According to John 20:1, the first witness to the resurrection is Mary Magdalene, who visited the tomb very early on Sunday morning. Who is this Mary?
The name “Magdalene” indicates she was from a town in Galilee, Magdal about a mile north of Tiberias. The name means “tower” and is called “fish tower” in the Talmud, perhaps indicating that it was associated with exporting fish from Galilee. The town may have been as large as 40,000 in the first century and predominantly Gentile (ABD, 4:579).
According to Luke 8:2 Jesus healed Mary “from seven evil spirits,” otherwise she only appears in the resurrection stories in Matthew and Mark. Luke only says that demons went out of her, but it safe to assume that Jesus was the exorcist.
According to a sixth century tradition, Mary was the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 (and Mary of Bethany, John 11:1-12:8, Luke 10:38-42). This is possibly due to the fact that Migdal had a reputation for as a sinful town in Midr. Lam 2:2. It is possible that a Jewish woman living in a Gentile town was there to work as a prostitute, although there is no reason to assume that is the case. There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that she was a prostitute or adulterous, only that she had been demon possessed.
Mary has become popular in contemporary culture as a female disciple of Jesus on the same level as Peter and the Twelve. The real problem for this view is that the New Testament does not present her as part of the inner circle. These popular readings of Mary are based on Gnostic literature, include the Gospel of Peter and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (both date to about A.D. 200) and the Gospel of Philip (third century A.D.), which describes Mary as the disciple whom Christ loved more than all the others.
There is a longstanding Gnostic tradition that Jesus and Mary had a romantic relationship and that they were secretly married and had a child. This child begins a kind of “Jesus dynasty,” a secret line of Jesus which existed for centuries. This sort of thing turns up in the Da Vinci Code and other conspiracy-mined entertainment. There is little evidence for this, what evidence does exist is strained at best.
Still it is remarkable that this woman is the first to visit the empty tomb in John’s gospel. Since it is still early in the morning, Mary cannot see into the tomb, only that the stone has been moved away from the entrance. She assumes that the body has been disturbed, perhaps that the tomb has been robbed. She returns to the place where Peter and the others are staying, presumably the upper room) and reports that the tomb has been opened.
If one were to invent the story of the resurrection, Mary would be a poor choice for first witness to the empty tomb. As a woman her testimony would be questioned, and even in the story as we read it in John, she misunderstands what has happened and assumes (as most people would) that someone has moved the body of Jesus, likely to prevent the disciples from venerating the tomb of their prophet.
What are the ramifications of the “first witness” being a woman with a potentially tarnished reputation?
Doesn’t her so-called “tarnished reputation” arise entirely from the sixth-century sermon of Pope Gregory in 519 that conflates her with the unnamed woman at Bethany? I believe her title of “Apostle to the Apostles” is of more ancient provenance than that!
There are other indications in the NT that she is important. She was one of the women who accompanied Jesus and the Twelve, she provided for them out of her own resources, and she is generally named first in a list of named women, which is a literary convention generally signifying leadership (as in, Peter, James, and John). She is not only the first witness to the empty tomb; she is the first person to whom the resurrected Christ shows himself!
Some authors even speculate that Magdalen was not so much a reference to a town of origin as it was a nickname, like Simon Peter = Peter the Rock, Mary Magdalen = Mary the Tower.
I had not thought about the Rock / Tower connection before. I had just assumed it is a geographical name, since there are a particularly high number of Marys in the NT. This is like Jesus of Nazareth, there are so many men named Jesus in first century that a geographical “last name” is added.
Pope Gregory’s sermon was my allusion when I said “sixth century tradition,” and you are right, it is a pure conflation of the sinful woman with Luke 8:2. (You might recall I am not sure at all that the woman in Luke 8 is the same one in the anointing at Bethany. I pointed out the many differences in a PhD seminar and the confessionaly minded in the class dismissed me without much further thought!)
Before I begin, I wanted to ask. How does John say that Mary the first one to the tomb if Luke 24:1-10 tells us that she, Joanna, another Mary, and even “other women” had all gone to the tomb and all returned to tell the apostles?
Mary Magdalene’s being the first witness is interesting. I think it is another example of Jesus’s identity being revealed through and understood by people that would not normally be the ones expected to do so. The religious leaders did not acknowledge who Jesus was, but Gentiles, Samaritans, tax collectors, and even demons knew. Now, in the ultimately glorious moment for Jesus, he again chooses to reveal this to a formerly demon-possessed woman from a sinful town, Magdal. Long puts it this way, “If one were to invent the story of the resurrection, Mary would be a poor choice for first witness to the empty tomb.” If we were writing the story, we would have chosen someone like the high priest to see the risen Lord. Jesus always chose the lowest to be the ones he lifted up, such as bringing in tax collector Matthew as his disciple (Matt. 9:9), declaring that the Gentile centurion had more faith than the Jews (Luke 7:9), or letting the children, whom everyone else was refusing, to come to him (Matt. 19:13-14). And now, Mary, a low woman, “is granted the high privilege of being the first to witness the resurrection” (Strauss 326).
There is clearly an intimate relationship between Mary and Jesus revealed mostly through the death and resurrection of Jesus. There are obvious complications regarding anything of high importance when there is a woman involved considering context. Especially in this situation because it’s the first witness to his body missing. In their culture there was not much if any value given to a woman’s opinion or perspective. Comparably to men, there is not much dialogue from women found in Scripture. However, if there was ever a woman to be the first witness, it would be Mary Magdalene. Regardless of her gender or reputation, Jesus loved her. And there is almost an attachment that she has for him probably because what he has done for her.Like one of His twelve she followed him around. She took care for him and his disciples (Luke 8:1-3). She was there at Jesus crucifixion (John 19:25). She took initiative and was the first to go to his burial place to anoint him with spices (Mark 16:1). She was the first one to experience Jesus resurrected (Mark 16:9). In this experience Jesus finds her weeping beside the tomb. Jesus says to her, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father” (20:17) probably mean that she must stop depending on his physical presence, since he will soon ascend to the Father” (Strauss 326). Although there are ramifications considering the context and culture, there is also another approach to this situation resulting in Mary being a worthy candidate of the “first witness”.
While reading John chapter 20, I did not read where it said she went to anoint Jesus with spices. In chapter 19 Nicodemus had brought spices to anoint Jesus and assist Joseph of Arimathea with Jesus’s burial. It is possible that Mary Magdalene may have brought addition spices to anoint Jesus with, however scripture does not state this. Of course, there are times when things may have been left out. For instance, when the world was created, the Bible does not say that dinosaurs were created, but science supports that dinosaurs did exist because of fossils and bones. Jesus and Mary Magdalene did have a relationship whether it was more of an intimate relationship or just a close friendship we will never really know. Just because she was weeping for him, does not mean they had an intimate relationship in the romantic sense. As kids if our closest friend had to move away or vice versa, we more than likely cried. Countless times Jesus showed his love for many people. To name a few, there was Jesus’ mother Mary, then there was the disciple whom Jesus loved. Just because Jesus loved someone, even a female, it does not mean that he was romantically involved with them.
It does not surprise me that Mary of Magdalene would be the first to witness the resurrection. Throughout Jesus ministry he associated with women, no matter if they were prostitutes or not. Mary of Magdalene may have or may not of had an adulterous past, this of which we cannot be sure of, ” It is possible that a Jewish woman living in a Gentile town was there to work as a prostitute, although there is no reason to assume that is the case. ” The fact that Mary was possessed and freed of the demons that lived in her is a great testimony of Jesus power. Early in the morning before it was light, Mary went to pay her respects to her savior and rabbi. Something that stuck me when pondering these passages, is why would it not be fitting for Mary to be the one? Jesus ministry was to all especially those who needed him. Mary is an example of one of these people. She was the first one to come to the tomb on the first day of the week, she had obeyed the Sabbath and went as quickly as she could, before it was even it was light. Her effort to visit Jesus is admirable, when his disciples deserted him at the cross, Mary was there. She was faithful to Jesus, and she in turn was granted the joy and happiness of being the first to see him since his death.
There is without a doubt a very special connection that Jesus and Mary have together and it is shown all throughout the Gospels. I don’t believe it was an intimate relationship, but none the less, a special relationship. She was one of the very few that were with Jesus all the way to the end and stood at the foot of the cross. She was one of the ones that helped take Him down and prepare His body for burial. It’s no surpise that she was the first one to see the empty tomb because she most likely went there everyday, multiple times a day to visit the tomb and mourn. Mary was one of the only “disciple” of Jesus that He did a miracle to. Him saving her from the demons and her past connected her to Christ and created a love for Him that the other disciples didn’t have because He did not do any miracles to them. I think that the only reason they wouldn’t and didn’t believe her, is because she was soo distressed and soo mournful that it would have been easy to think that she was just under too much emotional stress and just thought she saw the empty tomb. Also, I think that they could’ve just assumed because of her past that she was mistaken. She was faithful to Jesus and was there with Him till the end and His death and was faithful visiting His tomb and awaiting His resurrection so I think that she very well deserved to be the first one to see it.
I think the ramifications are both immense and suiting. Jesus’ ministry was riddled with expectation breaking, culture refitting language and deed. Jesus redefined the twelve tribes, the role of the messiah, the role of a priest, and all of Israel. he changed things. He challenged the norm. And even in something as unexpected and preposterous as his resurrection, an empty tomb is first shown to a sinful woman. Most of Christ’s miracles were displays for his closest friends or the religious male elite. His greatest miracle is shown to one sinful woman first. It is shown to the least believable and least credible source possible. As stated already, the likelihood that the story could be made up and attributed to a formerly possessed woman’s testimony is non-existent. No one would make up a story like this and expect people to believe. There is also the possibility that Mary being the first witness wasn’t a specific plan of Jesus. perhaps she was, for whatever reason, the person to first visit after the defeat of death. Perhaps Mary, as an acquaintance of Jesus was close enough with him to feel just enough sympathy and grief but not too close as to not want to visit the grave of her failed messiah and teacher.
It is interesting that Mary is the first to visit the empty tomb. I agree with Scott that it does follow Jesus’ ministry before. Jesus was always associated with sinners and He used people that seemed unworthy so that it could be clear that He was to be glorified. I remember once hearing a youth pastor mention that some people thought that Mary and Jesus were a…”thing”. I do not understand where this could have come from but it is obvious that Jesus was an important part in her life since she was returning to anoint the body with burial spices. Unless that was normal in their culture, I do not think that someone would anoint a dead body unless they thought highly of the person.
As I picture Mary getting to the tomb, I see how I see her walking slowly, feeling defeated as she witnessed Judas’ betrayal and Jesus’ crucifixion. The horror she must have felt and the fear that creeped through her veins as she watched these events take fold. I can not even begin imagine actually being there and being in her shoes as one of Jesus’ followers.
But as she continues to walk towards the place where the one she adored and loved, she believed laid lifeless, her eyes see something different, she “saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot,”(John. 20:12, NIV). It then says how one angel asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”(John. 20:13, NIV). Her response is telling them how they took Jesus away and that she does not know where they have put them. Then she saw a gardener, not knowing it was Jesus, and asked him where he put Jesus.
Right when Jesus said her name, that is when her eyes were opened.
What a special moment! A moment filled with so many different emotions for the both of them.
I hope for us, when our eyes are open to who Jesus is, we will also be in awe and hug the Lord!
I really do like how this is a woman who has a lot of bones in her closet, and she is also the first to see that Jesus is gone. I find this interesting because you would think that it would be a hero of the faith, but it is rather this woman who was found with loads of sin as a prostitute. this should be an inspiration to us in that no matter where we come from in life we can still know God’s glorious redemptive plan.
The fact that Mary Magdalene was the first person to witness the empty tomb is quite an interesting part of the resurrection story. One thing that I noticed about Mary in chapter 20 is that she is not only the first witness to the empty tomb 20:1, but she is also goes back and becomes the first witness to see Jesus in his new resurrected form in 20:14-18. It is known that within that culture, women are not seen as important, so their witness statements would not be valued at all. The significance of this passage then is deep as it is thought to be a passage that shows a change in how women are viewed. Kostenberger remarks, “Women as well as men are called to bear witness to the good news they have received—this is the clear implication of Jesus’s command issued to Mary Magdalene in the present passage” (171-172). Jesus tells her to go and tell the other disciples what she has seen, clearly granting her the witness status.
With what we know of Mary from John and the other gospels, she seems to have a bit of a frowned-upon reputation. This makes her being a witness to not only to the empty tomb but also the resurrected Jesus even more interesting. Being a woman already is one strike against her for how reliable she is with her eye witness, but being a woman who has a bad reputation is even worse. In a way, I see having Mary Magdalene be the first witness was also a redemptive type story for her as well as Jesus shows her that she has worth through showing himself to her before the others who are considered by society to have more worth than her.
I am thankful that we get this story of Mary Magdalene woven throughout the Gospels. We get to see how Jesus healed her from her affliction of being possessed by demons and forgave her of her sins; and then she followed Jesus. After this, she then will show up at different times throughout the different Gospels and we get to see more of how she interacts with Jesus after this experience. During this time, she might have traveled around with Jesus and the disciples however, she would not have been considered one of the inner circle disciples. She does play a unique role as a woman in the story line of Jesus, because she is the first person to arrive at the scene of the resurrection. This is significant because a woman’s testimony was not considered to be valid in this time period, and the fact that the Bible records her as the first witness is a big deal. Through this, the Bible is validating that what she saw was true.
What are the ramifications of Mary being the first witness? Well for starters she was a woman. Women in the ancient world were not considered reliable witnesses. Because of that she would be credited already as not being believable. Another ramification is that Mary Magdalene is believed to not have the best reputation. Some people think that Mary Magdalene was possibly a prostitute. She is thought to be a prostitute because she was a Jewish woman who was living in a Gentile town. She is thought of as possibly being a prostitute but there is no clear evidence to prove this claim. So, the fact that she is a woman and her not so well reputation makes her stand out as a non-reliable source, at least in the culture of the ancient world. It’s because of who she is that makes her the perfect candidate for the Gospel. Because Jesus normally did things and said things that went against the cultural norms of his day, having Mary be the first to discover the empty tomb and see him after the resurrection makes sense. Could there be any better person than Mary, in order to spread the good news? Even after his victory over death Jesus still went against the cultural norm. What else makes sense about this is that it goes along with the story of his birth. The Sheppard’s were the first to see Jesus after he was born. And like Mary the Sheppard’s were looked down upon by most of society. When Christ was born, he revealed himself to the lowest ranked people in society. So to me it makes perfect sense that after the resurrection Jesus would reveal himself to someone who was also seen as the lowest of society.
Mary Magdalene certainly is an odd choice for the first person to see Jesus. While she was present at different moments of Jesus’ ministry, she definitely had more of a background role in the story. So to make her the first to see the resurrected Christ is a compelling concept. As stated, women in Jewish culture were not considered to be reliable at giving eye-witness testimony. It would typically take the testimony of at least two women before it was accepted as truth. Perhaps that is why Luke includes the other women present. For this reason alone, it makes one wonder why God chose Mary to be the first to see Jesus. But if you look back through Jesus’ ministry, as well as the rest of the Bible, you see that God chooses to use the people that are unqualified to either do or witness his work. He took fishermen and made them his disciples. He chose David, a shepherd who was the youngest in his family, to be the king of Israel. Looking at this pattern throughout the Bible, it remains pretty consistent. When you take this idea into perspective, it becomes easier to understand why Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the resurrected Christ.
Who Mary was before Jesus does not have any bearing on who Mary is after Jesus but is simply magnifying the power of Jesus and the kind of change, he can have over a person. Whether or not she was a prostitute is not super important, although it does make the fact that she was the first witness to the resurrection even more incredible. Being a woman is already a strike against her for being a credible witness, but a woman with an irreputable past? Unheard of (Strauss, 520). God uses unconventional people throughout all of scripture: Moses, Abraham, David, Rahab, and many more. Knowing that Jesus cast out seven demons from her would explain her actions in verse 17 when she clings to Jesus. Jesus both spiritually and physically saved her life, this could very well have created an emotional attachment that was not romantic in any way (John 20:17). Mary being seen as a part of the inner circle is not super farfetched to think about considering she was the first to see Jesus, however when he goes to the eleven in verse 19, she is not included in that dialogue. Nor is she included when he talks to Thomas (v. 24). Part of this creation of Mary as a disciple could have been part of modern movement to include women more widely in the biblical narrative. Although I understand the sentiment, the idea seems a bit strained. I don’t think it’s necessary for Mary to be considered a disciple in order for women to be viewed as important in the early church and even the modern-day church. I think that is clearly seen in Jesus’ ministry as well as throughout scripture.
“If one were to invent the story of the resurrection, Mary would be a poor choice for first witness to the empty tomb. As a woman her testimony would be questioned”
The notion that women could not be witnesses belongs to Rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism which developed post the destruction of Jerusalem. There is not a single verse in the Torah or anywhere else in the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) that provides that erroneous view. Indeed, women could be involved in legal matters and at a serious level – for example as Judges – Deborah is one example. This was during the time when Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron was still alive and it could be argued therefore more deserving to assume such a high position.
In a paper for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly in New York in 2001, Rabbi Myron S. Geller whilst making the matter clear that a ban on women witnesses belonged to Rabbinic Judaism he acknowledges that; “Scripture makes no explicit or unambiguous prohibition of women’s testimony”. For example the term ‘witnesses’ as is found both in the Hebrew text and the Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 19:15 and could refer to either gender.
It was after the fall of Jerusalem that a codification of Law, Scriptural and oral began in the form of the Mishnah and it was the commentaries upon that, known as Gemara, which became the Talmud. There is no evidence that allows an anachronistic interpretation of the Law in the Mishnah and Talmud to the preceding period.
Furthermore, social intercourse between men and women within the Jewish Nation was not as restrictive as some scholars claim, and therefore Jesus did not break any social taboos with close contact socially with women in public. For example, there are men, women, and children at the feeding of the five and four thousand. No objections are levelled over this by our Lord’s detractors. Therefore what is remarkable is that it was unremarkable in Jesus having women in his band. As a fact, there are no edicts in the Torah or anywhere else in the Old Testament governing the social intercourse between men and women.
However, in John’s Gospel, Jesus’ disciples (and not his critics) did wonder at him talking with a woman at the Well (a woman who had been much married, and she had said to Jesus she was single although she was co habiting). Without considering the circumstances, this sort of encounter might draw raised eyebrows in almost any culture at any time and was true of our own culture until comparatively recently, the surprise may have to do with the fact that the woman was a Samaritan. This would be especially so, given the note at the start of the encounter “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”. The issue was not that it was a surprise that he was talking to a woman (and thus allegedly breaking a social taboo) as Mark’s Gospel records an incident of a conversation with a Syrophoenician woman but in the company of others. In that passage, there is a note of dismissal from Jesus due to the fact she was a Gentile. We have to remember also in reading the Johannine passage, Jesus was resting at the well, wearied from his journey before the woman arrived. As she had the means to draw water our Lord asked for a drink, in a time when such hospitality was not spurned. Also it was a public space in which they met.
Sometimes our opinions and experiences can feel irrelevant when someone with a different opinion or greater experience is sharing. Perhaps Mary Magdalene understood this feeling all too well. We find in Scripture that Mary was not a part of Jesus’s inner circle (the twelve disciples) despite uncanonical Gnostic literature (Long, 2012, para. 5). Although Mary was not a part of Jesus’s inner circle of followers, according to John 19:25, she was indeed a devoted female follower of Jesus (Köstenberger, 2013, p. 170). It was not part of God’s plan to include Mary in Jesus’s inner circle, but that does not mean God did not have a plan for her life that was just as important and unique. God uses Mary to bring Him glory by being the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus (John 20:14-16). The ramifications of Mary being the first witness of the resurrected Messiah may seem negative but are ultimately positive. Luke 8:2 mentions that Mary had previously been possessed by evil spirits and sixth-century tradition attributes this to her alleged life of prostitution (Long, 2012, para. 4). Although this is not seen or proven in Scripture, the testimony of women, in general, was commonly questioned. So, for God to choose Mary as the first witness of Jesus after He had risen from the tomb, there was intentionality. The purpose of this could stem from the fact that the story is not being written to look “made up;” it is being written to tell the truth about what happened. Overall, how amazing is it to know and realize that even though we may feel irrelevant or insignificant at times, that God has such an amazing and important purpose for each of us that ultimately brings glory to Him!
This account of Mary being the first to discover Jesus, stands out to me, once again, as a way that God uses people that are “out of the ordinary” within the cultural norms of the time. Kostenberger states, “Mary Magdalene left before dawn to go to the tomb to complete the burial preparations, which had to be left undone due to the beginning of the Sabbath” (p.2068). Something that stands out to me within this statement is that Jesus’ burial preparations had to be left alone after his death because of the Sabbath, which did not allow anyone to work/ labor whatsoever. Seeing that Mary went as soon as possible to finish the procedures of burial shows me that she was committed to Jesus in still serving him after his death. Mary was committed to serving Jesus, and God used this sense of commitment to set an example for others. On another note, it was Mary, a woman, who discovered that Jesus was not dead after all, along with a few other women with her as presented in the gospel of Luke. Long states that, “… it is remarkable that this woman is the first to visit the empty tomb in John’s gospel.” The fact that Mary is a woman, and is the person to go out and talk to the disciples about the tomb being disturbed, breaks the cultural norms of the time. The fact that Mary was also close to Jesus and one of his disciples as a woman, says a lot about Jesus. Jesus does not care about a person’s sex, or cultural norms in the ways of who can repent and follow him. Jesus wants a person’s heart, not what society says they can and can’t do, in regards to who can follow Jesus. God brought glory to himself and the story of Jesus’ resurrection through Mary Magdalene, which further on inspires people still today to serve like Mary did.
I think it is interesting yet not surprising that Mary Magdalene was the first person to witness the stone being removed from the tomb we know that throughout the Bible Jesus associates himself with women regardless if they are sinners or not. When mentioned in this blog “As a woman her testimony would be questioned, and even in the story as we read it in John, she misunderstands what has happened and assumes (as most people would) that someone has moved the body of Jesus, likely to prevent the disciples from venerating the tomb of their prophet.” I think this is very interesting because as a woman her testimony would already be questioned and I can’t imagine what the disciples were thinking when they heard this news. I think that Jesus being revealed through a woman who people wouldn’t normally believe is powerful and is most likely just another lesson Jesus was trying to teach. Mary Magdalene supposedly already had a questionable reputation. I think that her being the first to witness the tomb and her reporting it and being the one to reveal in a sense Jesus’s resurrection is like a redemption of her reputation. A lot of people questioned her in general so when she brought the news and was telling the truth you would think that the people would respect her a little more. Since a women’s testimony wasn’t really trusted or valued in this time period by her being the first witness I think that’s a way of revealing that what she said was true.
As it is commonly known, Mary Magdalene was the first person to the tomb of Jesus. Mary also seems to have thought, after seeing the empty tomb, is that Jesus’ body was stolen, and not that He had rose from the dead. We know that she was the first, but what do we know about Mary? As mentioned in the blog post, Mary was from a town close to Galilee, called Magdal. This makes sense, as many people got their name from either what they did, or from where they were. Mary also is seen earlier in the book of John, as it was told that Mary had several evil spirits taken from her, being exorcised by Jesus. Also mentioned in the post, is that Mary was a sinful women but this also could have been because of where she was from. Apparently, the town of Magdal, where Mary got her name from, is a sinful town. People often also believe that Mary was also actually a prostitute, but there isn’t any actual evidence to back up such a claim. Something that always intrigued me about the people that Jesus played large roles in the Gospels, and even a common theme throughout the bible, is that Jesus often took the supposed “rejects. Not the people who already where priest, but rather took the fisherman, and people who are overlooked to be close to Him. It really helps to show, that anyone can be used by God regardless of social status, or things they have done in the past.
According to Jewish law a woman could not legally be considered a witness to a crime. The fact that women were not allowed within the temple, they were not allowed to be educated in the same teachings that the Jewish men were allowed. Women were only given a voice in areas that pertained to their levels of expertise. The social groups that were meant to support the men and whatever they needed to lead the family in all religious matters. The fact that Jesus continues to use the people in his ministry that the world would consider unfit for him to be around. Mary that he drove demons out of, unmarried and having a negative reputation wither or not justified, is still not someone that would be considered worthy of such an honor. The other irony that comes to mind is the fact that once again Jesus reveals his true identity to a woman. In John 4 when Jesus confirms to the Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah that has come, it is a similar social situation. The fact that Mary does not realize what is going on or who Jesus is until he speaks shows that she needed the reassurance to believe what was actually happening. As a witness any waiver or unbelief at all will hinder others from believing themselves.
I think it is really interesting that Mary Magdalene was the first witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Mary didn’t have the best reputation around, she was demon possessed, possibly a prostitute, and well she was a woman. Back in that day the words of women weren’t very credible, they were there to cook and have kids. No one would believe a woman when she had something to say, so the fact that the person who discovers Jesus’ resurrection is a woman is pretty great and why would she lie about seeing the resurrected body of Jesus? Also the fact that Mary didn’t have a good reputation and God had planned for her to find the resurrection first shows that no matter where you come from if you have faith anything is possible.
I have never given the first “witness” of the resurrection much thought or believed it to be a big deal at all. Although, the fact that Mary was the first one to witness the ressurection is a huge deal for how the situation was dealt with back then.Women had no voice durring the time of the Bible and on top of being a women she was a former demon possesed women which was most likely not forgotten. Her track record was not squeaky clean which could have been a turn off for some at this time who may have known her. With the first witness being Mary it most likely raised a lot of questions and murmers of what truly happened. Then on top of it what did she know because she was “a women” so she did not have any right to make an accusation like this. Looking at this story through a different set of glasses really sheds the light on how this might not have been accepted so quickly.
Looking into the Mary Magdalene being the first witness and understanding the uniqueness of this situation is actually more important than I would have originally thought. Reading the blog above I remembered that women did not have equal rights with men during this time. She would not have been viewed as credible. Not being credible in the sight of the the Pharisees and other high ends of society would have made it hard for her words to be heard and viewed as credible. Then she also had a past that was deemed as filthy and sinful. So her background was not in her favor to be seen as highly credible. But despite her class and lables the ressurection of Jesus got our and spread to the world.
The significance of Mary being the first person to see Jesus after His resurrection has enormous implications. It is truly fascinating to me. We must always remember that God does not do anything without a purpose behind it. There is no randomness. Jesus is once being selfless in this moment- He continues His world-shifting action of shattering social norms, again empowering marginalized groups of people. In this case, women. He could have chosen any man under the sun- he could have chosen one of his disciples, one of the antagonistic government officials, or a new person that we had met yet at this point in the story. But Jesus never at any moment questioned, doubted, or looked down on women. Whether it was the women at the wall, or the woman caught in adultery, Jesus showed grace, loved, and empowerment. In this moment, Jesus empowered Mary to be the first person to witness his resurrection. He was well aware that people may doubt her testimony, but I am a firm believer that Jesus did this with great purpose- to not only reveal the incredible news that He has been resurrected but empower Mary, a woman, to be the mouthpiece to deliver this eternity-shaping, massive piece of news.
Considering that the first witness to the tomb of Jesus Christ was a woman, I can understand the reason for the disciples to have disbelieved Mary when she first told them about the empty tomb. As well as, because of her past with having having been demon possessed, it could also be very likely that the reason for the disciples disbelief with Mary when she spoke of the tomb where Jesus Christ was laid was empty was because they may have thought she was demon possessed again and had been seeing things that weren’t true…. although this may have not been a thought that occurred to the disciples, it is a thought to still be considered. There is also another reason to consider as to why the first witness was a woman, which may have been to show the level of faithfulness and belief in Jesus Christ between the disciples and Mary. Despite that the disciples had known Jesus Christ for a longer period of time compared to Mary, this difference between the two shows that Mary had more faithfulness and belief in Jesus Christ than did the disciples in that moment because although Jesus Christ warned them that He would be resurrected, they seemed discouraged and in disbelief that the tomb had been empty and that Jesus would never return back to them.
The Bible provides several examples of God using both males and females for the purpose of spreading the Gospel and expanding His kingdom, one example being that Mary Magdalene was the first to witness Jesus’ resurrection. Thinking about the culture of when Jesus’ resurrection occurred, as a woman, Mary was likely looked down upon and not seen as a credible source, rather than the witness being a man. Not only was her witness questioned because she was a woman, but also because she had a sinful past and was once demon possessed. This goes to show that God can use anyone to ultimately bring about His glory – no matter their past, social status, gender, and so on. As Long stated above, choosing Mary as the first witness would be a poor choice if someone were to create a story of the resurrection. With her past, and the fact that she was a woman, would not make her a reliable witness of the resurrection of Jesus. It wouldn’t make sense for someone to make up that Mary, out of all people, was the first witness. However, it does make sense to me that God would choose to use Mary as his witness, because she was looked down upon by society. God does not need to have someone of a high status to accomplish His will, and He often uses unlikely people to show this. By having Mary be the first witness, God used her as an unconventional source to ultimately spread the news of Jesus’ resurrection and expand His kingdom.
I find it interesting and remarkable that Mary was the first witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Mary did not have the best reputation around. Back in these times the words of women were not very credible, and they were there to cook, clean and bare children. No one would believe a woman when she had something to say, so the fact that the person who discovers Jesus’ resurrection is a woman is great and why would someone lie about seeing the resurrected body of Jesus and, the fact that Mary did not have a good reputation and God had planned for her to find the resurrection first shows that no matter where you come from if you have faith anything is possible. Continuing to believe in God’s plan and covenant he made for us and living in the image of God is the best way we can fulfill and stay in his good Graces and able to receive his blessings and love.
With Mary being the first witness to the Resurrection it has brought many speculations but also revels the honesty of the situation. As mentioned above and by Strauss in “Four Portraits of Jesus” that women were not viewed as a credible source for the law and as a witness. So, why would Mary be included /labeled as the first witness. I believe it shows that the Bible is real and full of truth. This account is accurate despite possible doubts of society back in this time. Although, some ramification of doubt but thousands of years later this testimony has stood. So doubt was a possibility it did not effect the powerful story of Jesus’ Resurrection.
While reading John chapter 20, I did not read where it said she went to anoint Jesus with spices. In chapter 19 Nicodemus had brought spices to anoint Jesus and assist Joseph of Arimathea with Jesus’s burial. It is possible that Mary Magdalene may have brought addition spices to anoint Jesus with, however scripture does not state this. I think the ramifications are both immense and suiting. Jesus’ ministry was riddled with expectation breaking, culture refitting language and deed. Jesus redefined the twelve tribes, the role of the Messiah, the role of a priest, and all of Israel. he changed things. He challenged the norm. And even in something as unexpected and preposterous as his resurrection, an empty tomb is first shown to a sinful woman. Most of Christ’s miracles were displays for his closest friends or the religious male elite. His greatest miracle is shown to one sinful woman first. This is significant because a woman’s testimony was not considered to be valid in this time period, and the fact that the Bible records her as the first witness is a big deal. Through this, the Bible is validating that what she saw was true.
The fact that John wrote Mary as the first witness I think is a very bold choice for him. At the end of the blog, you say that Mary, as a woman her testimony about the tomb would be questioned. So John adding this into the writing shows that he wants the truest form of the story to be told. Also, I think Mary running back to the disciples shows that she knew that if she ran out and told the world they might not believe her. Also, I just found out that the Gnostics had all of these theories that involved Jesus and Mary, and eventually a long line of Jesus’ descendants. I have heard theories about Jesus being married but never to the length of whom and that he had children. I do wonder why Mary was the first one to the tomb, but to be honest I would like to believe I would do the same. I would like to think that I would run to the tomb of my savior, to be honest, I don’t know if I would leave the tomb. I would fall into worship and never leave. I imagine Mary’s heart was the same. Even though she did not know the ending to the story yet, I believe that she was healed by Jesus and was worshipping him by visiting the tomb. Also, it could have been something she did every day since Jesus died. So I don’t think it’s bizarre that she was there so early, it could have been intentional before the start of her day.
In John 20:1- The first witness to the resurrection unfold with Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb of Jesus early in the first day of the week. Mary discovers the stone sealing the tomb has been rolled away and she was alarmed. Mary then rushes to inform Peter and another disciple, widely believed to be John, that the Lord’s body is missing. The two disciples go to the tomb to confirming Mary’s account. I think that John is really trying show the readers that this was a true story and that it was a story to be told. Mary finding the tomb was empty she wanted to go to the disciples because if she was to go tell other people, they might not believe her. When they reach the tomb they see that it is empty and no sign of Jesus. This peculiar scene perplexes the disciples, and John, described as the other disciple, believed in the resurrection, realizing the the fulfillment to scripture. However, the narrative emphasizes that they do not yet comprehend the specific details of Jesus rising form the dead. Mary linger by the tomb weeping, she peers into the tomb and encounters two angles who inquire about her tears. Mary turns around and runs into a man not knowing who he is until she hears him speak. Mary attempts to cling to Jesus, but he instructs her not to hold onto him, indicating a changed and glorified state. This pivotal moment in John 20 marks the initial confirmation of Christs triumph over death, setting the stage for subsequent appearance to the disciples and solidifying the foundation of Christian faith and resurrection. John is telling this story because this is a woman’s testimony. This would not be considered to be vailed during this time because she was a woman. John and Peter are able to confirm what Mary had claimed so those around would believe what she had to say.
Despite the fact that Mary Magdalene had a tarnished reputation because she had been demon-possessed did not stop her from being used positively by God. Jesus healed and restored her, and she became one of His followers. Mary Magdalene’s role as the first witness to the empty tomb in the Gospel of John is significant as it challenges societal norms and helps show the authenticity of John’s narrative. In a cultural context where women’s testimonies were not considered credible, John still decided to describe that Mary Magdalene was one of the primary eyewitnesses. This shows that he was committed to providing historically accurate information instead of creating a story so it would be considered more believable to people during that time. Köstenberger also agrees with this point of view and states that this passage breaks down traditional gender norms as He shows the importance of telling others about Jesus regardless of gender (p. 171-172). Mary Magdalene’s journey from being depicted as demon-possessed before encountering Jesus to becoming the first witness to the empty tomb shows Christ’s redemptive power. It is also a reminder that no one is too far from God and that He can change the lives of anyone who is willing to believe in Him. Furthermore, Jesus’ message and forgiveness extend to all people.
Before reading this, I had no idea the importance that Mary Magdalene had in Jesus‘s life and the importance that Jesus had on her life, it’s interesting, finding out that Jesus actually healed her from demons. I have heard some people lift up Mary Magdalene, as almost looking at her as either a saint or a disciple, but even though she played an important role in Jesus resurrection, and showed up in scripture, she was never brought into the close inner circle of Jesus, and nowhere in scripture doesn’t state that she is one of the disciples, I also find it absolutely crazy that people think that Jesus and Mary had some sort of relationship and were secretly married. This makes no sense according to the Bible there is nowhere where Jesus has some sort of feelings or love, relationship relationship for a woman in the way of dating or marriage. I wonder if God plan for a woman to be the first one to see Jesus be resurrected to prove a point that a woman’s testimony is true, and can be respected among the body of Jesus.