What is the meaning of John 20:17?

A woman's purification was 33 (?) days

Perhaps this signified the 8 days before circumcision then?

12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:7 Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Numbers
19:11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
19:12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
19:13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness [is] yet upon him.

It's much more simple than many think. He was simply in a hurry to meet his Apostles and had no time for Mary.

No.

If that were the case, He would not have instructed her to "GO to My brethren, and SAY UNTO them..." (see also Mk16:9-11,14); if what you say is the case, then in His haste (as you suggest: "was in a hurry to meet His Apostles and had no time for Mary") He could have just told them Himself, instead of instructing HER to "SAY UNTO them"... No. There was "purpose" in what He'd instructed her to "SAY UNTO them"


I'll come back later and put a post in response to the OP question.

...........................................................................................................^^^^^^^^^^this ^^^^^^^^^^

If you look at the account of Thomas in John 20:24-27, and compare the Greek to John 20:17, they're quite different. The Greek word translated "cling" or "touch" is ἅπτομαι haptomai (see https://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm).

680 háptomai (from 681 /háptō, "to modify or change by touching") – properly, "touching that influences" (modifies); touching someone (something) in a way that alters (changes, modifies) them, i.e. "impact-touching."

An example of this kind of touch might be touching firewood with a kindling stick.

Jesus apparently knew what Mary Magdalene had in her heart, something best expressed by haptomai.

In Thomas' account, however, haptomai is not found. These two event were very different from each other. In the account of Thomas, the word "touch" isn't even used.

Yes. He used Mary to help get them all in one place except Thomas but Christ had no time to spend with Mary alone.

Mary Magdalene was probably in love with Jesus the man. In Mark 3, as the two Marys and Salome were going to the tomb to anoint His body, it's recorded:

"When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, 'Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?' "

They were going to anoint his dead body. They figured the stone would still be there. Mary Magdalene was very faithful to Jesus, but there's not any evidence that she listen any closer to what He said than did the apostles.

Earlier, in post #35, Mark47Oz eluded to some fringe idea derived from the gospel of Thomas but was reluctant to fully express it and, having the suspicion as to its nature, I wasn't about to ask. Perhaps she was reluctant to 'let Him go" or did wish that He remained forever at that point but... I am 100% sure it was not "that!"

doh! I keep writing 'eluded' when I mean rather 'alluded'...

Oh well, mebbe it works here on that plane too. :/

acts 1

Find a good online Bible and use the search bar.

Biblehub
Blueletterbible

TDW........we are anticipating the embellished response you promised......

He had paid the price for sin. And had not been to the father because when you die you do not ascend straight to heaven as some teach.
He needed to present himself before the father as our righteous sacrifice without fault. my guess is that it was to prevent Himself from being exposed to sin.

The OP (Schlomit) is a former member who was banned (VickyK). Here is a link to a dialogue I was having with VickyK before her demise (https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/was-jesus-the-first-man.196928/page-10#post-4474132).

I say this, because of three distinct things:

• The thumbnails show some very similar facial features.
• But more distinctly is the style of writing and argumentation in VickyK's posts; of which, correspond and are identical to Schlomit's. If I don't remember people by their face, I definitely remember them by their arguments and style of writing.
• And both profiles are "unavailable." While this does not necessarily mean they're the same person (especially in light of VickyK being banned), but it does show the tendency to hide credentials.