Reference post # 9:

In interpreting the scriptures, it is the textual context that should decide the meaning and not on our own understanding of the text.

It would be better to see the use of the word in New Testament.

Firstly, the word touch gives an extended meaning:

(a) Man touching woman: (1 Cor. 7: 1). This is a euphemism and clearly means sexual intercourse.
(b) Jesus blessing the children. (Lk 18:15) Here also literal touching is implied.
(c) Touch the burden of law keeping: (Lk 11:46). Here it means taking responsibility
(d) Touching means inflicting of wound on the first born. (Heb 11:28)
(e) Beast touching the mountain. (Heb. 12:20). Literal touching is implied by the beast nearing the mountain.

Secondly, literal touching is implied in the following cases

(a) In the case of woman subject to bleeding: (Mt. 9:21; Mk 5:28)
(b) Blind man at Bethsaida trying to touch Jesus. ( Mk 8:22 )
(c) Not touching unclean things. (2 Cor. 6:17).
(d) Food etc (Col.2:21)
(e) People trying to touch Jesus or his garment to get healed. (Mt. 14:36; Mk. 3:10; Mk. 6:56; Mk. 1013; Lk. 6:19)

If we read the first category of the occurrence of the word touch, even at the first reading we know that the word does not carry the literal meaning, but an extended one. In the second category, the word is used in literal sense. But in John 20:17, the word “touch me not” does not indicate any obvious extended meaning. In Greek it only means “Do not touch.” The literal versions like KJV or Young’s literal translation keep the word touch only. To substitute there as “Do not cling to me,” “Do not hold me” “Stop holding me” give quite a different meaning altogether of this difficult text and its disputed meaning. We need not force our understanding to decide what a text means. The different versions are just translation and some time unwarranted and therefore uncalled for interpretations. We cannot give the Greek text the meaning on the basis of their interpretation. It is not good to stretch a word too thinly. I believe a word should be given meaning on the basis of its use in the scriptures at the time of their writing.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 7/24/2010 01:03 am

Mary was distraught, she grasped Jesus in a natural reaction to see if he was real and in her emotion probably held on tightly. Could not the repley by Jesus be simply a droll, reassuring chiding of Mary - “Ease up Mary, I haven’t gone to the Father yet”.
I think there are many reported sayings of Jesus where he may be just chiding people in a perhaps joking way.
Do the texts bear such an interpreteation? I certainly don’t know, notbeing a biblical scholar but I feel goos about them

Commentary by MICHAEL ROACH
Posted on: 7/22/2010 06:10 am