For example, i have always been taught, that in theology if there is a standout text that is inconsistent with other biblical themes/statements, then we are reading the text in error. This is where quite often translational issues are to be blamed.
This example is the placement of the comma in bible translations regarding the statement from Christ saying to the thief on the cross “i tell you this day you will be with me in paradise.”
The two versions are:
I tell you this day, you will be with me in paradise
i tell you, this day you will be with me in paradise
One camp of theologians make the assumption that the above passage talks of the doctrine of immediate entry into heaven upon death. However, another camp emphatically claim that is incorrect given many other places in the bible where that is clearly not the case. So we find ourselves here in conflict.
When one takes a quick peek at the ancient text, there is no punctuation
43 et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso (Latin Vulgate)
and so quite often (if not always) the placement of the comma in the text becomes a matter of opinion. In this case, we have two camps:
those who believe that when we die we go to heaven align the comma to suit their beliefs.
those who align with other biblical statements such as “the dead know nothing, all memory of them is forgotten, and for them there is no more reward”, these individuals place the comma according to that doctrine.
I align with the second camp…that the dead stay in the grave. A small sample of the main reasons for my position are:
the second coming of Christ - If the dead are raised in the second coming…why would they need to be raised in they are already in heaven?
Lazarus raised from the dead - Christ stated to the disciples “Lazaurus is dead” then, he spoke to the body from outside the tomb and called him out of it.
on the day of the crucifixion, a heap of individuals bodies came out of the grave and those individuals were then seen walking through the city (they obviously were not zombies)
Which theology and doctrine do you align with on this topic and why?
Possibly. Challenging to believe in “Soul Sleep” and in God’s ability to reconstruct what’s left after cremation. On the other hand, Genesis 3:19, which states, “For you are dust, and to dust you shall return” may be in the Bible, but “ashes to ashes and dust to dust” is not, although it is common enough at funerals.
My own father-in-law preferred the idea of burial, ideally as high off the ground as possible, “so the worms couldn’t eat his body.”
Funeral homes like full-body burials in pretty caskets. The profit margin is higher.
++++++
re: Luke 23:43. IMO, what’s the likelihood of Jesus believing in “soul sleep”?
thats a really good observation and question aquaticus. To be honest, i havent actually thought about that angle before although i must admit the notion of some Christians not believing in cremation I am familiar with.
For me, that is where context and other biblical writings about the same fundamental come into it. Hence my belief in dead remaining in the grave until the second coming.
I believe that whilst the Bible talks about a number of resurrection events, there are only two directly cited examples of resurrected individuals alive today. These are:
Moses - satan argued with God over his body and, he was visible to the disciples at the transfiguration
Christ - appears to disciples in upper room, then 500 other individuals saw him during those last 6 weeks before His ascension.
I don’t see any doctrine or theology involved, really. As to the Greek, I can argue it either way (and have done so), though if it was meant to communicate “Today I tell you” I would expect σήμερον (SAY-meh-roan), “today”, to appear before σοι (soi), “to you”, but that’s not a terribly strong argument. I’d want to delve into TDNT and more to look at the positional use of σήμερον and see if there’s a pattern that’s informative.
I found via strongs that it occurs about 40 times in the New Testament. After reading through then though, it doesnt appear conclusive to me… https://biblehub.com/greek/se_meron_4594.htm
Logically a significant problem in reading it as meaning that day…
Generally crucifixion took days, so how could Christ claim that thief was going to be in paradise on a day when its unlikely he would have died unless Christ meant for the comma to mean “im telling you today, …”?
Yeah I read through the Englishman’s Concordance list yesterday and thought it was too bad that Luke didn’t throw in a ὅτι (HOH-tee) to indicate where the start of the dialogue began – he does that in other places but not in ch. 23. That’s why I wanted the TDNT (which I should have available now; I just bought an electronic bundle of NT references I used to have in my library, just need to download it [predicted download time 3hr 48min if I’m not doing anything else!]) – it goes back into all available pre-NT plus first century literature.
Christ knew from the Psalms how things were going to go, right down to the spear in His side.
That’s something we fail to keep in mind: Jesus knew the whole time that He was going to be crucified, and understood it in detail. It wasn’t a surprise, it was foretold starting in Deuteronomy right on through Zechariah. Jesus almost certainly witnessed crucifixions, or at least crucified people if He didn’t see the process itself.
And He also knew when and where – at a Passover, outside the walls of Jerusalem. That meant that anyone crucified with Him would be killed when He was, since the Romans knew better than to leave victims on crosses on the Sabbath of a great festival! So even as a human, He knew He wouldn’t live beyond the day of crucifixion, and by extension that neither would anyone else on a cross next to Him.
Which does nothing to solve the matter, unfortunately.
1 Like
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.