PDA

View Full Version : touch jesus after resurection: mary mag couldnt but thomas could- why?


Charla Corwin
27th February 2007, 06:26 PM (18:26)
the NIV states:
in john ch 20 jesus tells mary m not to hold on to him. but jesus gives thomas the option to touch him (the verse doesnt say that he actually did touch him) later jesus tells thomas that he saw and believed but blessed are those who see and dont believe.
in matthew ch 28 the women clasped jesus at his feet when jesus greeted him. theres no mention of thomas.
in mark 16:14 jesus rebukes the 11 disciples for their lack of faith in not believing those who had seen him (ie: thomas)
in luke ch 24 no one believes the women when they say theyve seen jesus, peter goes to see the tomb itself and jesus appears to some others on their way to emmaus, but they dont recognize him at first, then later he appears to the disciples and they didnt believe until jesus started eating their food.

so im wondering why jesus told mary mag not to hold on to him (or in some translations not to touch him for he had not yet ascended), but he gives the option to thomas to touch jesus...i think it has to do with the fact that he was giving thomas the option to believe that jesus was god, whereas mary mag believed immediatly (remembering jesus' words after the angels in luke reminded them that jesus had said he'd come back on the 3d day) and calls him teacher and lord.
im thinking jesus' point was to give them a chance to believe not just that jesus had been resurected on the 3d day, but moreso that jesus was himself god (in the triune tradition, of course). the point of the scriptures depicting jesus' telling mary mag not to touch him, and also depicting jesus giving thomas the option to touch him therefore is to show us that mary mag had immediatly chosen to believe upon seeing jesus resurected, that not only was jesus resurected - but more importantly that jesus was god: "my lord and my god" (which john records that thomas states once he 'believes') because believing that jesus is god is the fact that saves them spiritually and makes jesus' ministry and resurection and death mean anything. it was their belief that jesus was god, and that he had saved them by dying that made mary mag and thomas spiritually whole, and gave meaning to the fact that mary and mag had followed jesus up to and after that point.

i was discussing these scriptures with a mormon who made fun of me for not having a problem with the fact that jesus made "different rules for different people" as the mormon put it. the mormon was attempting to prove through the scriptures that jesus showed himself to mary mag, told her not to touch him because he had not yet ascended, proceeded to ascend to the father, came back down, showed himself to thomas, then ascended again to come back down in the americas and minister to the people there...thus creating the basis for the mormon ideas that jesus had a ministry in the americas.
(when i tried to explain to this same mormon that the scriptures clearly state that there is a hell which humans will be damned to if they dont go to heaven [because mormons dont believe in hell, just levels of heaven] the mormon attempted to rebut my argument by stating that the words '****' and 'dam' had the same meaning and that was to 'dam' or 'stop' one's ability to be in god's presence, therefore to be 'damned' was to be stopped from being in god's presence which was the equivalent of being in the lowest level of mormon heaven. poor mormon.)

anyhow, im curious about whether my theory holds water theologically - that is according to mainstream protestant theology rather than mormon theology. what theories are out there which could explain this?

Wilson L. Deaton
27th February 2007, 07:09 PM (19:09)
I don't have time to dig in to it right now but I think it has something to do with the idea of "holding on" as opposed to "touching."

Mary wasn't to "hold on" to him. He perhaps knew her thinking and realized she wanted things back to the way they were. That is, she wasnted an on-going earthly relationship. But instead, he was going to go and send the Holy Spirit. (At this point, Mary may have thought he was resuscitated rather than resurrected--like Lazarus.)

Thomas, on the other hand was just "touching" because his faith was weak.

Wilson

Brad Mercer
27th February 2007, 07:54 PM (19:54)
I don't have time to dig in to it right now but I think it has something to do with the idea of "holding on" as opposed to "touching."

Mary wasn't to "hold on" to him. He perhaps knew her thinking and realized she wanted things back to the way they were. That is, she wasnted an on-going earthly relationship. But instead, he was going to go and send the Holy Spirit. (At this point, Mary may have thought he was resuscitated rather than resurrected--like Lazarus.)

Thomas, on the other hand was just "touching" because his faith was weak.

Wilson

Right. He wasn't declaring himself somehow untouchable. He was just saying don't cling to me here instead of going and telling the disciples.

Brad

Charla Corwin
27th February 2007, 09:21 PM (21:21)
hmm, i guess thats more simple....thanks.

Anne and Dwayne Hood
28th February 2007, 07:46 PM (19:46)
John 20: 17 Jesus tells Mary to not touch him, for he had not yet ascended to His father. I think He had ascended to His father when He let thomas touch Him.

Ron Corwin
28th February 2007, 09:15 PM (21:15)
Charla, here is a site I have used in the past.

http://www.carm.org/

Keep up the witnessing and make your daddy proud.

Daddy

Bob Jones
12th March 2007, 08:47 PM (20:47)
I haven't tied all the pieces together yet, but the high priest wasn't to have anything to do with the dead or unclean things while he wore the garments in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies. This is hinted at by the phrase "I have not yet ascended...".

Reconciling the accounts and details becomes a little bit speculative.

1. At least one woman was unclean and would be for a week having handled Jesus's dead body and was told not to touch him.

2. Perhaps the one hugging his feet was not unclean, purposefully not handling his body previously so that she could attend to the Passover duties.

3. Thomas was either not unclean, or Jesus had already ascended. I prefer the first. I have no basis for connecting his ascension to his ascension other than poetic justice and the absence of any "healings" or handling other unclean things between his resurrection and his ascension.