 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 01:28 am |
|
John 20:11-18 - But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. … [She] turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"--and that he had said these things to her.
why did Jesus say not to cling to him since he had not yet ascended? Why would it have been ok after he ascended?
Also, I read the notes in a NAB study bible and they confused me. They seemed to imply that the ascension (accoriding to NT writers) really was not after 40 days but took place at the same time as the resurrection and that what happened after the 40 days was simply a returning to heaven permanently in a sense. But if this is true why do we celebrate the ascension as the event as Jesus leaves 40 days after raising from the grave? Actually I see now later in the text that He seems to be saying that He is on His way to the Father and then He confers the Spirit on the disciples. So was He telling Mary that she could not cling to Him because He had to go do that now and then he would be glorified? Did He run into Mary between rasinig from the dead and ascending to the Father and then come back and breathe on the apostles? Or had He not gone to the Father until 40 days was up. Are there two ascensions?
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 02:32 am |
|
From the Haydock commentary:Ver. 17. I will not leave you again; be not in a hurry to touch me; you shall all have this pleasure. I will remain with you some time, before my ascension. Announce my resurrection to my apostles. You shall see me again. This is the interpretation most modern commentators [18th century] put upon this place. Others suppose, that Magdalene imagined he was risen from the dead to live with men as before, like Lazarus. He addresses these words to her to disabuse her of this notion.
From the Navarre Bible Commentary:17. “Do not hold me”: the use of the negative imperative in the Greek, reflected in the New Vulgate (“noli me tenere”) indicates that our Lord is telling Mary to release her hold on him, to let him go, since she will have another chance to see him before his ascension into heaven.
I also consulted the Catena Aurea (Patristic interpretations of the gospels, compiled in the 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas), which gave only spiritual senses from St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom. They are not relevant to the literal sense which you are seeking, so I omit these texts.
The note in the NAB contradicts tradition and, as your confusion demonstrates, ultimately makes no sense. I would ignore it.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 04:03 am |
|
Another way to look at the NAB footnote is to understand that since Jesus had "died" he was no longer subject to the bounds of time, and he was indeed never bound by time. He existed before his birth; he was glorified and transfigured on the mountain during his earthly life. He spoke of being one with the Father in the present tense, not in the future tense. This glorification was uniquely displayed at his baptism, his transfiguration, and his resurrection.
In one sense, Jesus never severed unity with the Father as he was always the Second Person of the Trinity, truly human and truly Divine. Christian tradition says that on his death, Jesus "descended to the dead" and on the third day he rose again "in glory". This glorification speaks of a unity with the Father in Divinity. I believe the NAB footnote could be referring to his glorification when it speak of an ascension "in a theological sense of going to the Father to be glorified." In this case, the Ascension 40 days later would mean his physical existence on earth was terminated in favor of the Holy Spirit, who would then guide the Church until Jesus returns.
Another question to ask is where did Jesus go between that time and the following Sabbath night when he appeared to the apostles? Where was his physical body residing when he was not with the disciples? Did he rent a room somewhere? Or was he in fact in heaven? His physical body was no longer bound by space and time, so did he simply "jump" from one time to another? He was certainly capable of doing that.
The Church tells us to look first to the literal sense, which David has given. I have suggested an alternate way of looking at the literal sense by taking the Divine unity of the Father and the Son into account. We know that in reading John's gospel, the Divinity of Christ is first and foremost, so perhaps this is indeed what John was referring to. That is the implication of the NAB footnote.
And you are certainly free to ignore the NAB footnote, as David has suggested. It does not represent an official theological interpretation by the Church, but rather the footnotes are notes written by those who prepared the translation, and therefore have no theological status at all.
I am not trying to express a theological opinion here at all, nor a personal opinion, but trying to present a method by which two apparently different interpretations can be resolved.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 12:52 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: From the Haydock commentary:Ver. 17. I will not leave you again; be not in a hurry to touch me; you shall all have this pleasure. I will remain with you some time, before my ascension. Announce my resurrection to my apostles. You shall see me again. This is the interpretation most modern commentators [18th century] put upon this place. Others suppose, that Magdalene imagined he was risen from the dead to live with men as before, like Lazarus. He addresses these words to her to disabuse her of this notion. From the Navarre Bible Commentary:17. “Do not hold me”: the use of the negative imperative in the Greek, reflected in the New Vulgate (“noli me tenere”) indicates that our Lord is telling Mary to release her hold on him, to let him go, since she will have another chance to see him before his ascension into heaven.
My problem with what you show me here, David, is that Jesus seems to state that the reason not to cling to Him is not that they will have time for this later, but it seems to be directly related to the fact that He has not yet ascended and any clinging to Him would take place afterward. And Rick did seem to mention that he rose 'in glory' so I am still unsre that some sort of glorification may have taken place between this passage and the ascension. at least according to our interpretation of time (since Jesus Himself uses the term 'not yet') But I find a hard time making sense of the commentaries you showed me since they seem to not account what Jesus meant by needing to ascend and simply say they will all cling to Him later, even though He still has not ascended?
the other thing I also was curious about is in the next chapter he breates on them and they receive the Spirit. So why did they need to wait for the Holy Spirit at pentecost. Did they lose it between these events, or was pentecost more for the church as a whole? Did the disciples receive the Spirit or a fresh filling of the Spirit at pentecost even though we see they clearly were givnen the Spirit in that passage?
Brian
Last edited on Mon May 14th, 2007 12:58 pm by brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 05:16 pm |
|
brian wrote: And Rick did seem to mention that he rose 'in glory' so I am still unsre that some sort of glorification may have taken place between this passage and the ascension. at least according to our interpretation of time (since Jesus Himself uses the term 'not yet')
The glorification I refer to took place before time. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There is no time in which Jesus was not glorified as he was, is, and always will be God. His glorification was not always manifest to those around him, but he was certainly always glorified.
At the time of his meeting with Mary (the incident you are questioning), the most recent likely manifestation of his glorification was at his resurrection when, if we are to believe the Shroud of Turin, his glorified body shone so brightly it burned an image of him into the cloth in a matter we still have not been able to figure out.
I think you're still trying to look at this as an "either/or" situation, Brian. Either Jesus was present on earth or he had ascended into heaven. In fact, Jesus existed both in time and beyond time, both on earth and eternally present everywhere and everywhen, both with his Father and separated from him, both human and Divine. And when we read scripture and attempt to interpret it literally from an "either/or" perspective, it just plain doesn't work.
"Do not cling to me" can mean many things. He might have meant she still had time to be with him, that she would see him again, or perhaps even that she should be seeking him eternally rather than merely his physical presence. Maybe he was saying "Don't hold on to my body, look to my message and share it with others." Or maybe he was saying the real gift she should cling to is the one that will be left after his ascension, the Eucharist.
The statement could mean many things, all equally valid. That's the beauty of the Catholic "both/and" method of interpretation. We don't have to accept a single meaning or interpretation when we can find multiple senses of a passage consistent with the whole of scripture and all of Tradition. Why can't we accept them all as true?
|
|
|
Ray2007
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| First Name: | Xpi | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 11:19 pm |
|
I don't believe that we are understanding what John's Gospel means to portray if we insist upon literal congruence between, in this case, "I have not yet ascended" and the Ascension described in Acts. For Mary was told, "Do not touch Me as I have not yet ascended..." Yet Thomas was told to touch His wounds. And Luke has Jesus Ascending after 40 days. Perhaps the understanding is in the tableau that is offered. John is certainly conscious of the Torah, particularly of Genesis where the woman, Eve, sees that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a delight to the eyes and takes and eats and gives to the man. Thus Even made perfect becomes wanton by pride. In John's Gospel the 'Fruit' of the tree, seen on Friday as the tree of death, picking up where we left off in the Garden, now made the saving tree of life, the Fruit of this tree, Jesus, is beheld by the woman (Mary Magdalene, sinner made free of sin) and undoing Eve, Mary Magdalene, is obedient and does not touch the Sacred Fruit, the Wisdom of God, but goes, as she was commanded in another scripture, to the men who then see that indeed He has risen from the dead. Mary Magdalene's humility vs. Eve's pride, even as Mary's Fiat reversed Eve's rebellion. The Lord is taking what mankind has messed up and He is righting it, undoing it, making all things new. St Augustine in his sermons on First John (New Advent) Sermon III, paragraphs 1 and 2, talks about this scripture that you are writing about. Perhaps Jesus meant do not touch Me in the way one touches flesh for I have not yet ascended to my Father. You could touch Me if you understood Who I Am. In the case of Thomas, he responded, "My Lord and My God." Perhaps Mary Magdalen didn't yet realize the Truth that Jesus is God Himself. A touch then, a human touch with a human understanding, would have been frightfully wrong. All this is speculation on my part, instigated by St Augustine and Scott Hahn (cf. his scripture study on John's Gospel).
|
|
|
Current time is 09:31 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
