@Rattigan350
“The thief could
not have gone to heaven that day because Jesus had not yet ascended”
The "Paradise"
mentioned by Jesus in Luke 23:43 then does not refer to the final state
of heaven but to the "Abraham's bosom" (or limbus patrum),
the place within Sheol (Hades) where the righteous awaited the opening of
heaven after the redemption accomplished by Christ. This aligns with Ephesians
4:8-10, which states that Christ "descended into the lower parts of the
earth" to "lead captivity captive." This passage
refers to Jesus freeing the souls of the just from Sheol and bringing them to
heaven upon His ascension. The thief, therefore, entered "Paradise" —
Abraham's bosom — on the same day, in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. Heaven was
opened to the righteous after Christ's resurrection and ascension.
“Jesus was the Firstfruits, so no one
could go to heaven before Him” (1 Cor 15:22-23)
Jesus is the
"Firstfruits" of the resurrection, meaning He is the first to rise in
a glorified body. However, this does not contradict the thief’s entry into
Paradise (Abraham's bosom). The thief was not resurrected in a glorified body
on that day but joined the righteous dead in the intermediate state of
Abraham's bosom, awaiting the opening of heaven after Christ's victory over sin
and death. The concept of Christ being the Firstfruits pertains to His unique
role in leading humanity into eternal life through His glorified resurrection.
The thief’s soul being in Paradise (Abraham's bosom) does not conflict with
this order.
“Jesus ascended
to prepare a place; therefore, no one could go before Him” (John 14:2)
John 14:2 refers to Jesus
preparing the fullness of heaven for His followers, but this preparation is not
a chronological barrier. It refers to the theological reality that Christ's
redemptive work and ascension made access to heaven possible for humanity. The
thief's entry into Paradise that day does not mean he entered the final state
of heavenly glory but rather Abraham's bosom, a temporary place of rest for the
righteous. Once Christ ascended, the righteous, including the thief, entered
heaven.
“The thief was not baptized by water or the Spirit”
(John 3:5)
The Catholic Church teaches
that baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5), but it also recognizes baptism of desire and baptism of blood for those who cannot receive the sacrament
under ordinary circumstances. The thief on the cross, known as the Good Thief, is a powerful example of this exception. In
Luke 23:42, he proclaims faith and repentance by saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come into
Your kingdom.”
This profound act of faith demonstrates his implicit baptism of desire, as he trusted in Jesus’ kingship
and sought His mercy. The necessity of baptism
stems from Christ’s universal mandate, which was only proclaimed just before
His Ascension (Matthew 28:19-20). Before this proclamation, salvation could
occur through other means, such as the natural law or faith in God’s promises,
as seen in the case of Old Testament figures. The Tridentine teaching clarifies
that after the Gospel was proclaimed, justification could not occur without
either baptism or the desire for it. However, this proclamation unfolded
gradually, as the Gospel was preached to different nations over time. Even
after Pentecost, the necessity of baptism applied progressively, as it depended
on the availability of the Gospel in various regions. For those who lived
before hearing the proclamation of the Gospel or in areas where it had not yet
reached, the natural law or faith in God’s mercy sufficed. This understanding
emphasizes God’s justice and mercy, as salvation is not withheld from those who
are invincibly ignorant of the sacramental requirements. Thus, the Good Thief serves as an extraordinary testament to the
mercy of God and the validity of baptism
of desire in
exceptional circumstances. He was saved not through the normative sacrament of
water but through his sincere faith, repentance, and recognition of Jesus as
the King and Savior, fulfilling the spirit of baptism.
“The thief is
dead and awaiting resurrection to the earth” (Rev 20:13)
Revelation 20:13 refers to
the resurrection of the dead at the final judgment, which Catholics also
affirm. However, this final resurrection pertains to the reunion of body and
soul at the end of time. Until then, the souls of the righteous are alive and
conscious in the presence of God, as evidenced by Jesus' words in Matthew
22:32: "He is not the God of the dead but of the living." The
thief on the cross, like other righteous souls, is not "unconscious"
but enjoys the beatific presence of God in heaven, as demonstrated by passages
like Philippians 1:23 ("to depart and be with Christ is far
better") and Revelation 6:9-11 (the souls of the martyrs cry out to
God from under the altar).
"Paradise" before
Christ’s resurrection referred to Abraham's bosom within Sheol. The distinction
between Sheol and heaven was temporary, lasting only until Christ's victory over
sin and death. After His ascension, Abraham's bosom was no longer necessary, as
the righteous dead were brought into heaven. The term "Paradise" is
therefore used both for Abraham's bosom (before the resurrection) and for
heaven (after the resurrection), as reflected in Revelation 2:7, where the tree
of life is said to be in "the Paradise of God."
@Earnest
While this is technically
true, translators are not free to impose arbitrary punctuation but must
consider linguistic and syntactical evidence. In this case, the phrase "Truly I say to you" (ἀμὴν
λέγω σοι) occurs
69 times in the Gospels, always introducing a significant statement. In none of
these occurrences is an adverb of time (like "today") used to qualify
the phrase "I say to
you." If
"today" were intended to qualify the act of speaking, the Greek syntax
would have placed it before "I
say"
(λέγω). For instance, "Truly
today I say to you" (ἀμὴν σήμερον λέγω σοι) would be the expected construction.
Instead, "today" follows "I say to you," naturally linking it with the
promise "you will be
with me in Paradise." This is why virtually all Greek scholars, regardless of theological
perspective, punctuate the verse traditionally, as does the vast majority of
ancient manuscript traditions.
While it is true that the
Curetonian Syriac places "today" with "I say to you," this
is an isolated textual
tradition.The Sinaitic Syriac, an earlier and more reliable Old
Syriac manuscript, supports the traditional rendering, as does the Peshitta, the standard Syriac Bible. Bentley
Layton's interpretation of the Sahidic Coptic as supporting the NWT is a
minority position. Most Coptic scholars and translations (e.g., Horner’s and
Lambdin’s) render the verse traditionally. Layton’s work, while respected in
other contexts, represents a subjective interpretation not reflective of
broader scholarship. Thus, the overwhelming textual and scholarly consensus (Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic)
supports the traditional placement of the comma before "today."
While Hesychius
acknowledges that some placed the comma after "today," his
commentary does not endorse this interpretation. He merely notes its existence,
likely influenced by theological speculation rather than textual evidence. The
fact that this alternate reading is sparsely attested and lacks support in the
vast majority of manuscripts underscores its marginality. It reflects a post-biblical interpretive development, not the original intent of the
text.
"The interpretation of Luke 23:43 is
a matter of exegesis, not textual criticism."
This argument is only
partially correct. While exegesis determines meaning, the textual evidence
overwhelmingly favors the traditional rendering. Context further supports the
immediacy of the promise. Jesus’ use of "today" emphasizes the
thief's immediate entry into blessedness, a direct response to his request,
"Remember me when you come into your kingdom." The promise
surpasses the thief’s expectation by affirming an immediate reward. Catholic
theology harmonizes the immediacy of the promise with Christ's descent to the
righteous dead (e.g., Abraham's bosom, or limbus patrum). The thief would join
Jesus in this blessed state that very day.
The hypostigme (low dot) in
Codex Vaticanus is most likely an ink blot or scribal error. Even if intentional, punctuation
in early manuscripts was inconsistent and not definitive for textual interpretation.
Textual scholars (e.g., Bruce Metzger and Wieland Willker) dismiss the
hypostigme as irrelevant to the punctuation of Luke 23:43. The correct
placement of the comma is determined by grammar, syntax, and context—not
speculative punctuation marks.
The NWT’s rendering
reflects theological bias, aligning with Jehovah's Witnesses'
denial of the soul's immediate existence after death. By contrast, the
traditional punctuation—“Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in
Paradise”—upholds the integrity of the text, the immediacy of Jesus’ promise,
and the hope of eternal life with Him.
