--------------1994 by the Christian Research Institute.---------------
-----------/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:data file is the sole property of the Christian Research. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain a copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the authorization of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the use of any other product sold. This includes all of its with the exception of a few brief quotations not to be more than 500 words. If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by theResearch Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan, CA 92693.
----"Jehovah's Witnesses and Luke 23:43 -- A Case Study in Watchtower,"

Part Three in a four-part series on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible (an article from the Christian Research, Summer 1989, page 23) by Robert M. Bowman, Jr. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Miller.------------

How do Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) interpret the Bible? What sort of interpretation do they make, and what kind of methods do they use? In this article I shall analyze the way the JWs interpret a verse of Scripture, Luke 23:43, and the arguments they offer in defense of their interpretation. This analysis will illustrate principles of interpretation which JWs consistently violate in the handling of Scripture. Luke 23:43 in the New World Translation (NWT) reads, "And he[Jesus] said to him [the repentant thief]: 'Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.'" As opposed to this most translations have something like the following for Jesus' words: "Truly I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise." In other words, the single point of disagreement is whether "today" with "truly I say to you" or "you will be with me in." To rephrase it as a question, does the comma belong_before_ or _after_ the word "today"? This may seem unimportant, but it is crucial for the JWs to have it as they have in order to support their doctrinal. Like some other controversial groups, the JWs believe at death human beings cease to exist as persons. That is, they believe that there is an immaterial soul or spirit which can exist as personal being apart from the body. This position is obviously challenged by Jesus' promise to the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise "today." By changing the position of the comma, "today" is shifted _away_ from "you will be with me in" and placed alongside "truly I say to you." Thus the idea that Jesus and the thief went to Paradise immediately after their death is eliminated.

The proper position of the comma cannot be determined by an appeal to the Greek text. In ancient Greek there were no marks: indeed, all of the words were run together with spaces between them and every letter was capitalized. It might seem, then, that there is no way to prove which is correct, and that the NWT rendering is a legitimate one. However, such is not the case, as this article will prove. And this leads me to my first observation about JW: JWs often assume that if their translation is possible, it cannot be criticized. More generally,_JWs seek to justify the interpretation that fits their doctrine of seeking to know the interpretation which best fits the. But there is more to interpreting the Bible correctly (or other text for that matter) than coming up with a grammatically correct translation. In the case of Luke 23:43, there are other passages which decisively prove the usual translation correct thus the NWT rendering wrong. *"AMEN I SAY TO YOU"* The words "Truly I tell you" are more literally translated "Amen I say to you" (Greek: _amen soi lego_). This is an expression or formula Jesus used only when introducing truth that is very important and perhaps hard to believe. (In the instance of John, it is "Amen, amen I say to you.") In its form and it is rather like the Old English expression, "Hear ye!" An even more appropriate parallel is the Old Testament expression,"Thus says the Lord." This suggests that "Amen I say to you today" must be just as unlikely an expression as "Hear ye today!" or "Thus says the Lord today" would be. It is highly significant that out of the 74 times the saying occurs in the Bible, the NWT places a break immediately after it 73 times; Luke 23:43 is the _only_ exception. (Most follow this pattern in all 74 instances.) These breaks placed in one of two ways. In 10 cases, the NWT has the word "that" immediately after the expression, so that the text reads, "Truly I tell you that..." (e.g., Matt. 5:18; 16:28; Mark 3:28;4:24). In 63 cases, the NWT inserts a comma immediately after the expression and capitalizes the following word (e.g., Matt.:26; 26:13,21,34; Mark 8:12; 14:9,18,25,30; Luke 11:51; 21:32;1:51; 21:18).

Unless there is overwhelming evidence from the context that Luke 23:43 is an exception to the above pattern, it should be according to Jesus' normal usage of the expression. Thisleads me to my second observation (related to the first): _JWs interpret a biblical text deductively rather than inductively. _ That is, they usually base their interpretation on the doctrine they have already concluded must be true ("deductive") rather than examining all of the relevant material in it before drawing a conclusion ("inductive" reasoning). *THE POSITION OF "TODAY"* In defense of their translation JWs will point to the fact in the Greek text, Luke places "today" (_semeron_) immediately after "Amen I say to you." However, had Luke wanted "today" to be as a part of Jesus' opening expression, he could have made it unambiguous by writing, "Amen today I say to you" or "Amen I to you today that" (by adding the word _hoti,_ "that"). These would have _required_ an interpretation like that of the JW's in Luke 23:43. But since in Jesus' usage the expression "Amen I say to you" consistently stands _apart_ from everything that it can not be so, the fact that Luke used neither of these alternative usages confirms that "today" is meant to be understood as part of what follows.

This illustrates a third point: _JWs typically do not know whether their interpretation best fits the precise wording of the text. _[1] They are only interested in choosing an interpretation that, if possible, does not obviously contradict the passage and which is in keeping with their doctrinal position. A footnote in the 1984 Reference Edition of the NWT points out the Curetonian Syriac version (a 5th century A.D. translation the New Testament) "renders this text: 'Amen, I say to thee today that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'" [2] However, this is not evidence in _favor_ of the NWT punctuation, but_against_ it. As the famed Princeton Greek scholar Bruce has explained, it is only because the Syriac version "rearranges the order of words" (not punctuation) from what is in the original Greek that it is able to place "today" in the correct part of the sentence. [3] My fourth observation is therefore: _JWs often regard poorly supported textual variations or their ancient versions as supporting their incorrect renderings, if anything, they constitute evidence against them. _*THE SIGNIFICANCE OF "TODAY"* JWs reason that by saying "truly I tell you _today_" Jesus was saying that His promise to the thief came on a day (i.e., the very of their crucifixion) when the faith in Jesus exhibited by the thief was amazing. [4] Although this may sound plausible, there is evidence for this explanation in the immediate context. The text offers no reference to the thief's faith, nor is there anything else that would support this interpretation. The orthodox interpretation understands the significance of "today" to be that while the thief asked for a place in Jesus'_future_ material kingdom (v. 42), Jesus offered him a place with Him _that very day_ in a spiritual Paradise (v. 43). This view ties directly into the immediate context, and is therefore to be accepted. This illustrates a fifth point: _JWs regularly abuse the passage of "context" by broadening it beyond the immediate written contetxt in order to include their hypothetical reconstructions of sentence as a statement was understood originally.

_*"PARADISE"* The word "Paradise" in biblical times had a varied history. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Greek speaking Jews in the first century, the word referred to the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8-10, etc.), as well as to a future state of Israel's land to resemble the Garden of Eden(Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 36:35). In first-century Judaism, however, "Paradise" referred primarily to a "hidden" place of blessedness the righteous between the time of their death and the future. This is clearly the usage reflected in Jesus' referral to Paradise in Luke 23:43. [5] In an attempt to show that this was not the Jewish concept in Jesus' day, the JWs cite _The New Internationalof New Testament Theology_ which states: "With the concept of the Gk. doctrine of the immortality of the soul becomes the dwelling-place of the righteous during the death state. "[6] In context, however, this reference work is far from that the idea of an intermediate Paradise for the dead had already developed in Judaism after the Old Testament period, and _was_Jewish view in Jesus' day. It goes on to state, "In Lk. 23:43 [the word 'Paradise'] is no doubt dependent on contemporary conceptions, and refers to the at present hidden and temporary abode of the righteous." [7] In two different discussions of Luke 23:43, the JWs cite James's _Dictionary of the Bible_ to prove that there is "little" for the "theory" that first-century Judaism conceived of an intermediate Paradise. [8] What Hasting actually says is this: "It is certain that the belief in a _lower_ Paradise prevailed by the Jews, as well as the belief in an _upper_ or heavenly." [9] The article also states regarding Luke 23:43 that the Paradise "Christ referred to the Paradise of heaven."[10] These two examples of misuse of biblical scholarship illustrate the sixth point: _JWs often cite scholarly sources selectively and out of context, usually to support a conclusion opposite to that passage by the source. _ Now, it is one thing to show that a Textual source provides evidence for one's position despite the evidence of itself reaching a different conclusion; that is legitimate. However that is not what the JWs have done. Rather, they have all too often quoted from the scholarly work in a way designed to give the reader an impression that the source reaches the same conclusiont as the JWs.[11] The only other references to "Paradise" in the New Testament is Revelation 2:7 and 2 Corinthians 12:4, and both of them are in heaven. The JWs themselves state that the "Paradise of God" in Revelation 2:7 is a heavenly Paradise, though they do not recognize it as an intermediate state for the dead between their death and resurrection.[12] 2 Corinthians 12:4 is even more interesting. The parallel "Paradise" and "the third heaven" indicates that Paradise is a heavenly realm, as nearly all biblical scholars believe and on the passage have recognized. Indeed, Paradise was believed to be in the third heaven in Jewish literature circulating in the first century proves.[13] The JWs, however, have argued that Paul was referring to "a sleep state among God's people" during "the time of the 'harvest season'" which would come just prior to the End.[14] In other words, they claim that Paul had a vision of the Jehovah's Witnesses of today! Of the many objections to this interpretation, let me mention just two: (1) Nothing in the context of 212 hints that "Paradise" is the people of God in the OT days; and (2) if Paradise there means God's people, then so "the third heaven," must also which is absurd. The JWs' handling of 2 Corinthians 12:4 illustrates a seventh: _JWs frequently allegorize prophecies and visions into make them refer to events in the history of the JWs, with no basis in the text itself.

_*"WITH ME"* Jesus promised the thief: "You will be _with me_ in Paradise."statement contradicts the JWs' doctrine in two ways. First,"you will be with me" implies that all believers in Christ will be in His presence, whereas JWs think that most believers --the thief in question -- will live on the earth while a few will live in heaven with Christ. Second, "with me in" implies that Christ went to Paradise, whereas JWs teach that Paradise will be on earth and Christ will stay in heaven. The JWs explain: "He will be with that man in the sense that He did raise him from the dead and care for his needs, both physical and spiritual."[15] However, in other places where Jesus speaks of Himm being "with Me," the JWs take it literally (Luke 22:28;. 3:21; see also Rev. 14:1; 20:4,6).[16] There is no good reason to do so also in Luke 23:43. This is a good example of my observation: _JWs are often forced to interpret simple passages in highly figurative fashion, with no warrant from the context, in order to maintain their doctrinal position.

*WHERE DID CHRIST GO?* When Jesus died, the Bible indicates that He went initially into Hades, even down into the "abyss" (Matt. 12:40; Acts:27,31; Rom. 10:7; Eph. 4:9; Rev. 1:18). How, then, could He promise the thief that they would be together in a heavenly? Did He not tell Mary after His resurrection that He had "not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17)? The JWs argue tha these tfacts are incompatible with the orthodox interpretation of Luke23:43. Before responding to this argument, the reader should take note on what the JWs have done. Instead of dealing with Luke 23:43 on_its own terms and in its _own_ context (which, as we have seen, they cannot do and maintain their beliefs), they argue that Luke:43 _cannot_ mean what it _appears_ to mean because that would contradict their understanding of other biblical passages. Now, in one sense this might be taken positively as an indication of the JW's commitment to the absolute truthfulness of all Scripture. Nothey would insist that this is indeed what is at stake. What is in fact being done, however, is that the JWs are "saving" their doctrine from contradiction by misinterpreting it. That is, they are saying that the Bible as it stands _is_ contradictory, so that it must be taken at face value even after all the particular passages of the wording and context are taken into consideration. In short (and this is point number nine), _JWs pit one part of their interpretation against another part to force the Bible to agree with their doctrine. _ This is one of the most frequent errors of JW interpretation.

A little digging into the historical usage of the term "Paradise" easily clears up this apparent discrepancy. In first century Judaism the intermediate Paradise was sometimes thought of as in Heaven per se, but at other times was thought of as a "happy" compartment in Hades.[17] Jesus' words in Luke 23:43 most probably refer to Paradise as a part of Hades for the referenjce to Abraham's Bosom(cf. Luke 16:22-26). That is, Jesus was not promising the thief that they would be together in heaven that day, but in the resting place of the dead. From 2 Corinthians 12:4 it can be gathered that Christ in effect took Paradise to heaven _with_ Him when He ascended to heaven.[18] In putting matters this way, we should keep in mind that the heaven which is God's "abode" is not a physical locality fixed in our space-time universe. The physical "heavens" cannot hold God (1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:48-49). Even if we would travel fast enough, we could not find God or His "abode" by any of the stars. Thus, language about "where" Jesus and the thief "went" should not be taken literally. This suggests a tenth point: _JWs interpret the spiritual man spoken of in the Bible in a rationalistic manner. _ By the phrase "rationalistic" I mean not simply expecting the teachings of the Bible to be in accord with sound reason, but demanding that the JW's teachings always fit man's limited comprehension. Human knowledge is _finite,_ but God in His being and understanding_infinite._ In any matter concerning the essence of God or the difference between God and His creation, we should _expect_ some darkness of understanding. The JWs' system of doctrine seeks to do away with all questions. They demand a God they can understand.------------------------------------------------------------------

*TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION*

*NOTES*1 For other examples, see my _Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).2 _New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: With References_ (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [hereafter WTBTS], 1984), 1279n.3 Bruce M. Metzger, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 181-82.4 _Aid to Bible Understanding_ (WTBTS, 1971), 1269.5 Joachim Jeremias, "_paradeisos,_" in _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,_ Vol. V, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), 766-69.6 Hans Bietenhard and Colin Brown, "Paradise," in _The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,_ ed. Colin Brown, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 761, cited in _Reasoning from the Scriptures_ (WTBTS, 1985), 286.7 Bietenhard and Brown, 761.8 James Hasting, _Dictionary of the Bible_ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1900), III:669-70, cited in _Aid to Bible Understanding,_ 1269, and in _Reasoning from the Scriptures,_ 286.9 Hasting, III:671._Ibid._See n. 1 for more examples._Aid to Bible Understanding,_ 1270.Jeremias, 768._Aid to Bible Understanding,_ 1270._You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth_ (WTBTS, 1982), 171; _see_ also _Reasoning from the Scriptures,_ 287._Aid to Bible Understanding,_ 1269.Jeremias, 768.On Hades and Paradise before and after the ascension of Christ, see Herbert Lockyer, _Death and the Life Hereafter_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 94-99.------------ end of document, CRJ0055A.TXT (original CRI file name), "Jehovah's Witnesses and Luke 23:43 -- A Case Study in Watchtower"A, April 15, 1994. Poll, CRI(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)------------------------------------------------------Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late. Walter R. Martin.