Elsewhere on my blog I've argued that, in contrast with what most Christians believe, those who have died are actually dead and must be restored by God to a living existence (which occurs when they're resurrected) in order for them to consciously go or be anywhere. For those interested in reading more on this important subject, the following are some articles on my blog in which I've defended my understanding of what Scripture reveals concerning the nature of death and the state of the dead:
Life after Death (Part 3): http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/06/life-after-death-part-3.html (links to parts 1 and 2 of this series are included)
The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich
Man: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-parable-of-rich-man-and-lazarus.html
A Defense of the Reality of Christ's Death: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-defense-of-reality-of-christs-death.html
Now, Christ's words in Luke 23:43 are commonly believed to be inconsistent with the view defended in the above articles. According to what most Christians believe, Christ promised the malefactor to whom he spoke that he would be in "paradise" on the day that he died (or rather, on the day his body died, as most Christians see it). By "paradise," most Christians believe that Jesus was referring to either heaven (where God sits enthroned) or to a mysterious region in the "netherworld" where the "disembodied souls" of the righteous dead were thought to temporarily reside. But is this interpretation required by the original inspired text?
Here is how Luke 23:39-43 reads in the Concordant Literal New Testament:
Now one of the hanged malefactors blasphemed Him, saying,
"Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" Yet answering, the other one, rebuking him, averred, "Yet
you are not fearing God, seeing that you are in the same judgment! And we, indeed, justly, for we are getting back the deserts of
what we commit, yet this One commits nothing amiss." And he said to Jesus, "Be reminded of me, Lord, whenever
Thou mayest be coming in Thy kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying
today, with Me shall you be in paradise."
The original Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, and so commas
must be provided by the translators. In the case of this verse, the placement
of the comma is just as much a matter of interpretation as it is of grammar, so
the fact that most English translations place the comma after "truth"
(or "you") instead of "today (or "this day") simply
shows the preferred interpretation of the translators, and not how the
Greek has to be translated in order to be grammatically correct.
The Greek adverb translated "today" or "this day" (sēmeron) may qualify
either legô ("I am saying") or esomai ("shall
you be").
Because either option is grammatically possible, the
question of where the comma should be placed when translating the verse into
English must be determined by other considerations. Christ's words,
"Truly, I say to you, this day you shall be with me in paradise," may
just as legitimately be constructed as, "Truly, I say to you this day, you
shall be with me in paradise." By placing the comma after
"today" instead of "you," the fulfillment of Christ's
promise need not be confined to the day in which they died, but may be
understood as having its fulfillment at some time in the distant future. This
translation is not only grammatically valid, but it makes Christ's words
consistent with what the rest of Scripture teaches (as well as what Christ
himself said) concerning the state of the dead.
In addition to the Concordant Version, J.B. Rotherham (in his
Emphasized Bible) translates Luke 23:43 as follows: "Verily, I say unto
thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise." It's interesting that
Rotherham included a footnote giving the more traditional reading, even though
he disagreed with it. Of course, he didn't have as much to lose as the people
working on modern translation committees (who likely would not have been on the
committees in the first place were it not for their commitment to what is commonly considered "historic evangelical orthodoxy"). While holding to the belief that the
dead are actually dead (and thus functionally inactive and unconscious) would
not be considered as serious an error as, say, a rejection of the doctrine of
hell or of the trinity, this belief is still considered inconsistent with historic evangelical orthodoxy, and would likely disqualify someone
from being on the translation committee to begin with.
Objection: "Don't these translations make the word "today"
redundant and unnecessary?"
Answer: Not at all. The word "today" (or "this
day") was often used by the Hebrew people idiomatically, to introduce a
solemn and important statement. According to this Hebrew/Aramaic idiom,
"today/this day" often follows a verb of declaration, testification,
command or oath, and emphasizes the solemnity and importance of the occasion or
moment. Paul, for example, used this idiom in Acts 20:26 when he declared, "Therefore I testify to you
this day (semeron) that I am innocent of the blood of all of you"
(Acts 20:26).
This idiom actually occurs about 70 times in Scripture, with 42 instances
being found in the Book of Deuteronomy alone (see, for example, Deut. 4:26, 39,
40; 5:1; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 19; 9:3; 10:13; 11:2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32;
13:18; 15:5; 19: 9; 26:3, 16, 18; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13, 14, 15; 29:12; 30:2,
8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; 32:46; cf. Josh 23:14). Moreover, the word semeron appears
in the LXX (the Greek Old Testament) and the New Testament 221 times. In 170 of these places, the adverb follows the
verb it modifies (some examples of this in the NT are Luke 2:11; 5:26; 22:34;
Acts 20:26; 22:3; 24:21; 26:29; 2 Cor. 3:14, 15). There are thus 170 witnesses
against 51 in favor of placing the comma after "this
day."
It would, therefore, not only be grammatically legitimate to
punctuate Luke 23:43 with the comma after "this day" (so that the
adverb follows the verb it modifies), but it would also be consistent with how the
word semeron is most frequently used in Scripture. When we take the Hebrew idiom into account it becomes evident
that, in response to the malefactor's request, Christ was in
effect saying, "I give you my solemn word that you will be
with me in paradise." Christ didn't say when they
would be in paradise together - only that they would be.
Moreover, the earliest translation of the Greek New Testament was
in the language of Israel's nearest neighbor, Syria. Syriac is a dialect of
Aramaic, which most scholars believe Jesus spoke at least on occasion, if not
regularly (for example, Jesus' words on the cross, "Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani" appear to be the Aramaic form of the words of Psalm 22:1). So
it is a reasonable inference that, in his reply to the thief on the cross, Jesus
spoke in the idiom that was common to both his own Aramaic language as well as
the Hebrew language of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is therefore not surprising
that in one of the oldest Syriac manuscripts of the Gospels (the 5th century
Curetonian Syriac) the Hebrew/Aramaic idiom was evidently recognized by the
translator. In this ancient manuscript the verse is translated so that the
adverb "this day" clearly qualifies the verb "say" (and not
"will be"): "Amen say I to you today that with me you will be in
the garden of Eden."[1]
By introducing the word "that," the translator removed
the need for any punctuation to determine the sense of Jesus' words. And while
it's true that the Syriac Sinaitic (the only other Syriac translation of the 4
Gospels that is thought to predate the standard Syriac version, the Peshitta)
has the more common translation, the Curetonian Syriac (which, like the Syriac
Sinaitic, predates all the English versions by hundreds of years) is still a
very ancient witness for this interpretation of Luke 23:43.
Objection: "Nowhere else is Christ's frequently-used formula,
"Truly I say to you" modified by an adverb of time. Thus, semeron should
be understood as most likely being part of the expression that follows the
"Truly I say to you" formula."
Answer: This objection loses its force when we take into account the
well-known Hebrew/Aramaic idiom that uses "today/this day" to
emphasize the significance and solemnity of an occasion. And who can deny the
profound importance and solemnity of this occasion? This was one of the last
things Jesus said before he died, and was possibly the last thing the man being
crucified next to him heard anyone say to him before he died. It would
therefore make sense for Jesus to speak in such a way on this highly
exceptional and solemn occasion.
Objection: "In the instances where this idiom appears in the LXX we
do not find the same verb word used in Jesus' "Truly I say to you"
formula (legô)."
Answer: While this is true, this objection is undermined by the fact
that the Hebrew idiom exhibits some variation in the verbs used. The only
constant in the idiom is that the word "today" modifies a verb of
declaration, testification, command, oath (etc.). In the case of Luke 23:43, Jesus simply
employed an idiom with which he and the thief would have been very familiar,
and in a way that was most consistent with how Jesus normally declared things
to people (i.e., using the word "legô").
There is simply no good reason to reject a certain translation
based upon the premise that a particular construction must be found in other
texts in order for it to be valid grammar. And it is not improbable that Jesus might
have, on occasion, modified the introductory formula that he used most often
during his earthly ministry. This is, in fact, the case in Luke 4:25. In this verse we read that Jesus modified the expression and said "ep
alhtheias de legô humin" ("I say to you in truth").
Here, "ep alhtheias"
adverbially modifies "legô humin." As a result, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the expression is not to be taken as an inviolable
grammatical mantra.
[1] F. C. Burkitt, "The
Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels," Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904.
