“The apostle to the apostles.” That’s what Bernard of
Clairvaux called her. And though her name has been sullied by fads in fiction
and shoddy scholarship as of late, she deserves a place of honor in Christian
history. Mary of Magdala, no doubt, has been called many things. But she is
best known for declaring the good news of Jesus’ resurrection to the disciples
that first Easter morning. And she is rightfully listed among the eyewitnesses
of Jesus’ saving work. That also makes her a defender of the gospel. After all,
Mary Magdalene was present during a great deal of Jesus’ ministry, saw Jesus
die, witnessed his burial, and was the first to see him alive again after his
resurrection. In today’s court of law, Mary Magdalene would be considered an
expert eyewitness. And in the church we give thanks for her apology (defense),
and the rather unlikely source of veracity that she provides in the historical
account of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.
In his meticulous book on the Gospels, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham makes the point (quite
convincingly I might add) that the people named in the Gospels were: 1) well
known in the Christian community at the time the Gospels were written; 2) still
alive at the time of writing and were well known members of the church (such as
Mary Magdalene); and 3) ongoing witnesses to the events of Jesus’ life, death,
and resurrection. We see this last point demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 15 where
Paul cites over 500 eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, stressing that many of
them were still alive. What’s more, each of the synoptic Gospels repeatedly mentions
Mary Magdalene by name as an eyewitness.
Bauckham writes, “In
the Synoptic Gospels the role of the women as eyewitnesses is crucial: they see
Jesus die, they see his body being laid in the tomb, they find the tomb empty.
The fact that some of the women were at all three events means that they can
testify that Jesus was dead when laid in the tomb and that it was the tomb in
which he was buried that they subsequently found empty…it could hardly be
clearer that the Gospels are appealing to their role as eyewitnesses.” [1]
Bauckham then goes on to mention one more noteworthy point,
namely, that in each of the Gospels’ accounts two or three women are mentioned,
thus meeting the Torah’s stipulation for eyewitnesses (Deut. 19:15).
It is easy for us, living in the 21st century, to
take this simple fact for granted. But a woman’s status in society in the first
century is radically different from the 21st.
Unlike today, in the first century, women couldn’t simply walk
into a courtroom and give testimony, practice law and the like. Both the Talmud
and Josephus are abundantly clear on the value of a woman’s testimony in the
court of law. It was considered inadmissible and it was downright improper for
them to speak. Their testimony was even considered to be on the same level as a
robber. Roman society treated women no differently, and far worse in many cases.
In clear contrast to the sitz
im leben of the first century, Jesus’ treatment of the women who followed
and listened to him (and those he came into contact with throughout his ministry)
was uncharacteristically respectful and dignified. What’s more, Jesus bestowed
great honor upon many women who accompanied him and the disciples. This is
clearly seen in the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection in the Gospels
themselves. It was women, not men, who were the first to see Jesus after he
rose from the dead.
What’s the significance of the women’s role as eyewitnesses?
Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, both of whom are experts
on the issue of Jesus’ physical resurrection from the dead, explain it well in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus:
“Given the low
first-century view of women that was frequently shared by Jew and Gentile, it
seems unlikely that the Gospel authors would either invent or adjust such
testimonies. That would mean placing words in the mouths of those who would not
be believed by many, making them the primary witnesses to the empty tomb. If
the Gospel writers had originated the story of the empty tomb, it seems far
more likely that they would have depicted men discovering its vacancy and being
the first to see the risen Jesus. Why would they not list the male disciples of
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus and avoid the female issue altogether? If the
account of the empty tomb had been invented, it would most likely not have
listed the women as the primary witnesses, since in that day a woman’s
testimony was not nearly as credible as a man’s.”[2]
In his magnum opus of legal apologetics, Tractatus Logico Theologicus, John Warwick Montgomery also mentions what can be called
the “unbelievability” factor:
“…the discovery of the
empty tomb on Easter morning [is] accepted
by the great majority of critics because that discovery by women would have
been so unlikely a fabrication in the context of a male-dominated 1st
century Judaism.”[3]
And finally, in an interview with apologist William Lane
Craig, recorded in his book The Case for
Christ, Lee Strobel records this helpful observation:
“Women were on a very
low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old
rabbinical sayings that said, ‘Let the words of the Law be burned rather than
delivered to women’ and ‘Blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him
whose children are female.’ Women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless that
they weren’t even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law.
In light of this it’s absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses of the empty
tomb are these women who were friends of Jesus. Any later legendary account
would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb – Peter
or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty
tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that – like it or not – they
were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the gospel writers
faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks
the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status.”[4]
This aspect of the women’s testimony has also been
identified as the factor of embarrassment. For example, the disciples are
routinely depicted as missing the point, not listening to Jesus, saying foolish
things, or worse (betrayal, denial, etc.). In Peter’s case this is especially
important as it parallels the issue of the women at the tomb. For
example, Peter’s attempt to detour Christ from being crucified (Matt 16:21-22)
and then publicly renouncing any association with Jesus (Matt 26:69-74) is
openly admitted, even though it raises the question of Peter’s wisdom and
integrity. It would have been easier to omit or alter
such details for the sake of spreading the gospel message.
In other words, if the disciples – or the Gospel writers –
were trying to fabricate the story as passable, plausible, and true in the eyes
of their first-century cultural critics, they would’ve been more likely to
exclude the women’s testimony as well as any embarrassing, self-implicating comments
and events. The fact that they include both of these items in their account of what happened lends credibility and integrity to the historical veracity of
their statements, as well as to quality and character of the eyewitnesses who
report them.
To be sure, this is not the only piece of evidence that we can
use when building a positive case that Jesus physically rose from the dead. But on
the other hand, as eyewitness accounts, the testimony of the women should be
not underestimated either. As we give thanks to God for the faith of
Mary Magdalene (whom we commemorated on Monday) we also give thanks to the role
she played as an expert eyewitness. She was not only an apostle to the
apostles, but also remains an apologist for the church and the world to
this day. For like all good apologists, she points us to the crucified and risen
Christ, to her Savior and ours.
We sing Your praise
for Mary,
Who came at Easter
dawn
To look for Jesus’
body
And found her Lord was
gone.
But, as with joy she
saw Him
In resurrection light,
May we by faith behold
Him,
The Day who ends our
night!
For All the Faithful
Women – LSB 855:11
[1]
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses…
[2]
Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The
Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, p.
73. 2004.
[3]
John Warwick Montgomery, Tractatus Logico
Theologicus. Verlag fur Kultur und Wisselschaft, p. 81, 2005.
[4]
Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A
Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, p. 217-218. 1998.
