Traditional Misreading? #3: Luke 23:43

[Checkpoint]

This verse has been discussed and debated about for centuries.

On the surface, the dispute has been about where to put a speech mark - a comma - . Should it be before the word "today", or after the word "today"?

But it's not as simple as to merely make that choice. For several reasons.

Firstly, no speech marks (such as commas) are in the original languages used by Bible writers. Likewise, verses, paragraphs, and chapters, were absent from the original writings.
These were all added to the text in later times.

Secondly, our choice will be, or should be, made after giving due consideration to, not only this verse but to the entire conversation before our disputation verse, 43.

Here is the verse, plus the verse in its conversation context:


Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise."

Luke 23: 39-43
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,d saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today you will be with me in paradise.”

(Note: I have taken out the contested comma. Not because there should not be one(there should), but to encourage readers to consider/reconsider just where it is most appropriate, and make their choice accordingly)


1. Why, do you think, Jesus added the word "today" to his usual "Truly, I say to you"?

2. When, do you think, Jesus had in mind by using the word "Paradise" as the equivalent of "when you come into your kingdom"?

3. Where do you place the comma, and why have you made that your choice?






The Death of Jesus

[lifelongseeker]

[Replying to Checkpoint in post #1]

They told me to seek the truth. I finally did.

Our OT was produced by Masorete Jews 1000 years after Christ called them sons of Satan.

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ. Ordered into cannon by...for...
____________
Masoretes -"𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛". Masoretic Text - "𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛" (Jewish Tanakh, from 1008BC) is our Old Testament.
Jeremiah 8:8 

Many ancient manuscripts have been found. Mystic, Gnostic, another messiah...

[onewithhim]

This verse has been discussed and debated about for centuries.

On the surface, the dispute has been about where to put a speech mark - a comma - . Should it be before the word "today", or after the word "today"?

But it's not as simple as to merely make that choice. For several reasons.

Firstly, no speech marks (such as commas) are in the original languages used by Bible writers. Likewise, verses, paragraphs, and chapters, were absent from the original writings.
These were all added to the text in later times.

Secondly, our choice will be, or should be, made after giving due consideration to, not only this verse but to the entire conversation before our disputation verse, 43.

Here is the verse, plus the verse in its conversation context:


Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise."

Luke 23: 39-43
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,d saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today you will be with me in paradise.”

(Note: I have taken out the contested comma. Not because there should not be one(there should), but to encourage readers to consider/reconsider just where it is most appropriate, and make their choice accordingly)


1. Why, do you think, Jesus added the word "today" to his usual "Truly, I say to you"?

2. When, do you think, Jesus had in mind by using the word "Paradise" as the equivalent of "when you come into your kingdom"?

3. Where do you place the comma, and why have you made that your choice?

The comma belongs after "today." It is not unusual for someone in ancient times to speak that way. For example, Zechariah 9:12 says: "Also, today I am telling you, 'I shall repay you'..."

Deuteronomy 4:40: "You must keep his regulations and his commandments that I am commanding you today, that it may go well with you..."

Deut. 30:18: "I do tell you today that you will positively perish."

So Jesus said in a similar way, "I tell you today, you will be with me..."

Jesus wouldn't have told the thief that they would be together in Paradise that day because Jesus was dead for 3 days. Then he was resurrected and was seen by hundreds of people for at least 40 days. So the comma couldn't be after "I tell you." (And Jesus didn't go anywhere the day he died, for he was really dead for 3 days. He didn't have a spirit "mini me" that went anywhere at death, because we know that "the dead know not anything.") (Eccles.9:5)

[Difflugia]

So Jesus said in a similar way, "I tell you today, you will be with me..."

In Luke, the Greek word for "today," σήμερον, only appears in quotations. Of the ten total appearances of σήμερον, only 23:43 could be considered ambiguous. Every other time, it's clear either through context or word order that "today" refers to what is being told about rather than when the speaker says it.

Contrast that with the fifty or so times λέγω ("I say") appears in Luke. With this single, ambiguous exception, Luke's characters don't "tell you today." "I tell you, today..." fits the way Luke's characters express themselves in Greek.

Here's the list in case anyone wants to check my work:

• 2:10-12
• 4:21
• 5:26
• 12:22-40 (v. 28)
• 13:32-33
• 19:5
• 19:9
• 22:34
• 22:61
• 23:43

Jesus wouldn't have told the thief that they would be together in Paradise that day because Jesus was dead for 3 days.

That particular bit of apologetic exegesis only works if one accepts the doctrine of "soul sleep." If one doesn't, then while Jesus' body was in the tomb, his spirit can also have been in Paradise with the crucified thief. In fact, that doctrine is specifically why Witnesses (along with a few others, like Seventh-Day Adventists) have to treat that verse the way they do.

[myth-one.com]

So Jesus said in a similar way, "I tell you today, you will be with me..."

In Luke, the Greek word for "today," σήμερον, only appears in quotations. Of the ten total appearances of σήμερον, only 23:43 could be considered ambiguous. Every other time, it's clear either through context or word order that "today" refers to what is being told about rather than when the speaker says it.

Contrast that with the fifty or so times λέγω ("I say") appears in Luke. With this single, ambiguous exception, Luke's characters don't "tell you today." "I tell you, today..." fits the way Luke's characters express themselves in Greek.

Here's the list in case anyone wants to check my work:

• 2:10-12
• 4:21
• 5:26
• 12:22-40 (v. 28)
• 13:32-33
• 19:5
• 19:9
• 22:34
• 22:61
• 23:43

Jesus wouldn't have told the thief that they would be together in Paradise that day because Jesus was dead for 3 days.

That particular bit of apologetic exegesis only works if one accepts the doctrine of "soul sleep." If one doesn't, then while Jesus' body was in the tomb, his spirit can also have been in Paradise with the crucified thief. In fact, that doctrine is specifically why Witnesses (along with a few others, like Seventh-Day Adventists) have to treat that verse the way they do.

Only two body types are described in the scriptures, natural or terrestrial and spiritual or celestial:

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (I Corinthians 15:44)

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (I Corinthians 15:40)

Celestial means heavenly or spiritual and terrestrial means natural, earthly, or physical. There are only two body types, celestial and terrestrial, and they are different. The glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. In other words, they do not mix.

There is no hybrid being consisting of a spirit or soul living within a physical body described anywhere in the scriptures!

Man is a terrestrial body, and God and the angels are spiritual bodies.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit (God) is a spirit.

Thus we must be born again of the Spirit as a spirit to inherit the Kingdom of God!

So the comma goes after the word "today"!

And the thief who believed in Jesus will be born again of the Spirit, as a spirit, into the spiritual Kingdom of God at the Second Coming.

[Difflugia]

There is no hybrid being consisting of a spirit or soul living within a physical body described anywhere in the scriptures!

There are several.

In 1 Kings 17:21-22, Elijah's prayer is explicitly dualistic (soul, physical body):

He stretched himself upon the child three times, cried to Yahweh and said, "O Yahweh my God, I pray that you let this child’s soul come into him again."

And Yahweh listened to the voice of Elijah. The soul of the child came into him again and he revived.

"Soul" here is obviously the Hebrew nephesh. Some Old Testament authors are monistic and treat the soul as a unified whole. Others are dualistic and consider the body and spirit distinct. The author of 1 Kings (the Deuteronomist) was clearly a dualist. For him and the inspired, inerrant text that he wrote, nephesh is something that leaves the body when it dies and could potentially reenter the body to restore life.

It also seems that Paul was dualistic. In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul knows that he was "caught up to the third heaven," but doesn't know whether he was "in the body or out of the body." If he can have an experience "out of the body," then the agent of conscious perception can be separated from the body. That's dualism.

Thus we must be born again of the Spirit as a spirit to inherit the Kingdom of God!

Paul also thought that, but also could visit Paradise (2 Cor 12:3) out of the body. That at least means that even if your statement is true, there was still an avenue for the thief to visit Paradise with Jesus on the day of crucifixion.

So the comma goes after the word "today"!

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, so it's a non sequitur.

[onewithhim]

So Jesus said in a similar way, "I tell you today, you will be with me..."

In Luke, the Greek word for "today," σήμερον, only appears in quotations. Of the ten total appearances of σήμερον, only 23:43 could be considered ambiguous. Every other time, it's clear either through context or word order that "today" refers to what is being told about rather than when the speaker says it.

Contrast that with the fifty or so times λέγω ("I say") appears in Luke. With this single, ambiguous exception, Luke's characters don't "tell you today." "I tell you, today..." fits the way Luke's characters express themselves in Greek.

Here's the list in case anyone wants to check my work:

• 2:10-12
• 4:21
• 5:26
• 12:22-40 (v. 28)
• 13:32-33
• 19:5
• 19:9
• 22:34
• 22:61
• 23:43

Jesus wouldn't have told the thief that they would be together in Paradise that day because Jesus was dead for 3 days.

That particular bit of apologetic exegesis only works if one accepts the doctrine of "soul sleep." If one doesn't, then while Jesus' body was in the tomb, his spirit can also have been in Paradise with the crucified thief. In fact, that doctrine is specifically why Witnesses (along with a few others, like Seventh-Day Adventists) have to treat that verse the way they do.

Jesus himself taught "soul sleep." He said Lazarus had gone to sleep, when of course Lazarus was dead. That teaching goes along with Ecclesiastes 5:9 which says that "the dead know not anything." (KJV) The myth of a separate spirit within one's body consciously leaving the body at death is at odds with what the rest of the Bible teaches. I'm surprised that you haven't caught up on that in your studies.

[Difflugia]

Jesus himself taught "soul sleep." He said Lazarus had gone to sleep, when of course Lazarus was dead.

He also said that the dead rich man and Lazarus had a conversation while the rich man's brothers were still alive. So, Jesus apparently also taught "soul talking."

That teaching goes along with Ecclesiastes 5:9 which says that "the dead know not anything." (KJV) The myth of a separate spirit within one's body consciously leaving the body at death is at odds with what the rest of the Bible teaches.

Except the parts by dualist authors, like the Deuteronomistic History and Pauline Epistles.

I'm surprised that you haven't caught up on that in your studies.

I'm sure you'd be surprised by much of what I study.

[onewithhim]

Jesus himself taught "soul sleep." He said Lazarus had gone to sleep, when of course Lazarus was dead.

He also said that the dead rich man and Lazarus had a conversation while the rich man's brothers were still alive. So, Jesus apparently also taught "soul talking."

You have not discerned that that story was told by Jesus as a metaphor to teach a certain point, not meant to be literal? Isn't it obvious that it is not literal? It's funny that that parable of Jesus is the only place that a person is dead and then talking to someone else. He didn't teach dead soul talking.
Is hell literally within speaking distance of heaven so that such a real conversation could be carried on? Also, if the rich man were in a literal burning lake, how could Abraham send Lazarus to cool his tongue with just a drop of water on the tip of his finger? This does not in any sense show that the rich man and Lazarus is a literal story.

The rich man in the story stood for the self-important religious leaders who rejected Jesus and later killed him. Lazarus pictured the common people who accepted Jesus. The death of the rich man and of Lazarus represented a change in their condition. The change took place when Jesus fed the neglected Lazarus-like people spiritually, so that they thus came into favor with the "Greater Abraham," Jehovah. At the same time, the false religious leaders "died" with respect to having God's favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ exposed their evil works. (Check out Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration does not teach that dead people can actually talk, nor does it show that people roast in a fire in hell. The Pharisees were nearby listening to Jesus, and he took the advantage to speak to them about their hypocrisy.

[Difflugia]

Jesus himself taught "soul sleep." He said Lazarus had gone to sleep, when of course Lazarus was dead.

He also said that the dead rich man and Lazarus had a conversation while the rich man's brothers were still alive. So, Jesus apparently also taught "soul talking."

You have not discerned that that story was told by Jesus as a metaphor to teach a certain point, not meant to be literal? Isn't it obvious that it is not literal?

Yes. Sleep is an obvious, nonliteral metaphor for death.

It's funny that that parable of Jesus is the only place that a person is dead and then talking to someone else.

Considering the number of times we've discussed Saul's conversation with the dead Samuel, you must know that that's not true.

He didn't teach dead soul talking.

Then he didn't teach soul sleep. If you're going to use obvious metaphor as a proof text for soul sleep, then you don't get to ridicule the use of metaphor to prove any other doctrines. You have to pick a lane.

[Capbook]

Jesus himself taught "soul sleep." He said Lazarus had gone to sleep, when of course Lazarus was dead.

He also said that the dead rich man and Lazarus had a conversation while the rich man's brothers were still alive. So, Jesus apparently also taught "soul talking."

That teaching goes along with Ecclesiastes 5:9 which says that "the dead know not anything." (KJV) The myth of a separate spirit within one's body consciously leaving the body at death is at odds with what the rest of the Bible teaches.

Except the parts by dualist authors, like the Deuteronomistic History and Pauline Epistles.

I'm surprised that you haven't caught up on that in your studies.

I'm sure you'd be surprised by much of what I study.

I can't remember I've said those things above in this thread specially the second one.
But anyway, back to the OP, though original languages does not use commas, I have two translations that tried to maintain its accuracy to the original wordings of the Bible.

(UASV+) Luke 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise."
(TS2009) Luke 23:43 And יהושע said to him, “Truly, I say to you today, you shall be with Me in paradise.”b Footnote: bLit. garden.