The Three Visits of Mary Magdalene to the Tomb of Christ, 1
by Blessed Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky)
WE HAVE READ various discussions about the apparent lack of accord among the Gospel narrations of Christ's Resurrection. There have been a number of attempts at demonstrating a concordance among the Evangelists in this regard, but not all have been successful.
I wish to offer some considerations on the subject, and I wish to begin by mentioning the most obvious point of seeming lack of accord.
In Matthew’s Gospel, we read that upon being greeted by the risen Lord with the word “Rejoice,” Mary of Magdala and the other Mary immediately embraced His feet. Nevertheless, we read elsewhere (John 20:11-17) that Mary of Magdala was weeping at the empty tomb and did not recognise Christ, but thought that He was the caretaker of the garden. When she did finally recognise Him, she was forbidden to touch Him.
These narratives do not appear to conform with one another, and attempts of readers to reconcile them only produce strained interpretations and unconvincing contrivances.
The four Gospels do not describe the appearances of the Lord to the Myrrhbearing women in an identical manner. What most perplexes interpreters is the lack of accord between the accounts given by Matthew and John. It is evident that the Lord appeared to Mary of Magdala twice - once alone and the other time together with the other Mary - but the relationship of these two appearances perplexes interpreters.
The thesis by which we intend to resolve this question may be expressed as follows: the Evangelist Matthew speaks of the journey of the two Marys to the Lord’s tomb, already knowing that Christ had risen from the dead.
What Matthew is describing took place after the appearance described by John when Mary of Magdala had gone to the tomb and mistaken Christ for the gardener. She had informed the apostles how she had seen the Lord and He had spoken to her, then she informed the other Mary, and both of them went to the tomb. They did not go at that time to anoint the body of Jesus, because they knew that He was risen, but they went “to see the tomb,” knowing it to be empty, but knowing also that the winding strips in which He had been buried were still there. It was not only them and the two apostles who rushed to the tomb to verify what Mary of Magdala had seen, but later, the other myrrhbearers and more than eleven others also went (Luke 24:9, 24). The Evangelist informs us that the two Marys were made worthy of a second appearance of the angel and then of the Lord Himself.
What other evidence do we have, besides Matthew’s words that they went “to see the tomb,” that the events in that Gospel took place after the events described in John’s Gospel? The second evidence is that John describes the events that occurred “while it was yet dark,” while Matthew clearly speaks of something that happened “at dawn on the first day of the week.”
The third point which requires our attention is the reaction of the myrrhbearers to the angel’s words, and to Christ Himself. In John’s Gospel, Mary appears so unprepared for the event that she cannot assimilate it and takes Christ for a gardener; in Mark’s account, the angel’s words bring the myrrhbearers to such terror that they “said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.” Luke writes that they were overcome with fear and prostrated themselves on the ground. .
