Luke 23:42-43

[fcfahs]

Perhaps the most glaring biblical example of how one can be saved from Hell’s fire during the final minutes of one’s life, is given in the story of the good-thief on the cross. Luke 23:42-43 tell us that in response to this penitent thief’s plea, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom,” Jesus replied to him, “today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

My question on these verses is not about the validity of the thief’s salvation, but rather about what Jesus meant by “being with Him in paradise, on that day.” That is, at the end of the day (after both the thief an Jesus were dead) was the thief’s soul in Heaven, Purgatory, Limbo, or just peacefully asleep with his body, waiting for Christ’s second coming?

The footnote in my NAB says “Jesus’ words to the penitent thief reveal Luke’s understanding that the destiny of Christians is to be with Jesus.” However, this doesn’t seem to answer my question.

Any help of this would be much appreciated.

 

[Todd_Easton]

It would seem that Catholics are free to believe that the good thief went to either the Limbo of the Fathers (Abraham’s bosom) or to heaven that day. The old 1859 Catholic Haydock Commentary on New Testament has the following for Luke 23:43:

Ver. 43. I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise; i.e. in a place of rest with the souls of the just. The construction is not, I say to thee this day, &c., but, thou shalt be with me this day in the paradise. (Witham) — In paradise. That is, in the happy state of rest, joy and peace everlasting. Christ was pleased by a special privilege, to reward the faith and confession of the penitent thief with a full discharge of all his sins, both as to the guilt and punishment, and to introduce him, immediately after death, into the happy society of the saints, whose limbo (that is, the place of their confinement) was now made a paradise by our Lord’s going thither. (Challoner) — The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity. (St. Augustine) — St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, says he entered heaven before all the patriarchs and prophets. St. Chrysostom thinks that paradise was immediately open to him, and that he entered heaven the first mankind. (Tom. v. homil. 32.)

 

[Pug]

at the end of the day (after both the thief an Jesus were dead) was the thief’s soul in Heaven, Purgatory, Limbo, or just peacefully asleep with his body

I don’t think this passage is trying to answer your question. The words are reassuring and comfort and salvation. I take it that, from the thief’s perspective, as he expired, then after that all was well.

Maybe you are asking when the gates of heaven were officially opened for business after the crucufixion, and when did Jesus begin to reside there, what with Jesus wandering around, descending into “hell”, walking through doors, and not ascending for forty days and all.

I guess I wonder what “when” is that. I have trouble with any “when” when dealing with eternity or aeveternity or time after death and from who’s perspective.

 

[NotWorthy]

I understood the Gates of Heaven were “officially” open for business when Jesus rose from the dead (Easter), but I may be wrong. That’s probably irrelevent, thought.

If “Jesus said today you will be with me in Paradise”, then I believe that on Good Friday, the Thief went to Heaven. Remember in Genesis, "And God said ‘let there be light’, and there was light". So if Jesus makes a promise, it become reality.

A similar lesson on learning your lesson late in life is the parable of the workers in the field. The ones who were hired late in the day got the same wages as the ones that were hired in the morning.

NotWorthy

 

[fcfahs]

Thanks Todd, Pug, and NotWorthy for jumping on this my question of mine so quickly. Please know that I greatly value the (name removed by moderator)ut each of you has offered.

The 1859 bible commentary for Luke 23:43 that Todd provided certainly goes into more detail than does than my NAB footnote for this verse. It would certainly seem (as I believe Pug may have been alluding to) that the writers of my NAB footnote were trying to convey that Luke was not aware of the later-to-be-formulated concepts of limbo and purgatory, only that after death there would be a place of everlasting joy and ultra-pleasant rest in the company of Jesus for the souls of the Godly.

One thing in that commentary I do see the need for is its cautionary note about where the comma should be placed in. “… I say unto thee**,** today thou shall be with me in Paradise.”, namely before the word today and not after it. Indeed, during this past week I’ve run into two Jehovah Witnesses who claim this verse should read " … I say unto thee today**,** thou shall be with me in Paradise.", which conveys an entirely different meaning.

But just like Pug guessed, I was under the impression that the gates of heaven were not “open for business” until after Jesus’ ressurrection from the dead and His ascension into heaven. And, even if heaven became officially open for saved souls at the moment of Jesus’ death, such that the thief went immediately to heaven, I can’t understand why Jesus would say “today, thou shalt be with me in Paradise,” rather than “today, thou shalt be with The Father in Paradise.”

Indeed, the simple logic that says “Since Jesus is God and God is in heaven, then Jesus was also in heaven at the same time he was on the earth, under the wrath of God the Father (as a curse for our sins), then in the grave for a couple of days, and then back to life walking around on earth for over a month before He ascended into heaven” does not “fly” with me! Was it just Jesus’ human body that died or was it Jesus, the second person of the Godhead that died? Was the mear crucifixtion and death of Jesus’s body (what Mel Gibson’s movie was all about) enough to pay the price (of an eternity in hell) for all mankind who ever lived or will live? If so, I know of a lot of now-dead war heroes who suffered as much in terms of physical pain, suffering, and death for their country. No, it was Jesus (the second person of the Godhead) who came to earth and died for our sins. And, I believe that while on the earth in His human body, Jesus was not (as a person of the Godhead) in heaven.

I really don’t think it’s safe “grey the lines” between the three distinct persons of the Godhead. Afterall, it was not God the Father who died for our sins, but Jesus (God the son) who was made a curse for our sins. Also, when Jesus was asked by Peter, James and John (on the mount of Olives) about the time of the Last Days, Jesus replied “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” - Mark 13:32. Unfortunately I don’t have them all at my fingertips, but there are a number of biblical verses wherin Jesus reiterates the distinction between the three persons of the Godhead, even though they are equally God.

Again, I thank you guys for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but certainly hope there will be some further (name removed by moderator)ut to this thread, because I’m still quite unsure how to understand this verse.

Frank

 

[TOME]

In regards to this passage, in my opinion Jesus’ promise to the theif was a promise to be with him in “Heaven”, not limbo nor Purgatory. I say this for a couple of reasons. In 2 Cor, Paul speaks of his vision of Heaven and he calls it Paradise. Also, in the Gospels the parting of the Temple Curtain is a clear indication of a new opening to Heaven a new life. Given Jesus’ command that we should say what we mean, not having to rely on oaths or swearing to God, Jesus when he said that the theif would be with him in Paradise Jesus, I believe He meant unequivocally the Good Theif would be in Heaven. One other point as well, in the Apostles’ Creed we confess that Jesus, “Died, and desended into Hell…” Many consider this as a time in Limbo, however, if you study the background of that term and how it is used
, “Desended into Hell” expresses the reality that Jesus had truely died - He was really dead and not just past out or in a coma. So in conclusion, again I believe Jesus’ promise was that the Good theif would be enjoying the Beatific Vision at the Thief’s death.

 

[Pug]

There are many issues raised here. I will try and talk about the “today” issue. (I’m no expert…I know nearly zip about JW issues).

The Greek itself contains no comma, so the translators must decide where to put one. It makes more sense to me to place it with the phrase so it says, today you will be with me in paradise, rather than to place it so that it says, Amen I say to you today. It seems obvious to me that Jesus is speaking to the guy today, right now, from the cross. He is not speaking to the guy yesterday. The word provides substantive meaning if it is with the second phrase, not the first. Jesus is sufforcating on that cross. I doubt he will be verbose.

Also, “Amen I say to you,” or “Amen I say to you all,” or “Amen Amen I say to you,” is a stock phrase of Jesus. It seems to be his manner of speaking in certain situations. It is an introductory phrasing of his. Here is a typical example: NAU Matthew 5:26 “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.” It would require substantial justification to say that Jesus had departed from how he always talks in this one instance.

However, from a JW’s perspective, as I minimally understand it, they would chose to defer to the WT and how it understands the verse in any case, as the WT is authoritative for them.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Let me be clear, I’m sitting here in the Simpleton’s Corner, where I find myself so often. I respectfully defer to those more learned and studied than myself.

This exchange between the “good” thief and Jesus should impress us and teach us all various lessons of humility and contriteness. I am so distracted by the hope that it offers that I would be totally focused on the ‘today.’

 

[fcfahs]

Pug:

There are many issues raised here. I will try and talk about the “today” issue. (I’m no expert…I know nearly zip about JW issues).

The Greek itself contains no comma, so the translators must decide where to put one. It makes more sense to me to place it with the phrase so it says, today you will be with me in paradise, rather than to place it so that it says, Amen I say to you today. It seems obvious to me that Jesus is speaking to the guy today, right now, from the cross. He is not speaking to the guy yesterday. The word provides substantive meaning if it is with the second phrase, not the first. Jesus is sufforcating on that cross. I doubt he will be verbose.

Also, “Amen I say to you,” or “Amen I say to you all,” or “Amen Amen I say to you,” is a stock phrase of Jesus. It seems to be his manner of speaking in certain situations. It is an introductory phrasing of his. Here is a typical example: NAU Matthew 5:26 “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.” It would require substantial justification to say that Jesus had departed from how he always talks in this one instance.

However, from a JW’s perspective, as I minimally understand it, they would chose to defer to the WT and how it understands the verse in any case, as the WT is authoritative for them.

**Various Translations of Luke 23:43…

** “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (NAB)
“Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (KJV)
“Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in paradise.” (NWT)

Actually, there are only two salient issues on the table here:

1. Should the adverb “today” modify the verb “say,” instead of the verb “will be?”
2. What did the Lord mean by the word “paradise?”

As for the"Amen, I say" at the beginning Luke 23:43 (NAB), I do not see this as problematic or confusing in any way. Abeit, the KJV begins this verse with “Verily, I say” and the NWT begins it with “Truly I tell you,” all of these translations are equivalent. (Indeed, “Amen” is just the transliteration of a Hebrew word for “truth.”)

Notwithstanding, I just tract down my 1950 (pre-Vatican II) Catholic Standard Douay Bible. And, it’s footnote for Luke 23:43, defines/explains paradise as “the abode of the just souls under the old dispensation, who were waiting in limbo for the coming of the Messias to lead them to heaven.” Notice here that paradise is clearly distinguished from heaven (i.e. the 3rd heaven, the abode of God and His angels).

If Jesus meant heaven (the abode of God and his angels), why didn’t He say “heaven” instead of “paradise?” Certainly, Jesus used the word “heaven” many times elsewhere in his teachings, when He was referring to the abode of His Father. Why not here?

Also, it would seem that there is some evidence given in John 3:13-15, that the Gates of Heaven were not openned for “new members” until after Christ ascended into heaven…

John 3 [13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] [So] that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (KJV)

Finally, if the good thief did NOT go heaven that day, but instead went to limbo (with the promise of salvation and eternal life), then the “today” issue of Luke 23:43 becomes less important.