Redimete Diem!

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,
making the most of the time, because the days are evil. (Eph. 5:15-16, ESV)

Home  |  Da Vinci Code  |   The Pilgrim's Progress  |  Worship  |  Sermons | Courses
Christian Ethics  |  Miscellany  | Family |  Questions, etc.

Confronting The Da Vinci Code

Part 6:  Has Mary Magdalene been Disgraced?

“The threat Mary Magdalene posed to the men of the early Church was potentially ruinous. … The Church, in order to defend itself against the Magdalene’s power, perpetuated her image as a whore … .  … her name was forbidden by the Church, … ”
(Prof. Teabing, The Da Vinci Code, p. 254)

            Mary Magdalene’s reputation becomes a key factor in building the case against the ancient Church and in finally revealing to the world the truth that has been suppressed for centuries.  In fact, it is vital to Dan Brown’s argument that a smear campaign against her character took place in the early church so that Professor Teabing and other Neo-Gnostics can come to her rescue.  If she has not been smeared she cannot be exalted.

            Over 100 years, perhaps as many as 150 years, passed from the time the gospels were written until the time the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was penned with its outrageous, Gnostic, counter-Christianity and its portrayal of the apostles as rejecting Mary and her message.  The Apostolic Fathers did not fail to energetically recognize and refute the opposition of Gnosticism as it reached its hay-day – not with slander or malicious attacks but with solid exegesis and argument - defending orthodox Christianity according to the authority of the gospels themselves and also by applying logic to the Gnostics’ own teachings which displayed the fallacies of their claims.

            Nothing else changed for another 300 years until the era of Pope Gregory (590-604).  Gregory is the pope recognized historically as having firmly established the supremacy of the Roman See over all the church and who did much to move the Roman Church into the medieval age.  He was not a theologian but a trained lawyer.  His homilies are generously preserved and they are known for their pastoral simplicity and use of anecdotal illustration.  Katherine Jansen describes Gregory’s typical preaching style as showing “recourse to the tropological sense of the text, [that is,] its moral sense.”1

            Olson and Miesel points out in their book that when Gregory applied this to the person of Mary Magdalene, it meant that he “believed that the seven demons that had once possessed Mary Magdalene were not only literal demons but also represented the seven deadly sins.”2  Pope Gregory’s actual homily put it this way:

She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.  And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?  … It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the ungeuent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.  What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner.  She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears.  She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears.  She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet.  For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself.  She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance, for as much as she had wrongly held God in contempt.” (Hom. 33, PL 76:1239)

Gregory is guilty of confusing one Mary with another, and he is guilty of presuming Mary Magdalene’s past was that of prostitution.  But this could not, even in the farthest reaches of exaggeration be considered a smear campaign.  Rather, Gregory is saying that even a prostitute, with as wicked and shameful a past as that had been, can be redeemed, cleansed and forgiven; even she can find a place of worship and adoration and praise at the Savior’s feet.  And if Mary, then you, too, can be forgiven; you, too, can be saved.

            Furthermore, an illustration within a homily, as this was, is not the same as a papal pronouncement declaring a formal position of the Church.  The association did become a western tradition but Mary’s name was never forbidden or scandalized because the focus was on what Christ had done for her.  Her memory and service are not banned but celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church and there are ministries and organizations of mercy named after her.  Meanwhile, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Gregory’s suggested link of the anonymous sinner of Luke 7:36-50 (it never even identifies the sin as prostitution) with the introduction of Mary Magdalene in Luke 8:1-3 was never accepted or believed.  Nevertheless, their tradition also remembers and celebrates her name and memory as a faithful follower of Christ.

            You see, the real scandal for the Gnostics, neo-Gnostics and feminists is in thinking of Mary Magdalene as a sinner in any sense of the word at all.  Gnostics do not understand the gospel, the work of Christ on the cross, the truth of the resurrection, forgiveness and salvation through faith.  They reject it all and have no need for any of it.  To them, it is important and vital to declare to the world that Mary was not a sinner.  She was not in need of salvation.  If anything, Jesus was in need of her!  In fact, the rest of the supposed conspiracy is built on that very premise.  Mary had to be the first among the apostles because Jesus loved her more than anyone else.  She came from a kingly lineage so that from their union, a new heir for the throne of David might come forth.  And after Jesus was martyred, the real hope of all the world rested in her womb alone.  All of this is an absolute denial of who Jesus truly was and is.  In fact, to them, Jesus’ time is past.  Now is the age of the Magdalene.

            There is no exegetical or historical evidence that could successfully link Mary Magdalene to a past of prostitution.  But in all our study and defense of Mary’s honor, we must not fall into the trap of arguing the Gnostic and feminist side for them.  Mary was not without sin.  To be possessed of seven demons meant to be completely enslaved to the temptations and wickedness of this world.  And to be vulnerable and prone to such enslavement required her natural, Adamic propensity to reject God in her life and choose selfishly.  Mary sinned because she was a sinner.

            But Jesus rebuked those demons and commanded them to release her and filled her instead with new life by the Holy Spirit.  And for the rest of her life, she was devoted to the One who could do for her what she could not do for herself.  She only wished to served Him who had ministered to her in a way that she could never do for Him.

(to be continued next month)

David G. Barker, 2005

1Jansen, Katherine Ludwig, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 33.

2Olson, Carl E. & Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, San Francisco:Ignatius, 2004, p. 82-83.

 

Redimete Diem!

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,
making the most of the time, because the days are evil. (Eph. 5:15-16, ESV)

Home  |  Da Vinci Code  |   The Pilgrim's Progress  |  Worship  |  Sermons | Courses
Christian Ethics  |  Miscellany  | Family |  Questions, etc.

Confronting The Da Vinci Code

Part 6:  Has Mary Magdalene been Disgraced?

“The threat Mary Magdalene posed to the men of the early Church was potentially ruinous. … The Church, in order to defend itself against the Magdalene’s power, perpetuated her image as a whore … .  … her name was forbidden by the Church, … ”
(Prof. Teabing, The Da Vinci Code, p. 254)

            Mary Magdalene’s reputation becomes a key factor in building the case against the ancient Church and in finally revealing to the world the truth that has been suppressed for centuries.  In fact, it is vital to Dan Brown’s argument that a smear campaign against her character took place in the early church so that Professor Teabing and other Neo-Gnostics can come to her rescue.  If she has not been smeared she cannot be exalted.

            Over 100 years, perhaps as many as 150 years, passed from the time the gospels were written until the time the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was penned with its outrageous, Gnostic, counter-Christianity and its portrayal of the apostles as rejecting Mary and her message.  The Apostolic Fathers did not fail to energetically recognize and refute the opposition of Gnosticism as it reached its hay-day – not with slander or malicious attacks but with solid exegesis and argument - defending orthodox Christianity according to the authority of the gospels themselves and also by applying logic to the Gnostics’ own teachings which displayed the fallacies of their claims.

            Nothing else changed for another 300 years until the era of Pope Gregory (590-604).  Gregory is the pope recognized historically as having firmly established the supremacy of the Roman See over all the church and who did much to move the Roman Church into the medieval age.  He was not a theologian but a trained lawyer.  His homilies are generously preserved and they are known for their pastoral simplicity and use of anecdotal illustration.  Katherine Jansen describes Gregory’s typical preaching style as showing “recourse to the tropological sense of the text, [that is,] its moral sense.”1

            Olson and Miesel points out in their book that when Gregory applied this to the person of Mary Magdalene, it meant that he “believed that the seven demons that had once possessed Mary Magdalene were not only literal demons but also represented the seven deadly sins.”2  Pope Gregory’s actual homily put it this way:

She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.  And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?  … It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the ungeuent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.  What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner.  She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears.  She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears.  She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet.  For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself.  She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance, for as much as she had wrongly held God in contempt.” (Hom. 33, PL 76:1239)

Gregory is guilty of confusing one Mary with another, and he is guilty of presuming Mary Magdalene’s past was that of prostitution.  But this could not, even in the farthest reaches of exaggeration be considered a smear campaign.  Rather, Gregory is saying that even a prostitute, with as wicked and shameful a past as that had been, can be redeemed, cleansed and forgiven; even she can find a place of worship and adoration and praise at the Savior’s feet.  And if Mary, then you, too, can be forgiven; you, too, can be saved.

            Furthermore, an illustration within a homily, as this was, is not the same as a papal pronouncement declaring a formal position of the Church.  The association did become a western tradition but Mary’s name was never forbidden or scandalized because the focus was on what Christ had done for her.  Her memory and service are not banned but celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church and there are ministries and organizations of mercy named after her.  Meanwhile, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Gregory’s suggested link of the anonymous sinner of Luke 7:36-50 (it never even identifies the sin as prostitution) with the introduction of Mary Magdalene in Luke 8:1-3 was never accepted or believed.  Nevertheless, their tradition also remembers and celebrates her name and memory as a faithful follower of Christ.

            You see, the real scandal for the Gnostics, neo-Gnostics and feminists is in thinking of Mary Magdalene as a sinner in any sense of the word at all.  Gnostics do not understand the gospel, the work of Christ on the cross, the truth of the resurrection, forgiveness and salvation through faith.  They reject it all and have no need for any of it.  To them, it is important and vital to declare to the world that Mary was not a sinner.  She was not in need of salvation.  If anything, Jesus was in need of her!  In fact, the rest of the supposed conspiracy is built on that very premise.  Mary had to be the first among the apostles because Jesus loved her more than anyone else.  She came from a kingly lineage so that from their union, a new heir for the throne of David might come forth.  And after Jesus was martyred, the real hope of all the world rested in her womb alone.  All of this is an absolute denial of who Jesus truly was and is.  In fact, to them, Jesus’ time is past.  Now is the age of the Magdalene.

            There is no exegetical or historical evidence that could successfully link Mary Magdalene to a past of prostitution.  But in all our study and defense of Mary’s honor, we must not fall into the trap of arguing the Gnostic and feminist side for them.  Mary was not without sin.  To be possessed of seven demons meant to be completely enslaved to the temptations and wickedness of this world.  And to be vulnerable and prone to such enslavement required her natural, Adamic propensity to reject God in her life and choose selfishly.  Mary sinned because she was a sinner.

            But Jesus rebuked those demons and commanded them to release her and filled her instead with new life by the Holy Spirit.  And for the rest of her life, she was devoted to the One who could do for her what she could not do for herself.  She only wished to served Him who had ministered to her in a way that she could never do for Him.

(to be continued next month)

David G. Barker, 2005

1Jansen, Katherine Ludwig, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 33.

2Olson, Carl E. & Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, San Francisco:Ignatius, 2004, p. 82-83.

 
David G. Barker
dave@ephesians515.com
David G. Barker
david.barker@ncpres.org