C. Mary could have touched Jesus when He appeared to her after His resurrection--He was not on His way to the Holies in Heaven with His blood.

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and <to> my God, and your God.

Dr. Jack Hyles:

When Jesus was raised from the dead, He saw Mary Magdalene.... He said, 'Don't touch me. Touch me not!' Why? Because nobody could touch the high priest from the time he took that blood from the altar and walked to that mercy seat. If anybody did touch him, the sacrifice was invalid.... Why couldn't Mary Magdalene touch Jesus? Because He was on His way with the blood to Heaven to sprinkle His blood on the heavenly mercy seat in the presence of Jehovah God Himself in the heavenly tabernacle not made with hands. Mary could not touch Him.⁽⁶⁵⁾

When Jesus was taken to be crucified, many terrible things were done to Him. Weakened from His night of agony, Jesus was also horribly beaten with a Roman scourge. Strips of His flesh were ripped off, and His body was left a tattered mess. His beard was ripped out. Finally, He gave up the ghost on Calvary's hill. Even after all that He suffered, His body was even further afflicted by a Roman guard who pierced His side with a spear. Jesus' body was then put into a tomb, that the sign of Jonah might be fulfilled.

On the third day, Jesus arose from the dead. Now, here's something that doesn't contradict Scripture: only what was buried was resurrected. Only what was buried fulfilled the sign of Jonah, who was in the belly of the great fish for three days. Only what was buried was under guard by the Roman soldiers. Only what was buried was sought by the women and His disciples. Only what was buried could fulfill Psalm 16:10 and Jesus' prophecy that He would be buried and on the third day rise again.

When these Blood Indoctrinators tell us that Jesus went out of the tomb and collected His unburied blood and took this still-living blood to Heaven, they are indulging in their imagination, for the Bible does not give such a witness. They claim that His perfect body could not die, because it held His perfect blood. His blood could not decay because it was sinless. They ask us to trust the indestructibility of His blood as the reason that He could collect His blood on the third day. They never mention all of the flesh that He left scattered across Jerusalem after He was scourged and beaten and had His beard ripped out, yet that flesh was as sinless as His blood. Did Jesus also collect His flesh? Did it decay? Or, is His flesh still lying around Jerusalem? The Blood Indoctrinators added to the Bible the account of Christ collecting His blood because they just know it had to have happened that way.

Doctor Curtis Hutson asked the question,

If we can accept the fact that His body and bones did not corrupt, why can't we accept the same about His blood?⁽⁶⁶⁾

The answer is simple, Dr. Hutson: His blood was never buried. As if that weren't enough (which it should be), His blood was never resurrected and it was never collected.

There is also a question that should be asked of Dr. Hutson. He said,

Some argue that the blood of Christ is no different than the blood of any other human being⁽⁶⁷⁾

Apparently, Dr. Hutson believes that Christ's blood was different from normal human blood. Yet, he must believe that Christ had a body that was no different than any other human being, for 1 John 4:1-3 and Hebrews 2:14 say so. If we can believe that His body was like any other human's, why can't we believe that about His blood, especially when the Scriptures say so? Scripture never gives an account of the resurrection of Christ's blood.

The Blood Indoctrinators are claiming that Jesus was willing to risk the Salvation of everyone from all time, just to encourage Mary. Suppose they were right, and Mary had touched Him? Humans have always had the option to disobey God's commands. No "force field" would have restrained Mary; if her free-will to obey wasn't available to her, why the command from Jesus? If she did not have the option of touching Him, He would not have needed to have said anything. And, if Mary had disobeyed, and the Blood Indoctrinators were right, this would have made His sacrifice invalid, and there could not be any more sacrifice. We would all be lost. Yet, Jesus was willing to risk this just to give Mary a comforting word. That sounds reckless.

The Blood Indoctrinator's account also makes it sound as though Jesus wasn't paying attention to His work, for He interrupted such a sacred duty to have a word with Mary. The Blood Doctrine's strongest argument is that the Old Testament types required Christ to collect His blood and take it to Heaven. Did any Old Testament high priest stop on his way to the Holies to talk with a grieving woman along the way? Weren't sacred duties kept free from all interruptions? In fact, the priests in Jerusalem at the time of its fall to Roman armies continued their duties even as the city fell, ignoring the soldiers who walked up to them and killed them. The idea that Jesus was going to the Heavenly Altar to present His blood becomes increasingly absurd the more you realize what the Blood Indoctrinators are telling us.

The Blood Indoctrinators claim that something al must have happened after Jesus left Mary, for several people were permitted to touched Jesus a week or more after Jesus had forbidden Mary. The Bible doesn't say that anything happened, but there is a mystery concerning Christ's command against Mary's touch, and later invitation for others to touch Him. The Blood Indoctrinators take the argument of silence, claiming that between the time that Mary saw Him, and the time that He was held that evening, Christ gathered His blood, entered Heaven, made atonement for all time, and returned to Earth. They think that no other explanation can explain the mystery, and that this fulfills the types as nothing else can.

There is, at the least, a problem with their scenario. By comparing the accounts of Matthew 28 and John 20, it is seen that almost no time, if any time, passed between Jesus' command to Mary and the time when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary held Jesus by His feet. The Blood Indoctrinators do not mention this incident when they discuss Jesus' command to Mary. They usually skip over references showing that Jesus was touched the same day that Mary first saw Him, and begin citing the references showing that He was touched a week after His resurrection (when Jesus invited Thomas to thrust his hand into Christ's side). Doctor Paisley, for example, said,

Mary could not touch Him.

Wait a minute. He came back a little while later when the disciples were in the upper room. Thomas came in and &ldots; Jesus said, "Reach hither thy finger &ldots;"

There is a week missing between Dr. Paisley's two sentences, a week that Scripture says began by two women grasping Jesus by His feet. The author has never known of a Blood Indoctrinator to mention that two women held Jesus' feet within minutes of Jesus' command for Mary not to touch Him. They need to put as much time as possible between Christ's command to Mary and the time when Christ was touched.

Figure 6. Resurrection Chronology

Figure 6 diagrams the major events that occurred in Matthew 28:1-9 and John 20:1-17. John 20:1-17 says that Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre of Jesus very early, while it was still dark. She found that His grave was open, and ran to Peter and the other disciple. Those disciples inspected Christ's grave and left. After they left, Mary stood by the tomb, weeping. Jesus came to her, but He forbade her to touch Him. Instead of touching Him, she was to tell the disciples that she had seen Him and that He would ascend to God. The next verse in John simply says that Mary Magdalene told the disciples that she had seen Jesus. Later that evening, Jesus appeared to the disciples, and He showed them his hands and side and breathed on them.

John gives only a cursory indication of the passage of time and even of the people present. There were certainly lapses of time between the events that John recorded (What events transpired between the command to Mary and the time that Mary saw the disciples?)

Matthew 28:1-9 says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the sepulchre as the day began to dawn. They found an angel by the open tomb. The angel told the women to "go quickly" to the disciples, which the women did, running to obey. As they were going to the disciples, Jesus appeared to them, and they held His feet. This account leaves out the early morning visit to the tomb by the two Apostles, and Jesus' command for Mary not to touch Him, but it includes an account of Jesus being held by the two women on the morning of the day of Christ's resurrection. Only one woman is mentioned in John as being at the tomb, although both might have been there. Note that Mary said, "We don't know where they took His body."

The author has walked across modern Jerusalem; the city is about the same size as American neighborhoods or towns, and it is larger today than it was when Mary and Mary ran across it. It could not have taken very long for a Jewish woman to run to the disciples. If the Blood Indoctrinators are right, then Jesus presented His blood in the Holies between the time that Mary saw Jesus at the sepulchre, and the time that the women saw Him as they ran for His disciples. If Jesus could do His work as the High Priest in those few minutes, an hour being too leisurely an amount of time, why couldn't He have done it before appearing to Mary and forbidding her touch?

There is considerable difficulty in reconciling the two Gospel views. John says that Mary was in grief just before she saw Jesus for the first time after His resurrection. Matthew says that the women were running "with great joy" when Jesus appeared to them. Perhaps the women were running only several minutes after Jesus had appeared to Mary by the tomb. It is only a guess when we describe the sequence of events, since the Gospel accounts are not concerned with all those details. One may wonder why Jesus appeared to the women a second time, when He had yet to appear to the Apostles for the first time. It may be that Mary and Mary had gathered a small group of people when Jesus appeared, and His appearing then would confirm the women's witness; we can only guess. Note that Jesus said, "All hail" when only two women were present. It may be that Jesus only appeared one time, but the Gospel accounts make it look like He appeared two times.

Why did Jesus command Mary not to touch Him? The Blood Indoctrinators have produced a unique reason, that Jesus was on His way to the Holies to present His blood, and, since He must remain undefiled, forbade Mary's touch. However, the author cannot find any place in Scripture that says that the high priest could not be touched on his way to the holies. In fact, the author cannot find any reference to such a practice anywhere outside of modern Fundamentalist's claims.

The reference dealing with the touching of the sin offering is in Leviticus 6:17-30. There is no certainty about the requirements of the law, whether those who ate of the sacrifices merely had to be clean, or had to be clean and consecrated, or whether these verses referred only to the instruments used to eat the sin offering.⁽⁶⁸⁾ It may also be that the verses mean that the holy flesh would make holy what it should touch, in contrast to the unclean thing that would make unclean whatever it happened to touch.⁽⁶⁹⁾ In any event, it is the sacrifice, not the priest, that is kept from being touched (many Jews would, at any one time, be able to touch the priest).

Another reference to the effect of touching the sacrifice is in Haggai 2:11-13. It appears from this passage that the holy flesh would not cause an ordinary object to become holy, but an unclean object would cause everything that it touched to become unclean.⁽⁷⁰⁾ Once again, a large number of people and objects at any one time would be ceremonially-clean, and could touch the sacrifice. Nothing is said about touching the priest.

It appears that the Blood Indoctrinators were playing hocus-pocus with Scripture, again, to fit the requirements of their Doctrine with Scripture. It is significant that the Blood Indoctrinators do not make any effort to substantiate their claim that the high priest could not be touched before entering the holies; they simply state it as a known fact. The author has read several statements from the Blood Indoctrinators saying that the high priest could not be touched before entering the holies, but he has never read any cross references for this.

That still leaves the problem of Christ's command to Mary. Why would Christ tell her not to touch Him, especially since He let her grasp His feet only a short time later that day? According to the footnote in Zodhiates' KJV Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, Jesus actually said to Mary, "do not continue touching me." Doctor Zodhiates believes that this is the correct translation of this verse because the Greek verb that is used here, a{/ptou (haptou), is the present imperative of a{/ptw (hapto), instead of the aorist imperative, a{/psou (hapsou). Jesus was telling Mary to let go of Him.

The author doesn't know how valid that claim may be, although Dr. Zodhiates' native tongue is Greek and he has spent over 40 years studying Koine Greek, and other well-educated researchers verify the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Zodhiates' and the author has not found any linguistic authority who disputes this opinion of Dr. Zodhiates.⁽⁷¹⁾ Oliver B. Greene, a respected Baptist, verify it, as do Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Albert Barnes and Arthur Pink. Furthermore, the best Greek-English lexicon the author can find, William Bauer's Greek-English lexicon, says that the phrase used in John 20:17, "aptou," is the more forceful, "stop clinging to me!"⁽⁷²⁾ (emphasis in original). If the author seems ridiculously reticent in accepting Dr. Zodhiates' explanation, it is because he wants to point out the absurdity of some Fundamentalists' dogmatism toward the King James Bible. Remember, these Fundamentalists are appalled by someone who points out a weakness in the King James translation, and that is what Dr. Zodhiates has done. The author has been attacked for attempting to prove his point by interpreting the Greek when he does not have a degree in Greek. He hopes that by showing that it is ridiculous not to accept the alternate interpretation that he will avoid such accusations.

Moreover, there have been a lot of comments written for this verse by godly men, and they don't make the shocking claim of Dr. Zodhiates. So far, the reference works examined by the author (which includes Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Albert Barnes, Arthur Pink, Oliver Greene and Zodhiates), spanning over 250 years, agree that Jesus was only telling Mary that she must not be so familiar with Him now (though she could be in Heaven), but must quickly tell the disciples that He had risen. Even Jamison, Fausset and Brown, who generally agree with the Blood Doctrine, consent to this interpretation. None of them even hint that Christ was keeping a ceremonial cleanness by forbidding Mary's touch.

Jesus may have been telling Mary that she could be with Him constantly in Heaven when He said, "I am not yet ascended to my Father." Notice that He did not say "I am not yet ascended to the Holies," as though the reason that Mary could not touch Him is that Christ needed to be with His Father before she could do that, and not that He needed to present His blood on the Heavenly Altar. That is the common opinion of the commentators. It is not the opinion taught by the Blood Indoctrinators.

Arthur Pink produced interesting notes on this matter. Those who depend on types to prove the Blood Doctrine should find this instructional:

And when was it that Christ entered Heaven by virtue of the merits of His own blood? Almost all of the commentators take the reference here as being to His ascension. But this we deem to be a mistake, and one from which erroneous conclusions of a most serious nature have been drawn. The writer is fully satisfied that what is affirmed in this verse took place immediately after Christ, on the cross, triumphantly cried "It is finished." Some of our reasons for believing this we give below.

[1. To maintain the type, Christ had to enter Heaven immediately after His sacrifice.] "His resurrection was the antitype of Aaron's return from the holy of holies unto the people..."

[2. Aaron's laying aside his robes of glory, and putting on of linen garments, was more like Christ's abasement at the cross than was Christ's glorious ascension.

[3. Aaron's offering was not accepted when he entered into the Holies, but when he sprinkled the blood; if the antitype of this was not until Christ's ascension, then God waited forty days before He approved of it. (The same can be said if He waited three days.)

[4. The time when the high priest was within the holies was a time of fear for those outside (for fear that he would not satisfy God). This was similar to the emotional state of the apostles during the time that Christ was in the grave. The apostles had a different outlook after Christ's ascension.

[5. The rending of the veil was God's sign of approval upon His Son's words of "It is finished."

[When Christ "once entered heaven," it referred to the first of His double types; He was the antitype of Aaron and Melchizedek. Proof that Christ entered Heaven at His death is found by comparing His words and those of the thief in Luke 23:43 with Paul's letter in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (which shows that Paradise is interchangeable with the third heaven).]⁽⁷³⁾

(emphasis is the author's, and brackets denote his paraphrasing).

These are good points. Why aren't they mentioned by Fundamentalists, the way that Dr. DeHaan is still quoted? It is because these points contradict what the Blood Indoctrinators want to believe! Blood Indoctrinators aren't even considering opposing points. They make up their minds and no amount of proof can change their opinions. If they are shown a passage of Scripture that clearly contradicts what they claim, they will ignore it in favor of another passage that could be interpreted as they wish. This indicates that they don't have a way to decide the truth of an argument based on its own merits.

Notice also that Mr. Pink mentioned that Christ triumphantly cried, "It is finished" after His work on the cross and before His entry into Heaven. The Blood Indoctrinators rarely, if ever, allow this phrase to be mentioned in their churches. They certainly resent the famous Christian song that includes that phrase. The reason they give for this is that they don't believe that Christ's work was finished when He died; He still had to enter the Holy of Holies with His blood and perform the work of the Great High Priest! They give a disappointingly anticlimactic reason for why Christ said it, such as Christ only meant that His crucifiction was finished. They believe that in no way could Christ have meant that atonement or redemption was finished.

One young man, who is now a preacher of a church in Indiana, once gave his proof that Christ's work of redemption was not finished at the cross. Scripture says that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father and ever intercedes for us. Therefore, our redemption is constantly being won by Christ. This is a fairly common argument given by the Blood Indoctrinators. John Owen's commentary of 1680, which was included in the Goold collection of 1855, addressed this argument. According to Mr. Owen, the sacrifice was based on the general principle that suffering must be involved, since Hebrews 9:25 and 26 says that for Christ to be offered often, He must have suffered often. Therefore, the offering of Christ can be inferred to have ended with the ending of Christ's suffering. Furthermore, Scripture says that Christ was once offered. Christ's offering was an action that occurred at one time, and then stopped. According to 1 Peter 2:24, Christ's offering was only while He was on the cross. Notice that Mr. Owen presented this argument to counter the Socinian's argument that Christ's offering was only in Heaven and not on Earth.⁽⁷⁴⁾

One Baptist distinctive is that only what is explicitly found in the Bible can be considered to be doctrine. Other beliefs may be held which are not explicitly stated, but these could not be considered to be certainly true. The author believes that Goliath was nine feet tall; but, maybe he was seven or twelve. New knowledge can prove the author wrong, and still agree with Scripture. The author's belief about Goliath's height is not doctrine beyond what the Bible explicitly states.

The Bible never explicitly says that Christ took His blood into Heaven. When the Blood Indoctrinators try to prove their point, they use analogies and infer from those things. That type of reasoning depends on the net effect of many weak arguments, and easily results in error. One can remain consistent with Scripture without believing their points. Their method is used by various cults to prove that the Bible supports their views, and we think we can disprove the cults' arguments.

Despite the insistence of the Blood Indoctrinators, what they believe may be wrong if they made a reasoning error in either premise or conclusion. Doctrine is immune from this because it is based on what is explicitly written (we trust that our premise--the Bible--is correct, and we eliminate errors in conclusions by relying on explicitness). This book disproves the Blood Doctrine's premises and conclusions.

___________________________________________