Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 20:17 - 20:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_20:17-18. Mary sees: it is the Lord. But affected and transported in the highest degree by His miraculous appearance, she knows not: is it He bodily, actually come forth out of the grave,—again become corporeally alive and risen? Or is it, on the other hand, His glorified spirit, which has been already raised up to God, and which again has descended to appear to her, so that He has only the bodily form, not the corporeal substance? Therefore, to have the certainty which her love-filled heart needed in this moment of sudden, profoundest emotion, she would take hold of, handle Him, in order by feeling to obtain the conviction which the eye alone, in presence of this marvellous happiness, could not give her. This, however, Jesus prevents: touch me not! and gazing into her soul, gives her, by His own assurance, the certainty which she seeks, adding, as a reason for that repulse: for I am not yet ascended to the Father, therefore, as yet, no glorified spirit who has again come down from heaven whither he had ascended.[261] She would touch the Lord, as Thomas did subsequently, not, however, from unbelief, but because her faith strives after a definiteness with which her love cannot dispense. Only this interpretation, which is followed also by Baeumlein, strictly corresponds to the words generally, especially also to the ΓΆΡ , which assigns a reason, and imports no scenic accompaniments into the incident which are not in the passage; for ἍΠΤΟΥ leaves the reader to suppose nothing else that Mary desired to do, save simply the mere ἍΠΤΕΣΘΑΙ , therefore no embracing and the like. But scenic accompaniments are imported, and go far beyond the simple ἍΠΤΟΥ , if it is assumed that Mary clasped the knees of Jesus (comp. the frequent ἅπτεσθαι γούνων in Homer, Od. α . 512, Ο . 76, Φ . 65, Ω . 357, et al.), and desired, as supplex, to manifest her προσκύνησις to Him, as to a Being already glorified and returned from God (my first edition), or as venerabunda (so Lücke, Maier, Lange, Hilgenfeld, comp. Ewald). This could not be expected to be gathered by the reader from the mere noli me tangere; John must, in that case, have said, μὴ ἅπτου μου γονάτων , or ΜῊ ΓΟΝΥΠΕΤΕῖ ΜΕ ,, or ΜῊ ΠΡΟΣΚΎΝΗΣΌΝ ΜΟΙ , or the like, or have previously related what Mary desired,[262] to which it may be added, that Jesus elsewhere does not refuse the ΠΡΟΣΚΎΝΗΣΙς ; comp. especially Mat_28:9. He does not, indeed, according to Luk_24:39, repel even the handling, but invites thereto; but in that instance, irrespective of the doubtfulness of the account, in a historical point of view, it should be noted (1) that Jesus, in Luke, loc. cit. (comp. Joh_20:24 ff.), has to do with the direct doubt of His disciples in the reality of His bodily appearance, which doubt he must expressly censure; (2) that in the present passage, a woman, and one belonging to the narrower circle of His loving fellowship, is alone with Him, to whom He might be disposed, from considerations of sacred decorum, not to permit the ἅπτεσθαι desired in the midst of overflowing excitement. How entirely different was the situation with the sinning woman, Luk_7:37 (in answer to Brückner’s objection)! Along with the correct interpretation of ἍΠΤΕΣΘΑΙ , in itself, others have missed the further determination of the sense of the expression, either in this way: Jesus forbade the handling, because His wounds still pained Him (Paulus)! or: because His new, even corporeally glorified life was still so delicate, that He was bound to keep at a distance from anything that would disturb it (so Olshausen, following Schleiermacher, Festpred. V. p. 303); or: because He was still bodiless, and first after His return to the Father was again to obtain a body (Weisse). There is thus imported what is certainly not contained in the words (Paulus), what is a thoroughly arbitrary presupposition (Paulus, Olshausen), and what is in complete contradiction to the N. T. idea of the risen Christ (Weisse). Others take the saying as an urging to hasten on with that which is immediately necessary;[263] she is not to detain herself with the ἅπτεσθαι , since she can see and touch Him still at a later period (so, with a different explanation in other respects of ἍΠΤΕΣΘΑΙ itself, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and several others); by which, however, an arbitrarily adopted sense, and one not in keeping with the subsequent ἈΝΑΒΑΊΝΩ , Κ . Τ . Λ ., would be introduced into the confirmatory clause, nay, the prospect opened up, in reference to the future tangere, would be inappropriate. Others, that Jesus demands a greater proffer of honour; for as His body has already become divine, the ordinary touching of feet and mode of intercourse is no longer applicable (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Jansen, and several others). How inept in itself, and illogical in reference to the following οὔπω γὰρ , κ . τ . λ .! Others: it was a refusal of the enjoyment now sought in His appearance, which as yet is untimely, and is to take place not “terrestri contactu,” but spirituali (Melanchthon, Calvin, Aretius, Grotius, and several others; substantially also, but under various modifications, Neander, De Wette, Tholuck, Luthardt, Lange, Baumgarten, Hengstenberg, Godet),[264] by which, however, the proper contents, constituting the essence of the supposed sense, is arbitrarily read between the lines. Others still differently, as e.g. Ammon: Jesus desired to spare Mary the touch of one levitically unclean! and Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 318: the refusal of the reverential touch was made by Jesus, for the reason that He was not yet the man again united with the Logos, but at present only the Man raised again from His grave.[265] Both interpretations are entirely foreign to the meaning. Scholten’s view (p. 172) is also an impossibility, as if Jesus had said οὔπω μὲν γὰρ , κ . τ . λ ., as one already glorified. Conjectures even have been attempted; Vogel: μὴ σὺ πτόου , Gersdorf and Schulthess: ΜΟΥ ἍΠΤΟΥ , or ΣΎ ΜΟΥ ἍΠΤΥ .
ΠΡῸς ΤΟῪς ἈΔΕΛΦ . ΜΟΥ ] This designation of the disciples as His beloved associates in the filial relation to God, through His now fulfilled earthly work (comp. πρὸς τ . πατέρα , κ . τ . λ .), is not at all intended to serve the purpose of tranquillizing them on account of their flight (Bengel, Luthardt, comp. Luther). Of this the text contains no indication, all the less that the expression is found only in the address to Mary, but not as to be communicated to the disciples. Rather has the designation its reference to Mary herself, who is to gather from it, that the loving fellowship of the Lord with His own, far removed from being dissolved by the new conditions of this miraculous manifestation, rather continues, indeed, now first (comp. Joh_15:15) has its completion. Note the like expression in Mat_28:10, where, however (see in loc.), the pointing to Galilce is an essential variation in the tradition; against which Luthardt, without reason, objects that Mat_28:10 refers to the promise, Mat_26:32. Certainly; but this promise already has, as its historical presupposition, the appearance of the Lord before the disciples, which was to be expected in Galilee, as the same also, Mat_28:16 ff., is actually set forth as the first and only one in Matthew.
ἀναβαίνω , κ . τ . λ .] The near and certain future. To announce this consequence of His resurrection to the disciples, must be all the more on His heart, since He so frequently designates His death as His departure to the Father, and had associated with it the personal hope of the disciples. That should not be different through His resurrection; it was only the passage from death to the heavenly glory. As to the mode and way of the ascension ἀναβ . contains nothing. The added κ . πατέρα ὑμῶν and Κ . ΘΕῸΝ ὙΜῶΝ was, however, intended to confirm the hope of the disciples in respect of their own ΣΥΝΔΟΞΑΣῆΝΑΙ , since in truth, in virtue of their fellowship with Christ, the Father of Christ was also become their Father, the God of Christ (to whom Christ solely belongs and serves, comp. Mat_27:47, and see, in detail, on Eph_1:17) also their God (comp. on Rom_1:8); that is now, after the execution of the redemptive work, entirely accomplished, and will one day have also the fellowship in δόξα as its final result, comp. Rom_8:17; Rom_8:29. Note in ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ , Κ . Τ . Λ ., that the article does not recur, but embraces all in the unity of the Person. To understand the pres. ἈΝΑΒ ., however, of that which ensues forthwith and immediately, and in the following way (Baur, p. 222 ff., and Neutest. Theol. p. 381, Hilgenfeld, and others), that already the appearance that follows is to be placed after the ascension (comp. Ewald, who understands the pres. of the ascension as already impending), is decisively opposed by the fact of the later appearance, Joh_20:26-27, if this is not given up as actual history, or if the extravagant notion of many ascensions is not, with Kinkel, laid hold of.
[261] In οὔπω γὰρ , κ . τ . λ ., is expressed, therefore, not “the dread of permitting a contact, and that which was thereby intended, before the ascension to the Father should be accomplished” (Brückner); but Jesus means thereby to say that Mary with her ἅπτεσθαι already presupposed in Him a condition which had not yet commenced, because it must have been preceded by His ascension to the Father.
[262] This also in answer to Baur, who thinks that Jesus was precisely on the point of ascending (see on ver. 18), and therefore did not wish to allow Himself to be detained by Mary falling at His feet. Comp. Köstlin, p. 190; Kinkel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 597 ff.—Among the ancient interpreters I find the strict verbal rendering of ἅπτεσθαι most fully preserved in Nonnus, who even refers it only to the clothing: Mary had approached her right hand to His garment; then Jesus says: ἐμῶν μὴ ψαῦε χιτώνων .
[263] At this conclusion Hofmann also arrives, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 524: Mary is not, in her joy at again having Jesus, to approach and hang upon Him, as if He had appeared in order to remain, but was to carry to the disciples the joyful message, etc. But even with this turn the words do not apply, and the thought, especially that He had appeared not to remain, would be so enigmatically expressed by οὔπω γὰρ , κ . τ . λ ., that it could only be discovered by the way, in nowise indicated, of an indirect conclusion. That ἅπτεοθαι may denote attach oneself, fasten oneself on (comp. Godet: “s’attacher à”), is well known; but just as frequently, and in the N. T. throughout, it means take hold of, touch, handle, also in 1Co_7:1; 1Jn_5:18.
[264] Melanchthon: “Reprehenditur mulier, quod desiderio humano expetit complexum Christi et somniat eum revixisse ut rursus inter amicos vivat ut antea …; nondum scit, fide praesentiam invisibilis Christi deinceps agnoscendam esse.” So substantially also Luther. According to Luthardt, Mary would grasp, seize, hold Jesus fast, in order to enjoy His fellowship and satisfy her love. This Jesus denies to her, because at present it was not yet time for that; abiding fellowship as hitherto will first again commence when He shall have ascended, consequently shall have returned in the Paraclete; it will not then be brought about corporeally, but the fellowship will be in the Spirit. According to Baumgarten, a renewed bodily fellowship is promised to Mary, but completely freed from sin, and sanctified by Christ’s blood. According to Hengstenberg, Mary would embrace Jesus in the opinion that now the wall of separation between Him and her has fallen; but the Lord repels her, for as yet His glorification is not completed, the wall of separation still in part subsists, etc. Godet: “It is not yet the moment for thee to attach thyself to me, as if I were already restored to you. For I am not as yet arrived at the state in which I shall be able to contract with my disciples the superior relation which I have promised to you;” thus substantially like Luthardt.
[265] In his ZeitsChr. 1868, p. 436, Hilgenfeld modifies his interpretation to the extent that Jesus, as the Risen One, did not as yet desire to be the object of the reverence which belonged to Him as Lord of the Church (Php_2:10). This was then first to begin, when, after His ascension, He should appear before His believing ones as Dispenser of the Spirit (Joh_6:62-63). But even thus the points to be understood are imported from a distance.