Traditional Misreading? #3: Luke 23:43

[Checkpoint]

This verse has been discussed and debated about for centuries.

On the surface, the dispute has been about where to put a speech mark - a comma - . Should it be before the word "today", or after the word "today"?

But it's not as simple as to merely make that choice. For several reasons.

Firstly, no speech marks (such as commas) are in the original languages used by Bible writers. Likewise, verses, paragraphs, and chapters, were absent from the original writings.
These were all added to the text in later times.

Secondly, our choice will be, or should be, made after giving due consideration to, not only this verse but to the entire conversation before our disputation verse, 43.

Here is the verse, plus the verse in its conversation context:


Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise."

Luke 23: 39-43
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,d saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today you will be with me in paradise.”

(Note: I have taken out the contested comma. Not because there should not be one(there should), but to encourage readers to consider/reconsider just where it is most appropriate, and make their choice accordingly)


1. Why, do you think, Jesus added the word "today" to his usual "Truly, I say to you"?

2. When, do you think, Jesus had in mind by using the word "Paradise" as the equivalent of "when you come into your kingdom"?

3. Where do you place the comma, and why have you made that your choice?






The Death of Jesus

[Difflugia]

The account of Saul and his encounter with the spiritualist is a factual narrative, whereas Jesus's remarks regarding a businessman’s treatment of his employee based on his actions serve as an analogy. These represent two distinct storytelling methods, each employing unique linguistic strategies and purposes.

Referring to a narrative as biblical differs from labeling an illustration as such: the former's essence is perceived as an actual event, while the latter's essence serves as a metaphor imparting a lesson. Both are indeed biblical, and each serves a spiritual function that every Bible student ought to recognize.

Whether or not any of this is true, how does it affect the argument?

[Bible_Student]

The account of Saul and his encounter with the spiritualist is a factual narrative, whereas Jesus's remarks regarding a businessman’s treatment of his employee based on his actions serve as an analogy. These represent two distinct storytelling methods, each employing unique linguistic strategies and purposes.

Referring to a narrative as biblical differs from labeling an illustration as such: the former's essence is perceived as an actual event, while the latter's essence serves as a metaphor imparting a lesson. Both are indeed biblical, and each serves a spiritual function that every Bible student ought to recognize.

Whether or not any of this is true, how does it affect the argument?

Your comparison is fallacious.

[Difflugia]

Your comparison is fallacious.

The only thing that I see that's fallacious is your characterization of the slave as an employee.

[Bible_Student]

Your comparison is fallacious.

The only thing that I see that's fallacious is your characterization of the slave as an employee.

It is fallacious to equate the narrative of Saul seeking guidance from a medium with the illustration of Jesus.

[Difflugia]

It is fallacious to equate the narrative of Saul seeking guidance from a medium with the illustration of Jesus.

What fallacy?

[Capbook]

I think your understanding of I Samuel 28 is in error.

So you keep saying without support.

How could Samuel ever agree to throw his hat in with a medium that God stated plainly was anathema to Him?

Who knows? The Bible says he did, though.

If Samuel was truly a worshipper of God, he would not have done it.

The narrator of the Bible disagrees with you.

The thing that appeared to Saul was a demon pretending to be Samuel.

The Bible says it was Samuel.

That is specifically why God does not want anyone to try to contact the dead. The demons step in, and they are who you are contacting.

That's an interesting idea. It's not biblical, though.

It's not Biblical to think that Samuel would have anything to do with a spirit medium.

The Bible said in 1 Chron 10:14, that one reason why the Lord killed Saul, and gave his kingdom to David, was because he inquired not of the Lord but to a medium, a transgression committed by Saul.(1 Chron 10:13)
As the consultation was a transgression, answering such was forbidden. The author of 1 Samuel 28:6 had said plainly that Saul received no answer when he "inquired of the Lord" by dreams, which was an immediate revelation to himself, by Urim, which was an answer through the high priest clothed in the ephod, or by prophets, which was an answer conveyed through some seer speaking by the Word of the Lord. As it was so, onewithhim is correct, it was not Samuel but same as the serpent whom Eve saw and conversed was Satan the old serpent.

1 Chron 10:13
13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;