Page 1 of 2
John 20:17
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:19 pm
by Dominic
Does anybody have thoughts on why Jesus asked Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he had not yet ascended in John 20:17? It sounds odd and his reason for asking her not touch him I can't understand.
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:25 pm
by mattrose
In my opinion, he was just informing her that she shouldn't 'hold on to' (or cling to) him. He wasn't going to be staying around. And she had a mission to perform.
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:36 pm
by TheEditor
Greetings,
I used to ponder this too. I finally had the idea that what he was saying was, "Hey, it's okay. You don't need to hold on to me, I'm not gong anywhere just yet." I could be wrong, but it seems as good as any other view.
Regards, Brenden.
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:04 am
by Paidion
Fascinating, Brenden! That idea has never occurred to me.

Re: John 20:17
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 11:01 am
by Jepne
Coming from a new Age background, I always thought it was some mystical kind of thing, as I had heard of Jesus and others referred to as 'ascended Masters'.
Now, of course, I see that Jesus has no equal, but the concept remains. And why did he use the word 'ascended'?
Maybe it was that he was just out of the grave and had to go see the Father before he did anything further on the earth. I suppose it was after he ascended that he came back and walked to Emmaus and ate with them by the sea. ??
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 12:08 pm
by Paidion
Maybe it was that he was just out of the grave and had to go see the Father before he did anything further on the earth. I suppose it was after he ascended that he came back and walked to Emmaus and ate with them by the sea. ??
No, all of his post-resurrection appearances seem to have been prior to his ascension. (By the way, the Greek word translated "ascend" merely means "go up")
Jesus ascension is described in one verse in Acts—(Acts 1:9), one in Luke 24:51 and also one in Mark 16:19 (if Mark 16:9-20 is genuine).
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 1:38 pm
by Dominic
I finally had the idea that what he was saying was, "Hey, it's okay. You don't need to hold on to me, I'm not gong anywhere just yet."
I can see this being a logical thought, thank you Brenden.
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 1:56 pm
by Jepne
Thanks, Paidion. It's always good to go directly to the scriptures. I love Christianity, it is so direct and simple!
I wish there was a 'like' button on here - I would 'like' all the other input on this thread. Thank you!
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:22 pm
by TheEditor
Yes, it was one of those, "Maybe I'm over-thinking this" moments. I think the rendering "Touch me not" was what pushed most people to think of it in a mystical way. But since it can be rendered otherwise, I started to envision the scene where a child is all clingy and sad with a parent because they have been away and have been missed, and the parent might say, "It's okay, I'm here".
Regards, Brenden.
Re: John 20:17
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:37 pm
by dwilkins
I've heard it asserted that it had to do with her potentially causing him to become ceremonially unclean, which would be a significant problem for a High Priest who was about to go to heaven to minister in the real Holy of Holies.
Doug