PDA

View Full Version : "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father"



Tony Cross
Apr 7th 2013, 02:04 AM
This phrase, found in John 20:17 has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Would anyone like to offer an opinion as to why Jesus said this to Mary?

percho
Apr 7th 2013, 02:24 AM
This phrase, found in John 20:17 has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Would anyone like to offer an opinion as to why Jesus said this to Mary?

Lev 23:11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.


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.

My before. Mine and yours after.

markedward
Apr 7th 2013, 02:48 AM
This phrase, found in John 20:17 has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Would anyone like to offer an opinion as to why Jesus said this to Mary?
There is the alternate translation that has Jesus say 'Do not cling to me'. Accompany interpretations suggest that Jesus was, in effect, telling Mary 'You don't need to cling to me, because I'm not leaving quite yet'.

It could also be seen as a contrast against Thomas apparently needing to take a hold of Jesus to see that he was risen from the dead. Mary goes to grab Jesus, see if it's really him, and Jesus says, 'Come on now, you don't need to do that', whereas Thomas doubts and doubts, to which Jesus says, 'Alright, do you really need to take my hand and grab my feet to figure this out?'

LandShark
Apr 7th 2013, 03:09 AM
Percho nailed it in my opinion. The "ascension" to heaven took place 40 days after the resurrection. Yet, when he rose he told Mary, "touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my Father." So she couldn't touch him BECAUSE he hadn't ascended, yet, 8 days later he is telling Thomas to "touch me." This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons I find the lack of studying the Feasts to be a detriment to understanding the fulness of Mesisah's work. The Feasts were designed to paint a picture of his work.

Passover - Redemption of His people
Unleavened Bread - Life without sin
Wave Offering/ Firstfruits - the first raised from the dead
Trumpets - the gather of all of God's people to one fold
Atonement - the final removal of all sin, perfection
Tabernacles - The Wedding Supper of the Lamb
(This was abbreviated of course)

On the day after the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread, the High priest would go and wave before God the wave sheaf of the firstfruits of the spring harvest. (Lev. 23:11) The picture is very clear... Jesus as the HIGH Priest went before the Father and waved HIMSELF as the firstfruits, and was obviously accepted as such.

LandShark
Apr 7th 2013, 03:15 AM
There is the alternate translation that has Jesus say 'Do not cling to me'. Accompany interpretations suggest that Jesus was, in effect, telling Mary 'You don't need to cling to me, because I'm not leaving quite yet'.

It could also be seen as a contrast against Thomas apparently needing to take a hold of Jesus to see that he was risen from the dead. Mary goes to grab Jesus, see if it's really him, and Jesus says, 'Come on now, you don't need to do that', whereas Thomas doubts and doubts, to which Jesus says, 'Alright, do you really need to take my hand and grab my feet to figure this out?'

No offense intended my brother, but the word anabainō (G305) means to rise up, go up, ascend, climb, or spring up. (Source - Strong's and Thayer) To "cling to" is a translation not supported by any use of the word. If you have esword or another decent program, just look up G305 and see where and how else it is used. You'll see the context surrounding "every" use does not stand in harmony with the idea of clinging to anything. Blessings!

markedward
Apr 7th 2013, 04:13 AM
λεγει αυτη ο ιησους μη μου απτου ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου πορευου δε προς τους αδελφους μου και ειπε αυτοις αναβαινω προς τον πατερα μου και πατερα υμων και θεον μου και θεον υμων


I'm referring to the underlined blue word, the verb απτομαι, where Jesus says 'Do not [απτου] to me'... hence 'Do not [cling] to me'. You're thinking of the word in red.

LandShark
Apr 7th 2013, 04:30 AM
λεγει αυτη ο ιησους μη μου απτου ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου πορευου δε προς τους αδελφους μου και ειπε αυτοις αναβαινω προς τον πατερα μου και πατερα υμων και θεον μου και θεον υμων


I'm referring to the underlined blue word, the verb απτομαι, where Jesus says 'Do not [απτου] to me'... hence 'Do not [cling] to me'. You're thinking of the word in red.

Thanks for clarifying... I can see that, cling, attach, hold onto but there is still a sense of touching here. I don't think that changes my belief on this, that same word is used consistently in the LXX (Greek OT for those who might not know, translated first about 300BC) in places where the Hebrew "naga" appears in the Massoretic texts. Naga just means to touch, so cling or touch probably work... not sure it changes the context of Him being the firstfruit and waving Himself before the Father. What do you think?

markedward
Apr 7th 2013, 04:56 AM
not sure it changes the context of Him being the firstfruit and waving Himself before the Father.
I don't see where this idea is implied in the text of John 20.

Walls
Apr 7th 2013, 06:49 AM
I believe that the reason has been given, but there is one more point to add.

One of God's principles is that the first and best fruits belonged to Him (Ex.13:2, 12, 34:19). It is thus established in the Law. So our Lord Jesus was the "first born" from the dead. Thus He is first to be presented to the Father and then only to men. BUT....

The first fruit offering, the wave offering, HAD TO BE A SHEAF.
"When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord" (Lev.23:10-12)

So our Lord Jesus is resurrected first (that He might have preeminence in ALL things), but He must wait a short while while a SHEAF is gathered. And so; "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection... ." (Matt.27:52-53)

It is noteworthy that a human, and a woman for that matter, is allowed to see and speak to Him before He ascended to the Father, but no-one may touch Him until after He has presented Himself as the firstfruits of resurrection to the Father, Who has claim on these things.

A controversy raged on this Forum a while back about the matter of John 14:1-3. "1 Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father's house are many abodes; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." But if one can jump over the shadow of tradition that says that this talks of going to heaven, it is quite easy to see that our Lord Jesus predicted what He would do on resurrection day.

He rises, waits for the sheaf to be complete, ascends to the Father to present Himself as firstfruits from the dead, and then descends and breathes Himself into the disciples some 12-15 hours later (Jn.20:22). In the verses above, the Lord promised that He would go to the Father and return so that His disciples could be "where I AM" (present tense). So all that remains is to find out where our Lord was at the time of speaking in John Chapter 14. Fortunately, He answers that for us Himself in the same context.

"At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you" (John 14:20)

This is exactly in harmony with all that transpired. The Father's House in scripture is always;

The Tabernacle of the Wilderness
The Temple at Jerusalem
Christ's Body
The Church

I have inserted the correct word in the Greek for "mansions" as there is no call to imply mansions here. The Greek word is used again verse 23 and there correctly translated.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (John 14:23)

So our Lord Jesus had two ascensions. One secretly as First Fruits to the Father for the Father's enjoyment, and one openly in Acts Chapter 1 to take His place at the right hand of the majesty on high. His return from the first was to establish the Father's House with many abodes by breathing Himself into His disciples, and His return from the second ascension will be to make the kingdoms of this world His by military might (Rev.11:15).

Vakeros
Apr 7th 2013, 07:10 AM
This phrase, found in John 20:17 has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Would anyone like to offer an opinion as to why Jesus said this to Mary?
Usually we think of Mary being alone when this happened, yet Matt 28:8 -10 shows a picture of Jesus meeting all the women. Now maybe He met Mary first and then met the rest of the women. The question this does bring to mind is where is Jesus in between His appearances? Does He go to Heaven in between?

Also "Touch G680" ἅπτομαι is the word I have, which is different to the one Markedwards has in blue is related, but not the same, as his version doesn't have the additional -μαι.
Reflexive of G681; properly to attach oneself to, that is, to touch (in many implied relations): - touch.
Mine is based on the KJV - not sure of which passage Markedward's is using.

For me I think that the point isn't in the touch or cling, but what He says as to why NOT to touch or cling - for I have not yet returned to my Father. Go instead...
Why tell her to say this as He was going to appear to them that evening anyway? He hadn't returned to the Father yet! This is a different issue to His ascension. This He would do 40 days later. In this phrase He was saying, Do not be afraid, I am Risen! I have conquered death and the way to the Father is truly open. I am going to the Father now and He is truly now your Father.

Brother Mark
Apr 7th 2013, 12:40 PM
This phrase, found in John 20:17 has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Would anyone like to offer an opinion as to why Jesus said this to Mary?

It has already been pointed out about the duties of the High Priest and why he shouldn't be touched. A few more thoughts below:

He had not yet ascended. But when you compare what was said to Mary to what he said to Thomas, it gets interesting. He told Mary not to touch him and his reason was "for I have not yet ascended to the Father". When he saw Thomas, he told Thomas to stick his hand in his side and in his nail prints. Big difference! I think that proves that Jesus had ascended after he saw Mary but before he saw Thomas.

John 16:7

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
KJV

Jesus had to first go away before the comforter could come. After he ascended (gone away) and performed the duties of the High Priest, the Comforter could come. Look what happened between Mary and Thomas....

John 20:22

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
KJV

They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had ascended and performed the duties of the High Priest. He then returned and gave the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Then he told Thomas to put his hand in his side and in his nail prints because he had completed the sprinkling in heaven.

Acts 2 is where they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:4

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
KJV

IMO, that is different than having the Spirit indwell us and it is one reason we are told in Ephesians to "be filled with the Holy Spirit" even though He is already indwelling us.

Eph 5:18

18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
KJV

Livelystone
Apr 7th 2013, 01:38 PM
This phrase, found in John 20:17 has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Would anyone like to offer an opinion as to why Jesus said this to Mary?

I'm going to share what the Lord showed me a number years ago concerning this passage as well as a prophecy that is contained within this event. There is some scriptural support for this but a lot of it came by revelation as in hearing from God. Consequently there is going to be people here who will not accept it and that is okay with me as I'm just sharing this with you as in my $.02 worth

First I would say that I agree this passage appears very unusual because shortly afterwards we see Jesus telling Thomas to go ahead and touch him that was long before Jesus ascended unto heaven in addition to other physical contact that he had with others.

Jesus became our high priest and the first duty of the high priest following the Sabbath that followed the Passover was to present the wave offering of the barley harvest for inspection. An important note here is unlike wheat harvested at the time of Pentecost, barley will not bond with leaven that is a metaphor for sin in the Bible. There is a lot of prophecy within the different properties of barley versus wheat

In order for Jesus to do this he had to ascend unto God and present himself holy and without sin along with the “omer of barley” that prophesied of those who were represented by the barley seeds who at some time in the future would also appear the same as Jesus standing before God without sin.(something that according to John no man can say)

Because Mary like everyone else was an unclean person Jesus told her not to touch him because she would defile him as Jesus had not yet presented this wave offering to God that was done early in the morning albeit not as early as Mary appeared at the tomb of Jesus. The prophecy being because she did grab his feet and we are “the feet company” who are still yet not fully clean, Mary touching the feet was a prophecy that the body of Christ was not yet perfected as Jesus said it would be on the 3rd day.(that most take to mean when he would appear resurrected "perfect" following the crucifixion)

However, since the year 2000 we have moved into the 3rd day since the time of Jesus who on the 5th day of creation said the following verse.

Luke 13:32
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

For 2000 years a.k.a. 2 days since then Jesus has been doing cures and casting out devils from the hearts of people by the presence of the Holy Spirit coming into them in the same manner that light displaces darkness. However, the body of Christ has still not been perfected because we here who are fulfilling the role of the feet company still on earth are still dealing with sin issues. On the other hand God's word will not return void, and I personally expect there will soon be an event that will usher in what is known as the millennium when those who rule with Christ will be perfected.

As I have already said ........ Just my $.02 and it is not for everyone to see it as I do.

LandShark
Apr 7th 2013, 02:36 PM
I don't see where this idea is implied in the text of John 20.

His whole mission was defined in the Feasts. I laid out in my first post a VERY condensed version of what the Feasts pointed to. If his ascension into heaven was 40 days after the resurrection, and yet he he states he can't be touched because he hasn't ascended and then 8 days later is allowing them to touch him, whatever THAT ascension was, happened. I reconcile it by aligning it to first fruits... Paul in 1 Cor 15 is who aligns Messiah's risen self to the first fruits harvest which is tied into the spring Feasts which pointed to his first coming. (The fall feasts depict his return) So, I see the wave offering by the High Priest before the Lord who would accept the wave offering as the "first fruits" of the harvest to be the picture of the GREAT High Priest waving HIMSELF before the Father as the first fruits of THE Harvest of which we are part.

If you see this differently, that's fine, no problem! :)

Walls
Apr 7th 2013, 02:50 PM
I'm going to share what the Lord showed me a number years ago concerning this passage as well as a prophecy that is contained within this event. There is some scriptural support for this but a lot of it came by revelation as in hearing from God. Consequently there is going to be people here who will not accept it and that is okay with me as I'm just sharing this with you as in my $.02 worth

First I would say that I agree this passage appears very unusual because shortly afterwards we see Jesus telling Thomas to go ahead and touch him that was long before Jesus ascended unto heaven in addition to other physical contact that he had with others.

Jesus became our high priest and the first duty of the high priest following the Sabbath that followed the Passover was to present the wave offering of the barley harvest for inspection. An important note here is unlike wheat harvested at the time of Pentecost, barley will not bond with leaven that is a metaphor for sin in the Bible. There is a lot of prophecy within the different properties of barley versus wheat

In order for Jesus to do this he had to ascend unto God and present himself holy and without sin along with the “omer of barley” that prophesied of those who were represented by the barley seeds who at some time in the future would also appear the same as Jesus standing before God without sin.(something that according to John no man can say)

Because Mary like everyone else was an unclean person Jesus told her not to touch him because she would defile him as Jesus had not yet presented this wave offering to God that was done early in the morning albeit not as early as Mary appeared at the tomb of Jesus. The prophecy being because she did grab his feet and we are “the feet company” who are still yet not fully clean, Mary touching the feet was a prophecy that the body of Christ was not yet perfected as Jesus said it would be on the 3rd day.(that most take to mean when he would appear resurrected "perfect" following the crucifixion)

However, since the year 2000 we have moved into the 3rd day since the time of Jesus who on the 5th day of creation said the following verse.

Luke 13:32
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

For 2000 years a.k.a. 2 days since then Jesus has been doing cures and casting out devils from the hearts of people by the presence of the Holy Spirit coming into them in the same manner that light displaces darkness. However, the body of Christ has still not been perfected because we here who are fulfilling the role of the feet company still on earth are still dealing with sin issues. On the other hand God's word will not return void, and I personally expect there will soon be an event that will usher in what is known as the millennium when those who rule with Christ will be perfected.

As I have already said ........ Just my $.02 and it is not for everyone to see it as I do.

You have touched a point that we all forgot to mention. The firstfruits at the time of Passover were the firstfruits of the winter crop, barley being the first to ripen. Our Lord Jesus is the firstfruits of that planted in the winter of mankind when all, even His own people, the chosen people, had rejected Him. The winter crops have the harshest conditions in which to ripen, and are the most wanted, as the barns are nearly empty of the previous years harvest. Our Lord Jesus is the most precious and wanted BY THE FATHER, while men, even His disciples, were disappointed in Him. In Luke 24:13-21 the disciples were "sad" in Jesus (He had disappointed them - v.13) and their (flimsy) trust had been broken (v.21). Long had the Father awaited this precious crop from the dead of men, and no-one was to sully His enjoyment of the newly resurrected crop from the dead. Jesus was to be FULLY for the Father, and FIRST for the Father.

As to Luke 13:32 I believe that the Lord was alluding to the Millennial Reign. Hosea 6:2 gives the time of Israel's rejection as two days, and then the next day would be the dawn of the third day since our Lord Jesus started casting out demons - the Millennium when Israel was resurrected (Dan.12:2). Casting out demons was a sign that the kingdom was near (Luke 11:20).

TrustGzus
Apr 7th 2013, 04:04 PM
Tony, my thought is pretty much like markedward's. I think cling makes more sense of it. I know he and landshark went back and forth a little about it but language resources support this idea besides newer translations - at least every language resource I own (and I own a lot of them).

The only difference is understanding why he said it. Markedward suggested he was saying "You don't need to cling to me, because I'm not leaving quite yet". I've always taken it as a "don't cling to me, I'm not going to be hanging around very long." Just perusing some commentaries is common idea of "don't cling to me, you've got a job to do" and then the next verse she goes and announces that she's seen him.

fewarechosen
Apr 7th 2013, 07:03 PM
one thing when pondering that scripture

is ask why did she not recognize Him and why was He not recognized by the other apostles, think of it this way, if you were with someone for a few years on a daily bases, you will know their face well, if your best friend was gone for a few days then you see him are you not going to recognize his face ?

Joh 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Joh 21:12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

LandShark
Apr 7th 2013, 07:12 PM
Tony, my thought is pretty much like markedward's. I think cling makes more sense of it. I know he and landshark went back and forth a little about it but language resources support this idea besides newer translations - at least every language resource I own (and I own a lot of them).

The only difference is understanding why he said it. Markedward suggested he was saying "You don't need to cling to me, because I'm not leaving quite yet". I've always taken it as a "don't cling to me, I'm not going to be hanging around very long." Just perusing some commentaries is common idea of "don't cling to me, you've got a job to do" and then the next verse she goes and announces that she's seen him.

You're welcome to your position, nobody said I am correct! :) I just want to point out that a word means what it means regardless of what a newer translation says or doesn't say. If a Greek or Aramaic (or Hebrew) word meant something in the day it was written, and means something else today... I go with what it meant in the day it was used. When we read the KJV for example, we see the word "prevent" from time to time. In that day (time of the KJV) the word prevent did NOT mean to keep something from happening, it meant "to go before." How it meant when it was translated is how we have to use it because that is how the translator used it.

I don't have a problem with "cling" over "touch" because "to attach" seems to be a solid definition for haptomai. In fact, "to attach" is probably the best rendering. That isn't the point, the point is the ascension... if he ascended to heaven after 40 days, then the ascension mentioned in John 20:17 is something different. The question is then, what is this ascension? Is it the High Priest and Bishop our our souls presenting Himself before the Father as the firstfruits of the dead? I think so and I believe that stands in line with the fact that the feasts paint of picture of "all" he would do in life and death as messiah. Even the Sabbath points to 6000 years of toil followed by a Millennial Kingdom and time of rest. So, what is this ascension TG?

fewarechosen
Apr 7th 2013, 07:25 PM
Indeed, much to ponder here as always. Why appear specifically to Mary first? When I read of how they don't recognize Him, it reminds me of this:

Ge 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food. 8 And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.

It says that he made himself "strange" to them, and also on the raod to Emassus it says

Lu 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

The passage in Genesis is just prior to his revelation of himself to all of his brothers as Joseph

ah great scriptures, forgot all about that one in luke and it directly addresses it

TrustGzus
Apr 7th 2013, 07:35 PM
You're welcome to your position, nobody said I am correct! :)

Agreed. That's true for all of us humans.



I just want to point out that a word means what it means regardless of what a newer translation says or doesn't say.

Agreed also. However, when multiple translations that are done by a committees have cling or something similar to that, that cannot be so easily dismissed by a sentence like yours above. I think your point is very valid if its in a single translation by single individual or even a single translation by a committee. It still could be correct, but we should proceed more cautiously. But if multiple translations that are all by committee have cling or something similar (NASB, HCSB, ESV, NKJV, NLT are all committee translations with cling and committee translations such as the 1984 NIV, TNIV, 2011 NIV, RSV, NRSV, NAB have something like don't hold on to me) then that can't be tossed so easily.

Throw in some language resources like dictionaries and lexicons, it becomes more arrogant than anything to go against them.


If a Greek or Aramaic (or Hebrew) word meant something in the day it was written, and means something else today... I go with what it meant in the day it was used. When we read the KJV for example, we see the word "prevent" from time to time. In that day (time of the KJV) the word prevent did NOT mean to keep something from happening, it meant "to go before." How it meant when it was translated is how we have to use it because that is how the translator used it.

I agree with this too. You actually deal with two issues here: the original language and the language translated into. The meaning of the original never changes. It meant what was meant at that time. Period. The language being translated into can require updates. You used prevent and that's a great example. I'm not aware that touch has gone through that kind of change in English. I think the KJV was simply overly wooden at this point. They always translate word X as Y and so they did it here. But translation isn't always that simple and I think the eleven other translations and updates I provided attest to that.


I don't have a problem with "cling" over "touch" because "to attach" seems to be a solid definition for haptomai. In fact, "to attach" is probably the best rendering.

Ok, great! So we agree.


That isn't the point, the point is the ascension... if he ascended to heaven after 40 days, then the ascension mentioned in John 20:17 is something different.

Why? If he says he hasn't ascended to the Father and in forty days he will, why isn't it that ascension? The plain reading would be exactly that.


The question is then, what is this ascension?

Only if you can demonstrate that it's not the ascension in 40 days. I think you've gone out on a limb here.


Is it the High Priest and Bishop our our faith presenting Himself before the Father as the firstfruits of the dead? I think so and I believe that stands in line with the fact that the feasts paint of picture of "all" he would do in life and death as messiah. Even the Sabbath points to 6000 years of toil followed by a Millennial Kingdom and time of rest. So, what is this ascension TG?

Theory. Prove multiple ascensions and then prove distinctions between them.

LandShark
Apr 7th 2013, 07:40 PM
Why? If he says he hasn't ascended to the Father and in forty days he will, why isn't it that ascension? The plain reading would be exactly that.

I will try one more time and then just let it go. He said, "Touch me not BECAUSE I have not ascended to the Father." Now, using your "plain reading" position, he was not to be touched until he ascended. Yet, 8 days later he tells Thomas, "touch me." So, don't touch him because he had not ascended, then 8 days later he can be touched. Thus, this "ascension" and the one 32 days later are not the same thing. What is the difference TG, do you even see one?

Tony Cross
Apr 7th 2013, 08:22 PM
one thing when pondering that scripture

is ask why did she not recognize Him and why was He not recognized by the other apostles, think of it this way, if you were with someone for a few years on a daily bases, you will know their face well, if your best friend was gone for a few days then you see him are you not going to recognize his face ?

Joh 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Joh 21:12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

I'm glad you brought that up. I should have included it in the thread.

chad
Apr 7th 2013, 08:28 PM
IMO, to show us that when he died on the cross, and he said to the thief, today you will be with me in paradise, he did not go to heaven (Paradise) but his soul descended to Hades (Paradise:Abrahams Side). When Jesus appeared before Mary in his resurrected body, he tells her, do not touch me, for I have not ascended to the father (In heaven).

RevLogos
Apr 7th 2013, 09:13 PM
This story of Jesus and Mary is not in the other 3 Gospels. In those versions, the women go to the tomb and find an angel who tells them Jesus has risen.

Then the same day Jesus appears to two disciples and they walk to Emmaus. They do not recognize Jesus until later in the evening when he breaks bread. So it is possible Jesus didn't ascend to heaven until late Sunday. Perhaps the same hour that He had died 3 days earlier? (thus making it a full 3rd day rather than hotel reckoning).

It seems to me the anecdote in John must have had some special meaning rather than just a forgotten tidbit of story. I am inclined to think not touching Jesus does have something to do with proper protocols.

Livelystone
Apr 7th 2013, 09:23 PM
IMO, to show us that when he died on the cross, and he said to the thief, today you will be with me in paradise, he did not go to heaven (Paradise) but his soul descended to Hades (Paradise:Abrahams Side). When Jesus appeared before Mary in his resurrected body, he tells her, do not touch me, for I have not ascended to the father (In heaven).

You made some good points and I would like to add the following.

When Jesus gave up the ghost He had just committed His spirit unto God. Being as the spirit and soul appear together as one unless separated by God, I think it would be safe to say that before Jesus went and preached to those in prison, He did appear as spirit and soul before his Father (when a person dies the spirit goes back to God) along with the spirit and soul of the man who Jesus said would be with him that night in paradise.

However, I would conclude this was not with His physical body that was still hanging on the cross (or taken to the tomb) that is also supported by His words spoken earlier when He asked to be glorified with the glory that he had before, (Assuming that he was referencing before he came to earth as the baby Jesus?)

Thoughts?

TrustGzus
Apr 7th 2013, 10:55 PM
I will try one more time and then just let it go. He said, "Touch me not BECAUSE I have not ascended to the Father." Now, using your "plain reading" position, he was not to be touched until he ascended. Yet, 8 days later he tells Thomas, "touch me." So, don't touch him because he had not ascended, then 8 days later he can be touched. Thus, this "ascension" and the one 32 days later are not the same thing. What is the difference TG, do you even see one?

I think your case is a stretch and requires some very exact details between the lines that you have to read into the text.

First, you already mentioned in your previous post that it could be "don't cling". Now your going back to "touch". "Don't cling" and "don't touch" are two different ideas. So I think he's telling Mary "don't cling to me" whereas Thomas it was merely the freedom to touch --- no clinging involved there.

Second, In Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells all the apostles to touch him, where does that fit chronologically in with all of this? Read Luke 24 beginning at verse 1 and see if you can place it. I'm pretty sure it's prior to when he told Thomas to touch him. Your view would require an ascension in Luke 24 prior to verse 39.

Thirdly, supply a good reason(s) why he couldn't be touched for that little window of time. Lots of reasons not to cling to him. People touched him constantly in his earthly ministry. People touch him after his resurrection. Why should no one supposedly touch him between the resurrection and this theoretical ascension prior to the real ascension?

You're not alone on this view. My good buddy, Brother Mark, offered this view in his post earlier in the thread. It just seems forced to me and too much reading between the lines. I can always be wrong.

markedward
Apr 7th 2013, 11:27 PM
That isn't the point, the point is the ascension... if he ascended to heaven after 40 days, then the ascension mentioned in John 20:17 is something different.
Why can't it be referring to the same thing?

Into your chronology of the eight days, when exactly did this other 'ascension' take place? Matthew 28.9 specifically has the women ('they' is feminine in the Greek) 'taking hold' of Jesus' feet and worshiping him, but this happens long before Jesus actually shows up in front of his disciples, down in verse 28.16-17... but Matthew's version doesn't have Jesus telling the women not to touch him. The saying in John 20.17 must have been contextual just for Mary at that particular moment, not a specific no-touching rule that lasted for week (or so) because of some priestly 'ascension'.


The question is then, what is this ascension? Is it the High Priest and Bishop our our souls presenting Himself before the Father as the firstfruits of the dead? I think so
The author of Hebrews (arguably the writer to most explicitly say that this or that in the old covenant points to Jesus) identifies Jesus' ascension as high priest... as taking place when he was exalted to the right hand of the Father, the same ascension we see taking place forty days after his resurrection. I don't see why Jesus' priesthood necessitates a first and second ascension (with the first being non-literal?).


Now, using your "plain reading" position, he was not to be touched until he ascended.
I don't think that's what any one is really saying. Only that he specifically told Mary not to touch him, not that no one would touch him. Either way we have to read more into the text than is really available to draw from it. Interpreting the festivals as being an explicit point-for-point plan requires reading for more into those feasts than we are able to actually draw out of them. That they are said to foreshadow Jesus in some way doesn't require seeing them as an actual schedule of events that correspond to specific, orderly events Jesus did / will do. This isn't to be condescending, but I think doing so is to read way too much into Jesus' or Paul's words.

chad
Apr 7th 2013, 11:40 PM
I can only go with what the bible records regarding Jesus death and resurrection.

(Luke 23:46 KJV) And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

(Acts 2:31 KJV) He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

(John 20:17 KJV) 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.


From the above verses, I cannot make the link that Jesus spirit and soul went to the father in heaven, as did the Thief on the cross (after he died on the cross) and before his resurrection and appearance to Mary.




You made some good points and I would like to add the following.

When Jesus gave up the ghost He had just committed His spirit unto God. Being as the spirit and soul appear together as one unless separated by God, I think it would be safe to say that before Jesus went and preached to those in prison, He did appear as spirit and soul before his Father (when a person dies the spirit goes back to God) along with the spirit and soul of the man who Jesus said would be with him that night in paradise.

However, I would conclude this was not with His physical body that was still hanging on the cross (or taken to the tomb) that is also supported by His words spoken earlier when He asked to be glorified with the glory that he had before, (Assuming that he was referencing before he came to earth as the baby Jesus?)

Thoughts?

Brother Mark
Apr 7th 2013, 11:50 PM
You're not alone on this view. My good buddy, Brother Mark, offered this view in his post earlier in the thread.

We use to be friends, till I read your post. :D

LandShark
Apr 8th 2013, 01:08 AM
Markedward and TrustGzus... like I said, it doesn't matter to me what you believe. Neither of you have said anything to sway me at all, and I see no reason to take my reasoning to the next level of Scriptural support because you both see this from a completely different paradigm than I do. So, I will just bow out, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else, I have simply shared why I believe Jesus presented Himself before the Father as the firstfruits of the dead, the wave sheaf offering. Others who hold this same view can debate you, I don't seek that and don't have the time anyway. Be blessed, love you both in him!

percho
Apr 8th 2013, 01:24 AM
Lev 23:11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.


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.

My before. Mine and yours after.


To be accepted for you.

Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to MY Father.

On the morrow after the Sabbath.

Because he ascends, and will be accepted, God will then be my and your Father, my and your God.

Thou art my Son this day have I begotten you had already been declared by the resurrection, now to be waved before the Lord for us.

parsonsmom
Apr 8th 2013, 02:46 AM
Hebrews 9: tells us;
when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law; he took the blood of calves and of goats; with water; and scarlet wool,; and hyssop; and sprinkled both the book; and all the people, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you; he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry; And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood; there is no remission; It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens; should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often; as the High Priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared; to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; And as it is appointed unto men once to die; but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look; for shall he appear the second time; without sin unto salvation.
Respectfully Parsonsmom.

parsonsmom
Apr 8th 2013, 02:56 AM
He couldn't be touched with any thing or anyone that wasn't cleansed in the Blood. Respectfully; Parsonsmom.

Vakeros
Apr 8th 2013, 08:03 AM
I think your case is a stretch and requires some very exact details between the lines that you have to read into the text.
First, you already mentioned in your previous post that it could be "don't cling". Now your going back to "touch". "Don't cling" and "don't touch" are two different ideas. So I think he's telling Mary "don't cling to me" whereas Thomas it was merely the freedom to touch --- no clinging involved there.
In order to cling you have to touch, in order to touch you don't have to cling, so clinging is more possessive. The word "haptomai" according to Strong is touch or attach. However we need to read the word in context. In addition, does the word used allow both a physical meaning - to physically touch and an emotional meaning. It does in English, but what about in Greek? If not then it isn't about Mary wanting to hold onto Him emotionally, but a simple physical grip.
Why isn't Mary to touch or cling onto Him? Because He hasn't ascended to the Father's side. This isn't referring to an event 40 days later. He will see Mary again almost certainly during that time. No it is an ascent to occur that very day.


Second, In Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells all the apostles to touch him, where does that fit chronologically in with all of this? Read Luke 24 beginning at verse 1 and see if you can place it. I'm pretty sure it's prior to when he told Thomas to touch him. Your view would require an ascension in Luke 24 prior to verse 39.
That is correct. Luke 24:39 would be in the evening of Sunday - so the 18th. Jesus was our firstfruits offering on the 17th when the wave offering was given. He ascended to the Father and descended the following day (which for us is still the Sunday)


Thirdly, supply a good reason(s) why he couldn't be touched for that little window of time. Lots of reasons not to cling to him. People touched him constantly in his earthly ministry. People touch him after his resurrection. Why should no one supposedly touch him between the resurrection and this theoretical ascension prior to the real ascension?
These reasons have been given by others in this thread. He was the offering, so set apart - holy. You don't hold onto the wave offering for then you would be burnt.


You're not alone on this view. My good buddy, Brother Mark, offered this view in his post earlier in the thread. It just seems forced to me and too much reading between the lines. I can always be wrong.
There is no forcing. What you need to ask your self is, where is Jesus when He ISN'T seen by anyone? Is He hiding out somewhere on earth? Is He invisible, but where? For me the most logical explanation is that when He isn't being with people, He is back with His Father. I believe that He ascended multiple times. It isn't a difficult process. He didn't stay overnight with the disciples.
The way you should look at things is, why was Jesus' ascension from the Mount of Olives so public?
There is prophecy involved in that final ascension. There is also testimony.

parsonsmom
Apr 9th 2013, 06:08 AM
He is within born again believers. He is A Spirit; that is why He relates to our spirit. parsonsmom.

Vakeros
Apr 9th 2013, 09:35 AM
He is within born again believers. He is A Spirit; that is why He relates to our spirit. parsonsmom.
Not sure if you were replying to my post, but I was asking specifically where was Jesus during the 40 days He was physically on earth, revealing Himself.

parsonsmom
Apr 13th 2013, 02:11 AM
Am I not welcome in this discussion

Tony Cross
Apr 13th 2013, 02:20 AM
Am I not welcome in this discussion

Why would you think that??

LandShark
Apr 13th 2013, 02:20 PM
He couldn't be touched with any thing or anyone that wasn't cleansed in the Blood. Respectfully; Parsonsmom.

People are not literally washed in his blood. Do you see a place in Scripture where we all line up to have his blood thrown on us? When he died sinless, and raised from the grave, he had gained the right to perfect whomever he desires. Thomas who touches him 8 days later was no more perfected than we are today. I respect your opinion here, I don't happen to agree with it. Mary wanted to touch him when she saw him and he said "No, for I have no ascended to my Father." Eight days later Thomas is touching him, yet neither was perfected, both still existed in a state of death and decay. Thomas who could touch him was no more washed in his blood than Mary was. Messiah's work in that regard was done when he raised but still to this day has not been applied. The dead when he returns are raised and changed, and we which remain and are alive will be changed then as well. Until then, we remain in a state of imperfection.

TrustGzus
Apr 13th 2013, 04:24 PM
Actually according to Matthew 28:9, Mary and another woman both were touching Jesus that morning and later that evening Jesus invited a group of disciples to touch him in Luke 24:39. If this multiple ascension theory is true, he had to ascend that day. I think it's simpler to take the word in John as cling as most translations this day do and see the ascension as a single event. Plus, it doesn't make any sense why people could touch all the time during his ministry and then after this supposed ascension. People keep talking about the wave offering. Connect those dots because none of the apostles connect those dots in their epistles.

percho
Apr 13th 2013, 04:42 PM
Actually according to Matthew 28:9, Mary and another woman both were touching Jesus that morning and later that evening Jesus invited a group of disciples to touch him in Luke 24:39. If this multiple ascension theory is true, he had to ascend that day. I think it's simpler to take the word in John as cling as most translations this day do and see the ascension as a single event. Plus, it doesn't make any sense why people could touch all the time during his ministry and then after this supposed ascension. People keep talking about the wave offering. Connect those dots because none of the apostles connect those dots in their epistles.

Just what do you believe the waving of the shelf on the morrow after the Sabbath following the Passover to represent? Just what do you believe, "to be accepted for you," meant in the waving of the shelf of the firstfruits?

TrustGzus
Apr 13th 2013, 04:56 PM
Just what do you believe the waving of the shelf on the morrow after the Sabbath following the Passover to represent? Just what do you believe, "to be accepted for you," meant in the waving of the shelf of the firstfruits?

Percho, I asked for those who hold this view to connect the dots. It's not my job to connect these dots. No writings for the apostle that I know of, including Hebrews, makes any connection that Jesus as a wave offering couldn't be touched for a period of about 16-18 hours in history.

Connect more dots and what Scripture are you quoting above in regard to the "accepted for you"?

percho
Apr 13th 2013, 05:39 PM
Percho, I asked for those who hold this view to connect the dots. It's not my job to connect these dots. No writings for the apostle that I know of, including Hebrews, makes any connection that Jesus as a wave offering couldn't be touched for a period of about 16-18 hours in history.

Connect more dots and what Scripture are you quoting above in regard to the "accepted for you"?

I am no scholar and do know that I have ever read anything concerning this. I would think it would have to do with how long something was considered unclean in the OT. It was the resurrection that confirmed Jesus as priest after the order of Melchisedec, maybe it could be found there as in purification of priest.

I believe 1 Cor 15:20 confirms Christ as the firstfruits, the wave shelf.

then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: Lev 23:10
And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. Lev 23:11

Maybe you can help me out.

TrustGzus
Apr 13th 2013, 05:57 PM
People who believe the idea would have to. All I know is that at least two people touched him the morning of the resurrection (Matthew 28:9). Jesus invited many to touch him that evening (Luke 24:39). So those who think that he wasn't supposed to be touched for that roughly 16-18 hour period need to provide the answers. I guess we'll both wait.

Vakeros
Apr 13th 2013, 06:06 PM
People who believe the idea would have to. All I know is that at least two people touched him the morning of the resurrection (Matthew 28:9). Jesus invited many to touch him that evening (Luke 24:39). So those who think that he wasn't supposed to be touched for that roughly 16-18 hour period need to provide the answers. I guess we'll both wait.
But what you haven't addressed are two points:
1) Why does he say "Don't touch" or if you prefer "Don't cling" if this is only regarding physical touching and NOT emotional. And even if it is emotional, why would He say even that? Especially in light of why He says she shouldn't hold onto Him. Was He worried she would hold onto Him and prevent Him ascending in 40 days time?
2) Where was Jesus when He wasn't appearing to people? Do you having Him hiding somewhere? I see that He is with the Father. What needs to be asked is why He made a public ascension after 40 days.
For me it is prophetic and also to make clear He has finally gone. It also shows He has not only been raised from the dead, but He has put on Immortality.
Note also the gap of time, between the women holding Him and being seen by the disciples that evening and presumably earlier that evening by the two on the road to Emmaus. We don't know exactly when He appeared to the two to Emmaus, but it could easily have been in the evening.

percho
Apr 13th 2013, 06:07 PM
People who believe the idea would have to. All I know is that at least two people touched him the morning of the resurrection (Matthew 28:9). Jesus invited many to touch him that evening (Luke 24:39). So those who think that he wasn't supposed to be touched for that roughly 16-18 hour period need to provide the answers. I guess we'll both wait.


I believe just after Jesus told Mary not to touch him he ascended to his Father was accepted for us as the firstfruits of them that sleep, (firstborn from the dead) descended again from, "my Father and your Father; my God and your God." The acceptance had been made and he could then be touched.

Was approached by other women in the garden and touched, as also later in the day.

TrustGzus
Apr 13th 2013, 06:17 PM
I believe just after Jesus told Mary not to touch him he ascended to his Father was accepted for us as the firstfruits of them that sleep, (firstborn from the dead) descended again from, "my Father and your Father; my God and your God." The acceptance had been made and he could then be touched.

Was approached by other women in the garden and touched, as also later in the day.

You may believe that, but Scripture doesn't say that and I want to be very clear on that. You are speaking where Scripture is silent. And I'm still looking for Scritpure that states he coudn't be touched because he's the firstfruits. Many are saying this. No one has given me a single verse to look up yet.

TrustGzus
Apr 13th 2013, 06:19 PM
But what you haven't addressed are two points:
1) Why does he say "Don't touch" or if you prefer "Don't cling" if this is only regarding physical touching and NOT emotional. And even if it is emotional, why would He say even that? Especially in light of why He says she shouldn't hold onto Him. Was He worried she would hold onto Him and prevent Him ascending in 40 days time?
2) Where was Jesus when He wasn't appearing to people? Do you having Him hiding somewhere? I see that He is with the Father. What needs to be asked is why He made a public ascension after 40 days.
For me it is prophetic and also to make clear He has finally gone. It also shows He has not only been raised from the dead, but He has put on Immortality.
Note also the gap of time, between the women holding Him and being seen by the disciples that evening and presumably earlier that evening by the two on the road to Emmaus. We don't know exactly when He appeared to the two to Emmaus, but it could easily have been in the evening.

Fair enough. I can't right now. Errands with the wife. I'll come back later.

Vakeros
Apr 13th 2013, 06:21 PM
Fair enough. I can't right now. Errands with the wife. I'll come back later.
No problem, I had a few moments...

TrustGzus
Apr 14th 2013, 04:07 AM
But what you haven't addressed are two points:
1) Why does he say "Don't touch" or if you prefer "Don't cling" if this is only regarding physical touching and NOT emotional. And even if it is emotional, why would He say even that? Especially in light of why He says she shouldn't hold onto Him. Was He worried she would hold onto Him and prevent Him ascending in 40 days time?

Vakeros, technically he didn't say "don't touch" or "don't cling." We have a Greek recording that reads μή μου ἅπτου. Now how should this be translated? I don't say of my own authority don't cling. The NASB, HCSB, ESV, NKJV, NLT, Wuest, all use this word. Many others tell her to not hold on which is more similar to cling than to touch (All of the NIV family of Bibles, CEV, God's Word Translation, GNT, ISV, NAB, NCV, RSV, NRSV). As you can see, many of the second category are more functional or dynamic type translations. But many in the former category are more formal translations. So, it's not that merely I prefer this, most translators of Bibles done in the last 100 years prefer this.

FYI, note the definition in my Strong's lexicon how quickly it speaks of cling . . .


680 ἅπτω [haptomai /hap·tom·ahee/] v. Reflexive of 681; GK 721; 36 occurrences; AV translates as “touch” 36 times. 1 to fasten one’s self to, adhere to, cling to. 1A to touch. 1B of carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation. 1C of levitical practice of having no fellowship with heathen practices. Things not to be touched appear to be both women and certain kinds of food, so celibacy and abstinence of certain kinds of food and drink are recommended. 1D to touch, assail anyone.

Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Bold and italics mine

It can be touch, but as I said, Bible translators for the last 100 years seem to think it's more than that in this instance. Disagree with them if you like, but on what basis do you correct them?

My suggestion of why he would say that is what I mentioned earlier. He wasn't going to be sticking around long - a mere 40 days. So he's telling Mary don't cling to me, I'm not going to be here long. Now markedward suggested an almost opposite slant. His idea was that he was suggesting he had an entire 40 days he'd be sticking around, no need to cling. He's not going anywhere quite yet. Both are conjecture. Both fit with the because he hadn't ascended to the Father idea as far as I'm concerned. We'll not know - at least not in this life as far as I can tell.

And obviously Jesus wouldn't be worried that Mary could prevent his ascension. I don't know why you toss that idea in there.


2) Where was Jesus when He wasn't appearing to people? Do you having Him hiding somewhere? I see that He is with the Father. What needs to be asked is why He made a public ascension after 40 days.
For me it is prophetic and also to make clear He has finally gone. It also shows He has not only been raised from the dead, but He has put on Immortality.
Note also the gap of time, between the women holding Him and being seen by the disciples that evening and presumably earlier that evening by the two on the road to Emmaus. We don't know exactly when He appeared to the two to Emmaus, but it could easily have been in the evening.

I don't assume we have to answer the "where was he?" question. Scripture is silent. Shouldn't we be silent?. I don't know where he was. I don't have to know. If I did have to know, God would have told us.

I agree with most of what you say here more or less. He made a public ascension which made it clear a new thing was upon them, i.e. the coming of the Holy Spirit was imminent. I assume the Emmaus road interaction was in the afternoon/evening since they had dinner with him. Don't know what that gets you.

I still would like you to connect the dots with the wave offering. The wave offering is mentioned 20-something times (it varies how many times from translation to translation, but always 20-some). It's only in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Never mentioned again. As I stated, no apostles made any connection between it and Jesus nevertheless between it and Jesus and that short span of time between his morning appearance and afternoon / evening appearance. Your stance on multiple ascensions seems overly strong for a lack of clear Scriptural support unless you can make a very clear connecting of the dots.

Vakeros
Apr 14th 2013, 07:25 AM
Vakeros, technically he didn't say "don't touch" or "don't cling." We have a Greek recording that reads μή μου ἅπτου.
This is slightly different to the Interlinear I have which uses the related word but with "mai" on the end so "ἅπτομαι". This is shown in Strongs as Reflexive of G681; properly to attach oneself to, that is, to touch (in many implied relations): - touch


It can be touch, but as I said, Bible translators for the last 100 years seem to think it's more than that in this instance. Disagree with them if you like, but on what basis do you correct them?
On the basis of the Greek used in the KJV from the TR I guess, not that I am putting one version above another.


My suggestion of why he would say that is what I mentioned earlier. He wasn't going to be sticking around long - a mere 40 days. So he's telling Mary don't cling to me, I'm not going to be here long. Now markedward suggested an almost opposite slant. His idea was that he was suggesting he had an entire 40 days he'd be sticking around, no need to cling. He's not going anywhere quite yet. Both are conjecture. Both fit with the because he hadn't ascended to the Father idea as far as I'm concerned. We'll not know - at least not in this life as far as I can tell.
Notice how both you and markedward by changing the word to cling, then also change the meaning from a physical holding on, to a different form of holding on, emotional.


And obviously Jesus wouldn't be worried that Mary could prevent his ascension. I don't know why you toss that idea in there.
I toss it in as trying to look at why Jesus said what He said to her. He didn't say, don't hold on because I need to go to your brothers, nor did He say come on let's go to them. No He said don't touch or hold on to me because I have to go to the Father. That was where He was telling her He was going.


I don't assume we have to answer the "where was he?" question. Scripture is silent. Shouldn't we be silent?. I don't know where he was. I don't have to know. If I did have to know, God would have told us.
But by God's very silence, we have to go on what He did tell us. He said He has to go to the Father. We are to use our brains and listen to the Spirit. If Jesus isn't with the disciples, He isn't in Hades then where is He? Is He just touring around the world? No, the logical explanation is He returns to His Father. Why is this a problem? We don't know how a resurrected body can do what it does or even what it can do. There is a point though that Jesus spent time explaining things to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus. As He had the time, why didn't He spend more time with the disciples? I believe because His work on Earth was basically finished for that time and He wanted to be with the Father.


I agree with most of what you say here more or less. He made a public ascension which made it clear a new thing was upon them, i.e. the coming of the Holy Spirit was imminent. I assume the Emmaus road interaction was in the afternoon/evening since they had dinner with him. Don't know what that gets you.
Merely the point that it could have been a new day (18th) when Jesus met them. Not really very important.


I still would like you to connect the dots with the wave offering. The wave offering is mentioned 20-something times (it varies how many times from translation to translation, but always 20-some). It's only in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Never mentioned again. As I stated, no apostles made any connection between it and Jesus nevertheless between it and Jesus and that short span of time between his morning appearance and afternoon / evening appearance. Your stance on multiple ascensions seems overly strong for a lack of clear Scriptural support unless you can make a very clear connecting of the dots.
The clear connecting of dots is that Jesus fulfilled the Passover and the Feast of ULB. The firstfruits is directly tied with this Festival. Jesus is called the firstfruits. In fact when you read the NT, firstfruits is mentioned 7 times. 3 times it is referring to Jesus, once it refers to the Holy Spirit in us and the other 3 refers to us being like Him as firstfruits. So the OT has this clear connection and the NT has a clear connection. As these are the ONLY dots, then they are the ones we need to connect. Note also that Shavuot, the remaining Spring Festival is also a Harvest, but is specifically about the Holy Spirit in us.

divaD
Apr 14th 2013, 05:00 PM
When he saw Thomas, he told Thomas to stick his hand in his side and in his nail prints. Big difference! I think that proves that Jesus had ascended after he saw Mary but before he saw Thomas.

That's what I tend to think as well.

TrustGzus
Apr 14th 2013, 10:39 PM
This is slightly different to the Interlinear I have which uses the related word but with "mai" on the end so "ἅπτομαι". This is shown in Strongs as Reflexive of G681; properly to attach oneself to, that is, to touch (in many implied relations): - touch

Vakeros, I'm not sure what you are talking about here. The reason I say that is I have three versions of the Textus Receptus (the KJV is based off of this and so is the NKJV btw). They all read identically to what I pasted.


17 λεγει αυτη ο ιησους μη μου απτου ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου πορευου δε προς τους αδελφους μου και ειπε αυτοις αναβαινω προς τον πατερα μου και πατερα υμων και θεον μου και θεον υμων

Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894)


17 λεγει αυτη ο ιησους μη μου απτου ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου πορευου δε προς τους αδελφους μου και ειπε αυτοις αναβαινω προς τον πατερα μου και πατερα υμων και θεον μου και θεον υμων

Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus


17 λεγει αυτη ο ιησους μη μου απτου ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου πορευου δε προς τους αδελφους μου και ειπε αυτοις αναβαινω προς τον πατερα μου και πατερα υμων και θεον μου και θεον υμων

Elzevir Textus Receptus (1624)

Scrivener's, the top one is what the KJV text is. So, I don't know what source you are using, but the Greek doesn't have any variation from one text to another. The Greek transliterated into English is me mou haptou, not me mou haptoumai. I have Jay Green's interlinear published by Hendrickson. Same thing with that.

I see haptoumai in my Strong's too and that's just simply not what's there in the Greek. And it wouldn't be the difference between cling and touch anyway. All of my Greek texts are identical (at least seven that I looked at) on this phrase. I'm not a Greek scholar so I'm not going to get carried away other than to say what I've already stated. The Greek is identical in all of them and when they translated the NKJV, the NKJV translators used the TR for their translation to be faithful to the KJV trandition and they use cling.

Which puts us back to the same position. You can disagree with them, but on what basis? Almost every single translation of the last 100 years, formal and functional, has "cling" or "hold on to", not merely "touch". I'll go with the scholarship. Appealing to an older version's Greek doesn't help because the Greek doesn't change.

A.T. Robertson has been one of the greatest Greek minds of the last century. He writes . . .


Touch me not (μη μου ἁπτου [mē mou haptou]). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.”

Robertson, A. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Jn 20:17). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.


Notice how both you and markedward by changing the word to cling, then also change the meaning from a physical holding on, to a different form of holding on, emotional.

The law of non-contradiction states A and non-A cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. So the meaning can't be physical and not be physical. It can't be emotional and not be emotional. But there's no logical laws violated to say it is both physical and emotional. Obviously she physically touched Jesus. Do you think it was without emotion? I think both elements are undeniably therer.


But by God's very silence, we have to go on what He did tell us. He said He has to go to the Father. We are to use our brains and listen to the Spirit. If Jesus isn't with the disciples, He isn't in Hades then where is He? Is He just touring around the world? No, the logical explanation is He returns to His Father. Why is this a problem? We don't know how a resurrected body can do what it does or even what it can do. There is a point though that Jesus spent time explaining things to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus. As He had the time, why didn't He spend more time with the disciples? I believe because His work on Earth was basically finished for that time and He wanted to be with the Father.

He will go the Father in 40 days. Vakeros, as I said, where the Scripture is silent, I think it's best that we stay silent. If you feel you must speak when the Scripture doesn't, do as you please, but I think that's shaky and dangerous ground.

You are probably using the word logical here in a way I don't. When I use the word logical, I refer to formal laws of logic and formal and informal fallacies.
And so, in my opinion there is nothing logical that says he returns to the Father during the day that Sunday.

There is no:

A is B.
B is C.
Therefore, Jesus must have returned to the Father.

At least not that anyone has presented. All of it is conjecture as to what Jesus did for those hours. I don't see it as any better than conjecture of what he did from roughly ages 12 - 30. We don't have to know exactly what happened in those years. We don't have to know what Jesus did when he wasn't appearing to the disciples. If we had to know, surely, God would have told us.


The clear connecting of dots is that Jesus fulfilled the Passover and the Feast of ULB. The firstfruits is directly tied with this Festival. Jesus is called the firstfruits. In fact when you read the NT, firstfruits is mentioned 7 times. 3 times it is referring to Jesus, once it refers to the Holy Spirit in us and the other 3 refers to us being like Him as firstfruits. So the OT has this clear connection and the NT has a clear connection. As these are the ONLY dots, then they are the ones we need to connect. Note also that Shavuot, the remaining Spring Festival is also a Harvest, but is specifically about the Holy Spirit in us.

Passover is spoken of very clearly by Paul. Christ is our passover. Paul says we are unleavened. I see the 7 uses of firstfruits though I don't agree entirely with your breakdown of what they're speaking of but that's minor at this point. I don't know how you see any of this as being a clear connection of any kind between wave or peace offerings and the period between Jesus' morning appearing and evening appearing and how this logically gives us multiple ascensions.

Unless you can get clearer or point me to a resource to dig in more (or if you think I make any valid points that bring you closer to how I'm thinking), we'll have to agree to disagree.

In 27 years of listening to loads of expository pastors, I've never heard a multiple ascension theory and that one ascension happened in the day between his morning and evening appearances from any theologian. Or if so, I've forgotten. I'd be curious to have you point me to one, or more preferably.

percho
Apr 15th 2013, 03:09 AM
You may believe that, but Scripture doesn't say that and I want to be very clear on that. You are speaking where Scripture is silent. And I'm still looking for Scritpure that states he coudn't be touched because he's the firstfruits. Many are saying this. No one has given me a single verse to look up yet.

John 20:1 The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, ----- Is the day here mentioned the morrow after the Sabbath day of the week following the fourteenth day of the first month Nisan?

And on the fifteenth day of the same month [is] the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day [is] an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work [therein]. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. Lev. 23:6-11 --- 50 days counting this morrow after the Sabbath is Pentecost/day of firstfruits when your weeks be out. Is that morrow after the Sabbath the same day of the year as the day spoken of in John 20:1?

then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: ----- Do you believe that is a type of this> For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; 1 Cor. 15:21,23

Lev. 23:11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. ---- Was the resurrected Christ a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec and if the answer be yes would he be the one to wave the sheaf, and was the resurrected Christ also the sheaf of firstfruits lifted up to the LORD? Why was this type of the resurrected Christ to be presented to God on the morrow after the Sabbath?

Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: John 20:17 Why does Jesus tell her to not touch and or cling to him? Why? Does Jesus the Christ imply he must do something on that morning, the morrow after the Sabbath, before he is touched or clung to? What? What does he say he has to do?

Did people touch and of cling to him later that day even at his request?

Why do you think it was ok then when he had commanded earlier to not touch/cling to him?

Would to wave the shelf before the LORD be a type of to ascend to the Father?

percho
Apr 15th 2013, 03:33 AM
When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.


Was the above fulfilled by the resurrected Jesus on this day? The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. John 20:1

Was it fulfilled by the fact of his resurrection? Or by ascending to the Father?

And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD

before
פָּנִים
paniym g) with prep1) in front of, before, to the front of, in the presence of, in the face of, at the face or front of, from the presence of, from before, from before the face of

Did Jesus present himself as the firstfruits from the dead as the high priest after the order of Melchisedec?

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 5:5,6

What day? Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Accepted as High Priest for us?

and·he- waves » the·sheaf to·faces-of Yahweh for·acceptance-of·you(p) from·morrow-of the·sabbath he-shall-wave·him the·priest

TrustGzus
Apr 15th 2013, 06:08 PM
Percho, I'm done debating / discussing the topic for now. I'll repost to you part of my last post to Vakeros. Feel free to reply to that with some info if you've got it.


Unless you can get clearer or point me to a resource to dig in more (or if you think I make any valid points that bring you closer to how I'm thinking), we'll have to agree to disagree.

In 27 years of listening to loads of expository pastors, I've never heard a multiple ascension theory and that one ascension happened in the day between his morning and evening appearances from any theologian. Or if so, I've forgotten. I'd be curious to have you point me to one, or more preferably.

John146
Apr 15th 2013, 07:29 PM
Tony, my thought is pretty much like markedward's. I think cling makes more sense of it. I know he and landshark went back and forth a little about it but language resources support this idea besides newer translations - at least every language resource I own (and I own a lot of them).

The only difference is understanding why he said it. Markedward suggested he was saying "You don't need to cling to me, because I'm not leaving quite yet". I've always taken it as a "don't cling to me, I'm not going to be hanging around very long." Just perusing some commentaries is common idea of "don't cling to me, you've got a job to do" and then the next verse she goes and announces that she's seen him.I agree with your understanding. Jesus wasn't telling Mary not to touch Him at all, He was telling her not to cling to Him. He didn't have a problem with her touching Him. She didn't need to touch Him to prove He was real like Thomas did. She was clinging to Him and not wanting Him to leave her again, but He knew He was going to be leaving her by way of ascending to heaven, so He didn't want her clinging to Him and hoping He would stay long-term, since that wasn't possible.

If Jesus didn't want to be touched before His ascension then He wouldn't have let Thomas and others touch Him. Some try to get around this by suggesting that Jesus ascended more than once. I don't buy that theory at all. Scripture does not teach such a thing anywhere.

Tony Cross
Apr 16th 2013, 02:52 AM
Tony, my thought is pretty much like markedward's. I think cling makes more sense of it. I know he and landshark went back and forth a little about it but language resources support this idea besides newer translations - at least every language resource I own (and I own a lot of them).

The only difference is understanding why he said it. Markedward suggested he was saying "You don't need to cling to me, because I'm not leaving quite yet". I've always taken it as a "don't cling to me, I'm not going to be hanging around very long." Just perusing some commentaries is common idea of "don't cling to me, you've got a job to do" and then the next verse she goes and announces that she's seen him.


I agree with your understanding. Jesus wasn't telling Mary not to touch Him at all, He was telling her not to cling to Him. He didn't have a problem with her touching Him. She didn't need to touch Him to prove He was real like Thomas did. She was clinging to Him and not wanting Him to leave her again, but He knew He was going to be leaving her by way of ascending to heaven, so He didn't want her clinging to Him and hoping He would stay long-term, since that wasn't possible.

If Jesus didn't want to be touched before His ascension then He wouldn't have let Thomas and others touch Him. Some try to get around this by suggesting that Jesus ascended more than once. I don't buy that theory at all. Scripture does not teach such a thing anywhere.

Makes sense to me. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain Thomas being allowed to touch Him.

percho
Apr 16th 2013, 06:35 PM
I agree with your understanding. Jesus wasn't telling Mary not to touch Him at all, He was telling her not to cling to Him. He didn't have a problem with her touching Him. She didn't need to touch Him to prove He was real like Thomas did. She was clinging to Him and not wanting Him to leave her again, but He knew He was going to be leaving her by way of ascending to heaven, so He didn't want her clinging to Him and hoping He would stay long-term, since that wasn't possible.

If Jesus didn't want to be touched before His ascension then He wouldn't have let Thomas and others touch Him. Some try to get around this by suggesting that Jesus ascended more than once. I don't buy that theory at all. Scripture does not teach such a thing anywhere.

I will ask you the same question I asked TrustGzus.

then he hath waved the sheaf before* Jehovah for your acceptance; on the morrow of the sabbath doth the priest wave it. Lev. 23:11

* before: g) with prep
1) in front of, before, to the front of, in the presence of, in the face of, at the face or front of, from the presence of, from before, from before the face of

Do you see any semblance of fulfillment in that verse in John 20:17 on the morrow following the Sabbath following the crucifixion of Jesus?

Was that verse to be fulfilled in the Christ on the morrow after the Sabbath following the Passover? If so, how?

Vakeros
Apr 16th 2013, 07:18 PM
Let me look at this from another angle.
Who saw Jesus and touched Jesus and interacted with Him after He rose from the dead?
We have the women Matt 28:8 they ran to tell the disciples. 28:9 Jesus met them and they came and held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. 28:10 Jesus said "Don't be afraid, go to tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they shall see me there"
Mark 16:9 He appeared first to Mary Magdalene. 16:11 They believed not. 16:12 He appeared to two of them as they walked. 16:13 they believed them not. 16:14 He appeared to the eleven as they ate and told them off for not believing.
Luke 24:13 the two of them went to Emmaus. 24:30 as they sat to eat, he took bread. 24:34 the Lord has appeared to Simon. 24:39 handle me and see
John 20:14 Mary saw Jesus and didn't know it was Him. 20:17 touch me not, for I am not yet ascended. 20:19 the same day at evening, Jesus came and stood in the midst.

So we have a chronology of people who saw him on that first day.
Mary, the women, Simon, the two men and the eleven.
Mary was at dawn
the women shortly after
Simon at an unspecified time possibly just before they locked themselves in for the evening.
The two men as it was getting towards evening
the eleven after the two had returned when they sat down to eat.
Because of the order that Jesus appeared and what they did, the eleven were eating late as the two who went to Emmaus walked there, prepared to eat the evening meal and realised it was Jesus, then went back to Jerusalem, all before the eleven sat to eat.
So we have a big gap in time between Jesus meeting Mary and the women and meeting the two on the road to Emmaus.
Also note how the women touched Him. This supports the idea that what Jesus said to Mary was in lines with "don't hold on to me." It comes across very harsh as "Don't touch me". This clearly isn't evident in any of the other meetings with Jesus. However what is also missing from ALL of the other meetings with Jesus is the statement "I am not yet ascended to My Father, but say to my brothers I ascend unto My Father."
This is a different message that is given to Mary. Now Jesus appears to the other women and tell them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee. Why?
Because Jesus is going to His Father and then will meet them there.
This is when I see Jesus ascending to His Father.
However the eleven don't believe the women so then Jesus appears to the two on the road to Emmaus and tells them what they need to know. Jesus disappears. Where does He go? The obvious answer is back to His Father. Another possibility is to meet Simon. When the two get back to Jerusalem, they aren't believed nor Simon - so Jesus comes to them and rebukes them for their lack of faith. Then after spending time with them He disappears for 8 days. Where is He? Where He normally is when NOT on earth, with His Father.
Jesus is therefore teaching them all to believe each other and to believe His word, even when He isn't there. However, I don't believe that Jesus just went for a walk around Israel between His appearances. What makes most sense is that He went to His Father as He told Mary He would and as He told her to tell the eleven that is where He was and as He told the other women to tell the eleven to meet Him in Galilee. Because though of their unbelief He visited the two and when they weren't believed He showed Himself to all of them. Still Thomas didn't believe so He showed Himself again before finally meeting them in Galilee (that is those who went!)

TrustGzus
Apr 16th 2013, 07:38 PM
You say the obvious is answer, but it's not obvious that he ascended to the Father that day. I still don't see all the dots as necessarily connecting. I asked if any of you can point me to any resources because I've never read of anybody else teaching this. If it's obvious, my commentaries and systematic theologies and Bible dictionaries under the heading "ascension" or "wave offering" would be full of this. That doesn't mean it can't be true, but it would help the credibility of the view.

Vakeros
Apr 16th 2013, 08:03 PM
You say the obvious is answer, but it's not obvious that he ascended to the Father that day. I still don't see all the dots as necessarily connecting. I asked if any of you can point me to any resources because I've never read of anybody else teaching this. If it's obvious, my commentaries and systematic theologies and Bible dictionaries under the heading "ascension" or "wave offering" would be full of this. That doesn't mean it can't be true, but it would help the credibility of the view.
It is obvious as that is where He said He was going. He also told them to meet Him in Galilee. The eleven though didn't believe and so went to the two in Emmaus, who also weren't believed and so He went to them and told them off.
This is entirely separate to the point about the firstfruit where every mention of it in the OT refers to the same day as He rose and the NT has us a sfirstfrui because He was the firstfruit.
I don't particularly care about others teaching this. I don't even know or check. I do read commentaries occasionally, but I always try to look at things logically, simply and in accordance with His word first and then commentaries about 5th or 6th. The question is, is it contrary to the Bible. The answer is no it isn't, in fact the opposite is the case.
Do any of your commentaries even speculate as to where Jesus was? Have you ever thought about it? Without thinking what is your natural assumption as to where Jesus is? Mine is that He is with the Father, my following thought is that He is with us. If He isn't with us then He is with the Father. This is pretty much assumed throughout history, before He was born of Mary and where He is now. Why is it changed during the 40 days except that He makes a public ascension?
His words tie into a simple patter of telling the disciples where to go. He even told them before He died that they should go to Galilee, but they ignored Mary and the other women so He had to come to Jerusalem and tell them off.

Meditator
Apr 17th 2013, 02:47 PM
This phrase, found in John 20:17 has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Would anyone like to offer an opinion as to why Jesus said this to Mary?

I think - but this is speculation and not doctrine - that Jesus went to heaven to sprinkle His blood on the mercy seat in heaven. I studied this a bit years ago, but I cannot recall the detail. I'm getting old. :( As for the reason why they should not touch Him ... Maybe it's like the question, If He would have had lunch with His disciples in John 20 and He disappeared like He appeared, would the lunch have stuck to the wall where He went out and slithered down? :saint: What kind of body did He have and will we get the same kind of body one day?

Vakeros
Apr 17th 2013, 03:38 PM
I think - but this is speculation and not doctrine - that Jesus went to heaven to sprinkle His blood on the mercy seat in heaven. I studied this a bit years ago, but I cannot recall the detail. I'm getting old. :( As for the reason why they should not touch Him ... Maybe it's like the question, If He would have had lunch with His disciples in John 20 and He disappeared like He appeared, would the lunch have stuck to the wall where He went out and slithered down? :saint: What kind of body did He have and will we get the same kind of body one day?
I'm pretty certain He already had His resurrected body at this point, so He would have been able to eat, just as He did that evening.
For me it has become clear that He went to the Father, not because He said "Don't touch" (or don't cling/hold me), nor because He told Mary "for I am going to the Father", but because He told Mary to tell the apostles "go to my brothers and tell them 'I am ascending to My Father...'. He told the women "go tell my brothers to go to Galilee and I will see them there." This being the same message as the angel.
So Jesus was telling the disciples through the women that He was going to the Father and would then see them in Galilee.

TrustGzus
Apr 17th 2013, 06:13 PM
It is obvious as that is where He said He was going. He also told them to meet Him in Galilee. The eleven though didn't believe and so went to the two in Emmaus, who also weren't believed and so He went to them and told them off.

Yes, Jesus said he was going to Father. It is not obvious that it was right then and not a reference to 40 days later.


This is entirely separate to the point about the firstfruit where every mention of it in the OT refers to the same day as He rose and the NT has us a sfirstfrui because He was the firstfruit.

As I read Scripture, it seems pretty clear firstfruit refers to his resurrection, not an unrecorded ascension.


I don't particularly care about others teaching this. I don't even know or check. I do read commentaries occasionally, but I always try to look at things logically, simply and in accordance with His word first and then commentaries about 5th or 6th. The question is, is it contrary to the Bible. The answer is no it isn't, in fact the opposite is the case.
Do any of your commentaries even speculate as to where Jesus was? Have you ever thought about it? Without thinking what is your natural assumption as to where Jesus is? Mine is that He is with the Father, my following thought is that He is with us. If He isn't with us then He is with the Father. This is pretty much assumed throughout history, before He was born of Mary and where He is now. Why is it changed during the 40 days except that He makes a public ascension?
His words tie into a simple patter of telling the disciples where to go. He even told them before He died that they should go to Galilee, but they ignored Mary and the other women so He had to come to Jerusalem and tell them off.

Here's the reason I bring up dictionaries, theologies and commentaries. I have no problem with listing them as 5th or 6th in your list. Vakeros, you and I are two of billions of Christians that have lived. If I have an idea, and I can't find others that back that idea, then while I could be correct, that makes me stop and step back and precede very cautiously and humbly. Why does no one else teach this? Why can't I find my idea in the church fathers or in any scholar down the centuries up to and including today?

You are presenting an ascension that is not clearly taught in the Scripture. You are reading between the lines. For me, if that's my idea, that's a flag to me that I can't find other support.

Where was Jesus? Who knows? We know he appeared to James because Paul tells us. The gospels don't record it. The gospels don't record every minute of his life and who he appeared to. Maybe he appeared to Mary, his mother, to comfort her. No one records an appearing to her. Why not read that between the lines? Paul's list of appearances may not be exhaustive.

Again, the point being, God didn't give us every minute. I won't speak where the Bible is silent. If multiple ascensions were the case, God sure could made that a lot clearer.

I said earlier that the case was unconvincing so we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm repeating this because we' re just going back and forth and I'm truly listening to you, but I don't see anything convincing in the case. I see what to me looks like a lot of conjecture.

John146
Apr 17th 2013, 07:47 PM
I will ask you the same question I asked TrustGzus.

then he hath waved the sheaf before* Jehovah for your acceptance; on the morrow of the sabbath doth the priest wave it. Lev. 23:11

* before: g) with prep
1) in front of, before, to the front of, in the presence of, in the face of, at the face or front of, from the presence of, from before, from before the face of

Do you see any semblance of fulfillment in that verse in John 20:17 on the morrow following the Sabbath following the crucifixion of Jesus?No. Not at all. There's certainly nothing in John 20 to indicate such a thing.

John146
Apr 17th 2013, 07:50 PM
You say the obvious is answer, but it's not obvious that he ascended to the Father that day.Not even close. Where is the scripture which teaches that He was going to ascend to heaven more than once? It seems clear to me that He was going to ascend bodily to heaven to the Father once and that event is recorded in Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9-11.

Vakeros
Apr 17th 2013, 09:24 PM
Yes, Jesus said he was going to Father. It is not obvious that it was right then and not a reference to 40 days later.
As I read Scripture, it seems pretty clear firstfruit refers to his resurrection, not an unrecorded ascension.
I agree it is about His resurrection. But what happens to the first born or the firstfruits? It is an offering to the Lord. It is given to the Lord after it bears fruit - not beforehand. So Jesus is an offering beforehand for us, but then as firstfruits He is also an offering to the Lord for this. Jesus fulfills both roles as firstborn of creation.
For me though that is a side issue.


Here's the reason I bring up dictionaries, theologies and commentaries. I have no problem with listing them as 5th or 6th in your list. Vakeros, you and I are two of billions of Christians that have lived. If I have an idea, and I can't find others that back that idea, then while I could be correct, that makes me stop and step back and precede very cautiously and humbly. Why does no one else teach this? Why can't I find my idea in the church fathers or in any scholar down the centuries up to and including today?
You are presenting an ascension that is not clearly taught in the Scripture. You are reading between the lines. For me, if that's my idea, that's a flag to me that I can't find other support.
I don't know why no-one else in your commentaries mention it and I can understand it raising a flag for you and making you stop and think. That is fine. However you haven't addressed my last point. Jesus didn't only tell Mary "Don't touch me for I am going to the Father" which you can argue could be a clinging thought as in fact you have. The key is what message was meant to be given to the disciples. The message for the disciples was of two parts -
part a) Tell my brothers to go to Galilee where I will meet them. - this message is given both by the angels and by Jesus to the women.
part b) Tell my brothers I go to My Father.
Now why does Jesus have Mary tell them part b) if He was going to see them in Galilee before part b) happens? There is no reason for it. Nor did either part need to be told them if He was just going to appear to them that evening. Jesus didn't just tell Mary He was going to the Father, but also to take the message to His brothers that He was going to the Father and then would meet with them in Galilee.


Where was Jesus? Who knows? We know he appeared to James because Paul tells us. The gospels don't record it. The gospels don't record every minute of his life and who he appeared to. Maybe he appeared to Mary, his mother, to comfort her. No one records an appearing to her. Why not read that between the lines? Paul's list of appearances may not be exhaustive. Again, the point being, God didn't give us every minute. I won't speak where the Bible is silent. If multiple ascensions were the case, God sure could made that a lot clearer. I said earlier that the case was unconvincing so we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm repeating this because we' re just going back and forth and I'm truly listening to you, but I don't see anything convincing in the case. I see what to me looks like a lot of conjecture.
There is very little conjecture. I agree not every minute is accounted for during the gospels, however while He was alive the assumption is He was with them unless we are told otherwise. However during the 40 days, the assumption is He wasn't with them except when we are told. This is the way it is written and expressed, by the Gospel writers, and by Paul. No one writes as if He was with them mainly - instead they record appearances. Maybe not all - we don't know.
However for me it is clear that Jesus told them that He was going to the Father and would then see them in Galilee. If you can give a reasonable explanation as to why He told Mary to tell them He was going to the Father i would like to hear it. I bet there isn't one in your commentaries. Matthew Henry basically says that the message she is to bring is the same message she was given that they shouldn't expect Him to remain - yet that isn't the full message.
If you find you can't accept this that s your choice. I see scriptural reasons to believe that Jesus ascended then and no scriptural reason that He could not have ascended then (or shortly after seeing the women)
Can you see a scriptural reason why He couldn't have ascended then? If not then you are simply adhering to tradition and not being open to what the words say in their plain simple meaning. Of course if you can see a scriptural reason why He couldn't have ascended then please state it. Otherwise my thinking is as valid as any other and as likely to be true.

John146
Apr 17th 2013, 09:31 PM
Can you see a scriptural reason why He couldn't have ascended then? If not then you are simply adhering to tradition and not being open to what the words say in their plain simple meaning. Of course if you can see a scriptural reason why He couldn't have ascended then please state it. Otherwise my thinking is as valid as any other and as likely to be true.Scripture does not teach that He would ascend more than once. Where does it teach that? Where does it record that? It doesn't. It only speaks of Him bodily ascending once and that event is recorded in Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9-11. I see no basis whatsoever for believing that He had bodily ascended to heaven before that.

Vakeros
Apr 17th 2013, 10:01 PM
Scripture does not teach that He would ascend more than once. Where does it teach that? Where does it record that? It doesn't. It only speaks of Him bodily ascending once and that event is recorded in Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9-11. I see no basis whatsoever for believing that He had bodily ascended to heaven before that.
Scripture teaches that in the words Mary is to take to the disciples.
It also teaches that through the OT regarding first fruits.

percho
Apr 17th 2013, 10:16 PM
No. Not at all. There's certainly nothing in John 20 to indicate such a thing.

A. Do you think the sheaf of firstfruits of Lev. 23:11 was speaking about Christ as the firstfruits from the dead of 1 Cor. 15:23?
B. Was this morrow after the Sabbath spoken of in Lev. 23:11 the exact same day of the year as the day of which Jesus told Mary, do not touch/cling to me?
C. Was Jesus on that day that morrow after the Sabbath, priest after the order of Melchisedec being God had raised him from the dead according to Heb. 5:5-10?
D. Could, according to scholars, people who have actually studied Hebrew, the word translated, "before," as in, before the LORD, in Lev. 23:11 have the meaning of face to face presence?

If Lev. 23:11 is speaking of something that took place in the life of Jesus of Nazareth on the day following the weekly Sabbath following the death of Jesus. Exactly what do you think Lev. 23:11 meant relative to Jesus on that day?

percho
Apr 17th 2013, 10:32 PM
Scripture does not teach that He would ascend more than once. Where does it teach that? Where does it record that? It doesn't. It only speaks of Him bodily ascending once and that event is recorded in Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9-11. I see no basis whatsoever for believing that He had bodily ascended to heaven before that.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

On the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, fifty days following the day Jesus said to Mary, Don't touch/'cling to me for I have not yet ascended to my Father, Peter preached this sermon.

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

However the night following the, "Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to me Father," he met with the twelve sans, Thomas and; Then said Jesus to them again, Peace unto you: as Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: And according to Luke: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

I will let you make up your own mind.

dianegcook
Apr 18th 2013, 01:46 AM
Hi Everyone
You all have a very interesting discussion going on here.
Everyone had great points..

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in, if that is okay?

When Mary and others had gone unto the tomb, the Angels had told her, them, that He, had RISEN.
And my beliefs also are :
TOUCH ME NOT, meaning, attach,
other words, DON'T HOLD ME UP, GOT THINGS TO DO, lol.
And I am in full agreement about the firstfruits.
On this day, the morrow after the Sabbath, the high priest would be waving the sheaf of the firstfruits before the Lord.
(Lev.23:10,11)
while He, the firstfruits from the dead (1Cor.15:23) would be fulfilling the type by presenting Himself before the Father.

Thus, another Law fulfilled, Amen

Great insights Everyone

John146
Apr 18th 2013, 04:17 PM
Scripture teaches that in the words Mary is to take to the disciples.
It also teaches that through the OT regarding first fruits.That is quite a stretch. Can you show anything specifically teaching that Jesus would ascend to heaven bodily more than once?

John146
Apr 18th 2013, 04:25 PM
A. Do you think the sheaf of firstfruits of Lev. 23:11 was speaking about Christ as the firstfruits from the dead of 1 Cor. 15:23?I believe it can be seen as foreshadowing Christ being the firstfruits of the dead. What does this have to do with this discussion?


B. Was this morrow after the Sabbath spoken of in Lev. 23:11 the exact same day of the year as the day of which Jesus told Mary, do not touch/cling to me?I'm not sure. Why does this matter?


C. Was Jesus on that day that morrow after the Sabbath, priest after the order of Melchisedec being God had raised him from the dead according to Heb. 5:5-10?Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking here or why you're asking it.


D. Could, according to scholars, people who have actually studied Hebrew, the word translated, "before," as in, before the LORD, in Lev. 23:11 have the meaning of face to face presence?

If Lev. 23:11 is speaking of something that took place in the life of Jesus of Nazareth on the day following the weekly Sabbath following the death of Jesus. Exactly what do you think Lev. 23:11 meant relative to Jesus on that day?It doesn't have anything to do with Him ascending bodily to heaven more than once. How are you coming to the conclusion that Lev 23:11 is evidence for Him having bodily ascended to heaven more than once?

John146
Apr 18th 2013, 04:31 PM
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

On the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, fifty days following the day Jesus said to Mary, Don't touch/'cling to me for I have not yet ascended to my Father, Peter preached this sermon.

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

However the night following the, "Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to me Father," he met with the twelve sans, Thomas and; Then said Jesus to them again, Peace unto you: as Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: And according to Luke: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

I will let you make up your own mind.If you're suggesting that Jesus breathing on them and telling them to receive the Holy Spirit was the fulfillment of John 16:7 then I disagree. In John 16:7 He was speaking of sending the Comforter to them while being away from them. That is not what we see being described in what you quoted above. The fulfillment of John 16:7 occurred on the day of Pentecost. What the verse you quoted describes is Jesus giving them a foretaste of what was going to occur on the day of Pentecost. It's similar to His transfiguration when He gave Peter, James and John a foretaste of His glory that will be revealed more fully on the day He returns in the future.

Vakeros
Apr 18th 2013, 04:59 PM
That is quite a stretch. Can you show anything specifically teaching that Jesus would ascend to heaven bodily more than once?
It is no stretch at all. What did Jesus tell Mary to tell the disciples? He told Mary to tell the disciples "I am going to the Father". He then told the women, tell the disciples "I will see them in Galilee". So we have a simple command from Jesus which says - in order from those He met to being:
I am going to the Father. I will meet you in Galilee.
Now that is before He appeared to any disciple. If as a disciple you here this message, before meeting Him then it is clearly saying - I am going to the Father. I will see you in Galilee.
We know though from Mark 16:13 that most of the disciples didn't believe the women or the two who had gone to Emmaus, and so Jesus appeared to them in Jerusalem. Note though He doesn't tell them - I am going to the Father - at least it isn't recorded. This suggests that Jesus has gone to the Father and now meets them. Nothing now about not touching Him either. Nothing about the disciples not clinging to Him. If you disregard that Mary was told to tell the disciples that Jesus was going to the Father, then I would agree it is less clear, but these words weren't spoken only to her, but also words for them.
The other ascensions wouldn't have been visible and possibly are where those who believe in a pre-trib rapture might get their idea of an invisible rapture from.
As scripture doesn't state specifically this is what He did we can't say 100% that He definitely did ascend to the Father that day. However, the scripture does point to that being the case.
A simple analogy to make it clear. I meet your friend I tell them to tell you that I am going to London. I then meet another friend of yours and I tell them I will see you at the Edinburgh Festival. You would automatically take the messages to mean that I am going to London, but will then meet you in Edinburgh. The second place is the place I am telling you I will meet you. The first is somewhere I am going first. If I were going to London second, then I would see you in Edinburgh and tell you there that I am going to London.
We can see this order in Jesus' conversation with Mary and then the women.
Now coming back to the OP, having shown that Jesus' words show that He was going to ascend to the Father and then would meet them in Galilee. Can you see anything in scripture that states that this couldn't happen. Obviously we have the fact of their disbelief so Jesus met them that night and again 8 days later, before meeting them in Galilee, but is there anything that shows this could NOT have happened.
There is in addition the supporting point from the OT of the role of the firstborn and firstfruits. We know the firstfruits are offered to the Lord and the celebration of this is the wave offering held 49 days before Pentecost. This just happens to coincide with when Jesus was raised from the dead and met Mary. When Jesus met the disciples it was now 48 days until Pentecost. This the day after the firstfruits offering as giving by the priest waved before the Lord.
I actually see a mirror happening here. How long between Jesus' public ascension and the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost? 10 days. How long before the 12 had all seen Jesus before going to Galilee? 10 days. Could just be coincidence, but unbelief isn't to be treated lightly.
What the disciples should have done is believed Mary and the women and gone straight to Galilee.

percho
Apr 19th 2013, 01:37 AM
I believe it can be seen as foreshadowing Christ being the firstfruits of the dead. What does this have to do with this discussion?

I'm not sure. Why does this matter?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking here or why you're asking it.

It doesn't have anything to do with Him ascending bodily to heaven more than once. How are you coming to the conclusion that Lev 23:11 is evidence for Him having bodily ascended to heaven more than once?

Does the fulfillment of Lev 23:11 which took place on the morrow after the Sabbath following the Passover. The sheaf of the firstfruits = (Christ the firstfruits from the dead) was waved before, having the meaning of, face to face, in the presence, of the LORD, = (have not yet ascended), I have not yet on this day of acceptance been face to face with my Father. Was this morning Jesus was speaking to Mary not the very same day of the year in which the sheaf was waved? The morrow after the Sabbath following Passover? The day the firstfruits were to be waved in the face of God to be accepted for the people?

Who waved the sheaf. The high priest of the Arron priesthood who was the representative of Christ the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Christ, the High Priest, waved before, came face to face in the presence of his Father, himself the firstfruits from the dead, on the morrow after the Sabbath following the Passover, to be accepted for us, just as it was told to be done in Lev.23:11.

What do you think Lev 23:11 was a shadow of? Did it have to be fulfilled? How was it fulfilled?

Forget about John 20 and tell me how the fulfillment of Lev 23:11 took place.

John146
Apr 19th 2013, 04:14 PM
You guys (Vakeros and percho) can believe what you will about this. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can't follow your logic at all. I have nothing to add to what I've already said.

Vakeros
Apr 19th 2013, 04:26 PM
You guys (Vakeros and percho) can believe what you will about this. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can't follow your logic at all. I have nothing to add to what I've already said.
Sorry I couldn't explain any better.

John146
Apr 19th 2013, 05:43 PM
Sorry I couldn't explain any better.It's okay. I do appreciate the time and effort that you took to try to explain it. We just think very differently, so sometimes I'm just not able to follow your train of thought. Nothing wrong with just agreeing to disagree sometimes.

TrustGzus
Apr 19th 2013, 07:21 PM
It's okay. I do appreciate the time and effort that you took to try to explain it. We just think very differently, so sometimes I'm just not able to follow your train of thought. Nothing wrong with just agreeing to disagree sometimes.

Vakeros, I second what John146 says here. Thanks for the time you put in to this.

Vakeros
Apr 19th 2013, 07:36 PM
Vakeros, I second what John146 says here. Thanks for the time you put in to this.
Your welcome. It has now led me off on a tangent for a sermon on Sunday. I will be preaching along the lines of John 14 - I am going to the Father.

percho
Apr 19th 2013, 08:39 PM
I appreciate the time and the post's of all who post. The very reason I would appreciate thoughts on the following. And as stated Forget about John 20:17

Forget about John 20 and tell me, how and when did the fulfillment of Lev 23:11 take place. Or has it?

TrustGzus
Apr 19th 2013, 09:28 PM
I appreciate the time and the post's of all who post. The very reason I would appreciate thoughts on the following. And as stated Forget about John 20:17

Forget about John 20 and tell me, how and when did the fulfillment of Lev 23:11 take place. Or has it?

Percho, I think we should let this be. I will answer your request though. I'm going to paste not just one verse, but a paragraph or so.


Leviticus 23:9–14 (NIV)


Offering the Firstfruits
9*The LORD said to Moses, 10*“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. 11*He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. 12*On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, 13*together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah* of the finest flour mixed with olive oil—a food offering presented to the LORD, a pleasing aroma—and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine. 14*You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.


This is a literal, direct command given to the Hebrews. I don't see a need to find a fulfillment in any and every single verse in the OT. Sure, there are many. That's one of Matthew's main reason for writing. I'm not compelled by the idea that I must find a New Testament fulfillment of some sort of prophesy or shadowing of Leviticus 23:11.

percho
Apr 20th 2013, 06:55 PM
Percho, I think we should let this be. I will answer your request though. I'm going to paste not just one verse, but a paragraph or so.



This is a literal, direct command given to the Hebrews. I don't see a need to find a fulfillment in any and every single verse in the OT. Sure, there are many. That's one of Matthew's main reason for writing. I'm not compelled by the idea that I must find a New Testament fulfillment of some sort of prophesy or shadowing of Leviticus 23:11.


Leviticus 23:9–14 (NIV)


Offering the Firstfruits
9*The LORD said to Moses, 10*“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. 11*He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. 12*On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, 13*together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah* of the finest flour mixed with olive oil—a food offering presented to the LORD, a pleasing aroma—and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine. 14*You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.

Will be happy to let it drop.

Of course if this ins't fulfilled in Christ there is no numbering of weeks to Pentecost and no receiving of the Holy Spirit.

TrustGzus
Apr 21st 2013, 03:30 AM
Sounds good. We could go on. I don't want to reply to your bolded part and your final sentence and drag it out.

Grace & peace to you, Brother.

Joe

Ta-An
Apr 21st 2013, 06:34 PM
Percho nailed it in my opinion. The "ascension" to heaven took place 40 days after the resurrection. Yet, when he rose he told Mary, "touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my Father." So she couldn't touch him BECAUSE he hadn't ascended, yet, 8 days later he is telling Thomas to "touch me." This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons I find the lack of studying the Feasts to be a detriment to understanding the fulness of Mesisah's work. The Feasts were designed to paint a picture of his work.

Passover - Redemption of His people
Unleavened Bread - Life without sin
Wave Offering/ Firstfruits - the first raised from the dead
Trumpets - the gather of all of God's people to one fold
Atonement - the final removal of all sin, perfection
Tabernacles - The Wedding Supper of the Lamb
(This was abbreviated of course)

On the day after the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread, the High priest would go and wave before God the wave sheaf of the firstfruits of the spring harvest. (Lev. 23:11) The picture is very clear... Jesus as the HIGH Priest went before the Father and waved HIMSELF as the firstfruits, and was obviously accepted as such. Interesting,,,never seen it that way...Yet, how would you see Jesus fulfilling the wave offer :hmm:

Vakeros
Apr 21st 2013, 08:02 PM
Interesting,,,never seen it that way...Yet, how would you see Jesus fulfilling the wave offer :hmm:

Not sure who the question was addressed to, but my take on it is that two-fold:
1) He is the fulfillment of the Festivals - at His first coming the Spring Festivals, so Passoevr, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits and Pentecost.
2) The firstfruits is presented to the Lord on the day after the Sabbath 49 days before Pentecost. Jesus rose from the dead as firstfruits on that day and ascended to the Father.

Bishop Dave
May 14th 2014, 06:12 PM
At the time Mary had seen Him, His resurrection was not complete. Though re-animated, this body was still considered dead because it was incomplete. A complete human consists of a body, soul, and spirit. Touching a dead body was considered unclean according to the law. His body had been raised by the Holy Ghost (Rom 8:10) in order to prevent decay (Ps 16:10 & John 11:39). His soul was still in the heart of the earth (Eph 4:8-10), for the only sign to be given to prove He was who He claimed to be was being in the heart of the earth 3 days and 3 nights (Mat 12:40). His spirit was with the Father (Eccl 12:7). On that evening, when He appeared, the 3 days and three nights were fulfilled and the soul did not remain in hell (Ps 16:10), He had ascended to reunite with the spirit that had returned to God as written in Eccl 12:7. The resurrection was complete. The whole Human form of Jesus, Body, Soul, and Spirit, was standing in front of them. That morning, He couldn't be touched because the resurrection was not completed. That evening He told them to "handle me", showing them His wounds (Luke 24:38-39). The "ascending to the Father" He spoke of was not the ascension recorded in Acts, but an ascension that occurred between that morning and that evening. Jesus died completely: the body without breathe was buried, the soul descended to hell (the place where all souls go to await judgment), and the spirit returned to God as soon as the last breath was taken (John 19:30, Mat 27:50). He also was completely resurrected. His complete death was necessary to fulfill the sacrifice for sin. The wages of sin is death. Jesus did not sin, yet was put to death anyway. His resurrection, therefore, provides the human race a way to circumvent the original curse placed on them by Adam's sin (Rom 6:23)

I hope this helps.

The Real Milk Man
May 16th 2014, 12:33 AM
...... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

......

:)

Matthew 13:16

:)