Was the Beloved Disciple at Jesus’ side really John—or was it Mary Magdalene all along? This scroll, inspired by Cynthia Bourgeault’s teaching, reexamines the Gospel of John through Magdalene’s embodied witness. Lean in. The truth has a heartbeat.
"You don’t get to claim “apostolic authority” while denying the one person every gospel agrees was there. Their bias against Mary disqualifies their judgment. Period."
And the cycle begins again, hopefully this time with less mess-ups? :)
(Still think the main problem with the whole "forbidden fruit" [which may or may not have been an apple, but "pomegranate" has a lot more syllables] thing was that Adam weenied out on his responsibility and didn't own up to it ["It was EVE'S fault!!"], nor Eve ["It was that SNAKE'S fault!!"]...sigh; no wonder God was reported as being discouraged with them both. X-P)
Jesus, revelation was considered the "New Covenant" and everlasting, between Heaven and Earth. By diminishing Mary Magdelene to a mere footnote (in a sense) they do the same injustice as was done to Eve, in my mind.
The patriarchal bias remains while her importance as his beloved. The same beloved beloverence that Eve as Adam's equal was misaligned. Representing both the male and female attributes of God.
How then can we say that we are all Made in God image without embracing the duality of God (male& female)?
Debra, you’ve named what too many have left veiled.
To diminish Magdalene is to rerun Eden’s error: dividing what was created whole. The exile of Eve and the erasure of Magdalene are not two stories—they’re the same wound replayed through time. Both carried the divine imprint. Both stood as mirrors of holy partnership. And both were cast aside when the story got rewritten to suit power over presence.
You’re absolutely right—the “image of God” is not a solo portrait. It’s a shared likeness. Male and female, human and divine, revealed in sacred relationship.
The tragedy is not that Magdalene loved Jesus—it’s that her love was theological, reciprocal, embodied, and dangerous to empire. That’s why she was footnoted, fragmented, and forgotten.
Debra, what you're sensing is not far from the heart of the matter.
Rather than look for a biological bloodline, Cynthia Bourgeault invites us to see Magdalene as the lineage bearer in another way. Not by womb, but by wisdom. Not by physical seed, but by spiritual transmission. She received what Jesus gave in full measure. She understood it. She embodied it. She carried it forward.
In this light, the Holy Spirit isn’t a third person on a genealogy chart. It is what flows between them. The current of divine knowing. The shared heart. The conscious union that could only take root in someone who had the inner capacity to hold it. Magdalene wasn’t just a companion. She was the vessel through which the living presence could continue.
So maybe it’s not either-or. Maybe she was the Spirit. Maybe she carried it. Maybe she became it.
The sacred continues through those who are willing to receive and return love in the same pattern.
Like...the third shape that comes from a union of two circles? The vesica piscis ('cause it looks kind of fish-shaped -- hmm; "icthys," indeed! :D)? The purple when one circle's red and the other blue, etc....that would be the Holy Spirit. Makes sense. :)
Good Teacher, many thanks for this amazing writing. To consider Mary Magdalene not only as the intimate companion of Jesus but also as the heir to his leadership is so wonderful. I had never thought of that possibility. If the other apostles had accepted her as their leader, it would have added a whole new meaning to Christianity’s development.
We should also demand her Gospel—the Gospel of Mary—alongside Thomas and Philip, to be included. Any reference to their so-called rejection is null and void—because the same bishops who tossed those texts out also rejected the undeniable fact that Mary Magdalene is named in all four canonical gospels as the first witness to the resurrection.
You don’t get to claim “apostolic authority” while denying the one person every gospel agrees was there. Their bias against Mary disqualifies their judgment. Period.
Thank you for shaping this post and moving Cynthia’s words and work forward here as well. Simply amazing that you care.
You mention the Greek word for son to be feminine and not masculine. Which translation are you quoting here for this verse?
John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.
I did a quick search using the NRSV and its shows it as masculine in the Greek.
Great question—and you’re right that the standard Greek text in John 19:26 uses the masculine word υἱός (huios) for “son.” Most translations, like the NRSV, render it that way.
I did not say the Greek word for son was feminine and not masculine.
what I wrote was "Because the Greek word used there for “son” isn’t the biological kind. It’s the language of adoption—like when Paul says we’re adopted into Christ. And the word isn’t masculine. It’s feminine plural. It’s as if the text itself slipped the truth past the censors, like Jesus often did."
What Cynthia is doing isn’t changing the Greek—she’s interpreting the meaning symbolically, especially in the context of Jesus creating a chosen family at the foot of the cross. In that moment, he’s not assigning biological roles but relational ones: entrusting his mother to the care of the "beloved disciple" and vice versa.
Cynthia also references some scholarly work suggesting that the Greek grammatical forms in this passage may subtly hint at something broader—like communal or household roles—which in Greek can take on feminine plural forms. It's less about saying the word “son” is literally feminine, and more about pointing to a non-biological, symbolic relationship that transcends gender.
She uses that nuance to open the possibility that the beloved disciple could have been Mary Magdalene—since the strongest objection has always been, “But Jesus says ‘son,’ so it must be a man.” Cynthia is suggesting that’s not a slam-dunk argument.
So yes—the Greek word is masculine, but the meaning might not be. 💫
Of course… Cynthia is a master at bringing these truths forward. And you are a master at weaving it into our thoughts and fabric.
I appreciate the clarification. I perhaps misunderstood the point in your piece. But of course this makes perfect sense about John.
I’ve often heard some researchers say that the wedding of Cana was between John and Mary Magdalene. While this seems to also be a stretch for my mind I’m not sure why some try so hard to keep Mary Magdalene out of the narrative. It only brings me to include her more and more at every turn.
John Shelby Spong’s latest book on John really sheds some light most do not want to hear or read. He says most of John is just not factual.
So as we press into Mary Magdalene may her presence fill us and break us open like alabaster boxes 🙌🏻
Nice try, but in John's gospel account it says from then on Mary the mother of Jesus stayed with this disciple. Ancient Church traditions ascribe this to the Apostle John.
Mary of Magdala was most likely a higher-class woman of some wealth and not the 'prostitute' Pope Gregory 1 portrayed her as being. The idea of her having a romantic/sexual connection to Jesus is ridiculous nonsense. Such a notion is demeaning to both Jesus and Mary.
Church history has the Apostle John residing in Ephesus where both his and Mary's cemetery's can be seen today. Personally I doubt whether these are authentic, but if the Apostle John is also the author of Revelation then it would make sense the author at the time was residing in Asia Minor where the 7 churches mentioned in the first 3 chapters are located.
Robin, I appreciate that you're leaning on what you call “Ancient Church Tradition,” but that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting without doing the work. What you're referring to is a liturgically reinforced editorial choice, not a fact. The early church chose to amplify the voice of Peter and silence the presence of Mary Magdalene, even though all four Gospels name her as the first witness to the resurrection, and three show her at the crucifixion and burial. That’s not fringe. That’s the textual core.
Let’s clear up a few things:
1. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” doesn't have to be John.
The Gospel of John never names this disciple. The assumption that it’s John is based on tradition, not textual evidence. Cynthia Bourgeault (whose research this article draws from) points out that the grammar in John 19:26–27 doesn't demand a male subject. The Greek word used for “son” there is not biologically gendered—it's the word for an adopted child, not a male heir. There's no reason to assume Jesus wasn't speaking to a woman—especially when Mary Magdalene is standing right there in the previous verse (John 19:25), but is almost always cut out of liturgical readings.
2. Liturgical redaction is real.
Churches have been skipping John 19:25 for centuries, omitting Magdalene's presence at the foot of the cross. You can verify this. The Bach Passions don’t include her. Neither do most Catholic Good Friday liturgies. That’s how tradition overwrites text—by repeating what’s convenient and ignoring what’s uncomfortable.
3. The idea that Jesus having a close, even intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene is “demeaning” says more about our inherited shame around embodiment than about Jesus himself.
If you’re clinging to a Jesus who must be celibate to be sacred, you’re not defending holiness—you’re defending centuries of Christian discomfort with sex and with women. There’s no scandal in Jesus loving someone deeply. What is scandalous is how much effort has been put into erasing the woman who stayed when the men fled, who watched him die, buried him, and was the first to see him risen.
This isn’t about shock value. It’s about correcting a power-driven edit to the original story. The Magdalene wasn’t a fringe groupie. She was the eyewitness. The early church called her “Apostle to the Apostles” for a reason.
You don’t have to believe she was the beloved disciple. But if you're going to base your belief on “church history,” at least acknowledge the parts of that history that deliberately silenced her.
"You don’t get to claim “apostolic authority” while denying the one person every gospel agrees was there. Their bias against Mary disqualifies their judgment. Period."
For 2025 years and more -- this!
Jealousy or envy? One wonders; or, could've been that John was gay. :)
THAT would've upset a lot of apple carts, too...
I got to “breathe that in,” did so, then said out loud, “She’s Eve!” [to his Adam]
And the cycle begins again, hopefully this time with less mess-ups? :)
(Still think the main problem with the whole "forbidden fruit" [which may or may not have been an apple, but "pomegranate" has a lot more syllables] thing was that Adam weenied out on his responsibility and didn't own up to it ["It was EVE'S fault!!"], nor Eve ["It was that SNAKE'S fault!!"]...sigh; no wonder God was reported as being discouraged with them both. X-P)
Nancy, a very careful reading of that accountability event actually reveals that the human blamed GOD “the woman YOU GAVE ME…”
The woman told the truth “the ‘serpent’ deceived me…”
There is so much more in the story, especially in Hebrew…
What if the man had obeyed what he’d been told and said no?
Let’s meditate on that!
Jesus, revelation was considered the "New Covenant" and everlasting, between Heaven and Earth. By diminishing Mary Magdelene to a mere footnote (in a sense) they do the same injustice as was done to Eve, in my mind.
The patriarchal bias remains while her importance as his beloved. The same beloved beloverence that Eve as Adam's equal was misaligned. Representing both the male and female attributes of God.
How then can we say that we are all Made in God image without embracing the duality of God (male& female)?
Debra, you’ve named what too many have left veiled.
To diminish Magdalene is to rerun Eden’s error: dividing what was created whole. The exile of Eve and the erasure of Magdalene are not two stories—they’re the same wound replayed through time. Both carried the divine imprint. Both stood as mirrors of holy partnership. And both were cast aside when the story got rewritten to suit power over presence.
You’re absolutely right—the “image of God” is not a solo portrait. It’s a shared likeness. Male and female, human and divine, revealed in sacred relationship.
The tragedy is not that Magdalene loved Jesus—it’s that her love was theological, reciprocal, embodied, and dangerous to empire. That’s why she was footnoted, fragmented, and forgotten.
But the Spirit remembers. And so do we.
Yes ! And as I sat here pondering
Eve brought forth life, Adam the seed of life
Jesus and Mary Magdelene the same. I truly wonder if the sacred bloodline exists to this day?
Jesus born of a virgin
So Jesus the Father
Mary Magdelene - the Mother
Their bloodline the Holy Sprit
Or
Jesus the Father (son of God)
The Virgin Mary the Mother
Mary Magdelene embodies (d) the spirit
???
Debra, what you're sensing is not far from the heart of the matter.
Rather than look for a biological bloodline, Cynthia Bourgeault invites us to see Magdalene as the lineage bearer in another way. Not by womb, but by wisdom. Not by physical seed, but by spiritual transmission. She received what Jesus gave in full measure. She understood it. She embodied it. She carried it forward.
In this light, the Holy Spirit isn’t a third person on a genealogy chart. It is what flows between them. The current of divine knowing. The shared heart. The conscious union that could only take root in someone who had the inner capacity to hold it. Magdalene wasn’t just a companion. She was the vessel through which the living presence could continue.
So maybe it’s not either-or. Maybe she was the Spirit. Maybe she carried it. Maybe she became it.
The sacred continues through those who are willing to receive and return love in the same pattern.
And Magdalene did.
Thank you Alek for helping me understand better. For so long I've wondered and questioned what I was taught as a child in my Catholic upbringing.
Just as with the sacraments I was taught, it seemed to take me further than closer to God.
An example is confession and the confessional. In-Showering In God's Grace, I wrote about my experience with confession and receiving absolution.
Showering in Loves Grace , I mean
Like...the third shape that comes from a union of two circles? The vesica piscis ('cause it looks kind of fish-shaped -- hmm; "icthys," indeed! :D)? The purple when one circle's red and the other blue, etc....that would be the Holy Spirit. Makes sense. :)
That makes sense. I can see that. Thank you VMB. 🙏
A piece that peeks through the veil of smoke and dust of centuries...
A good read..
Thank you
Good Teacher, many thanks for this amazing writing. To consider Mary Magdalene not only as the intimate companion of Jesus but also as the heir to his leadership is so wonderful. I had never thought of that possibility. If the other apostles had accepted her as their leader, it would have added a whole new meaning to Christianity’s development.
We should also demand her Gospel—the Gospel of Mary—alongside Thomas and Philip, to be included. Any reference to their so-called rejection is null and void—because the same bishops who tossed those texts out also rejected the undeniable fact that Mary Magdalene is named in all four canonical gospels as the first witness to the resurrection.
You don’t get to claim “apostolic authority” while denying the one person every gospel agrees was there. Their bias against Mary disqualifies their judgment. Period.
YEAH! I missed not seeing that one in my "Complete Bible! Now with Apocrypha! :D" copy! >:-(
I can see it. Wow! You've got me re-thinking a lot (again). 😊
Beautiful 🦋🌹❤️🩹🇨🇦
Beautiful. So grateful for anyone who speaks her name!
💔🫶🎗️🙏💓💝💟💖🌠🌈🫂🙂↕️
Dear Aleksander
Thank you for shaping this post and moving Cynthia’s words and work forward here as well. Simply amazing that you care.
You mention the Greek word for son to be feminine and not masculine. Which translation are you quoting here for this verse?
John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.
I did a quick search using the NRSV and its shows it as masculine in the Greek.
I would love to see this in plain sight 🙌🏻💕
Great question—and you’re right that the standard Greek text in John 19:26 uses the masculine word υἱός (huios) for “son.” Most translations, like the NRSV, render it that way.
I did not say the Greek word for son was feminine and not masculine.
what I wrote was "Because the Greek word used there for “son” isn’t the biological kind. It’s the language of adoption—like when Paul says we’re adopted into Christ. And the word isn’t masculine. It’s feminine plural. It’s as if the text itself slipped the truth past the censors, like Jesus often did."
What Cynthia is doing isn’t changing the Greek—she’s interpreting the meaning symbolically, especially in the context of Jesus creating a chosen family at the foot of the cross. In that moment, he’s not assigning biological roles but relational ones: entrusting his mother to the care of the "beloved disciple" and vice versa.
Cynthia also references some scholarly work suggesting that the Greek grammatical forms in this passage may subtly hint at something broader—like communal or household roles—which in Greek can take on feminine plural forms. It's less about saying the word “son” is literally feminine, and more about pointing to a non-biological, symbolic relationship that transcends gender.
She uses that nuance to open the possibility that the beloved disciple could have been Mary Magdalene—since the strongest objection has always been, “But Jesus says ‘son,’ so it must be a man.” Cynthia is suggesting that’s not a slam-dunk argument.
So yes—the Greek word is masculine, but the meaning might not be. 💫
Of course… Cynthia is a master at bringing these truths forward. And you are a master at weaving it into our thoughts and fabric.
I appreciate the clarification. I perhaps misunderstood the point in your piece. But of course this makes perfect sense about John.
I’ve often heard some researchers say that the wedding of Cana was between John and Mary Magdalene. While this seems to also be a stretch for my mind I’m not sure why some try so hard to keep Mary Magdalene out of the narrative. It only brings me to include her more and more at every turn.
John Shelby Spong’s latest book on John really sheds some light most do not want to hear or read. He says most of John is just not factual.
So as we press into Mary Magdalene may her presence fill us and break us open like alabaster boxes 🙌🏻
Thank you Aleksander
Nice try, but in John's gospel account it says from then on Mary the mother of Jesus stayed with this disciple. Ancient Church traditions ascribe this to the Apostle John.
Mary of Magdala was most likely a higher-class woman of some wealth and not the 'prostitute' Pope Gregory 1 portrayed her as being. The idea of her having a romantic/sexual connection to Jesus is ridiculous nonsense. Such a notion is demeaning to both Jesus and Mary.
Church history has the Apostle John residing in Ephesus where both his and Mary's cemetery's can be seen today. Personally I doubt whether these are authentic, but if the Apostle John is also the author of Revelation then it would make sense the author at the time was residing in Asia Minor where the 7 churches mentioned in the first 3 chapters are located.
Robin, I appreciate that you're leaning on what you call “Ancient Church Tradition,” but that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting without doing the work. What you're referring to is a liturgically reinforced editorial choice, not a fact. The early church chose to amplify the voice of Peter and silence the presence of Mary Magdalene, even though all four Gospels name her as the first witness to the resurrection, and three show her at the crucifixion and burial. That’s not fringe. That’s the textual core.
Let’s clear up a few things:
1. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” doesn't have to be John.
The Gospel of John never names this disciple. The assumption that it’s John is based on tradition, not textual evidence. Cynthia Bourgeault (whose research this article draws from) points out that the grammar in John 19:26–27 doesn't demand a male subject. The Greek word used for “son” there is not biologically gendered—it's the word for an adopted child, not a male heir. There's no reason to assume Jesus wasn't speaking to a woman—especially when Mary Magdalene is standing right there in the previous verse (John 19:25), but is almost always cut out of liturgical readings.
2. Liturgical redaction is real.
Churches have been skipping John 19:25 for centuries, omitting Magdalene's presence at the foot of the cross. You can verify this. The Bach Passions don’t include her. Neither do most Catholic Good Friday liturgies. That’s how tradition overwrites text—by repeating what’s convenient and ignoring what’s uncomfortable.
3. The idea that Jesus having a close, even intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene is “demeaning” says more about our inherited shame around embodiment than about Jesus himself.
If you’re clinging to a Jesus who must be celibate to be sacred, you’re not defending holiness—you’re defending centuries of Christian discomfort with sex and with women. There’s no scandal in Jesus loving someone deeply. What is scandalous is how much effort has been put into erasing the woman who stayed when the men fled, who watched him die, buried him, and was the first to see him risen.
This isn’t about shock value. It’s about correcting a power-driven edit to the original story. The Magdalene wasn’t a fringe groupie. She was the eyewitness. The early church called her “Apostle to the Apostles” for a reason.
You don’t have to believe she was the beloved disciple. But if you're going to base your belief on “church history,” at least acknowledge the parts of that history that deliberately silenced her.