mikbone

Touch me not

Recommended Posts

I'm glad some folks found the JST scripture. Indeed Jesus told Mary, in essence, "ok, you can let go now. I still gotta go see my Father." I believe that Mary was Jesus' wife and is why she anointed Him (His feet) in preparation for His burial and why Jesus appeared first to her and not to Peter or James or John or any other apostle or man or woman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

but I wonder (rarely) what might have happened if she had touched him or attempted to touch him?

Huge mess.  The static charge built up in returning from death is massive, and He hadn't had time to ground Himself properly yet.  Dry sandals are a really good insulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skalenfehl said:

I'm glad some folks found the JST scripture. Indeed Jesus told Mary, in essence, "ok, you can let go now. I still gotta go see my Father."

The JST says nothing of the sort. It simply changes "Touch me not" to "Hold me not". Jesus had been resurrected and was spotless from worldly things, but had not yet stood before his Father. He had to remain spotless until he reported to his Father and received his glory. I don't interpret this as meaning, "Hey, let go, I have things to do."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skalenfehl said:

I'm glad some folks found the JST scripture. Indeed Jesus told Mary, in essence, "ok, you can let go now. I still gotta go see my Father." I believe that Mary was Jesus' wife and is why she anointed Him (His feet) in preparation for His burial and why Jesus appeared first to her and not to Peter or James or John or any other apostle or man or woman. 

You know, I had always taken the description of Mary's backstory (that Jesus had cast seven devils out of her) more or less literally--i.e., that she was possessed by seven distinct entities.  But given the symbolic nature of the number seven, one wonders whether perhaps it was simply an idiom meaning that Jesus had somehow thoroughly cleansed her of sin in a unique way--which would coincide nicely with the notion of their being married.

All speculative, of course . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Vort said:

The JST says nothing of the sort. It simply changes "Touch me not" to "Hold me not". Jesus had been resurrected and was spotless from worldly things, but had not yet stood before his Father. He had to remain spotless until he reported to his Father and received his glory. I don't interpret this as meaning, "Hey, let go, I have things to do."

Woops, I wrote, "I believe" in the wrong portion of my post. In other words, what I wrote is what I believe and do not claim it as fact. But...your interpretation presumes that spotless means not touching Mary. I disagree with that interpretation, but also do not claim it as fact. Kinda cool to see different perspectives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, skalenfehl said:

Woops, I wrote, "I believe" in the wrong portion of my post. In other words, what I wrote is what I believe and do not claim it as fact. But...your interpretation presumes that spotless means not touching Mary. I disagree with that interpretation, but also do not claim it as fact. Kinda cool to see different perspectives. 

Yes, I agree. My interpretation is not mandated by the text, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what Elder McConkie has written: 

Quote

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.’ (The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4:264–65)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2009 at 3:45 PM, Clarity_over_agreement said:

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.

This is how I understand it. Essentially, Christ was telling Mary not to keep him there with her, but to let him go to his Father.

What I find more interesting about that passage is that it draws a spacial distinction between the resurrected Lord and God the Father. This means that not only are they two distinct persons, but they occupy two distinct locations. This means that they are two different beings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Kort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a doctrinal or scriptural reason. Or, perhaps he simply wanted to share his first physical embrace as a resurrected being with his Father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 8:24 PM, JohnsonJones said:

.

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.

My best guess is that if Mary had held him, He ran the risk of being late for His next appointment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2009 at 6:45 PM, Clarity_over_agreement said:

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.

This makes sense, especially if we take a look  at what Elder James E Talmage wrote on his book "Jesus the Christ" on the matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now