Why was Mary Magdalene the first person Jesus appeared to after the resurrection?

While reading through the Gospel of Mark, I had a hard time coming up with a question. I am guessing this is because it is telling the same story that Matthew told, essentially. While there are some notable differences in the two, it was hard for me to separate one from the other, so I had to re-read a few times and then form a question. At the end (literally) of reading and re-reading, I finally found it, my question. So, here is the question I ask: Why was Mary Magdalene the first person Jesus appeared to after the resurrection? 



At the end of Matthew, the author makes note that Mary and Mary Magdalene went down to see the tomb and were informed that Jesus was no longer there, for he had risen. In Matthew 28:9-10, it states that Jesus greeted BOTH Mary and Mary Magdalene, so why then, in the Gospel of Mark, does it state that: "Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons." (Mark 16:9). Why in Mark's story is it just Mary Magdalene and why is she the first person he appears to? Did Mark just CHOOSE to omit Mary or did Matthew get it wrong? 

In researching this question, I found a few differing opinions. It seems that in the books of Mark and John, Jesus appears only to Mary Magdalene (or, as in John, it is not explicitly stated that Jesus only appears to Mary Magdalene, it states, "Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"---and that he had said these things to her" John 20:18.) Therefore, it seems that only the Gospel of Mark states that "Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene".

According to TaborBlog , the Gospel of Mark mentions Mary Magdalene only 3 times, at the crucifixion, the burial, and after the resurrection. Why in Mark's gospel did Mary Magdalene see Jesus FIRST? Why would Jesus appear before her first, when according to some, she was an extreme sinner and a "harlot"? (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/206.html)

 While googling and looking and trying to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING to answer this question, all I can find is that the gospel of Mark, "got it right", Mary Magdalene was the first person that Jesus appeared to, and that there is no contradiction in the other books regarding the resurrection, because the others(Mary, the disciples, Cephas and the twelve, etc), saw Jesus AFTER Mary Magdalene did. (http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/who-saw-jesus-first). It seems that some believe that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first and that she was the first person to deliver the good news of Jesus' resurrection because she was his most loyal servant. According to many sources, Mary Magdalene stayed there with Jesus until the end, witnessing the crucifixion, seeing where his body was laid, and helped prepare for the embalming. Therefore, one can make the assumption that Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus after the resurrection, and the person to deliver the good news of Easter, because she never left his side. (The Expository Files).

In closing, I feel fairly certain that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first, because she was extremely loyal and she was the only one still hanging around mourning him and waiting. Most research points to this same answer, although with enough digging you can find the random conspiracy theory, or critic/blogger saying that Mark just omitted some things. I will add that, while talking to my husband about my blog question, he said that he believes that Jesus appeared to her first because they were in fact married, but he's a conspiracy theorist(he even thinks Tupac is alive for goodness sakes), so, we will just go ahead and ignore what he thinks, since that would be another blog for another day:)

Matthew 27: 51-53, why is this passage included?

While reading through Matthew, I actually had many questions that I thought would be good for this blog, but, seeing as how I wanted to do something a little outside the box, AND, The Walking Dead premiere is quickly approaching us, I thought I would ask a question about something that I found pretty strange. Are there zombies in the Book of Matthew? Specifically, what does the passage in Matthew 27:51-53 really mean and why is it included?  It seems obvious that the answer to this question is yes, yes there are in fact people that start rising from the dead, therefore, there are zombies. Ok, maybe there aren't zombies in "The Walking Dead" sense(maybe not?), but, there are definitely some folks rising that should probably keep on being dead, as opposed to getting up and walking around. Personally, I wouldn't take kindly to people rising from the dead and walking around, I've watched too much Walking Dead, so I'd probably pull a Daryl Dixon and start popping those suckers off with a cross bow, but I digress. The real question here is, "Does Matthew mention zombies in his book, what is the point of the "zombies" in Matthew, and why is this passage even included?"

 

As we can all assume, these "bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep and were raised, and coming out of the tombs" were not reanimated, flesh eating zombies,(I personally imagine them to be slightly shimmery and floating beings), but still, what is the point of these saints rising from their tombs to walk into the holy city? As I've done some research, I've read many other blogs and many other websites that also specifically question this passage. From my research, it seems that Matthew is the only one out of the four gospels who mentions the "saints rising from the dead' in the New Testament. According to a specific blog (500 questions blog) ,I found when trying to find an answer to the question I have posed, none of the other gospels mention this rising from the dead, Why is this? Is it because it isn't true or because maybe Matthew was trying to make his gospel more convincing to readers and/or non believers? These are answers we may never know, or we just have to decide for ourselves. 

I can say with a great deal of certainty that Matthew does mention "zombies" in his gospel, but, he is the only one who mentions this, and I say, if this really happened, isn't it a fairly big incident that all 4 gospels should mention? The question as to the reason that the other gospels don't mention the saints coming out of their tombs and walking into the holy city is one to be asked at another time, in another blog though.

According to an article in Christianity Today, a man named Michael Licona wrote a 700 page book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, in 2010 and one of the many passages written in this book claimed that Matthew's use of the raised saints was just a symbol that the Son of Man had just died, not something that legitimately happened. Licona came under a lot of scrutiny for this, even though, it does certainly make sense that Matthew possibly added the raising of saints as a strictly literary element in order to drive home the point that Jesus was dead and that he would soon be risen. In my mind, the fact that Matthew is the only gospel that even mentions this makes clear the point that the rising of theses saints is not to be taken literally, but used only as a literary device. Think about it, if this whole passage was omitted, sure the death and the coming resurrection of Jesus Christ would still be understood, but when Jesus dies and there is a passage, such as Matthew 27: 51-53 that uses such strong language (i.e.-"The curtain of the temple was torn in two...." "Many of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised..."), would the fact that Jesus is indeed the Son of God be fully understood? 

While googling for hours trying to find some sort of differing opinion on this, I essentially came up empty handed. It seems that most bloggers/journalists/other people believe this passage is one of two things; #1- A non-historical passage that was not intended to be taken literally, but a passage to be taken as a sign of things to come(i.e-the rising of Jesus Christ). #2-It seems that a lot of people just kind of ignore and do not question this passage and pass it off as either a "weird historically accurate truth" or, they just ignore it completely like it was never mentioned. Zombies in Matthew

In conclusion, in my opinion, I feel as though Matthew 27: 51-53 has been put there for symbolic and foreshadowing reasons. It is a strange passage and I think the element of the "temple being torn in two", the earthquake-like event, and the saints rising from their tombs was put in Matthew, not to be taken at face value, but for Matthew to bring across the point that Jesus "Truly this was the Son of God!" Or, perhaps, Matthew just liked to embellish a little.