Barnabas as missionaries to the heathen. He is said to have been brought up with Herod Antipas. He was probably his foster-brother.
馬提亞 MATTHIAS
代表
徒1:50 徒1:23 徒1:26
ISBE
ma-thi-as (Matthias, or Maththias; Mattithyah, "given of Yah"): Matthias was the one upon whom the lot fell when he, along with Joseph Barsabbas, was put forward to fill up the place in the apostleship left vacant by Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26). This election was held at Jerusalem, and the meeting was presided over by Peter. The conditions demanded of the candidates were that they should "have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us," and that the one chosen should "become a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21,22). The mode of procedure was by lot, and with prayer was the election made (compare Acts 1:24).
Hilgenfeld identifies Matthias with Nathanael (compare NATHANAEL). He was traditionally the author of the "Gospel of Matthias," a heretical work referred to by Origen (Hom. on Lk, i), by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25, 6) and by Hieronymus (Proem in Matth.). No trace of it is left. The Gnostic Basilides (circa 133 AD) and his son Isidor claimed to ground their doctrine in the "Gospel of Basilides" on the teaching Matthias received directly from the Saviour (Hippol., vii.20) (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 167). Various parts of the apocryphal "Contendings of the Apostles" deal with the imprisonment and blinding of Matthias by the Ethiopian cannibals, and his rescue by Andrew (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 163, 164, 267-88; see also ANDREW). According to the Martyrdom of Matthias (Budge, II, 289-94) he was sent to Damascus, and died at Phalaeon, a city of Judea. Other sources mention Jerusalem as the place of Matthias ministry and burial.
C. M. Kerr
Easton
gift of God. Acts 1:23.
SBD
(gift of God ), the apostle elected to fill the place of the traitor Judas. ( Acts 1:26 ) All beyond this that we know of him for certainty is that he had been a constant attendant upon the Lord Jesus during the whole course of his ministry; for such was declared by St. Peter to be the necessary qualification of one who was to be a witness of the resurrection. It is said that he preached the gospel and suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia.
馬達他 MATTATHA
代表
拉10:33 路3:31
ISBE
mat-a-tha (Mattatha): Son of Nathan the son of David in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:31).
HDBN
his gift
駝巴多尼雅 TOB-ADONJIAH
代表
代下17:8
麥基 MELCHI
代表
路3:24 路3:28
ISBE
mel-ki (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Melchei; Textus Receptus of the New Testament, Melchi): The name of two ancestors of Jesus according to Lukes genealogy, one being in the 4th generation before Joseph, the husband of Mary, the other being in the 3rd generation before Zerubbabel (Lk 3:24,28).
Easton
my king. (1.) The son of Addi, and father of Neri (Luke 3:28). (2.) Luke 3:24.
HDBN
my king; my counsel
SBD
(my king, my counsel ). The son of Janna, and ancestor of Joseph in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. ( Luke 3:24 )
麥基洗德 MELCHIZEDEK
代表
創14:17 創14:18 創14:19 創14:20
Easton
king of righteousness, the king of Salem (q.v.). All we know of him is recorded in Gen. 14:18-20. He is subsequently mentioned only once in the Old Testament, in Ps. 110:4. The typical significance of his history is set forth in detail in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 7. The apostle there points out the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron in these several respects, (1) Even Abraham paid him tithes; (2) he blessed Abraham; (3) he is the type of a Priest who lives for ever; (4) Levi, yet unborn, paid him tithes in the person of Abraham; (5) the permanence of his priesthood in Christ implied the abrogation of the Levitical system; (6) he was made priest not without an oath; and (7) his priesthood can neither be transmitted nor interrupted by death: "this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." The question as to who this mysterious personage was has given rise to a great deal of modern speculation. It is an old tradition among the Jews that he was Shem, the son of Noah, who may have survived to this time. Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, a worshipper of the true God, and in his peculiar history and character an instructive type of our Lord, the great High Priest (Heb. 5:6, 7; 6:20). One of the Amarna tablets is from Ebed-Tob, king of Jerusalem, the successor of Melchizedek, in which he claims the very attributes and dignity given to Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
HDBN
king of justice
SBD
(king of righteousness ), king of Salem and priest of the most high God, who met Abram in the valley of Shaveh, which is the kings valley, bought out bread and wine, blessed him, and received tithes from him. ( Genesis 14:18-20 ) The other places in which Melchizedek is mentioned are ( Psalms 110:4 ) where Messiah is described as a priest forever, "after the order of Melchizedek," and ( Hebrews 5:1 ; Hebrews 6:1 ; Hebrews 7:1 ) ... where these two passages of the Old Testament are quoted, and the typical relation of Melchizedek to our Lord is stated at great length. There is something surprising and mysterious in the first appearance of Melchizedek, and in the subsequent reference to him. Bearing a title which Jews in after ages would recognize as designating their own sovereign, bearing gifts which recall to Christians the Lords Supper, this Canaanite crosses for a moment the path of Abram, and is unhesitatingly recognized as a person of higher spiritual rank than the friend of God. Disappearing as suddenly as he came, he is lost to the sacred writings for a thousand years. Jewish tradition pronounces Melchizedek to be a survivor of the deluge, the patriarch Shem. The way in which he is mentioned in Genesis would rather lead to the inference that Melchizedek was of one blood with the children of Ham, among whom he lived, chief (like the king od Sodom) of a settled Canaanitish tribe. The "order of Melchizedek," in ( Psalms 110:4 ) is explained to mean "manner" = likeness in official dignity = a king and priest. The relation between Melchizedek and Christ as type and antitype is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews to consist in the following particulars: Each was a priest, (1) not of the Levitical tribe; (2) superior to Abraham; (3) whose beginning and end are unknown; (4) who is not only a priest, but also a king of righteousness and peace. A fruitful source of discussion has been found in the site of Salem. [SALEM]
麥基舒亞 MELCHI-SHUA
代表
撒上14:49 撒上14:14 撒上32:2 代上8:33
HDBN
king of health; magnificent king
SBD
A son of Saul. ( 1 Samuel 14:49 ; 31:2 ) Elsewhere correctly given Malchishua.
麥西 MIZRAIM
代表
創10:6 創10:13 代上1:8 代上1:11
ISBE
miz-ra-im (mitsrayim):
(1) A son of Ham, and ancestor of various peoples, Ludim, Anamim, etc. (Gen 10:6,13; 1 Ch 1:8,11).
See TABLE OF NATIONS.
(2) The name of Egypt.
See EGYPT.
The land of Ham.--cham, was another name for the land of Egypt. It occurs only in Ps 105:23,17; 106:22; Ps 78:51 probably refers to the land of Ham, though it may refer to the children of Ham. The origin and significance of this name are involved in much obscurity. Two improbable etymologies and one probable etymology for Ham as a name of Egypt have been proposed, and the improbable ones very much urged: (1) Ham is often thought to be a Hebrew appropriation of the Egyptian name "Kemt," a name for the "black land" as distinguished from "desherr," the red land of the desert which surrounded it. This etymology is very attractive, but phonetically very improbable to say the least. (2) Ham has sometimes been connected directly with cham, the second son of Noah whose descendants under the name Mitsraim occupied a part of Northeastern Africa. But as there is no trace of this name among the Egyptians and no use of it in the historical books of the Old Testament, this can hardly be said to be a probable derivation of the word. (3) There is a third proposed etymology for Ham which connects it ultimately but indirectly with Ham, the second son of Noah. Some of the earliest sculptures yet found in Egypt represent the god Min (Menu; compare Koptos by Professor Petrie). This god seems also to have been called Khem, a very exact Egyptian equivalent for Cham, Ham, the second son of Noah and the ancestor of the Hamitic people of Egypt. That Ham the son of Noah should be deified in the Egyptian pantheon is not surprising. The sensuality of this god Min or Khem also accords well with the reputation for licentiousness borne by Ham the son of Noah. These facts suggest very strongly a trace in Egyptian mythology of the actual history of the movements of Hamitic people. (4) While the preceding division (3) probably states the real explanation of the early name of Egypt, it still remains to be noted that the use of the name Ham by the Psalmist may be entirely poetic. Until it be found that the name Ham was applied to Egypt by other writers of that period it will ever be in some measure unlikely that the Psalmist was acquainted with the mythological use of the name Ham in Egypt, and so, in equal measure, probable that he meant nothing more than to speak of the land of the descendants of Ham the son of Noah.
See also HAM.
M. G. Kyle
Easton
the dual form of matzor, meaning a "mound" or "fortress," the name of a people descended from Ham (Gen. 10:6, 13; 1 Chr. 1:8, 11). It was the name generally given by the Hebrews to the land of Egypt (q.v.), and may denote the two Egypts, the Upper and the Lower. The modern Arabic name for Egypt is Muzr.
HDBN
tribulations


ISBE - 國際標準聖經百科全書 (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
Easton - Easton's Bible Dictionary
HBND - Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary
SBD - Smith's Bible Dictionary