Touch Me Not

[MorningStar]

Like usual, I have managed to distract myself with unrelated questions while planning a talk.

I was reading accounts of Christ's resurrection and He tells Mary, "Touch me not. I have not yet ascended to my Father." But then His disciples are encouraged to touch His hands and side before ascending to His Father.

During a women's study group, it was pointed out that the JST says "hold me not" instead of "touch me not".

Are there any articles that might shed some more light on this subject? Why would it be a problem for Mary to touch Jesus before ascending to the Father, but not a problem for the disciples to touch him? I'm very interested in both LDS and non-LDS responses.

Thanks!

[Calm]

See http://books.google....20Jesus&f=false

The idea is the "touch me not" or "hold me not" is more of "do not continue to cling to me" or "do not restrain me", implying that Mary was to stop preventing him from leaving so that he could be about his business or that she was needing to go and be about her business of telling the apostles, etc.

[Glenn101]

Like usual, I have managed to distract myself with unrelated questions while planning a talk.

I was reading accounts of Christ's resurrection and He tells Mary, "Touch me not. I have not yet ascended to my Father." But then His disciples are encouraged to touch His hands and side before ascending to His Father.

During a women's study group, it was pointed out that the JST says "hold me not" instead of "touch me not".

Are there any articles that might shed some more light on this subject? Why would it be a problem for Mary to touch Jesus before ascending to the Father, but not a problem for the disciples to touch him? I'm very interested in both LDS and non-LDS responses.

Thanks!

I think the answer is in the very next part of that verse.

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

Jesus seems to be saying there that He is going to visit His Father pretty much after Mary leaves, thus He would have ascended, and returned, before he met with the apostles and they did their touching.

Glenn

[bluebell]

I think the answer is in the very next part of that verse.

Jesus seems to be saying there that He is going to visit His Father pretty much after Mary leaves, thus He would have ascended, and returned, before he met with the apostles and they did their touching.

Glenn

This is how i've always understood the verses as well.

[MorningStar]

Thank you for your replies!

[Doctrine 612]

yes, and also the way I teach that part of the lesson is that she was holding him like a person you loved so much that you thought you would never see them again, for fear of loseing them forever.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Like usual, I have managed to distract myself with unrelated questions while planning a talk.

I was reading accounts of Christ's resurrection and He tells Mary, "Touch me not. I have not yet ascended to my Father." But then His disciples are encouraged to touch His hands and side before ascending to His Father.

During a women's study group, it was pointed out that the JST says "hold me not" instead of "touch me not".

Are there any articles that might shed some more light on this subject? Why would it be a problem for Mary to touch Jesus before ascending to the Father, but not a problem for the disciples to touch him? I'm very interested in both LDS and non-LDS responses.

Thanks!

This is a great question, which causes more in my mind.

[Questing Beast]

I've always seen this as one of the many inconsistencies in the Gospels. So what. Back in the day, I explained it as a special Mary-to-Jesus relationship thing, not readily explainable by anything definite. It could be hugging that she was being forbidden, but if so, why? Did she have a really singular relationship, in other words sexual? Probably, is my opinion. There wasn't going to be anything remotely like THAT possible since his resurrection. Why not? No answer, just evidence that their relationship had (temporarily) changed with his resurrection....

[T-Shirt]

I agree with Cal. A better translation would indicate that there was a very emotional embrace and the Savior had to ask her to end the embrace as there was work to be done. In other words, she was not forbidden to touch Him, in fact she did touch him, and held on. As with all good things, the important work to be done couldn't wait and the embrace had to end.

At least, that is how I see it.

Best,

T-Shirt

[Anijen]

In my youth I placed a relationship between Mary and Jesus as second. I think the first thing I thought of was, well, where has he been for three days if not in Heaven with His Father? Then once I had seminary (New Testament) I realized the importance of the relationship of location between paradise and that of heaven.

[RoseMadder]

The text doesn't seem to support a Two Ascension Theory.

To my view, the better reading suggests that Mary isn't to cling to Jesus in a more general sense, as His time on earth was short, and her reliance on Him would necessarily be based on faith rather than on His sustained physical presence. Mary, a devoted follower, loved Him. He was soon to leave her again. I think the Lord was protecting her, not rebuking her.

[bluebell]

The text doesn't seem to support a Two Ascension Theory.

This verse-

"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."

Seems to support a two ascension theory, but i'm interested in understanding why you believe it doesn't. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

This verse-

"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."

Seems to support a two ascension theory, but i'm interested in understanding why you believe it doesn't. Thanks.

I never heard of a "Two Ascension Theory"- please explain?

[Calm]

I never heard of a "Two Ascension Theory"- please explain?

The idea is that Christ ascended right after he told Mary not to touch him since he allowed himself to be touched later by the apostles and then again for the final time after the 40 days of teaching that is mentioned in Acts 1 IIRC.

[mfbukowski]

The idea is that Christ ascended right after he told Mary not to touch him since he allowed himself to be touched later by the apostles and then again for the final time after the 40 days of teaching that is mentioned in Acts 1 IIRC.

Oh that- ok - I didn't know it by that name- thanks!

I think what is interesting is why he said "your God and my God"- any good ideas about that one?

[LeSellers]

I think what is interesting is why he said "your God and my God"- any good ideas about that one?

It definitely puts Him in a subordinate role compared to Father, since He also said, "my Father and your Father".

Lehi

[CV75]

Oh that- ok - I didn't know it by that name- thanks!

I think what is interesting is why he said "your God and my God"- any good ideas about that one?

I think His relationship with God is a bit different than the disciples' (or our) relationship with God. The same God, but we have an intermediary and He does not; He is already in His physical presence without being quickened by an external power, and we are not.

[3DOP]

Oh that- ok - I didn't know it by that name- thanks!

I think what is interesting is why he said "your God and my God"- any good ideas about that one?

aeouow. Where's my post? It said I was forbidden to post and then it disappeared. I am learning that I have to write my posts separately. Anyway, bukowski...good question. There is a lot in that huh?

[Calm]

aeouow. Where's my post? It said I was forbidden to post and then it disappeared. I am learning that I have to write my posts separately. Anyway, bukowski...good question. There is a lot in that huh?

The board does that to me every now and then. Right now there is a huge "Forbidden" below the reply box. I am wondering if this post is going to go through.

add-on: it didn't go through, so I hit 'backspace' to get me back to my reply and then 'refresh' and it appears like it will go through now, but now the coding has been added so the text is going to look weird, I think.

add-on and on: Nope, text looks great.

[mfbukowski]

It definitely puts Him in a subordinate role compared to Father, since He also said, "my Father and your Father".

Lehi

Hmmm-

That also sounds like a good anti-trinitarian scripture! He is not exactly ascending to himself there, is he?

[bluebell]

Hmmm-

That also sounds like a good anti-trinitarian scripture! He is not exactly ascending to himself there, is he?

Unless i'm misunderstanding you, i think you are talking about modalism here-that the scripture would be a good anti-modalism scripture. Trinitarianism doesn't teach that God and Christ are the same person.

[Calm]

Hmmm-

That also sounds like a good anti-trinitarian scripture! He is not exactly ascending to himself there, is he?

That only works for modalism (where God is seen as one person with multiple manifestations)...if the Trinity version defines God the Father and God the Son as separate personages, but one being than that isn't an issue....making sense of how something can be a different personage but not a different being might still be an issue though.

[mfbukowski]

That only works for modalism (where God is seen as one person with multiple manifestations)...if the Trinity version defines God the Father and God the Son as separate personages, but one being than that isn't an issue....making sense of how something can be a different personage but not a different being might still be an issue though.

Yep, you and bluebell are correct of course- It's just that the whole notion of "being" is so muddled that I often ignore it as an intelligible distinction that some people make. To me it is a non-distinction; but of course you are absolutely right!

But it is interesting that he confirms that we have the same "Father"- ie people and himself as the Christ.

[MorningStar]

I had always taken it as, "No one can touch me until after I ascend to my Father." so it was interesting to read on and realize, "Oh yeah. The apostles touched him. Huh."

So I wonder what Mary was thinking - if He was back for good and He had to let her know quickly that He was there for a purpose and then had to go. It made me feel sad for her.

[bluebell]

I had always taken it as, "No one can touch me until after I ascend to my Father." so it was interesting to read on and realize, "Oh yeah. The apostles touched him. Huh."

So I wonder what Mary was thinking - if He was back for good and He had to let her know quickly that He was there for a purpose and then had to go. It made me feel sad for her.

I always read it as 'no one can touch my new resurrected body until i present myself to the Father'. I then always read the verse following it as his declaration that He was on His way to go do that and for Mary to let His apostles know where He went.

I just assumed that after Christ visited the Father in His resurrected body that first time, it was fine for people to touch Him, which is why the apostes and the people in the book of mormon were able to do so.

It's interesting to look at it from a different angle though.