Some orthodox Jews wear leather boxes (“phylacteries”) which contain portions of Old Testament passages. They base this custom on Scriptures in Deuteronomy and Exodus.

One of those passages is Deuteronomy 6:6-8, which states, in connection with the pronouncement of the Ten Commandments:

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house,  when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall BIND them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as FRONTLETS between your eyes.”

In addition, another passage used for the custom of wearing phylacteries, is Deuteronomy 11:18, which states, in connection with the second giving of the Ten Commandments:

“Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and BIND them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as FRONTLETS between your eyes.”

How are we to follow today these commandments in Deuteronomy?  Are we to follow the example of the Jews at the time of Christ, or the example of some Jews today, in wearing phylacteries?

Friedman, Commentary of the Torah, explains, that the command to bind the law on one’s hand and to bind it between the eyes “came to be taken literally, requiring one to wear BOXES [in Hebrew tephillin; in Greek phylacteries] on one’s ARM and HEAD containing passages from the Torah [the five books of Moses]. In the Tanak [the entire Old Testament], however, this expression is meant figuratively, meaning to keep these teachings at hand… and right before one’s eyes.”

Let us note Matthew 23:5, where Jesus makes a reference to “phylacteries”:

“But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.”

Christ did not approve of the custom, but He used it as an example to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes.

The Ryrie Study Bible says:

“… some Jews still wear phylacteries… BOUND on the forehead and on the left ARM above the elbow… A phylactery was a square leather box which contained four strips of parchment on which were written (portions from Exodus and Deuteronomy). During prayer one was worn on the forehead between the eyebrows and another on the left arm close to the elbow. They were held in place by leather bands, which the Pharisees made broad to attract more attention to themselves… phylacteries had only begun to be used by the ultra-pious in Christ’s day…”

According to some commentaries, the custom of wearing phylacteries began sometime after the Jews had returned from the Babylonian captivity. As an aside, IF the passages in Deuteronomy were to be understood literally as commanding the phylacteries to be worn “on your hand, and… as frontlets between your eyes,” the Jews would not have kept this command anyhow, as they were not wearing them on their HAND, but they did so on their left ARM.

In fact, these phylacteries had been given a superstitious application. Dummelow writes in his “Commentary on the Holy Bible”:

“The rabbis held these phylacteries… in the highest veneration. They were to be kissed when put on or off… they were a preservative against demons, whence their name phylacteries, i.e. amulets (from a Greek word meaning ‘to guard.’). They were sworn by, by touching them.”

Young,  Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible, defines the word “phylactery” as “a guard, a charm,” and Vine, “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,” writes:

“any kind of safeguard… especially to denote an amulet… it was supposed to have potency as a charm against evils and demons.”

Apart from this very dangerous and ungodly development, the passages in Deuteronomy 6 and 11 were meant to be applied figuratively, not literally, and most certainly not in connection with phylacteries, as can be seen from the following passages:

We read in Exodus 13:7-10, 15-16:

“Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days. And no leavened bread shall be seen among you, nor shall leaven be seen among you in all your quarters. And you shall tell your son in that day,  saying, ‘This is done because of what the LORD did for me when I came up from Egypt.’ It shall be as a sign to you on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, the LORD’S law may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt. You shall therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year…

“‘And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’ It shall be as a sign on your HAND and as FRONTLETS between your eyes, for by strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt.”

Here the reference of “binding” certain passages on the forehead and on the hand applied to the historical situation pertaining to the death of the firstborn, the exodus from Egypt and the Days of Unleavened Bread. Jews claim that these passages are also to be contained in the phylactery boxes. But they do not include passages from the following sections:

Proverbs 3:3 says: “Let not mercy and truth forsake you; BIND them around your neck, WRITE them on the tablet of your heart.”

Here mercy and truth are to be bound around one’s neck and to be written on the tablets of our heart—but Jews do not include this passage in their leather boxes.

Proverbs 6:21 states: “BIND them continually upon your heart; TIE them around your neck.” A particular law is to be bound upon one’s heart and to be tied around the neck. The context is the command and admonition against adultery, compare verses 20, 22-24, 27-29.

Proverbs 7:3 adds: “Bind them on the fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart.”

A particular provision is to be bound on one’s fingers and the tablet of the heart, and the context is again the prohibition of adultery, compare verse 5.

Let us notice again that Deuteronomy 6:6,8; 11:18 and Exodus 13:16 say that God’s law is to be “IN your heart” and that it is to be “AS a sign on your hand,” and “AS frontlets between your eyes.” This is clearly figurative language, which is not to be understood literally. This includes what we do with our hand and what and how we think.

The Sabbath is a good example. On it, we refrain from work with our hands, and we worship God with our mind. But we are warned that people will follow the false prophet (a religious leader) to receive the mark of the beast (a political leader) on their right hand or on their forehead (see Revelation 13:16-17), showing that they will work with their hands on the Sabbath and refuse to worship God on this day, while setting aside Sunday as a day of rest.

If we are true Christians, we do not need physical reminders such as phylacteries to remind us of God’s law. Today, God’s Holy Spirit in us reminds us of God’s law, and the law of God is being written on our hearts and minds (Romans 5:5 says that the love of God, which is defined as keeping the commandments (1 John 5:3), is poured out IN our hearts by the Holy Spirit).

Hebrews 8:10 describes the New Covenant, and true Christians—spiritual Israelites—are living already today under the conditions of the New Covenant:

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and WRITE them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

God’s law must be written in our hearts—to wear physical boxes such as phylacteries in superstitious ways to “remind” us of the law is not what God intends us to do.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

God’s command, not to add to or take from His Law, has wide-ranging applications and practical consequences in many areas of daily life. For instance, when we look at the question, why we are not to observe Christmas or Easter, then the first answer might be that they are pagan, not Christian, and that the Bible nowhere commands their observance. In fact, God prohibited His followers to worship Him, as pagans worshipped their gods (Deuteronomy 12:29-32), and Christ warned us that we are not to uphold human traditions while rejecting God’s commandments (Mark 7:8-9).

But there are additional important reasons to consider, which are not limited to the question of Christmas and Easter observance, and they affect our worship of God in other ways.

In our free booklet, “Don’t Keep Christmas,” we state the following:

“Moses reminded ancient Israel of a timeless principle when it comes to true worship. We read in [Deuteronomy] 4:1-2: ‘Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving to you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you’ (Cp. Deut[eronomy]. 12:32, Rev[elation]. 22:18 [and] 19).

“We find the same admonition in Proverbs 30:5-6: ‘Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.’… So if we contend that Christmas is a festival that honors God, then we add to God’s Word, which has nothing to say about the celebration of Christmas.  God will rebuke us, and we will be found ‘liars,’ since we have misrepresented God.

“Let’s also note how the apostle Paul approached the Christians in Corinth… he tells them in 1 Cor[inthians] 4:6: ‘Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ (NIV)

“A similar reminder is recorded in the second letter of John. He states in verse 9: ‘For if you wander beyond the teaching of Christ, you will leave God behind; while if you are loyal to Christ’s teachings, you will have God too.’ (Living Bible). Those who do celebrate Christmas ‘go beyond what is written,’ and ‘wander beyond the teaching of Christ,’ thereby leaving ‘God behind.’”

This concept is not limited to Christmas celebrations. It can affect us in many different ways in our daily lives. We might take weekly Sabbath observance as an example. Are we becoming too liberal in our conduct, or are we becoming too strict? If we add to or delete from the commandments that God gave us regarding the true worship of the Sabbath, we are guilty of SIN.

It is true, without any doubt, that TRUE Christians ARE commanded today to keep the Sabbath. Those who refuse to do so, and who claim that Christ abrogated the Sabbath and replaced it with Sunday, are guilty of sin and of lying, and Christ told them that they are worshipping Him in vain, “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7; Isaiah 29:13). But notice too what we are saying in our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” when describing the sinful conduct of the Jews at the time of Christ, in regard to Sabbath observance:

“From God’s perspective, the Sabbath is a Feast Day, intended to be a day of joy and happiness, as well as physical and spiritual renewal. We can learn from the mistakes of the Pharisees and avoid repeating them today. By adding humanly devised restrictions to God’s Sabbath commandment, the Pharisees did, in fact, violate God’s law (Matthew 23:4; Mark 7:8–9, 13)…

“The Pharisees totally misinterpreted the prohibition against carrying burdens on the Sabbath. They decreed that a person was guilty of breaking the Sabbath if he carried a sheet of paper, or any food that weighed as much as a dried fig, or if he carried more than one swallow of milk, or enough oil to anoint a small part of the body. If a fire broke out in a person’s home on the Sabbath, he could carry out only the necessary food to be consumed on the Sabbath. This meant that if the fire broke out at the beginning of the Sabbath—right after sunset—the person could take out enough food for three meals; but if the fire broke out on the afternoon of the Sabbath, he could only take out enough food for one meal. The rest could not be carried out and had to be left behind, to burn with the building. Further, only necessary clothes could be taken out of a burning house on the Sabbath.

“Very likely, the Pharisees had been subconsciously influenced by their former Babylonian environment when they devised those Sabbath rules. The Babylonians had set apart the seventh day of the Babylonian week, called ‘Shabattum,’ as ‘ill omens’ or ‘evil days.’ For instance, it was forbidden on those days to eat flesh cooked upon coals. One must wonder whether we find a reason here why some Orthodox Jews have misunderstood the above-described passage in Exodus 35:3 regarding ‘kindling a fire,’ falsely concluding that even turning on a light switch was prohibited. The Babylonians also forbade the change of garments on those days, as well as calling for a physician. As we will see, Christ had to deal with a similar Pharisaic concept. The Pharisees in His day insisted that He should not heal anyone on the Sabbath—that people were not supposed to request healing on that day. Again, the parallel to Babylonian superstition is evident.

“We might laugh about those restrictions today, but these were no laughing matter at the time of Christ. He had confrontations with the Pharisees on numerous occasions when He refused to abide by their man-made Sabbath rules. We must be careful today not to create for ourselves, and others, similar rules on how to keep—or not keep—the Sabbath, when such rules cannot be found in Scripture.”

Again, it is all based on the biblical injunction, not to add to or delete from God’s commandments. Richard Elliott Freedman makes the following statements in his “Commentary on the Torah,” regarding Deuteronomy 4:2:

“One may think that, by doing more than the law requires, one is doing better, being more religious, more observant, when one is in fact thus violating the law… Adding to a command is as dangerous as taking away from it… in postbiblical Judaism a principle developed of ‘building a fence around the Torah’”…

Although this practice may seem logical to the human mind, in its final analysis, it is in violation of God’s command not to add to His Law.

We find that Moses was very careful not to add anything to God’s commandments, and he reminded the people before his death that they must not do so, either (Deuteronomy 5:33). He added that they must not turn to the right or to the left, but that they had to be careful and watchful to stay on the narrow road (Deuteronomy 5:32). This injunction complements of course the command not to add to or take away from God’s Law.

When we are tempted to add to or delete from God’s commandments and develop a guilty conscience when we do not follow the dictates of our human hearts (which are not in harmony with God’s Law), then we are sinning. We need God’s wisdom to show us exactly, in a given situation, what His command is, rather than replacing God’s lead with our own self-righteous and presumptuous human imaginations.

We should also accept the fact that God leads His Church through His ministry. For instance, the question as to whether or not to eat in a restaurant on the weekly and annual Sabbaths has been a stumbling block for some.

We wrote this in our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days”:

“If Church members today eat occasionally in a nice, quiet restaurant on the Sabbath or a Holy Day after Church services, for instance, while, at the same time fellowshipping with other brethren and speaking about the things that pertain to God, then we must not condemn them for that. For instance, Church members might be traveling for quite a distance to attend Church services, looking forward to spending additional time with their brethren after services.

“If, on the other hand, your conscience does not allow you to go to a restaurant on a Sabbath or a Holy Day, then you must not do so, since ‘whatever is not from faith [or conviction] is sin’ (Romans 14:23). It would be advisable, though, to review the Scriptures to see whether your conscience is based on the Bible or merely on man-made traditions. God never accepts our conviction as justification for the violation of His law, and man-made regulations can… cloud the intent of God’s commandments in the minds of men.”

The last sentence should also be viewed in light of the fact that God gave the ministry of His Church the authority to bind and to loose,  and with it, the responsibility to explain biblical passages which might not be that clear at first sight. In our Q&A on Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23, we state the following:

“The ministry has been given the authority from God, to ‘bind and loose,’ and to ‘remit’ and ‘retain’ sin. It is critical that we understand correctly the scope of this authority… The Nelson Study Bible comments on Matthew 16:19 and on Matthew 18:18: ‘In rabbinical literature, binding and loosing refers to what was permitted or not permitted. So this passage may refer to judgments that Peter [and the other apostles] would make about what would be permitted or forbidden in the church… As in [Matthew] 16:19, the tenses [in Matthew 18:18] imply that what is loosed or bound on earth will have been determined already in heaven. In other words, this is a promise of divine direction…

“‘The New Bible Commentary: Revised, agrees and adds the following remarks: ‘…  Judicial rulings, like the promulgation of rules of conduct, are binding.’… The Broadman Bible Commentary, commenting on Matthew 18:18, explains the meaning and scope of ‘binding and loosing,’ as follows: ‘The authority to bind and loose, given to Peter in [Matthew] 16:19, is here extended to the whole church [that is, its ministry]. In [Matthew] 16:19 it seems to relate primarily to instruction, what conduct is permitted and what not [We might insert here that this would include conduct that is not clearly defined in Scripture. The Church is not permitted, however, to do away with any of God’s commandments, judgments or statutes, compare Matthew 5:17-19; James 2:10; Mark 7:6-13. Likewise, the Church is not to add prohibitions regarding conduct that the Bible permits, compare Revelation 22:18; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6]. Here [in Matthew 18:18] it relates primarily to church discipline…’

“In summary, Christ empowered the leadership of the Church, throughout the Church’s history and existence, to discern God’s Will regarding binding Church decisions as to what God permits and prohibits, based on His law, and who is to be excommunicated and reinstated, based on the Church leadership’s discernment of the person’s repentance and God’s forgiveness…”

Over the centuries, the true Church of God has declared, based on the directions and instructions of the Bible, that it is wrong to observe Christmas and Easter, or to participate in any of their customs. Furthermore, it has declared as binding God’s injunction to observe the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days. In this context, it has recognized and therefore dogmatically pronounced that God gave the Jews the sole responsibility of maintaining the Hebrew calendar.

God’s Church has also declared God’s Law of abstaining from unclean food, while clarifying that it is wrong to insist that we must be vegetarians today. Rather, that it is not wrong to eat the flesh of clean animals (while rejecting the consumption of fat and blood). The true Church of God has determined for a long time that it is wrong for a Christian to vote in governmental elections and to serve on a jury, and it has pronounced God’s revelation of circumstances when God binds a marriage, and when a Church member is free to divorce and remarry. God’s Church has also clarified that we are not obligated to observe new moons, and it has determined, based on the Bible, that the Passover is to be kept in the beginning of the 14th of Nisan, as this was the correct time when ancient Israel, Jesus and the apostles observed it.

In addition, as mentioned, God’s true Church and its ministers have also declared with godly authority that it is not wrong or a sin to eat out in a restaurant on the weekly Sabbath or annual Holy Days, including during the Night to Be Much Observed on the First Day of Unleavened Bread. Even though the Church respects the conscience of (newer) members who may not be comfortable with going out on a weekly or annual Sabbath, because the Church realizes that their faith may (still) be weak (compare the principle in Romans 14:2; 1 Corinthians 8:7-13), it expects that they, in time, will grow in the knowledge of God and, in submitting to the guidance of the Church ministry, will come to understand the truth in the matter. It is clarified, of course, that they must never try to convince other Church members of their unique individual religious conviction (which is not based on Church teaching), and that they must be very circumspect in the practical application of their conscience, as this could otherwise create division within the congregation.

In conclusion, we should carefully heed God’s admonition to His followers in Ecclesiastes 7:16-18:

“Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself? Do not be overly wicked, Nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time? It is good that you grasp this, And also not remove your hand from the other; For he who fears God will escape them all [NIV: “will avoid all extremes”].”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In the Authorized Version (old King James Bible), John 20:17 is rendered as follows: “Jesus saith unto her [Mary], 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.” Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, and He made these comments to Mary when she met Him after she had discovered that His tomb was empty.

One explanation given in times past was that Christ did not want  Mary to touch Him because He was not yet glorified and had not gone to heaven to be glorified and presented as a weave sheaf offering before God. Although this  explanation may sound feasible at first sight, it doesn’t stand the test of scriptural  application.

We read in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44:

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” 

When Christ was resurrected, He was already glorified according to the above Scripture–so another explanation must be put forth.

It is true, of course, that Christ ascended Sunday morning to the Father in heaven to be accepted as the wave sheaf offering—but not for the purpose of being glorified then.

Some have said that John 20:17 teaches that Christ was resurrected Sunday morning, before dark, and did not allow Mary to touch Him, because by that time, He had not ascended to heaven, but that later, on Sunday morning, when it was already light, He allowed the women to touch Him, because He had  gone to and returned from heaven. This conclusion is drawn from a comparison between John 20:17 and Matthew 28:9. However, both conclusions are erroneous, because the Bible does not teach a Sunday morning resurrection; nor, that the women in Matthew 28:9 met Christ Sunday morning. Rather, it teaches that Christ was resurrected on Saturday afternoon, just before sunset, and that the women in Matthew 28 appeared at the grave late Saturday afternoon—not Sunday morning.

Our free booklet, “Jesus Christ, a Great Mystery,” explains these facts in great detail.

“We read in Matthew 28:1–6 (Authorized Version): ‘In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it… And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for HE IS RISEN, AS HE SAID.’

“We note from the passage that Christ was already resurrected by the time the women came to the grave. We are told that they appeared ‘in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.’ Many commentaries point out that this phrase discusses the END of the SABBATH, that is, Saturday evening or late afternoon, and NOT Sunday morning.

“The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament renders this verse in this way: ‘Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward (the) first (day) of (the) week, came Mary the Magdalene…’ A.T. Robertson’s Harmony of the Gospel comments: ‘This phrase once gave much trouble, but the usage of the vernacular Koine Greek amply justifies the translation. The visit of the women to inspect the tomb was thus made before the Sabbath was over (before 6 p.m. on Saturday).’

“Cockrell states: ‘When does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead? The two Marys came to the tomb “in the end of the Sabbath” (Matth. 28:1). The Sabbath always ended at sunset: “From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath” (Lev. 23:32). Then they went to the tomb before sunset on Saturday. Jesus had risen from the dead before their arrival (Matth. 28:1–8)…’

“The Moffat Bible translates: ‘At the close of the Sabbath, when the first day was dawning…’… The Elberfelder Bibel reads: ‘But late at the Sabbath, in the dawn of the first day.’ It comments: ‘Days started at sunset.’

“This fact is also established, when considering the meaning of the Greek word, translated in Matthew 28:1, as ‘in the end of the Sabbath’. The Greek for ‘in the end of ‘ is ‘opse.’ It is defined as ‘late in the evening.’ It is not a reference to ‘early in the morning.’ Compare Mark 13:35 and Mark 11:19, where the word ‘opse’ is correctly rendered as ‘even’ or ‘evening.’”

More evidence is given in our booklet for the fact that Jesus was not resurrected on Sunday morning, but on Saturday, just before sunset.

But, what is meant, exactly, in John 20:17?

The original Greek words, more properly rendered, mean, “attach oneself to,” and this is how they are rendered in other versions of the Bible.

For instance, the New King James Bible states as follows: “Jesus said to her, ‘Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.”’”

This rendition gives the more accurate meaning of the original Greek. This is what some of the commentaries say about this verse:

Clarke’s Commentary says: “‘Cling not to me’. [The Greek] has this sense in Job 31:7, where the Septuagint use it for the Hebrew… dabak, which signifies to cleave, cling, stick, or be glued to… our Lord seems to have spoken to her to this effect: ‘Spend no longer time with me now… but go and tell my disciples, that I am… to ascend to my Father and God, who is your Father and God also. Therefore, let them take courage.’”

The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge agrees, saying this: “Touch: Or rather, ‘embrace me not,’ or, ‘cling not to me,’…  ‘Spend no more time with me now in joyful gratulations…’”

Westley states: “Touch me not – Or rather, Do not cling to me (for she held him by the feet)… Detain me not now. You will have other opportunities of conversing with me. For I am not ascended to my Father…”

In our free booklet, “Jesus Christ, a Great Mystery,” we state the following about John 20:17:

“Christ was resurrected long before Sunday morning. We read that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb on the first day of the week, when it was still dark, and Jesus was already resurrected by that time (John 20:1). This means, Christ was not resurrected on Sunday morning, at sunrise, but He had already been resurrected, ‘while it was still dark.’ In addition, John 20:1 might not even be talking about events that occurred Sunday morning, ‘while it was still dark,’ but it might be talking about events on Saturday evening, when it was getting darker. In the Greek, the word translated as ‘still’ [or ‘yet’ in other translations] is ‘eti.’ It can also be translated as ‘more,’ ‘yet more,’ or, ‘still more,’ as was done in Revelation 9:12 (‘Behold, still two more woes are coming after these things.’ Compare New International Version: ‘two other woes are yet to come’; and New Jerusalem Bible: ‘there are still two more to come’). In addition, Hebrews 11:32 states: “‘What more shall I say?’” This could mean that John’s account is telling us that the women came to the grave when it was getting ‘even more’ dark—or ‘darker,’ after they had begun their walk to the grave when it was getting dark, at sunset. This would then also refer to events on Saturday night, not on Sunday morning…

“Some… point out an apparent discrepancy between Matthew 28:9 and John 20:17. While Christ does not allow Mary to touch Him in the book of John, as He had not yet ascended to heaven, He is touched by certain women in Matthew’s account. The rationale given is that in the meantime, He had ascended to heaven and returned to earth, and could now be touched. Therefore, so the argument goes, the account in Matthew must follow the account in John.

“But as we saw, John’s account may not be talking about events that occurred on Sunday morning, but on Saturday evening, when it was getting darker. In this case, there would be no contradiction between the two accounts. In addition, we might want to note that Matthew and John are using different words in referring to ‘touching’ Christ. In Matthew 28:9, we are told that they held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. In John’s account, the concept is conveyed that the women, in their joy, were trying to seize Him. The Ryrie Study Bible comments: ‘Touch Me not—More accurately the command was, “Do not continue holding or clinging to Me” (in order to restrain Him).’ The NIV translates: ‘Do not hold on to me.’ The New King James Bible says: ‘Do not cling to Me.’ The RSV says: ‘Do not hold me.’

“The difference in Christ’s reaction toward certain ones of the women was this: Mary Magdalene wanted to cling on to Him, refusing to let Him go (John 20:17). The women in Matthew’s account were afraid (Matthew 28:8, 10). They needed to touch Him to be given comfort and reassurance that it was He (compare Luke 24:36–39; John 20:25). In any event, John’s account cannot be used to support a Sunday morning resurrection!”

So we can conclude that the verse in John 20:17 is more properly rendered as, “Don’t cling to me,” in the sense that “you don’t have to hold on to me as if I am going to be gone forever, but rather don’t cling to me because I have to go to My Father and I will be back.  I will only be gone for a short while so you don’t have to cling to me as if to prevent me from going to My Father.”

Lead Writers: Rene Messier (Canada) and Norbert Link