The "Touch Me Not" Doctrine

by Larry Acheson

06/10/2024

 

 

S

havuot, commonly known as Pentecost, is only a few days away. For us, day #50 will fall on June 13th this year–which will be the fifth day of the week. For many others, it will be a few days later (Sunday). For several years, June and I fellowshipped with a family that was persuaded Shavuot falls on the first day of the week each year. We mutually agreed that each side had logical reasons for believing as they do, and in addition to meeting with them on the day they observed it, we would also meet on the day June and I observed it. What made the day so special was how neither of us used the occasion to "hammer" why the opposing view was either inferior or wrong.

     Once we moved to Texas, the scenery changed in more ways than one. First, the family we left behind in Illinois told us of a man living  in the Dallas/Ft Worth area whom they had met when they worshipped with a different group of believers (at a remote feast site). He suggested that I might want to reach out to him and maybe we could fellowship. So that's what I did. I sent him a letter introducing myself and my family (our children were then 12 and 10 years old), and in that letter I supplied a general overview of our beliefs. It turns out that was a mistake, at least insofar as opening any doors for fellowship.

     We never heard back from him and in fact, I never met him until four years later. At that time, he acknowledged having received my letter, but he explained that he opted to not respond due to his concern about the way we count to Pentecost, and the potential conflict that might ensue. After the great fellowship we had experienced in previous years with the family we left behind in Illinois, I was taken aback that how we count to this one day of the year was all it took to dissuade and prevent fellowship in Texas. Since that time, I have experienced many unpleasant exchanges due to how June and I count to Pentecost. I describe a couple of such incidents in our "Facing the Pentecost Controversy" study.

     Several months ago, a woman visited with us on Shabbat, and when the topic of how to count to Pentecost just happened to come up, I explained how we do it. Let's just say her countenance and demeanor changed at that point. She matter-of-factly gave us her reason (singular) for believing the count must begin on the morrow of the weekly Sabbath. Of course, I explained why I disagree, but I didn't sense she was interested in my interpretation of Scripture. Once our Bible study concluded, she decided to leave. Once again, that's all it took to essentially cast a pall on our fellowship. We have not seen her since that day.

     What really surprised me most of all was her primary reason for believing the count to Pentecost must begin and end on the first day of the week. I have now heard that particular explanation many times; in fact, we address it in the 2004 update to our Pentecost study. I will touch on it here in this newsletter because–of all the reasons I've heard for believing Pentecost must fall on the first day of the week each year, I consider her proof text/explanation to be the most unreasonable of them all: I refer to it variously as as the "Touch Me Not" argument and the "Gardener With a Sheaf" argument.

     This argument is predicated on the belief that since Yeshua, on the first day of the week following His resurrection, told Mary Magdalene in John 20:17, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," AND since she had mistaken Him as being a gardener who must have been holding a wave sheaf in His hands (v. 15⁾¹, this means He was "obviously" at that time waving the wave sheaf offering on the correct day (Sunday). Proponents of the "Touch Me Not" belief are persuaded that Yeshua forbade Mary from touching Him because He was in some "untouchable" mode until He ascended to the Father. Eight days later, after an "apparent" ascension that is left unmentioned in all four Messianic accounts (much less the remainder of the New Testament), Yeshua appeared to His disciples, and He had no problem with anyone, including doubting Thomas, touching Him at that time.² I think it should strike anyone as peculiar that something as significant as an ascension to the Father would go unnoticed and unmentioned by any of the gospel writers. Moreover, once He returned from this alleged ascension, wouldn't that have been His "Second Coming"? And since He later ascended (again) in Acts chapter 1, won't His subsequent return be the "Third Coming"?

     But there's more: What about the "pre-ascension" touching incident as recorded in the book of Matthew? When Yeshua, after His resurrection, met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, they "held Him by the feet" (Mt 28:9). Such an act requires touching. He said nothing indicating they had done something wrong.

     There are so many questions surrounding the alleged "Untouchable" proof texts that I can only summarize it as being a forced interpretation–misread into the text–aimed at justifying a firmly-held doctrinal belief. Then, to put their perceived icing on the cake, they refer to Yeshua as the Wavesheaf Offering who offered the Wavesheaf offering that same day (Sunday). This narrative certainly sounds like a noble interpretation, but if it is true, I find it interesting that (a) no New Testament authors mentioned such a significant fulfillment, and (b) I don't think Yeshua had to wait three days to be "accepted," as per the Leviticus 23:11 instruction. Please don't get me wrong; I agree that Yeshua is the "firstfruit (singular noun from the Greek aparche) of those having fallen asleep" (1 Cor 15:20), but the firstfruits offering does not consist of one grain; it is inclusive of many grains. The firstfruits offering did not separate or otherwise distinguish one grain from another–it was an all-inclusive offering that many believe will be fulfilled when the faithful are resurrected. Yeshua's sacrifice was most certainly "accepted" prior to that memorial day of Abib 14; the only proof we should need is the very fact that He was resurrected. Would He have been resurrected from the dead if His sacrifice was not already "accepted"?

     In our Pentecost study, I quoted from a man named William, now deceased, who, like us, disagreed with the belief that Yeshua is the Wave Sheaf Offering. He brought up the same point that I have so often used--that the Wave Sheaf Offering is represented by all saints collectively, not Yeshua only. William raised the point that, according to 1 Cor 15:20, Yeshua is presented as the "FIRST FRUIT" (singular, not plural), which is a great point. It's a firstfruits offering (plural fruits). Since Yeshua is the "First FRUIT," I highly doubt that He waved only one grain, which in turn would have meant that He figuratively waved Himself! While addressing my agreement with William's commentary, I was nevertheless compelled to concede that according to the Greek text of Revelation 14:4, the 144,000 faithful are ALSO collectively referred to as the "firstfruit (singular) unto Elohim and to the Lamb. However, that was before we were made aware of the Hebrew Revelation, which can be shown to have pre-dated the Greek translation. According to the Hebrew Revelation 14:4, the 144,000 are indeed first FRUITS (plural, Hebrew bikkurim). And that will be the fulfillment of the Wave Sheaf Offering.

     Interestingly, the Hebrew word bikkurim is not used in reference to the Wave Sheaf offering of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; rather, it's used in reference to the firstfruits offering of Shavuot (Pentecost).3

     Regardless of whether we're supposed to count to Pentecost from the morrow of the weekly Sabbath or the morrow of the festival Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it is very premature to conclude that (a) Yeshua waved the Wave Sheaf Offering, (b) He literally forbade Mary from touching Him after His resurrection, and (c) before He subsequently appeared to His disciples a week later, He ascended to heaven and returned (effectively making that return His "second coming"), and (d) His sacrifice wasn't "accepted" until He ascended to His Father. If His very resurrection isn't sufficient for you to believe He had already been "accepted," then I can only surmise that we have far greater issues separating us than how to begin the count to Pentecost. All this reading into the text can only be for the sole purpose of supporting a particular method of counting to Pentecost.

     I certainly understand and respect interpreting the command to count from the morrow of the Sabbath (Lev 23:11) as meaning to count from the morrow of the weekly Sabbath versus the festival Sabbath. I get that, and I respect this interpretation, even though the Hebrew scholars who translated the Septuagint in the 3rd century BCE didn't see it that way, nor did such first-century believers as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. In fact, I don't believe anyone can prove there was even a controversy over how to count, at least not during the first century. All historical evidence points to Jewish understanding that the count begins on the morrow of the festival Sabbath, i.e., Abib 16, and there is no record of Yeshua disagreeing with that method. But to use the "Touch Me Not" argument as rationale for beginning the count to Pentecost on the morrow of the weekly Sabbath is unreasonable and even shocking when presented by people claiming to be truth seekers.

     Sadly, I must compare "Touch Me Not" proponents to Lunar Sabbatarians, who likewise share a propensity for reading into the text and formulating an interpretation unsupported by historical understanding. Here's an easy reference chart:

    

     Lunar Sabbatarians, in my many discussions with them, would attest to building their foundation on their commitment to go by "Scripture and Scripture alone," i.e., sola Scriptura, which, as it turns out, actually amounts to going by their interpretation of Scripture, and their interpretation of Scripture alone. This same principle applies to proponents of the "Touch Me Not" belief.

___________________________________

1 According to the Hebrew version of John 20:14-15, Mary Magdalene mistook Yeshua for a thief who had stolen Yeshua's body: "14 And when Miryam Magdalit had spoken these words, she turned about and saw Yeshua standing on His feet. And she did not realize that it was Yeshua, 15 but she said in herself that He was the thief." The Hebrew text (Vatican Manuscript 151r) is displayed below:

2  According to the account found in Luke chapter 24, Yeshua invited His disciples to touch Him on the very evening following His resurrection (Luke 24:39).

3 Cf., Leviticus 23:17.