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 7: Was Mary Magdalene an Apostle for Christ

or for the Sacrilegious Feminine?

“Jesus was the original feminist.  He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands

of Mary Magdalene.”

(Prof. Teabing, The Da Vinci Code, p. 248)

Mary as an Apostle of Jesus

            An “apostle” is one who is “sent out” literally, a messenger doing the will of another.  Jesus, himself, is referred to as an apostle in Heb. 3:1 as one sent from God the Father.  In the Gospels, which are the most ancient writing we have, it is clear Jesus picked up and chose to use the term in a technical sense when he rose from prayer and called from his following of disciples 12 men who would be his “apostles”.  The definition of that technical term is later reiterated in Acts 1:21-22 and the group of twelve men is again singled out for all eternity in Rev. 21:14.  There were 12 men in this category.  We know and have their names and, by tradition, many of their stories.  Peter refers to himself by this title in both of his New Testament letters.

            It is clear that Paul also saw himself in this group.  Although the apostles elected Matthias (Acts 1:26), Paul continually claimed to have been personally called by the risen Lord (Acts 9:1-19) and argued for the validity of that title for himself in Gal. 1:11-17, and readily referred to himself by that title over 15 times in his letters and speeches.  The solid doctrine of his letters, his tireless, self-sacrificing energy to promote the gospel abroad, and, ultimately, his willingness not only to pour out his life but offer up his death for the sake of Christ all demonstrate the veracity of this testimony and claim.

            But the title is also used more generally to refer to other devoted Christians in the book of Acts and elsewhere.  Although the number of these is comparatively few (probably less than 5 versus almost 70 times that the term is used technically), still the more generic use of the word is used appropriately for others who were sent out in the name of the gospel in word and in deed.  This might even include one woman, at least, depending on what you do with Romans 16:7.

            But the title is not ever given to Mary Magdalene until one of the Church Fathers, Hipplolytus (170-236 AD), wrote this elaboration in a most curious place: his commentary on the Song of Songs:

“Lest the female apostles doubt the angels, Christ himself came to them so that the women would be apostles of Christ and by their obedience rectify the sin of ancient Eve … Christ showed himself to the (male) apostles and said to them: … ‘It is I who appeared to these women and I who wanted to send them to you as apostles.’”

(Hippolytus, Commentary on the Song of Songs 24-26,

as quoted by Darrell Bock, p. 20)

Obviously, Hippolytus is generously paraphrasing Jesus’ words to Mary Magdalene, as well as the other women equally, on the morning of his resurrection.  It is important to note that the first such reference to Mary as “apostle” comes from a Church Father with more than a small controversy tied up with his own life and service, and also that the title conferred upon her is found, not in a letter addressed on the subject of leadership or a doctrinal proclamation carrying with it some sense of deliberative authority, but in the midst of a commentary on an Old Testament book of Scripture that speaks to affection, devotion and endearment.  Also, lest we miss it, notice that his attributing of the title was given not to Mary herself or even individually or uniquely to any one person but to all the women that morning for the specific task of being the “messenger from the risen Jesus”, to bring the news of his resurrection to the true apostles – particularly Peter and John.  All the women were apostles that morning because of the nature of the news they had to bring.

            We could also observe that referring to Mary as an apostle is something that, apparently, the Gnostic writer of The Gospel of Mary (late 2^nd century) could not bring himself (or herself) to do, perhaps didn’t even think of doing.  Even though the author here fictionalized special words having come from Jesus to Mary Magdalene - words which, according to his novel, she proceeded to give to the apostles - nevertheless, the author did not portray her as calling herself by that term.  She did not assume that authority and she was not referred to in the writing by the title “apostle”.

            With the coming of the Middle Ages, fascination for Mary Magdalene grew and she became the figurehead for some of the church’s outreach ministry to desperate women in need.

By the eighth century the Western Church was celebrating a feast day for Mary Magdalene, …  By the ninth century there were specific prayers … , and by the eleventh century there was ‘a complete mass dedicated to the saint … ‘.  During the abbacy of Geoffrey, Mary Magdalene was recognized as the patron of that church in a papal bull … “.  (Olson, p. 88)

But the Mary Magdalene they celebrated was always the one saved by the grace of Jesus Christ from sin and condemnation and, therefore, one who could be held up as a model of Christ's deliverance and how that was available to any and all who needed it from the sin and degradation of their own lives.  That such a woman could be given the opportunity and blessing to bear the great news of the resurrection to the apostles gave rise to the term “apostle to the apostles” – messenger to the messengers.

Mary as a Tool of Pagan Feminism

            What all this means is that the present fascination and Gnostic claim that Mary Magdalene had originally been given authority over all the other apostles by Jesus himself is absolute fiction produced out of whole cloth virtually out of thin air by feminist theologians of our own day and age two thousand years after these events and writings occurred and in a present atmosphere that encourages not only feminist thinking but irresponsible and egregious scholarship.  Kenneth Woodward sums up the present reality of academic debate this way:

… a small group of well-educated women decided to devote their careers to the pieces of Gnostic literature discovered in the last century, a find that promised a new academic specialty within the somewhat overtrodden field of Biblical studies, on which they could build a career. They became experts in this literature, as others become experts in the biology of the hermit crab. But unlike those who study marine decapod crustaceans, some of them came to identify with the objects of their study--in some cases, perhaps, because they had no other religious community to identify with other than that formed by common academic pursuit; others perhaps because they were in rebellion against whatever authoritative religious community nurtured their interest in religion in the first place, still others because they found in the Gnostic texts the kind of affirmation of inner divinity that their own New Age inclinations led them to.

This is no broad brush, prejudicial dismissal on the part of Mr. Woodward.  He succinctly describes three basic points:

            #1 – This is, indeed, an argument generated and upheld by only a small group of educated women, mostly connected with Harvard Divinity School, who have gained personal notoriety.  They have published a cache of books pretending to challenge tradition while revealing truth and true, historical facts.  But in reality they argue on nothing more than their own speculations, imaginations, and tortured interpretations of existing evidences.  Their goal is not to enlighten our understanding of the true history of Christianity but to do away with it altogether.  They want nothing more than to overthrow the historic Christian faith and replace it with a matriarchal paganism.

            #2 – Many of the Gnostic texts cited are not new at all but have been known for some time and, what’s more, known for what they really are.  The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt in 1945 did bring forth more Gnostic literature but not on the issues desired and claimed by these feminists.  Rather, that discovery really added nothing of substance to their discussion.  For instance, even though, in his book, Mr. Brown claims over 80 gospel versions were in existence when the canon was being formed (p. 231), there were actually less than 10 in existence and that is only if the term “gospel” is made intentionally broad.  And even though he gives the impression (p. 246) that The Gospel of Phillip would be a “good place to start”, it is, in fact, the only such documental statement which might be construed to suggest an intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary.  Likewise, The Gospel of Mary is the only text dealing with a struggle for power involving Mary and Peter.  And you, reader, have already read both of those texts for what they truly are.

Most scholars agree that those attempting to construct a picture of early Christianity based on Mary Magdalene as Jesus’ wife and head apostle must do so by subjectively picking and choosing elements from second- and third-century writings, then project them back to the first century. (Olson, p. 93)

            #3 – The only thing that is really of substance (and danger) here is a modern feminist resentment and rebellion against authority.  The era of feminism we are currently enduring began in this generation in the 60s and early 70s.  On the surface there are appreciable and understandable issues – social and economic equality, respect and judicial protection and prosecution against gender prejudice and violence.  But below that surface are deepening layers with sinister motives and agendas.  Equality is really not the goal, superiority is, even dominance and control.  And, at the philosophical and theological level, a reach and a claim for divinity itself.

            Space does not allow me to explain or defend this thoroughly except to mention the key word in present day feminist theology is “the sacred feminine”.  The male and his dominance is to be rejected (even that of Christ), the woman must be allowed to be exalted (and Mary Magdalene makes a good icon), and that, strictly on emotional, existential grounds and with it a narcissistic sexuality.  Allow me some references merely to illustrate.

The whole point, for many in the movement, is to discover divinity within the self and to encounter it in the female form. (Davis)

The ‘male logos’ must give way for ‘Eros, the bridal aspect of divinity … I would climb down from the Logos-oriented cross and redesign my life based on the blueprint for balance … . (Starbird)

I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff. (Williams)

{My own} research helped clarify what I cannot love: the tendency to identify Christianity with a single, authorized set of beliefs however these actually vary from church to church – coupled with the conviction that Christian belief alone offers access to God. (Pagels)

Redemption ‘consists essentially in knowledge of one’s self. (Hauke)

However you may react to statements like these, it must be clear that academic scholarship is not the aim or even a desire here.  Rather, their motives and visions are to use the appearance of such legitimate study and research to gain public attention in order to seek to demand what cannot be proven and to try to override what cannot be denied.

A central and re-occurring theme in the works of authors such as Margaret Starbird, Lynn Picknett, Susan Haskins, and Elaine Pagels is that of sexuality and gender.  For those writers, Mary Magdalene represents a woman who is freed from sexual repression, who is not dependant upon a male-only hierarchy, and who fulfills her desires through confident individualism, not repentance and submission.  Put directly, it is about power, with the recognition that sexuality is a core element of that power” (Olson, p. 80).

Rectifying the Sin of Ancient Eve

            One thing the worshippers of the “sacred feminine” claim that is true: their pagan religion predates the advent of the Christian era and that it was driven out by the gospel.  But that battle actually goes back much farther.  It goes back to the Garden of Eden where the very first woman was enticed with the same lie that trips up her daughters today: “You can be much more than just a man, you can be as God.”  Modern feminists want Mary Magdalene to be their “apostle”, their prophetess crying in the wilderness with a new “gospel”, a nongospel, an anti-gospel, a call to worship the “sacred feminine”.

            But the technical term of “apostle” did not apply to Mary or to any of the women beyond their task that bright morning.  The true apostles were those 12 men chosen and called of Jesus who led the church, wrote for the church and died for the cause of Christ’s gospel message.  When Paul underscores this with his teaching regarding the continuing headship in the church belonging solely to the men called of God to preach, teach and shepherd, he is not asserting some new, male prejudice or even something that was simply part of the culture in which he lived.  He was reiterating what God has taught his people all along.  Leadership in the home and headship in the church both symbolize the role of God in relation to his people and Christ in relation to his bride, the church.

            The women did have a glorious place in the plan of God, however, and Hippolytus saw it truly.  In a figurative way, they were, indeed, rectifying the sin of Eve.  Mary Magdalene, along with the other women, had the privilege of bringing the good news of redemption in the risen Lord Jesus to the apostles.  These women came to men with the wonderful truth of God’s love rather than with the deceptive and terrible lie of Satan on their lips as Eve had taken to Adam.  In doing so, they were allowed, by the grace of God, to demonstrate the reversal of the sin of mother Eve, heralding the birth, death and resurrection of the promised Messiah (rf. Gen. 3:15).  And rather than trusting in Satan’s lie of self-achievement, self-advancement and even self-deity as their mother Eve had done, these women came humbly trusting in God for deliverance from sin and for restoration unto true daughterhood.  And unlike Satan, God did not let these women down.  By faith, they had become the true, adopted daughters of the King.

David G. Barker, 2005

Bock, Darrell L., Breaking the Da Vinci Code, Nashville:Nelson Publ., 2004.

Olson, Carl E & Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, San Franscico:Ignatius Press, 2004.

Woodward, Kenneth, “A Quite Contrary Mary”, www.beliefnet.com, 11/2003