Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade 89 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Death to the Pixies

  I never really considered this point as a JW, the punctuation used in this verse was used by Jesus on many occasions 76 times in the NT, heres the big hitter to ask your visiting JW or family member. Why is the comma placed there in this verse but in every other instance where Jesus says this phrase the comma comes after the first instance of the word you.

  Just a quick note here, there is a signif diff with the usage at Luke 23 compared to the ones cited by NWT critics, only in Luke 23 does "today" follow "truly I tell you" which would suggest the aforementioned Jewish idiom which would palce the emphasis on the occasion. One of my favorite moments in Bgreek is when Co-owner Carl Conrad said this:

  Perhaps it's not that big an issue, but I did want to report to the list
  that I have changed my thinking 180 degrees on this issue after reading
  what Greg Stafford wrote yesterday and reviewing the archived list
  correspondence--and in particular two messages from August 1, 1996 that I
  shall cite below. Since this is our own publicly accessible list-archives,
  I haven't felt any obligation to request permission from the original
  senders to cite these messages.
  
  
  I should add one other note: while I still believe that it is
  grammatically--syntactically--legitimate to understand SHMERON with the
  clause following it and qualifying the predicate ESHi MET' EMOU EN TWi
  PARADEISWi--and I would expect that many will continue to prefer to read it
  that way, I have personally come around to think that associating the
  SHMERON with AMHN LEGW SOI is not only likely but that Jesus-saying here
  cited in Luke's narrative seems better suited to its context. I'll add too,
  that while some may have theological reasons for wanting to understand
  SHMERON with ESHi MET' EMOU ..., my own thinking here has more to do with a
  judgment of historical probability in the context. (Jan 15, 2000,Bgreek)
• 

  Narkissos

  I agree that the issue is not nearly as simple as many think. And Deuteronomy 4:26,40; 5:1 constitute a good argument for the NWT ponctuation.

  However, afaik, in all NT instances of legô soi / humin + indication of time (with or without the introductory hoti) the indication of time belongs to the statement which follows. The closest example perhaps (in Lukan formulation, since the Matthean parallel misses the legô humin) is 17:34: "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left."

  In 23:43 which is specifically Lukan, sèmeron makes good sense as a response to the indication of time in the request:
  Then he said,
  "Jesus, remember mewhen you come into your kingdom."
  He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

  The implied temporal reinterpretation may be related to 17:19f (also particular to Luke):
  Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."
• 

  Leolaia

  I have long felt that the parsing that puts sémeron with the clause that follows gives a greater rhetorical effect, that the inquiry in v. 42 has an INDEFINITE time in mind while the response not only has a DEFINITE time but that time is NOW (i.e. "today"), a contrast that also appears in Luke 17:20-21 as Narkissos also just pointed out.

  Although this has rather low weight compared to contextual factors, I thought it would be worth looking up allusions and quotations of this verse to see how it is parsed. Most seem to take the sémeron with the following clause:

  1. ...tauta legontas autou eipen tois apostolois, "peri meinate me en tói topói toutói hoti sémeron en tói paradeisói thesia anapheretai..." (Gospel of Bartholomew [third century AD] 1:28)
  2. ephé gar toi léistéi, "sémeron met' emou eséi en tói paradeisói tou theou" (Origen [third century AD], Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150, 1.3.14; cf. Fragmenta in Lucam 248, Commentariorum in Evengelium Matthaei, 271, Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis 32.32.395)
  3. ...pros de ton léistén hoti sémeron met' emou eséi en tói paradeisói" (Gregorius Nyssenus [fourth century AD], Di Tridei inter Mortem, 9.291; cf. Antirrheticus Adversus Apollinarium, 3.1.153; Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii, 142)
  4. ...kai ho sotér phési sémeron met' emou eséi en tói paradeisói" (Epiphanius [fourth century AD], Ancoratus 54.7; cf. Panarion, 2.116, 2.153; somewhat ambiguous)
  5. ...eipen ho kurios, "sémeron met' emou eséi en tói paradeisói" (Marcellus [fourth century AD], Expositio Fidei, 1.7; note the use of the second aorist)
  6. phési tas kleis tés basileias tón ouranón kai su sémeron met' emou eséi en tói paradeisói" (John Chrysostom [late fourth century AD], Contra Haereticos, 745).

  This is not the strongest evidence since they may have interpreted the text in a different way than the original author, but they do carry as much weight as other witnesses from the third and fourth centuries.
• 

  Narkissos

  Cf. also the Western reading in Codex Bezae: tharsei (take heart, courage), sèmeron... which removes any ambiguity.

  I'd also suggest that the usual reading (today you will be with me in Paradise) is the lectio difficilior from a simple doctrinal standpoint, because it complicates the original narrative function of the resurrection as THE positive outcome (not to mention the later development of the descent to Hades). Of course the issue is easily solved by technicalities about the "intermediate state" (which Luke seems to enjoy, cf. chapter 16).

  I think the following excerpt of Jeremias in TDNT (V, 770f) may be interesting:

  The answer of Jesus... goes beyond what is asked, for it promises the thief that already to-day he will enjoy fellowship with Jesus in Paradise. Paradise is here the place which receives the souls of the righteous departed after death... It is thus the hidden (intervening) Paradise. But in the eschatological sèmeron there is also expresed the hic et nunc of the dawn of the age of salvation. In the promise of forgiveness the "one day" become the "to-day" of fulfillment. Paradise is open even to the irredeemably lost man hanging on the cross. He is promised fellowship with the Messiah. THis shows how unlimited is the remission of sins in the age of forgiveness which has now dawned.
  
  In the martyr stories of later Judaism a recurrent feature is that converted Gentiles who (voluntarily or otherwise) share the destiny of the martyrs will also share their reward. Thus, when the fate of the martyr Chananiah b. Teryadon (c. 135 A.D.), who was condemned to be burnt to death, was announced to a philosopher, he said: "Tomorrow my portion will be with this man in the future world," S. Dt. on 32:4 § 307. It has thus been concluded that the promise to the malefactor represents a special privilege, i.e., ordination to be a companion of the Messiah, cf. 4 Esr. 14:9: "Thou thyself wilt be translated, and henceforth thou wilt be with my servant (the Messiah...) and with those like thee, until the times are at an end," cf. 7:28. But closer to the saying to the thief is Eth. En. 39:4ff; 70:1-4, where the Son of Man is with the righteous departed. The other NT statements about the intermediate state, which extend the promise of fellowship with Christ after death to all believers, are against a restrictive interpretation which would isolate Lk. 23:43.

  (Follows a short discussion of Ac 7:59; 1 Th. 4:17; 2 C 5:8; Phil. 2:23; 2 Tm 4:18; Rm 8:38f; 14:7ff; Jn 12:26; 14:2f; Rev. 7:9-17, to the effect that being with Christ is the very essence of the early Christian version of the intermediate state.)
• 

  still wondering

  DD said
  "Yup thats quite true, also if hes going to paradise the same day, where is paradise "

  Could a possible explanation be that Jesus and the evildoer had an immediate resurrection as spirit creatures to heavenly life, i.e. that very day? (On the 40 th day Jesus ascended to that part where his Father is)

  Jesus’ human body however remained in Hades for 3 days before being resurrected. This body Jesus could now show his disciples with the holes in the hands and feet but this body was not something that Jesus needed any longer as he is clearly no longer human. He then disposed of it when it was no longer required.

  I’ve not seen this put forward anywhere but it strikes me as a possible way to explain it all.

  Do you see any inconsistencies with this?
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Since Jesus knows life after death, he could say this on the cross to the repentant criminal executed with him: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Lk 23:43). Since Jehovah's Witnesses deny the immediate existence after death, they strive to interpret this verse differently. Adventist Bible translators (see Clear Word Bible) are also bothered that in the other 73 cases, the comma or colon is right after the starting formula ("Truly, truly, I tell you:...").

  Jehovah's Witnesses did the same in the New World translation, for the same reason.According to the Watchtower Society, the dead simply do not exist until the resurrection. Therefore, in their translation, the New World Translation (NWT), Jesus does not promise the good thief that he will be with him in Paradise that day. Instead, it says, "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43); the comma is placed after "today" (this phrase, of course, is rendered in 73 other cases with the comma in its usual place). Yet, the comma comes after "… to you," as in all such introductory texts (also in the NWT in 73 out of 74 cases!). From Jesus' perspective, it would have been unnecessary to emphasize that he was saying what he was saying that day.
  Another interesting solution is Luke 23:43, which reads:

  "...Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise."

  It's interesting to also read this in the Westcott and Hort text. Alongside the Koine language, the Westcott and Hort text contains a literal English translation that, without a comma, reads:

  "Amen to you I am saying today with me you will be in Paradise"

  Translated (it could be otherwise):

  "Verily, I say unto you today, you will be with me in Paradise."

  Where should the comma be placed? In the Greek text, it's between the words 'I am saying' and 'today', and in the English translation, it's between 'saying' and 'today' (I tell you, today with me). Accordingly, from the Greek (Westcott-Hort), it can be translated correctly as:

  "Truly, I say unto you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

  Since 'amen' is a foreign word in Greek as well, instead of 'verily' it would be correct to keep 'amen', but it's not necessary. Even according to the basic text considered authentic and used by the Society, Jesus's promise was not "I am saying today that you will be with me in Paradise someday", but: "I say unto you, today you will be with me in Paradise".

  Jehovah's Witnesses immediately argue that there are no commas in the original documents. This is true, so it's up to the translator where to place them (but they should also not forget that there was no lower case 'theos', i.e., god in Greek). But translators do not place the comma as the Witnesses imagine. While there is no translator who is completely unbiased from a theological point of view, they try to push this into the background. In the question of commas and sentence partitioning, they proceed in such a way that they make a decision after examining and based on all similar places in the text to be translated. Jesus uses the phrase 'I say unto you' 74 times. In 73 other cases, 'I say unto you' is separate from the rest of the words. The NWT also translates these places in this way. Only in the case of Luke 23:43 did it proceed differently. So who was really theologically biased? A few occurrences of the phrase 'I say unto you' in Luke's gospel: 5:24, 7:9, 7:14, 7:28, 7:47, 9:27, 10:12, 10:24, 11:8, 12:4, 15:10, 17:34, 19:26, 19:40, and 23:43. In each case, it is separate from the rest of the sentence.

  So what did Jesus want to say? Does John 20:17 contradict this statement?In John 20:17, Jesus only says that He has not yet gone to His Father. In this case (at most), the thief's place in paradise is not the same as the Father's place. Another possibility: The Witnesses interpret Jesus's words to mean that they will not be fulfilled literally (Jesus and the thief will never meet face to face). In contrast, the interpretation that the thief entered Paradise that day, while Jesus may have been somewhere else, is more acceptable.Other Witnesses who admit that the comma is before 'today', argue that the expression 'TODAY' does not always mean the same day. An example of this is the warning given to Adam in Genesis 2: "The day you eat of it, you shall surely die." After Adam ate, he lived for several hundred years. Therefore, 'today' does not always mean 'that day' in the Bible. They also point out that it is appropriate to compare the thief's request with Jesus's answer, and then explain Jesus's consolation in light of this.

  Jehovah's Witnesses accuse other Bible translators of being guided by theological bias in their formulation of the text. From this example, it can be seen that the Witnesses' translators were no different. Their theological view led them, even though accepting the correct solution would not necessarily have required them to abandon their doctrine on death.

  For Jehovah's Witnesses, it is inconceivable that Jesus would have said to the criminal: "Today (that is, on this day) you will be with me in paradise" (in the intermediate state of the saved). Therefore, the New World Translation renders this verse as: "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise." The criminal does not go to paradise (in the intermediate state of the saved) with Jesus that day, but will live forever in the "Paradise on earth" sometime after his resurrection. How do they justify this translation? The biblical lexicon of Jehovah's Witnesses correctly points out that the original Greek text does not contain punctuation marks, and the (later) punctuation depends on the translator's conception. Punctuation, of course, cannot be arbitrary, but must arise from the immediate and full biblical context. Therefore, we must ask two questions: What did Jesus mean to say to the criminal in this place? Then: Where do the punctuation marks belong in parallel or similar places? The first question: What did Jesus mean to say? Did the evangelist really want to emphasize that Jesus promises paradise life in the distant future to the criminal on the day of their common death? Or did he want to highlight immediate participation in the state of the saved? The latter undoubtedly arises from the context. Because earlier the criminal said to Jesus: "Remember me when you come into your kingdom!" (Lk 23:42). Faith in the last kingdom established by God was widespread among the Jews, in contrast to which Jesus, with unparalleled full power, emphasizes: "Truly, I tell you: today you will be with me in paradise" - even though not yet in the eternal kingdom, yet in the state of the saved between earthly death and the last day. Here, Jesus speaks in the manner of early rabbis about the state into which the souls of the righteous enter at the moment of death, dwelling in paradise, in the gan eden (Garden of Eden, Gen 2:8), without bringing forward the salvation and glory that awaits the resurrected righteous only in God's future kingdom. This interpretation is supported by the contently similar place, Jn 11:23-26. Against Jesus, Martha also speaks of the "resurrection of the last day," which was well known in Judaism. In contrast to this, Jesus opposes the new: "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die." Contrary to the usual end-time expectation, Jesus emphasizes the "here and now," the eternal life that cannot be lost and which believers receive as a gift with his coming. This interpretation - and here we already answer the second question above - is supported by the whole biblical context, especially the other use of the Greek word "semeron" ("today"). It is especially used in the Gospel of Luke. Repeatedly, emphatically at the beginning, it emphasizes the presence of salvation and the Savior: "Today a Savior has been born to you" (2:11). "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (4:21). "Today we have seen incredible things" (19:5). "Today salvation has come to this house" (19:9). This sentence is an organic part of this chain as well: "Today you will be with me in paradise" (23:43). Above all, from the often used phrase "truly I tell you," it follows that "today" belongs to the second part of the sentence, it has to belong there: "Today you will be with me in paradise".

  For more than 70 times in the New Testament it says: "Truly (truly) I say to you," and not once is "today" added - accordingly, probably not in Luke 23:43 either. However, in Lk 23:43, the comma / colon always comes right after the "Truly I tell you" starter formula. But why would Jesus have emphasized that he was speaking on that day? Truly I tell you tomorrow... :D ...or I tell you yesterday? :-)

  I've listened to plenty of adventist lectures on this, and I must say that their convincing power in the field of biblical studies was very mediocre. I listened through the section where he defends the "truly I tell you today" translation, and I heard absolutely nothing, just reliance on other scripture (Adventist interpretation), general Adventist theologizing, qualification of the opposing position, some enlightenment on church history, but no compelling text-based, linguistic, Greek argument. He didn't say a word about how many times the Bible uses this "truly I tell you today," and what is the unusual "today" for, when there is no need for it. That is, he could not justify textually why the ALL other Bible translations are wrong at this point, the just showed that it does not fit with Adventist theology here. But to call a translation bad at this point, more is needed. Theology should not define the text, but the other way around. And the text is undoubtedly rounder, more familiar, that "I tell you: today you will be with me."

  
  By the way, paradise is not necessarily identical to heaven. Those who don't go to heaven can still go to paradise. In this case, paradise refers to the place where the righteous of the Old Testament reside after death. "Abraham's bosom" also denotes this place. Of course Jesus went to paradise that day. Paradise is not the same as heaven, it refers to the place of the righteous who died during the given order of salvation history, which Christ's death and resurrection was not heaven, but "Abraham's bosom", the part of Hades reserved for the righteous, also known as the limbus patrum. There really were no punctuation marks in the original text, and the burden of proof would be on thme anyway.
• 

  EasyPrompt

  Jehovah materialized a body to walk around in the Garden of Eden. He walked with Adam and Eve every day in the breezy part of the afternoon.

  
  

  After they sinned, Adam and Eve "hid from the face of Jehovah."

  
  

  Moses talked to Jehovah face-to-face, because Jehovah materialized a body to talk to him. Moses asked Jehovah to see "His glory" and God said "no man can see my face and live" regarding His Heavenly Glory. But obviously Moses could live when seeing Jehovah in a materialized body.

  
  

  Abraham talked to Jehovah in a materialized body and ate with Jehovah. (Genesis 18)

  
  

  Jesus materialized a body after he was resurrected as a spirit creature and before he went to heaven. He ate with the disciples while in that materialized body. They touched him so they could tell he materialized a body. They all hung out.

  
  

  Jehovah and Jesus will materialize bodies to hang out with people on the Paradise earth. Jehovah is not partial. He loves all his kids, whether they are human or spirit creature.

  
  

  "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise."

  
  

  "With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes..."
• 

  Rattigan350

  "NWT places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse."

  No, it does not. Jesus' words does not define life and death. What happens next is not defined by Jesus' words. Why is this scripture such an issue? It is as ridiculous as The Rich man and Lazarus.

  Gasp, Jesus said something and it changes all reality.

  No, that is not how it works.

  Reality is reality. Jesus being God's son does not change that. Sure, he did miracles, but this is not one of them. A dead man did not go to paradise.

  Mark 15:37 KJV "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost." What? Gave up the ghost. That's where that saying comes from. Even the ASV says that.

  The RSV says "And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last."

  At this point, Jesus died and he was dead. Jesus did not exist anywhere in the universe in any form, as a human or as a spirit. There was No Jesus.

  Jesus did not go to paradise that day as he was dead. If he was not dead, what was the purpose of his resurrection?

  So since Jesus was dead and not in paradise that guy was dead, when he died and also didn't go to paradise. That was Nisan 14. Jesus was resurrected Nisan 16 Sunday morning, which fulfilled the prophesy.

  That guy was not resurrected. He was not in heaven. He was not baptized and he was not anointed with holy spirit. How could he be resurrected to heaven? And the first resurrection would not occur until Jesus became king. Jesus' resurrection was a one off.

  Again, what are we talking about? More of Jesus' words that people just don't know what they mean, just as the generation??? The faithful slave???? Baptize in the name of father, son, holy spirit??? etc etc. While Jesus was the great teacher, at that moment, he was not teaching.
• 

  Rattigan350

  No, Easyprompt. Jehovah did not materialize a body to walk with Adam and Eve.

  Gen 3:8 Christian Standard Bible "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

  Walking in the garden does not mean he had legs and was walking. It is a Hebrew idiom. While the primary meaning is 'walk', it also means to move, traverse, coming, going. So the voice of God was simply moving about through the garden.

  Nor did he materialize a body to talk to Moses face to face

  Nor did he with Abraham.

  Those are word expressions.

  John 1:18 says No man has seen God.

  Exodus 33:20 "And God said, Thou shalt not be able to see my face; for no man shall see my face, and live."

  That does not contradict Jacob in Genesis 32:30 Berean Standard Bible "So Jacob named the place Peniel, saying, “Indeed, I have seen God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”"

  Because he did not actually see the face of God. We all know that was an angel. As the Aramaic Bible in Plain English says "And Yaquuv called the name of that country, Penuyel, because, “I saw an Angel face to face and my life is saved.”"
• 

  EasyPrompt

  Were you there, @Rattigan350? How do you know if you weren't there? Are you just making stuff up?

  
  

  "Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:

  “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel

  And speaking without knowledge?

  Brace yourself, please, like a man;

  I will question you, and you inform me.

  Where were you when I founded the earth?

  Tell me, if you think you understand.

  Who set its measurements, in case you know,

  Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

  Into what were its pedestals sunk,

  Or who laid its cornerstone,

  When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,

  And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?"

  
  

  "Jehovah then said to Moses: “Is the hand of Jehovah too short? Now you will see whether what I say will happen to you or not.”"

  
  

  "Jesus said to him: “That expression, ‘If you can’! Why, all things are possible for the one who has faith.”"

  
  

  If you don't want to have faith in Jehovah, @Rattigan350, that's between you and Jehovah. But you don't have to try and hinder others who have faith.

  
  

  "At seeing this, Jesus was indignant and said to them: “Let the young children come to me; do not try to stop them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such ones. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a young child will by no means enter into it.”"

  
  

  A grandma can Zoom with her grandkids in two different states at once. Both see her face on the screen and can talk to her at the same time. How much more powerful is Jehovah than an ol' grandma!

  
  

  Jehovah can interact face-to-face with his kids on earth. And He will, because God is Love and Nothing is impossible for He Who Causes To Become.

  
  

  "And the name of the city from that day on will be Jehovah Is There." (Ezekiel 48:35)

  
  

  It wouldn't be Paradise if Jehovah wasn't walking in it. He didn't become a "Father" just so He could make kids and then walk away. He's the Best Father. That means He is going to interact with His Kids Forever. And Not from a distance, but up close.

  
  

  Why is it so hard for you to believe? The Watchtower teaches that Jehovah makes class distinctions. Are you still believing what the Watchtower teaches?