Can anyone explain to me the meaning of this text:

John 23:42-43
42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Didn't Jesus spend three days in the tomb? How could Jesus say that "today you will be with me in paradise"?

Can this mean that Jesus body was in the tomb but his "spirit" went to heaven for those three days?

Original Greek did not have any punctuation. So, simply move the comma to "truth today," instead of "truth, today". It will make things much more consistent with the rest of scripture. Don't you think?

Jesus made this statement while on the cross. The moment the other man asked to be remembered, he had chosin Jesus and therefor God. With that choice came everlasting life. God-1, devil -zip.

Through other glasses, it could mean..."Assuredly, I tell you (because of what I've done) today, you will be with us in paradise."

That verse is in Luke.

Jesus died sometime after the ninth hour on a Friday. The ninth hour being about 3:00 in the afternoon. (See Luke 23:44)

Sometime before "very early in the morning" on the first day of the week--Sunday, He was discovered to be missing from the tomb. (See Luke 24:1-3)

He did not spend three days in the tomb, but rather rose from the dead on the "third" day.

Bifocals

That is all very nice, but I cannot find a translation that gives it that treatment. I have considered the following translations and paraphrases:

• New Life Version: 43 Jesus said to him, "For sure, I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."
• Amplified Bible: 43 And He answered him, Truly I tell you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.
• New International: 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
• King James Version: 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
• and so on . . .

Can you point me in the direction of a translation that treats it with a comma shifted or a paraphrase that gives it that meaning.

The Clear Word, an interpretive paraphrase of the scriptures, reads:

Jesus turned His head toward him and said, "I promise you today, when I return with the glory of my Father, I will take you home with me to paradise."

Here's another 14 versions: Luke 23:43

Redwood has a good point. Here is how Rotherham's Emphsized translation reads in Luke 23: 43, "And he said unto him-- Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

The Concordant Literal New Testament reads similarly.

The punctuation must be determined by context and theology, not the other way around, because, as Redwood pointed out, the punctuation is not part of the original.

It is more consistent when translated in this way because Jesus Himself said on Sunday morning that he had not yet ascended to his Father.

Luke 23: 43, then, is to be understood as Jesus telling the thief, "Although it appears that this is the end, I am promising you this very day, that you will be with me in my Kingdom."

The important promise Jesus was making to him was that the thief would be in Christ's kingdom.

There are a few additional points that show Jesus did not promise the thief he would be with Him in Paradise that same day.

First, it is highly unlikely that the thief himself died on Friday. It usually took the victims of crucifixion over a day to die. Jesus died more quickly than expected, which is why Pilate was astonished to learn that Jesus was already dead on Friday afternoon.

Second, notice that the dying thief asked that Jesus remember him when Jesus would come into His kingdom. The Amplified Version reads, "when you come in your kingly glory." Literally, "when you come into your reign." Jesus' kingdom, or reign, is yet future. Jesus has not yet "come into His kingdom." Jesus didn't come into his kingdom when he died. He will come into His kingdom when he comes the second time with all his holy angels. (Compare Matt. 16: 27; 24: 27, 30, 37, 39; 25: 31; Dan. 7: 13, 14, 18, 22, 27; Rev. 14: 14; 20: 4-6.)

Also, the wonderful news is that since death is an unconscious sleep in the grave, it will seem to the thief and others who have died that only a moment has passed between their deaths and the resurrection.

Another 14 versions and still not one that has the punctuation any different. They all have the "today" after a comma.

Has anyone got the "Clear Word" version to see if it is any different?

Yeah. I posted the Clear Word version a few posts back...take a look.

At last a translation that has that different emphasis. That seems really clear to me now. Thanks John317.

Although some of this info was just posted, I think it will be good to give it again along with some additional information and details:

Rotherham's Emphasize Translation is one of the most highly regarded literal translations in English and was published in 1868, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501. It is widely used by serious Bible students and scholars. See: http://www.studylight.org/info/copyright/bible/reb.html

This translation of Luke 23: 43 reads: " "And he said unto him-- Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

The Concordant Literal New Testament reads, "And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.'"

See also Lamsa's footnote in the New Testament From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts. The footnote reads, "Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today."

An additional point of interest on Luke 23: 43 is that one of the most ancient manuscripts of Luke, the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, has a space between letters in only one place, and that place is after the word "today." This shows the copyist was indicating the text should read, "Truly I am saying to you today, with me shall you be in Paradise."

1. First the "Clear Word" is NOT a version. It's basically a very long sermon on the Bible paraphrasing Bible texts along the way.

2. All translations and versions have a fair amount of pharaphrasing and reflections of the translator's bias, or cermicial value (there are texts that if they gave more persice translations would be so rejected by people that they would not buy it). The punctuation comes from how the specific person or committee put them. We know that Jesus did not go to paradise that day.

3. However, another way of looking at it is how human nature is. Adam and Eve found fault with paradise, while Jesus and the thief were able to find paradise on the cross.

That all has cleared up now that I see the Rotherham's Emphasize Translation.

BUT I am still curious to know how our good friend who paraphrased the "Clear Word" treated this text. I know it is a paraphrase with a liberal sprinkling of added thoughts that perhaps should not be there, but I would like to see his theology, since he should have paraphrased it from an SDA Theological standpoint.

NB: I did not say the "Clear Word Bible", but rather, the "Clear Word" as it really is not a Bible in the strictest sense of the word.

Again, here it is as I posted in post number 175412:

The Clear Word, an interpretive paraphrase of the scriptures, reads:

Jesus turned His head toward him and said, "I promise you today, when I return with the glory of my Father, I will take you home with me to paradise."

I am so sorry, I missed seeing it where you first quoted the Clear Word. Sorry, I just missed reading that response. Bad me.

AND thank you for pointing it out another time. I should be a little more observant in the future.

See Crickets reply above, she has already mentioned the Clear Word's translation of Luke 23:43. Just in case you don't have it here it is again:
Jesus turned His head toward him and said, "I promise you today, when I return with the glory of my Father, I will take you home with me to paradise."
I personally like the way its put here, more to the meaning that when Jesus comes at the end of time to get us.

pkrause

{deleted}

Maybe this text will make the meaning of the shift in the punctuation more consistent.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." John 20:17 KJV

Assuming where Jesus' Father was is paradise, this statement indicates He had not been back to paradise until some time after the day He had made the promise to the thief on the cross.
Regards!

I wonder if it is possible that the Father was not far away that weekend and was actually waiting very close to welcome Jesus. I dont think an assumpion that He was in "paradise" is warranted...mel

So you are suggesting that maybe Jesus went back to Paradise, accompanied by the thief, and his Father was not there to meet him?

I don't think so.

Graeme

This nonsense that some dissembled part of a person, called the spirit, goes to heaven upon the death of the body is pure unadulterated legalism of the highest order! This heresy comes from the idea that the body is evil, but the spirit is good. But Paul doesn't state this. In Romans 7:18 he states exactly the opposite:

"For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh [i.e., in my being...in my soul]."

And Paul, in 1 Cor 15:50-51, says the following:

"I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood [the whole person] cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep [remain dead], but we shall all be changed...."

Why the change? Because mankind is totally void of true righteous. He is unrighteous. Even the seemingly good things he does is filthy rags.

Rob

Amen Amen Brother.

No matter what good we do ... it is as 'filthy rags'. Just yesterday a wonder sister in our church came over and mowed our lawn. I told her she was a 'saint'. Her reply was ... "No. I'm no saint. Pastor "Redwood" tells us that what I've done is just 'filthy rags'." I thought that was good insight and Oh so true.

Filthy Rags Folks. Just Filthy Rags.

1 Cor 13:3 "If I give all I possess to the poor ..., but have not love [agape], I gain nothing. [why?] 4 Love...is not proud. 5 It is not...self-seeking..."

Human love wants to be noticed. Why? Because at the center of human love is the love of self! Take Paul's example of someone who gives all his possessions to the poor. Outwardly his act looks wonderful, but what's the motive?

If it's human love you can be sure that it's centered in pride and self-seeking. Human love does seemingly good things, but for self-centered reasons. Human love is proud..it is boastful.

Let's see if we can find (clue: it's in red) these sinful attributes in the following quote from Matthew:


Matthew 19:16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" 20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Did you notice this man's answer? I've done it all...what do I lack? That's pride speaking...he is seeking the attention of those around him. He wants credit for his righteousness, but Jesus lays it on the line once again by exposing human love and the self-righteous it produces with what the law requires. That's why Jesus said if you want to be perfect in love, give up all your goodies and give them to the poor and come and follow Me in my self-denial.

That's exactly what Jesus did. He gave up heaven (not that He lusted it). He gave up everything for His enemies so that one day we could have heaven. That's love - agape love. Truely we are falling short of God's love.

Therefore none of us are good enough to enter heaven after death. We are void of agape. We can't generate it...we can't produce it. We are bankrupt of true love. The only thing we can do is experience it as we learn to walk in the Spirit. But, I'll tell you this, the moment "self" is seen (i.e., pride, self-seeking, and all expressions that bring attention to one's self) that moment you are no longer experiencing agape.

You're on the right track brother. Keep it comin.

"The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates in 2000 and doubled in size by Warren Buffett in 2006. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology."

Okay, not to pick on Bill, etc...let's look at what he is doing (see red lettering).

Can we read motive? No, but I can tell you this - if Christ isn't controlling Bill's human nature in this area of his life then all Bill does (even though outwardly good) is to bring attention to himself. If that's the case then in heaven's eyes his act is nothing more than filthy rags.

I just read that Madonna gave a free concert....Sounds wonderful, but why free? Was it really free? No, not if you read the whole article. She did it for self-promotion.

Now before we jump on Bill or Madonna let's look at our own lives. That job you have...how did you get it? Did you sell yourself to get hired? Did you compete? Well, then you are doing the same thing...

Food for thought,

Rob

Speakin of "filthy rags".

Hey whadja think of the lessons this week? I thought it clealy articulated the value of works as filthy rags.

If...Christ isn't controlling Bill's nature in this area of his life. For Bill to be experience agape he first must accept Christ by faith. I don't if he has or not.... Secondly, to experience agape, he must allow Christ to have his human nature in this area of his life. It's called walking in the Spirit.



I haven't seen them....I know of a text that is misquoted concerning this subject. It's Mat 7:22,23

7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

What does to "work iniquity" mean? Let's assume Bill Gates doesn't need Christ and He's not in Bill's life. Are Bill's many wonderful works (and they are impressive) good works or works of iniquity? Remember, I said without Christ!

Well, we must understand what iniquity means:

As a result of the fall, man by very nature is spiritually “bent,” so that the driving force of his very nature is love of self. Paul defines it as “the law of sin and death” [Romans 7:23; 8:2]. It is this condition that is the basis of all our sinning, and which makes us slaves to sin [Romans 3:9-12; 7:14].

Everyone of us has gone astray, since we have all turned or bent “to his own way.” This own-way-ness (i.e., self-centeredness) is synonymous with iniquity, which was laid upon Christ our sin bearer; and it was this “sin in the flesh” that Christ “condemned” on the cross [Romans 8:2-3].

Iniquity, therefore, is simply seeking our own way, a condition we are born with and which (without a Saviour) makes it impossible to do genuine righteousness, since the law of God requires even our motives to be pure [Matthew 5:20-22, 27-28]. In contrast to iniquity or self-seeking is agape (divine love) which is of God and which “seeketh not her own” [1 Corinthians 13:5].

Because man by nature is “shapen in iniquity,” all the righteousness produced by him through his own efforts is like filthy rags before God, because it is polluted with self-love. According to Zech. 3:3, 4, “filthy garments” are equated with iniquity. In contrast to these filthy garments of ours (self-righteousness), the white raiment of Christ (His righteousness) is offered to the Laodicean church so that they may be truly clothed, and “the shame of [their] nakedness do not appear” before the judgment seat of God [Revelation 3:18; 10:3-4].

Self-righteous acts camouflaged or disguised in the name of Christ are exposed in the judgment and clearly identified as works of iniquity (i.e., works motivated by self-love). All Christians must consider this text seriously. Do our works originate from Christ and therefore motivated by agape, or are they the “fair shew in the flesh” [Galatians 6:12]? Are our works the result of a genuine relationship with Christ (i.e, works of faith) or are we working in His name but we really don’t know Him? [See also Luke 13:25-28.]


The essence of Lucifer’s sin was self-exaltation, what the Bible defines as iniquity, which in Hebrew means bent to self [Isaiah 53:6]. Hence, the love of self is the underlying principle of all sin, in complete opposition to the principle of God’s government which is founded upon selfless love or agape [see 1 John4:7, 8, 16]. Sin therefore may be rightly interpreted as rebellion against God or His agape. According to 1 Corinthians 13:5, there is no love of self in agape.

How is it that we will be able to be with Him in Paradise?

Not by works of the law.

Gal.2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. "

This is one verse the lesson referred to this week.

I would add that when we are weak ... we are strong. We will be weak. But it is the times that we allow the strength of God in our lives .... it is then that we experience strength. When we are empty ... it is then that we are filled. And filled with that which is truly good.

And I might add "self-righteous" doctrines....This idea that one goes to heaven after he dies is rooted in iniquity. Now I am not saying because some believer doesn't see it my way that he stands condemned. Jesus takes folks where they are at. He accepts them in their ignorance. Good thing for me because while I do understand the issue on the state of the dead I am surely ignorant in other areas of my life.

But the subject is do we receive paradise the moment we die? No...nothing in us is good therefore nothing in us is immortal. I have a Baptist friend at work. One day I was telling him of our condition by birth. He stopped me before I finished my sentence. He wouldn't discuss it. He said I was wrong - that there is some good in us. Well, he was ignorant here. If he's truely ingorant I don't know....That's between him and God.

In the judgment God will not examine how good we are...or examine if our good works is more than our bad works. No, He's going to look at the source of our works. Do they come from pride? Does it come from wanting credit? Do you want Christ to accept you into heaven based on your works? If so your works are works of iniquity.

Rob

Good Stuff Rob.

Does your Baptist friend at work ... allow you to do much talking? Why is he so resistant to hearing Biblical principles in opposition to his current belief? Perhaps this is an opening. Perhaps he is so unsure of his beliefs that he doesn't want to hear others.

Keep us informed as to how your conversations with this person go.

A question that the lesson asked this week was ...

"How central is the cross to your own theology? Perhaps this would be a good question for your Baptist friend.

Actually, I think this is such a good question that I am going to start a thread with it.

I try to talk of only things we have in common....Otherwise it goes no where.

It was years ago we had that conversation about what happens when you die. He took the stance that there was good in him. When I pressed him on it he said the Holy Spirit is good. I agreed, but I said "you aren't the Holy Spirit" and therefore in and of yourself there's nothing good. He said "no - I have become one with the Holy Spirit." I asked, "So you are claiming to be the Holy Spirit?" His face got red and so I knew he was mad....I said to him, "That's blasphemy....The Holy Spirit is not you and you are not the Holy Spirit. Yes, the two of you share the same body, but you are not one and the same. The HS is immortal; you are mortal."

Anyway, he walked out....He didn't want to discuss it.....Rob

Perhaps this is why your conversations are not going far. When someone is "mad" ... I wouldn't tell them they are speaking "blasphemy". The conversation would naturally stop. Could you break it to him more gently?

Actually, the mad part came before my comment....

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Philippians 2:13 KJV

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" Galatians 2:20 KJV

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation...." 2 Corinthians 5:17 NKJV

Not all of the works done in man are his own.

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Matthew 12:31 KJV
Regards!