The following is an email response received from a Jehovah's Witness in response to my comments on Luke 23:43, along with the ensuing discussion.

Note that I have identified the Witness' comments with a distinctive font and color.

First response from JW:

Read your comments re: luke 23:43 with interest. Let's assume you are correct for a moment. Where is this paradise that jesus offered that day, how did he receive it on that day?

Reply:

Hello,

Thanks for your email. I'll try to answer your questions.

The Greek word translated "paradise" at Luke 23:43 is "paradeisos", and it is used only three times in the New Testament. It consistently refers to heaven, not an earthly paradise as the Watchtower Society teaches. Consider 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 and Revelation 2:7:

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was *caught up to the third heaven*. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows–was *caught up to paradise*. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell."

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the *paradise of God*."

Has the Society offered any evidence that the paradise referred to at Luke 23:43 is an earthly paradise? None that I've ever seen. They've simply taken the dogmatic position that Jesus was referring to an earthly, future paradise. No evidence. I prefer to let scripture translate scripture. Jesus' trademark introduction was without exception, "truly I tell you" - not "truly I tell you *today*"; and "paradeisos" in the NT consistently refers to heaven, not a future earthly condition.

The WTS would probably point out that Jesus went to the tomb that day - not to any "paradise". But again, the Society's doctrines get in the way of biblical exegesis. Jesus' body went to the tomb, but what does Luke 23:46 say?

"Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."

So yes, Jesus' body went into the tomb - as did the body of the evildoer. But clearly Jesus' spirit went elsewhere - to paradise, along with the spirit of the evildoer.

Compare Stephen's prayer:

"While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'" –Acts 7:59

What else can be made of this request other than to acknowledge that Stephen expected his spirit to go directly to Jesus in heaven (paradise)?

Hope this helps. If you have further questions, do ask.

Kind regards,

Trevor Scott.

Second response from JW:

I've included your initial comments and a response

>The Greek word translated "paradise" at Luke 23:43 is
>"paradeisos", and it is used only three times in the
>New Testament. It consistently refers to heaven, not an
>earthly paradise as the Watchtower Society teaches.
>Consider 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 and Revelation 2:7:

After reading your response it is clear that it depends on what source you use for your definition. For example Strongs exhaustive concordance defines "Paradise" this way. (Notice no mention of heaven)

G3857
paradeisos
par-ad'-i-sos
Of Oriental origin (compare [H6508]); a park, that is, (specifically) an Eden (place of future happiness, "paradise"): - paradise.

The reference below also sheds light on the issue. Rest assured that this information is not from the Watchtower Society

http://www.bbie.org/WrestedScriptures/B02Heaven/Luke23v43.html.

Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Problem:
This passage is used principally by Evangelicals to prove the immortality of the soul and the departure of the "saved" to heaven at death.

Solution:
This passage mentions neither souls nor heaven.

The thief did not request a place in heaven. He said, "Lord remember me when thou comest into ["in" not "into", R.S.V.] thy kingdom." (vs. 42). The same hope was expressed by the Apostle Paul. (2 Tim. 4:1,8). The thief was not thinking of "going to be with the Lord", he was requesting a place in the coming of a future event.

Jesus answered: "You ask me to remember you then, but I say unto you now . . ." (Luke 23:43 ). This repunctuation is not merely tinkering with the text. The Greek word "semeron" translated "today", "this day" is used as a term of emphasis. 1In the following references "semeron" qualifies this preceding verb: Luke 2:11; 22:34; Acts 20:26; 26:29; 2 Cor. 3:14,15. Rotherham in his translation places the comma after "this day" 2and there are a large number of passages in the Septuagint translation in which the Greek construction corresponds to that of Luke 23:43: "I say unto you this day" corresponds to the emphatic, "I testify unto you this day", e.g. Deut. 6:6; 7:11; 8:1; 10:13; 11:8,13,28.

If the argument on repunctuation proves ineffective, the disputant can still be led to the desired conclusion by assuming that by "today", Jesus meant the thief would go to paradise the day he died. But where did the thief go that very day? (Since the thief was promised a place with Jesus, by establishing where Jesus went the day he died, it follows that the thief went to the same place.) Most will quickly assert that Jesus went to heaven. The Christadelphian need only demand proof to show that this assertion is foundationless.

The disputant should be pressed for an explanation to the following passages: Jesus said, "So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12:40 cf. Matt. 16:21). How could the Son of man be both in heaven and in the earth at the same time? Jesus after his resurrection, said, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." (John 20:17).

Since Jesus lay dead in the grave on the day of his crucifixion, therefore this passage offers no proof for the immortality of the soul, nor for the belief that the thief went that day to heaven. The thief was with the Lord in the grave. By implication, if the expression "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise" be read as meaning the thief went with Jesus to the grave, then the grave must be paradise. Is that what the immortal soulist wants?

Hopefully at this stage in the discussion the merit of repunctuation will have become evident. It remains to be shown that Jesus really did answer the thief's request to be remembered in his kingdom. Paradise in Scriptures is always associated with a place on earth, never in heaven. Consider the following: Those who overcome will "eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (Rev. 2:7). The allusion to the Garden of Eden is unmistakable. The Garden of Eden (paradise) is often used to describe the paradise-like condition of the earth in the kingdom of God. (See Gen. 13:10; Is. 51:3; Ezek. 36:35).

Paradise is translated from the word "paradeisos" which Bullinger says was used by the Greeks "to describe a large pleasure-garden with trees, or park of an Eastern monarch." 3The word itself, therefore, is descriptive of an idyllic place on earth, not in heaven. 4 Jesus taught that eternal life is preceded by the resurrection and judgment of the last day. "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." (Matt. 16:27). Those that have done good come forth "unto the resurrection of life . . ." (John 5:29). They are raised up at the "last day". (Jn. 6:39,40,44,54). The righteous go "into life eternal" after the judgment (Matt. 25:31-46).

The thief will receive his reward, therefore, at the last day, when Christ comes in his kingdom.

Remember that none of this information was taken from any source associated with the Watchtower society. It does bear mentioning that any dogma (yours included) leaves us with an interesting position of deciding for god what he will and will not do.

My suggestion is wait and see.

Reply:

Hello again,

Thanks for the email.

You cited Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, but shouldn't we look up the word in a comprehensive NT *lexicon* rather than a concordance? I also have Strong's concordance and the Greek dictionary it includes at the back is far from exhaustive.

Here's a complete Strong's definition for paradeisos:

1. among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals, were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnished with towers for the hunters
2. a garden, pleasure ground
      a. grove, park
3. the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise
4. the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the heavens, but above and beyond the world
5. heaven

You can see that paradeisos does carry the meaning of heaven.

You made this statement:

"it depends on what source you use for your definition."

Honestly I don't think there's any disputing the fact that paradeisos carries the meaning of heaven; but of course we do need to go to a comprehensive, authoritative source. The 100 pages of Greek dictionary at the back of Strong's 1600+ page concordance is far from comprehensive.

You also made this statement in your response:

"Paradise in Scriptures is always associated with a place on earth, never in heaven."

Surely you can see that this is simply not true. Consider 2 Cor. 12:4:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows– was caught up to paradise.

Also, Rev 2:7:

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Just where exactly is the "paradise OF GOD", if not in heaven? The verse says that the tree of life *IS* (present tense) in the paradise of God. I'm pretty sure the tree of life and the paradise of God are not things to be found on our earth, which leaves heaven as the only option.

Consider what "Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words" has to say about the occurrences of paradeisos in the NT:

"In Luke 23:43, the promise of the Lord to the repentant robber was fulfilled the same day; Christ, at His death, having committed His spirit to the Father, WENT IN SPIRIT IMMEDIATELY INTO HEAVEN ITSELF, THE DWELLING PLACE OF GOD (the Lord's mention of the place as "paradise" must have been a great comfort to the malefactor; to the oriental mind it expressed the sum total of blessedness). THITHER THE APOSTLE PAUL WAS CAUGHT UP, 2 Cor. 12:4, spoken of as "the third heaven" (ver. 3 does not introduce a different vision), beyond the heavens of the natural creation (see Heb. 4:14, RV, with reference to the Ascension). THE SAME REGION IS MENTIONED IN REV. 2:7, where the "tree of life," the figurative antitype of that in Eden, held out to the overcomer, is spoken of as being in "the Paradise of God" (RV), marg., "garden," as in Gen. 2:8"

Your response included the following statements:

The thief did not request a place in heaven. He said, "Lord remember me when thou comest into ["in" not "into", R.S.V.] thy kingdom." (vs. 42). The same hope was expressed by the Apostle Paul. (2 Tim. 4:1,8). The thief was not thinking of "going to be with the Lord", he was requesting a place in the coming of a future event.

This is an awful lot of dogma for so few sentences. "The thief DID NOT", "The thief WAS NOT", "he WAS requesting". It's amazing that the writer has such insight into the mind of the thief on the cross as to be able to tell us what he WAS AND WAS NOT THINKING.

I do find the reference to the "hope" of the apostle Paul interesting. Paul was very clear as to his hope:

1 Phil 21-24: For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I DESIRE TO DEPART AND BE WITH CHRIST, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

2 Cor 5:6-9: Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are AT HOME IN THE BODY WE ARE AWAY FROM THE LORD. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would PREFER TO BE AWAY FROM THE BODY AND AT HOME WITH THE LORD. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.

2 Tim 4:6: For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and THE TIME HAS COME FOR MY DEPARTURE.

Paul's hope was to "depart and be with Christ", to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord." Does this view not accord perfectly with the Christian understanding of Luke 23:43? "Today you will be with me in paradise"; or in other words, upon his physical death, the thief on the cross would "depart and be with Christ." This was precisely the hope of Paul, and the hope he held out for us. (2 Cor 5:6-9)

Did Stephen expect anything other than to depart and be with Christ at his death?

Acts 7:59: While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Your response included the following:

1In the following references "semeron" qualifies this preceding verb: Luke 2:11; 22:34; Acts 20:26; 26:29; 2 Cor. 3:14,15. Rotherham in his translation places the comma after "this day" 2and there are a large number of passages in the Septuagint translation in which the Greek construction corresponds to that of Luke 23:43 : "I say unto you this day" corresponds to the emphatic, "I testify unto you this day", e.g. Deut. 6:6; 7:11; 8:1; 10:13; 11:8,13,28.

This argument for the grammatical plausibility of "Truly I tell you today" ignores completely the fact that Jesus is recorded in the gospels as using the introduction "Truly I tell you" 77 times (ignoring the disputed verse) and not once (ignoring the disputed verse) as using the introduction "Truly I tell you today". So my response is that even were your supposition correct, it would be quite irrelevant because "Truly I tell you today" was very clearly NOT the introduction used by Jesus.

There is a saying that you can bring a horse to water, but cannot make him drink. There will always be persons who look at the facts and choose to ignore them. There will always be those who ignore the fact that Jesus without exception introduced his statements with the phrase "Truly I tell you", and choose to believe that in this one single instance Jesus altered his trademark introduction and inserted a completely redundant word.

My intent is not to force dogma down anyone's throat. On the contrary, my intent is only to show the grossly dogmatic stance taken by the Watchtower Society. Accepting the WT view (or the Christadelphian view, apparently :-) requires one to ignore the extent and the absolute consistency with which Jesus used the introduction "Truly I tell you". I want to advertise this fact because it is something the Watchtower Society will never reveal to its members. As with so many WT views, the opposing side of the argument is never disclosed. The Witnesses believe they have an unassailable position, but in reality, their position is shaky at best.

You included the following:

Jesus said, "So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12:40 cf. Matt. 16:21). How could the Son of man be both in heaven and in the earth at the same time? Jesus after his resurrection, said, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." (John 20:17).

Since Jesus lay dead in the grave on the day of his crucifixion, therefore this passage offers no proof for the immortality of the soul, nor for the belief that the thief went that day to heaven.

I almost consider this to be an intentionally deceitful argument on the part of the author. All we need do is move ahead three verses:

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46, NIV)

Certainly the *body* of Jesus went into the tomb. But just as certainly we know his spirit went to heaven. How can someone familiar with the scriptures sincerely ask the question "How could the Son of man be both in heaven and in the earth at the same time?" All dogma aside, it is patently obvious that Jesus' spirit DID NOT accompany his body into the tomb. While his body was in the "heart of the earth", his spirit was with the Father. (Compare Eccl. 12:7)

Would you be willing to answer a question for me? If Jesus' spirit did not return to his Father in heaven as a conscious entity, if Jesus was truly NON-EXISTENT for three days, then how could He have raised his body as He prophesied that He would at John 2:18-21:

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and *I WILL RAISE IT* again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" BUT THE TEMPLE HE HAD SPOKEN OF WAS *HIS BODY*.

Kind regards,

Trevor Scott.

Click here for the essay that spawned this dialogue.