John 20:17
Jesus clearly tells Mary that she isn’t to touch him because he hasn’t risen to be with the Father. (One or two interpretations is more along the time of “stop touching”, but even if that is more accurate it doesn’t change the question)
John 21:20
An Apostle is mentioned to be leaning on his chest. I believe it is John.
Am I misreading this? It seems that Jesus was stating he shouldn’t be touched until he ascends but then lets John do it. Obviously I’m missing something here.
Post Resurrection PDA
-
SeekingSanctuary
- Established Member
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
-
Lonewolf
- Valued Member
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:12 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Southern California
Re: Post Resurrection PDA
^ ^ That's a question that I've been meaning to ask for a long time. Hope somebody can shed some light on it.
Your outward profession of having put on Christ, has as yet to put off Plato from your heart!
-
neo-x
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Contact:
Re: Post Resurrection PDA
John leaned on Christ before Christ was crucified, at the supper in John Chp.13. That is what John the author shows peter remembering and is a nod to his own identity at the last supper.
Mary is trying to touch Christ...however the more accurate translation would be to, cling to Christ, or hug Christ. I think this is taken sometimes in a different way that no one could touch Christ because he was in a different form, but later Christ lets Thomas touch him and feel him.
So I think Christ probably meant Mary to stop wasting time hugging him and go to the others that he was risen up. To be poetic, it is the climax of the gospel story and on no account should the news be delayed.
Mary is trying to touch Christ...however the more accurate translation would be to, cling to Christ, or hug Christ. I think this is taken sometimes in a different way that no one could touch Christ because he was in a different form, but later Christ lets Thomas touch him and feel him.
So I think Christ probably meant Mary to stop wasting time hugging him and go to the others that he was risen up. To be poetic, it is the climax of the gospel story and on no account should the news be delayed.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
//johnadavid.wordpress.com
-
Lonewolf
- Valued Member
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:12 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Southern California
Re: Post Resurrection PDA
^ ^ Thank you Neo
..
v v From Wiki
Noli me tangere
An important issue is why Jesus prevents Mary from touching or holding him. In Latin this phrase is translated as noli me tangere. It is unclear why Jesus imposes this rule, especially since in John 20:27 he allows Thomas to probe his open wounds. It also seems somewhat contradictory to the other Gospels, Matthew 28:9 states that the women who found Jesus "came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." (KJV) No mention is made of Jesus disapproving of this.
The passage does not make clear how Mary is touching him. H.C.G. Moule speculates that she likely grabbed his arm or hand to try and verify his physical existence. Biblical scholar Raymond Brown has listed a wide array of explanations for his injunction:
Jesus' wounds were still sore so he did not like being touched
Kraft proposes that the prohibition was because it was against ritual to touch a dead body
Chrysostom and Theophylact argue that Jesus was asking that more respect be shown to him. This theory is sometimes linked to the notion that while it was not appropriate for a woman to touch Jesus it was fine for a man like Thomas.
C. Spicq sees the resurrected Jesus as the equivalent of one of the Jewish high priests who should not be sullied by physical contact
Kastner, who believes Christ returned in the nude, believes the prohibition was so that Mary would not be tempted by Jesus' body
Mary should not touch Jesus because she should not need physical proof of the resurrection but should trust in her faith.
Bultman sees the phrase as an indirect way of saying that the resurrected Jesus was not at this point tangible.
According to Moule Jesus' intervention is not a prohibition on being touched, but rather an assurance that the touching is not needed for he had not yet returned to the Father and was still firmly here on Earth. His use of the present tense is said to mean that he should not be touched just at this moment, but could be touched in future.
Some link it with the next verse stating that they should be read as one to say "don't touch me instead go tell my disciples of the news"
In John Calvin's commentary he argues that Jesus did not forbid simple touching, but rather that Jesus had no problems until the women began to cling to him as though they were trying to hold him in the corporeal world at which point Jesus told them to let go. Some translations thus use touch for the seemingly permitted actions in Mark and cling for the action Jesus chides Mary for in this verse.
Barrett mentions the possibility that between this verse and John 20:22 Jesus fully ascends to heaven
There are also a number of scholars who have proposed alternate translations. These are not based on direct linguistic evidence but are rather attempts to synchronize the phrase with other parts of the Bible. There is also some evidence that the wording may have been mangled.
Some scholars eliminate the negative leaving the phrase as "touch me," implying that Jesus is telling Mary to verify his physical form
W.E.P. Cotter and others argue that the text should actually read "do not fear me"
W.D. Morris believes it should read "do not fear to touch me"
What not touching has to do with the ascension is also unclear. Barrett states that the phrase seems to have the paradoxical meaning that Jesus can be freely touched once he has ascended.
Jesus mentions that his ultimate fate is to return to his father. This is read as him making it clear that his resurrection has not made him king of the earth but king of heaven, and his return in physical form is only temporary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:17
..
v v From Wiki
Noli me tangere
An important issue is why Jesus prevents Mary from touching or holding him. In Latin this phrase is translated as noli me tangere. It is unclear why Jesus imposes this rule, especially since in John 20:27 he allows Thomas to probe his open wounds. It also seems somewhat contradictory to the other Gospels, Matthew 28:9 states that the women who found Jesus "came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." (KJV) No mention is made of Jesus disapproving of this.
The passage does not make clear how Mary is touching him. H.C.G. Moule speculates that she likely grabbed his arm or hand to try and verify his physical existence. Biblical scholar Raymond Brown has listed a wide array of explanations for his injunction:
Jesus' wounds were still sore so he did not like being touched
Kraft proposes that the prohibition was because it was against ritual to touch a dead body
Chrysostom and Theophylact argue that Jesus was asking that more respect be shown to him. This theory is sometimes linked to the notion that while it was not appropriate for a woman to touch Jesus it was fine for a man like Thomas.
C. Spicq sees the resurrected Jesus as the equivalent of one of the Jewish high priests who should not be sullied by physical contact
Kastner, who believes Christ returned in the nude, believes the prohibition was so that Mary would not be tempted by Jesus' body
Mary should not touch Jesus because she should not need physical proof of the resurrection but should trust in her faith.
Bultman sees the phrase as an indirect way of saying that the resurrected Jesus was not at this point tangible.
According to Moule Jesus' intervention is not a prohibition on being touched, but rather an assurance that the touching is not needed for he had not yet returned to the Father and was still firmly here on Earth. His use of the present tense is said to mean that he should not be touched just at this moment, but could be touched in future.
Some link it with the next verse stating that they should be read as one to say "don't touch me instead go tell my disciples of the news"
In John Calvin's commentary he argues that Jesus did not forbid simple touching, but rather that Jesus had no problems until the women began to cling to him as though they were trying to hold him in the corporeal world at which point Jesus told them to let go. Some translations thus use touch for the seemingly permitted actions in Mark and cling for the action Jesus chides Mary for in this verse.
Barrett mentions the possibility that between this verse and John 20:22 Jesus fully ascends to heaven
There are also a number of scholars who have proposed alternate translations. These are not based on direct linguistic evidence but are rather attempts to synchronize the phrase with other parts of the Bible. There is also some evidence that the wording may have been mangled.
Some scholars eliminate the negative leaving the phrase as "touch me," implying that Jesus is telling Mary to verify his physical form
W.E.P. Cotter and others argue that the text should actually read "do not fear me"
W.D. Morris believes it should read "do not fear to touch me"
What not touching has to do with the ascension is also unclear. Barrett states that the phrase seems to have the paradoxical meaning that Jesus can be freely touched once he has ascended.
Jesus mentions that his ultimate fate is to return to his father. This is read as him making it clear that his resurrection has not made him king of the earth but king of heaven, and his return in physical form is only temporary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:17
Your outward profession of having put on Christ, has as yet to put off Plato from your heart!
-
PaulSacramento
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Post Resurrection PDA
Neo is correct on this.neo-x wrote:John leaned on Christ before Christ was crucified, at the supper in John Chp.13. That is what John the author shows peter remembering and is a nod to his own identity at the last supper.
Mary is trying to touch Christ...however the more accurate translation would be to, cling to Christ, or hug Christ. I think this is taken sometimes in a different way that no one could touch Christ because he was in a different form, but later Christ lets Thomas touch him and feel him.
So I think Christ probably meant Mary to stop wasting time hugging him and go to the others that he was risen up. To be poetic, it is the climax of the gospel story and on no account should the news be delayed.
Of course because eveything tends to be subject to interpretation, it could also have meant that, at THAT time, Mary should not touch Him at all.
That said, when Jesus ascends to His father and even how many times He did is somewhat unclear.
Did He ascend ONLY at the end of his time with the apostles as per ACTS 1? or was that just the final time? Had He ascended before? how many times? There are a few theories BUT I think it is important to simply understand that, at THAT time, it was not right for Mary to hold on the Jesus.