The Comma at Luke 23:43 by D.T. Taylor 1877
THE reader's attention is called to the foregoing passages; the last one quoted being popularly supposed to teach that on that exact Jewish day, at some time between twelve at noon and sunset, the spirit or soul of our Lord, and the spirit or soul (nobody seems to know which) of the penitent thief, were to be together in what was vulgarly called Paradise, i.e., the elysian portion of hades, the under-world. It is claimed by critics and theologians that the comma must of necessity be placed after "thee," instead of after "to-day," and that the words of Christ will admit of no other interpretation than that the spirits (or souls) of the two were to be in a disembodied, conscious condition as soon as they died. The adverb "to-day," it is said, cannot by any means qualify "I say," but must of stern necessity, to make both grammar and sense, qualify "thou shalt be;" hence during that twenty-four hours, Paradise, already in existence, already come for mortals, should by both the dying men be entered and occupied.
"I doubt," as said Adam Clarke on another occasion. I question if any saint has yet entered "The Paradise." There is only one—that is God's. The hadean abode is right down in our earth, and I am sure there is no such Paradise there. Strange that Christians should imagine there is! Now touching this passage, and the others quoted, I observe:
1. In the words of Noah Webster, "the ancients were unacquainted with punctuation; they wrote without any distinction of members, periods, or words." So neither Christ nor Luke put the commas in Luke's written words.
2. Appleton's Cyclopedia informs us that the modern points, such as the comma, semicolon, colon, and period, "came into use very gradually after the invention of printing," which was in 1423.
3. The punctuation of a speaker's words and sentences is to be made in accordance with his natural pauses, and in agreement with the sense of the same; the punctuation not so much determining the sense, as does the sense determine the punctuation. The point is, what does our Lord mean? not, what shall we compel him to mean.
4. If we had heard our Lord utter the words recorded in Luke, and distinctly observed a natural pause after "thee," and an emphasis on "to-day," then might we yield the argument to our opponents. But no man this side the cross listened to the sacred promise to the thief. Luke, and he only — not another — recorded the dying words of the bleeding King. It is written — and the whole Bible must interpret it, aided by common sense.
5. Explained by the usus loquendi, or general usages of the word in Scripture, we know that Paradise, in the only passage that locates it at all, is not in the bowels of the earth, where hades is, but (is in or) is the New Jerusalem which is above and is to come down on the new earth. (2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7; xxii. 2; and xxi. 2, 3.)
6. Explained by the thief's request, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom," there is here no allusion at all to the intermediate state, but to a period subsequent to the Second Advent, for Christ is yet to come into his kingdom, at the great day.
7. Explained by the kingdom coming and the thief's entrance thereto, the penitent's Paradise is still in the future, for no soul has yet gone into the promised "kingdom of God and of Christ." The kingdom has not come.
8. Explained in the light of historical fact, it is a matter of doubt if Christ and the thief died on the same current Jewish day. Their day both ended and began at "even," sunset, Christ died at three o'clock in the afternoon, but the two thieves lived until "even," and consequently until that "day" ended.
9. The disputed sentence, punctuated and interpreted in the light of the nine texts that head this article, does not of necessity teach the old Jewish notion that death was the door to an underground Paradise. For if it was proper and grammatical for the butler to say that he remembered his faults that day he spoke, when everybody knows that he did not mean the day before, nor the day after — if it was proper for the greatest of the Hebrew legislators to declare that he commanded a thing this day, when all know he meant no other day save the one on which he spoke — if it was proper for God to say, "Even to-day do I declare" a matter, which thing or matter related to the future, none doubting that God knew how to use words, and knew also what he was saying — then we do no violence to the words of the Redeemer when we make "to-day" qualify, describe, and determine his saying, instead of qualifying, describing, and determining the time when the two souls should enter Paradise.
10. Observe also, there is no difference between "to-day " and "this day," for the Greek semeron, found forty-one times in the New Testament, is in nineteen places rendered "to-day" and in twenty-two places translated "this day," so that "to-day" and "this day," are equal, one phrase being no stronger, no more definite than the other. Hence nothing is gained by playing fast or loose on "to-day."
11. Then, what harmony in putting the thief s request and the Master's reply in natural connection and order, thus: "You shall be with me in the Paradise when I come into my kingdom." The answer dovetails with the prayer; the penitent is answered as he requested; no more, no less.
12. Amen I Sat To Thee To-day With Me Thou Shalt Be In The Paradise. Read the words. I give them in successive order and with literal exactness. Now just put a comma after "to-day," and read again. Emphasise "the Paradise," as the Scripture does. It is not anybody's, nor everybody's Paradise, but the Paradise, pertinently and plainly, "The Paradise of God." (Rev. ii. 7.) There is nothing strained or forced in this view. On the contrary it presents a natural, easy solution of a vexed Scripture, an interpretation and solution that a quarter of a century ago compelled me to abandon the notion that Jesus here taught man's immortality in death. The Paradise is yet to come — is soon coming.—D. T. Taylor, "Bible Banner."
THE reader's attention is called to the foregoing passages; the last one quoted being popularly supposed to teach that on that exact Jewish day, at some time between twelve at noon and sunset, the spirit or soul of our Lord, and the spirit or soul (nobody seems to know which) of the penitent thief, were to be together in what was vulgarly called Paradise, i.e., the elysian portion of hades, the under-world. It is claimed by critics and theologians that the comma must of necessity be placed after "thee," instead of after "to-day," and that the words of Christ will admit of no other interpretation than that the spirits (or souls) of the two were to be in a disembodied, conscious condition as soon as they died. The adverb "to-day," it is said, cannot by any means qualify "I say," but must of stern necessity, to make both grammar and sense, qualify "thou shalt be;" hence during that twenty-four hours, Paradise, already in existence, already come for mortals, should by both the dying men be entered and occupied.
"I doubt," as said Adam Clarke on another occasion. I question if any saint has yet entered "The Paradise." There is only one—that is God's. The hadean abode is right down in our earth, and I am sure there is no such Paradise there. Strange that Christians should imagine there is! Now touching this passage, and the others quoted, I observe:
1. In the words of Noah Webster, "the ancients were unacquainted with punctuation; they wrote without any distinction of members, periods, or words." So neither Christ nor Luke put the commas in Luke's written words.
2. Appleton's Cyclopedia informs us that the modern points, such as the comma, semicolon, colon, and period, "came into use very gradually after the invention of printing," which was in 1423.
3. The punctuation of a speaker's words and sentences is to be made in accordance with his natural pauses, and in agreement with the sense of the same; the punctuation not so much determining the sense, as does the sense determine the punctuation. The point is, what does our Lord mean? not, what shall we compel him to mean.
4. If we had heard our Lord utter the words recorded in Luke, and distinctly observed a natural pause after "thee," and an emphasis on "to-day," then might we yield the argument to our opponents. But no man this side the cross listened to the sacred promise to the thief. Luke, and he only — not another — recorded the dying words of the bleeding King. It is written — and the whole Bible must interpret it, aided by common sense.
5. Explained by the usus loquendi, or general usages of the word in Scripture, we know that Paradise, in the only passage that locates it at all, is not in the bowels of the earth, where hades is, but (is in or) is the New Jerusalem which is above and is to come down on the new earth. (2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7; xxii. 2; and xxi. 2, 3.)
6. Explained by the thief's request, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom," there is here no allusion at all to the intermediate state, but to a period subsequent to the Second Advent, for Christ is yet to come into his kingdom, at the great day.
7. Explained by the kingdom coming and the thief's entrance thereto, the penitent's Paradise is still in the future, for no soul has yet gone into the promised "kingdom of God and of Christ." The kingdom has not come.
8. Explained in the light of historical fact, it is a matter of doubt if Christ and the thief died on the same current Jewish day. Their day both ended and began at "even," sunset, Christ died at three o'clock in the afternoon, but the two thieves lived until "even," and consequently until that "day" ended.
9. The disputed sentence, punctuated and interpreted in the light of the nine texts that head this article, does not of necessity teach the old Jewish notion that death was the door to an underground Paradise. For if it was proper and grammatical for the butler to say that he remembered his faults that day he spoke, when everybody knows that he did not mean the day before, nor the day after — if it was proper for the greatest of the Hebrew legislators to declare that he commanded a thing this day, when all know he meant no other day save the one on which he spoke — if it was proper for God to say, "Even to-day do I declare" a matter, which thing or matter related to the future, none doubting that God knew how to use words, and knew also what he was saying — then we do no violence to the words of the Redeemer when we make "to-day" qualify, describe, and determine his saying, instead of qualifying, describing, and determining the time when the two souls should enter Paradise.
10. Observe also, there is no difference between "to-day " and "this day," for the Greek semeron, found forty-one times in the New Testament, is in nineteen places rendered "to-day" and in twenty-two places translated "this day," so that "to-day" and "this day," are equal, one phrase being no stronger, no more definite than the other. Hence nothing is gained by playing fast or loose on "to-day."
11. Then, what harmony in putting the thief s request and the Master's reply in natural connection and order, thus: "You shall be with me in the Paradise when I come into my kingdom." The answer dovetails with the prayer; the penitent is answered as he requested; no more, no less.
12. Amen I Sat To Thee To-day With Me Thou Shalt Be In The Paradise. Read the words. I give them in successive order and with literal exactness. Now just put a comma after "to-day," and read again. Emphasise "the Paradise," as the Scripture does. It is not anybody's, nor everybody's Paradise, but the Paradise, pertinently and plainly, "The Paradise of God." (Rev. ii. 7.) There is nothing strained or forced in this view. On the contrary it presents a natural, easy solution of a vexed Scripture, an interpretation and solution that a quarter of a century ago compelled me to abandon the notion that Jesus here taught man's immortality in death. The Paradise is yet to come — is soon coming.—D. T. Taylor, "Bible Banner."
metatron3@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment