,TODAY, ???
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
From Clarkes Commentary
Luke 23:43
To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise -
Marcion and the Manichees are reported to have left this verse out of their copies of this evangelist. This saying of our Lord is justly considered as a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul; and it is no wonder that those who have embraced the contrary opinion should endeavor to explain away this meaning. In order to do this, a comma is placed after
σημερον, to-day, and then our Lord is supposed to have meant, "Thou shalt be with me after the resurrection I tell thee this, To-Day." I am sorry to find men of great learning and abilities attempting to support this most feeble and worthless criticism. Such support a good cause cannot need; and, in my opinion, even a bad cause must be discredited by it.
In paradise. The garden of Eden, mentioned
Gen_2:8, is also called, from the Septuagint, the garden of Paradise. The word עדן Eden, signifies pleasure and delight. Several places were thus called; see Gen_4:16; 2Ki_19:12; Isa_37:12; Eze_27:23; and Amo_1:5; and such places probably had this name from their fertility, pleasant situation, etc., etc. In this light the Septuagint have viewed Gen_2:8. as they render the passage thus: εφυτευσεν ὁ Θεος παραδεισον εν Εδεμ, God planted a paradise in Eden. Hence the word has been transplanted into the New Testament; and is used to signify a place of exquisite pleasure and delight. From this the ancient heathens borrowed their ideas of the gardens of the Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit; and the gardens of Adonis, a word which is evidently derived from the Hebrew עדן Eden: and hence the origin of sacred groves, gardens, and other enclosures dedicated to purposes of devotion, some comparatively innocent, others impure. The word paradise is not Greek, but is of Asiatic origin. In Arabic and Persian it signifies a garden, a vineyard, and also the place of the blessed. In the Kushuf ul Loghat, a very celebrated Persian dictionary, the Jenet al Ferdoos, Garden of Paradise, is said to have been "created by God out of light, and that the prophets and wise men ascend thither."
Paradise was, in the beginning, the habitation of man in his state of innocence, in which he enjoyed that presence of his Maker which constituted his supreme happiness. Our Lord’s words intimate that this penitent should be immediately taken to the abode of the spirits of the just, where he should enjoy the presence and approbation of the Most High. In the Institutes of Menu, chap. Oeconomics, Inst. 243, are the following words: "A man habitually pious, whose offenses have been expiated, is instantly conveyed, after death, to the higher world, with a radiant form, and a body of ethereal substance." The state of the blessed is certainly what our Lord here means: in what the locality of that state consists we know not. The Jews share a multitude of fables on the subject.
Luke 23:43
To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise -
Marcion and the Manichees are reported to have left this verse out of their copies of this evangelist. This saying of our Lord is justly considered as a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul; and it is no wonder that those who have embraced the contrary opinion should endeavor to explain away this meaning. In order to do this, a comma is placed after
σημερον, to-day, and then our Lord is supposed to have meant, "Thou shalt be with me after the resurrection I tell thee this, To-Day." I am sorry to find men of great learning and abilities attempting to support this most feeble and worthless criticism. Such support a good cause cannot need; and, in my opinion, even a bad cause must be discredited by it.
In paradise. The garden of Eden, mentioned
Gen_2:8, is also called, from the Septuagint, the garden of Paradise. The word עדן Eden, signifies pleasure and delight. Several places were thus called; see Gen_4:16; 2Ki_19:12; Isa_37:12; Eze_27:23; and Amo_1:5; and such places probably had this name from their fertility, pleasant situation, etc., etc. In this light the Septuagint have viewed Gen_2:8. as they render the passage thus: εφυτευσεν ὁ Θεος παραδεισον εν Εδεμ, God planted a paradise in Eden. Hence the word has been transplanted into the New Testament; and is used to signify a place of exquisite pleasure and delight. From this the ancient heathens borrowed their ideas of the gardens of the Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit; and the gardens of Adonis, a word which is evidently derived from the Hebrew עדן Eden: and hence the origin of sacred groves, gardens, and other enclosures dedicated to purposes of devotion, some comparatively innocent, others impure. The word paradise is not Greek, but is of Asiatic origin. In Arabic and Persian it signifies a garden, a vineyard, and also the place of the blessed. In the Kushuf ul Loghat, a very celebrated Persian dictionary, the Jenet al Ferdoos, Garden of Paradise, is said to have been "created by God out of light, and that the prophets and wise men ascend thither."
Paradise was, in the beginning, the habitation of man in his state of innocence, in which he enjoyed that presence of his Maker which constituted his supreme happiness. Our Lord’s words intimate that this penitent should be immediately taken to the abode of the spirits of the just, where he should enjoy the presence and approbation of the Most High. In the Institutes of Menu, chap. Oeconomics, Inst. 243, are the following words: "A man habitually pious, whose offenses have been expiated, is instantly conveyed, after death, to the higher world, with a radiant form, and a body of ethereal substance." The state of the blessed is certainly what our Lord here means: in what the locality of that state consists we know not. The Jews share a multitude of fables on the subject.
U
Not really breaking the rules. There are married people in the Singles forums, Single people in the Family forms, 20+ in the teens forums, under 18 in the Singles forums, non-indian/philipino in those sections, secular music in the Christian music forum... so yeah. Not really rules as much as guidelines.
B
Luke 23:43
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.
Legō = to say, "I say" is in the present tense
Sēmeron = "today"
esē = to be, "you will be" is in the future tense.
Frankly, without the placement of a comma, the adverb "sēmeron" can modify either of the verbs. Nonetheless, it just dawned on me that it's grammatically useless to pronounce "I'm telling you" that "today" you'll be in the future, which is the grammar structure if the comma is place before sēmeron.
As examples of Luke's style of writing, consider the following 2 verses.
---------------------------------
Example 1
Luke 4:21
ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Σήμερονπεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν
legein = "to say" is in the present tense.
semeron = "today" is communicating "right now; at this moment" is modifying pepiērōtai
pepiērōtai = "is fulfilled" is in the present tense
----------------------------------
Example 2
Luke 2:11
ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαβίδ
etechthē = "has been born"
sēmeron = "today" In this case, "today" is modifying "has been born"
estin = "who is" It doesn't make grammatical sense for Christ to be Savior "today."
Therefore, the adverb "sēmeron" is modifying the verb "etechthē," not the verb "estin."
---------------------------------
In conclusion, although "sēmeron" as in Luke 23:43 can modify either verb, it seems it's Luke's style to tag the adverb to modify the verb in the present (ie. this is happening right now) rather than to modify in the future as would be the case with ", today..."
BTW, as a die-hard Baptist, I've agreed with ", today..." until today. LOL. Now, I'm inclined to believe "...today," is what God's communicating.
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.
Legō = to say, "I say" is in the present tense
Sēmeron = "today"
esē = to be, "you will be" is in the future tense.
Frankly, without the placement of a comma, the adverb "sēmeron" can modify either of the verbs. Nonetheless, it just dawned on me that it's grammatically useless to pronounce "I'm telling you" that "today" you'll be in the future, which is the grammar structure if the comma is place before sēmeron.
As examples of Luke's style of writing, consider the following 2 verses.
---------------------------------
Example 1
Luke 4:21
ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Σήμερονπεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν
legein = "to say" is in the present tense.
semeron = "today" is communicating "right now; at this moment" is modifying pepiērōtai
pepiērōtai = "is fulfilled" is in the present tense
----------------------------------
Example 2
Luke 2:11
ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαβίδ
etechthē = "has been born"
sēmeron = "today" In this case, "today" is modifying "has been born"
estin = "who is" It doesn't make grammatical sense for Christ to be Savior "today."
Therefore, the adverb "sēmeron" is modifying the verb "etechthē," not the verb "estin."
---------------------------------
In conclusion, although "sēmeron" as in Luke 23:43 can modify either verb, it seems it's Luke's style to tag the adverb to modify the verb in the present (ie. this is happening right now) rather than to modify in the future as would be the case with ", today..."
BTW, as a die-hard Baptist, I've agreed with ", today..." until today. LOL. Now, I'm inclined to believe "...today," is what God's communicating.
Yes, this is the implication of placing the comma after today. Grammatically, it is correct in either case. The problem I am running into is that I am unable to find a passage that has this exact same grammatical structure.
These example are the same as Luke 19:9 - "And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." The difference between these and similar passages is that you have a second party - Luke, rendering a quote from Jesus. Grammatically, it would make no sense to place the comma after 'today' in these passages because the statement was made in the past.
Yes, this is how I read it as well and this is how it is rendered in most English translations. The problem is that we simply cannot prove this to be the corect placement. If Jesus is saying, "Truly I tell you today," it is the only time recorded in scripture where Jesus is seen using this particular idiom. There are a number of times when Jesus says. "Truly I say to you," If Jesus is recorded as having used this expression so many times, why does he now change to a Hebraism to add certainty to his statement. Certainty is already established in the use of "truly." One thing I have not yet looked into is to see if Luke, being a Greek speaking Gentile, ever uses any Hebraisms in either Luke or Acts.
These example are the same as Luke 19:9 - "And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." The difference between these and similar passages is that you have a second party - Luke, rendering a quote from Jesus. Grammatically, it would make no sense to place the comma after 'today' in these passages because the statement was made in the past.
In conclusion, although "sēmeron" as in Luke 23:43 can modify either verb, it seems it's Luke's style to tag the adverb to modify the verb in the present (ie. this is happening right now) rather than to modify in the future as would be the case with ", today..."
BTW, as a die-hard Baptist, I've agreed with ", today..." until today. LOL. Now, I'm inclined to believe "...today," is what God's communicating.
BTW, as a die-hard Baptist, I've agreed with ", today..." until today. LOL. Now, I'm inclined to believe "...today," is what God's communicating.
R
First thing to get wired into the noggin is that the Greek word "semeron" means "today" but it also means "right now" and it is also sometimes used to indicate a daily perpetuality, which is sometimes translated as "last night".
All three of these uses will come in to play, and context will reinforce the appropriate usage.
Here are all instances of the use of the Greek word semeron ("today") used by Luke. I will restrict the examples to Luke for two reasons, first because authors differ in grammar, second for time's sake.
I'll not insert greek lettered text because it will take up space and because it is sinful to insinuate that I am fluent in greek and that a random reader is lacking from not being able to read it. I'll use english transliterations of it.
I will highlight the word today in blue, and any action verb that it modifies in green.
I will highlight actions verbs that it does not modify in red.
2:11
for has been born to you today savior who is Christ lord in city David
This follows the same phrase structure as the thief on the cross verse.
4:21
"He began moreover to say to them [hoti] today is fulfilled the scripture this in the hearing of you"
"hoti" is a complex conjuction that basically means "here comes my statement" or "and here's why"
For now, file it away that we do not find "hoti" preceding the statement given to the thief on the cross, though that is not the key mechanism in this study.
The statement given in this verse is saying that "today is fulfilled, because you finally 'hear' the scripture" not that "this scripture is fulfilled today"
In this verse, "today" is not a word that modifies an action, it is the subject of the sentence upon which an action is taken.
This use of "today" is nothing like the use in the thief on the cross verse.
5:26
"And amazement siezed all and they glorified God and were filled with fear saying [hoti] we have seen remarkable things today"
Again, "hoti" separates a separate statement from the rest of the sentence, unlike the thief on the cross verse.
12:28
"if moreover in the field the grass being today and tomorrow into a furnace having been thrown God thus clothes how much rather you of little faith"
Again, "today" comes after the verb it applies to.
Why doesn't "tomorrow" follow the same rule? Because of verb usage and tense. "Tomorrow" doesn't need to modify the word "to be thrown", because "to be thrown" takes care of itself with a standard spelling variant, and in this case depicts itself in the future, referring to the past. Tomorrow tells us it's the future when "to be thrown" will speak of itself in past tense. The greek word for "to be" is much more complicated than that (if you can imagine the headache all of that logic causes to an English speaker in the first place), just like in English.
13:32
"and He said to them having gone say to the fox that behold I cast out demons and cures I complete today and tomorrow and the third I am perfected"
Again, "today" comes after the verb it applies to.
13:33
"but it behoves me today and tomorrow and the following to proceed..."
A slight difference in the technicality of the role of the word "today" by grammatical definition, but again, used after the verb it modifies.
Now for a fun one, that suffers from the same debacle as the thief on the cross, and it's suffering in translation is proven within the very text.
19:5-6
"And as He came to the place having looked up Jesus said to him Zacchaeus having hurried come down today indeed in the house of you it behoves me to stay
And having hurried he came down"
Zacchaeus, in the green text, is not yet in the process of coming down. Those are Jesus's words to him. Jesus is telling him to hurry and come down today. Why does Jesus use the word today? Because He is using a figure of speech just like we do in modern times when we are telling someone to hurry up. "Don't take all day!" And this urgency is further deployed in the next statement which begins with "indeed." THEN Zach comes down.
But it has been translated into English as though Jesus is saying "today I need to go to your house"
That is not correct. (though He does obviously go to his house "today")
More with Zacchaeus
Here's where you get to say "aha! busted", and I did too as I researched this, until the meat of the passage sinks in.
Please take a moment on this one. It includes a very important concept of servitude and salvation that is not widely considered in modern Christianity. It is a very beautiful thing.
19:9
"said moreover to him Jesus [hoti] today salvation to the house this has come"
This appears to match the thief on the cross verse in grammar structure and blow the whole grammar study out of the water. As if to say that salvation has come to this house today, the way the thief on the cross might have been told that he would be in paradise today. By using "today" before the action verb.
But, read the verses before and after this one to see that Zacchaeus is a long term doer of righteousness, in the midst of a assumedly unrighteous career, and please find that Jesus is saying "Daily salvation has already come to this house"
It's why Jesus wanted urgently to spend time with Zacchaeus. To give grace and confirmation to a son of Abraham so that he no longer had to worry about others judging him based on his career. Jesus calls Zacchaeus a son of man, because he is trying to manifest salvation. If you work in a tax office or bill payment center and people spit at you with their words, and you feel their pain but can't help them from behind the counter because of your job, but then go home and take care of poor people, THIS PASSAGE WILL GIVE YOU GRACE!!!
And if you can't believe it, Jesus already just told us that Zacchaeus was a son of Abraham, before He makes the son of man statement, so he is not referring to Himself coming to Zacchaeus's house to save him because he is lost.
Take that for what you will. Use your heart, not your church education.
22:34
"and He said I tell you Peter not will crow today rooster..."
Before and after.
22:43
"...before rooster crows today you will deny me three times"
Before and after.
Using thief on the cross comma placement for comparison, this does not say
"...before rooster crows, today you will deny me three times"
So there you have it. The ugly guts of the grammar.
And that is not why you should believe that the comma is an unfortunate error.
The reason to believe it, if you even worry about it, is because that comma CREATED contradictions in the bible concerning the state of the dead, and the state of Jesus for three days.
It is not your fault, or my dead grandma's fault, for having read it that way.
We have inherited the mistakes of our fathers, just as the bible says. The translators put that comma there because they believed or wanted to believe that the dead go to hell or heaven the instant they die. "Period"
Love you guys, please don't worry about it too much either way. It doesn't save or doom anyone either way and will just give you a headache.
All three of these uses will come in to play, and context will reinforce the appropriate usage.
Here are all instances of the use of the Greek word semeron ("today") used by Luke. I will restrict the examples to Luke for two reasons, first because authors differ in grammar, second for time's sake.
I'll not insert greek lettered text because it will take up space and because it is sinful to insinuate that I am fluent in greek and that a random reader is lacking from not being able to read it. I'll use english transliterations of it.
I will highlight the word today in blue, and any action verb that it modifies in green.
I will highlight actions verbs that it does not modify in red.
2:11
for has been born to you today savior who is Christ lord in city David
This follows the same phrase structure as the thief on the cross verse.
4:21
"He began moreover to say to them [hoti] today is fulfilled the scripture this in the hearing of you"
"hoti" is a complex conjuction that basically means "here comes my statement" or "and here's why"
For now, file it away that we do not find "hoti" preceding the statement given to the thief on the cross, though that is not the key mechanism in this study.
The statement given in this verse is saying that "today is fulfilled, because you finally 'hear' the scripture" not that "this scripture is fulfilled today"
In this verse, "today" is not a word that modifies an action, it is the subject of the sentence upon which an action is taken.
This use of "today" is nothing like the use in the thief on the cross verse.
5:26
"And amazement siezed all and they glorified God and were filled with fear saying [hoti] we have seen remarkable things today"
Again, "hoti" separates a separate statement from the rest of the sentence, unlike the thief on the cross verse.
12:28
"if moreover in the field the grass being today and tomorrow into a furnace having been thrown God thus clothes how much rather you of little faith"
Again, "today" comes after the verb it applies to.
Why doesn't "tomorrow" follow the same rule? Because of verb usage and tense. "Tomorrow" doesn't need to modify the word "to be thrown", because "to be thrown" takes care of itself with a standard spelling variant, and in this case depicts itself in the future, referring to the past. Tomorrow tells us it's the future when "to be thrown" will speak of itself in past tense. The greek word for "to be" is much more complicated than that (if you can imagine the headache all of that logic causes to an English speaker in the first place), just like in English.
13:32
"and He said to them having gone say to the fox that behold I cast out demons and cures I complete today and tomorrow and the third I am perfected"
Again, "today" comes after the verb it applies to.
13:33
"but it behoves me today and tomorrow and the following to proceed..."
A slight difference in the technicality of the role of the word "today" by grammatical definition, but again, used after the verb it modifies.
Now for a fun one, that suffers from the same debacle as the thief on the cross, and it's suffering in translation is proven within the very text.
19:5-6
"And as He came to the place having looked up Jesus said to him Zacchaeus having hurried come down today indeed in the house of you it behoves me to stay
And having hurried he came down"
Zacchaeus, in the green text, is not yet in the process of coming down. Those are Jesus's words to him. Jesus is telling him to hurry and come down today. Why does Jesus use the word today? Because He is using a figure of speech just like we do in modern times when we are telling someone to hurry up. "Don't take all day!" And this urgency is further deployed in the next statement which begins with "indeed." THEN Zach comes down.
But it has been translated into English as though Jesus is saying "today I need to go to your house"
That is not correct. (though He does obviously go to his house "today")
More with Zacchaeus
Here's where you get to say "aha! busted", and I did too as I researched this, until the meat of the passage sinks in.
Please take a moment on this one. It includes a very important concept of servitude and salvation that is not widely considered in modern Christianity. It is a very beautiful thing.
19:9
"said moreover to him Jesus [hoti] today salvation to the house this has come"
This appears to match the thief on the cross verse in grammar structure and blow the whole grammar study out of the water. As if to say that salvation has come to this house today, the way the thief on the cross might have been told that he would be in paradise today. By using "today" before the action verb.
But, read the verses before and after this one to see that Zacchaeus is a long term doer of righteousness, in the midst of a assumedly unrighteous career, and please find that Jesus is saying "Daily salvation has already come to this house"
It's why Jesus wanted urgently to spend time with Zacchaeus. To give grace and confirmation to a son of Abraham so that he no longer had to worry about others judging him based on his career. Jesus calls Zacchaeus a son of man, because he is trying to manifest salvation. If you work in a tax office or bill payment center and people spit at you with their words, and you feel their pain but can't help them from behind the counter because of your job, but then go home and take care of poor people, THIS PASSAGE WILL GIVE YOU GRACE!!!
And if you can't believe it, Jesus already just told us that Zacchaeus was a son of Abraham, before He makes the son of man statement, so he is not referring to Himself coming to Zacchaeus's house to save him because he is lost.
Take that for what you will. Use your heart, not your church education.
22:34
"and He said I tell you Peter not will crow today rooster..."
Before and after.
22:43
"...before rooster crows today you will deny me three times"
Before and after.
Using thief on the cross comma placement for comparison, this does not say
"...before rooster crows, today you will deny me three times"
So there you have it. The ugly guts of the grammar.
And that is not why you should believe that the comma is an unfortunate error.
The reason to believe it, if you even worry about it, is because that comma CREATED contradictions in the bible concerning the state of the dead, and the state of Jesus for three days.
It is not your fault, or my dead grandma's fault, for having read it that way.
We have inherited the mistakes of our fathers, just as the bible says. The translators put that comma there because they believed or wanted to believe that the dead go to hell or heaven the instant they die. "Period"
Love you guys, please don't worry about it too much either way. It doesn't save or doom anyone either way and will just give you a headache.
B
...Certainty is already established in the use of "truly." That word "truly" is the word "Amen," which I believe the Lord is responding with "Amen" to the thief's request. I also believe there should be a period after "truly," but what do I know?
I'm now inclined to believe that the Lord continues His thought with "Now (sēmeron), I say to you: you'll be in paradise. In other words, "I'm promising you right now that you'll be in paradise, not in hell like the other thief."
One thing I have not yet looked into is to see if Luke, being a Greek speaking Gentile, ever uses any Hebraisms in either Luke or Acts.
I'm now inclined to believe that the Lord continues His thought with "Now (sēmeron), I say to you: you'll be in paradise. In other words, "I'm promising you right now that you'll be in paradise, not in hell like the other thief."
One thing I have not yet looked into is to see if Luke, being a Greek speaking Gentile, ever uses any Hebraisms in either Luke or Acts.
Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, ἐστήριξεντοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ
"...steadfastly He set His face to go..." is a Hebraism for "being determined."
As for the Luke 23:43, I'll continue to search for similarities in Luke or Acts, and Lord willing, I'll post as the Lord leads.
I believe he does include Hebraisms. A google search popped Luke 9:51
Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, ἐστήριξεντοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ
"...steadfastly He set His face to go..." is a Hebraism for "being determined."
As for the Luke 23:43, I'll continue to search for similarities in Luke or Acts, and Lord willing, I'll post as the Lord leads.
Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, ἐστήριξεντοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ
"...steadfastly He set His face to go..." is a Hebraism for "being determined."
As for the Luke 23:43, I'll continue to search for similarities in Luke or Acts, and Lord willing, I'll post as the Lord leads.
B
Well, here are some interesting facts.
The Hebraism "Amen, I say to you" is quite popular in the Gospels. That Hebraism occurs:
30 times in Matthew,
13 times in Mark,
08 times in Luke,
25 times in John.
Out of the 76 times the Hebraism is expressed, Luke 23:43 is the only incident in which the word "today" appears as a valid modifier for either of the verbs.
I can appreciate why "NT Scholars" would apply the comma before "today" as a way of being consistent with the remaining 75 times the phrase is expressed. I'm so checkmate at this point; I'm back to agreeing with my fellow Reformed Baptists: ", today...".
The Hebraism "Amen, I say to you" is quite popular in the Gospels. That Hebraism occurs:
30 times in Matthew,
13 times in Mark,
08 times in Luke,
25 times in John.
Out of the 76 times the Hebraism is expressed, Luke 23:43 is the only incident in which the word "today" appears as a valid modifier for either of the verbs.
I can appreciate why "NT Scholars" would apply the comma before "today" as a way of being consistent with the remaining 75 times the phrase is expressed. I'm so checkmate at this point; I'm back to agreeing with my fellow Reformed Baptists: ", today...".
I believe it's one thing to add emphasis ("this is the truth")...and it's quite another to also add certainty (I tell you THIS DAY). And I think in this instance, one's forced to also consider the context of the scene.
In the previous instances of the Hebraism, Christ is teaching & preaching; distinguishing between truth and error. This final instance he's not teaching or preaching but assuring a dying man of his salvation while he also is dying.
Written words fail us because we can't read the emotion of their words in this exchange but if we consider the context of the scene; this thief and the Messiah were both talking in the midst of their pain & suffering, possibly unable to breathe unless they pulled themselves up by their nailed wrists...the weight of their bodies would've been suffocating them if the crucifixion was as it's popularly depicted. Death was the very next destination for both of these men and it was fast approaching the Messiah (especially after his torture). The repentant thief knew he deserved what he was getting, and at the same time he acknowledged Christ when he said "master, remember me".
I don't mean to force the text but the situation seems to require something much stronger that simply "this is the truth", because Christ can't simply touch this man or use any other nonverbal human gestures that would give strong assurance...he only has his word to give, with (I imagine) barely the breath to give it after being so severely tortured.
In the previous instances of the Hebraism, Christ is teaching & preaching; distinguishing between truth and error. This final instance he's not teaching or preaching but assuring a dying man of his salvation while he also is dying.
Written words fail us because we can't read the emotion of their words in this exchange but if we consider the context of the scene; this thief and the Messiah were both talking in the midst of their pain & suffering, possibly unable to breathe unless they pulled themselves up by their nailed wrists...the weight of their bodies would've been suffocating them if the crucifixion was as it's popularly depicted. Death was the very next destination for both of these men and it was fast approaching the Messiah (especially after his torture). The repentant thief knew he deserved what he was getting, and at the same time he acknowledged Christ when he said "master, remember me".
I don't mean to force the text but the situation seems to require something much stronger that simply "this is the truth", because Christ can't simply touch this man or use any other nonverbal human gestures that would give strong assurance...he only has his word to give, with (I imagine) barely the breath to give it after being so severely tortured.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
They had many saviors, but they all had worked in unity as one. Some thought of Elijah, and some thought it could be John or one of the other prophets to come and saved them.
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
They had many saviors, but they all had worked in unity as one. Some thought of Elijah, and some thought it could be John or one of the other prophets to come and saved them.
Well, here are some interesting facts.
The Hebraism "Amen, I say to you" is quite popular in the Gospels. That Hebraism occurs:
30 times in Matthew,
13 times in Mark,
08 times in Luke,
25 times in John.
Out of the 76 times the Hebraism is expressed, Luke 23:43 is the only incident in which the word "today" appears as a valid modifier for either of the verbs. I can appreciate why "NT Scholars" would apply the comma before "today" as a way of being consistent with the remaining 75 times the phrase is expressed. I'm so checkmate at this point; I'm back to agreeing with my fellow Reformed Baptists: ", today...".
The Hebraism "Amen, I say to you" is quite popular in the Gospels. That Hebraism occurs:
30 times in Matthew,
13 times in Mark,
08 times in Luke,
25 times in John.
Out of the 76 times the Hebraism is expressed, Luke 23:43 is the only incident in which the word "today" appears as a valid modifier for either of the verbs. I can appreciate why "NT Scholars" would apply the comma before "today" as a way of being consistent with the remaining 75 times the phrase is expressed. I'm so checkmate at this point; I'm back to agreeing with my fellow Reformed Baptists: ", today...".
The phrase actually occurs nine times - Mt 5:26; 26:34; Mk 14:30; Lk 23:43; Jn 3:3,5,11; 13:38; 21:18. In the other eight occurrences, no kind of adverbial qualifier for λέγω is ever used. Three of the occurrences use a ὅτι clause immediately following the phrase, thus ruling out the possibility of there being an adverbial qualifier. Of the references where ὅτι is not used, only Jn 21:18 might be considered the closest parallel in structure - “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger,". Surely no one would argue that the temporal clause ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος is modifying λέγω rather than ἐζώννυες and περιεπάτεις. It just seems to me that grammatically speaking, σήμερον in Lk. 23:43 should belong with μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ rather than with λέγω. Perhaps someone else may have a better argument.
R
Oldhermit, here is the phrase you are looking for that follows the exact same layout as the thief on the cross verse.
I only repost it in case it gets clouded in my previous wall of text.
Same author, both phrases use our showcase word, "today", and both use the same phrase break.
Probably not a better sample to be found.
Luke 22:61
"before rooster crows today you will deny me three times"
"to you I say today you will be with me in paradise"
And the translators conflict their comma placement by putting it on different sides of "today" in these samples.
I only repost it in case it gets clouded in my previous wall of text.
Same author, both phrases use our showcase word, "today", and both use the same phrase break.
Probably not a better sample to be found.
Luke 22:61
"before rooster crows today you will deny me three times"
"to you I say today you will be with me in paradise"
And the translators conflict their comma placement by putting it on different sides of "today" in these samples.
Luke as we know was not an eyewitness to many of the events. now in Luke 1;2 Luke tells Theophilus,"as they delivered them unto us",,which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word". So from the beginning of Lukes letters to theophilus up to acts 16;12 everything Luke is writing to Theophilus are being quoted by Luke as they were told to him by the "eyewitnesses". From acts 16;12 onward in his letters Luke changes to the personal pronoun's "we,us",,that is denoting that from this point in time and onward he(Luke) was an eyewitness of the rest of the events.
Now so then in (Luke 23;43),why would a man(Luke) writing a letter to another man(theophilus) and use the word "today" in it's present tense form? Now (if) Luke was present at the cross and had been recording these things as they were taking place then it would be correct for him to write as if the word "today" was denoting the day he witnessed Christ say this but Luke was not present we have his own statement that this was told to him by those who were present in (Luke 1;2)...
so,,(1)Christ said it.
(2) those present(eyewitnesses) told this to Luke.
(3)Luke writes/tells theophilus the words he was told Christ spoke on the cross that day.
(4)the words were translated and we are reading them today.
So in the sentence we have,,"And Jesus said unto him"(Luke reciting what he was told Christ said),,,and then "Verily i(Jesus speaking) "say" unto thee",, Strong's Number 3004 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com ,,,so the words Luke states Jesus said were from "Verily,,,to,,,,paradise" and in his statement he uses the word "today", Strong's Number 4594 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com
So did Jesus say this in reference to the very exact day he was saying this meaning "I'm saying this today",or in reference to the day they would be in paradise "today we will be in paradise"? In Hebrews 3;7-19 and 4;1-8 there is a reference to a certain day,,(Hebrews 3;13),,"called today". Now this day(today) is spoken of after the cross,and before the cross(Hebrews 3;7-11),,,,so Christ usage of the word "today" may also be in reference to this day being described by the writer in Hebrews.
Now so then in (Luke 23;43),why would a man(Luke) writing a letter to another man(theophilus) and use the word "today" in it's present tense form? Now (if) Luke was present at the cross and had been recording these things as they were taking place then it would be correct for him to write as if the word "today" was denoting the day he witnessed Christ say this but Luke was not present we have his own statement that this was told to him by those who were present in (Luke 1;2)...
so,,(1)Christ said it.
(2) those present(eyewitnesses) told this to Luke.
(3)Luke writes/tells theophilus the words he was told Christ spoke on the cross that day.
(4)the words were translated and we are reading them today.
So in the sentence we have,,"And Jesus said unto him"(Luke reciting what he was told Christ said),,,and then "Verily i(Jesus speaking) "say" unto thee",, Strong's Number 3004 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com ,,,so the words Luke states Jesus said were from "Verily,,,to,,,,paradise" and in his statement he uses the word "today", Strong's Number 4594 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com
So did Jesus say this in reference to the very exact day he was saying this meaning "I'm saying this today",or in reference to the day they would be in paradise "today we will be in paradise"? In Hebrews 3;7-19 and 4;1-8 there is a reference to a certain day,,(Hebrews 3;13),,"called today". Now this day(today) is spoken of after the cross,and before the cross(Hebrews 3;7-11),,,,so Christ usage of the word "today" may also be in reference to this day being described by the writer in Hebrews.