John 20:17

Jesus’ next words help us understand that Mary also embraced Jesus. Mary probably prostrated herself before Jesus and embraced His lower legs (cf. Matthew 28:9).

Jesus’ words are very difficult to interpret. The translators rendered them, "Touch me not" (AV), "Stop clinging to me" (NASB), and "Do not hold on to me" (NIV). The meaning depends to some extent on what Jesus meant when He said, "For I have not yet ascended to the Father."

One view is that Jesus’ second statement connects with what follows it rather than with what precedes it. [Note: S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, p. 356.] Since Jesus had not yet ascended to His Father (Gr. anabebeka, perfect tense) Mary should go to the disciples and tell them that He was not yet ascending (Gr. anabaino, present tense). According to this view the initial prohibition against touching Jesus stands alone. The weaknesses of this view are two. First, there is no other example of this anticipatory use of "for" (Gr. gar, translated "since") in the New Testament. Second, it fails to explain any reason for Jesus’ prohibition.

Advocates of a second view understand Jesus as telling Mary to release Him because she must go to the disciples with a message. [Note: M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, pp. 159-60, §476.] However it is very unusual for the preposition "for" (Gr. gar) to link a prohibition and an imperative. [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 642.] Furthermore this reading makes "for I have not yet ascended to the Father" a rather meaningless parenthetical remark.

A third view is that it was inappropriate for Mary to hold Jesus since He had not yet ascended to the Father, but it was appropriate for Thomas to touch Jesus (John 20:27). Therefore Jesus must have ascended to the Father and returned between His appearances to Mary and Thomas. [Note: Chafer, 4:118; 5:262-63; 7:20.] Yet there is no biblical evidence that Jesus ascended to the Father and returned from Him between these two appearances. Moreover it is unclear why ascending to the Father should make any difference in the disciples’ physical contact with Jesus’ body.

A fourth view regards Jesus’ statement as not expressing temporal sequence. Advocates regard it as a theological point instead. Jesus was contrasting His passing presence in His post-resurrection state with His permanent presence through the Spirit. [Note: Brown, 2:1014-15; Barrett, The Gospel . . ., p. 566.] What Jesus meant was that Mary should refrain from touching Him because even though He had not yet ascended to the Father He would do so shortly. The resurrection had introduced a new relationship between Jesus and His disciples in which physical contact was inappropriate. This view puts more emphasis on Jesus’ exaltation in His passion than the New Testament writers did, including John. Moreover it is impossible to dissociate Jesus’ statement from a sequence of events since His death, resurrection, and ascension did happen in sequence (cf. John 20:28-29). Finally this view fails to explain why Jesus permitted Thomas to touch Him (John 20:27) but did not allow Mary to do so.

The best explanation seems to be that Mary was holding onto Jesus as though she would never let Him go (cf. Matthew 28:9). Jesus told her to stop doing that or, if He knew she was about to do it, He told her not to do it. He was almost ready to disappear permanently. The reason she should release Him was that He had not yet ascended to the Father. He had other work to do first. Only in heaven would it be possible for loving believers such as Mary to maintain contact with Jesus forever. [Note: Cf. Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 644-45; Tenney, "John," p. 191; Blum, p. 342; Morris, pp. 742-43; Wiersbe, 1:390; Beasley-Murray, p. 376.] This view makes good sense of the text and harmonizes with Jesus’ invitation to Thomas (John 20:27). Thomas needed to touch Jesus to strengthen his faith. Mary needed to release Him because she did not have to fear losing Him.

The message that Mary was to carry to the disciples was that Jesus was going to return to the Father. She would obviously report that Jesus was alive, but Jesus wanted her to communicate more than that. Jesus had spoken of His ascension before (e.g., John 7:33; John 14:12; John 14:28; John 16:5; John 16:10; John 16:17; John 16:28). His disciples needed to understand that His death and resurrection had not wiped out these earlier predictions.

Jesus described the Father in a new way. He was Jesus’ Father, but He was also the disciples’ Father. Jesus did not say "our" Father. He and His disciples had a different relationship to the Father. Nevertheless they were all sons of the Father albeit in a different sense (cf. John 1:12-13; John 1:18; John 5:19-30). Therefore Jesus called the disciples His "brothers" here. The context clarifies that Jesus was referring to the disciples and not to His physical half-brothers (John 20:18). Likewise Jesus’ relationship to God was similar to, though not exactly the same as, the disciples’ relationship to God. The emphasis in Jesus’ statement was on the privileges that His disciples now shared with Him because of His death, resurrection, and ascension (cf. Romans 8:15-16; Hebrews 2:11-12).