Why did the lord appear to Mary Magdalene first?

[ConstantLearner]

But, as @Dorothy said, you are to look to Scripture first, regardless of private revelation, and she is correct.

Public revelation is binding on all Christians, but private revelation is binding only on those who receive it. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but private revelation has continued.

What the Early Church Believed: Private Revelations | Catholic Answers Tract

 

[MagdalenaRita]

But, as @Dorothy said, you are to look to Scripture first, regardless of private revelation, and she is correct.

It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence." Dei Verbum
(private revelation and Tradition are not always one in the same)

Many saints held the opinion that He first appeared to His Mother. There could be something that wasn’t said in Scripture. There could be a reason He first appeared to Mary Magdalene or a reason they mentioned Him appearing to Mary Magdalene first and they were just mentioning her because she was a disciple and didn’t feel they needed to mention His mother because they were just talking about the group of disciples. We don’t know because they don’t explain themselves, so that part is not clear.

There are saints that held the opinion that He first appeared to His Mother and then appeared to Mary Magdalene and Pope JPII said that it is possible, so it is okay to have that opinion.

As far as why He appeared to Mary Magdalene first - I like Cornelius e Lapides answer in his commentary:

Ver. 9. Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils. Mark adds this to show the power of repentance and love. With these was Magdalene the sinner so inflamed, that she deserved first to see Christ risen again, that from her sinners might learn not to despair, but vehemently to love; for so they shall surpass the Holy Innocents in grace and glory. So Bede, “Because where sin abounded, grace hath superabounded.” (Venerable) Bede adds, “A woman was the beginner of transgression. A woman first tasted death, but in Magdalene woman first saw the resurrection, that woman might not bear the perpetual guilt of transgression among men.” See what is said on Luke 8:2.

 

[Dovekin]

Thank you. I saw an article on the Internet not long ago saying she was the first.

St Ignatius mentions the resurrected Jesus appearing first to his mother in the Spiritual Exercises. I am pretty sure the idea predates him, but Agreda was not the first.

 

[PetraG]

The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus, if he existed, and I think he did, was not resurrected from the dead. The laws of probability tell us that.when something seemingly out of the norm happens, the most probable conclusion is the one that most closely follows natural law. People do not rise from the dead. The near death, now, but not the dead. Therefore, it is most reasonable, and probable, to conclude that Jesus did not.

What is your conclusion concerning people who reported (a) that he most definitely was dead and (b) that they saw him alive? These are the people from whom you know what he taught.
I’m just saying that it is odd to have a great deal of respect for someone based on evidence from people who think he rose from the dead when you won’t accept what they contend is the most important part of their testimony. They preached Jesus as the Christ, and:
But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all. 1 Cor. 15:12-19

St. Paul didn’t see any room for putting faith in some “teachings” he had to pass on from Jesus of Nazareth. If the listener wasn’t putting his faith in Christ both crucified and risen from the dead, then St. Paul would find that rather pathetic…pointless. What, after all, did St. Paul learn that he did not know as the Pharisee named Saul?

 

[PetraG]

But, as another poster said, you look to Scripture first. Scripture tells the reader he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, in all the gospels. Although the stories differ in details, probably due to recollection, all are in agreement that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. The poster wants to know why that would be.

I believe G-d is intimately involved in the goings-on in the world, but I don’t believe he micro-manages. I do believe some things happen by chance. Maybe this was just chance. She came there, in the company of others, very early in the morning.

She came where? If you don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, how on earth do you imagine he “appeared” to her? What kind of story are you concocting in your mind?

 

[Dovekin]

we must look at the Tensive Symbols in each empty tomb story. To really understand.

And this discussion is supposed to be about the significance of a symbol present in all 4 versions of the empty tomb story, Mary Magdalene. So most of the people participating have the concept down, that there is a significance to naming her as a witness. (Well, the people who want to argue history - was she first? Or the Mother of God? They do not understand that idea.)

So what does this tensive symbol mean?

 

[ConstantLearner]

She came where? If you don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, how on earth do you imagine he “appeared” to her? What kind of story are you concocting in your mind?

I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Please stick to the topic which is why Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene. I have no idea. JP II says he appeared to his mother first. I would think a son would appear to his mother first. It seems apparent Mary accompanied Jesus during his ministry. On the other hand, Mary Magdalene did stand at the foot of the Cross and she, along with other women, were present in the early morning to anoint the body of Jesus. It could be she was simply in the right place at the right time, whether by design or coincidence, which I do believe in. It is part of life.

 

[ConstantLearner]

So what does this tensive symbol mean?

Excellent question.The presence of the women at the tomb to anoint the body probably signifies Jesus’s factual death. He was not horribly wounded, but alive; he hadn’t fainted; he was dead, and his body needed anointing. Therefore, the women arrived as early as they could to anoint it.

 

[Dovekin]

(Venerable) Bede adds, “A woman was the beginner of transgression. A woman first tasted death, but in Magdalene woman first saw the resurrection, that woman might not bear the perpetual guilt of transgression among men.”

This excerpt points to one meaning, Mary Magdalene as the new Eve. John’s account accents this meaning, placing her in a garden talking to a gardener (God? Or Adam? or both?) .

This type of thinking is likely the source of the ‘appeared to his mother first’ idea. Over the course of the Middle Ages the Mother of God became the usual referent for the New Eve. Reading the resurrection stories as showing a new eden with a new eve slides into the appearance being the the Mother of God instead of Mary Magdalene.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

This excerpt points to one meaning, Mary Magdalene as the new Eve. John’s account accents this meaning, placing her in a garden talking to a gardener (God? Or Adam? or both?) .

I thought that too when I first saw the quote but we know that the Blessed Mother is the New Eve, not Mary Magdelene.

I think Cornelius e Lapide explains it best when he uses the quote in his commentary -

Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils. Mark adds this to show the power of repentance and love. With these was Magdalene the sinner so inflamed, that she deserved first to see Christ risen again, that from her sinners might learn not to despair, but vehemently to love; for so they shall surpass the Holy Innocents in grace and glory. So Bede, “Because where sin abounded, grace hath superabounded.”

I think this could be why the gospel writers say He appeared to Mary Magdalene first. They were speaking of a great sinner who saw Jesus’ mercy first. Mary Magdalene saw Jesus’ mercy first, and this would have nothing to do with His relationship with His Mother because she was sinless.

 

[PetraG]

Please stick to the topic which is why Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene.

I am trying to make your premises stick together into a coherent whole. You say

The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus, if he existed , and I think he did, was not resurrected from the dead.

Why on earth would there be an answer to the question of why Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene after rising from the dead if he didn’t even rise from the dead? Do you really think the Romans took let a few get away when they crucified people? The question makes no sense, unless you think this is all some kind of a fairy tale such that every question has a symbolic answer rather than a factual one. That would be news to the people who put the stories to paper in the first place, would it not?

As for staying on topic, what does this have to do with Mary Magdalene?

I’ll say it again: He only wanted to bring his message to Jews. Peter, too.

In Romans 9:5 Paul brings his list of privileges to a climax with these words: “From [the Jews] is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” The Messiah, Jesus, was a Jew, a Son of David. Romans 1:3 And he focused his earthly ministry on the Jews. They had a priority in his work. In Matthew 10:5–6 Jesus said to the twelve apostles as he sent them out during his life, “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And in Matthew 15:24, Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” So Jesus was focused on the Jews.

You have studied the Christian Scriptures long enough to know how the whole story goes…which is to say Jesus not only did talk to the Canannite woman, but also granted her petition. Having you say you have spent years studying theology, then saying something with conspicuous omissions and then having you object that the thread is not about that is very frustrating! If you don’t want to expand the question to include that question, then don’t introduce that.

 

[ConstantLearner]

What I find strange is that in his Letter to the Corinthians, Paul does not mention any of the women at the tomb. He only mentions Jesus appearing to men and to five hundred people. I suppose that is because he was writing to Greeks, who, at the time, viewed women in a worse light than the Jews. So, not so strange, I guess.

 

[PetraG]

What I find strange is that in his Letter to the Corinthians, Paul does not mention any of the women at the tomb. He only mentions Jesus appearing to men and to five hundred people. I suppose that is because he was writing to Greeks, who, at the time, viewed women in a worse light than the Jews. So, not so strange, I guess.

St. Paul was making a point in a letter of limited length, not writing an exhaustive exposition of everything known on the topic.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I think this could be why the gospel writers say He appeared to Mary Magdalene first. They were speaking of a great sinner who saw Jesus’ mercy first. Mary Magdalene saw Jesus’ mercy first, and this would have nothing to do with His relationship with His Mother because she was sinless.

Could very well be. I think the seven demons shows the severity of her illness, whatever it was. (Nothing in the Bible indicates she was a prostitute, I assume you know that. I think she was physically ill.)

 

[PetraG]

I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I mean that if you don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, there was no morning on which he rose from the dead and there was no one who saw him risen at all, let alone someone who “saw him first.” That means Mary never went anywhere with anyone early in the morning to see anything. By your reckoning of the Jesus story, the whole Easter testimony is one big fabrication.

That is why I’m very puzzled about why you have any opinion on this thread at all.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

(Nothing in the Bible indicates she was a prostitute, I assume you know that. I think she was physically ill.)

Yes. We are not clear of what her sins were. We just know she was a sinner who had seven demons cast out.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Women being the first to speak with Jesus, especially one who had been possessed of seven demons, might mean women could be the equal of men in the Church, even though they might fulfill different roles, e.g., women could not be priests. And, it could mean the reformed sinner was loved as much as the one who was perfect (Mary, his Mother, though I know in the Church he enjoys a special relationship with her).

 

[MagdalenaRita]

True women are equal to men in all walks of life, in dignity and value but they do hold seperate roles and as you said they can never be priests.

Yes, also He had a special relationship with His Mother and she was sinless. The rest of us are all sinners but it’s true no matter what the sin, Jesus loves the sinner and is always ready to give us His mercy.

 

[Dovekin]

We just know she was a sinner who had seven demons cast out.

We know she had seven demons cast out. We do not know that she was any more of a sinner than anyone else. That is why I don’t except Lapide’s explanation.

Of course, i do not know that the New Eve was the Mother of God to the exclusion of Mary Magdalene. It is obvious the John portrays Mary Magdalene as s new Eve as we saw in Bede. As a type of Eve, she must embody sin in some sense. Mary embodied it as a negation, she chose not to sin where Eve chose to sin. Magdalene expresses fidelity, going to the tomb where Eve is errant, leaving the garden.

 

[PetraG]

Mary Magdalene is perfectly logical. God has this sneaky habit of using the least likely of us to do His work. Just look at the saints throughout history.

Would you please cite at least five other irrefutable times God used this “sneaky” habit? Thank you.

Jacob (the 2nd born, not the 1st), Joseph (the kidnap victim sold into slavery by his own brothers), Moses (the stammering fugitive shepherd who escaped a genocide of infants by being adopted by a princess? Please…), Rahab (the prostitute of Jericho), Ruth (the foreigner widow), David (the youngest of a number of brothers)…

The instances in the New Testament are too numerous to mention. What are the odds of founding any kind of religious movement on Peter, the fisherman, or Matthew, the tax collector, let alone Saul becoming Paul?