“Don’t Hold Me” John 20:17 – A reference to the Priesthood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmcclane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jmcclane

Guest
Hello, I was listening to a bible study on the Gospel of John by Tim Grey (EWTN) and when he got to John 20:17 he mentioned that this was important because here Jesus tells Mary Magdala to not (or stop) holding him because he has not yet ascended to the Father. However, in verse 27, of that same chapter, Jesus tells Thomas to touch him (put his fingers into his wounds). Dr. Grey said that, because of the conflict in allowing the touching of his glorified body, this was a reference (or at least an allusion) to the valid priesthood ordained to handle the body of Christ and the laity who can not, is this true? I looked at the commentary in my New American Bible and it said that it is possible that Jesus ascended to the Father immediately after his meeting with Mary in the Garden which is why Thomas was allowed to touch him. Can you tell me which is the Churches official teaching and can you direct me to any additional resources or commentary?

Thank you and May God Bless you

Joe M

NH
 
You got me on that one. I, too, was moved the first time I heard Tim Gray talk about the priesthood being the only one that was able to touch a sacrifice. If I recall, he does state that this **may **be the reason for the contradictions.

John
 
I heard a story about the “don’t touch me” verse, and it’s been a long time but I seem to remember it’s related to the ancient Jewish rituals related to the Passover, that the lamb cannot be touched after that slaughter by the people until the priest does something to it, like bless it or something? Jesus saw Himself as the lamb, and He needed to go first to the father then the people could touch Him.

The story is a little sketchy, maybe this triggers some memories for someone who can elaborate/correct what I wrote…
 
40.png
awalt:
I heard a story about the “don’t touch me” verse, and it’s been a long time but I seem to remember it’s related to the ancient Jewish rituals related to the Passover, that the lamb cannot be touched after that slaughter by the people until the priest does something to it, like bless it or something? Jesus saw Himself as the lamb, and He needed to go first to the father then the people could touch Him.

The story is a little sketchy, maybe this triggers some memories for someone who can elaborate/correct what I wrote…
Click to expand...
That makes more sense!
 
Thank you for your insight. I have searched for a source to verify the act of purification on the lamb prior to it being allowed to be touched by those who would consume it and I found the following article:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=99&letter=P&search=Passover Lamb

However this does not completely solve the case for me, the basically means that the lamb need to go through a purification first which was conducted by the priest. The verse (John 20:17) says he is ascending to the Father which the commentary says will be his purification. I am trying to establish weather or not Jesus ascended to the Father right after his meeting with Mary in the Garden (as the commentary suggests in the NAB), which is why he allowed Thomas to touch him, or if he allowed Thomas to touch him because Thomas was an ordained priest of Christ and was allowed to handle the sacrificed lamb. If Jesus ascended right after the meeting with Mary then anyone could have touch him and this verse is then referring to “another” ascension. I know the church does not teach there are 2 ascensions so there must be a deeper meaning here, but what? I have read some articles from This Rock & EWTN that suggested Jesus was trying tell Mary to not hold on to him so tightly, in other words, to get used to him not being around physically as she had been used to at this point. This is all well and good (and I am sure this is true to some extent) however, if Jesus allows Thomas to touch him because Thomas was a Priest and Mary is not then this verse is far more powerful that first meets the eye. I need to know what is really going on here… there is deeper meaning and I need to know what that is. Please help… God Bless

Joe
 
I saw Grey’s program when he mentioned that.

I would like to see him on EWTN more, and possibly with a format that allowed call-in questions. And, this, even if he had such a call-in program after a series like that one, or if they ran that 1/2 hour program, and then he would come on live 1/2 hour for questions.

I’ve read Mark Shea’s book on MAKING SENSES OUT OF SCRIPTURE, which reflects the direction of the Catechism for interpretation of the Bible.

The four senses are the literal, moral, anagogical, and allegorical.

Scott Hahn in his SCRIPTURE MATTERS divides the interpretation of scripture into two forms, the literal and the spiritual. The latter he subdivides into the moral, anagogical, and allegorical.

I’m so confused about these, that I don’t even know the boundaries of the literal. I don’t think the literal sense means just the verbatim word-for-word. That verse would be impossible to understand simply by reference to the Old Testament, although that is undoubtedly the starting point.

As helpful as Grey is in presenting the scripture, and I like to listen to him, I don’t see him giving us our money’s worth (so to speak) in understanding all the senses of that verse. But, it is true that those senses of scripture are the goal of Bible studies in general. And, I don’t think scripture gives itself to us that easily.
But, Grey has certainly given us a hint.
 
Actually, Jesus does not say to M. Magdalene, “Don’t touch me.” In the original, divinely inspired Greek, He says rather, “Stop feeling/groping/grabbing/holding onto me…since I have not yet ascended.”

In other words, “You don’t have to grope me to see if I am real flesh and blood. It’s really, physically I Myself, since I haven’t yet ascended. Nor do you have to grab onto me as if were going away to Heaven right now. I’m not going anywhere, so go and tell the disciples…”

This also implies that, after the Ascension, Christ’s humanity remains in Heaven - any apparitions are strictly incorporeal. I don’t believe the verse has anything to do with the ministerial priesthood, except by way of an accommodated application.
 
I don’t know the answer.

But it makes more sense than the view in my old Dake study bible - that Jesus said this, ascended, and then descended again before talking to Thomas.
 
I think that there is a good case for the “double ascension” theory. It makes sense that Jesus would ascend privately soon after his Resurrection, so as to lead to Heaven the souls of the just whom he had just liberated from Hades/the Limbo of the Fathers: “He ascended up on high; he led captivity captive” (Eph. 4:8). Otherwise, where would these souls have been during the interim 40 days after he rose - and doing what? The later Ascension proper, then, would be seen rather as a public farewell and commissioning.

BTW, the Navarre Bible commentary also subscribes to the “stop clinging to me” interpretation -
“‘Do not hold me’: the use of the negative imperative in the Greek, reflected in the New Vulgate (‘noli me tenere’) indicates that our Lord is telling Mary to release he hold on him, to let him go, since she will have another chance to see him before his ascension into heaven” (242).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top