Why was the risen Christ unrecognizable to Mary Magdalene and the Disciples?

[ViaCrucis]

Wouldn't it seem a bit strange than He would give Mary that particular message for the others if He was going to come to them later that same day (verse 19) and as well spend the next 40 days with them? And at from that time on they could touch Him all they wanted?

Not really. Μή μου ἅπτου, "Don't cling to Me" is a reasonable statement when He is going to be ascending in a short time, He did after all tell them that while He would be leaving them (John 7:33), though they wouldn't be alone since He would be sending the Holy Spirit to them. And in Matthew's Gospel we have Christ's promise, "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the age."

But given that the Lord was going to ascend to the Father, His followers couldn't cling to Him, He was going to return to the Father to sit at the Father's right hand. So "Don't cling to Me." makes rather complete sense here, and one doesn't need to add to the text a pre-ascension ascension that isn't anywhere in Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DISRAELI]

There is evidence even before the crucifixion that Jesus could pass through the crowds "unseen" when he wanted to.
Luke ch4 v30
John ch8 v59
I suspect also John ch6 v15 (which helps to explain why, in the other gospels, he sent the disciples away first).
So I don't believe we should be looking for "physical sight" rationalisations.
I think the timing of the recognitions at Emmaus and in the garden has to do with spiritual sight.
Even in John ch21, the disciples obviously recognised him spiritually rather than physically, because they knew it was the Lord but "did not dare to ask". If they could recognise him physically, standing straight in front of him, the need to ask would not have arisen.

 

[DISRAELI]

Wouldn't it seem a bit strange than He would give Mary that particular message for the others if He was going to come to them later that same day (verse 19) and as well spend the next 40 days with them? And at from that time on they could touch Him all they wanted?

I think the only way to explain that is on the assumption that his ascension was already accomplished before he saw them in the evening.
For where was the risen Christ between resurrection appearances, if not already in the presence of his father?
Then what we see in Acts is not the first ascension, but the last of what we might call the re-ascensions after his meetings with his disciples.

 

[Strong in Him]

Wouldn't it seem a bit strange than He would give Mary that particular message for the others if He was going to come to them later that same day (verse 19) and as well spend the next 40 days with them? And at from that time on they could touch Him all they wanted?

No. Jesus told Mary not to cling onto him - don't try to restrict him, keep him in one place only or all to herself. It reminds me a bit of the transfiguration when Peter wanted to hold onto the moment for as long as possible and suggested building tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah. Jesus could not spend hours in the garden being hugged by Mary! He had people to see and things to do before he ascended to the Father.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think the only way to explain that is on the assumption that his ascension was already accomplished before he saw them in the evening.

How can we make that assumption when Scripture clearly says that the ascension happened at a certain time and in a certain place - on a mountain?

For where was the risen Christ between resurrection appearances, if not already in the presence of his father?
Then what we see in Acts is not the first ascension, but the last of what we might call the re-ascensions after his meetings with his disciples.

Scripture doesn't say this. We don't know where Jesus went after his resurrection, but he didn't ascend to heaven until 40 days later.

 

[DISRAELI]

How can we make that assumption when Scripture clearly says that the ascension happened at a certain time and in a certain place - on a mountain?

Take a closer look.
Acts does not apply the unique label "THE Ascension" to that event. The label was applied by the church later.
Acts says that he went up and they did not see him again, but nothing in that rules out the possibiity that he ascended on the day of his resurrection, as John implies,and then "beamed down", as it were, to subsequent appearances.

 

[Strong in Him]

Take a closer look.
Acts does not apply the unique label "THE Ascension" to that event. The label was applied by the church later.
Acts says that he went up and they did not see him again, but nothing in that rules out the possibiity that he ascended on the day of his resurrection, as John implies,and then "beamed down", as it were, to subsequent appearances.

"Nothing rules out the possibility" - except the fact that Scripture doesn't say that this is what happened.

Just because we don't know, or can't understand, where Jesus was all the time after his resurrection, does not give us the right to read into Scripture and make the assumption that he ascended and then came back down again.

 

[Grafted In]

Can you explain to me why He told Mary not to touch Him but to go tell the others that He is ascending to the Father then turn right around and appear to them later that same day at which time they were permitted to touch Him all they wanted for 40 days. What is the understanding of those of you that do not believe He ascended to Heaven between His conversation with Mary and later that day? It seems a bit odd, don't you think? Did He not at some point apply His blood to the Mercy Seat in The Holy of Holys....the very Throne Room Of God? Did He not do in Heaven the same as that which occured in the earthly temple at His death?
In other words, what if any are your thoughts on this matter? He spent 40 days here after His resurection, right? Would that not disqualify Him from entering The Holy of Holys? Does it not make sense that He applied His Blood on the day of His resurection. This work in Heaven gave every believer direct access to the Throne Room where, had He not, we would instantly die. Can you see that ascending to Heaven was an absolutely necessary part of His work before His sitting down at the right of The Father? Can't you see that had Mary touched Him before this final work He would be not only unfit to enter The Holy Places, but, being also a man, would surely die?

 

[RDKirk]

Can you explain to me why He told Mary not to touch Him but to go tell the others that He is ascending to the Father then turn right around and appear to them later that same day at which time they were permitted to touch Him all they wanted for 40 days. What is the understanding of those of you that do not believe He ascended to Heaven between His conversation with Mary and later that day? It seems a bit odd, don't you think? Did He not at some point apply His blood to the Mercy Seat in The Holy of Holys....the very Throne Room Of God? Did He not do in Heaven the same as that which occured in the earthly temple at His death?
In other words, what if any are your thoughts on this matter? He spent 40 days here after His resurection, right? Would that not disqualify Him from entering The Holy of Holys? Does it not make sense that He applied His Blood on the day of His resurection. This work in Heaven gave every believer direct access to the Throne Room where, had He not, we would instantly die. Can you see that ascending to Heaven was an absolutely necessary part of His work before His sitting down at the right of The Father? Can't you see that had Mary touched Him before this final work He would be not only unfit to enter The Holy Places, but, being also a man, would surely die?

This has already been touched on in this thread.

Jesus knew what Mary (all of them) deeply wanted: For Him to remain with them as He had always been, never to depart from them. That's why He said "do not hold on to me" or "do not cling to me" rather than "do not touch me."

The Greek "do not cling to me" has this sense in Job 31:7, where the Septuagint uses the same word to translate the Hebrew, which signifies to cleave, cling, stick, or be glued to rather than the mere momentary touch that Jesus offered to Thomas.

 

[Strong in Him]

Can you explain to me why He told Mary not to touch Him

He didn't. He said "do not hold onto me". We've already said this.

What is the understanding of those of you that do not believe He ascended to Heaven between His conversation with Mary and later that day?

I believe what the Scripture says.
Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to Mary Magdalene, who was overjoyed and apparently went to hold on/hug him, but he told her not to do that. Later that day he appeared to the disciples and showed them his hands and side, as proof that it was him. Thomas was not there, so Jesus appeared again a week later and invited Thomas to touch his hands and side. We are not told that Thomas did so, but Jesus allowed him to if he wanted to.
There is nothing in the passage - at all - to suggest that Jesus finished talking to Mary, ascended into heaven and then returned when it was time to appear to the next lot of people. That is an assumption you have made.

It seems a bit odd, don't you think?

No, what is odd is the idea that Jesus was continually whizzing to and from heaven for 40 days until he decided to go one last time.

Did He not at some point apply His blood to the Mercy Seat in The Holy of Holys....the very Throne Room Of God?

Not as far as I know. Which Scripture says that?
Scripture says that the blood of Jesus purifies us from all sin (1 John 1:7), not that Jesus died, was raised, had to ascend to heaven to apply his blood to the mercy seat, and then came back down, after which time he allowed people to touch him and so on."

Did He not do in Heaven the same as that which occured in the earthly temple at His death?

No. Why do you think he did?

In other words, what if any are your thoughts on this matter? He spent 40 days here after His resurection, right?

Yes.

Would that not disqualify Him from entering The Holy of Holys? Does it not make sense that He applied His Blood on the day of His resurection. This work in Heaven gave every believer direct access to the Throne Room where, had He not, we would instantly die. Can you see that ascending to Heaven was an absolutely necessary part of His work before His sitting down at the right of The Father? Can't you see that had Mary touched Him before this final work He would be not only unfit to enter The Holy Places, but, being also a man, would surely die?

No.
The idea that Jesus rose from the dead and had to ascend to heaven to enter a heavenly holy of holies, without anyone touching him so they could not contaminate him, is not Scriptural. I don't know where you heard it, or if you have been reading the OT/book of Hebrews and assumed that this is what happened, but it's not what Jesus said, nor what the early church taught.

Jesus said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). He said he was the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep (John 10:11, 17-18) and he said that his blood was of the new covenant, shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28.) All this happened when Jesus died on the cross. He said "it is finished", not "well I've one more thing to do; after I die I need to take my blood to the holy of holies in heaven." This is just not a Scriptural teaching, so my thoughts on it are that it didn't happen.

Can you see that ascending to Heaven was an absolutely necessary part of His work before His sitting down at the right of The Father?

Yes, and his ascension is described in Acts 1.

Can't you see that had Mary touched Him before this final work He would be not only unfit to enter The Holy Places, but, being also a man, would surely die?

No; convince me from Scripture.
Jesus had already died and been raised. His death was a once and for all sacrifice for our sins; he couldn't die again.

If you believed it happened the way you say it did, then tell me - why did Jesus not go straight to heaven after he was raised to apply this blood to the mercy seat before appearing to anyone who might touch him, contaminate him and therefore negate the point of his death? Why didn't God take him straight into heaven to do what, you say, had to be done, and then allow him to go back to earth to appear to anyone he wanted to appear to?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you explain to me why He told Mary not to touch Him but to go tell the others that He is ascending to the Father then turn right around and appear to them later that same day at which time they were permitted to touch Him all they wanted for 40 days.

As I and others have pointed out the text says "don't cling to Me" not "don't touch Me". His command for Mary to announce that He had risen and that He would ascend to the Father is just that--go and tell the others.

What is the understanding of those of you that do not believe He ascended to Heaven between His conversation with Mary and later that day? It seems a bit odd, don't you think? Did He not at some point apply His blood to the Mercy Seat in The Holy of Holys....the very Throne Room Of God? Did He not do in Heaven the same as that which occured in the earthly temple at His death?

Not according to Scripture.

In other words, what if any are your thoughts on this matter? He spent 40 days here after His resurection, right? Would that not disqualify Him from entering The Holy of Holys? Does it not make sense that He applied His Blood on the day of His resurection. This work in Heaven gave every believer direct access to the Throne Room where, had He not, we would instantly die.

Whoever's been telling you this stuff is clearly off their rocker. When the author of Hebrews speaks of Christ as our great high priest he is making an analogy in order to explain how the things of old are made perfect in Christ. Jesus isn't adorned in the garb of the Kohen Gadol, in a literal temple located somewhere "up there". Christ's death and resurrection is the fulfillment of all that came before, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices all pointed toward an ultimate reality, and that ultimate reality is Jesus Christ.

Christ did not step into some heavenly chamber and spill His blood yet again on a heavenly copy of the earthly ark of the covenant. That never happened.

Can you see that ascending to Heaven was an absolutely necessary part of His work before His sitting down at the right of The Father? Can't you see that had Mary touched Him before this final work He would be not only unfit to enter The Holy Places, but, being also a man, would surely die?

Not even a little bit. Because none of that is biblical. None of that is what Christianity teaches or has ever taught.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Grafted In]

The idea that Jesus rose from the dead and had to ascend to heaven to enter a heavenly holy of holies, without anyone touching him so they could not contaminate him, is not Scriptural. I don't know where you heard it, or if you have been reading the OT/book of Hebrews and assumed that this is what happened, but it's not what Jesus said, nor what the early church taught.
Jesus said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). He said he was the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep (John 10:11, 17-18) and he said that his blood was of the new covenant, shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28.) All this happened when Jesus died on the cross. He said "it is finished", not "well I've one more thing to do; after I die I need to take my blood to the holy of holies in heaven." This is just not a Scriptural teaching, so my thoughts on it are that it didn't happen.

All I can suggest to you is that perhaps if you take a closer look at Hebrews you may see that there is Scriptural proof of what I've written. Beyond that I suppose you cannot be persuaded.
And I am open to Scriptural proof that I am wrong at which time I will gladly receive correction. I want nothing but Thee Truth.

 

[Strong in Him]

All I can suggest to you is that perhaps if you take a closer look at Hebrews you may see that there is Scriptural proof of what I've written. Beyond that I suppose you cannot be persuaded.

The Gospels, and Acts, do not say that Jesus was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, offered his blood at the holy of holies, came back down again, and then re-ascended a few weeks later. So I do not believe that any other book in the word of God contradicts that and says that he did.

Like I said, if it was vital for Jesus to go to heaven and offer his blood there, why did God not take him there straight from the tomb? Why let him appear to someone in a garden where there was the risk of contamination and being touched - which, according to you, would have undone all the work of the cross and made man's salvation void?

Sorry but it's not there.

 

[Grafted In]

Jesus said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). He said he was the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep (John 10:11, 17-18) and he said that his blood was of the new covenant, shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28.) All this happened when Jesus died on the cross. He said "it is finished", not "well I've one more thing to do; after I die I need to take my blood to the holy of holies in heaven." This is just not a Scriptural teaching, so my thoughts on it are that it didn't happen.

Can you see that you have been caught in the snare of your own words?
" It is finished, well I've one more thing I need to do; after I'm buried I must be resurected".

 

[Grafted In]

"Oh and one more thing; I must ascend to The Father. And send the Comforter.

 

[Strong in Him]

Can you see that you have been caught in the snare of your own words?
" It is finished, well I've one more thing I need to do; after I'm buried I must be resurected".

No. It is finished referred to the work of salvation. He was about to die and when he did, he would have given his life as a ransom for many. The price would have been paid; the Good Shepherd willingly gave his life for his sheep. He became sin (2 Cor 5:21) for us - that happened when he died.

God raised Jesus from the dead to prove that he was who he said he was. Our salvation was won on the cross - not in the tomb, or after the ascension or Pentecost.

 

[Grafted In]

Can we agree that His resurection bought us eternal life. Otherwise we would just die a physical death and be at the mercy of the god of this fallen world, satan?

 

[Strong in Him]

Can we agree that His resurection bought us eternal life. Otherwise we would just die a physical death and be at the mercy of the god of this fallen world, satan?

No, his death bought us eternal life.

In the OT a perfect animal was sacrificed for sin; its blood was shed, thrown against the altar and/or sprinkled on the people. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. Jesus was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world, (John 1:29), said that his blood was of the new covenant for the forgiveness of sin (Matt 26:28), and that whoever ate his body and drank his blood would have eternal life (John 6:56.)

God raised the Lord Jesus was raised from the dead to affirm him and demonstrate that everything he said, taught, did and stood for was absolutely true - otherwise he would have left him in the tomb as a dead blasphemer/liar.
Jesus was also the Passover Lamb sacrificed for us, (1 Cor 5:7.) When God pronounced the final plague in Egypt, he told Moses that the Israelites would escape it if they killed a lamb and daubed its blood on their doorposts. The blood would save the Israelites from death.

 

[Grafted In]

No, his death bought us eternal life.

In the OT a perfect animal was sacrificed for sin; its blood was shed, thrown against the altar and/or sprinkled on the people. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. Jesus was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world, (John 1:29), said that his blood was of the new covenant for the forgiveness of sin (Matt 26:28), and that whoever ate his body and drank his blood would have eternal life (John 6:56.)

I disagree. His death on the cross forgave us of sin. It was His resurection that gave us eternal life. By His resurection He defeated death. He was the First Fruits by His having been resurected . Had He remained in the grave we would not be resurected to eternal life.

 

[Grafted In]

And that is where I take issue with those who believe He did not acquire the original sin from Adam. God told Adam if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would surely die. Jesus had to reconcile that curse Adam brought on himself. Thus, Jesus had to die and be resurected to defeat death. As I've said in the past I only want to be right if what I believe is Truth.
If you can show me in Scripture the error of my thinking I'll embrace it with joy.