John 20

John 20:17

"Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'""
Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)?
Contrasting Link: Luke 23:43

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The idea that Jesus contradicts himself (or the Gospels contradict themselves) concerning whether he had ascended to Paradise or not after his death on the cross is due to assumptions about Paradise as well as the need to contextualize.

Jesus says to the thief on the cross "Today you will be with me in Paradise". This was indeed true. For the thief was to die that same day on earth; but in paradise "today" is any day in this world, as Heaven is outside of time.

Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, according to the rendering of the King James translation, that he had not yet "ascended" to his Father. However, this could also be rendered "returned" to his Father.

Jesus was with God, and was God, before the beginning of the world (John 1 and Philippians 2:6-11). He left his heavenly glory and, while remaining fully God, became fully man. Later, God did exalt Jesus to the highest place once more, to the right hand of Himself (see Acts 7:56). This had not yet taken place in John 20:17. Jesus saying "for I have not yet returned to the Father" does not rule out the possibility that he was in heaven between his death and resurrection in "our time" (although Heaven is outside of time). By way of parallel (albeit an imperfect one), I do go to my original home and the area where I grew up without returning there. Returning as in myself being restored to what was.

However, a more likely understanding of the text has to do with the context. Another way to say, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not ascended to my Father. Go instead to my brothers...", would be, "Do not hang on to me Mary - I have not left you all yet. You will see me again. But now, I want you to go and tell my disciples that I am going to my Father soon, but not yet".

Both Islam and Christianity believe in the resurrection of the body, and both believe in the intermediate state. In Luke, Jesus dies, and his spirit ascended to Paradise (see vs. 46). In John, Jesus has been bodily resurrected, and in that state, he had not yet ascended to the Father.

The time factor makes this somewhat paradoxical but the texts are not mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction.

Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and God (John 20:17)?
Contrasting Link: Matthew 28:10

88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and God (John 20:17)?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks, 'What was Jesus' instruction for his disciples?' Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate this apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on the same day and there is no reason to believe that Jesus would give his disciples only one instruction.

This is another contradiction which depends upon the reader of Shabbir's book being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding that Sunday morning resurrection. (I say Sunday because it is the first day of the week) The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks of the group of women encountering the risen Jesus on their way back to tell the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb!? And then receiving the first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.

The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage, (to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment, due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Jesus and he gives her another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples.

Untouchable?
Contrasting Link: Matthew 28:9

Sometimes it is the case that the enemies of Christ actually read the Bible before making allegations about its writers being uninformed or contradictory. At other times, however, Bible critics, even prominent skeptics, make such assertions about various Bible passages that one cannot help but wonder what book they are reading (or if they are reading the Bible at all). Take, for example, an accusation that appears on a fairly well-known skeptic’s website. When commenting on Jesus’ statement to Mary Magdalene, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” (John 20:17), Steve Wells wrote:

> Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he hasn’t yet ascended—as if the touch of a woman would defile him and somehow prevent him from ascending into heaven. One wonders why he insisted that Thomas touch him later that evening (Jn. 20:27), and why he permitted his apostles to touch him and hold him by the feet before his ascension (Mt. 28:9). Was it OK to touch the risen Jesus? (2005).

Although the name of the site (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com) may initially leave the impression that Wells has meticulously poured over the pages of Scripture while writing his notes of criticism, remarks such as this one shed much light on how “carefully” he read his Bible before criticizing it.

First, the apostle Thomas did not come into physical contact with Jesus on the same day that Jesus instructed Mary Magdalene not to “touch” Him. In fact, only ten verses following Jesus’ instruction to Mary Magdalene, the apostle John wrote: “And after eight days His disciples were again inside…” (20:26, emp. added). It was at this time (eight days after appearing to Mary Magdalene) that Jesus told Thomas to examine the holes in His hands and side—not as Wells alleged, “later that evening” after Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

Second, Wells followed the erroneous statement about Thomas with another one, saying: “One wonders…why he [Jesus—EL] permitted his apostles to touch him and hold him by the feet before his ascension (Mt. 28:9)” (emp. added). Allegedly, if Jesus did not allow Mary Magdalene to touch Him (John 20:17), then He should not have permitted the apostles to touch and hold Him by the feet, as is supposedly recorded in Matthew 28:9. The problem is, Matthew 28:9 refers, not to the apostles, but to Jesus’ appearance to the women who had come to visit His tomb, as is confirmed by both the context and the use of feminine pronouns. [“Jesus met them (Greek autais), saying, ‘Rejoice!’ So they (Greek ai) came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him”—Matthew 28:9.] Had this Bible critic really taken the time to see what the passage was saying, surely he would not have made such elementary mistakes.

Third, considering how compassionate Jesus was to both men and women, it is blasphemous to insinuate that He was in some way intolerant of women and thought that they (as opposed to men) might defile His risen body. This was the Man Who touched the hand of Peter’s mother-in-law and healed her (Matthew 8:15), allowed a sick woman to touch the hem of His garment and be healed (Matthew 9:20-22), took the hand of Jairus’s daughter and raised her from the dead (Mark 5:22-43), touched a woman crippled for 18 years and restored her to health (Luke 13:10-13), and permitted Mary, Lazarus’ sister, to anoint Him with oil and wipe His feet with her hair (John 11:2). Jesus was not the male chauvinist that critics sometimes suggest.

Furthermore, the Greek verb ‘aptou, translated “touch” in John 20:17 by the translators of the King James Version, can mean more than a mere touch of the skin. Among other things, it can refer to sexual contact (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1), contact made with the intent of causing harm (cf. 1 John 5:18), and “to fasten one’s self to, adhere to, cling to” (“Haptomai;” see also Danker, et al., 2000, p. 126). Greek Lexicographers Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich noted that in John 20:17 the verb means to “cling to” (Danker, et al., p. 126). Thus, Jesus was telling Mary Magdalene, “Do not cling to me” (NKJV); “Do not hold on to me” (NIV). He was not intimating that the actual contact with human flesh would somehow defile Him (cf. Matthew 28:9; John 20:17).

Exactly why Jesus previously told Mary Magdalene not to cling to Him (John 20:17), but later permitted certain women to hold His feet and worship Him following His resurrection (Matthew 28:9), and instructed Thomas eight days later to touch the holes in His hands and side (John 20:27), we simply are not told. What we know is that following His resurrection, Jesus wanted the women (including Mary Magdalene) to inform the apostles about His resurrection. Mary Magdalene was not to remain in her present location clinging to Jesus, but to “go” and inform the others of the good news. What’s more, the women to whom Jesus appeared shortly thereafter, although permitted for a moment to hold His feet and worship Him, were likewise told to “go” and take the brethren a message from their living Lord. (These women may not have been told exactly what Mary Magdalene was earlier told, but in order to “go” they had to “let go” of Jesus’ feet. Thus, what is explicitly stated in John 20:17 is actually implied in Matthew 28:9.)

Finally, the situation with Jesus instructing Thomas to touch His nail-scared hands and punctured side was a separate circumstance altogether. The purpose on that occasion was to prove to Thomas (who earlier had said, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe”—John 20:25), that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. The wounds served as evidence to this doubter that this was Jesus—his “Lord” and “God” (John 20:28).

If Christ’s critics, like Steve Wells and others, would look at the Scriptures more carefully (and fairly), and cease spreading false accusations about Jesus, their eyes might be opened (as was Thomas’) to the proof of Christ’s deity. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

John 20:17—If Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father, how could He have committed His Spirit to the Father?
Contrasting Link: Luke 23:46

John 20:17—If Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father, how could He have committed His Spirit to the Father?

Problem: Jesus said here “I have not yet ascended to My Father.” But earlier on the cross He said, “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46). If He was already with the Father, then why did He say that He had not yet ascended to Him?

Solution: The day He died, Jesus’ spirit went to be with the Father (as Luke 23:43, 46 records). So His spirit had been with the Father, but His body had not yet ascended into heaven when He spoke to Mary. The bodily ascension took place some 40 days later (cf. Acts 1:3, 9–10).