43.<\/strong> To day<\/em> ] An unexpected boon, for the crucified often lingered in agony for more than two days.<\/p>\n To day shalt thou be with me in paradise<\/em> ] Paradeisos<\/em> is derived from the Persian word Pardes,<\/em> meaning a king’s garden or pleasaunce. Here it is ‘a garden’ in which are more blessed trees than those in the garden of Golgotha. (Bengel.) It is used (1) for the garden of Eden (Gen 2:8<\/span>, &c.); and (2) for that region of Hades ( Sheol<\/em>) in which the spirits of the blest await the general Resurrection, Act 2:31<\/span>; 1Co 15:55<\/span>; Rev 2:7<\/span>. The Sapphic verse on the tomb of the great Copernicus alludes to the prayer of the Penitent Robber:<\/p>\n “Non parem Paulo veniam requiro<\/p>\n Gratiam Petri neque posco, sed quam<\/p>\n In crucis ligno dederis latroni<\/p>\n Sedulus oro.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Today … – <\/B>It is not probable that the dying thief expected that his prayer would be so soon answered. It is rather to be supposed that he looked to some future period when the Messiah would rise or would return; but Jesus told him that his prayer would be answered that very day, implying, evidently, that it would be immediately at death. This is the more remarkable, as those who were crucified commonly lingered for several days on the cross before they died; but Jesus foresaw that measures would be taken to hasten their death, and assured him that that day he should receive an answer to his prayer and be with him in his kingdom.<\/P> Paradise – <\/B>This is a word of Persian origin, and means a garden, particularly a garden of pleasure, filled with trees, and shrubs, and fountains, and flowers. In hot climates such gardens were especially pleasant, and hence, they were attached to the mansions of the rich and to the palaces of princes. The word came thus to denote any place of happiness, and was used particularly to denote the abodes of the blessed in another world. The Romans spoke of their Elysium, and the Greeks of the gardens of Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit. The garden of Eden means, also, the garden of pleasure, and in Gen 2:8<\/span> the Septuagint renders the word Eden by Paradise. Hence, this name in the Scriptures comes to denote the abodes of the blessed in the other world. See the notes at 2Co 12:4<\/span>. The Jews supposed that the souls of the righteous would be received into such a place, and those of the wicked cast down to Gehenna until the time of the judgment. They had many fables about this state which it is unnecessary to repeat. The plain meaning of the passage is, Today thou shalt be made happy, or be received to a state of blessedness with me after death. It is to be remarked that Christ says nothing about the place where it should be, nor of the condition of those there, excepting that it is a place of blessedness, and that its happiness is to commence immediately after death (see also Phi 1:23<\/span>); but from the narrative we may learn:<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 43. To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.<\/B><\/I>] Marcion<\/I> and the Manichees<\/I> are reported to have left this verse out of their copies of this evangelist. This saying of our Lord is justly considered as a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul; and it is no wonder that those who have embraced the contrary opinion should endeavor to explain away this meaning. In order to do this, a comma<\/I> is placed after , to-day<\/I>, and then our Lord is supposed to have meant, “Thou shalt be with me after the resurrection I tell thee this, TO-DAY.” I am sorry to find men-of great learning and abilities attempting to support this most feeble and worthless criticism. Such support a good<\/I> cause cannot need; and, in my opinion, even a bad cause<\/I> must be discredited by it.<\/P> <\/P> In paradise<\/B><\/I>. The garden of Eden<\/I>, mentioned Ge 2:8<\/span>, is also called, from the Septuagint, the garden of Paradise<\/I>. The word Eden<\/I>, signifies pleasure<\/I> and delight<\/I>. Several places were thus called; see Ge 4:16<\/span>; 2Kg 19:12<\/span>; Isa 37:12<\/span>; Eze 27:23<\/span>; and Amo 1:5<\/span>; and such places probably had this name from their fertility, pleasant situation<\/I>, c., c. In this light the Septuagint have viewed Ge 2:8<\/span>. as they render the passage thus: , God planted a paradise in<\/I> Eden<\/I>. Hence the word has been transplanted into the New Testament and is used to signify a place of exquisite pleasure and delight. From this the ancient heathens borrowed their ideas of the gardens of the Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit and the gardens of Adonis<\/I>, a word which is evidently derived from the Hebrew Eden<\/I>: and hence the origin of sacred groves, gardens, and other enclosures dedicated to purposes of devotion, some comparatively innocent, others impure. The word paradise is not Greek, but is of Asiatic origin. In Arabic and Persian it signifies a garden<\/I>, a vineyard<\/I>, and also the place of the blessed.<\/I> In the Kushuf ul Loghat, a very celebrated Persian dictionary, the [Arabic] Jenet al Ferdoos<\/I>, Garden of Paradise, is said to have been “created by God out of light<\/I>, and that the prophets and wise men ascend thither.”<\/P> <\/P> Paradise was, in the beginning, the habitation of man in his state of innocence, in which he enjoyed that presence<\/I> of his Maker which constituted his supreme happiness. Our Lord’s words intimate that this penitent should be immediately taken to the abode of the spirits of the just<\/I>, where he should enjoy the presence and approbation of the Most High. In the Institutes of Menu, chap. OEconomics, Inst. 243, are the following words: “A man habitually pious, whose offences have been expiated, is instantly conveyed, after death, to the higher world, with a radiant form, and a body of ethereal substance.” The state of the blessed<\/I> is certainly what our Lord here means: in what the locality<\/I> of that state consists we know not. The Jews share a multitude of fables on the subject.<\/P><\/p>\n 43. Jesus said,<\/B> c.The dyingRedeemer speaks as if He Himself viewed it in this light. It was a”song in the night.” It ministered cheer to His spirit inthe midnight gloom that now enwrapt it. <\/P> Verily I say unto thee<\/B>“Sincethou speakest as to the king, with kingly authority speak I to thee.”<\/P> To-day<\/B>“Thou artprepared for a long delay before I come into My kingdom, but not aday’s delay shall there be for thee thou shalt not be parted from Meeven for a moment, but together we shall go, and with Me, ere thisday expire, shalt thou be in Paradise” (future bliss, 2Co 12:4<\/span>;Rev 2:7<\/span>). Learn (1) How “Oneis taken and another left”; (2) How easily divine teaching canraise the rudest and worst above the best instructed and most devotedservants of Christ; (3) How presumption<\/I> and despair<\/I> ona death hour are equally discountenanced here, the one in theimpenitent thief, the other in his penitent fellow. <\/P> Lu23:47-56<\/span>. SIGNS ANDCIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWINGHIS DEATHHISBURIAL. <\/P> (See on Mt27:51-56<\/span>; Mt 27:62-66<\/span>; and Joh19:31-42<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him<\/strong>,…. Jesus immediately answered him, though he said not one word to the other that railed at him, or to the multitude that abused him; and promised him more than he asked for, and sooner than he expected.<\/p>\n Verily I say unto thee, today thou shall be with me in paradise<\/strong>;<\/p>\n , “in the garden of Eden”; not the earthly paradise, nor the church militant, but the future place, and state of the happiness of the saints, even heaven, and eternal glory, which the Jews frequently call by this name; [See comments on 2Co 12:4]<\/span> and is so called, because, as the earthly paradise, or Eden’s garden, was of God’s planting, so is the heavenly glory of his providing and preparing: as that was a place of delight and pleasure, so here are pleasures for evermore; as there was a river in it, which added to the delightfulness and advantage of it, so here runs the river of God’s love, the streams whereof make glad the saints now, and will be a broad river to swim in to all eternity: as there were the tree of life, with a variety of other trees, both for delight and profit, so here, besides Christ, the tree of life, which stands in the midst of it, are an innumerable company of angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect: and as the inhabitants of that garden were pure and innocent creatures, so into this paradise shall nothing enter but what is righteous, pure, and holy: and whereas the principal enjoyment of man in Eden was conversation with God, and communion with him, the glory of the heavenly paradise will lie in fellowship with God, Father, Son, and Spirit, in beholding the face of God, and seeing him as he is: and this is the happiness promised by Christ to the penitent and believing thief, that he should be here; and not only so, but with him here, which is far better than being in this world, and than which nothing can be more desirable: and which, when enjoyed, will be for ever: and this he was to enter upon that very day; which shows, that Christ’s soul did not descend into hell, locally and literally considered, or into the “Limbus Patrum”, the Papists talk of, to fetch the souls of the patriarchs thence, but as soon as it was separated from the body was taken up into heaven; and also, that the souls of departed saints are immediately, upon their separation from the body, there; which was the case of this wonderful instance of the grace of God; and shows the swiftness of the soul, or the velocity of angels in conveying it thither immediately: and this agrees with the sense of the Jews, who say b, that<\/p>\n “the souls of the fathers, or patriarchs have rest, and in a moment, immediately enter into their separate places, or apartments, and not as the rest of the souls; of whom it is said, all the twelve months the soul ascends and descends, (goes to and fro,) but the souls of the fathers,<\/p>\n , “immediately, upon their separation”, return to God that gave them.”<\/p>\n Some would remove the stop, and place it after “today”, and read the words thus, “I say unto thee today”; as if Christ only signified the time when he said this, and not when the thief should be with him in paradise; which, besides it being senseless, and impertinent, and only contrived to serve an hypothesis, is not agreeably to Christ’s usual way of speaking, and contrary to all copies and versions. Moreover, in one of Beza’s exemplars it is read, “I say unto thee, that today thou shalt be with me”, c. and so the Persic and Ethiopic versions seem to read, which destroys this silly criticism. And because this was a matter of great importance, and an instance of amazing grace, that so vile a sinner, one of the chief of sinners, should immediately enter into the kingdom of God, and enjoy uninterrupted, and everlasting communion with him and that it might not be a matter of doubt with him, or others, Christ, who is the “Amen”, the faithful witness, and truth itself, prefaces it after this manner: “verily I say unto thee” it is truth, it may be depended on. This instance of grace stands on record, not to cherish sloth, indolence, security and presumption, but to encourage faith and hope in sensible sinners, in their last moments, and prevent despair. The Papists pretend to know this man’s name; they say his name was Disma; and reckon him as a martyr, and have put him in the catalogue of saints, and fixed him on the “twenty fifth” of March.<\/p>\n (The story of the penitent thief has sometimes been considered the most surprising, the most suggestive, the most instructive incident in all the Gospel narrative. … In the salvation of one of the thieves \\@vital\\@ \\@theology finds one of its finest demonstrations.\\@<\/p>\n \\@Sacrementalism was refuted,\\@ for the thief was saved without recourse to baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church, ceremony, or good works.<\/p>\n \\@The dogma of purgatory was refuted,\\@ for this vile sinner was instantly transformed into a saint and made fit for paradise apart from his personal expiation of a single sin.<\/p>\n \\@The teaching of universalism was refuted,\\@ for only one was saved of all who might have been saved. Jesus did not say, “Today shall ye be with me in paradise”, but “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”<\/p>\n \\@The notion of soul-sleep was refuted,\\@ for the clear implication of the entire incident is that the redeemed thief would be in conscious fellowship with his Saviour in paradise even while his body disintegrated in some grave.<\/p>\n Too, it is doubtful whether any other gospel incident presents the plan of salvation more clearly or simply.–Dr. Charles R. Erdman)<\/p>\n b Tzeror Hammor, fol. 58. 4.<\/p>\n Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise <\/B> ( ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). However crude may have been the robber’s Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2Cor 12:4<\/span>; Rev 2:7<\/span>), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting “Abraham’s bosom” (Lu 16:22f.<\/span>) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it. <\/P> <\/p>\n In Paradise [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Originally an enclosed park, or pleasure – ground. Xenophon uses it of the parks of the Persian kings and nobles. “There (at Celaenae) Cyrus had a palace and a great park [] <\/SPAN><\/span>, full of wild animals, which he hunted on horseback…. Through the midst of the park flows the river Maeander (” Anabasis,” 1, 2, 7). And again : “The Greeks encamped near a great and beautiful park, thickly grown with all kinds of trees” (ii. 4, 14.) In the Septuagint, Gen 2:8<\/span>, of the garden of Eden. In the Jewish theology, the department of Hades where the blessed souls await the resurrection; and therefore equivalent to Abraham ‘s bosom (ch. 16 22, 23). It occurs three times in the New Testament : here; 2Co 12:4<\/span>; Rev 2:7<\/span>; and always of the abode of the blessed. <\/P> ” Where’er thou roam’st, one happy soul, we know, See at thy side in woe, Waits on thy triumph – even as all the blest With him and Thee shall rest. <\/P> Each on his cross, by Thee we hang awhile, Watching thy patient smile, Till we have learn ‘d to say, “Tis justly done, Only in glory, Lord, thy sinful servant own. ‘” KEBLE, Christian Year. <\/P> 44 – 46. Compare Mt 27:45 – 50<\/span>; Mr 14:33 – 37<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee,” <\/strong>(kai eipen auto amen soi lego) “And Jesus replied to him, I tell you surely,” certainly, or of a truth, on the basis of your confession of guilt and call for mercy, before it is too late, Rom 5:20-21<\/span>; Rom 10:8-13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” <\/strong>(semeron met’ empu ese en to paradeiso) “You will be with me in Paradise today,” in the third heaven itself, 2Co 12:4<\/span>. Note Jesus went to the third heaven that day, not to some region below, right away, in a place of rest and beauty, as I go to my Father and yours right away. For shortly He gave up His own Spirit, of His own will or volition,’ saying, “Father into thy hand I commend my Spirit,” Luk 23:46<\/span>; Joh 10:18<\/span>; For He gave His life. It was not taken from Him, involuntarily, Eph 5:25<\/span>; Joh 19:30<\/span>.<\/p>\n 43. Verily I tell thee. Though Christ had not yet made a public triumph over death, still he displays the efficacy and fruit of his death in the midst of his humiliation. And in this way he shows that he never was deprived of the power of his kingdom; for nothing more lofty or magnificent belongs to a divine King, (278) than to restore life to the dead. So then, Christ, although, struck by the hand of God, he appeared to be a man utterly abandoned, yet as he did not cease to be the Savior of the world, he was always endued with heavenly power for fulfilling his office. And, first, we ought to observe his inconceivable readiness in so kindly receiving the robber without delay, and promising to make him a partaker (279) of a happy life. There is therefore no room to doubt that he is prepared to admit into his kingdom all, without exception, who shall apply to him. Hence we may conclude with certainty that we shall be saved, provided that he remember us; and it is impossible that he shall forget those who commit to him their salvation. <\/p>\n But if a robber found the entrance into heaven so easy, because, while he beheld on all sides ground for total despair, he relied on the grace of Christ; much more will Christ, who has now vanquished death, stretch out his hand to us from his throne, to admit us to be partakers of life. For since Christ has <\/p>\n nailed to his cross the handwriting which was opposed to us, (Col 2:14<\/span>,) <\/p>\n and has destroyed death and Satan, and in his resurrection has triumphed over the prince of the world, (Joh 12:31<\/span>,) it would be unreasonable to suppose that the passage from death to life will be more laborious and difficult to us than to the robber. Whoever then in dying shall commit to Christ, in true faith, the keeping of his soul, will not be long detained or allowed to languish in suspense; but Christ will meet his prayer with the same kindness which he exercised towards the robber. Away, then, with that detestable contrivance of the Sophists about retaining the punishment when the guilt is removed; for we see how Christ, in acquitting him from condemnation, frees him also from punishment. Nor is this inconsistent with the fact, that the robber nevertheless endures to the very last the punishment which had been pronounced upon him; for we must not here imagine any compensation which serves the purpose of satisfaction for appeasing the judgment of God, (as the Sophists dream,) but the Lord merely trains his elect by corporal punishments to displeasure and hatred of sin. Thus, when the robber has been brought by fatherly discipline to self-denial Christ receives him, as it were, into his bosom, and does not send him away to the fire of purgatory. <\/p>\n We ought likewise to observe by what keys the gate of heaven was opened to the robber; for neither papal confession nor satisfactions are here taken into account, but Christ is satisfied with repentance and faith, so as to receive him willingly when he comes to him. And this confirms more fully what I formerly suggested, that if any man disdain to abide by the footsteps of the robber, and to follow in his path, he deserves everlasting destruction, because by wicked pride he shuts against himself the gate of heaven. And, certainly, as Christ has given to all of us, in the person of the robber, a general pledge of obtaining forgiveness, so, on the other hand, he has bestowed on this wretched man such distinguished honor, in order that, laying aside our own glory, we may glory in nothing but the mercy of God alone. If each of us shall truly and seriously examine the subject, we shall find abundant reason to be ashamed of the prodigious mass of our crimes, so that we shall not be offended at having for our guide and leader a poor wretch, who obtained salvation by free grace. Again, as the death of Christ at that time yielded its fruit, so we infer from it that souls, when they have departed from their bodies, continue to live; otherwise the promise of Christ, which he confirms even by an oath, would be a mockery. <\/p>\n Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. We ought not to enter into curious and subtle arguments about the place of paradise. Let us rest satisfied with knowing that those who are engrafted by faith into the body of Christ are partakers of that life, and thus enjoy after death a blessed and joyful rest, until the perfect glory of the heavenly life is fully manifested by the coming of Christ. <\/p>\n One point still remains. What is promised to the robber does not alleviate his present sufferings, nor make any abatement of his bodily punishment. This reminds us that we ought not to judge of the grace of God by the perception of the flesh; for it will often happen that those to whom God is reconciled are permitted by him to be severely afflicted. So then, if we are dreadfully tormented in body, we ought to be on our guard lest the severity of pain hinder us from tasting the goodness of God; but, on the contrary, all our afflictions ought to be mitigated and soothed by this single consolation, that as soon as God has received us into his favor, all the afflictions which we endure are aids to our salvation. This will cause our faith not only to rise victorious over all our distresses, but to enjoy calm repose amidst the endurance of sufferings. <\/p>\n (278) “ Au Roy celeste;” — “to the heavenly King.” <\/p>\n (279) “ De le faire participant.” <\/p>\n (43) To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.<\/strong>We have first to consider the word, then the thought expressed by it. The former first appears as a Persian word applied to land enclosed as a park or garden for a king or satrap. As such it meets us often in Xenophons Anabasis<\/em> (i. 2, 7; 4, 9, et al.<\/em>).<\/em> Finding it so used, the LXX. translators used it in Son. 4:13<\/span>; Ecc. 2:5<\/span>; Neh. 2:8<\/span>, and, above all, in Gen. 2:15<\/span>, taking what we treat as a proper name as a description, and giving the Paradise of Delight for the Garden of Eden. In the figurative language in which the current Jewish belief clothed its thoughts of the unseen world, the Garden of Eden took its place side by side with Abrahams bosom, as a synonym for the eternal blessedness of the righteous, presenting a vivid contrast to the foul horrors of Gehenna. It is remarkable, however, that this is the one occasion on which the word appears as part of our Lords teaching. In the mystical language of the Apocalypse, the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God, is one of the promises to him that overcometh (Rev. 2:7<\/span>). St. Paul speaks of himself as having been caught up in ecstasy and vision into paradise (2Co. 12:4<\/span>). In this instance we may trace in our Lords use of the word a subtle tenderness of sympathy. What He said in answer to the penitents prayer was, in part, a contrast to it, in part, its most complete fulfilment. Not in the far-off Coming, but that very day; not remembered only, but in closest companionship; not in the tumult and battle which his thoughts had connected with the Kingdom, but in the fair garden, with its green lawns and still waters, its trees of Knowledge and of Life. No picture could meet the cravings of the tortured robber more completely than that; none, probably, could be more different from his expectations. Yet the paradise of Eastern lands was essentially the kingly garden, that of which the palace was the centre. The promise implied that the penitent should enter at once into the highest joy of the Kingdom. Are we right in thinking that there was no fulfilment of the words till death had released the spirit from its thraldom? May there not even then have been an ineffable joy, such as made the flames of the fiery furnace to be as a moist whistling wind (Song of Three Childr. Luk. 23:27<\/span>, in the Apocrypha<\/em>),<\/em> such as martyrs have in a thousand cases known, acting almost as a physical ansthetic acts? The penitent thief is naturally prominent in the Apocryphal legends of our Lords descent into Hades, seen by His side as He enters Paradise (Gosp. of Nicodemus,<\/em> ii. 10).<\/p>\n 43<\/strong>. <\/strong> Today<\/em> A few interpreters have referred the phrase to-day <\/em> to the verb say; <\/em> making Jesus mean, Today I say unto thee. <\/em> Nothing can relieve the vapidness of such a construction. It is with hardly less truth than severity that Alford says of this interpretation, “considering that it not only violates common sense, but destroys our Lord’s meaning, it is surely something worse than silly.” It would be scarce less absurd in Luk 19:9<\/span> to render the words, Jesus said unto him this day. <\/em> Where did Jesus ever use the expression, I say unto thee to-day? <\/em> Compare the language of the risen Samuel to Saul: “ Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me.” <\/p>\n Paradise<\/em> The word Paradise <\/em> was originally Armenian, and was thence adopted by the Arabic and later Hebrew, to signify a park <\/em> planted with trees and flowers. It was then appropriated by the Greeks, and was used in the (Septuagint) Greek translation of the Old Testament. Thus the Septuagint has in Gen 2:8<\/span>: God planted a paradise in Eden. <\/em> This primeval paradise was lost, and the name was transferred by the Jewish Church to the blessed section of Hades, or the intermediate state between death and the resurrection. Beyond all doubt it was the intention of Jesus to designate this, <\/em> by the term Paradise, <\/em> to the dying thief. The passage, therefore, presents an unanswerable proof of the existence, both of a human soul separate from the body, and a state of happy consciousness of the justified soul immediately after death and before the resurrection.<\/p>\n Luk 23:43<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise.<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Bos has shewn that this expression, thou shalt be with me, <\/em> was the language used when inviting guests to an entertainment; and the word paradise <\/em>originally signifies a garden of pleasure, <\/em>such as those in which the Eastern monarchs made their magnificent banquets. Here it means the same as Abraham’s bosom <\/em>in the parable of Lazarus; and it was a common expression among the Jews for the mansion of beatified souls in their separate state. Thus the Targum on the 90th Psalm says, “May the pleasures of Paradise, or the garden of Eden, be from the Lord upon us.” One of their prayers for a person at the point of death is; “Come ye who keep the treasures of Paradise, open ye the gates of Paradise to him, and salute him with peace.” From our Saviour’s using this expression of Paradise <\/em>to him, it appears, that this dying penitent was a Jew. See the Inferences and the Reflections.<\/em> <\/p>\n 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 43. Verily I say unto thee<\/strong> ] See the infinite love of Christ to penitent sinners, in that when he hung upon the tree, and was paying dear for man’s sin, he rejected not this malefactor’s petition. Shall he not hear us now that all is paid and finished?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Today shalt thou be with me<\/strong> ] This is not every man’s happiness. A pardon is sometimes given to one upon the gallows; but whoso trusts to that, the rope may be his hire. It is not good to put it upon the psalm of Miserere<\/em> Sorrow and the neck verse (saith one), for sometimes he proves no clerk. Most deal with repentance as country people do with physicians, -love not to have to do with them till they fear they are gasping the last breath. The mole begins not to see till he be at point of death: Oculos incipit aperire moriendo, quos clausos habuit vivendo, <\/em> saith Pliny. The serpent stretcheth not himself out straight till he hath received his death’s wound. But what if God should say to such lingerers, as the crab in the fable did to the dying serpent, At oportuit sic vixisse, <\/em> ” It is too late now, you should have lived so?” <\/p>\n 43. <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> ] The Lord surpasses his prayer in the answer; the , <\/strong> ,<\/strong> is the reply to the uncertain <\/strong> of the thief.<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] this day:<\/strong> before the close of this natural day<\/em> . The attempt to join it with , considering that it not only violates common sense, but destroys the force of our Lord’s promise, is surely something worse than silly: see below.<\/p>\n <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> can bear no other meaning than thou shalt be with Me,<\/strong> in the ordinary sense of the words, ‘I shall be in Paradise, and thou with Me.’<\/p>\n <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] On these words rests the whole exegesis of the saying. What is this<\/em> PARADISE? The word<\/em> is used of the garden of Eden<\/em> by the LXX, Gen 2:8<\/span> , &c., and subsequently became, in the Jewish theology, the name for that part of Hades, the abode of the dead, where the souls of the righteous await the resurrection. It was also the name for a supernal or heavenly abode, see reff. N.T. The former of these<\/em> is, I believe, here primarily to be understood; but only as introductory, and that immediately, to the latter<\/em> . By the death of Christ only was Paradise<\/em> first opened, in the true sense of the word<\/em> . He Himself, when speaking of Lazarus (ch. Luk 16:22 ), does not place him in Paradise, but in Abraham’s bosom in that place which the Jews called<\/em> Paradise, but by an anticipation which our Lord did not sanction. I believe the matter to have been thus. Our Lord spoke (as Grotius has remarked) to the thief so as He knew the thief would understand Him; but He spoke with a fuller and more blessed meaning than he could understand then. For that day, on that very evening<\/em> , was ‘Paradise’ truly ‘regained’ opened by the death of Christ. We know (1Pe 3:18-19<\/span> , where see note; Luk 4:6 ) that our Lord went down into the depths of death, announced His triumph (for His death was His triumph) to the imprisoned spirits, and in that moment for change of state<\/em> , to the disembodied<\/em> , is all that change of place<\/em> implies they perhaps were in the Paradise of God, in the blessed heavenly place, implied by the word, 2Co 12<\/span> . That this is not fulness<\/em> of glory as yet, is evident; for the glorified body<\/em> is not yet joined to their spirits, they are not yet perfect ( Heb 11:40 ); but it is a degree of bliss compared to which their former degree was but as imprisonment.<\/p>\n This work of the Lord I believe to have been accomplished on the instant of His death<\/em> , and the penitent to have followed Him at his death<\/em> some little time after into the Paradise of God. That our Lord returned<\/em> to take his glorified Body, was in accordance with His design, and He became thereby the first-fruits of the holy dead<\/em> , who shall like Him put on the body of the resurrection, and be translated from disembodied and imperfect bliss in the Paradise of God, to the perfection of glorified humanity in His glory, and with Him, not in Paradise<\/em> , but at God’s right hand<\/em> .<\/p>\n Luk 23:43<\/span> . : to be connected with what follows, not with = to-day<\/em> , as opposed to a boon expected at some future time (which makes for the reading . in Luk 23:42<\/span> ). Or the point may be: this very day, not tomorrow or the next day, as implying speedy release by death, instead of a slow lingering process of dying, as often in cases of crucifixion. , in paradise; either the division of Hades in which the blessed dwell, which would make for the descensus ad inferos<\/em> , or heaven; vide<\/em> at Luk 16:23<\/span> , and cf.<\/em> 2Co 12:4<\/span> , where it is a synonym for heaven, and Rev 2:7<\/span> , where it denotes the perfected Kingdom of God, the ideal state of bliss realised. The use of “paradise” in this sense is analogous to the various representations in Hebrews of the perfect future drawn from the primeval condition of man: lordship in the world to come, deliverance from the fear of death, a Sabbatism (Heb 2:8<\/span> ; Heb 2:14<\/span> ; Heb 4:9<\/span> ). The use of the term by St. Paul makes its use by our Lord credible.<\/p>\n Luke<\/p>\n WORDS FROM THE CROSS<\/p>\n Luk 23:33 – Luk 23:46 <\/strong> .<\/p>\n The calm tone of all the narratives of the Crucifixion is very remarkable. Each Evangelist limits himself to the bare recording of facts, without a trace of emotion. They felt too deeply to show feeling. It was fitting that the story which, till the end of time, was to move hearts to a passion of love and devotion, should be told without any colouring. Let us beware of reading it coldly! This passage is more adapted to be pondered in solitude, with the thought, ‘All this was borne for me,’ than to be commented on. But a reverent word or two is permissible.<\/p>\n Luke’s account is noticeably independent of the other three. The three sayings of Christ’s, round which his narrative is grouped, are preserved by him alone. We shall best grasp the dominant impression which the Evangelist unconsciously had himself received, and sought to convey, by gathering the whole round these three words from the Cross.<\/p>\n I. The first word sets Jesus forth as the all-merciful Intercessor and patient friend of sinners. <\/p>\n <\/strong> It is very significantly set in the centre of the paragraph vs. 33-38 which recounts the heartless cruelty and mockery of soldiers and rulers. Surrounded by that whirlwind of abuse, contempt and ferocious glee at His sufferings, He gave back no taunt, nor uttered any cry of pain, nor was moved to the faintest anger, but let His heart go out in pity for all who took part in that wicked tragedy; and, while ‘He opened not His mouth’ in complaint or reviling, He did open it in intercession. But the wonderful prayer smote no heart with compunction, and, after it, the storm of mocking and savage triumph hurtled on as before.<\/p>\n Luke gathers all the details together in summary fashion, and piles them on one another without enlarging on any. The effect produced is like that of a succession of breakers beating on some lonely rock, or of blows struck by a battering-ram on a fortress.<\/p>\n ‘They crucified Him,’-there is no need to say who ‘they’ were. Others than the soldiers, who did the work, did the deed. Contempt gave Him two malefactors for companions and hung the King of the Jews in the place of honour in the midst. Did John remember what his brother and he had asked? Matter-of-fact indifference as to a piece of military duty, and shameless greed, impelled the legionaries to cast lots for the clothes stripped from a living man. What did the crucifying of another Jew or two matter to them? Gaping curiosity, and the strange love of the horrible, so strong in the vulgar mind, led the people, who had been shouting Hosanna! less than a week ago, to stand gazing on the sight without pity but in a few hearts.<\/p>\n The bitter hatred of the rulers, and their inhuman glee at getting rid of a heretic, gave them bad preeminence in sin. Their scoff acknowledged that He had ‘saved others,’ and their hate had so blinded their eyes that they could not see how manifestly His refusal to use His power to save Himself proved Him the Son of God. He could not save Himself, just because He would save these scoffing Rabbis and all the world. The rough soldiers knew little about Him, but they followed suit, and thought it an excellent jest to bring the ‘vinegar,’ provided in kindness, to Jesus with a mockery of reverence as to a king. The gibe was double-barrelled, like the inscription over the Cross; for it was meant to hit both this Pretender to royalty and His alleged subjects.<\/p>\n And to all this Christ’s sole answer was the ever-memorable prayer. One of the women who bravely stood at the Cross must have caught the perhaps low-voiced supplication, and it breathed so much of the aspect of Christ’s character in which Luke especially delights that he could not leave it out. It opens many large questions which cannot be dealt with here. All sin has in it an element of ignorance, but it is not wholly ignorance as some modern teachers affirm. If the ignorance were complete, the sin would be nonexistent. The persons covered by the ample folds of this prayer were ignorant in very different degrees, and had had very different opportunities of changing ignorance for knowledge. The soldiers and the rulers were in different positions in that respect. But none were so entirely blind that they had no sin, and none were so entirely seeing that they were beyond the reach of Christ’s pity or the power of His intercession. In that prayer we learn, not only His infinite forgivingness for insults and unbelief levelled at Himself, but His exaltation as the Intercessor, whom the Father heareth always. The dying Christ prayed for His enemies; the glorified Christ lives to make intercession for us.<\/p>\n II. In the second saying Christ is revealed as having the keys of Hades, the invisible world of the dead. <\/p>\n <\/strong> How differently the same circumstances work on different natures! In the one malefactor, physical agony and despair found momentary relief in taunts, flung from lips dry with torture, at the fellow-sufferer whose very innocence provoked hatred from the guilty heart. The other had been led by his punishment to recognise in it the due reward of his deeds, and thus softened, had been moved by Christ’s prayer, and by his knowledge of Christ’s innocence, to hope that the same mercy which had been lavished on the inflicters of His sufferings, might stretch to enfold the partakers in it.<\/p>\n At that moment the dying thief had clearer faith in Christ’s coming in His kingdom than any of the disciples had. Their hopes were crumbling as they watched Him hanging unresisting and gradually dying. But this man looked beyond the death so near for both Jesus and himself, and believed that, after it, He would come to reign. We may call him the only disciple that Christ then had.<\/p>\n How pathetic is that petition, ‘Remember me’! It builds the hope of sharing in Christ’s royalty on the fact of having shared in His Cross. ‘Thou wilt not forget Thy companion in that black hour, which will then lie behind us.’ Such trust and clinging, joined with such penitence and submission, could not go unrewarded.<\/p>\n From His Cross Jesus speaks in royal style, as monarch of that dim world. His promise is sealed with His own sign-manual, ‘Verily, I say.’ It claims to have not only the clear vision of, but the authority to determine, the future. It declares the unbroken continuance of personal existence, and the reality of a state of conscious blessedness, in which men are aware of their union with Him, the Lord of the realm and the Life of its inhabitants. It graciously accepts the penitent’s petition, and assures him that the companionship, begun on the Cross, will be continued there. ‘With Me’ makes ‘Paradise’ wherever a soul is.<\/p>\n III. The third word from the Cross, as recorded by Luke, reveals Jesus as, in the act of dying, the Master of death, and its Transformer for all who trust Him into a peaceful surrender of themselves into the Father’s hands. <\/p>\n <\/strong> The circumstances grouped round the act of His death bring out various aspects of its significance. The darkness preceding had passed before He died, and it bore rather on His sense of desertion, expressed in the unfathomably profound and awful cry, ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ The rent veil is generally taken to symbolise the unrestricted access into the presence of God, which we have through Christ’s death; but it is worth considering whether it does not rather indicate the divine leaving of the desecrated shrine, and so is the beginning of the fulfilment of the deep word, ‘Destroy this Temple.’<\/p>\n But the centre-point of the section is the last cry which, in its loudness, indicated physical strength quite incompatible with the exhaustion to which death by crucifixion was generally due. It thus confirms the view which sees, both in the words of Jesus and in the Evangelist’s expression for His death, clear indications that He died, not because His physical powers were unable to live longer, but by the exercise of His own volition. He died because He chose, and He chose because He loved and would save. As St. Bernard says, ‘Who is He who thus easily falls asleep when He wills? To die is indeed great weakness, but to die thus is immeasurable power. Truly the weakness of God is stronger than men.’<\/p>\n Nor let us forget that, in thus dying, Jesus gave us an imitable example, as well as revealed inimitable power. For, if we trust ourselves, living and dying, to Him, we shall not be dragged reluctantly, by an overmastering grasp against which we vainly struggle, out of a world where we would fain stay, but we may yield ourselves willingly, as to a Father’s hand, which draws His children gently to His own side, and blesses them, when there, with His fuller presence.<\/p>\n I say unto, thee, To day = “I say unto thee to day”. <\/p>\n To day. Connect this with “I say”, to emphasize the solemnity of the occasion; not with “shalt thou be”. See the Hebraism in note on Deu 4:26. As to the punctuation, see App-94.; and as to the whole clause, see App-173. with. Greek. meta. App-104. Not the same word as in verses: Luk 23:11, Luk 23:32, Luk 23:35. <\/p>\n paradise = the paradise: i.e. the one well known to Scripture. See note on Ecc 2:5. Ecc 2:44 Verses 44-46. Compare Mat 27:45-50; Mar 15:33-37. <\/p>\n 43. ] The Lord surpasses his prayer in the answer; the , , is the reply to the uncertain of the thief.<\/p>\n ] this day: before the close of this natural day. The attempt to join it with , considering that it not only violates common sense, but destroys the force of our Lords promise, is surely something worse than silly: see below.<\/p>\n can bear no other meaning than thou shalt be with Me, in the ordinary sense of the words, I shall be in Paradise, and thou with Me.<\/p>\n .] On these words rests the whole exegesis of the saying. What is this PARADISE? The word is used of the garden of Eden by the LXX, Gen 2:8, &c., and subsequently became, in the Jewish theology, the name for that part of Hades, the abode of the dead, where the souls of the righteous await the resurrection. It was also the name for a supernal or heavenly abode, see reff. N.T. The former of these is, I believe, here primarily to be understood;-but only as introductory, and that immediately, to the latter. By the death of Christ only was Paradise first opened, in the true sense of the word. He Himself, when speaking of Lazarus (ch. Luk 16:22), does not place him in Paradise, but in Abrahams bosom-in that place which the Jews called Paradise, but by an anticipation which our Lord did not sanction. I believe the matter to have been thus. Our Lord spoke (as Grotius has remarked) to the thief so as He knew the thief would understand Him; but He spoke with a fuller and more blessed meaning than he could understand then. For that day, on that very evening, was Paradise truly regained-opened by the death of Christ. We know (1Pe 3:18-19, where see note; Luk 4:6) that our Lord went down into the depths of death,-announced His triumph (for His death was His triumph) to the imprisoned spirits,-and in that moment-for change of state, to the disembodied, is all that change of place implies-they perhaps were in the Paradise of God,-in the blessed heavenly place, implied by the word, 2 Corinthians 12. That this is not fulness of glory as yet, is evident;-for the glorified body is not yet joined to their spirits,-they are not yet perfect (Heb 11:40); but it is a degree of bliss compared to which their former degree was but as imprisonment.<\/p>\n This work of the Lord I believe to have been accomplished on the instant of His death, and the penitent to have followed Him at his death-some little time after-into the Paradise of God. That our Lord returned to take his glorified Body, was in accordance with His design, and He became thereby the first-fruits of the holy dead, who shall like Him put on the body of the resurrection, and be translated from disembodied and imperfect bliss in the Paradise of God, to the perfection of glorified humanity in His glory, and with Him, not in Paradise, but at Gods right hand.<\/p>\n Luk 23:43. , to-day) On that day the converted robber could have hardly looked for death.[262] But the breaking of the legs was made subservient to this end. Thereby the Lords promise was fulfilled. [The marking of the time by the expression, to-day, is not to be referred (joined) to the verb, I say, as if the robber should have to wait for his entrance into Paradise during I know not how long periods of time. That the words were spoken to him on that day, is of itself evident (without it being necessary to say so). Jesus never used the expression, To-day I say; whereas He repeatedly used the expression, I say. Therefore we must read the words thus, To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise. Thus the power and grace of the Lord, and also His own ready and immediate entrance into Paradise, is openly declared.-V. g. That was indeed to save, Luk 23:39 (which the impenitent robber had taunted Him with, as unable to effect it).-Harm., p. 570].- , with me) Much more then did Jesus Himself come to Paradise. [A fact which must have been very consolatory to Mary, wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene, against mens bitter taunts, and to the Virgin mother and John, when communicated to them.-Harm., p. 570].- , in Paradise) in which there are happier trees than in Golgotha (especially the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God), associated with immortality; Rev 2:7, note.[263] Jesus employs the most august appellation for the seat of happiness in the profoundest depth of His own suffering. Comp. note on ch. Luk 16:22, [The Jews called the good state of the dead the bosom of Abraham and the garden of Eden.] This departure to Paradise differs no doubt from the ascension to heaven, Joh 20:17 (I am not yet ascended to My Father), but yet it shows that His descent to hell (the lower regions unseen) is to be explained in a good sense.<\/p>\n [262] So tedious a death is crucifixion.-E. and T.<\/p>\n [263] No other tree but the tree of life is mentioned there; whereas in Gen 2:9; Gen 3:3, many others grow, and it is in the midst-words not in the best MSS. of Rev 2:7-E. and T.<\/p>\n Verily <\/p>\n As to “paradise,” cf. Luk 16:23 (See Scofield “Luk 16:23”). One thief was saved, that none need despair; but only one, that none should presume. <\/p>\n To day: Luk 15:4, Luk 15:5, Luk 15:20-24, Luk 19:10, Job 33:27-30, Psa 32:5, Psa 50:15, Isa 1:18, Isa 1:19, Isa 53:11, Isa 55:6-9, Isa 65:24, Mic 7:18, Mat 20:15, Mat 20:16, Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21, 1Ti 1:15, 1Ti 1:16, Heb 7:25 <\/p>\n with: Joh 14:3, Joh 17:24, 2Co 5:8, Phi 1:23 <\/p>\n in: 2Co 12:4, Rev 2:7 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 5:24 – for 2Sa 12:23 – I shall go 2Ch 33:13 – he was entreated Psa 116:4 – O Lord Mat 5:18 – verily Mat 7:8 – General Mar 5:18 – prayed Luk 13:28 – the kingdom Joh 4:10 – thou wouldest Joh 11:25 – he that Act 9:11 – for 1Ti 2:8 – pray<\/p>\n THE SECOND WORD FROM THE CROSS<\/p>\n Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.<\/p>\n Luk 23:43<\/p>\n The dying thief desired to be near the Lord.<\/p>\n I. His is no fragment of repentance; it is the full conversion of the whole man to God.The last act of a mans life is not more momentous than the first, except it prove what the character of the whole man is. If God judge a man by the last thing he did, it is not because it is the lastwhat is time to God?but because it is the expression of his whole life. Jesus knew that in this relenting word, Remember me, the penitent in one bound leapt into his Saviours arms. His confession was irrevocable; his will invincible. Had he lived a thousand years he would have been found faithful; and Jesus accepted him wholly, at once and for ever.<\/p>\n II. Our Lord adapts His promise to the particular desire of the longing heart.He does not usually address Himself to the sensuous nature of man, but now to a man of low spiritual attainment He promises the most intelligible comfortparadise, refreshment, rest. The promise suits the need.<\/p>\n III. The rest begins at once; repose and refreshment come with the beginning of conversion. Peace, peace to him that is afar off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord, and I will heal him.<\/p>\n Archdeacon Furse.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Surely it was a consolation to our Lord in the midst of His sufferings to pronounce these wordsto open the door of Paradise for one penitent soul. At once He answers, graciously, giving more than is asked(more than either we desire or deserveCollect for Twelfth Sunday after Trinity). What a striking instance of Christ saving to the uttermost! How it shows that none are too wicked for His Spirit to regenerate, for His love to purify and save! May such a promise be ours, when we come to die!<\/p>\n (SECOND OUTLINE)<\/p>\n FIRST-FRUITS OF THE PASSION<\/p>\n Father, forgive, has been spoken. The words have died upon the ear, but they live for evermore.<\/p>\n I. So the Father, hearing the prayer of the suffering Son, gives Him at once one soul, earnest of all the souls that are to follow. One soul, and that, as one would say, the most unlikely soul of all, the soul of one of those criminals who hung beside His Cross. No sooner had the Lord prayed His prayer, Father, forgive, than on His ear falls the sound of the prayer of the poor penitent, Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom. Oh, sweetest music to the ear of the dying Christ! There is a soul turning to Him. There is one to whom He may extend mercy and happiness. Think how the angels must have joyed over this one sinner that repented, this one sinner, whose mighty privilege it was to be the first-fruits of the Passion, and to give the first thrill of satisfaction to the dying Saviour.<\/p>\n II. So the fruit of the Cross ripens.Not intercession only, but now the ripe fruit of pardon. A saved soul; one soul actually saved by the great sacrifice, as it were by anticipation and before the It is finished could be uttered. It was indeed the earnest that God would surely hear the intercession of the Son, when you find that the Cross could thus at once melt the heart and win the love of a dying criminal. Oh, marvellous change for that penitent soul. Yesterday a criminal; this morning a convict; before night with Christ in Paradise.<\/p>\n III. The lesson for us is, that if our sins bring us to misery and grief, to a very crucifixion of punishment in this world, we may yet, like that penitent thief, look to the Cross of Christ, and be received with Him in Paradise.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n One thief, it has been said, was saved upon the Cross that we might hope, and but one, that we might fear. Does the cross that we have to bear soften us or harden us? Sickness, poverty, bitter trials, they are meant to soften us, to bring us to Christ, to refine our earthliness.<\/p>\n (THIRD OUTLINE)<\/p>\n THE ROYALTY OF GOODNESS<\/p>\n What shall we specially note in this scene for ourselves?<\/p>\n I. The royalty of goodness.Outwardly there was nothing to show that Jesus was a King. The scene of the Cross must have been a sordid scene. We must think of it not as it has been moulded by art into forms of earthly grace, but in its stern, dread reality. And thinking of it so, what we deduce from it is surely thisthe compelling power of goodness forcing itself upon the heart of the criminal.<\/p>\n II. Let us note this touching desire for remembrance.Remember me. Is not that the true key-note of real penitence? We would so gladly forget, and so gladly have our sins forgiven; but real, deepest penitence does not ask to be forgiven; it says, Remember. It flings itself into the arms of Divine forgiveness. It is not a hiding away beneath, it is confession before the face of the Saviour.<\/p>\n III. And then, for our comfort, let us read out of this story the hope that it contains.True penitence, even at the eleventh hour, is not refused. Thank God, it can come to the most hardened sinner. No case could outwardly be more desperate than that of the thief. What did he plead? Nothing; no merit past, no future in which he could make reparation possibly. There was no hope of mercy for him in this world, yet what he could he gave. He was sorry; he accepted his punishment, threw himself upon Jesus.<\/p>\n Rev. Lionel G. B. J. Ford.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n We have not the right ever to despair either of ourselves or of others. We may never say that any habit, ingrained in us as it may be, is too strong to be overcome, or that our hearts are too cold and callous to be changed. I am too old, one said, for religion now. Even at the last moment the illumination may come, and we shall see in an instant, and be saved.<\/p>\n (FOURTH OUTLINE)<\/p>\n DIVIDED BY THE CROSS<\/p>\n What is it which God looks down upon with so much pleasure, which the angels rejoice to see?<\/p>\n I. A soul come back.It is a soul come home, come back. Here we have a wonderful illustration of how God seeks and wins. This man was not a penitent; he was a robber, going about in those bands which haunted the mountains of Juda, just as years and years ago there were bands of robbers infesting the forests in this country. What shall win him back, what shall bring him back to his God? Then he was to suffer death as a criminal; he was to be hanged upon a cross as a felon. Was it too late then? Was there no chance that this man might yet be touched? There was only one waythat God should place His own Son on the Cross next to him. God is seeking each one of us; He has sought us all our lives. God makes a last appeal to us. He brings His Own Blessed Son to die on the Cross next to us that we may witness His suffering; and we humbly pray, Lord, remember me! and the blessing comes back swift and sure, To-day, to-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.<\/p>\n II. The Cross as the divider of men.Again, there is another thought which is suggested, How the Cross divides men! Is it not strange that the only man who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ at that moment in the world, the only one who really believed in Christ, was the dying robber upon the cross! All the others had gone. The disciples had fled. A few women in their tenderness and love stood at a distance from the Cross. They had lost all hope; only the robber could say, I believe. There was the Cross a dividing power amongst men. These two men, the two malefactors, crucified one on one side and the other on the other, had witnessed the same suffering, had had the same appeal made to each of them. They had heard the same prayer; and yet what was the effect? The one was made penitent and the other was hardened. And the same spectacle is going on all through the ages.<\/p>\n III. The appeal to the individual.Let us remember that the greatest obstacle to our coming to God is not sin in its outward form, but sin and self-righteousness. Lord, remember me! How the cry rings out! I am suffering and deserve it. Was there ever a greater confession of sin than that? Lord, remember me! Was not that a great, stirring appeal of faith? And the answer was as sure and certain: To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise. What did our Lord actually mean? How can I say? I only know this, that He meant that the man should be with Christ. And the lesson for us is surely a pressing one, something for to-day, for our own lives. We who watch by the Cross may not be as that man actually was; but is there no sin in our lives to-day, no secret thing that is eating the very heart out of all our religious exercises, no wayward will which we cannot bring to be subdued and to be submitted to the eternal Will of God? Oh that to-day the call might reach some of us!<\/p>\n Rev. T. G. Longley.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n The penitent thief proved himself in this last distress to be one of the greatest men that ever lived in the world. If you analyse his speech you will find that in philosophy, in audacity of thought, in width and penetration of conception, no greater speech was ever made by human lips. What did this dying malefactor do to prove his intellectual greatness? He saw the Lord in the victim. What did all the other minds round about Him? What vulgarity always doesthey defied the impotent, crushed the worm. In so doing they did not debase Christ; they wrote themselves little men. Little minds have all little scales of proof. If Jesus had come down from the Cross, and taken the two thieves with Him, that would have been conclusive. This malefactor, a man who could have played with thrones and nations, did more than see the Lord in the victim. He saw life beyond death. Consider where he is: on the cross, his life oozing out of him in red drops, but he is not conquered; he dies to live. Lord, said he, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom, <\/p>\n (FIFTH OUTLINE)<\/p>\n THE WORD OF GRACE<\/p>\n The first word was the word of Forgiveness. I should like to call this the word of Grace. When they crucified our Lord, of course they did it with all the malice conceivable. But malice did a beautiful thing for me. They hoisted Him up between two malefactorsJesus in the midst, a sinner on either side.<\/p>\n These poor men never had a chance, brought up amid evil associations, cruel, hard, covetous, with the odour of hell about them. At last to both of them comes a chance: they find themselves dying beside the Saviour; it is the one opportunity of their lives. One seizes it, and becomes the Lords companion, not only in death, but in everlasting life. Was there ever such a beautiful story? He goes home, and is with Christ in Paradisethe first fruit of the Passion. It was his chance, and he seized it.<\/p>\n I. You must always hope about people who are dying that there may be a chance.I wonder what made the thief turn and confess the Saviour. Was it, do you think, that he turned and read the sweet little gospel over the head of the dying Saviour: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews? Was it the sacred Name Jesus? There is a great power in that Name. There never was such a name as that; and when it was put above the Saviour on the Cross it was the Name above every other name. The little sweet gospel which they wrote over the Saviour was the thiefs one opportunity, and he seized it, and went home to heaven.<\/p>\n II. What about the other thief?Did not he die by the side of the Saviour? Yes. Is he damned? According to an old picture the angels are carrying off the soul of the one man, and the devils the soul of the other. But I do not read that in Holy Scripture. Is he damned or was he saved, do you think? I cannot tell you, I do not know; but I do know one thing about himhe suffered, and he suffered, bad as he was, by the side of the Saviour. What about these thousands of people who have no religion, to whom the chance does not come? Are they all going to be damned? What are you going to say, who have been to Calvary and seen the sight? At least you can say this, I cannot tell you what will become of these men; they have not had a chance, and I have had ten thousand chances: I cannot say, but I leave it to the mercy of Him Who tasted death for every man. God help them, and God help me, a poor sinner.<\/p>\n Rev. A. H. Stanton.<\/p>\n (SIXTH OUTLINE)<\/p>\n THE SINNER RESTORED<\/p>\n How does Jesus help sinners in this blessed second word from the Cross?<\/p>\n I. He assures the sinner of the reality of His restoration.Verily to-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. Is it not one of the great miseries of sin that it robs us of our faith, our hope, our trust in Gods mercy and love? Jesus helps us by assuring us of the reality of the restoration; and forgiveness is a fact attested by multitudes in every age of history at every time.<\/p>\n II. Jesus helps us sinners by teaching us the method of restoration.The robber was not released from his hard bed of pain, the penalty not remitted. Yet amid it all he had peace because he was forgiven. Punishment is to the true penitent transformed, and that which while you are impenitent and hard of heart is a crushing, fiery vengeance that will not let you go, that very thing when you are penitent becomes a healing, purifying discipline, which you can bear with even a kind of joy because you know that your Saviour bore it before you.<\/p>\n III. Then Jesus teaches us the blessedness of restoration.To-day with Him in Paradise. To-day. How prompt is the response of love! So it is with the forgiveness of sins. At once the sinner is welcomed, pardoned, cleansed, relieved. With Me. What blessedness is that! How strange it is that the last should be as the first, and that this penitent robber is the very first who shall know the full meaning of that great promise! And the blessedness of restoration is seen in the fact that the storm-tossed, sin-driven soul is at rest in Paradise.<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n Jesus granted the penitent a promise to be fulfilled sooner than the favor he requested. Paradise is from PARADEISOS and Thayer’s general definition is, “A garden, pleasure ground; grove, park.” In our passage he defines it, “That part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection.” Robinson, Groves and Hickie define it virtually in the same way. We have previously learned (notes at chapter 16:26) that persons who are assigned to this place will always be among those who are “comforted” or saved. The conclusion is, then, that the thief was saved on the cross. That does not affect the subject of baptism or any other of the specific requirements of the Gospel. The Jewish Dispensation was still in force, hence the things that are now required through the apostles were not then binding. While Jesus was living, he had the right to forgive and save people on any terms He saw fit, or without any terms at all as far as the sinner was concerned. He forgave the woman of chapter 7:47 because of her great love, and we have no evidence that the palsied man of Mat 9:1-2 even had any faith, yet the Lord forgave him. But after the church was set up in Acts 2, no case is recorded where anyone was saved except upon obedience to the Gospel.<\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shall thou be with me in paradise. <\/p>\n [Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.] I. Let us here first consider the phrase in paradise; in common Jewish speech, in the garden of Eden. In what sense we may collect from these following passages: “The Rabbins have a tradition. There are four that went into paradise; namely, Ben Azzai, Ben Zumah, Acher, and R. Akibah. R. Akibah saith unto them, ‘When you come to the stones of pure marble, do not ye say Waters, waters [i.e. Alas! These waters will hinder us from going forward]; for it is written, He that telleth lies shall not dwell in my presence [now, it would be a lie to call white marble water].’ ” “Ben Azzai looked with some curiosity about him; and died: of him the Scripture speaks, ‘Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints.’ Ben Zumah looked with some curiosity about him, and he was disturbed in his intellectuals; of him the Scripture speaketh, ‘Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.’ ” <\/p>\n Aruch; reciting these words, saith, “It is called paradise, under the signification of the garden of Eden; which is reserved for the just. This place is in the heavens; where the souls of the just are gathered together.” And the Talmudical Gloss hath it much to the same sense: “These four, by God’s procurement, went up into the firmament.”<\/p>\n While we are reading these passages, that story may easily occur to mind of St. Paul’s being “caught up into paradise;” 2 Corinthians_12; and perhaps the legend before us is but the ape of that story. In the story it is observable, that paradise and the ‘third heaven’ are one and the same thing: in the legend paradise and the highest heavens. For so the doctors comment upon the word in Psa 68:5; “There are seven classes or degrees of just persons, who see the face of God, sit in the house of God, ascend up unto the hill of God, etc. And to every class or degree there is allotted their proper dwellingplace in paradise. There are also seven abiding places in hell. Those that dwell in paradise, they shine like the shining of the firmament; like the sun, like the moon, like the firmament, like the stars, like lightning, like the lilies, like burning lamps.”<\/p>\n II. Our Saviour, therefore, telling the penitent thief, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise; he speaks in the common dialect, and to the capacity of the thief; viz., that he should be in heaven with Christ, and with all just persons that had left this world. Nor, indeed, would I fetch the explication of that article of our creed, He descended into hell; from any passage in the Scripture sooner than this here: adding this, that we must of necessity have recourse to the Greek tongue for the signification of the word, which they generally use to denote the state of the dead; as well the blessed as the miserable. Those who expound that passage in 1Pe 3:19; of his going down from the cross into hell to preach to the spirits in prison there, do very little regard the scope of the apostle, and are absolute strangers to his meaning in it. For,<\/p>\n 1. In that he shuts up the generation before the flood in an infernal prison, he falls in with the received opinion of that nation, which was, that that generation had no part in the world to come; and that they were condemned to boiling waters in hell.<\/p>\n 2. He compares the present generation of the Jews with that generation before the flood; that Christ did of old preach even to that generation, and so he hath done to this; that that generation perished through its disobedience, and so will this. He runs much upon the same parallel in his second Epistle, 2Pe 3:6; etc. We must observe, that the apostle makes his transition from the crucifixion and resurrection of our Saviour directly to the generation before the flood, passing over all those generations that came between, on purpose that he might make the comparison betwixt that and the age he lived in.<\/p>\n The Apologists Bible Commentary <\/p>\n Luke 23<\/p>\n 43And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise”<\/p>\n C O M M E N T A R YFrom John Gill’s Commentary : Luk 23:43 – And Jesus said unto him,…. Jesus immediately answered him, though he said not one word to the other that railed at him, or to the multitude that abused him; and promised him more than he asked for, and sooner than he expected. Verily I say unto thee, today thou shall be with me in paradise; “in the garden of Eden”; not the earthly paradise, nor the church militant, but the future place, and state of the happiness of the saints, even heaven, and eternal glory, which the Jews frequently call by this name; See Gill on 2Co 12:4 and is so called, because, as the earthly paradise, or Eden’s garden, was of God’s planting, so is the heavenly glory of his providing and preparing: as that was a place of delight and pleasure, so here are pleasures for evermore; as there was a river in it, which added to the delightfulness and advantage of it, so here runs the river of God’s love, the streams whereof make glad the saints now, and will be a broad river to swim in to all eternity: as there were the tree of life, with a variety of other trees, both for delight and profit, so here, besides Christ, the tree of life, which stands in the midst of it, are an innumerable company of angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect: and as the inhabitants of that garden were pure and innocent creatures, so into this paradise shall nothing enter but what is righteous, pure, and holy: and whereas the principal enjoyment of man in Eden was conversation with God, and communion with him, the glory of the heavenly paradise will lie in fellowship with God, Father, Son, and Spirit, in beholding the face of God, and seeing him as he is: and this is the happiness promised by Christ to the penitent and believing thief, that he should be here; and not only so, but with him here, which is far better than being in this world, and than which nothing can be more desirable: and which, when enjoyed, will be for ever: and this he was to enter upon that very day; which shows, that Christ’s soul did not descend into hell, locally and literally considered, or into the “Limbus Patrum”, the Papists talk of, to fetch the souls of the patriarchs thence, but as soon as it was separated from the body was taken up into heaven; and also, that the souls of departed saints are immediately, upon their separation from the body, there; which was the case of this wonderful instance of the grace of God; and shows the swiftness of the soul, or the velocity of angels in conveying it thither immediately: and this agrees with the sense of the Jews, who say, that: “the souls of the fathers, or patriarchs have rest, and in a moment, immediately enter into their separate places, or apartments, and not as the rest of the souls; of whom it is said, all the twelve months the soul ascends and descends, (goes to and fro,) but the souls of the fathers, “immediately, upon their separation”, return to God that gave them.” Some would remove the stop, and place it after “today”, and read the words thus, “I say unto thee today”; as if Christ only signified the time when he said this, and not when the thief should be with him in paradise; which, besides it being senseless, and impertinent, and only contrived to serve an hypothesis, is not agreeably to Christ’s usual way of speaking, and contrary to all copies and versions. Moreover, in one of Beza’s exemplars it is read, “I say unto thee, h?sm that today thou shalt be with me”, &c. and so the Persic and Ethiopic versions seem to read, which destroys this silly criticism. And because this was a matter of great importance, and an instance of amazing grace, that so vile a sinner, one of the chief of sinners, should immediately enter into the kingdom of God, and enjoy uninterrupted, and everlasting communion with him and that it might not be a matter of doubt with him, or others, Christ, who is the “Amen”, the faithful witness, and truth itself, prefaces it after this manner: “verily I say unto thee”; it is truth, it may be depended on. This instance of grace stands on record, not to cherish sloth, indolence, security and presumption, but to encourage faith and hope in sensible sinners, in their last moments, and prevent despair. The above is from John Gill’s Commentary . <\/p>\n O T H E R V I E W S C O N S I D E R E D Jehovah’s Witnesses >The Watchtower’s Defense >The “Amen I Tell You” Sayings of Jesus >Other Translations >The Curetonian Syriac >Codex Vaticanus >A Hebrew Idiom? >The Non-Use of hoti >”Today” in the LXX >Hesychius of Jerusalem >Theophylact >Scholia >The Acts of Pilate (Gospel of Nicodemus) >The Descent into Hell (Gospel of Nicodemus) >Conclusion objection: The Watchtower’s New World Translation (NWT) punctuates this verse as follows: And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” In defense of placing the comma after “today,” the Watchtower writes: Luke’s account shows that an evildoer, being executed alongside Jesus Christ, spoke words in Jesus’ defense and requested that Jesus remember him when he ‘got into his kingdom.’ Jesus’ reply was: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (Lu 23:39-43) The punctuation shown in the rendering of these words must, of course, depend on the translator’s understanding of the sense of Jesus’ words, since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text. Punctuation in the modern style did not become common until about the ninth century C.E. Whereas many translations place a comma before the word “today” and thereby give the impression that the evildoer entered Paradise that same day, there is nothing in the rest of the Scriptures to support this. Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.-Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9. The evidence is, therefore, that Jesus’ use of the word “today” was not to give the time of the evildoer’s being in Paradise but, rather, to call attention to the time in which the promise was being made and during which the evildoer had shown a measure of faith in Jesus. It was a day when Jesus had been rejected and condemned by the highest-ranking religious leaders of his own people and was thereafter sentenced to die by Roman authority. He had become an object of scorn and ridicule. So the wrongdoer alongside him had shown a notable quality and commendable heart attitude in not going along with the crowd but, rather, speaking out in Jesus’ behalf and expressing belief in his coming Kingship. Recognizing that the emphasis is correctly placed on the time of the promise’s being made rather than on the time of its fulfillment, other translations, such as those in English by Rotherham and Lamsa, those in German by Reinhardt and W. Michaelis, as well as the Curetonian Syriac of the fifth century C.E., rendered the text in a form similar to the reading of the New World Translation, quoted herein (Insight , vol. 2, “Paradise”). Response: I would first stress that the punctuation of this verse is of little consequence to orthodox Christians. Our theology is not impacted negatively if the comma occurs after “today” instead of before. The same is not true of Watchtower theology, however. The Watchtower’s teaching that the dead cease to exist except in the mind of God and that Jesus was truly “dead” in the grave is greatly challenged if Jesus is, in fact, promising the thief that he will be with the Lord in paradise on that very day. The Watchtower must argue for its placement of the comma to preserve its theology; orthodox Christians have no such burden. If the evidence strongly supports the the majority of translations against the NWT, it is reasonable to conclude that the Watchtower’s translation owes more to theology than to a rigorous pursuit of accuracy in translation. The Watchtower is correct that the placement of the comma must depend on the translator’s understanding of what Jesus meant. It is also correct when it says that “many” translations place the comma before today. The question, then, is why so many translations place the comma before “today,” if this verse is not theologically significant for most translators. One cannot say that this is merely a matter of following convention, for all translations are not uniform in punctuating other verses, even those far more theologically significant to orthodox Christians than Luke 23:43 (e.g., compare Romans 9:5 in the NASB and RSV). In other words, there must be sound reasons apart from theology or grammatical convention to account for the near-uniformity with which scholars render this verse. The “Amen I tell you…” Sayings of Jesus The answer lies in the characteristics of the formula Jesus uses in Luke 23:43: “Amen, I say to you…” The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels describes this formula as follows: Amen is used one hundred times in the Gospels….It is always the first word of the formulaic expression “Amen I say to you,” and it is always and only spoken by Jesus, apparently to emphasize the significance of the words he is about to speak. No other person – apostle or prophet – of the early church felt at liberty to follow his example by making use of this very formula (Dictionary of Jesus , p. 7). Thus, we have a formula – apparently invented by Jesus – used nearly 100 times in the Gospels, which precedes a solemn expression of great significance. The formula is never modified by an adverb of time; whatever follows is considered part of the expression Jesus emphasizes. Understanding “today” as part of the promise Jesus makes to the thief suits the context perfectly, for as John Gill points out in his Commentary, quoted above, the thief was asking Jesus to remember him in His future kingdom. But Jesus says to him, “Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” It seems obvious that the vast majority of translators throughout the centuries have understood that Jesus is here using the “Amen I say to you…” formula precisely as He does in nearly 100 examples elsewhere in the Gospels. It is unlikely in the extreme that only here – where the placement of the comma means so much to the Watchtower – does Jesus alter His formula by adding “today.” The Watchtower claims that nothing else in Scripture to support the idea that the thief entered Paradise and was with Jesus that day. But this argument relies on the Watchtower’s interpretation of the rest of Scripture, which is itself at the very least debatable. Further, if Jesus is indeed using the formula in Luke 23:43 exactly as He does in every other verse in which he uses it, this verse expressly denies the Watchtower’s interpretation of the rest of Scripture. In point of fact, there is substantial evidence in the New Testament that believers are taken immediately upon their deaths to a conscious existence with Jesus in Paradise. Paul, for example, writes: But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake (Philippians 1:23-24; see also 2 Corinthians 6:6, 8-9). The Watchtower, of course, has its own idiosyncratic interpretation of this verse that comports with its own theology, but it must be admitted that the simplest reading of the text is that Paul is expecting to see his Lord when he departs, and not at the future resurrection of the saints. If we add to this the depiction of dead saints in Heaven in the book of Revelation (e.g., Revelation 6:9-10), Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), and Jesus’ promise that those who believe in Him will “never die” (John 11:25-26), it is clear that the Scriptures contain ample support for the idea that the thief could, indeed, be with Jesus that very day. If this evidence is not sufficient, consider a passage just a few chapters earlier in Luke’s Gospel: But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, “Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:37-39). If the rest of Scripture does not support the idea that the thief’s soul could exist apart from his body, then surely the disciples would know this and so would not have thought that a living Jesus could be a spirit. Even if the disciples were confused on this point, why didn’t Jesus correct them instead of encouraging them in this “unscriptural” belief? In fact, Jesus confirms the idea that He could have been a spirit, but for the fact that he possessed his body! If spirits can exist apart from their bodies, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the spirit of the thief will be with Jesus the day he dies, and to conclude that we may be with Him, too, if we place our faith in Him, as the thief did. Other Translations The Watchtower’s final defense is that a handful of other translations and the Curetonian Syriac also place “today” with “Amen I say to you” and not the following expression. It must first be stressed this argument from authority does not prove that the comma is misplaced in the majority of translations. The NWT may not be unique in its punctuation of this verse, but that fact does not establish its correctness. The two English versions mentioned by the Watchtower are Rotherham and Lamsa. Rotherham’s translation of Luke 23:43 may well be influenced by E.W. Bullinger, whom Rotherham knew and respected. Whether Bullinger’s views were well-founded will be examined later in this essay. In any event, Rotherham’s translation has not been recognized by Bible scholars of any theological persuasion as being authoritative. If Rotherham is a poor choice to cite as an authority, George Lamsa is no better. Lamsa claimed to have translated his Bible from an Aramaic original, but never produced the manuscripts he supposedly worked from. Even if we take Lamsa at his word, unless the textual history of his Aramaic exemplars could be established, his translation is worthless in proving the punctuation of this verse one way or the other. The Curetonian Syriac Regarding the Curetonian Syriac, it is true that it places “today” with “Amen I tell you,” but it is problematic to use this fact in support of a correct understanding of the original Greek text. The Old Syriac Gospels are preserved in two manuscripts: The Sinaitic and the Curetonian. Both contain Luke 23:43. The Sinaitic most likely predates the Curetonian by about 100 years. Burkitt posits that the Sinaitic represents a more accurate Syriac text, while the Curetonian was corrected from a later Greek text (one containing a number of spurious passages). Luke 23:43 in the Sinaitic text reads: Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” The Syriac Peshitta agrees with the Sinaitic text, against the Curetonian, as do the Syriac Diatasseron, the Sahidic Coptic, and a number of manuscripts of the Old Latin. Ephrem, a 4th century commentator on the Syriac Gospels, quotes this verse three times, each time omitting “today.” However, he says, “Our Lord shortened His distant liberalities and gave a near promise, To-day and not at the End….Thus through a robber was Paradise opened.” The Curetonian manuscript is thus of no value in determining the correct punctuation of Luke 23:43. It cannot be demonstrated that its reading was regarded as normative within the Syriac gospel tradition. More importantly, its connection to a Greek original cannot be established. The most that can be said is that a Syriac translator or corrector rendered the verse in a way similar to the NWT. It has not been established that this rendering is accurate. The evidence we have suggests that it was not. As Syriac Gospel scholar P.J. Williams writes: “While the Greek may have been ambiguous, overwhelmingly ancient interpreters chose the opposite interpretation to that of the Watchtower”8a . objection: Witness apologist Greg Stafford offers a number of arguments in favor of the NWT punctuation of Luke 23:43. Codex Vaticanus His first is that a major early manuscript of the New Testatment contains a punctuation mark – equivalent to a comma – after “today,” just as does the NWT: While punctuation in NT manuscripts of the first few centuries CE is not common, one of the best, if not the best witness to the text of the NT, Codex B or Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) of the fourth century CE, does have a mark of punctuation in Luke 23:43; the punctuation is not after I say but after the Greek word smeron, today” (Stafford , pp. 546-547). Stafford says that a Vatican Library scholar verified by letter that the mark in question does not appear to be by a later copyist, due to the color of the ink. Mr. Stafford concludes that it dates from the 4th century and therefore offers textual support for the NWT punctuation from a reliable ancient Greek manuscript. Response: It is not at all clear that the dot in Codex B is an intentional mark of punctuation. It may nothing more than a dot or an accidental inkblot. An ‘accidental’ inkblot or dot in Codex Vaticanus. The blot appears between the rho and kappa in sarkos (“flesh”) in Romans 9:8. The Watchtower’s published image of the alleged low-point punctuation in Luke 23:43, Codex Vaticanus. If the dot is, indeed, an intentional mark of punctuation10 , it is almost certainly not by the original hand. The original scribe did not use the “low-point” dot, and when using punctuation (which he did rarely), he typically added an extra space, which is not the case here. Typical spacing added after a mark of punctuation in Codex Vaticanus (between Luke 22:30 and 22:31) Further, if the scribe intended to place a comma after smeron, he would probably have used a middle-point as he did after sarka in Romans 9:5 (and various other places), not the low-point, which was more or less equivalent to our semi-colon.11 Finally, to my knowledge, no commentators or textual critics have mentioned the alleged comma in Vaticanus. Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, says nothing of it, even though he addresses the Curetonian Syraic (see above) in relation to the correct punctuation of Luke 23:43, and discusses the punctuation mark in Vaticanus at Romans 9:5 .12 The Vaticanus manuscript was originally written in the fourth century in brown ink, with a corrector soon thereafter making some slight changes. Then, a later scribe in the tenth or eleventh century traced over the lettering in black ink, skipping those letters or marks he thought to be incorrect, and making some additional changes13 . As noted, Mr. Stafford (citing a letter from a Vatican Library scholar) says the dot is “faded brown” and concludes that it dates from the fourth century and not from the later medieval copyist. While the color may indicate an early date for the dot, this is not certain. Even if it is, it has not been established that it is from the original hand or the 4th century corrector, and the fact that it was not reinforced by the later corrector indicates that he regarded it as unintentional or in error. Dr. Peter M. Head, a specialist in NT manuscripts, writes: I don’t think it is punctuation. Certainly not in the original scribal production: there is nothing else like it on the whole opening (punctuation in Vaticanus is almost entirely only by spacing), it doesn’t look like a dot, more like a blemish or as you said, a blot; and the spacing is all wrong for punctuation by the original scribe. I suppose it could be added later by someone wanting to repunctuate the text, but even so I’m not persuaded that the colour is the same as the other material introduced by the enhancer\/accenter, so you have to attribute it to an unknown reader\/punctuator14 . Therefore, the most that can be said is that if the dot is intentional punctuation, it was not copied from an earlier exemplar by the original scribe, but was introduced – for an unknown reason – by an unknown hand at an uncertain time. This would seem thin evidence, indeed, of a textual tradition in the Greek manuscripts dating from the 4th century, as Mr. Stafford proposes. But what if it could be established that the mark is intentional and dates from the 4th century (as unlikely as that seems) – does it then provide early support for the NWT punctuation? Yes and no. It would provide evidence apart from the Curetonian Syriac that someone long ago, due to the ambiguity of the Greek, understood (or misunderstood) the verse as the Watchtower does. But it would prove nothing with regard to what Luke intended15 . The textual scholars who punctuate our authoritative Greek New Testaments do not do so on the basis of punctuation in ancient manuscripts: The presence of marks of punctuation in early manuscripts of the New Testament is so sporadic and haphazard that one cannot infer with confidence the construction given by the punctuator to the passage16 . Thus, even granting Mr. Stafford his argument, the presence of a punctuation mark (if such it is) in one early manuscript tells us nothing about how to properly punctuate Luke 23:43. The correct punctuation is a matter of exegesis, not of textual criticism. objection: (A Hebrew Idiom?) Many of those who advocate placing the comma after smeron, Greg Stafford included, cite E.W. Bullinger in support of the view that “today” in Luke 23:43 is a Hebraism which stresses the significance of the occasion, not the following statement: The word “verily” points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word “to-day” with “I say.” “Verily, I say unto thee this day.” This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, “Thou shalt be with me in paradise.” “I say unto thee this day was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a solemn statement (see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii.11; viii. 1; 11, 19; ix. 3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15; xxix. 12; xxx. 2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46).17 Mr. Stafford concludes: “Of the forty examples listed by Bullinger at least 33 parallel Luke 23:43 in using a verb of speech or command with ‘today'” (Stafford , p. 550). Response: It would, indeed, be impressive evidence in favor of the NWT punctuation if there were 33 OT parallels of Luke 23:43. But I believe Bullinger and those who cite him are overstating the case. Not once in any of the texts listed by Bullinger does the speaker begin with the word Amn. As noted above, this feature of Jesus’ speech is unique and sets the “Amen I say to you…” sayings apart from anything else in Biblical language. Further, in none of these OT texts does the speaker use the word leg. Moses, for example, uses various verbs of speech in his today sayings in Deuteronomy, but he does not use leg even once in these contexts. Thus, not one of the examples listed by Bullinger (or the others listed by Stafford) that “parallel” Luke 23:43 contains the words Amn or leg.18 When we turn to the NT, it does not appear that this “common Hebrew idiom” is common at all. There is only one verse (setting aside Luke 23:43) that might be an example of this idiom: Acts 20:26. Here, Paul is using quasi-legal language, similar to the covenantal language of Deuteronomy. It is significant that here, as in the OT, the verb is not leg. Instead, Paul uses a verb meaning “testify”: “I testify to you this day that…” (marturomai humin en t smeron hmera hoti…). This is similar to Deuteronomy 8:19 in the LXX: “I testify against you today…” (the verb here is diamarturomai, a close cognate of marturomai). Jesus is quoted using the word smeron 12 times in the Gospels.19 In none does it occur as part of an introductory phrase. Jesus does, however, make a number of solemn and formal statements preceded by the words “I say to you…” (some with “Amen,” some without). In fact, a Gramcord search reveals 144 such examples. Thus, we have 144 instances of Jesus making a formal proclamation and twelve of Him using the word “today,” and none of them reflects the so-called “common Hebrew idiom.” Setting aside Luke 23:43, there is only slight evidence that the Hebrew idiom, as defined by Bullinger, actually occurs in the NT (only Acts 20:26, where the verb is “testify”). There is no evidence that this idiom occurs with the verb leg, and no evidence that Jesus uses the idiom with any verb whatsoever. If we set this evidence against 74 examples of Jesus saying “Amen I say to you…” (and 70 more where He simply says “I say to you”), it seems clear that Luke 23:43 “parallels” these examples, and not those listed by Bullinger and Stafford. objection: (The Non-Use of hoti) Those advocating the NWT punctuation also cite Bullinger in support of their view that the non-use of hoti (a conjunction that often means “that”) indicates that smeron goes with Amen I tell you and not what follows: The interpretation of this verse depends entirely on punctuation, which rests wholly on human authority, the Greek manuscripts having no punctuation of any kind till the ninth century, and then it is only a dot in the middle of the line separating each word. The Verb “to say,” when followed by hoti, introduces the ipsissima verba of what is said; and answers to our quotation marks. So here (in Luke 23:43), in the absence of hoti (=”that”), there may be a doubt as to the actual words included in the dependent clause. But the doubt is resolved (1) by the common Hebrew idiom, “I say unto thee this day,” which is constantly used for very solemn emphasis; as well as (2) by the usage observable in other passages where the verb is connected with the Gr. smeron= to-day. 1. With hoti:– Mark 14:30: “Verily I say unto thee, that (hoti) ‘this day … thou shall deny me thrice.’ ” Luke 4:21: “And He began to say unto them, that (hoti) ‘This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.’ ” Luke 5:26: “Saying (hoti=that), ‘We have seen strange things to-day.’ ” Luke 19:9: “Jesus said unto him that (hoti), ‘This day is salvation come to this house.’ ” For other examples of the verb “to say,” followed by hoti, but not connected with smeron (to-day), see Matt. 14:26, 16:18, 21:3, 26:34, 27:4; Mark 1:40; 6:14,15,18,35, 9:26, 14:25; Luke 4:24,41, 15:27, 17:10, 19:7. 2. Without hoti: — On the other hand, in the absence of hoti (=that), the relation of the word “to-day” must be determined by the context. Luke 22:34: “And He said, ‘I tell thee, Peter, in no wise shall a cock crow to-day before thou shall thrice deny that thou knowest Me.’ ” Here the word” to-day” is connected with the verb “crow,” because the context requires it. Compare Heb. 4:7. It is the same in Luke 23:43: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Verily I say unto thee to-day [or this day, when, though they were about to die, this man had expressed so great faith in Messiah’s coming Kingdom, and therefore in the Lord’s resurrection to be its King — now, under such solemn circumstances] thou shall be, with Me, in Paradise.’ ” For, when Messiah shall reign, His Kingdom will convert the promised land into a Paradise. Read Isa. 35, and see note on Ecc. 2:520 . Mr. Stafford writes: “if Luke had wanted to separate “today” from “I say to you,” then all Luke had to do was to place semeron (“today”) after hoti, which he does not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times!…In fact, Luke 23:43 is the only instance apart from Luke 22:34 where a verb of speech is used with semeron and where hoti does not separate it from that verb” (Stafford , pp. 551-552, emphasis in original). Response: It should first be noted that Bullinger does not go as far as Stafford or other Witness apologists21 in claiming that had Luke wanted to separate “I say to you” from “today,” he would have used hoti. Bullinger simply demonstrates the well-known fact that hoti often is used to introduce direct speech in the GNT, being in this usage more or less equivalent to our opening quotation mark. He correctly says that without hoti, the context must determine where the introductory clause ends and the main clause begins. Bullinger, of course, places “today” with “I tell you” on the grounds that it reflects a “common Hebrew idiom.” As detailed, above, this view is almost certainly wrong. The fact that Luke could have used hoti to separate “I tell you” from “today” is true, but proves nothing; Luke could also have used hoti to include “today” with “I tell you” by placing it after smeron.22 The use or non-use of hoti appears to be purely a stylistic choice by the NT authors on a case-by-case basis. Luke, for example, uses hoti in 4 Amen sayings (4:24; 12:37; 18:28; 21:32) and omits it in two (18:17 and 23:43). Of the 74 Amen sayings recorded in the Gospels, 34 omit hoti. There does not appear to be any semantic difference between the use of hoti or its omission in these verses. This fact is illustrated by Mark 9:41 and 11:23, which contain hoti, and the parallel passages in Matthew 10:42 and 21:21, which do not. Interestingly, Mark 14:25 is loosely paralleled by Matthew 26:29 and Luke 22:18. Despite many variations in these verses23 , the introductory phrases in each are quite similar.24 Mark uses hoti, while Matthew does not. Luke probably did not use hoti, either.25 But no Greek scholar has argued that the the meaning of the introductory phrase is changed substantially by the presence or absence of hoti. Significantly, nowhere in the 144 examples of Jesus’ “I tell you…” sayings is hoti used to include an adverb in the introductory phrase. It is clear that Jesus’ regular idiom is “I tell you…” or “Amen I tell you,” and not “I tell you today.” Mr. Stafford is correct that five times Luke places hoti between a verb of speech and smeron, but this fact does nothing to prove that Luke would have done so in Luke 23:43, had he intended to separate “today” from “I tell you.” In four of the five, hoti is used in its regular function to mark what follows as a direct quotation (4:21; 5:26; 19:9; 22:61); none of these parallel Jesus’ “I tell you” sayings26 . In the remaining example (2:11), hoti functions as a causal conjunction (“because”) and so cannot rightly be compared to the function hoti would perform, had Luke used it in 23:43. Mr. Stafford and other apologists who argue that the absence of hoti requires that smeron modify the preceding verb are reading far too much into the evidence they present.28 The non-use of hoti is a non-issue in the correct punctuation of Luke 23:43. objection: (“Today” in the LXX) Witness apologists contend that the use of smeron in the LXX supports their view that in Luke 23:43 it should modify “I tell you” rather than “You shall be with me…” Referring to the quotation from Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible (see above), Greg Stafford writes: In each of the examples listed by Bullinger, whether they involve the use of a speech verb or not, “today” is always used with the verb preceding it (Stafford , p. 551, emphasis in original). Mr. Stafford also cites Acts 20:26 in support of his view. Response: When one considers LXX examples beyond those listed by Bullinger, it is clear that smeron can, and often does, modify the following verb (Leviticus 10:19; Joshua 5:9; 22:31; 1 Samuel 10:19; 11:13; 2 Samuel 14:22; 15:20; 16:3; Psalms 2:7; 95:7; Proverbs 7:14). More importantly, when considering Luke’s use of smeron in Luke-Acts, out of 20 occurrences, eight modify the verb which follows (Luke 4:21; 13:33; 19:5, 9; Acts 4:9; 13:33; 26:2; 27:33). Thus, Luke placed smeron before the verb it modifies 40% of the time. Once again, Mr. Stafford’s conclusion seems overdrawn. objection: Witness apologists and websites have often quoted evidence presented in a thread on the B-Greek discussion list in early 2000 that suggests at least some Christians as early as the 4th Century understood Luke 23:43 to be punctuated as it is in the NWT. They cite the fact that list moderator, Carl Conrad, was persuaded to change his view as a result of this evidence. A copy of Conrad’s public post detailing why he changed his mind may be found here . Response: It appears by Conrad’s own admission, he changed his mind after reviewing several posts (two dating back to 1996) over the course of one evening. It does not appear that he had time to investigate the evidence presented to thoroughly evaluate its merit. I believe such an investigation will reveal that the evidence proves somewhat less than it initially appears. Two pieces of evidence introduced to the B-Greek list have already been discussed, above (Codex B and the Curetonian Syriac ). The remaining evidence is a series of quotations from early Christian texts, each cited in the footnote to Luke 23:43 in Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament. It should be noted that Tischendorf placed the comma before smeron in his critical text, and cites a number of sources supporting this punctuation; apparently in his opinion, the evidence selectively posted to B-Greek was not significant in determining the proper punctuation of the text. Hesychius of Jerusalem The first citation provided to the B-Greek list was from Hesychius of Jerusalem: >Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai >hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._ >(“Some indeed read this way: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma; >then they add: ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”–Hesychius of >Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text >found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433. This quote is from Hesychius’ Collection of Difficulties and Solutions (excerpted from his ‘Harmony of the Gospels’). The texts associated with Hesychius in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca are not all by the 5th Century Hesychius of Jerusalem, and there seems to be some question that the Collection is actually by this Hesychius and not some other.29 Assuming that the Collection is indeed a work of Hesychius of Jerusalem, it is important to place his quote in context. The Collection consists of a series of “difficulties” from the Biblical text, followed by the author’s “solutions.” In the “difficulty” section of Luke 23:43, Hesychius writes: How can the Lord immediately fulfill His promise to the thief, “Today you shall be with me in Paradise?” (Smeron met emou es en to puradeiso), if indeed after the crucifixion, Christ was in Hades setting free the Dead; rather, it is proper that the thief be accountable for his nature (or, in a variant reading, that the thief go to Hades) (Migne, PG, 93, 1431; my translation). Hesychius, then, understood his exemplars to present smeron as modifying “you shall be with me…” and not “Truly I tell you…” Hesychius’ opening question presupposes that this understanding of “today” is the majority view. But how could such a “difficulty” arise in the first place? Hesychius is not alone among post-Nicene church fathers in teaching that Jesus descended into Hades to preach to the ‘spirits in prison’ during the three days His body lay in the tomb (1 Peter 3:19). To account for the “difficulty” in Hesychius, we may posit one of two possibilities: 1. Luke intended smeron to modify “Truly I tell you…” and it was so understood by the early church. But because of the ambiguity of the Greek, the majority of Christians began to take it to modify “You will be with me..,” despite the fact that this punctuation created a difficulty when compared to the teaching of Christ’s descent into Hades. 2. Luke intended smeron to modify “You will be with me…” and it was so understood by the early church. But because of the ambiguity of the Greek, some Christians began to take it to modify “Truly I tell you…” because this punctuation removed a difficulty when compared to the teaching of Christ’s descent into Hades. Since exegetes and commentators of all ages seek to resolve difficulties rather than create them (just as Hesychius does), option 2 seems by far the most likely.30 Hesychius answers the “difficulty” as follows: Some, indeed, teach: “Truly I say to you today” – and a comma – then add: “with Me you shall be in Paradise.” As if to say: “Truly I tell you today, although you are on the cross, you shall be with me in Paradise.” But if the [difficult] reading is correct, there is no contradiction; since our Savior’s Deity is unlimited, He was not only in Hades, but also in Paradise with the Thief, and in Hades, and with the Father, and in the tomb, inasmuch as He fills all things (Migne, PG, 93, 1432-1433; my translation).31 Hesychius confirms that “some” in his day placed a comma after “today.” He does not tell us who or how many they were, which makes it difficult to judge the merits of their view, but he does explain what they meant by their preferred punctuation: It was not to emphasize when Jesus was speaking, nor to use a “common Hebrew idiom,” nor to follow LXX convention, but to signify the thief’s current position on the cross that day in contrast to his blessed future state in Paradise. This fact is further evidence that the various grammatical arguments discussed above were unknown in the early church, even by those advocating placing the comma after “today.” Hesychius then goes on to say that if the reading in his “difficulty” section is correct (that is, that “today” modifies “I shall be with you..”), it is not a problem, because Christ’s Deity is not limited to a single place, but allows Him to be present at once in Hades and in Paradise, and – indeed – in all places simultaneously. Thus, Hesychius provides only marginal evidence that Luke intended a comma after “today” for the following reasons: 1. It is not certain that Hesychius of Jerusalem is the author of the Collection. If not, it may date from much later than the 5th Century. 2. We do not know who the “some” were who taught that a comma should be placed after smeron. 3. We do not know how widespread their teaching was nor how old it was. 4. We do know that the majority view was that smeron modified “You shall be with me…” 5. It is far more likely that punctuation that resolved a doctrinal difficulty came later. 6. The placement of the comma was not due to LXX usage or a Hebrew idiom. Theophylact The next citation provided to the B-Greek list was Theophylact of Bulgaria: >Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <> hin’ e to >legomenon toiouton* <> eita to, <en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying, >putting a punctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said >this way: ‘Truly I tell you today’; and then they add the expression: >’You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Theophylact, an ecclessistical >writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, >column 1104. This quotation is from Theophylact’s Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Luke. It was written after Theophylact became Archbishop of Ochrid, the capital of the Bulgarian Kingdom, about the year 1090 A.D.. To better understand what Theophylact is saying in this quotation, consider how Theophylact introduces his comments on Jesus’ promise to the thief: When the former blasphemer recognized by this voice that Jesus was indeed a king, he rebuked the other thief, and said to Jesus, “Remember me in Thy kingdom.” How does the Lord reply? “Today thou shalt be with me in Paraidse” (Smeron met’ emou es en t paradeis). As a man, He was on the Cross, but as God, He is everywhere, both on the Cross and in paradise, filling all things, and nowhere absent.”32 Thus, as with Hesychius (above), we again find that the prevalent contemporary understanding is that “today” modifies “you will be with me…” and not “Amen I tell you.” Like Hesychius, Theophylact addresses several apparent Scriptural contradictions if “today” is so understood; and he offers interpretations that resolve them. However, it is important to note that repunctuating the verse is not a solution he considers viable. In the translation offered by the B-Greek poster, ekbiazontai is rendered “press upon,” which has a neutral connotation – as though Theophylact is merely saying that the “others” press the point they are making by placing the comma after Smeron. But ekbiazontai (an inflected form of ekbiaz) has a much more negative meaning.33 While “press upon” is a gloss offered by LSJ, the sense is not “press” as in placing emphasis, but “press” as in applying pressure, force, or doing violence. A more accurate rendering (which, to his credit, the B-Greek poster requested) would be: But others have abused the saying, putting a mark after ‘today’ so that it says: “Amen I tell you today,” and then adding: “You will be with me in Paradise.34 Theophylact’s disapproval is emphasized in his next sentence, which reads “Others, who appear to have hit the mark, explain it this way….”35 These Christians, Theophylact tells us, distinguish “heaven” from “paradise,” the latter being “a place of spiritual rest.” In this way, the thief may indeed be with Jesus that day in Paradise, but not yet in Heaven. This quotation from Theophylact tells us virtually nothing about those that punctuate Luke 23:43 so that “today” modifies “Amen I tell you…” The B-Greek poster is correct in concluding that some late 11th Century Christians understood the verse in a way similar to the Watchtower, but we do not know how many they were, nor how prevalent was their teaching. Such late evidence would seem marginally helpful, if at all, in determining what Luke originally intended. It is apparent, though, that like those Hesychius mentions, the reason these “others” punctuate the verse as they do is not because it follows a Hebrew idiom, but because they sought to resolve a theological difficulty. The fact that Theophylact can speak in such negative terms about the alternate punctuation – even though it would solve the apparent contradictions he is discussing – suggests that he was unaware of any reasonable arguments in support of it. Scholia The next citation is a summary of scholia from three Greek manuscripts: >alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254: >hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtos >epipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken; >for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you >today,’ and then adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’ >etc.”)–Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, >editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, >under Luke 23:43. “Scholia” are marginal annotations added to a manuscript by a scribe, later reviser, or commentator. Without a detailed description of these three annotations, it is impossible to determine whether they date from the time of the manuscript’s creation or were added much later. In any event, the three manuscripts themselves are quite late. According to Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, these are miniscules dating as follows: 237 – 10th Century (Moscow syn 42) 239 – 11th Century (Moscow syn 47) 254 – 11th Century (Dresden reg A.100) Marginal annotations dating no earlier than the 10th Century would seem thin evidence, indeed, to draw meaningful conclusions regarding Luke’s original intention. They may reflect nothing more than “some” Christians attempting to resolve the same difficulty noted by Hesychius (above). Regardless of who the “others” were, the author of the scholia hardly approves of their variant punctuation, for he uses the same word (ekbiazontai) as Theophylact (above) to describe the “violence” done to the context when “today” is joined with “Amen I tell you…” Acts of Pilate (Gospel of Nicodemus) The next citation is a quotation from the apocryphal Acts of Pilate (also known as the Gospel of Nicodemus): >ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton >parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the >truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”)–Gospel of >Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth >or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio >octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under >Luke 23:43. The so-called Acts of Pilate, along with the Descent into Hell (see below) comprise what has come to be known as the Gospel of Nicodemus. The two works were probably not by the same author, and the earliest manuscripts do not contain the Descent. Tischendorf published two “forms” or recensions of the Acts in Greek (each based on different manuscripts) and one in Latin. The Greek forms are earlier than the Latin, with recension A dating from the 5th Century and recension B from the 6th Century. You will notice that the citation from Tischendorf given by the B-Greek poster reads “b 287.” The “b” indicates that this quote is from recension B, which dates from the 6th Century. James notes that recension A “must be regarded as the most original form of the Acta which we have;” while recension B “is a late and diffuse working-over of the same matter.” Significantly, in the same section quoted by the B-Greek poster, Tischendorf lists recension A as supporting the traditional punctuation by placing hoti before smeron. The translation of recension A in the ANF reads as follows: And Jesus said to him: Amen, amen; I say to thee, To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise. Thus, the oldest, most original form of the Acts of Pilate has “today” modifying “I shall be with you…” It is the later recension which changes the wording so that smeron modifies “Truly I tell you…” The later reviser does not appear to have been concerned with accurately preserving his source; indeed, Cowper notes that the later reviser did not regard his exemplar as “giving sufficient prominence to Mary” (Cowper, pp. xcii – xciii). If he was not above making revisions based on his theological leanings, it is very possible that he sought to remove the “difficulty” noted by Hesychius (see above) by repunctuating his quotation of Luke 23:43. The Descent into Hell (The Gospel of Nicodemus) The final citation provided to the B-Greek list is a quotation from the aprocryphal Descent into Hell (also known as the Gospel of Nicodemus): >kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en >to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today >I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Descent into Hades, >an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum >Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. >I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43. As noted above, the Descent comprises Part 2 of the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus. Tischendorf published a Greek form and two forms in Latin. The oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of Nicodemus do not contain the Descent. The Greek form is “closely connected with the second text of Nicodemus Part I; indeed the copies do not mark any division” (Cowper, p. xcii). Cowper dates the Greek recension of the Descent “somewhat later” than Part I (p. xciii). The punctuation in the Greek Descent, then, is certainly related to the punctuation in recension B of Part I (the Acts of Pilate). The same comments made about the Acts (above) can be made here: The punctuation in this text represents a more recent tradition, one which may well have been motivated by theological concerns rather than fidelity to an earlier source. Conclusion: The Watchtower and its apologists have offered several lines of evidence to support the NWT punctuation of Luke 23:43. In each case, the evidence has failed to stand up to rigorous examination. On balance, the evidence strongly favors the traditional punctuation. Luke 23:43 is one of 74 examples of a formulaic expression, spoken only by Jesus in the Gospels. This expression is never modified by an adverb of time, unless Luke 23:43 is the lone exception. Further, when all the “I say to you” sayings are taken into account, the number of non-temporally-modified introductory expressions grows to 144. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Jesus ever used the “common Hebrew idiom” referred to by E.W. Bullinger and so often quoted by NWT defenders. When one rightly sets aside the textual evidence from the Curetonian Syraic and Codex Vaticanus (not only because the evidence is marginal, at best; but also because the entire issue of correct punctuation is not properly the province of textual criticism), there is no substantial evidence in favor of the NWT punctuation. The Patristic and Apocryphal sources presented on the B-Greek mailing list prove that some Christians taught that Christ descended into Hades following His crucifixion, and interpreted Luke 23:43 accordingly. But an inductive analysis of all the evidence suggests that the earlier, more prominent understanding was that smeron modified “I shall be with you..,” and it was later commentators who offered the alternate punctuation as a way to avoid what they saw as a “difficulty.” It may be granted that “Amen I tell you today..” is grammatically possible, but unlikely (if 144-to-1 odds can be characterized as merely “unlikely”). Soli Deo Gloria Notes 1. In fact, to my knowledge there are only about a dozen English Bibles that have been cited by the Watchtower or its apologists as placing the comma before “today.” Most, if not all, are the works of single translators, not committees. While this does not prove that they are biased or inaccurate, it is easy for error or bias to occur with a single translator, working without the checks-and-balances of a committee. They are obscure translations, rarely (if ever) being cited in scholarly works. The punctuation apparatus in UBS4 lists none for Luke 23:43. Instead, the cited Bibles appear most frequently in writings of apologists who find occasional support for a preferred dogma in an idiosyncratic translation. I will specifically address the Bibles cited by the Watchtower later in this article. 2. Dictionary of Jesus , p. 7-8. 3. My own count shows 74 examples of this phrase, slightly less than the 100 mentioned in the Dictionary of Jesus and Gospels. I include within this number the Greek phrases Amn soi leg (e.g., Luke 23:43); Amn leg soi (e.g., Matt 5:26); Amn leg humin (e.g., Matt 5:18); and Amn, Amn leg soi (e.g., John 3:3). 4. Reminiscenses of JB Rotherham, Chapter 10 . 5. To quote Bruce Metzger, arguably the most knowledgeable scholar of early Bible manuscripts alive today: George Lamsa, L-A-M-S-A, who in the 1940s persuaded a reputable publisher of the Bible in Philadelphia, the Winston Publishing Company, to issue his absolute fraud, of ‘the Bible translated from the original Aramaic.’ Absolutely a money getter, and nothing else. He said that ‘the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic,’ and he ‘translates it from the Aramaic,’ but he never would show anybody the manuscripts that he translated from. Secondly, why would Paul write in Aramaic, let us say, to the people of Galatia? They didn’t know any more Aramaic than people in Charlestown or Princeton know Aramaic. 6. Burkitt, Crawford, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, Vol 2, Gorgias Press, 2003. 7. Lewis, Agnes Smith, The Four Gospels: Retranslated from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, with a Translation of the Whole Text, London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1896. 8. Burkitt, op cit., p. 304. Burkitt also quotes Barsalibi (d. 1171) who admits that “some” place “today” with “Amen I tell you,” but does not approve of this reading. 8a. P.J. Williams, PhD, private email to Robert Hommel, dated 1\/6\/2005. 9. Stafford , p. 547. Mr. Stafford does not quote the letter directly. He says simply that in response to “several questions regarding the punctuation of Luke 23:43,” the Vatican scholar replied that the dot was “faded brown” and had not been traced over by the later copyist. Mr. Stafford does not name the author of the letter nor provide his qualifications as a textual critic, identifying him only as a “Patristics scholar.” Importantly, it is Mr. Stafford’s conclusion that the dot is an intentional punctuation mark dating from the 4th century, not the anonymous scholar’s (at least, Mr. Stafford does not quote him as saying so). Mr. Stafford is here responding to Dr. Julius Mantey, who in his famous letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, writes the following: Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after “today” in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after leg (I say)…” Mr. Stafford concludes: “Of course, while this [the comma in Codex B] does not prove anything regarding Luke’s original text, it certainly disproves Mantey’s claim that Greek manuscripts do not support the NWT’s punctuation of Luke 23:43” (Stafford , p. 548). It is debatable whether Dr. Mantey was referring to ancient Greek manuscripts (he specifically writes “translations”); but in any event, Mr. Stafford’s assertion (stated negatively) is that the dot in Codex B is an intentional punctuation mark, dating from the 4th Century, and that it supports the NWT. 10. “The point at the top of the line () (stigmh teleia, ‘high point’) was a full stop; that on the line (.) (upostigmh) was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point (stigmh mesh) was equivalent to our comma. But gradually changes came over these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom point became a full stop, and the middle point vanished, and about the ninth century A.D. the comma (,) took its place” (Robertson , Grammar, p. 242). 11. See note 10. However, punctuation in early manuscripts, and particularly in Codex Vaticanus, was far from consistent. So, we must concede this it is possible that a scribe or corrector might use a low-point in a manner consistent with our modern comma; however, given the fact that the low-point does not appear to have been used at all by the 4th century scribe or his contemporary corrector, while they did (rarely) employ both the high-point and middle-point, it would seem most unlikely that one of them did so here. Robertson says: “B has the higher point as a period, and the lower point for a shorter pause” (Ibid.). However, Robertson does not say the “lower point” was by the original scribe or his 4th Century corrector. 12. Metzger , p. 155 (c.f., pp. 459 – 462). As I was preparing this article, I corresponded briefly with Dr.Wieland Willker about the alleged comma in Vaticanus. Dr. Willker has a webpage dedicated to Codex Vaticanus and an online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. As a result of our correspondence, Dr. Willker added information about the dot in Vaticanus to the third edition of his Commentary. Dr. Willker agrees that the dot is “of unknown origin,” and is not by the original scribe. He concludes: The dot in B is not of much relevance because the punctuation question exists independent of it. The punctuation, if there was any at all, was, like spelling, irregular in the early MSS. Any punctuation in ancient MSS is VERY doubtful. The punctuation in Nestle-Aland or GNT is NEVER based on a punctuation in a MS. It is ALWAYS a decision based on grammar, syntax, linguistics, and exegesis (Willker, Textual Commentary , p. 436, emphasis in original). Dr. Willker lists the following manuscripts which place hoti after leg, thus emphasizing that “today” modifies “you will be with me…”: L, 892, L1627, b, c, Co, and Sy-S. He lists AM 118 PS8, 11(1.8), Apo, and Hil as manuscripts that do the same thing with different syntax. He also lists several sources supporting a comma after “Today,” but these all are from a posting on the B-Greek discussion list, each of which are examined later in this article. 13. Finegan , pp. 127-28. 14. Peter M. Head, PhD, personal email to Robert Hommel, dated 1\/11\/2005. Larry W. Hurtado, PhD, also suspects that the mark is a blot or blemish and not a mark of punctuation (personal email to Robert Hommel, dated 1\/5\/2005). 15. Mr. Stafford admits as much: “While this [a punctuation mark dating from the 4th century] does not prove anything regarding Luke’s original text, it certainly disproves Mantey’s claim that Greek manuscripts do not support the NWT’s punctuation of Luke 23:43” (Stafford , p. 548, emphasis in original). Of course, this evidence only “certainly disproves Mantey” if a) Mantey meant “manuscripts” when he wrote “translations”; b) that the dot is an intentional punctuation mark and not an accidental blot; and c) that it actually dates from the 4th century. 16. Metzger , p. 460, n. 2. 17. E. W. Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible, 5th ed. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1921), p. 48. 18. Mr. Stafford may be aware of this fact; he refers to “a verb of speech or command.” While the OT idiom does exhibit some variation in the verb, it is significant that leg is never used, but it is always used in the “Amen I say to you…” sayings in the Gospels. This evidence supports the view that Luke 23:43 is an example of the latter idiom and not the former. 19. Matt. 6:11, 30; 11:23; 21:28; Mark 14:30; Luke 4:21; 12:28; 13:32, 33; 19:5, 9; 22:34 (omitting the textually uncertain Matthew 16:3). 20. The Companion Bible (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), Appendix 173. 21. The following is a typical claim by an apologist posting on the CARM Jehovah’s Witness Discussion Board: “Luke 23:43 does not contain a conjunction and therefore SHMERON should modify the preceding verb” (posted 8\/4\/2004). 22. C.f., Bowman , Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 101. 23. For a summary of the many differences between these verses, see Metzger , pp. 148-150. 24. The introductory phrases in the three verses read: Mark 14:25: Amn leg humin hoti ouxeti ou me pi… (“Amen I tell you that never by no means will I drink…”); Matthew 26:29: leg de humin ou me pi… (“But I tell you, by no means will I drink…”); Luke 22:18: leg gar humin [hoti] ou me pi…(“For I tell you [that] by no means will I drink…”). 25. Both UBS4 and NA26 place hoti in square brackets in this verse. 26. Jesus’ “I tell you” statements and other declarative statements in the NT are not quotations of others, but are used by the speaker to emphasize what he is about to say. See BDAG , p. 469 (II.1.e). 27. BDAG , p. 589.(3.a). 28. At least one Witness apologist has attempted to defend the “non-use of hoti” argument with an entry in the BDF grammar. Click here to see a brief public debate on this topic between the apologist and evangelical author Robert M. Bowman, Jr. 29. Cf., Faulhaber, Michael, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Hesychius of Jerusalem . 30. “There is truth in the maxim: lectio difficilior lectio portior (“the more difficult reading is the more probable reading’)” (Aland , p. 281). 31. There is no punctuation in Hesychius’ Greek between “I tell you” and “today.” Thus, it is possible that he intended something like: “Truly I tell you, although today you are on the cross, you shall be with me in Paradise.” However, Minge’s Latin translation includes a comma after “today,” and since Hesychius has just said that “some” place a comma after “today,” it is almost certain that he intends one here as well. 32. Stade, Christopher, trans., The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of The Holy Gospels, vol 3 (House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press), p. 310. 33. “To force out, dislodge, dispel, lay violent hands on, constrain, press upon, to be expressed in a forced, elaborate way [regarding literature]” LSJ . In the PG, Minge renders Theophylact’s ekbiazontai with the Latin ‘torquent:’ “to twist, bend, torture, torment.” 34. My own rather literal rendering. Stade offers a far smoother translation: “Others have done violence to the context of these words, pausing after today, so that it might read, Verily I say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with Me in Paradise” (Ibid.). Minge’s Latin may be translated as follows: “But others twist the expression (torquent verbum), placing a mark after today….” 35. Ibid. 36. Cowper, B.H., The Apocryphal Gospels, p. xxvii and p. xcii. 37. James, M.R., The Apocryphal New Testament, “Introduction” to the Gospel of Nicodemus. <\/p>\n Luk 23:43. Verily I say unto thee. A Divine assurance in response to faith.<\/p>\n Today, i.e., before that day ended. The Roman Catholics, to sustain the doctrine of purgatory, join this with I say unto thee, but there was no need of asserting that He was speaking today. The promise implies first of all that both should die that day, instead of lingering long, as was often the case, and then that both should that day pass to the same place: shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Our Lord would that day be in Paradise, and the penitent robber with Him. The mans faith was in Christ as a Person, and Christs promise was of personal association with Himself. If this is borne in mind we have a check to the many fancies which are wont to gather about the word Paradise as here used. (1.) It means the place (or state) where the soul of Jesus was between His death and resurrection. The clause in the Apostles creed: He descended into hell, or Hades, must be explained or supplemented by our Lords declaration that He was that day in Paradise. (2.) In choosing a word used by the Jews our Lord designed, not chiefly to indorse the Jewish views on the subject, but to convey to the dying robber a promise of blessedness which he understood, though certainly not to its full extent. The Jews thus termed that part of the world of disembodied spirits which is opposed to Gehenna (or Hell); the happy side of the state of the dead. Comp. chap. Luk 16:22 : Abrahams bosom. Most expositors are content to accept this as the meaning here, although they claim of course that the reality which Jesus promised transcended the Jewish expectations, and that this promise implied necessarily a participation in the resurrection glory of the just. This view distinguishes between Paradise, here and in 2Co 12:4; Rev 2:7 (the paradise of God). There is, however, a more extended view: that our Lord went down into the depths of death to announce His triumph and thus transfer those in Abrahams bosom into the Paradise of God (comp. 1Pe 3:18-19), and that as the robber died after Him (Joh 19:32-33) the former passed at once into this Paradise. This view suggests a solution of some of the difficulties in regard to Old Testament believers, while it does not at all imply conversion after death. Such an event as our Lords death could have such an effect, and the change could take place in a moment. Both views imply that this Paradise is not the fulness of glory at Gods right hand. Our Lord passed to that forty days afterwards, in the body, and thither His people go when they too have been raised. Bliss belongs to Paradise indeed, but it will be perfect only after the resurrection. Only on these latter points does the New Testament speak plainly; the danger has ever been in going beyond its statements.<\/p>\n These words are our Saviour’s gracious answer to the penitent thief’s humble prayer, Lord, remember me in thy kingdom, says the thief; Today shalt thou be with me in my kingdom, says our Saviour. <\/p>\n Where note,<\/p>\n 1. The immortality of the souls of men is without all doubt: our desires after, and hopes for, immortality, do prove our souls immortal, and capable of that state. The souls of men die not with their bodies, but remain in a state of sensibility.<\/p>\n 2. That there is a future and eternal state, into which souls pass at death. Death is our passage out of the swift river of time, into the boundless and bottomless ocean of eternity.<\/p>\n 3. That the souls of all the righteous at death are immediately received into a state of happiness and glory; This day shalt thou be with me; not after the resurrection, but immediately after thy dissolution. That man’s soul is asleep, or worse, that dreams of the soul’s sleeping till the resurrection: for why should the believers’ happiness be deferred, when they are immediately capable of enjoying it? Why should their salvation slumber, when the wicked’s damnation slumbers not? How do such delays consist with Christ’s ardent desires, and his people’s vehement longing to be together?<\/p>\n Luk 23:43. Jesus said In answer to his prayer; Verily I say unto thee I, the Amen, the faithful Witness, give thee assurance, This day thou shalt be with me in paradise As if he had said, I will not only remember thee when I come into my kingdom, but this very day; and will confer upon thee more than thou hast asked. Christ here lets us know, 1st, That he was going, not only to , the invisible world, but to that part of it termed paradise. His human soul was removing to the place of separate souls; not to the place of the damned, but to the place of the blessed. This was the beginning of the joy set before him, with the prospect of which he comforted himself. He went by the cross to the crown, and we must not think of going any other way, or of being perfected save by sufferings. 2d, That when penitent believers die, they go to be with him there. He was now as a priest, purchasing this happiness for them, and is ready, as a king, to confer it upon them. Observe, reader, how the state of happiness, prepared for holy souls after death, is set forth. 1st, It is being in paradise, a garden of pleasure, the paradise of God, Rev 2:7, alluding to those gardens in which the eastern monarchs made their magnificent banquets, or rather to the garden of Eden, in which our first parents were placed, when they were innocent. It is termed Abrahams bosom, in the story of Lazarus, and was a common expression among the Jews, for the mansion of beatified souls in their separate state. In the second Adam we are restored to all we lost in the first Adam; and more, to a heavenly paradise instead of an earthly one. 2d, It is being with Christ there. It is the happiness of paradise and of heaven, to see Christ, to be with him, and to share in his glory. Father, I will that they whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, &c., Joh 17:24. Thus St. Paul expected, when he departed, to be with Christ, Php 1:23; and the first Christians in general were confident, that when they were absent from the body, they should be present with the Lord. 3d, Holy souls enter this place, or state, immediately upon death. This day, that is, before six oclock in the evening, when their day ended. The souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are immediately in joy and felicity. Observe, 1st, That the word , to-day, is not to be connected with I say, as if the sense were this, I say to thee to-day; but with the words following, so as to contain a promise, that the thief [with respect to his soul] should even that day be in paradise, appears from the familiar phrase of the Jews, who say of the just man dying, To-day he shall sit in the bosom of Abraham. 2d, Christ doubtless spake in that sense in which the thief could, and in which Christ knew he would, understand him; now he, being a Jew, would surely understand him according to the received opinion of his nation concerning paradise, which was, that it was the place into which pious souls, separated from the body, were immediately received.<\/p>\n 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in {i} paradise.<\/p>\n (i) God made the visible paradise in the eastern part of the world: but that which we behold with the eyes of our mind is the place of everlasting joy and salvation, through the goodness and mercy of God, a most pleasant rest for the souls of the godly, and a most quiet and joyful dwelling.<\/p>\n The man received more from Jesus than he expected, as is always true in salvation. Jesus prefaced His solemn promise with a guarantee of its validity. The thief would not have to wait for the kingdom to be with Jesus. He would be with Him in the place of righteous departed spirits that very day when they both died.<\/p>\n Paradise and Abraham’s bosom (Luk 16:22-26) are the same place. The word "paradise" has come into English from Greek but originally from Persian. It describes a beautiful garden or delightful park such as the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8). Symbolically it represents future bliss (cf. Isa 51:3; Rev 2:7). Essentially the paradise that lies ahead of believers is paradisiacal because God is there (cf. 2Co 12:4). Jesus presented fellowship with Himself as the best part of salvation, as it is.<\/p>\n ". . . Jesus acts as the Messiah who has the kingly right to open the doors of paradise to those who come into fellowship with him." [Note: Marshall, The Gospel . . ., p. 873.] <\/span><\/p>\n When Jesus suffered on the cross, He experienced separation from the Father, which is spiritual death. Having died physically His body went into the grave for parts of three days. His spirit went to paradise, namely, into the Father’s presence where the spirits of the righteous dead abide until their reunion with their bodies at their resurrection. When Jesus arose, the Father reunited His spirit with His then immortal body.<\/p>\n The Apostles Creed says that when Jesus died He descended into hell. This idea evidently originated because Jesus said that He would spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth when He died (Mat 12:40). The ancients viewed Sheol (the Old Testament term) and Hades (the New Testament term) as in the heart of the earth or at least as under the surface of the earth. The formulators of the Apostles Creed apparently confused the temporary destiny of Jesus’ spirit (i.e., His immaterial part) with the temporary destiny of His body (i.e., His material part). There is no clear biblical statement that Jesus’ spirit went to hell after His death. The passages sometimes cited to support this view, in addition to this verse, include Act 2:27 (cf. Psa 16:8-11); Eph 4:7-10; and 1Pe 3:18-20, but I do not believe they do support it. On the contrary, Jesus here affirmed that His spirit would go to paradise (i.e., God’s presence) when He died (cf. 2Co 12:4).<\/p>\n Note also that Jesus promised the thief that he would go to paradise simply because of his faith in Jesus. This is one of the clearest examples in Scripture that salvation is not a reward for meritorious works but is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9). The thief did not have to do anything more to qualify for heaven. Indeed he could have done nothing more. People who believe that some works are necessary for salvation usually explain this instance of salvation as an exception to the rule. However, it is consistent with the teaching of Scripture elsewhere that salvation comes to a person solely in response to believing faith in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n "One thief was saved, so that none needs to despair; but only one, so that none may presume." [Note: The New Scofield . . ., p. 1119.] <\/span><\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. 43. To day ] An unexpected boon, for the crucified often lingered in agony for more than two days. To day shalt thou be with me in paradise ] Paradeisos is derived from the Persian word Pardes, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 23:43”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25960\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
\n
<\/P> <\/p>\nFuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"