I think it's critical to consider a couple of things before interpreting this scripture. First, Jesus Christ was an all powerful God before His mortality. Christians accept this in the doctrine of the Trinity. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whom I will refer to as 'saints') accept this too, especially as they carefully read the Book of Mormon (e.g. "the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, should manifest himself unto them in the flesh" -- 2 Nephi 6:9). While mortal limitations on His omnipotence may have existed, most, if not all, would have certainly ended with "It is finished" -- John 19:20. Should there have remained any limitation, possibly by not having a resurrected body (Christians are less likely to hold this notion than 'saints'), that limitation would certainly have ended at the moment of His resurrection. So, we have a previously all powerful God once again in an all powerful state (and then some, though that is not possible language-wise) choosing to have an intimate (all dictionary definitions except sexual) one-on-one with a person, if not the foremost person, that loved Him in mortality. Additionally, one would have to stipulate that this all powerful God was also omniscient. He had the ability to know the future. He had the ability to know precisely the effect that His engineered -- yes, engineered, not accidental or incidental -- one-on-one would have on any woman that loved him, especially Mary. That foresight, in fact, requires no divine omniscience. Most women would predict it precisely. Given His omniscience and omnipotence in that moment, it is unfathomable to me that Mary's corporeal touch (kissing of his feet, embrace, or any similar expression of pure love) could have rendered him unclean, ritualistically or physically, to the extent that He could not have corrected it before ascending to his Father. After all, He had just restored (and cleansed) his badly brutalized body. I think it says more about our ignorance of his love and of his power to say that he HAD to stop Mary from her highly predictable reaction of a whole-hearted embrace, even more so, stop her from the slightest touch. No, as an all powerful God, He could have easily purified himself a second time, were it needed. Now, consider another usage of the word rendered "touch" in the gospels: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them..." -- Luke 18:15. Whether "infants" meant "babies", or "toddlers", or even very young children, everyone should be able to agree that we don't "touch" infants. We hold babies tenderly in our arms and we hug toddlers and young children. Is it not just plausible, but highly likely, that the "hold tenderly" or "hug" meaning of the KJV word "touch" is what is meant in reference to Mary, especially in light of her highly predictable reaction in such an intimate reunion? I am reassured by the fact that the JST renders the word "hold", not "touch." It should be clear, at least, that Mary's intent was to embrace, not simply "touch." If my understanding is correct, the majority of modern translations render the phrase as some version of "do not hold onto me", "do not cling to me", or "cease clinging to me." So, the question remains -- Did Mary actually embrace the resurrected Christ or simply move towards him to do so? I hope I have established that the resurrected Christ could have easily re-cleansed himself, were that necessary, such that her embrace was entirely possible. But, did she? To me, it is informative that the account is given only in the gospel of John, as in John the Beloved, or "the disciple whom Jesus loved." If the title has been aptly applied, which my study of the gospels strongly concurs, John had a deep and developed Christ-like charity. His rendition of stories, those common to all the gospels, and especially those unique to his, accentuate that love. Many people, myself included, consider the garden appearance of Christ to Mary as the climax of the New Testament, both story-wise and emotionally. I believe it is naïve to think that John's account, likely his retelling of Mary's account, gives us the whole story. More likely, this engineered one-on-one with the deeply mourning Mary is far more than just an incidental story, rather, it is a SACRAMENT -- a deliberate, divine-human connection of the purest love between the God of Love and a woman who probably loved him as deeply as any mortal could, retold by the disciple of love. An all powerful God did not engineer it to rebuke her humanity, nor trivialize it, nor toy with her emotions or inevitable reaction. Rather, he converted her utter grief to utter joy in an intentional, physical validation of LOVE -- the core of his mortal message and eternal existence. And he HELD her, embraced her, until she had to let him go. But, perhaps this just reflects what I believe the Mortal Christ and the All Powerful God to truly be?
JohnsonJones reacted to a post in a topic:
Touch me not