Touch me not

[mikbone]

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Any insight as to why Jesus did not allow Mary to touch him?

I can't figure out the significance.

[Justice]

A question I have given a lot of time to, pondering in my mind.

I don't have an answer, but I'll give a few scriptures that are possibly related.

Luke 6:

19 And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.

Luke 8: 46

46 And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

Heb. 9:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

[applepansy]

Your answer is within the scripture you quoted. Christ has not yet assended to His Father.

I believe the significance is that he was not fully resurrected yet. When he returned from Heavenly Father everyone was allowed to touch his wounds.

applepansy

[Guest tomk]

I don't understand this either.

It can't be because Jesus was concerned with polluting Himself somehow with the touch of a "mere mortal" - even one as chosen as Mary was.

Jesus teaches us in everything He does and says. So the key is to discover what He was trying to teach US by His statement to Mary. It would have had to have been Mary herself who related the dialogue between herself and her son in the Garden. Nobody else was present! (right?) So she goes back to the twelve and relates the story to them. "He told me not to touch Him, for He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven."

It would seem it was the Father, Himself, who commanded Jesus not to touch another person until He had first ascended into heaven and had been reunited with His Father.

For some reason, this must be part of it.

Some transfer of power? Some "finishing" of the process that can ony be performed by Father Himself?

Perhaps it is just as simple as Father wants to see us again. Perhaps Jesus was expressing how precious He ... all of us .... are to the Father.

Nephi once said something similar when filled with the Holy Ghost:

1 Ne. 17: 48, 52

48 And now it came to pass that when I had spoken these words they were angry with me, and were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea; and as they came forth to lay their hands upon me I spake unto them, saying: In the name of the Almighty God, I command you that ye touch me not, for I am filled with the power of God, even unto the consuming of my flesh; and whoso shall lay his hands upon me shall wither even as a dried reed; and he shall be as naught before the power of God, for God shall smite him.

Perhaps Jesus wanted to save Mary from the same fate. Perhaps the Holy Ghost can rest upon us so powerfully that for ANY mortal to touch us, wicked or righteous, would cause them to "wither as a dried reed" -- JUST SPECULATING! :)

• • •

52 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could not contend against me; neither durst they lay their hands upon me nor touch me with their fingers, even for the space of many days. Now they durst not do this lest they should wither before me, so powerful was the Spirit of God; and thus it had wrought upon them.

Perhaps there is more to the story than Nephi simply relating to us the fact that the Holy Spirit was upon him and that he had the power of God upon him. Maybe Nephi is talking about a scientific, physical process or change that MUST happen within us, in order to dwell with God and His Son in everlasting glory.

Tom

[Just_A_Guy]

From Jesus the Christ:

One may wonder why Jesus had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch Him, and then, so soon after, had permitted other women to hold Him by the feet as they bowed in reverence. We may assume that Mary's emotional approach had been prompted more by a feeling of personal yet holy affection than by an impulse of devotional worship such as the other women evinced. Though the resurrected Christ manifested the same friendly and intimate regard as He had shown in the mortal state toward those with whom He had been closely associated, He was no longer one of them in the literal sense. There was about Him a divine dignity that forbade close personal familiarity. To Mary Magdalene Christ had said: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." If the second clause was spoken in explanation of the first, we have to infer that no human hand was to be permitted to touch the Lord's resurrected and immortalized body until after He had presented Himself to the Father. It appears reasonable and probable that between Mary's impulsive attempt to touch the Lord, and the action of the other women who held Him by the feet as they bowed in worshipful reverence, Christ did ascend to the Father, and that later He returned to earth to continue His ministry in the resurrected state.

[JohnnyRudick]

Your answer is within the scripture you quoted. Christ has not yet assended to His Father.

I believe the significance is that he was not fully resurrected yet. When he returned from Heavenly Father everyone was allowed to touch his wounds.

applepansy

No, He had not yet presented His Risen body upon the Heavenly Mercy Seat.

He had died Went and preached to the Spirits in Abraham's Bosom leading Captivity Free for the First part of the First Resurrection., Yet He had not yet Ascended to the Father and presented the perfect Sacrifice.

Once He had Ententered in to the Heavenly Holy of Holies, then He could touch and be touched.

You see, as one of you hinted at, the Perfect Sacrifice could not be polluted until it had been presented.

You will have to

Hebrews 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the

priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the

service of God.

Hebrews 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once

every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and

for the errors of the people:

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into

the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first

tabernacle was yet standing:

Hebrews 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in

which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make

him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the

conscience;

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers

washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time

of reformation.

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good

things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not

made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by

his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having

obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the

ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the

purifying of the flesh:

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who

through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,

purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new

testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the

transgressions that were under the first testament, they which

are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of

necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead:

otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was

dedicated without blood.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the

people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of

goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled

both the book, and all the people,

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which

God hath enjoined unto you.

Hebrews 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the

tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with

blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of

things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the

heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places

made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into

heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the

high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of

others;

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the

foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world

hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice

for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Hebrews 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be

made his footstool.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever

them that are sanctified.

Bro. Rudick

Edited April 4, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;-)

[mikbone]

Thanks for all the comments.

Im getting a better idea, I just enjoy the details. Always have. Think I'm gonna have to spend some time in the temple to figure this one out.

I see 2 reasons why Jesus would not allow Mary to touch him. 1) to protect her from injuring herself (like Abanidi or Nephi, or steading the Ark of the covenant), or 2) protect himself from her defiling touch.

It seems like if Jesus wanted to, he could have exited the tomb without having to have the tomb cover stone moved. But apparently he needed the angels to move the stone for him. Its also interesting that he left his mortal clothes in the tomb. I assume that the 2 angles were Michael (the angel that strengthened him in the garden), and Gabriel (the angel that originally declared his birth).

I think that at this time he was a resurrected immortal man without blood in his body. But obviously he did have the prints in his hands and wrists. I think that the baptism clearly represents the birth of Christ. And that the resurrection represents baptism of fire or gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think that Jesus didn't allow Mary to touch him because he had to present himself to the father in a clean state and complete the patriarchal chain. I think there is still more there that is there though...

--- Edit ---

Think I missed something pretty important.

If you look at the footnote for touch - JST "Hold me not"

This kinda makes it look like Mary was embracing him, and he is saying. I gotta go... Although she may have been approaching him for an embrace and he forestalled her.

Edited April 4, 2009 by mikbone
Joseph Smith Translation

[JohnnyRudick]

Thanks for all the comments.

Im getting a better idea, I just enjoy the details. Always have. Think I'm gonna have to spend some time in the temple to figure this one out.

I see 2 reasons why Jesus would not allow Mary to touch him. 1) to protect her from injuring herself (like Abanidi or Nephi, or steading the Ark of the covenant), or 2) protect himself from her defiling touch.

It seems like if Jesus wanted to, he could have exited the tomb without having to have the tomb cover stone moved. But apparently he needed the angels to move the stone for him. Its also interesting that he left his mortal clothes in the tomb. I assume that the 2 angles were Michael (the angel that strengthened him in the garden), and Gabriel (the angel that originally declared his birth).

I think that at this time he was a resurrected immortal man without blood in his body. But obviously he did have the prints in his hands and wrists. I think that the baptism clearly represents the birth of Christ. And that the resurrection represents baptism of fire or gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think that Jesus didn't allow Mary to touch him because he had to present himself to the father in a clean state and complete the patriarchal chain. I think there is still more there that is there though...

:animatedthumbsup:

Edited April 4, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Trying to Give Three Thumbs Up;)

[blusun7]

Doctrine and Covenants section 9

1 THERE are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.

9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

Verse 7 mentions an order...

Either Jesus had to fullfill the order as you have said milkbone or he didnt want her to think she was just being illusional or she could say she had a dream of jesus.

[mikbone]

Doctrine and Covenants section 9

1 THERE are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.

9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

Verse 7 mentions an order...

Either Jesus had to fullfill the order as you have said milkbone or he didnt want her to think she was just being illusional or she could say she had a dream of jesus.

Are you saying Jesus was a Just Man Made Perfect at this point? That he was a disembodied spirit yet and still waiting for the reunion of body and spirit?

And its Mikbone not Milkbone - a concatenation of my last name and line of work not a dog buscuit :)

Edited April 4, 2009 by mikbone

[JohnnyRudick]

Are you saying Jesus was a Just Man Made Perfect at this point? That he was a disembodied spirit yet and still waiting for the reunion of body and spirit?

And its Mikbone not Milkbone - a concatenation of my last name and line of work not a dog buscuit :)

If he is, it is contrary to the record and the Sacrifice.

This was a special appearance of the Savior to Mary on His way to present the Lamb Slain to the Father in the Holy of Holies.

Bro. Rudick

[Justice]

Yep, His body was missing. He was resurrected.

[blusun7]

oops sorry about the name mikbone...honest mistake..

Im saying there is an order.. why else couldnt she touch him. He must of known why.

There is always a purpose is all.

[JohnnyRudick]

oops sorry about the name mikbone...honest mistake..

Im saying there is an order.. why else couldnt she touch him. He must of known why.

There is always a purpose is all.

Yes, He knew why.

He did not say He did not know why.

He said "Touch me not; for [the reason] I am not yet

ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them,

I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your

God."

We get the washed down version but that reason was given to Mary by Jesus.

She understood the Order of sacrifice by the High Priest.

Bro. Rudick

[richlittell]

Good discussions, but I think it rather simple.

Though there may be more to it, I don't think we need to look beyond the symbolic. Christ needed to approach Heavenly Father unblemished, even if only in symbolism (I don't think Mary's touch would have polluted him). But more than this, it surely was out of respect to the Father whose right it was to touch or hold Christ first above all others, no mortal excepted.

[Guest tomk]

Good discussions, but I think it rather simple.

Though there may be more to it, I don't think we need to look beyond the symbolic. Christ needed to approach Heavenly Father unblemished, even if only in symbolism (I don't think Mary's touch would have polluted him). But more than this, it surely was out of respect to the Father whose right it was to touch or hold Christ first above all others, no mortal excepted.

Correct, IMHO.

It was not about female, male, young, old, mother, brother, sister, whatever.

Heavenly Father was ... ordained? destined? appointed? .... to touch His Beloved Son first after His Resurrection.

Jesus could have avoided Mary entirely if He had wanted to. Instead He chose to show Himself unto her, and in His words, provide a teaching moment for us to ponder thousands of years later.

Jesus was, in fact, teaching us how precious we ALL are to the Father. If the Father claimed that right to hold His Beloved Son FIRST, the same feelings are there for each of us, as well.

Alma 40: 11

11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

That God reserves this priviledge unto Himself speaks volumes about how He feels about His children. Jesus was teaching the same thing:

John 20: 17

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

my Father and your Father

my God and your God

Clearly Jesus was including Mary, not excluding her, nor denying her such a reunion after He first ascended to Father. I am sure that after that joyful ceremony, He did appear to Mary and did minister unto her, letting her embrace Him as she desired.

[Clarity_over_agreement]

So at BYU there was a lecture series on the savior during an exhibit they had. In the lecture series one of the scholars of scripture said that the original hebrew used a word similar to touch but that in actuality the true hebrew word really meant "to cling unto" or "to hold steadfastly". The scholar then says that it might be suggested that Jesus was telling marry to let go of him rather then to not touch him at all.

[JohnnyRudick]

So at BYU there was a lecture series on the savior during an exhibit they had. In the lecture series one of the scholars of scripture said that the original hebrew used a word similar to touch but that in actuality the true hebrew word really meant "to cling unto" or "to hold steadfastly". The scholar then says that it might be suggested that Jesus was telling marry to let go of him rather then to not touch him at all.

Joseph smith Said that;

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Hold me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Bro. Rudick

[richlittell]

Joseph smith Said that;

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Hold me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

I'm with you, I'd certainly go with Joseph's translation over a scholar's any day. Though I suppose one could still make the assumption that "Hold me not" could still mean "let go" if it was spoken after one had already engaged in a brace; but my take on that is that if she had already embraced him, what would be the point of saying to let go if it was already done?

I think Christ is pretty up on things and would have known Mary's heart and would have kept the appropriate distance until he was sure she understood she shouldn't touch him.

But think of honor in the fact that Mary was chosen to be the FIRST to see the risen Lord. I'm sure that was no accident, and a message to us all in how we should honor and respect womanhood.

[JohnnyRudick]

I'm with you, I'd certainly go with Joseph's translation over a scholar's any day. . .

Yup:rolleyes:

Esp. sense he was under inspiration of the Holy Ghost:)

Bro. Rudick

[Clear]

I just wanted to make a single observation regarding this verse

The Greek of this phrase in John 20:17 is “…Μη μου απτον ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου...” The word rendered “touch” also means “to hold”. The word απτομαι is not merely “touching” in many ancient usages, but it is often an aggressive "holding onto".

For example, in the OGIS Papyri (315.56) of 164-3 b.c.) the word is used “ηπτετο μαλλον ημων” when "holding onto" a viewpoint and "pressing" one’s view "upon another" person. It is difficulty with "letting go" of something.

The Syll Papyrus (849.6) of 177-176 b.c. uses the words ““ει δε τις κα απτηται σωσιχας...”. In this sense, the word is used in the sense of “Laying hold of” or “appropriating” a thing. In this ancient usage, it is not merely “touching”, but a holding onto something that is being referred to. It is the context that determines whether it means to "touch" or to "hold onto" or the more aggressive use "to appropriate" something.

Because the word is so often used as "to hold onto" (aggressively), I believe the Lord is gently telling Mary not to “hold him” in the sense of preventing his leaving her. In this model, he is offering a tender expression such as when someone tells another beloved, “I really have to go” when another duty calls (as it did the risen Christ who had other cosmic duties).

The other concept is that we do not know what the entire conversation consisted of between Mary and Jesus nor how long the conversation lasted. Individuals who read the bible tend to think the bible is quoting entire and complete conversations rather than important snippets from an entire life time. John reminds us in 21:25 that Jesus said and did much that was not written down, so much that John hyperbolizes on those many, many, unrecorded discussions and acts, saying the world would not have room to contain the things Jesus said and did if one were to attempt to write them all down.

If Jesus and Mary had a lengthy conversation, I would expect that, at some point, Jesus would have said, “Mary, I have to go now". If she had held to him, then it is perfectly consistent for him to say, in essence, “let me go, I have other things I have to do.” After all, he had other things of cosmic importance to do for others whom he also loved.

While the concept of conversation is speculative, the meaning of απτομαι as a form of “holding onto” is solid, historical, usage.

Good luck in coming to your own models as to what happened and why.


Clear

[mordorbund]

@mirkwood prepare to level up!

[bytebear]

I've heard two interpretations.

1. Jesus was not in his physical form as discussed above.

2. The far more mundane explanation which is Jesus was basically saying, assuming that Mary was hugging him and wouldn't let go, "Stop hugging me, I got things to do. Now go tell everyone I'm back."

[CV75]

On 4/3/2009 at 7:29 AM, mikbone said:

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Any insight as to why Jesus did not allow Mary to touch him?

I can't figure out the significance.

“The King James Version quotes Jesus as saying ‘Touch me not.’ The Joseph Smith Translation reads ‘Hold me not.’ Various translations from the Greek render the passage as ‘Do not cling to me’ or ‘Do not hold me.’ Some give the meaning as ‘Do not cling to me any longer,’ or ‘Do not hold me any longer.’ Some speak of ceasing to hold him or cling to him, leaving the inference that Mary was already holding him. There is valid reason for supposing that the thought conveyed to Mary by the Risen Lord was to this effect: ‘You cannot hold me here, for I am going to ascend to my Father.’ But the great message that was preserved for us is Jesus’ eternal relationship to his Father. ‘My’ Father and ‘your’ Father—Elohim is the Father of all men in the spirit, and of the Lord Jesus in an added and special sense. He is the Father of both Jesus’ spirit and his body. ‘My’ God and ‘your’ God—and again Elohim is the God of all men, but in Jesus’ case, though he himself is a God and has all power, though he is a member of the very Godhead itself, yet is he everlastingly in subjection to the same God who is our Father” (The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4 vols. [1979–81], 4:264–65). https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/chapter-28-john-20-21?lang=eng

[JohnsonJones]

There are various ideas in this regard.

This is rather...questionable as follows, and perhaps would disturb some, so I say it with some hesitancy, but it was one that has been partially shared by the Mckonkies occasionally if I recall...

The Lord was married.  It is possible that the Mary he showed himself to was his spouse.  When he states, touch me not, it is because she wished to embrace him in a way that was more as per what a man and wife would embrace. 

It is also possible that there are multiple other ideas and reasons (as this thread so fully shows and explains), all of which are probably viable.

The bigger question I have always had is what if Mary HAD touched him?  What would have happened then.  Of course, this is fruitless, and I am probably fallen for simply pondering such a thing, but I wonder (rarely) what might have happened if she had touched him or attempted to touch him?  Would he have whisked away before she could have?  Or, what if she had successfully touched him...then what?

Pointless things I wonder at times.