Jn 20:17 The
command μή μου άπτου ('don't cling to me') seems to imply that Mary had seized
Jesus' feet (cf. Mt 28:9 αί δέ προσελθούσαι έκράτησαν αύτου τους πόδας and the
interpretative gloss και προσέδραμεν άψασθαι αυτου in the present verse) or was about to do
so'. The point is not that Jesus did not allow Mary to touch him (for whatever
reason) or that he regarded an act of proskynesis inappropriate for
someone who failed to grasp the meaning of the new relationship that he had
entered into through the resurrection. Nor is a contrast in view with Jesus'
invitation to Thomas to examine the wounds caused by the nails and the
spear-thrust (v.27). The issue is that Mary should not 'cling' to Jesus, not
'hold on' to him. The phrase μή μου άπτου can best be connected with πορεύου δέ
πρός τους άδελφούς μου κλτ., 'don't cling to me ... but (δε) go to my disciples'. Mary seems to
misunderstand the present occasion as the fulfilment of Jesus' promise of his
abiding presence and does not realise that Jesus would be present through the
Spirit (Jn 14:15-31; 16:5- 33). This could only be realised after his άνάβασις
(= Jesus' return to the Father through passion-resurrection-ascension = his
glorification/exaltation) had come to completion (7:39; 16:7). If we take the
larger Johannine context into consideration (the connection ascension-giving of
the Spirit) and follow the Johannine understanding of Jesus' άνάβασις as a
description of Jesus' entire passage to the Father through passion, death,
resurrection and ascension, Jn 20:17 seems to make good sense. Jesus motivates
his appeal not to hold on to him by stating that he has not yet ascended: ούπω
γάρ άναβέβηκα (as in 3:13 perfect tense!) πρός τον πατέρα, that is, his
άνάβασις has not yet reached completion, for the Spirit has not yet been given.
But this will not take long: άναβαίνω (present tense, expressing imminence)
πρός τον πατέρα κτλ.
In line with the Johannine use of the word, Jesus' άνάβασις cannot be
equated with the ascension event in Acts 15 and it would be futile to look for
a gap in Jn 20 where the Lukan ascension story would fit in. It is, of course,
assumed that somewhere in the process of ‘going to the Father’ Jesus will
depart from the earth, but the theological outlook of the Fourth Evangelist
makes it impossible to make a sharp differentiation between death,
resurrection, exaltation, and so on. The entire course of events constitutes
the ‘house’ of the Son of Man; the entire sequence of events starting from the
crucifixion is Jesus’ αναβασις
to the Father. (Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan
Christology [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 137-38)
