Weepy Mary

But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; (John 20:11)

As I have read this passage repeatedly over the past few days, it has struck me several times how much weeping Mary tended to do. It seems that many of the stories connected to Mary involve her weeping. And if, as some believe, Mary was the woman dragged before Jesus by authorities wanting to stone her for adultery, I suspect she was most likely weeping uncontrollably in fear and shame at that time too.

• Mary was undoubtedly near the cross when Jesus was dying, and most likely was weeping a great deal then.
• Mary had felt compelled to come in uninvited to a banquet put on for Jesus by her uncle Simon to honor Him herself with a most expensive and noticeable perfume, whereupon she lost control of her emotions and began weeping uncontrollably. While trying to clean up the mess she was making by pouring the perfume over Jesus head and feet, she added her tears to the mix and the whole thing became embedded on both her hair and Jesus' hair. At that time Jesus made it very clear that He both deeply approved of her seemingly dubious actions and also insisted that her public display of affection for Him would be intimately connected with the spreading of the gospel for the rest of history. (When it is not, I seriously question the authenticity of anything purporting to be the gospel that is being presented.)
• While it is not recorded as such, I wonder if when Mary was sitting at Jesus' feet with the other disciples, and then her sister came in and exploded at Jesus for not sending her back to the kitchen 'where a woman belongs', that she may likely have burst into tears at the scolding of her sister. Yet Jesus again defended her and gently rebuked Martha (which has become one of the main themes at women's conferences ever since).
• Right off, I can't think of any other specific stories where Mary is reported to have been weeping. But given that she had been delivered from demonic control up to seven times by Jesus, I can't help but think that during those dramatic encounters that there wasn't a lot of weeping taking place also.

In my imagination, I have associated Mary Magdalene with crying and vulnerability. But in addition I have also believed, as I have mentioned before, that Mary was a woman unusual in her capacity to love passionately and had what I believe, a gift from God of unusual beauty, both personality wise and in appearance (in contrast with her possibly plain-looking sister Martha). That is partially why she had been exploited so much in her life, both by relatives as well as by strangers. Such vulnerability in a world where exploitation is rampant is like a magnet, though victimizing anyone is never excusable.

Over the years as I have been coming to perceive God's ways more clearly, I am coming to see that the kingdom of God, including the way the rest of the universe operates and relates to each other, is one of incredible fragility compared to our ways of thinking. But it is precisely because it is so incredibly fragile that it is also stunningly beautiful. I am coming to see that the original design upon which God created everything may have included vulnerability as one of its most important elements.

Many years ago when I was a teenager I began struggling with the problem of emotional pain when it comes to relationships with others. Not that I didn't have any before that mind you, but what I am saying is that I was starting to become aware of an internal problem that was affecting my soul. I began to observe that as I increased my internal resistance, building emotional walls around my heart in attempts to protect myself from being hurt further by others, I was also quickly losing my own ability to enjoy not just love, but even appreciation for natural beauties of nature around me.

I could remember a time where I would sit on the edge of a cliff watching a sunset or some other beautiful scenery, that would be so painfully beautiful that I felt like I might explode. I remembered my confusion that beauty could even be painful and wondered what that meant. I remembered thinking that the only thing I could think of that might lessen the enormous pressure within my heart was if I could just have someone who cared about me sit next to me to share this experience with me. Somehow I sensed that if I could somehow share the intensity of the experience with someone else who also could appreciate it and know how I was feeling, that it might turn the pain into something more pleasurable.

But given the social circumstances of my life at that time and the kind of friends around me, that wasn't very possible. In addition, as a teenager with very conservative religious people in control of my surroundings, I found my heart feeling wounded repeatedly, and as a result I was withdrawing deeper and deeper behind emotional walls I was building up to lessen the pain I constantly felt. But what really frightened me was when one day I suddenly realized that in building these walls to protect myself from more pain, I now was becoming immunized to being able to even enjoy experiences of visual pleasure that before had been so painfully intense for me. That created a sense of alarm in my spirit and I began asking God what was going on.

I distinctly remember going outside alone one say and throwing myself on the grass with my face to the ground, wrestling with this problem and trying to make sense out of life in general. As I lay there trying to sort out these problems, it suddenly struck me like a thought from somewhere else, that what I was experiencing was a principle of reality that is unavoidable. This principle is this: that only to the extent that one is willing to open themselves up to potential emotional pain can they be capable to also experiencing positive pleasures. In fact, it seems to be like a mathematical formula, some sort of ratio kind of thing. For what I was sensing was that only to the extent that I would allow myself to be vulnerable to being hurt by others could I enjoy capacity to experience love from others or maybe even God.

I have to admit that I was not too happy with this revelation. Like most people I am not keen on wanting to open myself up to experiencing pain from others. I would much prefer to maintain walls around my heart blocking out anything that might threaten to hurt me, while still being able to fully enter into loving relationships with others. But what I was sensing then and have come to see later as an eternal reality, is that this is not how life is designed. We cannot have it both ways; either we must open our hearts to both love and potential suffering, or we harden our hearts through attempts to protect ourselves yet in the very process destroying our very capacity to experience true love.

The revelation of this life principle has reverberated in my mind ever since. But it has also helped me in discovering the real truth about God's kingdom as well as what Jesus demonstrated in His life here on earth. What I am coming to see in the life of Jesus is a man who took this principle completely seriously and lived it to the max. By never building protective walls around His heart, He became the most vulnerable person who ever walked this planet since Adam and Eve. But in doing so, and through allowing Himself to be exploited by those who did not value or appreciate this principle, He also effectively unveiled the real kingdom of heaven and reinjected it back into humanity in such a way that anyone choosing to follow Him and abide in Him could also escape the trap of sin.

As I meditated on Mary's life this morning it began to soak into my awareness that she was not alone in her penchant for frequent crying. And while most people around her viewed this as a symptom of weakness, and many were tempted to exploit her vulnerabilities and cause her even more damage, her emotional openness was only a dim reflection of the level of vulnerability that marked the life of Jesus. In fact, I believe that it was this very openness of Jesus that became the strongest attraction to Him for all those who had felt exploited in their own vulnerabilities. For when they saw a man who loved without reservation and refused to build walls of self-protection around His own heart, an intense desire was awakened in their own hearts to come closer to Him, for they sensed that this was the kind of life they had been looking for all their lives.

While the Bible does not report many instances where Jesus wept, a Jewish historian called Josephus reported that this Man was known for weeping quite often. Again, for many that kind of reputation might be viewed as a sign of weakness. But for those who long to live from their heart with freedom, they sense that it is really a symptom of being genuine, of being more alive, of having a willingness to embrace those around with the kind of love that intuitively knows this is how to thrive and really live.

Recently I attended a campmeeting in which I was invited to speak along with a friend of mine about some of our discoveries about God's character. As I prepared for those presentations, the closer we got to the actual time of getting up in front of people the more trepidation we felt about being vulnerable. We were afraid that people would argue with us, attack us and view our ideas as being heretical, maybe even insult us. Not too many people enjoy such treatment, and if they are I have doubts as to their ability to connect well with others. Most of us seek to avoid personal attacks and prefer friends who affirm us and accept us. But when it comes to speaking the truth we must be willing to take risks that people who disagree with us may react strongly when they feel their views are being threatened.

Yet at the end of these meetings my fears had been completely unrealized. In fact, what I felt was more along the lines of not just relief, but of growing amazement and appreciation. I was grateful that during the first time we had ever done anything like this, God had chosen a group of people who were more open-minded than any group I have ever encountered. Maybe He wanted to affirm us in this way and encourage us before tougher assignments later on; I don't know and I leave that completely in His hands. But what I did appreciate was the fact that these people were so eager to learn more truth about God's love for them and open to deeper insights into the nature of God's true character in contrast with the many lies being spread about Him from religions of every stripe.

I mention that in this context partly because I was reminded during those meetings of something God had confronted me with at various times in years past. After realizing the implications of that first revelation long ago lying on the grass with my face in the ground, wondering why it had to be this way, I felt impressed at various times that He just might call me someday to publicly testify for Him in rather unusual ways. He impressed me, or more likely asked me, if I was going to be willing to weep in public, maybe even before audiences as His Spirit would move in my own heart.

Now don't take me wrong here. I am not suggesting or even looking for opportunities to stand up in front of people and cry on demand. Quite the opposite, like most people I am rather fearful of feeling the shame and humiliation generally associated with weepy kinds of people. My background is from a family where the first time I can recall ever seeing my Dad cry was when my Mom died. And ironically during that very emotional moment, it was watching my Dad cry that disturbed me more than seeing my Mom die. So now you might get a sense of where I am coming from.

But God has been working on softening my heart for many years. That is not to say I have gotten very far, for I still feel all too hard inside, fearful and reluctant to cooperate with this apparent request from God. But at the same time He reminds me that this kind of testimony may well have far more weight in His kingdom than many sermons preached using compelling logic. He impressed me that one possible explanation why Paul was so effective in spreading the gospel was because it was so intensely personal for him that he frequently wept openly as he recalled the amazing grace of God extended toward him personally. Quite possibly it was the 'weepy' Paul that had as much effect on his audiences as it was the message of the real truth about God that moved them to embrace the kingdom he explained to them.

When I sensed that at these recent meetings I might be required to give God permission to move me to become emotional in public, I had to face this fear head-on and give him my decision. Knowing that God's ways are always better than mine, I told Him He could have His way, but I also asked Him to strengthen me and be close to me in that experience. I can honestly report that He did so, and although I tapped into deep emotions in nearly every meeting I presented, in doing so I felt drawn deeper into His love each time as His passion seemed to leak through me to infect other hearts.

So as I go back to the stories of Mary and all her weepyness, and contemplate the fact that Jesus was viewed by many as a wimp because of similar symptoms, from heaven's perspective this may often actually be more of a sign of being in touch with reality than others around us. While it is not popular to allow emotions to show (except maybe anger or disgust), I have been learning that if I ever want to live squarely in the kingdom Jesus is introducing that I must learn to be willing to let His emotions flow through me so that His love can take on real power as I pass it along to others.

No wonder Jesus said Mary's outburst of gushing, embarrassing affection should be shared everywhere the gospel goes. And wherever this story is not the ultimate illustration used to explain the kind of love God longs for all of us to experience, then I seriously question whether what it being presented is the real gospel; it may actually be found to be just a cheap imitation that has no power to save souls.

Abounding Grace

She turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. (John 20:14)

I am going to take a risk today by talking about some of the things I sense I am finding in this chapter. I know it might be very unpopular to say what sounds like negative observations about Mary, but at the same time it also gives me hope. Let me explain.

In this story John seems to be focusing on the issue of how much evidence it takes to get each person to believe the resurrection of Jesus. Each person is coming from their own perspective and bringing their own baggage to the very same facts in the story which in turn affects how much evidence it requires to induce them to begin trusting God.

In verse 8 John says that when he entered the tomb right after Peter seeing the same things Peter saw, he himself believed, though he couldn't yet say the same for Peter. He is also careful to note that his own belief was not yet founded on Scripture evidence which I find rather interesting. He is sharing his own experience of belief with us, relating that although he had not yet put all the pieces together, he had enough evidence to move him from unbelief into trust.

I wonder if maybe the previous words of Jesus suddenly came back into his memory, words not that long ago spoken to all of the disciples about dying and raising Himself up again, that had gone right over their heads at the time. Maybe for John it suddenly clicked that the repeated expressions of Jesus needed to be taken seriously after all and that everything he was now seeing and experiencing were demonstration of what Jesus had been saying all along. For John, the evidence had become clear enough for him to choose to believe Jesus and trust that although everything still didn't make total sense that Jesus' words could be trusted and that He had indeed accomplished what He said He would. That sounds very much like the experience of Abraham come to think of it.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, "in Isaac your descendants shall be called." He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)

For Mary however, it seems that her grief was so intense that she had gotten trapped by her emotions. She remained stuck in her initial interpretation of the evidence so that everything saw after that was forced to fit her original assumption, no matter how contradictory it might be. When she first arrived at the tomb where there should have been a number of callous soldiers and a large heavy stone blocking access to the tomb, she found everything very different with no soldiers and the large stone lying away from the mouth of the tomb.

Her immediate conclusion about this unexpected situation was that someone had taken the body of Jesus out of the tomb and moved it somewhere else. Maybe in her emotion she thought they had done this just to spite her personally, I don't know. Emotions can distort a person's logic quite easily. We can become so self-focused in our desire to escape our pain that we can interpret everything to assume the whole world is bent on making our life as miserable as possible even if none of our conclusions fit the evidence. This is not unusual for a very immature person to do, but trauma can also have a way of causing us to revert into temporary immaturity in the ways we perceive reality.

Based on her emotions and the startling evidence she first came across, she must have concluded that indeed someone – likely her enemies and of Jesus – were bent on perpetuating the tragedy that had just taken place and had intentionally removed His body for spiteful reasons including a desire to make her grief even more unbearable. With this or some similar potential scenario entrenched in her thinking, everything she encountered after that was forced into this scenario created by her own imagination.

So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

(vs 2)

And they (two angels) said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." (vs 13)

Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away." (vs 15)

It is becoming quite popular to point out the fact that Jesus appointed a woman to be the very first evangelist to tell others of His resurrection. I will not argue that fact. However, sometimes I wonder if the agenda behind such statements, evidently meant to counterbalance prejudice against women being involved in spreading the gospel with equal authority as men, has not been to overbalance a problem by creating a new one. It is easy to point out the obvious lack of belief on the part of most of the men in this story while highlighting the fact that the women seemed ready to believe. But what I am finding here does not necessarily support that supposition.

I have come to realize over recent years that sin at its core has to do with distrust, unbelief in the real truth about God and in God Himself rather than so much about 'doing bad things' or breaking rules. Dysfunctional behavior that we generally call sin is symptomatic of everyone who does not trust in God and in His ways. And like all symptoms, the only real way to effectively address them is not through focusing primarily on treating the symptoms but in treating the core causes of the symptoms. Treating causes rather than effect is far more effective though maybe not so popular with those who just want the pain and discomfort to stop immediately.

Given that our problem with sin has more to do with unbelief than with doing bad things, I am starting to see in this story that in essence Mary is 'living in sin' in her relationship to Jesus. I do not say this to denigrate her or shame her for being emotional. But the fact is that when she first sees the empty tomb, she jumps to a conclusion that someone must have it in for her and has taken away the body of Jesus and all she can think about is finding it again. She only wants to locate His body so she can grieve over it in person which she hopes will lessen her deep anguish. Because of this, everything that happens from that point on is forced through this conclusion that she is unwilling to reconsider no matter how much the mounting evidence challenges her assumption.

Think about this: she sees angels where the men only see grave cloths. Yet even with this supernatural clue and her dialog with angels, she still is not jolted out of her original assumption. (The experience of Balaam comes to mind.) Then she meets Jesus Himself who is seeking to help her reconsider her perception of reality; yet even with Jesus standing right in front of her all she can perceive is someone who might be the guilty 'they' that has to fit into her thinking.

This has the hallmarks of intensely embedded unbelief. I do not say this to be harsh, but with overwhelming evidence in front of her like this, most people would have by this time begun to question their original assumptions and consider that maybe they should consider a more consistent explanation. But again, intense emotional trauma can so narrow the focus of one's thinking that it is impossible for them to reconsider their original assumptions. Then anyone questioning them is challenged instead of honestly listened to with an open mind.

But here is where I see the good news appearing once again. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. (Romans 5:20 NKJV)

Let's just face the truth here; by her unbelief Mary was stuck in sin, for sin is unbelief. This is not to condemn her but to just be honest about what so many of us experience at times. We struggle to believe in God, not so much because we are rebellious but because we simply are unwilling to challenge our own perceptions of reality that are strongly controlled by our own emotions. Mary was unable to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence that for others might have easily caused them to believe in what was becoming so obvious. But in spite of this great obstacle of unbelief caused by the pain in Mary's heart, Jesus never became impatient with her or even rebuked her like He later did with Thomas. He simply kept bringing more and more evidence to her until she finally broke through the veil and into the glorious light of the truth about what God had in His heart for her.

It is no surprise then that the intensity of her joy was at least in proportion to the level of her previous grief. That is what can happen with high emotion-capacity people. What encourages me is when I think of another well known evangelist who had an experience not unlike that of Mary, though with a very different background. Saul of Tarsus was also a deeply passionate person with very intense emotions directed at vindicating the reputation of God as he understood Him to be. Saul was not persecuting Christian's out of rebellion against God but out of an intense desire to protect His reputation and purify His chosen people of dangerous errors.

In Saul's case, the evidence was also mounting over time creating increasing emotional pressure to reconsider his own assumptions. But he too kept resisting until, not unlike in Mary's situation, Jesus Himself had to get right in his face in such an obvious way that he couldn't miss it anymore. But in both cases, after they encountered the real Jesus – the true revelation of what God is really like and how much love and grace He has for each one of us – the switch from unbelief to passionate devotion marked their life from that point on.

God works with each one of us differently, for we each are coming from unique situations that have shaped us in very different ways. God does not become impatient with us when we cling to our unbelief long after others may have embraced the light and love waiting for us. But at the same time, we are individually free to keep living in unbelief even while we are encouraged to begin experiencing the joy of living in belief as soon as we are willing. The choice is our own, but the consequences of those choices can be eternal.

Mary might have believed much sooner if she had been willing to think past her emotions. She already had a long history of growing faith in her relationship with Jesus and in some respects already had far more evidence in her own life that many people do. Her own brother had been raised from the dead just days before all of this took place and he was likely even then at home with her sister possibly praying for her. I ponder what may have taken place that weekend in the home of Mary and Martha and Lazarus as Mary was consumed by her depression over the death of Jesus. Her own brother, living testimony of the power of Jesus to raise the dead, may himself have even found it impossible to break through the dark cloud surrounding Mary's heart. In addition the faith of her sister who had discussed this very issue with Jesus only days before and had chosen to trust Him just before the resurrection of her own brother – even that could not counteract the intense sadness of Mary. And amazingly, not even angels seeking to awaken her faith or even some curiosity in her could pull her away from her unbelief and her preconceived opinions about what was going on.

Yes, Mary did become the first evangelist to tell the story of the resurrection to others. But not until her high level of resistance was first overcome by an overwhelming amount of evidence. John had chosen to believe with far less evidence as did many others. Yet with each of them God dealt with them according to their own uniqueness as He drew them together into a body of caring believers.

Indeed, where sin (unbelief) abounds, grace much more abounds. And that pretty much describes the essence of Jesus – abounding grace personified.

Male Disadvantage?

Stooping and looking in, [John] saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.

But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. (John 20:5-7, 11-12)

Is it obvious yet? Two men rush to the tomb looking for evidence to figure out how to solve a compelling mystery of a missing body, but all the evidence they can uncover are some discarded grave-clothes and an empty tomb. The woman who loved Him the most looks into the exact same place a few minutes later and sees angels. What's up with this?

Do I conclude that being a male gives me a hopeless disadvantage in life? That I will never be able to see things like a woman can see? Well, I can't answer that since I cannot try out the other side for myself, but my first reaction is to feel rather defensive – and logical, which is exactly the symptoms of these two disciples. They were looking for physical evidence to determine what to think, figure out the problem and if possible offer a solution. Mary didn't seem intent on looking for physical evidence so much as she was absorbed with doing something – anything – about the enormous pain wringing her soul; she was longing for much more than just cold, hard facts.

I have heard it said that you generally find what you are looking for. Is that what is going on here? Is this much more about the priorities of the heart rather than about which gender happens to be your lot? I would like to think so, though again I really can't prove that theory.

For many years I have puzzled over my own identity when it comes to these sorts of things. The descriptions people use as stereotypes for being male or female don't always seem to work well, for when I compare myself to them it appears in some respects that I can relate better in some areas with what is assumed the way a woman would think, while in other respects the opposite is true. I'm sure we can all think of exceptions in people we know, so much so that the stereotypes sometimes come under serious question. So is what I am reading here simply a reflection of a stereotype of the difference between how men and women think, or does it have more to do with how those stereotypes push people into certain roles because of social pressure?

Stereotypes can do that you know. Depending on where we happen to be born and what culture we grow up in largely shapes our definitions of what it really means to be a human of one gender or the other. But I wonder if many if not most of those have more to do with tradition and culture than they have to do with actual wiring or design. I am not suggesting there are no fundamental natural differences between men and women – I believe there are, and by God's design from creation. Genesis indicates God never intended for either gender to fully reflect His image but for the two to work in cooperation with each other, complimenting each other to reflect the nature and beauty of their Creator.

Yet even in each gender there are vastly different variations of personality and abilities. Certainly some of this is due to the effects of thousands of years of sin influencing our thinking and expectations. But even that could also be natural variations intended by God as expressions of His own complexity and mysterious nature. I don't think God ever expected us to be clones of our gender, always acting and thinking in very predictable ways. And while I do believe He created each gender with certain fundamental biases that are different from the other, that does not mean that exceptions to that are necessarily wrong, just differences to be respected and appreciated.

For many years I found Mary's stories and personality to be very intriguing to me. What attracts me the most is her willingness to be vulnerable and transparent, almost to the point of not being able to help herself. Some might consider that a weakness, something needing to be overcome. But my heart tells me that she was a vivid example displaying evidence of remnants of the way humanity was originally designed to live, designed to bond and connect at the heart level with each other without all the suspicion and resistance that seems so normal today.

What I perceive is a woman who had lived from her heart probably all of her life. But doing so in a male-dominated world where others viewed this is a weakness to exploit had brought on enormous amounts of pain, suffering, shame, humiliation and exploitation by those who should have been there to protect and celebrate her special reflection of God. I sense in Mary unusual insights into the kind of God that Jesus came to reveal, a God who makes Himself vulnerable to exploitation for the very purpose of thus exposing the evil of such behavior and thinking. In essence, I think Mary may have been one of the few humans who lived in Jesus' time that resonated strongly with His heart because she understood His language better than possibly anyone else.

Given that, it would be no wonder that she felt so distraught when Jesus was crucified, especially the way it was carried out. What she saw happening during His trial and crucifixion was a reminder of exploitation she had experienced herself all too often in life. She saw men exploiting what they viewed as weakness in Jesus, while inside her own heart she intuitively knew that what others saw as weakness was really the essence of what it requires to live truly alive. Very few people seem to grasp this reality, and the way the disciples acted indicates to me that it took far longer for them to warm up to this truth than it did for many of the women in His life.

Another woman comes to mind who might have had very similar characteristics and personality to Mary as that I think of it. The very first person with whom Jesus shared plainly the truth about His identity as the Messiah was a woman from Samaria with a similar colorful history as Mary had. This woman too, caught on so quickly to the reality of what Jesus longed to share with everyone that within minutes she became a far more effective evangelist than the disciples ever became for some time afterwards. Like Mary, this woman had been trying to live from her heart but had suffered enormously for it through the exploitation of men for much of her life. That is not to suggest that either of these women had no part in causing their sufferings. It is true that they may have been responsible for many of the choices that they made, but in large part they were far more victimized by the entrenched power and authority structures in place around them than personally accountable for most of the exploitation they had endured. I believe that is why Jesus had far greater success in much less time with each of these women than He ever had with the male class of His day.

Yet even given this, Jesus never treated either gender with less respect or love. Jesus came to save all of humanity, but related to different kinds of people with different approaches. Jesus was a master of how to relate to each one. What made Him that way? It was not because of His inherent divinity as many might suppose, for that would have given Him an unfair advantage over everyone else and it would then be impossible for us to follow His example if that were the case. Rather Jesus relied completely on His daily, intimate connection with His Father and never failed to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit that always guided and inspired Him through every moment and in every encounter. That is certainly within reach of any one of us if we would only be willing to live in total dependence on God just as Jesus did. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. (John 14:12)

As I ponder this incredible woman who seemed to so resonate with the heart of Jesus possibly more than any other person on earth, I long to move closer to living from my own heart like what I see in her example. Of course that would also mean opening myself up to potential exploitation by others who hold twisted views of reality just as she experienced. But then, isn't that what Jesus said would happen to all of His followers? We cannot be true disciples of Jesus and yet open ourselves up to persecution, for that very way of life both invites exploitation as well as induces fierce resistance from those who feel exposed by our very example of transparent living.

I believe Mary was drawn to Jesus because she saw clearly in Him the first male who never had the slightest desire to exploit her vulnerabilities while at the same time seeming to understand and even value the uniqueness that made her so vulnerable. Everyone else viewed her as weak, even condemned her for the very things they desired to exploit in her. But Jesus saw these same things as her strengths and did everything possible to redeem her from the effects that sin had caused in her life.

Jesus always sees things radically different than how religious people view them, and He values many of the very things that others view as weaknesses. That is one thing that draws so many to Jesus, for they sense that in Him their heart is encouraged to begin functioning again as it was originally designed to function; with trust, love and taking risks, reaching out to connect with other hearts in bonds of trust and intimacy. This is what I see marking the life of Mary and is what I believe is going to mark the life of every true follower of Jesus sooner or later as they are drawn closer and closer to live from the heart instead of just their head.

Peter and John had not yet arrived at that point where they could live more from their heart than from their head. But that is not to say that they were not on their way that day they arrived at the tomb. Peter was still overwhelmed with shame from denying Jesus three times and feeling worthless. Because of that he may have been even contemplating joining Judas in suicide. John was not but may well have been trying to help Peter out of his depression. But even he too was struggling to make sense out of the unexpected events swirling around them that weekend. Being typical males, when confronted with the news that Jesus had gone missing from the tomb, their first reaction was to launch an investigation. But apparently what they were cuing in on were not so much matters of the heart as much as physical facts from which to compile potential scenarios to figure out what was going on.

Mary on the other hand found these facts more of a nuisance or an interference preventing her from simply finding the healing for her heart that was highest in her priorities. Because of this she found it hard even with these obvious evidences to change her perceptions of reality, so much so that even with an appearance of angels right in front of her she still couldn't break free of her hopelessness. You might say that it took far more evidence to convince Mary of the reality of Jesus' resurrection than it did for John; Jesus had to not only talk with her but actually say her name in an old familiar way they had shared many times before to shake her out of her intense grief and go into a joy that was even more intense than had been her sadness.

John writes that when he saw the grave-clothes in the tomb he believed, even before he understood the Scriptures that had foretold this very event. Peter was still so overwhelmed in his own shame that it took a bit longer to believe. But apparently Mary required even more compelling evidence, not unlike Thomas, before she could be rescued from her depression. But with each person Jesus did whatever was needed to draw them out to trust His heart for them individually.

As I write these words my own eyes fill with tears as this stunning truth sinks into my own heart, that Jesus knows just as well what it will take to draw me out of my confusion and doubt into full trust in His heart as well. As He demonstrated so effectively in the lives of each of these followers who were so precious to Him, He will also relentlessly keep working with me until He brings me too into the freedom and joy of living totally abandoned to His love for me. That is what my heart craves more than anything else. And I suspect that is what His heart craves as well.

I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6 NRSV)

"Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope." (Matthew 12:18-21 NRSV)

What's Going On Inside?

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." (John 20:1-2)

A number of questions rise up in my mind and heart as I read these verses.

Why did John make sure he identified exactly who the woman was here?

Why did she go directly to Peter and John specifically?

What was the circumstantial evidence that caused her to make the assumptions she did?

Why did she feel compelled to talk to Peter and John? What did she think they could do about it?

Whom did she have in mind in her last statement here with the pronouns they and we?

Mary goes early to the tomb, very early, while it is still dark. What prompted her to do this?

Certainly she must have been aware that there was a squad of burley soldiers camped around the tomb to prevent anyone from even getting close to it. So why did she go there anyway?

Sensing a little of Mary's insatiable passion for Jesus as well as the intensity of her grief over losing her best Friend in such a traumatic way, I doubt that she was operating very much on logic or reason at this point. And besides that, being a man myself it is nearly impossible for me to appreciate much of the way a woman, a very unusual woman at that, might feel and think under such circumstances. Yet I don't think it is wrong for me to try to get as far as possible into her mind and heart, for God has created in all of us at least some capacity for empathy with others, even those strikingly different than ourselves, if we will only open our hearts and minds to things outside our own perspective and let His Spirit empower us to share what others are feeling and seeing.

I suspect that Mary, along with many others that weekend, had likely not gotten much sleep at all. Most of the disciples, the men mostly, were so filled with a growing fear for their own safety that they likely had a very hard time sleeping. On the other hand, the women, and Mary especially, may have had very different emotions controlling their thinking and behavior. In my mind, Mary in particular seemed to have an inside track to the heart of Jesus. Her view of and relationship with Him seemed to go far beyond the intellectual attachment that most of the disciples seemed to maintain and even went far beyond what possibly anyone else had ever experienced.

Mary had a long history with Jesus, and a rather colorful one at that. Evidence indicates that she had be delivered from at least seven demons, and probably this didn't happen all at the same time. Her reputation was so vivid and public as an outcast but very attractive prostitute that it was impossible to not know who she was with most of the people in these stories. Even the soldiers involved in the crucifixion may likely have had previous encounters with her or had at least known others who had. So when Mary showed up at the cross openly supportive of Jesus, the inferences about their relationship could not be overlooked by a crowd eager to discredit Him.

As is very often the case, even after a public conversion such as Mary experienced, people of this reputation or other similar ones find it nearly impossible to have their own reputations altered in public opinion, either in or outside the group of people claiming to follow God. As the philosophy of AA insists (though I challenge its validity strongly), once a problem has taken over one's life and given them its identity, they must always view themselves with that identity. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic, even if one never takes another drink. And the same kind of logic applies in some people's thinking about a loose woman. While there may be good reasons to be extra careful and on guard and be willing to always acknowledge one's weaknesses, I believe there should come a point when both the person themselves and true God-followers around them must allow the new identity of Jesus to preempt the reputation of any sinner that once marked their previous life. But I digress a little here.

Assuming that Mary was so distraught that she likely could not sleep much that night, she for whatever reason decides to the risk of venturing to get close to the tomb where her absolute best Friend has been laid after a very cruel death. The memories of the abuse and shame that Jesus had suffered the last few hours of His life were vividly circulating in her mind and she simply loved Him too much to stay away despite any dangers that might be involved in getting close to Him. After all, there was a dangerous group of uncouth men stationed around His tomb, and it also was very late at night. But in spite of all this, she must have decided that it was worth the risk to be misunderstood or even suffer abuse herself if only she could just be close to where His body was lying in the grave.

This may have been at least some of the context of what was going on in her thinking as she gave up any further attempts to rest and slipped through the night toward where the soldiers were stationed watching for any suspicious intruders. I wonder – did she encounter any of the fleeing soldiers as they raced toward the city early that morning in terror after encountering messengers from outer space, interrupting their orders from earthly authorities? Or did her timing miss all the excitement? Did she feel the earthquake when the angel confronted the soldiers, overwhelmed them with the glory of God and knocked the heavy stone away from the opening like a pebble only to sit on it in triumph? We don't know exactly what she experienced or missed along the way.

I wonder if maybe she had finally fallen into a fitful sleep that night only to be awakened by the earthquake. I suspect possibly most people in the area may have felt the earthquake and had been jolted awake with more terror. An earthquake had marked the death of Jesus striking fear and foreboding into the hearts of many of His enemies. Now another earthquake rocks the countryside as again God intervenes in the diabolical plans of His enemies to confirm some of the most important evidence vindicating His reputation by calling Jesus to raise Himself up and leave the tomb victorious over death. This earthquake likely struck fear in nearly every human who experienced it, yet from heaven's perspective it was more like the triumphal singing that the shepherds listened to at His birth that also produced a lot of fear. Yet each time it was actually a celebration of God's emerging victory over the lies and works of His archenemy that have caused so much havoc throughout the universe.

We have little idea where Mary was coming from. Did she go back to Bethany to her home over the Sabbath? That would make sense since it was not all that far from Jerusalem where all of this was taking place. Most likely she would not have been allowed to stay with the disciples overnight as they cowered in the upper room, yet she seemed quite aware of their whereabouts. So if she was coming from her home in Bethany and had decided to go to the tomb after being jolted awake by the earthquake, that might imply that all the commotion with the soldiers being humiliated and fleeing from their post of duty had all been completed before she would have arrived from that distance.

From the accounts of several writers, Mary seemed to be operating alone at this time. She did not come together with other women, though their timing may have not been too far apart. I would suspect that the other women involved shared many of Mary's emotions, all rather different from what the men were focused on at the time. In this time of crisis it appears clear that it was only the women who seemed fearless enough to go to the tomb despite all the intimidations created by the chauvinistic authorities of the political systems in power. It was only the women who were willing to act from their hearts and take risks both physically and even with their reputations to come to the tomb to see what they might be able to accomplish out of love for their Beloved Friend no matter what they might encounter there. But the stories seem to indicate that Mary had not coordinated her plans with anyone else but was simply acting from her own heart irregardless of what her head might deem prudent.

But then isn't this just like Mary to do anyway? Anyone familiar with most of the stories of her encounters with Jesus could easily see that pattern in Mary's life. In my thinking Mary was a woman of women, not in that she was virtuous and graceful but that she was so attractive and had such natural magnetism that she easily became a prime target for all who were weak toward the temptations to exploit such vulnerabilities. I have occasionally seen women who reminded me of what I think Mary must have been like, not in that they were loose or seductive intentionally, but women who had such a brilliant sparkle in their eyes and a natural, even unconscious magnetism about their very presence that they were like a powerful drug affecting nearly every male who encountered them.

Many view this kind of attraction as sinful, but I don't buy that line. I believe that God endowed the female side of our species with attractions that are designed to complement the male side in such a way as to bond the two together inseparably when both are living in God's plan for their lives. Sin has so distorted our thinking and perverted our assumptions that much of what God designed to be experienced as intense pleasure and joy in His family is now viewed largely as coming from Satan. This is very sad but is most often reinforced by religion everywhere.

Jesus' reputation had been increasingly tarnished by His free and open association with Mary, allowing her access to His presence in violation of many of the traditions of culture. He scandalized even some of His own followers by going so far as to vigorously defend her impulsive, shocking outbursts of intimate affection even on His body. Jesus knew that by allowing this woman of ill-repute to openly shower Him with love and affection in public, that He was creating enormous potential for doubt that would only reinforce insinuations about His own character. Yet He did it anyway, for in the kingdom of heaven what is considered most valuable is often at very sharp odds with what we consider highest priorities.

I am not sure what jarred Mary out of her fear and musings when she stumbled upon the tomb and found it both unguarded and abandoned, but also with the large, heavy stone that promised to keep her away from the body of her Beloved lying completely away from the opening to the tomb. Everything that she had expected to find was missing or out of place. How was she to interpret all of this shocking evidence? What was she to make of this? Being much more emotional than rational as she was, it is hard to determine just what went through her mind at that moment.

But then again, maybe that is why she decided to go get some of her most trusted male friends involved in this new mystery. Maybe she assumed they might be able to think more clearly or might have important additional information that could explain all these developments.

According to her excited but distressed exclamations to Peter and John, she assumed that someone, maybe the soldiers or the diabolical, plotting authorities who had initiated all of this tragedy to start with, must have removed the body of Jesus, possibly to confuse or even further distress His followers. She may have assumed that they had decided it was not enough to simply torture and shame and kill the Man who had done so much to salvage and restore love into her life and had saved so many others; now they had to add insult to injury by playing engaging in even more evil politics and 'turn the knife' so to speak by insulting or hiding the dead body of their beloved Master.

What did she think Peter and John might do about it? Maybe she didn't have any idea what they might do but was simply acting out of intensified grief and desperation. But I also wonder if she had not originally desired to speak only to John alone as she may have come to feel that he was a most sensitive disciple among the twelve that she could trust with her heart without fear of being shamed. But when she arrived to find John, she found that he was acting like Jesus, by not allowing a severely depressed Peter out of his presence to possibly commit suicide. I have long believed that Peter was so depressed by his denial of Jesus that the other disciples had to take the initiative to watch him very closely for a time lest he slip away and take his own life like Judas had done. That's my personal opinion anyway and it seems to be corroborated by some of the evidence I have examined elsewhere.

So now Mary has to spill her guts to both Peter and John even though I suspect she didn't completely comfortable with the rather reactive Peter but had little choice by this time. But as is often the case, when looking back we see that God has details carefully planned in amazing ways we might never think of doing. Maybe Peter needed to get his mind off himself and awaken his heart to an awareness of how others were feeling or even get in touch with his own deep affection for Jesus that he had long kept suppressed under chauvinistic fears. Maybe Peter and Mary perfectly complimented each other at this time and God knew that both of them could be just what the other needed in that moment.

There is of course, much more to this story filled with excitement and drama. But I want to stop here and encourage my own heart to marinate in these thoughts to allow them to continue the transformation that I need to keep experiencing. I have many times been jealous of Mary and her ability to be so open, affectionate and transparent. Yet I know that my own fears and even maleness prevents me from living in that way readily.

Instead, I find myself much closer to being able to identify with the brash and impulsive Peter, though I don't think I am usually quite as outspoken as he often was. But I am certainly capable. At the same time I long to enter into the kind of intimacy and deep appreciation for the passionate love of Jesus that John seems to have acquired. So far I feel like I have only caught hints of what it must be like to feel the way John and Mary did about Jesus. And yet I also sense that sooner or later all of God's true children must enter into something like what these two enjoyed if we are ever to be prepared to live in the (dangerous) intensity of the kind of passionate love He has for each one of us. I pray and plead with God to heal my own heart so that I can quit resisting His transforming work in my life and draw me into the kind of passion that I catch a glimpse of occasionally in these stories from His friends in the past.